Charles Evans Hughes

Secretary Of State John Kerry Or Secretary Of State Susan Rice? Kerry Should Be Favored!

With all of the hullabaloo over Senator John McCain’s derogatory comments about United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice in regards to the September 11 Libyan ambassador death controversy, a momentum has built up in the Obama Administration to double down on Rice, and decide to nominate her to be Hillary Clinton’s replacement as Secretary of State.

Susan Rice is certainly qualified for the position, and would do a fine job in the State Department. She has excellent qualifications, and educational and scholarly credentials to back her up for the nomination.

But what this struggle between John McCain and Barack Obama has done is minimize the possibility that the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and 2004 Democratic Presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry, might gain the position.

Kerry has has a long, distinguished career in the Senate, and had he been President, he would have had to deal with all of the many international matters that would have arisen. He has been a forceful spokesmen on foreign affairs for many years, and having been an anti war advocate in the past, SHOULD be seen as a positive factor, unlike conservative commentator Bill Kristol’s assertion on Fox News Channel yesterday that Kerry’s past anti war stands should disqualify him for the position. Kerry truly deserves this position, and would not be the first losing Presidential candidate to become Secretary of State, joining a long list who have served in the State Department after losing the Presidency, including

HENRY CLAY
JOHN C CALHOUN
DANIEL WEBSTER
LEWIS CASS
JAMES G BLAINE
WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN
CHARLES EVANS HUGHES

Also, there have been former Presidential contenders, who failed to win the nomination, who have later served as Secretary of State, including:

WILLIAM SEWARD
EDMUND MUSKIE
HILLARY CLINTON

So TEN former Presidential seekers have gone on to serve as Secretary of State, and anyone with knowledge of American diplomatic history KNOWS that they are among the very best people we have had in that position, particularly the case with Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Blaine, Hughes, Seward, and Clinton. So if seven out of the ten have made a major impact, that is an excellent argument for John Kerry as Secretary of State!

Mitt Romney Destined To Be Forgotten In History As Have Been Alton B. Parker, James Cox, John W. Davis, And Alf Landon

Only actual historians, who love to study trivia as part of their trade, have a real memory of numerous Presidential candidates who lost, including Alton B. Parker, who lost to Theodore Roosevelt in 1904; James Cox, who lost to Warren G. Harding in 1920; John W. Davis, who lost to Calvin Coolidge in 1924; and Alf Landon, who lost to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936.

But it seems that Mitt Romney, who lost to Barack Obama in the 2012 Presidential Election, will be quickly forgotten, with his Republican Party quickly repudiating him, and him distancing himself from them, and seen as a bad nightmare, who should never have been nominated in the first place.

His impact on the party will be very little, and he will not be in public office again, similar to the four men mentioned earlier.

He is not going to be a public figure such as William Jennings Bryan, Charles Evans Hughes, Alfred E. Smith, Wendell Willkie, Thomas E. Dewey, Adlai Stevenson, Barry Goldwater, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bob Dole, Al Gore, John Kerry, and John McCain proved to be.

So goodbye to Mitt Romney in public life!

Will Chief Justice John Roberts Be In The Tradition Of John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes, And Earl Warren? The Question For The Long Term Future

Chief Justice John Roberts made history in a way that he had to realize would happen, when he broke with the conservative wing of the Court, shocking conservatives and cheering liberals and progressives on the Affordable Care Act, known to its critics as “ObamaCare”.

The question is whether this is a one time aberration, or a beginning of a reconsideration of the philosophy that will govern the future decisions of Chief Justice Roberts.

Has Roberts had an “epiphany”, or did he do this for his own reputation and that of the Court as an institution?

Is Roberts ready to continue to antagonize Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, two of whom will be likely staying on the Supreme Court for a long period of years, maybe as long as he will?

Does Roberts have a sense of history, and wants to be leagued with other great Chief Justices?

Certainly, seeing the harsh, bitter reaction of many conservative talk show hosts, Republicans and others of the right wing in our politics, might give Roberts pause, and possibly make him reluctant to go against the tide again.

A sign that he will not give in to the attacks would be to push another Citizens United case to be considered by the Court, and this time, to take the proper side for the people of America against the corporations and their power, but who can say that will happen?

In any case, Roberts at least has the potential, if he has the courage and principles to do so, to go down in history as in the tradition of Chief Justices John Marshall (1801-1835), Charles Evans Hughes (1930-1941), and Earl Warren (1953-1969)!

He also has the potential to go down as an “also ran’! It is all up to him, and him alone!

1937: “Four Horsemen Of The Apocalpse! 2012: “Three Horsemen Of The Apocalypse” On The Supreme Court!

In 1937, at the height of the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt, four members of the United States Supreme Court resisted any part of the programs to deal with the Great Depression, and came to be known derisively as the “Four Men Of The Apocalpyse!.

These four Justices, seen as overly right wing conservatives were:

Willis Van Devanter (1911-1937)
James McReynolds (1914-1941)
Pierce Butler (1922-1938)
George Sutherland (1923-1939)

Today, 75 years later, it is clear that three Supreme Court Justices are united in their opposition to the agenda and programs of Barack Obama, as he tries to deal with many of the same economic problems that we had in the Great Depression.

These men are:

Antonin Scalia (1986-)
Clarence Thomas (1991-)
Samuel Alito (2006-)

It would seem appropriate to call them the “Three Horsemen of the Apocalypse”!

In 1937, we had two moderate centrists on the Court, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Associate Justice Owen Roberts, while today we have somewhat equivalent conditions with Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy!

Hopefully, Barack Obama will have much of the same fortune that FDR had, the ability in the second term to replace, in FDR’s case, three of the four “Horsemen of the Apocalypse” with replacement appointments with a more open minded, progressive attitude, which had a dramatic effect on the future of the nation!

Chief Justice John Roberts Compared To Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes

Chief Justice John Roberts has been compared to Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes by presidential historian Douglas Brinkley.

Hughes, who had been the 1916 Republican Presidential nominee against Woodrow Wilson, and fought against aspects of the Franklin D. Roosevelt New Deal in the 1930s, nevertheless backed the constitutionality of the Social Security Act in the mid 1930s.

John Roberts, who was opposed as Chief Justice by Senator Barack Obama in 2005, and who has taken a conservative stand on many issues, nevertheless backed the Obama Health Care law yesterday, siding with the progressive wing of the Court.

Hughes is regarded as one of the great Chief Justices, and after yesterday’s decision, Roberts will look much better in history, and could be Time Magazine’s MAN OF THE YEAR for 2012!

The Persecution Of Chief Justice John Roberts Begins: Threats Of 2nd Amendment “Remedies”!

Chief Justice John Roberts was a true “profile in courage” this morning in siding with the four Democratic appointees on the Supreme Court, and upholding the Obama Health Care law.

Roberts, despite his other shortcomings in the minds of progressives, including reaffirming the Citizens United case in another case involving Montana this week, has shown open mindedness on the immigration issue, and now on the health care issue.

He is concerned about the image of the Supreme Court, trying to avoid making it an overly partisan body, as it was in the Bush V. Gore case of 2000, which seriously damaged the image of the Supreme Court.

Roberts has a sense of history, and two Harvard Law School professors, Laurence Tribe and Walter Dellinger, correctly came to the conclusion that he would do what he did today.

Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush in 2005, has shown growth and great insight, and if he continued along the road he showed this week on immigration and health care, he could rank among the great Chief Justices by the time he retires in the next 20 years or so, considering he was appointed to the Court at age 50.

It would be great if long term, we could say Roberts ranks with John Jay, John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes, and Earl Warren. He has begun the first steps along that road!

But he will have to bear severe criticism and bitter attacks from Republicans in Congress, and hateful right wing talk show hosts. He should be proud of defying them, and doing the right thing, and being insulated on the Court, he can suffer the attacks without having to comment on them.

But it is sad and scary that some right wing nuts talk about a Second Amendment “remedy”, implying bloodshed and violence against, maybe, President Obama, or Chief Justice Roberts, or really anyone who believes that all Americans are entitled to good health care!

The government needs to step up infiltration of right wing groups who are actively plotting to bring about a Fascist takeover, and are ready and willing, through militia groups, to plot the death of our leaders for having principles and morals and strong beliefs!

Right now, we can pray for the safety and good health of President Obama, Chief Justice John Roberts, and all good people who believe in humanity, social justice, and common decency!

History Favors Obama and Democratic Party Second Term Presidencies

In the discussion over whether Barack Obama will have a second term of office, one must consider history as a guide.

If one looks at the facts, one discovers that only THREE Democratic Presidents have ever been defeated for re-election–Martin Van Buren in 1840; Grover Cleveland in 1888 (even though he actually won the popular vote by about 100,000 nationally); and Jimmy Carter in 1980.

So in the past 124 years, only one Democrat has lost re-election, and face the facts, Barack Obama is NOT Jimmy Carter and Mitt Romney is not Ronald Reagan!

Grover Cleveland came back to win in the following election over Benjamin Harrison who had defeated him in 1888, being the only nonconsecutive terms President in American history.

Woodrow Wilson had a very close contest against Charles Evans Hughes for re-election in 1916, but won.

Franklin D. Roosevelt still had over 20 percent unemployment when he first ran for re-election in 1936, but won a landslide over Alf Landon, as well as solid victories over Wendell Willkie in 1940 and Thomas E. Dewey in 1944.

Harry Truman overcame all polls and defeated Dewey in an upset victory in 1948, even after the opposition party had won both houses of Congress in 1946.

Lyndon B. Johnson won the biggest popular vote landslide in history over Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Bill Clinton won a solid victory over Bob Dole in 1996, despite having lost both houses of Congress in 1994.

And despite criticisms, Barack Obama has a positive record of achievement in his first term to match that of Wilson and FDR in their first term and Lyndon B. Johnson in his first year, and more than Grover Cleveland, Harry Truman, and Bill Clinton in their first term, and Jimmy Carter in his only term of office.

So don’t bet too heavily on Obama losing re-election in November!

Showdowns Between Presidents And The Supreme Court: Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Nixon, And Obama

President Barack Obama today challenged the Supreme Court to support the Obama Health Care legislation, which was argued last week before the Court in an unprecedented three day, six hour presentation by the two sides in the case.

Obama made clear that two conservative Circuit Court judges, Laurence Silberman and Jeffrey Sutton, have backed the legislation as constitutional.

Just by simply answering a question from a journalist, what Obama has done is thrown down the gauntlet to the Court, as he did when he criticized them face to face at the State of the Union Address in 2010, shortly after the decision in the Citizens United case, the most unpopular decision of the Court since Bush V. Gore in 2000.

As the author listened to Obama’s challenge to the Court, it brought back the history of Presidential challenges to the Supreme Court in the past.

Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson challenged the Court’s authority, causing antagonism between both Presidents and Chief Justice John Marshall.

Abraham Lincoln was critical of the Dred Scott Decision before his Presidency, and was in conflict with Chief Justice Roger Taney during the Civil War, until Taney’s death in 1864.

Franklin D. Roosevelt denounced the Supreme Court over challenges to the New Deal programs, and tried to “pack” the Court, and Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes defended the Court from the attacks of the President.

Richard Nixon denounced the Court as too liberal and permissive under Chief Justice Earl Warren, when Nixon ran for President, with Warren swearing him in as President, and then retiring later in 1969. Nixon then had the opportunity to make four Supreme Court appointments and turn the Court more conservative.

And now, Barack Obama has challenged the Court for the second time, with Chief Justice John Roberts expressing discontent, after the fact, to the first criticism of the Court, expressed during the State of the Union Address.

Wondering what the ultimate relationship between Obama, and the Chief Justice and the entire Court in the future, will be, is one of the key events of this election year!

Certainly, Obama is in good company, distinguished company, with the other Presidents who have challenged the Supreme Court!

Ten Other Presidential Elections That Transformed American History For Better Or Worse

In addition to what are considered the ten most important Presidential elections in American history, there are also ten other elections that transformed our history, as history would have been different had the results been the opposite of what they were.

In chronological order, these elections are as follows.

Presidential Election of 1844—If James K. Polk had not won over Henry Clay, the likelihood of gaining the Pacific Northwest by treaty with Great Britain, and gaining the Southwest by war with Mexico, together the greatest land expansion since the Louisiana Purchase under Thomas Jefferson, would have been far less likely. But also the Civil War might have been delayed without the battle over freedom or slavery in the Mexican Cession territories gained from the war.

Presidential Election of 1864—An election often ignored, if Abraham Lincoln had not won over General George McClellan, who he had fired from Union Army military leadership, the Civil War, in its late stages, might have ended differently in some form, hard to determine.

Presidential Election of 1876—If the Electoral Commission and Compromise of 1877, giving Rutherford B. Hayes victory over Samuel Tilden, had not occurred, after a disputed election result in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, there might have been civil war erupting all over again.

Presidential Election Of 1896—If William McKinley had not defeated William Jennings Bryan, there might have been no Spanish American War, no Filipino Insurrection, and no gaining of overseas colonies, as Bryan opposed the idea.

Presidential Election Of 1916—If Woodrow Wilson had not squeaked out a victory over Charles Evans Hughes, he had readied plans to hand over the Presidency to Hughes early, with the Secretary of State resigning, Hughes being named Secretary of State, the Vice President resigning, and then Wilson resigning. Wilson left behind a hand written memorandum to this effect, concerned about the transition of power as the dangers of World War I came closer to the possibility of American participation.

Presidential Election Of 1928—If Herbert Hoover had lost to Alfred E. Smith, the likelihood of a very different reaction to the onset of the Great Depression in 1929 might have led Smith to being the equivalent of Hoover’s successor, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and his New Deal.

Presidential Election of 1968—If Hubert Humphrey had defeated Richard Nixon, it is likely that the Vietnam War would have ended earlier, and that there would not have been a Watergate scandal, and instead a continuation of the Great Society begun by Lyndon B. Johnson.

Presidential Election of 1976—If Gerald Ford had defeated Jimmy Carter, it is likely that after 12 years of Republican control and growing economic and foreign policy challenges, that the Democrats would have retaken the White House in 1980, and there would have been no Ronald Reagan Presidency.

Presidential Election Of 1992–If George H. W. Bush had not had to deal with an economic recession and the third party challenge of Ross Perot, the second highest popular percentage third party effort in US history, it is very likely that Bill Clinton would never have been President.

Presidential Election of 2000—If the popular vote recount in Florida had been continued, and the Supreme Court had not intervened to declare the election over, then Al Gore would have become President instead of George W. Bush, and there might not have been a September 11 terrorist attack, the resulting war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and likely not a tremendous growth in the national debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion

How much history would have been different if only the results of these elections had been other than what they were!

Why The Best Presidential Race In 2012 Would Be Barack Obama Vs. Jon Huntsman

A person reading this blog might wonder why the author would write an entry with the above title!

After all, it is clear the the author prefers the reelection of Barack Obama over any Republican opponent!

However, in the tough economic times we have now in this country, it is also important that IF, by some bad luck, Barack Obama does not win reelection, that we have the absolutely best opponent winning the White House, for the good of the nation!

There is no question that former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman is easily the BEST candidate in the GOP race, and would be best for the nation!

Why is this so? In no special order, the factors to consider are :

1. Huntsman is the most moderate conservative in the race for the Presidential nomination in the Republican Party, with the most potential to win over Independents and centrists, and even some Democrats, all necessary if the Republicans are to have a good chance of winning.

2. Huntsman comes across as genuine, which fellow moderate conservative Mitt Romney does not, but rather as a person who will say what his audience wants to hear.

3. Huntsman has the best record on job creation, while Governor of Utah, far better than Mitt Romney, who was 47th in job creation, and Rick Perry, creating mostly minimum wage jobs in larger numbers, who trail way behind.

4. Huntsman has come up with a jobs plan hailed by the conservative Wall Street Journal, which has criticized Mitt Romney’s plan, and no one else in the race has even attempted a jobs plan.

5. Huntsman has an enviable foreign policy record as Ambassador to Singapore, US Trade Representative, and Ambassador to China, the only Republican with real experience in foreign affairs.

6. Huntsman was more popular as Governor of Utah, with up to 80 percent support, far outdistancing any of his opponents, meaning Romney and Perry, in that regard.

7. Huntsman has never pandered to anyone, unlike Romney, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, and even Ron Paul. He does not insult anyone’s intelligence with ridiculous, unsubstantiated statements!

8. Huntsman, with his foreign language ability, and in so many other ways, comes across as extremely intelligent and knowledgeable, someone anyone could respect intellectually in the White House. We don’t need someone in office who comes across as reckless, irresponsible, or even someone you could have a beer with, as for instance, George W. Bush! We need someone totally rational and reasonable, and Huntsman fills the bill.

9. Debates between Obama and Huntsman would be a great experience, and we could feel comfortable that if Huntsman won the election, the country would be in good hands, and not go off on a right wing tangent!

This nation cannot afford anyone but the best as our President, and both Barack Obama and Jon Huntsman fill the bill!

This would be, arguably, the BEST combination of candidates for the Presidency since the Presidential Election of 1916, with President Woodrow Wilson opposed by Supreme Court Associate Justice Charles Evan Hughes, with the race barely won by Wilson!