musingsfromoceanview.com

The subject of race and policing is as complex as it is important. Addressing the multi-faceted issues involved calls for objective, fact-based, contextual analysis. Unfortunately, that is not what we get from many activists and their media echo chamber. Two examples:

(1) One popular narrative advanced by activists, and seemingly accepted uncritically by many liberal media outlets, is that police target African-Americans for killing. The proof is that the percentage of fatal police shootings of blacks far exceeds their representation in the general population. Looking at statistical disparities in any outcome for any group in relation to their percentage of the population may be a useful starting point for inquiry. However, such disparities prove nothing in themselves. If they did, they would prove that police are wildly sexist and engaged in a massive war against males since roughly 95 percent of police killing victims are men. They would also prove significant disproportionate police targeting by age. What this “proof” leaves out, of course, is that men commit violent crimes at a much higher proportion than women, and that younger people are responsible for a disproportionately greater share of such crimes than seniors. Likewise, blacks, particularly young males, commit violent crimes at a much higher rate than their representation in the general population. When this violent crime disparity is factored in, it more than accounts for the racial disparity in police killings. The causes underlying racial disparities in violent crime rates are undoubtedly complicated and varied. Focusing on identifying and addressing these causes would be far better than simplistically pushing the false narrative of a police war on blacks.

(2) All fatal police shootings deserve scrutiny. When it comes to media coverage of these tragic events, however, black lives evidently matter a lot more than white lives. The recent police killings of two African-Americans–Terence Crutcher in Tulsa, Oklahoma and Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte, North Carolina–have attracted intense nationwide media coverage and much instant analysis over whether their shootings were justified. Contrast the Crutcher and Scott cases with the two latest cases listed on the Washington Post’s database of 2016 fatal police shootings (as of 9/24/2016): In one case, an “unidentified person” was killed in Fair Oaks, California, by sheriff’s deputies who were investigating a burglary. The victim reportedly  pointed “an object” at the deputies. In the other case, Austin Baier, was fatally shot in Louisville, Nebraska. After being stopped for driving around in circles on someone’s lawn, Baier got out of his vehicle and a “confrontation” ensued. Baier was reportedly unarmed. Inexplicably, the Post lists the race of these two latest victims as “unknown.” A simple web site search reveals that both were white. (The “unidentified person” was Jesse Attaway.) Were the shootings of Baier and Attaway justified? Based on the minimal information reported, who knows. Sadly, the media’s answer seems to be who cares.

 

The 2016 election campaigns continue along their disastrous trajectory for Republicans. Trump is almost sure to lose the presidential contest to Clinton, the only real uncertainty being the margin of his defeat and its impact on down-ballot congressional elections. It is highly likely that Republicans will lose their Senate majority as things stand now. (It is even possible they could lose the House as well if the presidential election turns into a full-blown rout.) There remains, however, one critical action Senate Republicans can take to at least mitigate the damage before losing their majority: Confirm Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court.

Republicans, and all those who favor judging on the basis of legal principles rather than policy preferences, are right to be extremely concerned about the ideological balance of the Supreme Court. The four Democratic appointees now on the Court have proven to be a virtually automatic voting block supporting the liberal outcome in politically-charged cases. Garland might turn out to be the fifth and decisive automatic liberal vote, but that is by no means a foregone conclusion. (Notably, leftist interest groups are far from enthusiastic about him.) On the other hand, it is a sure thing that liberals will get their fifth automatic vote if the vacancy remains for Clinton to fill. Indeed, she has announced “a bunch of [liberal] litmus tests” for her Supreme Court nominees.

While their underlying concern is valid, the Republican strategy to stall on Garland in the hope that Trump will win the presidency and nominate the second coming of Antonin Scalia seems increasing delusional as the GOP continues its suicide march toward November. When will the Republicans come to their senses and realize what a potential gift President Obama has given them with the Garland nomination? He is undoubtedly the best option (or least undesirable option) available at this point.

Some speculate that Clinton will stick with Garland once she is elected, but this is far from certain. Appointing Supreme Court justices is one of the most consequential actions a president takes and a key aspect of the president’s legacy. It is questionable for this reason alone that Clinton would simply defer to her predecessor’s choice. Moreover, Clinton is sure to face intense pressure from leftist interest groups to nominate an individual more reliably liberal and younger than Garland—and, quite possibly, someone less white.

Several other factors militate in favor of Clinton coming up with her own nominee—and one who pushes the envelope in a strong liberal direction. The Senate Republicans’ stated rationale for refusing to consider Garland—that the nomination must be left to the new president after the voters have spoken—pretty much boxes them into supporting whomever Clinton nominates. Even if Republicans resist, Democrats once in control of the Senate could invoke the so-called “nuclear option” and confirm her nominee by simple majority vote—particularly since Republican resistance would be viewed (correctly) as blatant hypocrisy given their stance on Garland. Furthermore, Senate Democrats and their liberal allies surely are aware of the math challenge facing them in the 2018 mid-term election cycle, which is even more pronounced than the numerical advantage that benefits them this year. In 2018, Senate Democrats will be defending 25 seats versus a mere 8 at risk for Republicans. Since the Democrats probably are looking at only a two-year window of Senate control, they will undoubtedly use that limited time to advance their agenda as aggressively as possible. Shaping the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court for years or decades to come would certainly be a very high priority.

If Republicans do finally wake up to the need to confirm Garland, they must act quickly. The opportunity to do so may not last until a lame-duck session following the November elections. It would not be at all surprising to see President Obama withdraw Garland’s nomination (at the latter’s “request”) immediately after the election as a “courtesy” to President-elect Clinton.