Well, here we go again. On June 27, US Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, effective July 31.

Cue crisis, as defined by President John F. Kennedy’s inaccurate characterization of the Chinese analog: “Two characters, one representing danger and the other, opportunity.” Democrats and Republicans have, for 30 years, alternated between anticipation and fear, depending on which party was in position to choose Kennedy’s successor.

As a “swing vote” — reliably tied to neither party’s policy agenda — since the day he donned the robe in 1988,  there’s never been a convenient time for Kennedy to retire, a time when his retirement wouldn’t have constituted a nuclear bomb dropped smack in the middle of America’s political debate.

That effect is magnified by US Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s 2016 decision to hold off on confirming President Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to replace the late Antonin Scalia because there was an election coming soon and he wanted to wait for a new president to choose someone else.

Well, there’s an election coming soon, and suddenly the roles are reversed. Mitch and the Republicans are in a hurry and Democrats are inclined (especially if they can get a little bit of “moderate Republican” help) to drag their feet.

I have a better idea: Cut the Court.

President Trump should announce that he is holding off on appointing a successor for Kennedy and asking Congress to reduce the size of the Court to seven justices, effective with the NEXT retirement. If Congress complies, that next retirement will likely be Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is 85 and holding on for dear life rather than allow her successor to be chosen by a Republican president.

The size of the Supreme Court is entirely up to Congress. The Constitution prescribes no specific number of justices, and Congress has set the number as low as five (in 1801) and as high as ten (in 1863).

Cutting the Court to seven would be a win for Republicans. Shedding Kennedy and Ginsburg would reduce the Court’s “left” wing by one-and-a-half justices and its “right” wing by only one-half (Kennedy being half fish, half fowl, so to speak), without a bruising confirmation battle right before an election.

Cutting the Court to seven would also be a win for Democrats in that they would avoid the risk of President Trump appointing not only Kennedy’s successor but Ginsburg’s as well (should her health take a turn for the worse or should Trump be re-elected in 2020).

And cutting the Court to seven would give the American public a respite, however brief and partial, from the constant political propaganda about how our voting choices might affect the Court’s future composition. We have other issues to attend to. Cut the Court.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In March and April, CNBC reports, foreign governments started cutting back on the amount of US government debt they buy and hold.  Russia’s government cut its holdings by 50%, from $96.1 billion to $48.7 billion. China (the single biggest holder of US  debt) dumped $5.8 billion. Japan (the second biggest), $12.3 billion.

Disclaimer: I’m no expert in finance generally or in government debt specifically, and those matters are complex. But I don’t think it’s controversial to say that when large creditors stop buying and start start dumping someone’s debt, it’s a bad sign for future borrowing: A de facto reduction in the borrower’s credit rating.

These dumps seem small — less than $100 billion out of a total US national debt of more than $21 trillion — but they cover only a couple of months. The immediate effect is that  the US government is going to have to offer higher interest rates to borrow more money. It has fewer prospective lenders to work with, and its new borrowing has to compete against that old debt, which is presumably selling at a discount in global markets.

The US government is basically the guy who took out a huge home mortgage, then kept refinancing and borrowing against equity,  while trading in his car for a new one (and a larger payment) every two years, and now finds himself visiting car title and payday lenders every week just to keep himself in groceries.

Nobody realistically expects the US government’s existing debt to ever be paid off. In fact, some American thought leaders — supposedly reputable economists, even — scoff at the idea that it SHOULD be paid off and believe that Uncle Sam can just keep borrowing forever, adding current interest to your tax bill and the tax bills of your descendants, without ever having to tighten his own belt.

They’re wrong, and dangerously so. That debt is something foreign governments can hold over Uncle Sam’s head (perhaps these dumps are strategic moves in the current trade war?) — and prospective default on it is something he can hold over theirs. Sooner or later, one way or another, it’s going to end badly.

Caught in the middle are the more than 300 million Americans in whose name the US government borrows. Every dollar borrowed is a promise to beat a dollar, plus interest, out of your hide and mine, in perpetuity.

If the US government won’t bite the bullet — repudiate its debt, balance its budget, and take the credit beating it richly deserves for a shocking century-plus record of complete financial irresponsibility — the rest of us should do so on its behalf. We didn’t borrow that money. Let the politicians who dug the hole dig their own way out of it. Or bury themselves in it.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “Is the US National Debt Finally Coming Home to Roost?” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 06/28/18

On June 19, New York based artist, programmer, and activist Sam Lavigne published a list of 1,595 Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees and publicly available information about them (remember those two words: “publicly available”).

Lavigne provided a public service that in anything resembling a free society would be completely uncontroversial. Instead, moral panic ensued.

Github deleted the information from its repository. Twitter suspended accounts calling attention to it. It eventually found a home at WikiLeaks.

On June 24, the US Department of Homeland Security (of which ICE is a subsidiary) claimed “heightened threats” versus its employees and reiterated recommendations (per CBS News) “including not displaying work badges in public, being careful with public conversations and using caution on all social networks.”

Donald Trump’s Internet base — which loved WikiLeaks when it released emails exposing corruption in the Democratic National Committee — exploded with rage, calling for a raid on Ecuador’s UK embassy to drag Julian Assange to America for “justice” (he’s been held incommunicado for months and presumably had nothing to do with this project) and for charging Lavigne as an accomplice in any attacks on ICE employees.

To see what a tempest in a teapot this is, remember the “publicly available” angle.

The sources for Lavigne’s database are the ICE employees’ own public LinkedIn profiles, on which they openly state who they work for. Their reasons probably run to networking with others in similar jobs, and seeking other employment, but once you put something on a public-facing web space, the public gets to notice.

Lavigne didn’t hack into an ICE computer. He just took information that anyone with a web browser could have found any time they cared to look, and organized it into a more convenient format.

But let’s just suppose that Lavigne had instead built his database from, say, a leaked ICE personnel list. If so, so what? These people receive their salaries from taxpayers and claim to work for “the public.” On what grounds can they claim a right  to have their employers not know who they are?

As far as “threats” are concerned, the real but largely unspoken one is well-deserved negative social preferencing.

If decent people know that the guy next door abducts people at gunpoint for a living (or conspires with others to facilitate such kidnappings), they probably won’t invite that guy to their next backyard barbecue. Especially if some of the other guests may speak Spanish.

Until ICE is abolished, which can’t happen soon enough, the next best thing is to make it an unattractive employment option.

If you work for ICE, you should be denied service at restaurants, denied communion at churches, and have to explain to your kids why they aren’t invited to other kids’ birthday parties or play activities. And thanks to Sam Lavigne, we know who you are.

If you work for ICE, give your two weeks notice, find a job in the productive sector, and work hard to redeem yourself and live down your sordid past. This is an opportunity. Seize it.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

• “Negative Social Preferencing, ICE Edition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 06/26/18
• “Negative social preferencing, ICE edition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, New Bern, North Carolina Sun Journal, 06/26/18
• “Negative social preferencing, ICE edition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Jacksonville, North Carolina Daily News, 06/26/18
• “Negative social preferencing, ICE edition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Kinston, North Carolina Free Press, 06/26/18
• “Las Referencias Sociales Negativas de Trabajar para ICE,” by Thomas L. Knapp, La Tribuna Hispana USA, 06/27/18
• “ICE edition of negative social preferencing,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Claremont, New Hampshire Eagle Times, 06/27/18
• “Negative Social Preferencing, ICE Edition,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 06/28/18