Category Archives: Politics

Would Somone Explain to Me—- 

Posted on by
Reply

—-exactly what are “traditional Christian values?”

A lady at a convenience store I like to visit from time to time was wishing the other day that our nation would return to “traditional Christian values.”

“I wish somebody would define them,” I responded.

As I’ve said before, not many of us would want to live under the “Christian Values” that our sainted Pilgrim fathers and mothers came here to practice.

We do hear so many demands that our nation return to them but none of those, especially in political circles, who suggest our country is failing because it has abandoned those values has ever clearly justified their interpretations of them.

I have a copy of a 3×5 card from an organization in the 1920s that listed its core Christian values.  They weren’t bad except one of them was white supremacy.  The Christian organization circulating that care was, of course, the Klan.

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus tells his disciples, “Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

There seems to be in some quarters a misunderstanding of that verse by many of those who religiously support our president who, from this quiet hill, seems to fall well short of the qualities He spoke of.

This entry might stir some heated responses in the box below.  So, fire away.

A good minister friend of mine, John Bennett, thought the Old Testament prophet Micah captured those values in thirteen words.

“To act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.”

In the Gospel of James, we learn that the “pure and faultless religion” requires us to “to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world”

Isaiah told us, “Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.”  Verses in Deuteronomy and in one of the Psalms say the same thing.

And Zechariah says God said, “Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.”

All of those sound pretty good from here.  However, I think all of us can think of at least one prominent person revered by certain religious elements who falls well short of that.

It would be interesting to have a reaction from the self-proclaimed faithful Bible reader who lives in what is left of the White House to those descriptions or what we’re posting next.

One of many places on the internet explaining TCVs is beliefnet, the place where I found an article by Lauren McKeithen, a contributor to the page and to other information sources.

“10 Christian Values and how to Live them.”

A value or ethic is a principle or standard about what is important in one’s life. Therefore, Christian values are the principles that a follower of Jesus Christ holds as necessary, the principles of life that Jesus taught.

Christian values don’t change over time. They are consistent from generation to generation since their foundation is found in God’s Word, the Bible.

Worldly values include wealth, power, pleasure, revenge, fame, vanity, and status. These are the most important things to people who perceive no power or purpose beyond themselves

Worldly values promote jealousies, resentments, and conflicts among people following the objectives of Satan.

The Christian values taught in the Bible are often the opposite of worldly values: kindness and respect for all people instead of power; humility instead of status; honesty and generosity instead of wealth; self-control instead of self-indulgence; forgiveness instead of revenge.

Christian values promote peace and goodwill among people following the purposes of God. We will never achieve perfection in this life, but those who strive to obey God often find a sense of joy and peace that no worldly rewards can match. Here’s a list of Christian values emphasized in the Bible.

Worship God.

One day, a religious leader asked Jesus which commandments were most important. Jesus replied in Mark 12:28-30 by saying, “The most important one is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.”

The Hebrews of Old Testament times tended to lapse into worship of pagan deities and statues of animals or other objects. Still, anything that takes the place of our devotion to God becomes an idol or false god.

That idolatry is forbidden by the first of the Ten Commandments. Jesus particularly singled out the love of wealth as a false god, and other Bible passages mention greed, covetousness, arrogance, gluttony, and pride as equivalent to idolatry.

In today’s world, many things compete against God for our devotion. These are some things that are not necessarily bad in moderation but can become modern-day idolatry if we let them become too important to us, like attention to material possessions, the pursuit of wealth, and excessive devotion to self.

If you need ideas on how to worship God, here are 18 ways to worship God.

Be kind to everyone.

After saying “Love the Lord your God” is the most important of the commandments, Jesus continued, “The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these,” as seen in Mark 12:31.

The English word “love” has many different meanings, but the Greek word agape, used in the New Testament, is commonly known as “Christian love.” It means respect, affection, benevolence, goodwill, and concern for the welfare of the one loved.

Jesus’ Golden Rule is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

We should not say or do anything unless we can answer “Yes” to the question, “Would I want that said or done to me?” Neither should we fail to do the good things we would expect of others.

Be humble.

Humility or being humble is a quality of being courteously respectful of others. It is the opposite of aggressiveness, arrogance, boastfulness, and vanity.

Acting with humility does not in any way deny our self-worth. Instead, it affirms the inherent worth of all persons.

Humility is needed to live in peace and harmony with all persons. It dissipates anger and heals old wounds, and allows us to see the dignity and worth of all God’s people. Humility distinguishes the wise leader from the arrogant power-seeker.

Be honest.

Honesty and integrity are held as fundamental values throughout the Bible. Any deception to gain an advantage or harm someone else is prohibited by the Ten Commandments and other Bible passages.

Deception may be by lies, cheating, innuendo, or failing to tell the whole truth. It is all too common in advertising, business, politics, and everyday life.

We must strongly resist the temptation to engage in any form of theft, cheating, deception, innuendo, slander, or gossip.

Rationalization is a form of self-deception. We convince ourselves that sinful actions are justified to achieve a good result, but this is another form of dishonesty.

Holiness is living by the commandments, not reaching an outcome. In Biblical teaching, the ends do not justify the means.

Live a moral life.

1 Corinthians 6:19-20 says, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.”

Jesus gave a list of actions that constitute immoral uses of the body: evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, arrogance, and foolishness.

The apostle Paul gave similar lists. We often think of morality in terms of sexual sins, but according to Jesus, slander, greed, covetousness, deceit, and arrogance are equally immoral.

Be generous with time and money.

The Bible tells us to share generously with those in need, and good things will come to us in turn. Each of us has something to offer to someone in need.

We can give our money and our time to charity, be a friend to someone sick or lonely, do volunteer work or choose a service-oriented occupation. We may give unselfishly of our time to our spouse, children, or parents.

This idea doesn’t mean we are obligated to share our time or money with people who are not in need but want to use or abuse us, as described in 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12.

Don’t be a hypocrite.

If there was any group of people that Jesus couldn’t stand, it was hypocrites.

The Pharisees of Jesus’ time were a religious and political party that insisted on the rigorous observance of Biblical laws on tithing, ritual purity, and other matters. At the same time, many of the Pharisees forgot the true spirit and intent of the law and became self-indulgent, self-righteous, snobbish, and greedy.

That led Jesus to tell the Pharisees that they appeared righteous on the outside, but they were full of hypocrisy.

It is not the things we say that truly matter. It is the things that we do. If we claim to be Christians but do not let Jesus’ teachings guide our lives, we are nothing but hypocrites.

Don’t be self-righteous.

No one is perfect; we are all sinners in one way.

Living a moral life means taking responsibility for controlling our behavior. If we say or even think we are better than people we consider to be sinners, we are guilty of the sin of self-righteousness.

It is not our right to look down on, criticize, judge, condemn, or try to control other people. Judgment is to be left to God.

In Matthew 7:1-5, Jesus said, “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgment you make, you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.”

This value does not deny the right of governments to maintain law and order and collect taxes. Jesus and other New Testament leaders supported the authority of civil governments.

Don’t retaliate.

Jesus said there is no place for hatred, holding a grudge, revenge, retaliation, or getting even in the life of a Christian, described in Matthew 5:38-40 and Matthew 5:43-45.

Holding grudges and seeking revenge are never appropriate responses to a perceived wrong. Resentment destroys the grudge-holder with bitterness, and revenge only escalates hostilities.

Jesus told us we must reconcile with our adversaries, forgive their transgressions, and let go of the anger that may tempt us to commit an act of revenge.

Forgive others.

Matthew 6:14-15 tells us, “If you forgive those who sin against you, your heavenly Father will forgive you. But if you refuse to forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

God is merciful and forgives our sins and failings. In the same way, we must be compassionate and forgive other people who sin against us or do us harm.

Romans 12:9-10 tells us, “Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves.”

God is evident in His Word how to apply each of the Christian values He holds dear. Christians can tell if they hold to the values God holds dear by how they treat others.

As we read God’s Word, we know God better and understand His purpose for us in the world. We learn the values He holds dear, and we also grow to love those values. The Holy Spirit works through us to spread God’s love through good works, leading others to eternal life through Jesus Christ.

Well said. Anybody care to differ?

The Reactions 

Posted on by
Reply

The reactions to our junior senator’s monstrous gaffe last week as he thought he had skewered former special prosecutor Jack Smith have been creative, critical, mean, tough—

—and, frankly deserved.

There might not be a more popular way to express an opinion today and express it to everyone you see on the street, at eating places, at sporting events—you name it—than the t-shirt. Even in our smaller towns, there’s likely to be some one who makes t-shirts to order.  Our junior senator became instant t-shirt fodder last week when he became the “got” in “gotcha.”

I wonder if the company is going to sent one of these to the Senator.  He’s tall, about 6-7, and kind of husky. An XL, VL (very long) would probably cover the most territory although it won’t cover that part of his anatomy that was exposed at the hearing.

Social media has had a field day, of course. AI has added a new depth to the ridicule opportunities. Creative juices have become gushers on various platforms. This one showed up on our Facebook page.

These things get circulated around and I am afraid I don’t know who had the original thoughts so I can’t tell you the names of these creative people. These probably are just a small example of the images created in the wake of the implosion. Most of them also showed up on our Facebook page.

I wonder if the senator, to show that he has a sense of humor about himself, will fame a few of these and put them in his office in the Russell Senate Office Building near the Capitol. He hasn’t been able to admit he made a giant mistake that will haunt him for a long time. But if he won’t admit he did a lot of damage to his future political credibility, maybe he can regain some PR points by displaying how much fun he has allowed others to have at his expense.

Don’t you wish you could have been a mouse in the corner when he and his staff got back to the office and closed the door after that hearing?

Here is what happens when a bag of political dirt explodes in your face.  Your faithful observer knows from some non-political experience of dropping the bag while emptying the canister of our whole house vacuuming system. My dirt, however, washed off fairly quickly.  The Schmitt dirt will require a huge amount of scrubbing, and even then—–

Maybe someone was thinking a song from a Stephen Sondheim musical, A Little Night Music—

Isn’t it rich?
Are we a pair?
Me here at last on the ground
You in mid-air
Send in the clowns

Isn’t it bliss?
Don’t you approve?
One who keeps tearing around
One who can’t move
Where are the clowns?
Send in the clowns

Just when I’d stopped opening doors
Finally knowing the one that I wanted was yours
Making my entrance again with my usual flair
Sure of my lines
No one is there

Don’t you love farce?
My fault, I fear
I thought that you’d want what I want

Sorry, my dear
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns
Don’t bother, they’re here

Isn’t it rich?
Isn’t it queer?
Losing my timing this late in my career
And where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns
Well, maybe next year

Our president might be able to straighten things out the way he straightens out a lot of things—by renaming them.

Chris Clark and Kyle Cheney headlined their story on Politico, “Eric Schmitt pins down Jack Smith — as a Caitlin Clark fan” and went on: “Sen. Eric Schmitt thought he caught Jack Smith in a lie. Instead, he outed him as a fan of former Iowa Hawkeyes star Caitlin Clark.”

Perhaps we should lighten up on our junior senator a bit.  A long time ago I was in doing some research at the University of Iowa and during a lunch break I went past a t-shirt store that featured one kind of like this

Self deprecating humor can lower the temperature a bit.  I had a t-shirt that I bought in Columbia that read: “Missouri.  It’s not that bad.”  So far there has been no such humor from our junior senator, though.

Senator Schmitt isn’t the only prominent Missourian whose dreams of national importance went up in smoke in an instant because of an ill-timed word or an ill-timed action or something that wasn’t supposed to become public but did.  We’ve seen it happen several times on our political turf in Jefferson City.

However, as rocky as our political history is, we have not reached the level of my home state where I once saw a t-shirt such as this one.

About eighty percent of the license plates issued in this country are made by prison inmates. Missouri is one of the states that has that system. We understand our inmates could make license plates for other states, as some other states do. But we know of no public record indicating them do.

There are some states who get their plates made in Canada. So far, license plates have escaped Trump tariffs.

I think this is probably enough for a while about Senator Schmitt. Already, he’s old news.  And I imagine he hopes to stay that way for a while.

 

The Dirtbag

Posted on by
Reply

The Eric Schmitt we saw a couple of days ago making a fool of himself in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing grilling former special counsel Jack Smith is not the Eric Schmitt I remember from my days covering the Missouri Senate.  That Eric Schmitt was intelligent, respectful of the rules and of other senators on both sides of the aisle and knew what he was talking about.

He was elected State Treasurer and when Attorney General Josh Hawley went to Washington, Schmitt was appointed to move across the street to replace him.  He caught whatever political virus Hawley left behind.  I’ve said before that he left the best part of himself in the Capitol.

He apparently now bathes in Trump Kool-Aid.  The day that a prominent Republican consulting firm tried to start a boomlet for him as J.D. Vance’s running mate in two years, Schmitt turned his inner attack dog loose and in a matter of minutes proved why we do not need to see him one breath away from the presidency, assuming fellow Kool-Air bather Vance is picked to head the ticket.

You’ve undoubtedly seen the video of his smug, misguided attack of Smith and his charge that Smith had gone to Atlanta to meet with Fulton County Prosecutor who had admitted she and one of her associates had been associating too closely, a relationship that eventually led to the dismissal of 13 co-conspiracy charges she had filed against Donald Trump.  He’d even gone to an Atlanta Hawks NBA game while he was there, said Schmitt.

Smith said he recalled going to a University of Maryland women’s basketball game to see Caitlin Clark and her Iowa Hawkeyes. And Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, whose staff rapidly learned there had, indeed, been a game in Maryland that night, quickly suggested that Schmitt didn’t know the difference between the Atlanta Hawks and the Iowa Hawkeyes.  It was one of the greatest political takedowns in memory, a “My Cousin Vinnie” moment for real.

Republicans on the committee wanted to get Smith to admit he had behaved unethically and illegally by meeting with Fani Willis on the day her affair was revealed.

When Schmitt found himself waist deep in it, he refused to back down. He slogged ahead and accused Smith of perjury and showed an incredible lack of maturity for a U. S. Senator by calling Smith “a total dirtbag.”

At the end day, Trumpist GOPers had failed to ruffle Smith enough to get him to make him admit what they wanted him to admit—that he had meddled in Willis’ affairs, more legal than personal, and had weaponized the Justice Department. And if anybody should know about weaponizing the Justice Department, it’s Republicans.

The Republican witch hunters spent the day beating up on Smith but in the end none of the hunters disputed his findings.  Their efforts to undermine his professionalism in securing indictments against the president were an embarrassing failure. It might be said they never laid a glove on him.

“The didn’t even talk about the report,” observed California Congressman Ted Lieu.  “They didn’t dispute that Donald Trump engaged in a conspiracy to try to get fake electors and fake documents to overturn this election.”  He called the stuff Republicans were saying, “idiotic.”

Did Schmitt, caught with his political pants entangling his ankles, apologize for his mistake.  Oh, no.  Later he told CNN he had not made a mistake. “Who knew Jack Smith was a Caitlin Clark fan?” he blithely deferred.

When another interviewer told him there was television footage showing Smith at the game in Maryland, he retorted, “Great. Well, then, he was at the Hawkeyes game.” But he wouldn’t admit he was wrong in the hearing.

On the “Charlie Kirk Show” later, host Andrew Kolvet praised Schmitt, who responded, “Here’s the thing — my job is to ask the questions. He’s already — and if that’s what his answer is — then that’s what his answer is….The purpose of today is just to get him to answer a bunch of questions.”

Bee  Ess.  His job, the committee’s job, was to get facts.

Smith had them and spoke them and he made our junior senator a fool. Schmitt claimed Smith perjured himself. He didn’t. His description of Smith as “a total dirtbag,” a startling act of discourtesy and juvenile behavior.  He shouldn’t stay up so late at night taking name-calling lessons from our president.

He’s going to be a star on Saturday Night Live this week.

Some might think the dirtbag was not the one at the witness table.

Columbia Missourian editorial cartoonist John Darkow—-the best of his kind in Missouri and among the best in the whole country jumped on Facebook with his commemoration of the great inquisition.

Don’t expect any apologies from Senator Eric Schmitt. There are plenty of sycophants who will pat him on the back for becoming the class clown at that hearing. It takes some doing to make Josh Hawley look like the grownup in our senatorial delegation.  But for that one day, Schmitt rose, or sank, to the occasion.

Even when Klobuchar proved  Schmitt didn’t know what he was talking about, he snarled, “I stand by that statement.”

We should all hope the rest of the people in our country don’t judge Missourians on the basis of our Senators. Really, we should assure them, we normally are intelligent beings.

I want to know who kidnapped the Eric Schmitt that I knew and replaced him with someone that I don’t recognize.

(Picture Credit—some clever person on the internet. It’s not the only one mocking Schmitt; Darkow on Facebook.)

Sunshine Patriots and Summer Soldiers

Posted on by
Reply

There is only one way the average citizen can stand up to Donald Trump and his increasingly repressive acts:

Vote against any candidate who either supports his administration or who lacks the courage to speak against it.

We will lose some good Republican office holders in November not because they are incompetent but because they are silent.  As Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense in 1776:

Voters should evaluate their candidates with much greater thought and care this time, more than any time we have experienced. They and the state and the nation will be well-served by allowing their inner Independent to emerge and evaluate each candidate on both sides of the ballot with thought and concern.

We do not advocate wholesale rejection of the Republicans.  A Democrat might have less to offer to voters and should not be elected solely because that candidate has a D above their column. Likewise, individual Republicans should not be solely evaluated because of voter hostility toward the President. Think. Evaluate.

At the same time, this is no time to be a summer soldier and a sunshine patriot.  There must be a strong message from the citizens of this country that blind loyalty to Donald Trump carries a cost.

We have lived through the completely unnecessary election disaster that his demand for another Republican congressional district has caused with the Secretary of State turning himself into a pretzel trying to defend his actions and his party’s decisions supporting Trump’s wishes.

If I was a Republican candidate for the General Assembly, whether as a new person running for a House seat or a House member hoping move up to the Senate, I would look at the overwhelming rejection of two GOP amendments in August, the dropping survey figures for the President and for our Governor, the furor over congressional districts, and sense that approval of Republican proposals on the November ballot might not go well and I would carefully consider what kind of lawmaker I will promise to be—

—and then hope I get a chance to keep that promise, knowing that in just two years as a State Representative I will have a record no matter what I say I am for in this election.

This is a time for candidates on both sides of the aisle to honestly evaluate who they are. It is not enough for a Democrat to run on the concept that he or she is not a Republican.  It is not enough for a Republican to remain silent about current times and issues or to deny what they have done to contribute to them.

This is a time to start over for some, perhaps many, of our lawmakers to convincingly promise not to be who they have been and for others to be specific about what they want to do that will be better than what has been done.

It is not true that in politics a leopard cannot change his spots. Whether that leopard can be convincing in trying to do so is for voters to decide.

It is American to vote back and forth on the ballot.  We are living the danger of determining fitness of office only on the basis of an R or a D.  Do not be afraid to cross party lines. Your vote is secret. Only you will know. Voters must exercise their conscience when their party’s candidate will not exercise his.

Whether voters realize it or not, the future of our state is very much in their hands in November.

We voters should keep in mind the words of Lincoln in his address to a joint session of Congress in 1862:

“We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us.”  What was good  advice for Congress at the start of the Civil War is good advice for the electorate today. These are dangerous, historic, times and we must remember, as Lincoln also said 164 years ago, “We cannot escape history.”

For generations we have failed to recognize the value of what we have obtained too cheaply and esteemed too lightly.

A President who has no loyalty to this nation and its people but only to himself is an albatross around the necks of many candidates who have not or will not stand apart from him and in their silence sanction the evil that he is and that he does.

Our preachers tells us it is never to late to repent and it is never too late to respect the truly penitent. That’s a good point to think about in the voting booth.

History will measure us severely by the choices we make in November.

(Image credit: libquotes.com)

Snipers and Drones?

Posted on by
2

Building a triumphal arch overlooking Arlington Cemetery is not enough of an abomination. Our President has not surprisingly found a way to make it worse.

Snipers???  It will house snipers????

Drones?????

Ammunition stockpiles???

What the Hell has prompted him to turn his arch celebrating military triumphs into a mini-fortress or, as he has put it, “a top grade Military Complex.”

He says it’s being done as a matter of national security (which is his excuse for a lot of stuff, isn’t it?) and after a “strong request” from the military.  Could we know who in the military made this strong request?

Will he have ICE snipers up there picking off suspected illegal immigrants as they cross the Arlington Memorial Bridge?  Will drones launched from his arch blend harmoniously into the routes of airliners on their final landing approach to Reagan International Airport?

We wonder when his demented mind will realize the arch would be a good checkpoint to make sure only American citizens of at least three generations are allowed in or out of Washington.  Additionally, officers could block anyone crossing the bridge into the city if there are signs in the back seat or trunk protesting his ongoing fevered dream of defiling the Kennedy Center by putting his name on it. That number might even be much larger these days than the number of dead legal or illegal immigrants.

If it also is to serve as Fortress Trump, perhaps it would be better located at Outpost Hegseth, the Pentagon, and where appropriately the new Hegseth Boulevard could pass through it.

The National Park Service, which one might suspect in normal times would object strongly to this idiocy, instead is equivocating.  It says the arch would affect several historic sites near Arlington National Cemetery including the cemetery’s historic district, the Washington and Lincoln monuments, the Jefferson Memorial the Capitol Mall, and others.

But NPS says it’s okay to go ahead with the arch as long as there are “mitigations,” such as an archaeological investigation before any digging is done. vibration monitoring near the bridge, and a plan so that funerals and wreath-laying ceremonies will not be disrupted—and some new interpretive web pages would help, including one that discusses “the history and significance of triumphal arches.”

We heard last week the digging had started. Forget any archaeological investigations.

There goes the idea of putting it at Outpost Hegseth.

The arch is to have three golden statutes on top of it. A big statue of Lady Liberty will be flanked by two gold eagles that are to represent national pride and strength.

At least the big statue is not of himself.

I really hope these entries are never read to him by anybody. I hate to think I would give him the idea.

The urge to suggest the eagles be replaced by Loons is something I am repressing.

Oops.

A Nation of Laws 

Posted on by
Reply

The spotlight on our court system has been glaring in the last few weeks as the dispute about our congressional districts has intensified and, as we write this, might be in its final throes. Nationally we have a President and his supporters who have launched strong personal attacks against judges at all levels who disagree with their aims.

Our legal system requires attorneys to represent even the worst of us as well as the best and judges who must find justice from within the passionate arguments on behalf of each.

The annual meeting of the Missouri Bar and Judicial Conference held in Kansas City last week featured a luncheon address by Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice W. Brent Powell. We think his remarks alluding to our times and the judiciary that is immersed in the issues of our times are appropriate to pass along. They are being passed along in hopes we might better understand the role our court system must play, particularly in divisive and threatening times—and how we as those lay people might be better served if we lived by those principles, too.

Powell began by readministering the oath of admission attorneys take upon joining the Missouri Bar, allowing them to legally practice law. One of those in the audience with his right hand upraised was his father. We have done some very light editing for context.

Taking our solemn oath places us in a distinct position of honor and responsibility. Honor, because of the prestige our profession holds in our society – and responsibility, because as attorneys, we are entrusted to tend to the vast legal needs of our fellow citizens and community.

I find it especially fitting to reaffirm our oaths now, 250 years after our nation declared its independence from England. Lawyers played a vital role in that monumental event. Nearly half the colonists who signed the Declaration of Independence were lawyers; many lawyers were elected to serve in the Continental Congress; and lawyers were instrumental in drafting our constitution and shaping our nation’s government. For this reason, our profession is a living bridge, linking us to a time when our founders transformed revolutionary ideals of self-governance and democracy into a new government for a new nation. 

Our oath…carries forward the same promises our founding lawyers drafted into our Declaration of Independence and constitution. One of those lawyers was John Adams, who famously proclaimed our nation would be a “government of laws, not of men.” This simple proclamation defined who we are as a people: bound together – not by a monarch or politician – but by the laws enacted through our own self-government. We, as a people, agree to be governed and abide by this law because the law emanates from ourselves. This is our social contract enshrined in our federal and state constitutions, ensuring the rule of law – not autocrats or tyrants – govern our way of life. 

But we all must recognize what Adams and our legal predecessors understood: for our government to survive and thrive, the rule of law – this foundation on which we all coexist – must be guarded continuously and preserved purposefully. Recognizing the importance of this civic virtue, Benjamin Franklin famously remarked we have a republic, if we can keep it. This responsibility – the responsibility to preserve our republic – falls to us and all our brothers and sisters in our profession… 

One of the first and paramount obligations our oath places upon us is to support the constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Missouri. This dual allegiance protects the grand experiment of federalism and the balance of governmental power our founders envisioned. Together, those constitutions establish a system of governance balancing authority between federal and state sovereigns and among three branches of government. They also preserve for all citizens the right to self-governance and guarantee their individual rights. 

This balance of governmental authority rests on a precarious fulcrum. The power reserved for our citizens, and the rights guaranteed to them, can easily be overlooked and abused. The scales can also be tipped – improperly shifting power among government authorities. Our oath requires us to safeguard this delicate balance, ensuring neither the people’s rights nor the authority bestowed upon each of our three branches of government are trampled or ignored. This is our collective role in a constitutional republic built on checks and balances.

But today, we face threats – threats from those who seek to detract from the ideals of our republic and to undermine faith in our sacred institutions – including our legal profession and our courts. Unfortunately, some of these threats originate from within our own ranks. We must respond to these threats as our founders responded to the tyranny of an autocrat. It is incumbent on all of us as lawyers and judges to rise up and defend our constitutions and the rule of law. 

We must vigorously and emphatically advocate the values of our republic by educating our fellow citizens about how laws are passed, how courts work, how judges make decisions, and how we are bound by these laws and court decisions – even when we may legitimately disagree with them. We owe our allegiance to the constitution and the law, not to our personal or political preferences – even, and especially, when doing so conflicts with our own views and beliefs.

For this reason, the trust endowed in us is extraordinary. Individuals trust their doctors with their health and wellbeing. They trust their accountants and bankers with their money and financial security. And they trust architects and engineers with the soundness of the structures and products they design and build. But they trust lawyers and judges…with the systems and institutions to provide the just and fair society in which we all live. 

This trust is immense and carries with it an equally somber recognition – that we must continue to earn that trust every day, through every action we take and every word we speak, to prove to our fellow Missourians we lawyers can carry the weight of their trust.

How we prove we are worthy of this trust is demonstrated in the words of our oath. We promise to maintain the respect due to courts of justice, judicial officers and members of our profession. We promise to conduct ourselves with dignity. We promise never to mislead a judge or jury by any artifice of false statement of fact or law. And we promise to conduct ourselves in accordance with the rules of professional conduct.

Stated simply, our oath as lawyers instructs us to always act with the dignity and uprightness our profession demands. It applies not only inside conference rooms and courtrooms but in the community as well. Being a lawyer is not just a job; it must be who we are and what defines us as professionals. If we act dishonorably, we cannot expect anyone else to honor our legal institutions and the rule of law. If we act dishonestly, we cannot be surprised when others treat our laws and courtrooms with disrespect and disdain.

Never forget it was tyranny of a monarch an ocean away that led the colonists to declare our independence, but history is full of lessons of tyranny reemerging and thriving when citizens lose faith in justice and the rule of law. Citizens rely on us as lawyers and judges – as professionals sworn to uphold the law – to make justice happen every day in every community in our state. Every transaction and every trial conducted fairly and openly reinforces the foundation laid in 1776. In this way, our profession – and our professionalism – are critical to preserving public trust in government.

But professionalism does not require grandiose deeds or acts – and can be accomplished in quiet, effortless ways. We must seek to solve disputes, not create them. We must act with grace, honor, and a moral and just purpose. We cannot let zealous advocacy devolve into malice, acrimony, vitriol, meanness, or nastiness. And in a world in which it is increasingly difficult to tell fact from fiction, and hyperbole from downright lies, it is essential we – as lawyers bound by a common oath – never, ever forget we are bound to tell the truth. Your reputation as an individual lawyer – and the reputation of our entire profession – depends on never letting advocacy get in the way of truth.

I don’t need to tell you that we live in a divided nation and state. This is not a new phenomenon, but technology provides new ways to divide us. Spurred by misinformation, disinformation, and the echo-chamber traps our social media algorithms build, the discord and viciousness in our society has invaded our schools, our churches, and even our family living rooms and dinner tables, where divisiveness was ordinarily absent…

We don’t have to sacrifice our beliefs and values. But we must listen to one another … including those with whom we vehemently disagree. We must show empathy … especially when doing so is uncomfortable. And we must care for others … particularly those we may find distasteful or disdain. These are important lessons I learned from my dad. And it’s what our oath requires of us.

Another lesson I learned from my father is a shared commitment to service. Our oath commits all of us, as a profession, to serve others. Our oath requires us to practice law with consideration for the defenseless and oppressed. This ending to our oath is deeply rooted in our history, as both lawyers and as Americans. Our Declaration of Independence boldly proclaims all people are created equal. Throughout history, it has fallen on lawyers – and judges – to bridge the gap between this founding ideal and the realities in which we live. Because for too many, this promise remains unfulfilled.

The promises secured for us in the Declaration of Independence and our constitution are only as strong as our profession’s ability to deliver them. But today, some of those promises are beginning to collapse around us. Half of Americans think our legal system offers two systems of justice: one for those with money or connections, and one for everyone else. We struggle to provide quality legal services to people in every corner of our state at rates people can actually afford. More than three-quarters of our fellow citizens don’t know where to turn for legal help and they believe they must go to court, draft contracts, probate estates, or get divorced without a lawyer – because they can’t afford one.

With the rise of AI, we must be concerned about pricing ourselves out of our own profession. Everyone in this room understands the value of an attorney in shepherding clients through their legal issues, both inside and outside the courtroom. But a short hop online illustrates the folly of this belief. The internet offers any number of AI “solutions” to address legal needs. But the world-wide web is also full of cautionary tales of what happens when a lawyer or self-represented litigant relies too heavily on AI to “help” them with a case. An AI solution may look like help, it may sound like help, but the whole thing might just be a hallucination. And the types of legal issues people face in their everyday lives – contract disputes, family law issues, probate matters, and other civil disputes – are far too important to be left to hallucinations. People deserve human lawyers like you to assist them with their legal needs.

Make no mistake: AI is here to stay. Every year, every month, every day, and every second, AI continues to revolutionize how things are done, in ways we struggle to comprehend. But we cannot just stand idly by, because others will fill any gap we choose to ignore. Our rules of professional conduct require us to remain vigilant and do our homework – including learning about new technology that may scare us at times. 

We also need to do some soul-searching, as a profession. More than ever, the rise of technology requires us all to remember our oath to serve others for the benefit of those in need of affordable legal services. We owe it to our fellow Missourians to demonstrate our value; embrace technology tools appropriately to enhance the services we provide the public; and keep the crucial role of human lawyers intrinsically involved in providing legal services to those who need it…

Our duty is to our clients and the public at large, not our individual concerns. None of us should let personal success make us apathetic toward the needs of our fellow citizens. Instead, we should use our education and privilege to serve others. But giving of oneself – abiding by our oath as lawyers – is not easy. It means devoting our lives to others, overcoming our inherent desire to improve our own condition. I confess, I struggle with this. It’s hard to live up to such a high standard, and far easier to find comfort in serving my own needs and desires. 

Fortunately, I have been so very blessed to see my father modeling what being a lawyer is truly all about – diligent, ethical, and honorable service … to his clients, to his profession, and to his community. Throughout his decades of practice, he was a strong advocate, but he also knew how to disagree without being disagreeable, and how to build bridges through compassion and kindness rather than sowing seeds of dissention. In a nutshell, he fulfilled our solemn oath every single day. Let’s all strive to be a lawyer like my father.

If I can ask one thing of all of you – just one thing – endeavor every single day to fulfill the oath you reaffirmed this afternoon. By fulfilling our solemn oath, we can build upon the blueprint of the Declaration of Independence and our constitutions, ensuring the rule of law and our way of life endure for the next 250 years. If we do this one thing, then I have faith and hope the stability of our republic and civil society will be sustained. And you, I, and those who come after us will all be better off because of it.

We appreciate Chief Justice Powell’s remarks, not just in reference to what lawyers and judges should be and should do, but in the kind of citizens all of us should strive to be.

(Photo credit: The Missouri Bar and Google Images)

The Ban Won’t Work

Posted on by
Reply

(This entry has been updated by events today.)

I have walked under this arch more times than I can count. The words engraved on it are a derivation from the third verse of the 12th chapter of the Old Testament book of Daniel.  It’s the University of Missouri School of Journalism arch connecting the two buildings that have been the heart of the school for decades, the places where I learned the responsibilities of being a journalist.

William F. Woo, the then-editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, wrote in 1996 that Walter Williams, the founder of the nation’s oldest journalism school, and Joseph Pulitzer, who joined two 19th century St. Louis newspapers together were partners in stating the journalism ideal.

Williams wrote The Journalist’s Creed that begins, “I believe in the profession of journalism.  I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust…I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible.”

Pulitzer’s platform, still published every day in his newspaper, says: “Never tolerate injustice or corruption; always fight demagogues of all parties; never belong to any party; always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers; never lack sympathy with the poor; always remain devoted to the public welfare: never be satisfied with merely printing news; always be drastically independent; never be afraid to attack wrong whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty.”

It is not easy to live those noble words.  Many professions have statements of standards and it’s no easier for practitioners of those professions to live up to those highest standards either. As Woo said, the challenge is “how to successfully work through the matters of our day that are pressing but in fact peripheral and concentrate, with clarity and determination, on the great public purpose that endures.”

Sometimes it’s hard to see those noble words in practice when they bring reporters into angry confrontations with their subjects. In our experience, the worst confrontations have been caused by a search for the truth from someone who is less than zealous about telling it or having it revealed.

Tolerating President Trump from this distance is relatively easy when compared with those who have to put up with him every day, especially when he spends so much time insulting reporters and news organizations that challenge him when he lies—which seems to be most of the time—or shows no interest in telling the truth.

Thus we have his banning of reporters from three organizations from the White House. Not just the White House but from the press area set aside on the west wing lawn.  Reporters for CNN, MS NOW, and Politico—a Capitol Hill political news organization—learned Saturday morning when checking through the security gate that Trump had cancelled their credentials.

We watched some of them report on the street side of the fence.

He also has hinted these three might not be the last news organizations banned from the White House, the press room, and the yard.

There’s a simple way to end what he thinks is constant hostile reporting.

He can quit constantly lying.

Washington Post fact checkers caught him in 30,573 lies in his first term. We haven’t been able to find a running total for the second term but the independent The Cap Times, the Madison, Wisconsin version of our Missouri Independent,  reported a week after his second inaugural, “Trump’s Lie Meter Runing Full Time.”

Comedian and social commentator John Stewart has suggested Trump might be doing an injustice to himself.  Huff Post quotes him saying, “I actually think he needs them more than they need him.”  He says the media might want to think about ignoring him instead of reporting everything he does or says. Press conferences, he says, are “designed for his personal performance” that “serves no purpose in terms of public value. It’s just another platform for him to spew.”  A press pool that ignores him, he says, “would deny him the thing that he craves the most,” being the center of attention.

He has a point.  But it isn’t realistic.  Donald Trump is the crash scene you have to look at as you slowly drive by, muttering about how slow the traffic is ahead of you because others are doing the same thing.

Unfortunately for Trump, it is journalistically impossible to ignore his rolling wreck.  There is an obligation to report on his tantrums, his prevarications, his lack of decency, his bullying, his complete lack of responsibility for what he is doing and has done to individuals, the nation, and the world..

“I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible,” said Williams 118 years ago.

The welfare of society is at risk when there is no one to hold someone like Donald Trump accountable.  And being held accountable is something he can’t tolerate which is why he bans reporters from Air Force One and from the White House and why he rants about news organizations and specific news reporters.

Banning some reporters never works.  Colleagues ask their questions for them. Colleagues demand their answers.  He can roar all that he wants. He will never escape the scrutiny of the press.  He can have his favorite network lap dogs but they won’t keep the public from knowing more of the truth than he would ever tell.

After announcing the ban on the three news agencies, Trump said he was tired of all of the negative reporting correspondents had been doing about him.  “They’re fake news,” he said.  “You get so tired of reading and seeing fake news. You get sick of it.”

There’s an old saying that politicians should not get into a war of words with people who buy ink by the barrel.  He can throw out reporters but he can’t hide from the news.

Donald Trump IS the fake news and the polls indicate a lot of people are “sick of it.” Journalists are just exposing him to the public as he is. The public is seeing the light. And an increased percentage of the public also is “sick of it.”

Banning reporters is an act of cowardice by a man who resents the fact that the image he creates for himself is being truthfully reported.

One way or another, he—not the press—will be the loser.

(UPDATE)—Most of the major television news organizations announced today—Monday—that they would no longer provide their cameras for the White House TV pool. News divisions from ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, and NBC have taken steps that effectively cuts off coverage of the Trump White House.  The move was led by FOX News Washington Bureau Chief Bryan Boughton, the chair of the White House TV Pool.  The five networks put out a joint statement: “The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting.”

Trump and his loyal followers are not reacting positively, as you might expect, to the press pool effectively agreeing with John Stewart.)  

Photo Credit: (Sheila Scarborough)

Our Bilingual Country

Posted on by
5

My monthly opinion piece in the Jefferson City News Tribune this month focused on Canada’s recognition of its bilingual heritage—English and French—with our country’s failure to recognize our bilingual heritage of English and Spanish.

English is the mother tongue of 57% of Canadians. French is the mother tongue of 20%, most of whom live in Quebec where Canadian federal law protects the language and the culture.

About 78% of USA homes are English-speaking.  About 12% are Spanish speakers but some of our states are much heavier with Spanish speakers. Our nation, however, offers no Canada-like appreciations accorded Quebec, especially a region almost as large as that province. We’ll get to that later.

Our country language has not always been English-dominated. English was a just a minor language when our pious Pilgrim Protestant forbears landed in the late 1500s and early 1600s. There were many Native American Languages but in terms of competing European languages, Catholic Spanish predominated.

I couldn’t put this map in the newspaper, but it shows that English was very much THE OTHER language.

It is too easy for us to get all sniffy about the superiority of our Christian English ancestors (and for those who go for the “Christian nation” myth, we will only suggest that most would not have wanted to live in such a place where the religious freedom concept applied only to THEIR religious freedom, dissenters such as Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson being exiled for questioning some Puritan tenets. There are, however, more than enough today who want no questions about their version.).

We are becoming more bilingual or even multi-lingual but we show no signs of being like Canada in respecting the original language of others. American Community Survey data from 2024 shows 43-45% of the population of California is non-English home speakers. Texas is about 36%. New Mexico is 34%. Various estimates put Arizona at 30-30%.

Quebec, by the way, is about the same size as Texas. California, and New Mexico combined.  Texas and New Mexico do not have English official laws. President Trump has taken care of that with an executive order declaring English the official language in all of our states.

We’ll have more in a later entry about the languages of our states.  You might be as surprised as I am about what the second and third languages of Missouri are.

In the newspaper article I cited Walt Whitman’s letter refusing to write a poem for Santa Fe’s 333rd anniversary:

We Americans have yet to really learn our own antecedents, and sort them, to unify them. They will be found ampler than has been supposed and in widely different sources. Thus far, impressed by New England writers and schoolmasters, we tacitly abandon ourselves to the notion that our United States have been fashioned from the British Islands only, and essentially form a second England only—which is a great mistake. Many leading traits for our future national personality, and some of the best ones, will certainly prove to have originated from other than British stock. As it is, the British and German, valuable as they are in the concrete, already threaten excess. Or rather, I should say, they have certainly reach’d​ that excess. To-day, something outside of them, and to counterbalance them, is seriously needed.

Thus seething materialistic and business vortices of the United States, in their present devouring relations, controlling and belittling everything else, are, in my opinion, but a vast and indispensable stage in the new world’s development, and are certainly to be follow’d​ by something entirely different—at least by immense modifications. Character, literature, a society worthy the name, are yet to be establish’d​ , through a nationality of noblest spiritual, heroic and democratic attributes—not one of which at present definitely exists—entirely different from the past, though unerringly founded on it, and to justify it.

To that composite American identity of the future, Spanish character will supply some of the most needed parts. No stock shows a grander historic retrospect—grander in religiousness and loyalty, or for patriotism, courage, decorum, gravity and honor. (It is time to dismiss utterly the illusion-compound, half raw-head-and-bloody-bones and half Mysteries-of-Udolpho, inherited from the English writers of the past 200 years. It is time to realize—for it is certainly true—that there will not be found any more cruelty, tryanny, superstition, &c., in the résumé of past Spanish history than in the corresponding résumé of Anglo-Norman history. Nay, I think there will not be found so much.)

Then another point, relating to American ethnology, past and to come, I will here touch upon at a venture. As to our aboriginal or Indian population—the Aztec in the South, and many a tribe in the North and West—I know it seems to be agreed that they must gradually dwindle as time rolls on, and in a few generations more leave only a reminiscence, a blank. But I am not at all clear about that. As America, from its many far-back sources and current supplies, develops, adapts, entwines, faithfully identifies its own—are we to see it cheerfully accepting and using all the contributions of foreign lands from the whole outside globe—and then rejecting the only ones distinctively its own—the autochthonic ones?

As to the Spanish stock of our Southwest, it is certain to me that we do not begin to appreciate the splendor and sterling value of its race element. Who knows but that element, like the course of some subterranean river, dipping invisibly for a hundred or two years, is now to emerge in broadest flow and permanent action?

We are living in a time when diversity in language and in so many parts of life is a living presence among us but an official target of disrespect from a president who has never lived outside his small cultural bubble.

I concluded in the article, “Language might separate us culturally one from another, but we should learn from better-taught history not to allow it to divide us as Americans.  We are one out of many. This is a time to understand and honor that sentiment, not ignore it.

Canada can teach us an important lesson about tolerance and respect.”

(map from appswm.com)

What’s Left After Contempt and Concession 

Posted on by
Reply

Records in the State Supreme Court Historical Society indicate Secretary of State Denny Hoskins’ contempt of court case is the first contempt case before the court since 1878 and might be only the fifteenth in state history, none of which involved a statewide office holder.  All of the old cases were appeals of lower court contempt holdings. This could be the first time someone was held in contempt of the Missouri Supreme Court itself.

In my sixty years of reporting in Jefferson City, this is the first contempt of the Supreme Court case that I have ever seen.

Shortly before the court was to return with its finding Thursday afternoon, Hoskins buckled to the inevitable and notified local election officials that the congressional district map approved by the legislature in 2022 would be used in the November election.

His earlier notice said that the Republican gerrymandered districts adopted to please President Trump would be used—although other court rulings had blocked that usage.

The tricky issue of deciding a proper penalty for violating the court’s earlier order forbidding use of the gerrymandered districts was thus avoided.  Chief Justice W. Brent Powell noted that Hoskins could purge himself of his previous statement and orders and that he had done so with his letter to election authorities. The contempt ruling stands but there will be no punishment from the court. Whether feelings of voters when Hoskins is up for re-election in two years will take their due is something we’ll have to wait for.

There might be many bottom lines from this series of actions.  Legislative Republicans are 0-for-3 on major public policy decisions this year with two really hot issues on the ballot in November—

Amendment 3 prohibits abortion in most cases, and blocks gender transition procedures for people younger than 18. The amendment would overturn a more pro-choice amendment adopted by voters in 2024 after a petition campaign generated enough signatures for a ballot position. It got about 52% of the vote.

Amendment 6 says the legislature cannot change a law proposed by a petition and approved by voters without 80% percent of the voters agreeing with the change.

The other proposition is the one that upholds the gerrymandered redistricting plan, proposition A. What all of this fuss and feathers has resolved is that voters still can approve the new districts by adopting proposition A, which will make the districts available in the 2028 elections but not useful in protecting President Trump from a House and/or Senate controlled by Democrats after November’s election.

Republicans could go 0 for 6 this year on ballot issues if the People Not Politicians movement maintains its momentum or, with these court rulings, picks up strength.

There still remains one piece of absurdity in this ugly worship of The Donald.

A few hours before the court’s hearing and its ultimate ruling on contempt, fourteen members of the legislature threatened the court with impeachment.

The seven judges didn’t even blink when hearing of this threat.  They not only went ahead with the hearing and found Hoskins in contempt.

So now what?

The only thing goofier than the threat would be for these fourteen Republicans (and their colleagues) to file articles of impeachment in this week’s veto session. The court’s lack of interest in their threat gives them a choice: Look foolish for filing the threat or look foolish for going ahead with it.

How would they go about impeaching and convicting the court—all seven members?

Guess who conducts the trial of an impeached state official?   The Supreme Court, that’s who.  Impeaching one at a time leaves the other six to run a trial of a colleague, a pretty goofy idea. Maybe they could import the supreme court of a surrounding state to do it.

Goofiness seems to be the order of the day.

Will their threats generate votes for them and their party in November?  It’s hard to see that it will because of national surveys showing that President Trump’s behavior as a political bully isn’t going over anymore and in fact is turning people off, way off. .

What we have here, folks, seems to be that too many Republicans are lowering the anchor of the ship of state, not realizing the chain is wrapped around their own ankles.

The Republicans have handed Democrats wheelbarrows full of campaign issues that the D’s can use in the next two months or so to pound on R’s.

And in two more years, when the Governor, Attorney General (who represented Hoskins), and Hoskins come up for re-election along with legislative Republicans seeking re-election or election to a higher office, the Democrats still will be well-armed.

Republicans need to do some serious image repair. They need to pick up a major issue (or many major issues) that will sympathetically resonate with the people.

(Picture credit:  Front row (from left): Judge Fischer, Chief Justice Powell, Judge Ransom; Back row (from left): Judge Gooch, Judge Wilson, Judge Broniec, Judge Russell —Missouri Supreme Court;  Goofy—Etsy)

Chaos 

Posted on by
3

(Two important updates to this posting occurred overnight as the gigantic mess that will be our congressional elections in November has gotten even worse)  Look for  the boldface additions in this revised–for the third time—column).  

The two people in this household are going to vote in the November election. As of today, we are not sure who we will want to be our member of Congress because we aren’t sure which congressional district we will be in.

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh might have settled it yesterday when he flatly rejected the appeal of the Missouri Supreme Court’s ruling that the old districts will be used for the election.  Kavanaugh is a Trump appointee and we would not be in this mess if Trump had not asked his loyal Republican-dominated legislature to skew congressional districts to help keep him in power.

However, shortly after that, a lower federal court judge ruled the other way.  We went to bed last night glad the day was over but knowing it is likely today will produce more political and judicial mayhem that none of us deserves but that all of us are getting, thanks to a President thinks our political system was invented just to keep him happy.

But since then, things have really heated up.

Shortly after that, the Chief Federal District Judge of this region, Stephen Clark, ruled the other way, issuing a temporary restraining order telling Hoskins to use the gerrymandered map while the case goes forward in the federal court system.  We went to bed last night glad the day was over but knowing it is likely today will produce more political and judicial mayhem that none of us deserves but that all of us are getting, thanks to a President thinks our political system was invented just to keep him happy. 

Governor Kehoe thanked the judge for providing “much needed clarity for Missouri voters and the election process.”  Since yesterday was the last day to make changes to the November ballot, he said, “the Missouri First Map will be used in the general election.”

He said, “Voters and candidates deserve consistency, certainty, and not to have the rules changed between elections,” an observation that is interesting because that is exactly what President Trump, the legislature, and Governor Kehoe have done “between elections” in 2024 and 2026. 

The scramble yesterday has left the Missouri Supreme Court, shall we say, in a state of high urinary agitation.  We awoke this morning to read a Missouri Independent report that the court has ordered Secretary of State Denny Hoskins to appear before it in person at 10 o’clock tomorrow morning to show why he should not be held in contempt of court for telling election officials to go ahead with a district map the court has forbidden him from using. It seems Hoskins had, as soon as Clark’s order came down, certified the official state ballot using the rejiggered congressional districts and sent the order, and his certification of the districts out to local election officials.  He says the Clark order, in effect, overrules the Missouri court’s order. 

The Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court wants Hoskins to explain exactly why his actions “is not an affirmative violation” of the court’s injunction which has the backing of a United States Supreme Court judge (who ranks higher on the judicial food chain than Clark) and, “if he is not willing to comply with this court’s injunction, he should take no action in all things related to the congressional district map until guidance is received from a higher court…”

Chief Justice W. Brent Powell made it clear this hearing is a face-off between Hoskins and the court.  Nobody else will be allowed to intervene.  

The last time we can recall a sitting state official to answer to the Missouri Supreme Court was when the court tried and convicted Secretary of State Judy Moriarty in 1994 of committing impeachable offenses—-  

—–which raises a question about how all of this could eventually play out for Hoskins, should anyone want to make a case of it.  If the GOP continues to control the legislature, that question likely is going to be moot.

This whole ugly thing is compliments of the same political party that gave us two amendments that were stomped flat by voters in August, allowed a small number of maverick state senators to produce two or three of the least productive legislative sessions—probably since the Civil War when we had a government supported by the U. S. Army in Jefferson City and a bunch of exiles pretending to be a Confederate government based in Texas, and who so badly fumbled a chance to pass a sports gambling law that the interested parties gave us a constitutional amendment that is of grave disservice to the people of Missouri

Republicans have no one to blame but themselves if voter in November seek retribution for this craziness by promoting many GOP lawmakers back to private life. Will the majorities in the House and Senate switch in November? Probably not.  But we’ll be watching to see if the two-third majorities and the accompanying arrogance that comes with such margins disappears at the hands of voters who think these lawmakers have gone too far.

The Missouri Supreme court has blamed our Secretary of State, who was one of those maverick senators, for this mess.  And the court underlined its feelings with a unanimous vote.

The court suspended the congressional district maps drawn because President Trump is afraid he’ll lose control of Congress in November and asked the Missouri legislature to approve maps that will oust one of our senior congressmen, Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City. That would giving the GOP one more Congressman from Missouri who can protect Trump..  The legislature was more than happy to oblige him.

But then some citizens who felt such manipulation of the political system more focused on government of one person, by one person, and for one person is not exactly what this country is all about.  They went around and collected signatures of about 300,000 other dissenters demanding the new map not go into effect until the people had agreed to it.  The number of signatures was more than adequate to put the question on the ballot.

Secretary of State Denny Hoskins apparently found some wiggle room in a federal district judge’s ruling last December that the new map would be suspended if the petition had enough signatures and a vote could be held on overturning that map. The judge’s opinion noted, however, that Hoskins believed he had the power to declare the petition itself was unconstitutional.

The Missouri Supreme Court told him, twice, that he had to rule on whether the petitions had enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot.

Rather than do that before the primary election that used the questionable new districts, Hoskins waited until the primary election was already underway before proclaiming the petition unconstitutional.

The Missouri Supreme Court said he screwed up, saying there actually are no new districts because opponents had gathered adequate signatures to have an election on their legitimacy. Unless voters approved the districts, they did not exist.

But Hoskins let the election proceed with the new districts.  So now we have candidates in our eight districts and—-

?

Justice Kavanaugh’s terse rejection of the districts is a second loud slap in the face of Hoskins and the obedient Trumpicans in our Capitol, coming after our Supreme Court’s ruling.

As we understand it these two rulings, we have no districts except the old ones and the candidates did not run in the old districts. They ran in the new ones which the court says don’t exist. The Missouri court has said rather clearly that Hoskins is responsible for any confusion the people of Missouri might have.

That’s a very heavy load of responsibility.  Hoskins will be up for re-election in 2028. Missourians are likely to be reminded of these events.

Out of this complicated embarrassment so far, however, is something vitally important. The Constitutional right of Missouri citizens “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”     to enact laws through a petition process and to overturn offensive laws enacted by the people who are supposed to represent us has been upheld. The court decisions have upheld Missourians’ right to initiative and petition in overwhelming numbers. (Next year will be the 120th anniversary of the adoption of initiative and referendum in Missouri. We need to have a big celebration.)

Hoskins disputes the Missouri court’s ruling that he’s the one to blame.  He seemed to argue in a radio interview (KFTK) that the Trumpian map should be valid for November because voters used it in the primary election.

—although the State Supreme Court says they (we) voted in illegal and therefore nonexistent districts.  Justice Kavanaugh obviously didn’t buy Hoskins’ arguments either.

We must confess that we are as befuddled as most people are and we’re not convinced we understand all of this folderol or if we have explained the situation correctly.

If the districts were not legal, then there actually was no congressional primary election, right?   And those of us who voted were just rehearsing for the real thing. Can that be correct?  Are we headed to November with candidates nominated in a non-election?

And since the petition issue gathered enough signatures to merit a vote and no districts, old or new, will be established until voters have decided on the petition issue, how can we vote for our congressional delegation in November?

If it turns out that one of the winners in August is not a resident of the old district that might be in effect in November—-

Well?

I feel as if I am wading in the dark through an endless swamp of mashed potatoes and the legislature led me to it.  Lawmakers are back at the Capitol for a day or two next week to consider overriding any of the Governor’s vetoes from the spring session.  Can they, will they, do anything to restore some orderliness in our state political system?

To paraphrase an old saying:

“To err is human. To really screw up things you need a politician.”

I am now going to take some aspirin and lie down and hope this all passes.

(picture credit: Demotivators)