democracynow--2020-03-06--"Supreme Inequality": Author Adam Cohen on the Supreme Court's 50-Year Battle Against Justice

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman .
In Alabama , Nathaniel Woods offered no final words Thursday night as prison officials strapped him to a gurney and injected a lethal cocktail of drugs into his body .
Woods was declared dead at 9 p.m. local time .
He was put to death just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the execution briefly Thursday evening , only to lift it without comment .
He was executed despite never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was convicted for , the 2004 murder of three Birmingham police officers .
In fact , despite being portrayed by prosecutors as the mastermind behind the crime , Woods went to the death chamber professing his innocence .
His claims were backed by Kerry Spencer , a death row prisoner convicted for being the gunman in the killings , who says Woods was in the wrong place at the wrong time and had nothing to do with the crime .
Martin Luther King III responded to the execution on Twitter , writing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nathaniel Woods , the actions of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Governor of the State of Alabama are reprehensible , and have potentially contributed to an irreversible injustice .
It makes a mockery of justice and constitutional guarantees to a fair trial , ” Martin Luther King III said .
This scrutiny of the Supreme Court ’ s role in Woods ’ execution comes just after a rare public spat between Chief Justice John Roberts and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer .
On Wednesday , Chief Justice Roberts issued a rebuke of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and “ dangerous ” remarks when he said Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh will , quote , “ pay the price ” if they cut back abortion rights .
Schumer has since said he regretted his choice of language but was not making a threat .
And many have called out Roberts for selective outrage .
Schumer spokesperson [ Justin ] Goodman said , quote , “ For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing ’ s deliberate misinterpretation of what Senator Schumer said , while remaining silent when President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.
” He was referring to chief justice ’ s past comments that his role in the court should be that of an umpire .
This all comes as a new book has come out arguing that over the last half-century the Supreme Court has made America more unjust .
The book is called Supreme Inequality : The Supreme Court ’ s Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America .
We are joined now by its author , Adam Cohen , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of The New York Times editorial board .
Welcome back to Democracy Now !
, Adam .
It ’ s great to have you with us .
ADAM COHEN : Great to be with you , Amy .
AMY GOODMAN : Can you first comment on just what happened last night , the execution of Nathaniel Woods ?
ADAM COHEN : Yes .
It ’ s not a shock that this Supreme Court did not stop it , but it ’ s very disheartening , and for two reasons .
One is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very strong claim of actual innocence , that it would have been good to investigate more .
We hate to see someone be executed who a lot of people think really was not guilty .
Second part of it that ’ s very disheartening is that Mr. Woods was represented , as is not uncommon , by a lawyer who had no experience with capital cases , who did not do the sort of appropriate investigation that needed to be done .
So he did not get the adequate representation at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the verdict was appropriate .
So , a very disturbing turn of events .
AMY GOODMAN : And you have worked in Alabama .
You worked at the Southern Poverty Law Center .
ADAM COHEN : Yes .
And I saw that it ’ s very , very common for capital cases there to be handled by lawyers who , A , don ’ t know what they ’ re doing , and , B , are not very interested in doing the job well .
AMY GOODMAN : So , this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the days before , Chief Justice Roberts going after Senator Chuck Schumer on the issue of abortion rights .
ADAM COHEN : Yes .
And “ selective outrage ” is exactly the right term .
It ’ s the case that Chief Justice Roberts did not criticize Trump for his attacks on Sotomayor and Ginsburg .
But he also didn ’ t criticize Trump when he attacked Judge Curiel a few years ago for his Mexican-American heritage and said that he would not be an unbiased judge .
And Chief Justice Roberts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump — you know , for example , the Roger Stone trial .
It ’ s incredible the amount of interference the president has done , attacking not only the judge , but the jury forewoman .
We didn ’ t hear from the chief justice there .
So , to only step up when a Democrat is making these statements is disturbing .
AMY GOODMAN : So let ’ s go to the thesis of your book , that the Supreme Court has made America unjust in the last 50 years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ inequality.
” ADAM COHEN : Sure .
I think we all know that our society is becoming more and more unequal .
The gap between rich and poor has been growing and growing to near-record levels .
The question is : Why ?
The explanations we generally get are large forces like globalization and automation , or people look to the policies of the president and Congress .
The point I make in this book is that the Supreme Court , which is an institution that we think of as the bastion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , has actually been a major driver of inequality .
And there are two reasons to think that , two important reasons .
The World Inequality Report 2018 , which is an important report done by leading economists around the world , including Thomas Piketty , they looked at American inequality , economic inequality , and looked out what the drivers were .
They found that there were two main drivers : educational inequality and our lack of a progressive tax system .
As I explain in the book , both of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court .
AMY GOODMAN : Adam , let ’ s start with the story of what happened under — in the Nixon era .
Let ’ s go back 50 years and talk about who was on the Supreme Court and who got forced out .
ADAM COHEN : Sure .
Fifty years ago , we had a very rare thing : We had a very liberal Supreme Court , the Warren Court .
The Warren Court is known for Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 , but also a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Miranda case , where they said that you need to be told that you have the right to remain silent if you ’ re going to be questioned by police , cases like Gideon v. Wainwright , where the court held that any indigent person accused of a major crime is entitled to a lawyer .
And the Warren Court was also standing up for poor people , welfare beneficiaries in particular .
So , that was the court that was in place when Nixon is elected in 1968 .
Nixon runs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to change the court and end the liberal Warren Court and replace it with something conservative .
And he gets an amazing opportunity to do that , because Earl Warren has already said he ’ s stepping down .
President Johnson bungled the replacement .
He had an opportunity to replace Warren with another liberal , but he appointed or nominated Abe Fortas , who was already on the court , was an old buddy of his .
It was a poor choice .
ADAM COHEN : To be chief justice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It was poor choice politically , because although Johnson is known as the “ master of the Senate ” — he was supposed to be very good at counting votes in the Senate — he called this one wrong .
There was a lot of opposition to Fortas for many reasons , ranging from Southern Democrats who didn ’ t like Fortas ’ s views on civil rights to some who opposed him because he would have been the first Jewish chief justice .
But in any case , Fortas gets voted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1969 , gets to fill that critical position of chief justice with a conservative , Warren Burger .
And then , in three years , he gets to appoint four justices and completely changed the direction of the court .
AMY GOODMAN : So , talk about what you think are the key areas where America has fundamentally changed .
And , of course , this goes to parallels that we ’ re seeing right now with Trump ’ s Supreme Court .
ADAM COHEN : Sure .
You know , my book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the poor , because it really is amazing to think of all the things that the Warren Court was doing for the poor .
And , you know , they were advocating for and ruling for welfare recipients in major ways .
There was a case called Goldberg v. Kelly .
Unbelievable to think of it now , but the court ruled any time any government takes welfare benefits away from a family , they are entitled to a hearing to make sure that they are not entitled to welfare .
That was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the poor .
This changes under the new Burger Court that Nixon created , and suddenly we get rulings against the poor .
And one of the big rulings is a case called Dandridge v. Williams , where the court upheld Maryland ’ s cap on welfare for large families .
So , Maryland basically said , if you have more kids after a certain point , you don ’ t get more welfare .
There was a very strong claim that that was an equal protection violation , that the Equal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says the government has to treat everyone equally , is violated when you don ’ t give welfare to the last children in a larger family .
The court not only rejects that claim , but they basically say , “ We ’ re washing our hands of all welfare cases .
You know , poor people , you ’ re on your own.
” And we ’ ve now seen , over the decades , that the court continually rules against the poor .
And I can point to one recent example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case of a few years ago , where the court was lauded for upholding Obamacare .
Much less attention was given to the fact that at the same time , the court struck down Medicaid expansion on very dubious constitutional grounds and basically took Medicaid away from millions of poor people , who had gotten it given to them by Congress .
AMY GOODMAN : You talk about a particular person started out here , Ed Sparer , and the importance of the movement .
And this goes to the issue of movements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
ADAM COHEN : Yes .
There was in the '60s a very strong poor people 's movement led by Ed Sparer , by George Wiley and other people , who were marching and demanding that welfare recipients be given more benefits , be treated differently .
Ed Sparer was using the courts in very creative ways .
And it really is sort of the end of the Ed Sparer dream .
After that Dandridge case that I mentioned , Ed Sparer was quoted saying how sad it was , because it could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said , if the court had ruled for the welfare family in Dandridge .
But in the end , the whole poverty law movement was stopped .
AMY GOODMAN : And this whole poverty law movement , talk about its connections to mass incarceration .
ADAM COHEN : Yes .
So , one of the main things that they understood is that incarceration is not just a criminal issue , but an economic issue .
And putting an adult in jail devastates not only their economic future , but that of their family @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being taken and arguments being made that the kind of intense punishment that the system metes out is not constitutional .
The court rejected that .
And that was — a while later , there was a very important case out of California challenging their “ Three Strikes and You ’ re Out ” law , the Andrade case .
And in Andrade , there was a — the defendant was a man who was 37 years old , father of three , military veteran .
He had shoplifted about $ 150 of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s “ Three Strikes and You ’ re Out ” law , he was sentenced to 50 years to life .
That means for taking nine children ’ s videos , he was going to spend until the age of 87 behind bars .
His lawyers made a very strong claim that ’ s a violation of the Eighth Amendment , which bars cruel and usual punishment , you know , to put someone away that long for such a minor crime .
And the court rejected that 5 to 4 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , the Eighth Amendment could have become a tool for policing excessive punishments , and it could have been a major way in which we clamp down on mass incarceration .
The Supreme Court didn ’ t allow it , though .
AMY GOODMAN : Compare it to the Allstate case .
ADAM COHEN : Yeah .
So , what ’ s shocking is , within a month of that decision , the court had a different case .
There was a corporation , Allstate Insurance , that had done something very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , involving fraud and mistreatment .
The jury was so outraged , that it awarded $ 150 million in punitive damages .
Sounds like a lot , but to a company the size of Allstate , which has like $ 50 billion in revenue a year , it barely would get their attention .
Nevertheless , they went to the Supreme Court and said , “ This $ 150 million punitive damage award against us is unconstitutional.
” Guess what .
The same court that was OK with the 50 years to life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 150 million against this corporation violates due process .
And they ordered that be lowered to about $ 9 million .
So that ’ s a major difference there .
AMY GOODMAN : So , corporations as people .
We ’ re going to break and then come back to this discussion and talk about progressive taxation and also talk about education , what the Supreme Court has done to the educational system of this country .
Adam Cohen is with us .
He is the author of a new book called Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOODMAN : “ Ain ’ t No Love in the Heart of the City ” by Bobby “ Blue ” Bland .
This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The War and Peace Report .
We ’ re spending the rest of the hour with Adam Cohen , author of a new book .
It ’ s called Supreme Inequality : The Supreme Court ’ s Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America .
So , we were talking about welfare rights .
We were talking about poverty .
Let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Supreme Court did .
I mean , again , most people think of presidents as the movers , Congress as the movers , movements as the movers .
You ’ re really centering a lot of what you ’ re saying happened in America in the Supreme Court .
ADAM COHEN : That ’ s correct .
And on the lack of progressive taxation , why don ’ t we have higher taxes on the wealthy ?
Well , every time they take a poll , voters overwhelmingly want higher taxes on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you know , across the ideological spectrum .
But the people that don ’ t want it are large campaign contributors .
And that is something that has undue influence on Congress because of the Supreme Court .
So , why is that ?
Because in 1976 there was a critical case called Buckley v. Valeo , long before Citizens United .
For the first time , the Supreme Court said money is a speech .
It didn ’ t have to say that .
And , in fact , the lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — and the case was a challenge to a very strong campaign finance law that Congress had passed in reaction to the Watergate scandal — the lower court said , “ This is fine .
It ’ s perfectly constitutional to limit contributions to candidates and expenditures.
” The Supreme Court overturns that decision and says , “ No , expenditure limits violate the First Amendment because money equals speech.
” That equation of money and speech , first of all , I don ’ t believe and it makes no sense , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everything we ’ ve seen with Citizens United and other cases , allowing huge special interest money and corporate money to really control our politics .
ADAM COHEN : Yeah .
So , the influence of money on tax policy was made very clear at the end of 2017 , when the Trump tax law was about to be voted on .
There were some of those polls that I mentioned showing the voters did not like the idea of lowering taxes on the rich .
But at the same time , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than ever , talking to the press and saying , “ Unless we get our taxes lowered , we ’ re going to stop contributing money to Republicans.
” Lindsey Graham actually made a statement to his colleagues and said , “ Our contributions will dry up , and a lot of our Republican incumbents will not win reelection , unless we lower taxes on the rich.
” And again , that ’ s the Supreme Court talking .
AMY GOODMAN : I want to turn to President Barack Obama responding to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court ruling that opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending on election campaigns .
ADAM COHEN : Well , he ’ s exactly right .
It was a radical move and really the step between saying money is speech for individuals and saying it ’ s true for corporations .
The idea that corporations have a right to participate in our elections is a radical one , and it ’ s definitely changing our politics .
AMY GOODMAN : I don ’ t want to end this without talking about education in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in unequal education .
ADAM COHEN : Yes .
It ’ s one of the most tragic parts of the story .
In the late ’ 60s and early ’ 70s , there was a very strong movement to try to create more equal public schools around the country .
One important part of that was the campaign finance movement .
And the idea was that all schools in rich and poor districts in a state should be funded equally .
And law professors and courts were beginning to say the Equal Protection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of its citizens , everyone equally , means that they have to fund rich and poor school districts equally .
There were a lot of rulings that were beginning to say that .
In Texas , a group of parents and children in San Antonio , who the children attended one of the poorest , heavily Mexican-American school districts , they saw how bad their schools were compared to the largely white schools down the road .
Students actually walked out in protest .
The parents filed this lawsuit saying that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violates equal protection .
They win in the federal court in Texas .
Goes up to the Supreme Court , and it ’ s reversed 5 to 4 .
The court says , “ No , giving more money to rich districts than to poor districts is perfectly constitutional.
” And then , a year later , another very tragic case , where in Detroit the NAACP was representing black schoolchildren in the city who wanted an integrated education .
The judge in Detroit rightly found there was no way to integrate the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There weren ’ t enough white students .
He ordered a metropolitan-area remedy , which meant that you would bus people across district lines , urban and suburban , to make sure that everyone attended an integrated school .
He came up with a great plan .
All the schools in the Detroit area would have been 70 % white , 30 % black , reflecting the racial mix of the metropolitan area .
And the Supreme Court reversed that , too .
If those two decisions had not been reversed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different public schools for the last 50 years , and , I think , a very different country .
AMY GOODMAN : So , as we move forward now , what do you see happening to the Supreme Court ?
And are you looking particularly at any cases ?
I mean , the most recent case is the Supreme Court considering this Louisiana abortion case , which could lead to , I mean , perhaps one clinic in all of Louisiana , if Louisiana is lucky .
ADAM COHEN : Yeah .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot of things .
For abortion rights , Justice Kennedy , who left the court , replaced by Kavanaugh , was one of the moderating forces on abortion .
We don ’ t know what five justices , the majority of the Supreme Court , will do now on abortion .
We don ’ t know what they ’ ll do on affirmative action .
Chief Justice Roberts has been very outspoken about opposing all racial remedies .
The Supreme Court could actually strike down affirmative action broadly .
And as bad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it President Trump gets a second term , is able to replace one more liberal justice — perhaps Justice Ginsburg — there ’ s no telling how far they could go .
There is a right-wing movement that says that , basically , all of the large social programs that were created during the New Deal , the social safety net , is unconstitutional , that it exceeds the power of Congress .
We could see a radical conservative Supreme Court in a few years actually striking down things like the federal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re going to leave it there .
I want to thank you so much , Adam .
Adam Cohen is author of Supreme Inequality : The Supreme Court ’ s Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America .
That does it for our broadcast .
Democracy Now !
has a number of positions open here at our New York studios , in our newsroom , in our outreach and development teams .
Information and application deadlines at democracynow.org .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman. In Alabama, Nathaniel Woods offered no final words Thursday night as prison officials strapped him to a gurney and injected a lethal cocktail of drugs into his body. Woods was declared dead at 9 p.m. local time. He was put to death just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the execution briefly Thursday evening, only to lift it without comment. He was executed despite never pulling a trigger in the crime he was convicted for, the 2004 murder of three Birmingham police officers. In fact, despite being portrayed by prosecutors as the mastermind behind the crime, Woods went to the death chamber professing his innocence. His claims were backed by Kerry Spencer, a death row prisoner convicted for being the gunman in the killings, who says Woods was in the wrong place at the wrong time and had nothing to do with the crime.
Martin Luther King III responded to the execution on Twitter, writing, quote, “In the case of Nathaniel Woods, the actions of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Governor of the State of Alabama are reprehensible, and have potentially contributed to an irreversible injustice. It makes a mockery of justice and constitutional guarantees to a fair trial,” Martin Luther King III said.
This scrutiny of the Supreme Court’s role in Woods’ execution comes just after a rare public spat between Chief Justice John Roberts and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. On Wednesday, Chief Justice Roberts issued a rebuke of Schumer, saying he made “inappropriate” and “dangerous” remarks when he said Trump appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh will, quote, “pay the price” if they cut back abortion rights. Schumer has since said he regretted his choice of language but was not making a threat. And many have called out Roberts for selective outrage. Schumer spokesperson [Justin] Goodman said, quote, “For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Senator Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes.” He was referring to chief justice’s past comments that his role in the court should be that of an umpire.
This all comes as a new book has come out arguing that over the last half-century the Supreme Court has made America more unjust. The book is called Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court’s Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America. We are joined now by its author, Adam Cohen, a lawyer, a journalist, former member of The New York Times editorial board.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Adam. It’s great to have you with us.
ADAM COHEN: Great to be with you, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you first comment on just what happened last night, the execution of Nathaniel Woods?
ADAM COHEN: Yes. It’s not a shock that this Supreme Court did not stop it, but it’s very disheartening, and for two reasons. One is, this was a case where there was a very strong claim of actual innocence, that it would have been good to investigate more. We hate to see someone be executed who a lot of people think really was not guilty. Second part of it that’s very disheartening is that Mr. Woods was represented, as is not uncommon, by a lawyer who had no experience with capital cases, who did not do the sort of appropriate investigation that needed to be done. So he did not get the adequate representation at the trial level that would have reassured us that the verdict was appropriate. So, a very disturbing turn of events.
AMY GOODMAN: And you have worked in Alabama. You worked at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
ADAM COHEN: Yes. And I saw that it’s very, very common for capital cases there to be handled by lawyers who, A, don’t know what they’re doing, and, B, are not very interested in doing the job well.
AMY GOODMAN: So, this Supreme Court action follows what just happened in the days before, Chief Justice Roberts going after Senator Chuck Schumer on the issue of abortion rights.
ADAM COHEN: Yes. And “selective outrage” is exactly the right term. It’s the case that Chief Justice Roberts did not criticize Trump for his attacks on Sotomayor and Ginsburg. But he also didn’t criticize Trump when he attacked Judge Curiel a few years ago for his Mexican-American heritage and said that he would not be an unbiased judge. And Chief Justice Roberts has, on other occasions, let Trump — you know, for example, the Roger Stone trial. It’s incredible the amount of interference the president has done, attacking not only the judge, but the jury forewoman. We didn’t hear from the chief justice there. So, to only step up when a Democrat is making these statements is disturbing.
AMY GOODMAN: So let’s go to the thesis of your book, that the Supreme Court has made America unjust in the last 50 years. Talk about what you call “supreme inequality.”
ADAM COHEN: Sure. I think we all know that our society is becoming more and more unequal. The gap between rich and poor has been growing and growing to near-record levels. The question is: Why? The explanations we generally get are large forces like globalization and automation, or people look to the policies of the president and Congress. The point I make in this book is that the Supreme Court, which is an institution that we think of as the bastion of fairness, the advocate for the underdog, has actually been a major driver of inequality.
And there are two reasons to think that, two important reasons. The World Inequality Report 2018, which is an important report done by leading economists around the world, including Thomas Piketty, they looked at American inequality, economic inequality, and looked out what the drivers were. They found that there were two main drivers: educational inequality and our lack of a progressive tax system. As I explain in the book, both of these forces are directly attributable to decisions of the Supreme Court.
AMY GOODMAN: Adam, let’s start with the story of what happened under — in the Nixon era. Let’s go back 50 years and talk about who was on the Supreme Court and who got forced out.
ADAM COHEN: Sure. Fifty years ago, we had a very rare thing: We had a very liberal Supreme Court, the Warren Court. The Warren Court is known for Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, but also a series of progressive rulings, things like the Miranda case, where they said that you need to be told that you have the right to remain silent if you’re going to be questioned by police, cases like Gideon v. Wainwright, where the court held that any indigent person accused of a major crime is entitled to a lawyer. And the Warren Court was also standing up for poor people, welfare beneficiaries in particular. So, that was the court that was in place when Nixon is elected in 1968.
Nixon runs on a promise that he’s going to change the court and end the liberal Warren Court and replace it with something conservative. And he gets an amazing opportunity to do that, because Earl Warren has already said he’s stepping down. President Johnson bungled the replacement. He had an opportunity to replace Warren with another liberal, but he appointed or nominated Abe Fortas, who was already on the court, was an old buddy of his. It was a poor choice.
AMY GOODMAN: To be chief justice.
ADAM COHEN: To be chief justice, correctly, and to lead the court. It was poor choice politically, because although Johnson is known as the “master of the Senate” — he was supposed to be very good at counting votes in the Senate — he called this one wrong. There was a lot of opposition to Fortas for many reasons, ranging from Southern Democrats who didn’t like Fortas’s views on civil rights to some who opposed him because he would have been the first Jewish chief justice. But in any case, Fortas gets voted down. Nixon comes into office in 1969, gets to fill that critical position of chief justice with a conservative, Warren Burger. And then, in three years, he gets to appoint four justices and completely changed the direction of the court.
AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about what you think are the key areas where America has fundamentally changed. And, of course, this goes to parallels that we’re seeing right now with Trump’s Supreme Court.
ADAM COHEN: Sure. You know, my book begins with a couple of chapters on the poor, because it really is amazing to think of all the things that the Warren Court was doing for the poor. And, you know, they were advocating for and ruling for welfare recipients in major ways. There was a case called Goldberg v. Kelly. Unbelievable to think of it now, but the court ruled any time any government takes welfare benefits away from a family, they are entitled to a hearing to make sure that they are not entitled to welfare. That was a major, major constitutional right given to the poor.
This changes under the new Burger Court that Nixon created, and suddenly we get rulings against the poor. And one of the big rulings is a case called Dandridge v. Williams, where the court upheld Maryland’s cap on welfare for large families. So, Maryland basically said, if you have more kids after a certain point, you don’t get more welfare. There was a very strong claim that that was an equal protection violation, that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, which says the government has to treat everyone equally, is violated when you don’t give welfare to the last children in a larger family. The court not only rejects that claim, but they basically say, “We’re washing our hands of all welfare cases. You know, poor people, you’re on your own.”
And we’ve now seen, over the decades, that the court continually rules against the poor. And I can point to one recent example, which is the Affordable Care Act case of a few years ago, where the court was lauded for upholding Obamacare. Much less attention was given to the fact that at the same time, the court struck down Medicaid expansion on very dubious constitutional grounds and basically took Medicaid away from millions of poor people, who had gotten it given to them by Congress.
AMY GOODMAN: You talk about a particular person started out here, Ed Sparer, and the importance of the movement. And this goes to the issue of movements versus the power of the Supreme Court.
ADAM COHEN: Yes. There was in the '60s a very strong poor people's movement led by Ed Sparer, by George Wiley and other people, who were marching and demanding that welfare recipients be given more benefits, be treated differently. Ed Sparer was using the courts in very creative ways. And it really is sort of the end of the Ed Sparer dream. After that Dandridge case that I mentioned, Ed Sparer was quoted saying how sad it was, because it could have been a different America, he said, if the court had ruled for the welfare family in Dandridge. But in the end, the whole poverty law movement was stopped.
AMY GOODMAN: And this whole poverty law movement, talk about its connections to mass incarceration.
ADAM COHEN: Yes. So, one of the main things that they understood is that incarceration is not just a criminal issue, but an economic issue. And putting an adult in jail devastates not only their economic future, but that of their family. And there were very creative approaches being taken and arguments being made that the kind of intense punishment that the system metes out is not constitutional. The court rejected that.
And that was — a while later, there was a very important case out of California challenging their “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law, the Andrade case. And in Andrade, there was a — the defendant was a man who was 37 years old, father of three, military veteran. He had shoplifted about $150 of children’s videos. Under California’s “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law, he was sentenced to 50 years to life. That means for taking nine children’s videos, he was going to spend until the age of 87 behind bars. His lawyers made a very strong claim that’s a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and usual punishment, you know, to put someone away that long for such a minor crime. And the court rejected that 5 to 4. If they had come out differently on that, the Eighth Amendment could have become a tool for policing excessive punishments, and it could have been a major way in which we clamp down on mass incarceration. The Supreme Court didn’t allow it, though.
AMY GOODMAN: Compare it to the Allstate case.
ADAM COHEN: Yeah. So, what’s shocking is, within a month of that decision, the court had a different case. There was a corporation, Allstate Insurance, that had done something very terrible to one of their policy owners, involving fraud and mistreatment. The jury was so outraged, that it awarded $150 million in punitive damages. Sounds like a lot, but to a company the size of Allstate, which has like $50 billion in revenue a year, it barely would get their attention. Nevertheless, they went to the Supreme Court and said, “This $150 million punitive damage award against us is unconstitutional.” Guess what. The same court that was OK with the 50 years to life for an actual human being said $150 million against this corporation violates due process. And they ordered that be lowered to about $9 million. So that’s a major difference there.
AMY GOODMAN: So, corporations as people. We’re going to break and then come back to this discussion and talk about progressive taxation and also talk about education, what the Supreme Court has done to the educational system of this country. Adam Cohen is with us. He is the author of a new book called Supreme Inequality. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “Ain’t No Love in the Heart of the City” by Bobby “Blue” Bland. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. We’re spending the rest of the hour with Adam Cohen, author of a new book. It’s called Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court’s Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America. So, we were talking about welfare rights. We were talking about poverty. Let’s talk now about progressive taxation and what the Supreme Court did. I mean, again, most people think of presidents as the movers, Congress as the movers, movements as the movers. You’re really centering a lot of what you’re saying happened in America in the Supreme Court.
ADAM COHEN: That’s correct. And on the lack of progressive taxation, why don’t we have higher taxes on the wealthy? Well, every time they take a poll, voters overwhelmingly want higher taxes on the rich. And that’s, you know, across the ideological spectrum. But the people that don’t want it are large campaign contributors. And that is something that has undue influence on Congress because of the Supreme Court.
So, why is that? Because in 1976 there was a critical case called Buckley v. Valeo, long before Citizens United. For the first time, the Supreme Court said money is a speech. It didn’t have to say that. And, in fact, the lower federal court that heard the same case — and the case was a challenge to a very strong campaign finance law that Congress had passed in reaction to the Watergate scandal — the lower court said, “This is fine. It’s perfectly constitutional to limit contributions to candidates and expenditures.” The Supreme Court overturns that decision and says, “No, expenditure limits violate the First Amendment because money equals speech.” That equation of money and speech, first of all, I don’t believe and it makes no sense, but also that opened the floodgates to everything we’ve seen with Citizens United and other cases, allowing huge special interest money and corporate money to really control our politics.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about Lindsey Graham.
ADAM COHEN: Yeah. So, the influence of money on tax policy was made very clear at the end of 2017, when the Trump tax law was about to be voted on. There were some of those polls that I mentioned showing the voters did not like the idea of lowering taxes on the rich. But at the same time, we heard large campaign contributors be more outspoken than ever, talking to the press and saying, “Unless we get our taxes lowered, we’re going to stop contributing money to Republicans.” Lindsey Graham actually made a statement to his colleagues and said, “Our contributions will dry up, and a lot of our Republican incumbents will not win reelection, unless we lower taxes on the rich.” And again, that’s the Supreme Court talking.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to President Barack Obama responding to the Citizens United, that controversial 2010 Supreme Court ruling that opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending on election campaigns.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists, in a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence. This ruling strikes at our democracy itself. By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned more than a century of law.
AMY GOODMAN: Adam Cohen, your response?
ADAM COHEN: Well, he’s exactly right. It was a radical move and really the step between saying money is speech for individuals and saying it’s true for corporations. The idea that corporations have a right to participate in our elections is a radical one, and it’s definitely changing our politics.
AMY GOODMAN: I don’t want to end this without talking about education in America, the role of the Supreme Court in unequal education.
ADAM COHEN: Yes. It’s one of the most tragic parts of the story. In the late ’60s and early ’70s, there was a very strong movement to try to create more equal public schools around the country. One important part of that was the campaign finance movement. And the idea was that all schools in rich and poor districts in a state should be funded equally. And law professors and courts were beginning to say the Equal Protection Clause, which requires government to treat all of its citizens, everyone equally, means that they have to fund rich and poor school districts equally. There were a lot of rulings that were beginning to say that.
In Texas, a group of parents and children in San Antonio, who the children attended one of the poorest, heavily Mexican-American school districts, they saw how bad their schools were compared to the largely white schools down the road. Students actually walked out in protest. The parents filed this lawsuit saying that the poor level of funding of their school violates equal protection. They win in the federal court in Texas. Goes up to the Supreme Court, and it’s reversed 5 to 4. The court says, “No, giving more money to rich districts than to poor districts is perfectly constitutional.”
And then, a year later, another very tragic case, where in Detroit the NAACP was representing black schoolchildren in the city who wanted an integrated education. The judge in Detroit rightly found there was no way to integrate the schools if you just included Detroit. There weren’t enough white students. He ordered a metropolitan-area remedy, which meant that you would bus people across district lines, urban and suburban, to make sure that everyone attended an integrated school. He came up with a great plan. All the schools in the Detroit area would have been 70% white, 30% black, reflecting the racial mix of the metropolitan area. And the Supreme Court reversed that, too. If those two decisions had not been reversed by the Supreme Court, we would have very different public schools for the last 50 years, and, I think, a very different country.
AMY GOODMAN: So, as we move forward now, what do you see happening to the Supreme Court? And are you looking particularly at any cases? I mean, the most recent case is the Supreme Court considering this Louisiana abortion case, which could lead to, I mean, perhaps one clinic in all of Louisiana, if Louisiana is lucky.
ADAM COHEN: Yeah. We’re at a turning point for a lot of things. For abortion rights, Justice Kennedy, who left the court, replaced by Kavanaugh, was one of the moderating forces on abortion. We don’t know what five justices, the majority of the Supreme Court, will do now on abortion. We don’t know what they’ll do on affirmative action. Chief Justice Roberts has been very outspoken about opposing all racial remedies. The Supreme Court could actually strike down affirmative action broadly.
And as bad as things are on the current court, it President Trump gets a second term, is able to replace one more liberal justice — perhaps Justice Ginsburg — there’s no telling how far they could go. There is a right-wing movement that says that, basically, all of the large social programs that were created during the New Deal, the social safety net, is unconstitutional, that it exceeds the power of Congress. We could see a radical conservative Supreme Court in a few years actually striking down things like the federal minimum wage.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to leave it there. I want to thank you so much, Adam. Adam Cohen is author of Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court’s Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America.
That does it for our broadcast. Democracy Now! has a number of positions open here at our New York studios, in our newsroom, in our outreach and development teams. Information and application deadlines at democracynow.org.


democracynow--2020-03-06--Progressives Urge Elizabeth Warren to Rally Behind Bernie Sanders After She Drops Out of 2020 Race

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : Senator Elizabeth Warren has suspended her bid for the presidency , leaving the 2020 Democratic presidential race down to two older white men : former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders .
Warren broke the news in a call with her campaign staff Thursday , then made her announcement to reporters outside her home in Cambridge , Massachusetts .
AMY GOODMAN : Senator Warren ’ s decision to end her campaign comes after she failed to perform as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and on Super Tuesday , including placing third in her home state of Massachusetts .
Warren gave no indication whether she ’ ll endorse either of her former rivals , Sanders or Biden .
AMY GOODMAN : Supporters of Senator Sanders say they hope Warren will throw her support behind their candidate in order to form a united “ progressive front ” and take on powerful corporate forces now lined up behind Biden .
Terminally ill healthcare rights activist Ady Barkan , who had previously endorsed Senator Warren , announced Thursday he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Medicare for All and tweeted , “ @ BernieSanders has done more than anyone else to build the movement for # MedicareForAll .
He has reshaped American politics .
Reshaped what we think is possible .
Reshaped how we dare to dream .
But , of course , it ’ s not about him .
It ’ s about us .
And I ’ m all in , ” Ady Barkan said .
Senator Warren ’ s departure from the presidential race means there are no major candidates left who are women @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to qualify for any recent debates and won just two delegates on Super Tuesday , but she told The Hill she has no plans to drop out .
AMY GOODMAN : This comes as Sanders and Biden are fiercely competing for votes in half a dozen states in upcoming primaries : Michigan , Washington , Missouri on March 10th ; a week later , Arizona , Florida , Illinois and Ohio .
For more now , we go to Raquel Willis , journalist and activist , former executive editor of Out magazine .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s joined us previously to talk about .
And in Berkeley , California , we ’ re joined by Norman Solomon , co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org , which is supporting Bernie Sanders .
His latest column for Common Dreams headlined “ A Profound and Historic Question for Elizabeth Warren : Which Side Are You On ?
” We want to welcome you both to Democracy Now !
Raquel Willis , let ’ s go first to you .
You ’ re a major supporter of Senator Warren .
She has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her run and her withdrawal ?
RAQUEL WILLIS : Absolutely .
I think that Senator Warren had a great run .
I think that all of us who supported her , not to speak for other folks , but just from what our conversations have been about , it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to support a once-in-a-lifetime candidate , and that we stick behind everything we did .
We have no regrets about supporting her , her policies and her vision and her outreach .
I think she did a phenomenal job , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought leaders of marginalized communities .
But it ’ s definitely very sobering , very disheartening , but after Super Tuesday , I don ’ t think that it came as a surprise at all to many of us .
AMY GOODMAN : I want to go back to Senator Warren ’ s press conference Wednesday , where she addressed the issue of sexism .
AMY GOODMAN : Raquel Willis , if you can respond to Senator Warren on sexism ?
RAQUEL WILLIS : Yeah , I mean , I definitely understand that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t kind of think about or want to think about and confront how sexism plays a part in everything that we do .
I mean , the patriarchy is everywhere .
And so , I have to be clear .
I think what Senator Warren , all things being equal with male candidates , with her liabilities , because every candidate has liability , I think she would have had a different run if she had a different gender experience .
And so , we have to continue to confront those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is about political education that needs to happen on the ground about all of these systems of oppression , so people understand what implicit bias really is , how that played a part in who determined who was electable and who was not in this race .
At the end of the day , I will always feel like and know in my heart that Senator Warren was the most capable , most effective and most impactful candidate in this race .
AMY GOODMAN : Raquel Willis , what about her decision @ @ @ @ @ @ @ throw her support to either Biden or Sanders ?
And I want to also ask where you ’ re headed in terms of your support .
RAQUEL WILLIS : Yeah .
So , I respect her decision not to make a formal endorsement just yet .
I think that there ’ s so much volatility right now .
And when I think about the base and the folks that I know , there are people more like me , who supported her , who were more progressive .
There are people who would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pragmatic approach to progressive policies and ideals .
And so , I think that — you know , I don ’ t think that an endorsement would necessarily go the way that many Bernie supporters think that it would go .
I don ’ t think that that shakeout would happen exactly the way that they think it would .
I also think that she has to consider what her best chance at being impactful in politics and being impactful in this race is , and maybe that means not weighing in until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little bit closer down the road and see what can happen .
As well , let ’ s be clear , you know , I think that , yes , we say it ’ s neck and neck between Bernie and Biden , and that ’ s great , but there are a lot of things that I think the Sanders campaign is reckoning with and they need to get a grip on .
Particularly for me , I ’ m very concerned about the approach to black voters , particularly in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came out yesterday that Sanders was forgoing a stop in Mississippi to go to Michigan .
And I think that that has really concerned a lot of folks who were hoping that there would be a better push towards black Southern voters and black voters in general .
And so that concerns me .
So , I get it .
I understand why she hasn ’ t endorsed .
I think , for me , it ’ s , at the end of the day , always about values and policies .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the vision , the most progressive vision that I would like to see in the world and many of the folks that I am in community with , that vision is — you know , if we can ’ t have Warren , then I think it is time to rally around the policies and the vision that Bernie is putting forward .
AMY GOODMAN : I want to turn to Norm Solomon right now .
Norm , you just wrote a piece .
You ’ re national coordinator of RootsAction.org , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your piece is about pushing Senator Sanders to support Bernie Sanders — Senator Warren to support Bernie Sanders .
You ’ re saying , “ A Profound and Historic Question for Elizabeth Warren : Which Side Are You On ?
” NORMAN SOLOMON : Yeah , you can ’ t really be neutral at a time when profound historic moments are upon us .
Of course , we should praise Elizabeth Warren .
I heard her speak many times on the campaign trail , including last Monday night in Los Angeles .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the need to challenge institutionalized corruption .
Right now I can ’ t think of a more incarnated candidate to personify patriarchy than Joe Biden .
And women across this country are suffering because of the economic policies that he has pursued in the Senate and then under the Obama administration to bring in Wall Street in terms of policymaking and failing to challenge the poverty and near poverty that so many families are suffering under .
And if you look at foreign policy , we should know , if we don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children bear the brunt of endless war , that Joe Biden has supported for now just about 20 years .
So , you know , we ’ re in a place where there is a challenge to have finger to the wind or , on the other hand , to really stand for the kind of progressive values that often Elizabeth Warren articulated and that are fully embodied in the Bernie Sanders campaign .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to go right now to Senator Sanders being interviewed by MSNBC ’ s Rachel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s too early to discuss whether Warren could serve as his running mate .
AMY GOODMAN : Sanders also responded to attacks some of his supporters have made on Warren on Twitter , like calling her a snake .
AMY GOODMAN : Rachel Maddow also interviewed Senator Elizabeth Warren last night , and Warren said that the ugliness she saw online from Bernie Sanders supporters related to online abuse broadly in American political discourse .
AMY GOODMAN : So that ’ s Senator Warren .
Norm Solomon , if you could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is a political phenomenon that ’ s often racist and sexist .
We should condemn it .
We should fight against it .
Nina Turner , as co-chair of the Bernie Sanders campaign , has been subjected , online and elsewhere , to vicious attacks that are racist , that are sexist .
Let ’ s face it , MSNBC and CNN , huge and powerful cable networks , have been engaged in all sorts of slander and innuendo and sometimes smears against Bernie Sanders .
And for Rachel Maddow and MSNBC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as though this is only coming from one direction and toward one direction is of a piece of a pattern of bias against Bernie Sanders that shouldn ’ t be a surprise , but should outrage us .
These are corporate-owned entities .
MSNBC is owned by Comcast , a very anti-labor , anti-consumer huge corporation .
They don ’ t want Bernie Sanders to be president .
He would tax their profits .
He would challenge the prerogatives of the wealthy to determine the policies of the U.S. government .
And overall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corporate media have been on a assault against Bernie Sanders .
We ’ ve gone through several phases .
A year ago he was old news .
Other candidates were saying the same things .
Then , when he stuck with Medicare for All , which is an affirmation of the human rights of all people , then he was portrayed as an extremist or too radical , out of step .
Then we were told he had no chance to win the nomination .
Then , after New Hampshire and especially Nevada @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mud was flying from corporate media .
To pretend that , therefore , progressives should stay neutral until the convention , I just don ’ t understand that .
We have Elizabeth Warren saying now that she ’ s going to stay in the fight .
Is the fight for Medicare for All ?
Is the fight against corporate power ?
If that fight is to affirm the human rights of all human beings , how can she stay neutral ?
This is very disturbing to me , because every day goes by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders and go out and campaign for him is a de facto assistance to corporate power , to corporate America and Joe Biden .
And I don ’ t think we should pretend anything else .
AMY GOODMAN : Raquel Willis , if you ’ d like to respond ?
RAQUEL WILLIS : I definitely would .
You know , it ’ s so interesting to hear Norm talk about the patriarchy and who embodies the patriarchy .
Let ’ s be clear : Both of these candidates , Biden and Bernie , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when we ’ re having this discussion about how that impacts our world , how policies play out , let ’ s be clear .
Even though we may have a lot of support around Bernie ’ s values , he ’ s still an embodiment of the patriarchy .
And I think , for a lot of Warren supporters — and , you know , I ’ ll speak for myself — what is concerning is that out of the two candidates left , we ’ re still going to have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is barely empathetic , barely showcasing vulnerability .
And so that ’ s going to be difficult at the end of the day , regardless of who you support .
I think the other piece of this is that we can ’ t blame Elizabeth Warren for any pitfalls for Bernie anymore .
That has to end .
She ’ s been blamed , even before she dropped out of the race , for any pitfalls that many of the supporters felt like the Bernie Sanders campaign had .
And we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s also an element of the patriarchy .
And then , the last thing I ’ ll say is that , you know , it bothers me to hear people who are not black women , people who are not women , using our voices and our stories to deflect about the very real issues of harassment that have come from the Sanders supporters .
As a black woman , a black trans woman , who was very vocal in the 2016 election online , I was among many black women who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Sanders side of the Democratic Party .
And that has not changed .
It really has not .
And I think a part of that is that you can ’ t just really rely on a few token black women ’ s voices .
You ’ ve got to actually reach out and talk with us .
So , when Warren dropped out yesterday , I think about all of the black women , all of the women of color , all of the marginalized people who were supporting her , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Sanders campaign reaching out to us , saying , “ Hey , we know that this might be a hard time for you , but we ’ d love to be in conversation with you , bring you over to our side.
” That ’ s the work .
And if the Sanders camp is not going to do that work , we are not going to see the win that we want to see moving forward in this election .
NORMAN SOLOMON : Yeah , I don ’ t think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support that he has from younger African Americans if , for years , Sanders and his campaign and his supporters haven ’ t reached out to those folks .
I think to call Nina Turner a token is really inappropriate .
We have not only African Americans , especially those who are young , under 40 or so , but Latinos , as well , who have flocked to and overwhelmingly supported Bernie Sanders .
And on Sunday night in Los Angeles , among 20,000 other people , I saw that half of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ folks were African Americans .
Patriarchy is not only a gender .
It is a system .
It is a way of devaluing people because they don ’ t have money and they don ’ t have power and they don ’ t dominate .
And I think if we ’ re going to move the conversation forward , we need to find the common ground .
And this is part of my disappointment as we speak , that the common ground between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders is profound , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two candidates is also profound , and meanwhile , we have what Dr. King called the madness of militarism , which is embodied by Joe Biden , and who is challenging that ?
Who is challenging the reality that the military-industrial complex is stealing food and medicine and healthcare from , yes , women , yes , children , yes , the elderly .
That is theft .
That is patriarchy .
That is systemic human rights violations .
Bernie Sanders is challenging those violations , and we should support him .
AMY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not make an endorsement as she was dropping out yesterday , but she did tell Rachel Maddow she thought Michael Bloomberg was the riskiest Democratic primary candidate and the least likely to defeat Donald Trump and that she purposely tanked him during the debates .
AMY GOODMAN : So , that ’ s Senator Warren talking about Bloomberg .
Raquel Willis , your final words ?
And again , your endorsement now ?
RAQUEL WILLIS : Absolutely .
So , again , I say I am voting for values , voting for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , voting for values and policies that were put forth by Warren .
And we can ’ t forget her impact .
The last thing I will say is , we have to have a real conversation about these systems of oppression , about the patriarchy .
And so , I don ’ t appreciate this idea that the patriarchy and white supremacy do not exist on the left side .
That is something that we also have to work through .
And so , that ’ s what I ’ m looking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this support of Bernie Sanders .
AMY GOODMAN : I want to thank you both for being with us , Raquel Willis , journalist and activist ; Norm Solomon of RootsAction .
His latest column , we ’ ll link to , at Common Dreams , “ A Profound and Historic Question for Elizabeth Warren : Which Side Are You On ?
” This is Democracy Now !
When we come back , Supreme Inequality : The Supreme Court ’ s Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: Senator Elizabeth Warren has suspended her bid for the presidency, leaving the 2020 Democratic presidential race down to two older white men: former Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders. Warren broke the news in a call with her campaign staff Thursday, then made her announcement to reporters outside her home in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: So, I announced this morning that I am suspending my campaign for president. I say this with a deep sense of gratitude for every single person who got in this fight, every single person who tried on a new idea, every single person who just moved a little in their notion of what a president of the United States should look like. I will not be running for president in 2020, but I guarantee I will stay in the fight for the hard-working folks across this country who have gotten the short end of the stick over and over. That’s been the fight of my life, and it will continue to be so. …
I was told at the beginning of this whole undertaking that there are two lanes — a progressive lane that Bernie Sanders is the incumbent for and a moderate lane that Joe Biden is the incumbent for — and there’s no room for anyone else in this. I thought that wasn’t right. But evidently I was wrong.
AMY GOODMAN: Senator Warren’s decision to end her campaign comes after she failed to perform as well as she had hoped in early primary states and on Super Tuesday, including placing third in her home state of Massachusetts. Warren gave no indication whether she’ll endorse either of her former rivals, Sanders or Biden.
REPORTER: Will you be making an endorsement today? We know that you spoke with both Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders yesterday.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: Not today. Not today. I need some space around this and want to take a little time to think a little more. I’ve been spending a lot of time right now on the question of suspending and also making sure that this works as best we can for our staff, for our team, for our volunteers.
AMY GOODMAN: Supporters of Senator Sanders say they hope Warren will throw her support behind their candidate in order to form a united “progressive front” and take on powerful corporate forces now lined up behind Biden. Terminally ill healthcare rights activist Ady Barkan, who had previously endorsed Senator Warren, announced Thursday he’s now backing Sanders. Barkan supports for Medicare for All and tweeted, “@BernieSanders has done more than anyone else to build the movement for #MedicareForAll. He has reshaped American politics. Reshaped what we think is possible. Reshaped how we dare to dream. But, of course, it’s not about him. It’s about us. And I’m all in,” Ady Barkan said.
Senator Warren’s departure from the presidential race means there are no major candidates left who are women. Hawaii Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has failed to qualify for any recent debates and won just two delegates on Super Tuesday, but she told The Hill she has no plans to drop out.
REP. TULSI GABBARD: Everywhere we go, we’re continuing to draw large numbers of people who are really hungry for the truth, for strong leadership and a candidate that’s raising the issue that I am about the need for a commander-in-chief who will have the courage to bring about a sea change in our foreign policy and these wasteful regime change wars, new Cold War, nuclear arms race, all of which are not making us any safer, and actually get our priorities straight.
AMY GOODMAN: This comes as Sanders and Biden are fiercely competing for votes in half a dozen states in upcoming primaries: Michigan, Washington, Missouri on March 10th; a week later, Arizona, Florida, Illinois and Ohio.
For more now, we go to Raquel Willis, journalist and activist, former executive editor of Out magazine. She endorsed Elizabeth Warren, as she’s joined us previously to talk about. And in Berkeley, California, we’re joined by Norman Solomon, co-founder and national coordinator of RootsAction.org, which is supporting Bernie Sanders. His latest column for Common Dreams headlined “A Profound and Historic Question for Elizabeth Warren: Which Side Are You On?”
We want to welcome you both to Democracy Now! Raquel Willis, let’s go first to you. You’re a major supporter of Senator Warren. She has just dropped out. Your thoughts on her run and her withdrawal?
RAQUEL WILLIS: Absolutely. I think that Senator Warren had a great run. I think that all of us who supported her, not to speak for other folks, but just from what our conversations have been about, it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to support a once-in-a-lifetime candidate, and that we stick behind everything we did. We have no regrets about supporting her, her policies and her vision and her outreach. I think she did a phenomenal job, as well, with outreach to particularly thought leaders of marginalized communities. But it’s definitely very sobering, very disheartening, but after Super Tuesday, I don’t think that it came as a surprise at all to many of us.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go back to Senator Warren’s press conference Wednesday, where she addressed the issue of sexism.
REPORTER: And I wonder what your message would be to the women and girls who feel like we’re left with two white men to decide between?
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: I know. One of the hardest parts of this is all those pinkie promises and all those little girls who are going to have to wait four more years. That’s going to be hard. … Gender in this race, you know, that is the trap question for every woman. If you say, “Yeah, there was sexism in this race,” everyone says, “Whiner!” And if you say, “No, there was no sexism,” about a bazillion women think, “What planet do you live on?” I promise you this: I will have a lot more to say on that subject later on.
AMY GOODMAN: Raquel Willis, if you can respond to Senator Warren on sexism?
RAQUEL WILLIS: Yeah, I mean, I definitely understand that for a lot of people, they don’t kind of think about or want to think about and confront how sexism plays a part in everything that we do. I mean, the patriarchy is everywhere. And so, I have to be clear. I think what Senator Warren, all things being equal with male candidates, with her liabilities, because every candidate has liability, I think she would have had a different run if she had a different gender experience. And so, we have to continue to confront those issues. I think a lot of it is about political education that needs to happen on the ground about all of these systems of oppression, so people understand what implicit bias really is, how that played a part in who determined who was electable and who was not in this race. At the end of the day, I will always feel like and know in my heart that Senator Warren was the most capable, most effective and most impactful candidate in this race.
AMY GOODMAN: Raquel Willis, what about her decision, at least yesterday, not to throw her support to either Biden or Sanders? And I want to also ask where you’re headed in terms of your support.
RAQUEL WILLIS: Yeah. So, I respect her decision not to make a formal endorsement just yet. I think that there’s so much volatility right now. And when I think about the base and the folks that I know, there are people more like me, who supported her, who were more progressive. There are people who would be considered more moderate but appreciated her pragmatic approach to progressive policies and ideals. And so, I think that — you know, I don’t think that an endorsement would necessarily go the way that many Bernie supporters think that it would go. I don’t think that that shakeout would happen exactly the way that they think it would. I also think that she has to consider what her best chance at being impactful in politics and being impactful in this race is, and maybe that means not weighing in until the convention, until we get a little bit closer down the road and see what can happen.
As well, let’s be clear, you know, I think that, yes, we say it’s neck and neck between Bernie and Biden, and that’s great, but there are a lot of things that I think the Sanders campaign is reckoning with and they need to get a grip on. Particularly for me, I’m very concerned about the approach to black voters, particularly in the South. You know, the news came out yesterday that Sanders was forgoing a stop in Mississippi to go to Michigan. And I think that that has really concerned a lot of folks who were hoping that there would be a better push towards black Southern voters and black voters in general. And so that concerns me.
So, I get it. I understand why she hasn’t endorsed. I think, for me, it’s, at the end of the day, always about values and policies. And so, if we’re thinking about the vision, the most progressive vision that I would like to see in the world and many of the folks that I am in community with, that vision is — you know, if we can’t have Warren, then I think it is time to rally around the policies and the vision that Bernie is putting forward.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to turn to Norm Solomon right now. Norm, you just wrote a piece. You’re national coordinator of RootsAction.org, which is supporting Bernie Sanders. And your piece is about pushing Senator Sanders to support Bernie Sanders — Senator Warren to support Bernie Sanders. You’re saying, “A Profound and Historic Question for Elizabeth Warren: Which Side Are You On?”
NORMAN SOLOMON: Yeah, you can’t really be neutral at a time when profound historic moments are upon us. Of course, we should praise Elizabeth Warren. I heard her speak many times on the campaign trail, including last Monday night in Los Angeles. She articulated very profound messages about corporate power and the need to challenge institutionalized corruption.
Right now I can’t think of a more incarnated candidate to personify patriarchy than Joe Biden. And women across this country are suffering because of the economic policies that he has pursued in the Senate and then under the Obama administration to bring in Wall Street in terms of policymaking and failing to challenge the poverty and near poverty that so many families are suffering under. And if you look at foreign policy, we should know, if we don’t know, that women and children bear the brunt of endless war, that Joe Biden has supported for now just about 20 years.
So, you know, we’re in a place where there is a challenge to have finger to the wind or, on the other hand, to really stand for the kind of progressive values that often Elizabeth Warren articulated and that are fully embodied in the Bernie Sanders campaign.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go right now to Senator Sanders being interviewed by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Wednesday. [He] said it’s too early to discuss whether Warren could serve as his running mate.
RACHEL MADDOW: Would you consider asking Senator Warren to be your running mate?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: It’s too early to talk about that, but certainly I have a lot of respect for Senator Warren and would love to sit down and talk to her about what kind of role she can play in our administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Sanders also responded to attacks some of his supporters have made on Warren on Twitter, like calling her a snake.
RACHEL MADDOW: I wonder if that sort of vitriol toward her has hurt the prospects of you two working together from here on out?
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: I talked to her. It was a very cordial discussion. I am absolutely aghast and disgusted with any kind of vitriol online. And by the way, Rachel, if you think that doesn’t come in to our campaign, talk to Senator Nina Turner —
RACHEL MADDOW: I’m not talking about incoming. I’m talking about outgoing, to her.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Yeah, no, I know, and I condemn that. You know, it’s ugly stuff. What we want our supporters to be doing is talking about the issues.
AMY GOODMAN: Rachel Maddow also interviewed Senator Elizabeth Warren last night, and Warren said that the ugliness she saw online from Bernie Sanders supporters related to online abuse broadly in American political discourse.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: It’s not just about me. I think there’s a real problem with this online bullying and sort of organized nastiness. And I’m not just talking about, ooh, said mean things; I’m talking about some really ugly stuff that went on.
AMY GOODMAN: So that’s Senator Warren. Norm Solomon, if you could respond?
NORMAN SOLOMON: Yeah, this is a political phenomenon that’s often racist and sexist. We should condemn it. We should fight against it. Nina Turner, as co-chair of the Bernie Sanders campaign, has been subjected, online and elsewhere, to vicious attacks that are racist, that are sexist.
Let’s face it, MSNBC and CNN, huge and powerful cable networks, have been engaged in all sorts of slander and innuendo and sometimes smears against Bernie Sanders. And for Rachel Maddow and MSNBC and other networks and media to act as though this is only coming from one direction and toward one direction is of a piece of a pattern of bias against Bernie Sanders that shouldn’t be a surprise, but should outrage us. These are corporate-owned entities. MSNBC is owned by Comcast, a very anti-labor, anti-consumer huge corporation. They don’t want Bernie Sanders to be president. He would tax their profits. He would challenge the prerogatives of the wealthy to determine the policies of the U.S. government.
And overall, I think we should note that corporate media have been on a assault against Bernie Sanders. We’ve gone through several phases. A year ago he was old news. Other candidates were saying the same things. Then, when he stuck with Medicare for All, which is an affirmation of the human rights of all people, then he was portrayed as an extremist or too radical, out of step. Then we were told he had no chance to win the nomination. Then, after New Hampshire and especially Nevada, he was being trashed. The mud was flying from corporate media.
To pretend that, therefore, progressives should stay neutral until the convention, I just don’t understand that. We have Elizabeth Warren saying now that she’s going to stay in the fight. Is the fight for Medicare for All? Is the fight against corporate power? If that fight is to affirm the human rights of all human beings, how can she stay neutral? This is very disturbing to me, because every day goes by and Elizabeth Warren fails to endorse Bernie Sanders and go out and campaign for him is a de facto assistance to corporate power, to corporate America and Joe Biden. And I don’t think we should pretend anything else.
AMY GOODMAN: Raquel Willis, if you’d like to respond?
RAQUEL WILLIS: I definitely would. You know, it’s so interesting to hear Norm talk about the patriarchy and who embodies the patriarchy. Let’s be clear: Both of these candidates, Biden and Bernie, embody the patriarchy. And so, when we’re having this discussion about how that impacts our world, how policies play out, let’s be clear. Even though we may have a lot of support around Bernie’s values, he’s still an embodiment of the patriarchy. And I think, for a lot of Warren supporters — and, you know, I’ll speak for myself — what is concerning is that out of the two candidates left, we’re still going to have to choose a similar version of leadership that is barely empathetic, barely showcasing vulnerability. And so that’s going to be difficult at the end of the day, regardless of who you support.
I think the other piece of this is that we can’t blame Elizabeth Warren for any pitfalls for Bernie anymore. That has to end. She’s been blamed, even before she dropped out of the race, for any pitfalls that many of the supporters felt like the Bernie Sanders campaign had. And we’ve got to let that go. That’s also an element of the patriarchy.
And then, the last thing I’ll say is that, you know, it bothers me to hear people who are not black women, people who are not women, using our voices and our stories to deflect about the very real issues of harassment that have come from the Sanders supporters. As a black woman, a black trans woman, who was very vocal in the 2016 election online, I was among many black women who were talking about the harassment issue on the Sanders side of the Democratic Party. And that has not changed. It really has not. And I think a part of that is that you can’t just really rely on a few token black women’s voices. You’ve got to actually reach out and talk with us. So, when Warren dropped out yesterday, I think about all of the black women, all of the women of color, all of the marginalized people who were supporting her, who did not get a word from anyone in the Sanders campaign reaching out to us, saying, “Hey, we know that this might be a hard time for you, but we’d love to be in conversation with you, bring you over to our side.” That’s the work. And if the Sanders camp is not going to do that work, we are not going to see the win that we want to see moving forward in this election.
AMY GOODMAN: Norman Solomon?
NORMAN SOLOMON: Yeah, I don’t think that Bernie Sanders would have the overwhelming support that he has from younger African Americans if, for years, Sanders and his campaign and his supporters haven’t reached out to those folks. I think to call Nina Turner a token is really inappropriate. We have not only African Americans, especially those who are young, under 40 or so, but Latinos, as well, who have flocked to and overwhelmingly supported Bernie Sanders. And on Sunday night in Los Angeles, among 20,000 other people, I saw that half of the audience was Latinos, and many folks were African Americans.
Patriarchy is not only a gender. It is a system. It is a way of devaluing people because they don’t have money and they don’t have power and they don’t dominate. And I think if we’re going to move the conversation forward, we need to find the common ground. And this is part of my disappointment as we speak, that the common ground between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders is profound, and the common ground between the supporters of those two candidates is also profound, and meanwhile, we have what Dr. King called the madness of militarism, which is embodied by Joe Biden, and who is challenging that? Who is challenging the reality that the military-industrial complex is stealing food and medicine and healthcare from, yes, women, yes, children, yes, the elderly. That is theft. That is patriarchy. That is systemic human rights violations. Bernie Sanders is challenging those violations, and we should support him.
AMY GOODMAN: You know, Senator Warren did not make an endorsement as she was dropping out yesterday, but she did tell Rachel Maddow she thought Michael Bloomberg was the riskiest Democratic primary candidate and the least likely to defeat Donald Trump and that she purposely tanked him during the debates.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN: In my view, he was absolutely the riskiest candidate for Democrats on that stage. And let me tell you part of the reason why. All of those things in his history mean that he could never launch any of those attacks against Donald Trump. Think about the things we are going to need to talk about — hiding your taxes, history with women, embracing racist policies, when you’re in charge, helping bazillionaires and leaving everybody else behind. Shoot, he wouldn’t even be able to launch the autocrat argument against him.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Senator Warren talking about Bloomberg. Raquel Willis, your final words? And again, your endorsement now?
RAQUEL WILLIS: Absolutely. So, again, I say I am voting for values, voting for — voting for Bernie, you know, voting for values and policies that were put forth by Warren. And we can’t forget her impact.
The last thing I will say is, we have to have a real conversation about these systems of oppression, about the patriarchy. And so, I don’t appreciate this idea that the patriarchy and white supremacy do not exist on the left side. That is something that we also have to work through. And so, that’s what I’m looking forward to, moving forward, with this support of Bernie Sanders.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you both for being with us, Raquel Willis, journalist and activist; Norm Solomon of RootsAction. His latest column, we’ll link to, at Common Dreams, “A Profound and Historic Question for Elizabeth Warren: Which Side Are You On?”
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court’s Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-03-06--Headlines for March  6, 2020

Headlines for March  6, 2020

Across the United States , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed at least 227 novel coronavirus cases — though health officials say the true number is likely far higher due to a severe shortage of test kits in the U.S. Maryland declared a state of emergency Thursday after three Montgomery County residents became infected .
There are also states of emergency in effect in California and Washington , where a 12th U.S. death was reported in King County on Thursday .
Public health officials have recommended more than 2 million people in and around Seattle work from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ came despite President Trump ’ s remarks on Fox News Wednesday night , when he seemed to dismiss the idea that people who are feeling ill should stay out of the workplace .
President Donald Trump : “ If , you know , we have thousands or hundreds of thousands of people that get better just by , you know , sitting around and even going to work — some of them go to work , but they get better.
” After the president ’ s comments sparked alarm among public health officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writing , “ I NEVER said people that are feeling sick should go to work .
This is just more Fake News and disinformation put out by the Democrats.
” This morning the White House canceled Trump ’ s planned trip to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta .
No reason for the cancellation was given .
Trump is expected to sign an $ 8.3 billion coronavirus spending bill approved by the Senate yesterday .

Across the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed at least 227 novel coronavirus cases — though health officials say the true number is likely far higher due to a severe shortage of test kits in the U.S. Maryland declared a state of emergency Thursday after three Montgomery County residents became infected. There are also states of emergency in effect in California and Washington, where a 12th U.S. death was reported in King County on Thursday. Public health officials have recommended more than 2 million people in and around Seattle work from home, if possible.
The advice came despite President Trump’s remarks on Fox News Wednesday night, when he seemed to dismiss the idea that people who are feeling ill should stay out of the workplace.
President Donald Trump: “If, you know, we have thousands or hundreds of thousands of people that get better just by, you know, sitting around and even going to work — some of them go to work, but they get better.”
After the president’s comments sparked alarm among public health officials, Trump lashed out on Twitter, writing, “I NEVER said people that are feeling sick should go to work. This is just more Fake News and disinformation put out by the Democrats.”
This morning the White House canceled Trump’s planned trip to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. No reason for the cancellation was given. Trump is expected to sign an $8.3 billion coronavirus spending bill approved by the Senate yesterday.