Some news briefs

Trump and NATO:   Next week, President Trump heads to Europe for a NATO meeting.   Apparently he's going to swagger in with hostility and alienate our allies, as he did at the G-7 summit meeting.    Already, he has sent a letter to members demanding that they pay more -- not to support the organization but as a larger investment in their own national security.   In other words, he wants them to spend more money on their own defense.

     It's true that the U.S. does pay more for defense than anyone else.   It's also true that NATO has been viewed, since its formation following World War II, as a mutual defense alliance -- not as a business deal to haggle over.    Trump seems to consider it an inappropriate matter of U.S. largesse and that we are being taken advantage of.

      It may be appropriate now to ask others to pay a fairer share, now that their economies generally are better than in the post-WWII era.    But Trump seems intent on doing so with the spirit of a bully, rather than a big brother telling his younger siblings that they're now grown up and ready for more responsibility.

     Besides, it's not exactly that we get no benefits.    The U.S. too needs allies who will come to our aid (as they did after 9/11).   We need the good will of this group to allow us to have military outposts in their nations.   And we need their cooperation in counterintelligence monitoring that is invaluable to us.

     And, for starters, why be so hostile to our allies?

Senate Intel upholds findings that Russia helped Trump get elected.    The Hill newspaper is reporting this from an unclassified report made by the Republican Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee:

     "The Senate Intelligence Committee has unequivocally upheld the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia developed a 'clear preference' for then-candidate Donald Trump in the 2016 election and sought to help him win the White House. 

     "The assessment, announced in an unclassified summary released Tuesday, represents a direct repudiation of the committee's counterpart in the House - and of President Trump himself, who has consistently rejected assertions that Moscow sought to bolster his candidacy."
     Both committees are headed by Republicans, but the Senate chair Richard Burr (R-NC) is an honorable man, while the House Intel Chair is Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) who is nothing more than a hack and a midnight errand boy for President Trump.

Supreme Court nominee:  There are two tracks in the reactions to Justice Kennedy's resignation from the Supreme Court.

(1)  The prediction, accompanied by a sense of panic and activism, that Trump will appoint an ultra conservative replacement and thus shift the balance to conservative control for generations to come.   Several major decisions in the last week of the court's session bolster this thinking, plus the fact that Trump has said he will choose from a list prepared by the Federalist Society, meaning that any choice will already have been vetted and passed muster as an "originalist" who will overturn Roe v. Wade, further destroy Obamacare, restrict voting rights, and a host of other major issues we care about.    That's probably basically true;   the question is will this be as terrible as some think?    Or, according to the other track of reasoning, might that day come instead if/when Trump gets to make a third appointment?

(2)  The less apocalyptic reaction comes from legal scholars and court watchers who predict that Chief Justice John Roberts will assume the "swing vote" role that Kennedy has held -- and that, for one, he would not likely go along with overturning Roe v. Wade.     This is based on realizing that Roberts cares very much about the reputation and legacy of the court and sees himself as its protector.    An important basis for that legacy is the legal principle of stare decisis, meaning respect for precedent set by prior decisions.    Especially when the prior decision is long-standing, has been repeatedly upheld by later laws based on it, such that it becomes "established law."

     Now this is not absolute -- or else we would still have slavery and a lot of other bad things.    But it does ensure that changes are gradual and not overturned without good reason or because of shifting political winds.

     Abortion is a prime example right now.  Many politicians who might otherwise want to overturn it still demur, saying that it is established law and they respect stare decisis.   Of course, that's not by any means true of all.    Many see abortion as akin to the slavery question when it was overturned -- so heinous and against society's values that it should never have been law and must be overturned, even if Roe has been the law for 45 years.

    The question really comes down to this:    Roberts may provide the vote to keep it on the books -- and they may continue to strangle it by small cuts, as they've been allowing states to do for some time now.

     Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it doesn't mean that abortion will be illegal in the entire U.S.    Each state can pass it's own laws, some of which will be liberal and permissive;   others, as has already come about in many red states, will put so many restrictions on the facilities, the providers, and the process that it will have the effect of depriving most of the people of that state of abortion services.    Only those who can afford to travel to another state will have access.

How to reduce the number of abortions:   We've already proved that the best way to decrease the number of abortions is through reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.    In truth, if conservatives really wanted to reduce abortions, they should support the widespread dissemination of birth control information and techniques -- and the best way to do that is to support Planned Parenthood.   It's amazing what has changed since Roe was passed in 1973.     There are actually fewer abortions because there are fewer unwanted pregnancies.

     In addition, there are now the "morning after pills," some of which can prevent a pregnancy up to five or six days after exposure;  as well as long-term, implantable contraceptives and better hormonal pills to stop pregnancy.  So let's not lose our heads and wring our hands that we'll be returning to back alleys and coathangers.

Nevertheless -- I do think it is a tragedy of great proportions that Donald Trump gets to appoint two (and maybe more) Supreme Court Justices, as well as the hundreds of lower court judges -- and in doing so will remake our judiciary far more conservative for generations.    But we probably have more to worry about with a possible third appointment by Trump than by this second one -- if Roberts does what some think he will now do.

Ralph