Start your day with National Memo Newsletter
Know first.
The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning
Photo by Eduardo Munoz/REUTERS
Former President Donald Trump and his allies often make their belief that the legal troubles he faces are all politically motivated.
In February, CBS News reported, "Polls show his supporters agree, with 66 percent of Republicans believing the legal cases against him have been handled unfairly. In contrast, 70 percent of Democrats feel Trump is being treated fairly."
In a Sunday, April 28 analysis, CNN senior political data reporter Harry Enten insists that based on current polling, the ex-president's legal issues aren't serving him well at all.
"Trump’s success might make you believe that he has turned the conventional wisdom on its head – that somehow, his legal troubles are helping him politically," Enten writes.
"And while that may have been true in the primary, the general election is a different ballgame," he continues, "There isn’t much of a sign that Trump’s legal woes are helping him among the wider electorate, even if they aren’t hurting him necessarily."
Enten reports President Joe "Biden has, if anything, been the one who has picked up ground over the last few months, as both men have clinched their respective parties’ nominations." The CNN reporter notes the president "was behind by about two points on average during the height of the Republican primary a few months ago."
Enten reports:
Take, for example, the New York hush money case. It’s clear from the data that most Americans don’t think Trump did something illegal. Just 33% of Americans do, according to the latest CNN/SSRS poll. Likewise, most Americans don’t think that if the charges were true that they would be disqualifying for the presidency.
In addition to that 33% who think Trump did something illegal, there’s another 33% who think he did something unethical, but not illegal, as it relates to his actions in the New York case. That’s two-thirds of the public who believe he did something wrong.
He emphasizes, "In fact, the people who are paying closer attention to Trump’s criminal cases are more likely to favor Biden than those who aren’t, according to polling from the Times."
Reprinted with permission from Alternet.
From Your Site Articles
- Trump: It's My Free Speech Right To Inspire Violent Threats Against Court Clerk ›
- In New York Criminal Trial, Trump Attacks Judge Merchan -- And His Daughter ›
- Melania Irked By Hush-Money Trial and Trump's Birthday 'Celebration' ›
- Trump Infuriated By Reports He Fell Asleep In Court ›
- Star Witness Cohen Predicts 'Surprises' In Trump Hush Money Trial ›
Keep reading...Show less
Public parks belong to the public, right? A billionaire can't cordon off an acre of Golden Gate Park for his private party. But can a poor person — or anyone who claims they can't afford a home — take over public spaces where children play and families experience nature?
That is the question now before the Supreme Court case, Grants Pass v. Johnson. Before going into particulars, note that both Republican and Democratic politicians think the answer should be "no." That leaves activists who support the right of "the homeless" to take over public property. They want a "yes."
The case is a challenge to a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco, that cities cannot evict "homeless" campers if there are more of them than the local shelters can accommodate. It stems from an ordinance issued by Grants Pass, Oregon, that strictly limits the opportunity to erect a home on public spaces. It forbids even wrapping oneself in a blanket while sitting or lying in public.
A conservative Ninth Circuit judge, Daniel Bress, issued an angry response to the ruling that, critics say, has actually encouraged the sprawling tent encampments tormenting the nine Western states in the court's jurisdiction. It's been noted that in the four years since the decision, homelessness in the states the Ninth Circuit covers grew by about 25% while falling in the rest of the country.
Bress urged the judges to just look out the windows of their San Francisco courthouse. They will see, he said, "homelessness, drug addiction, barely concealed narcotics dealing, severe mental health impairment, the post-COVID hollowing out of our business districts."
Gavin Newsom, Democratic governor of California, joins in the criticism. The Grants Pass decision, he says, has "impeded not only the ability to enforce basic health and safety measures, but also the ability to move people into available shelter beds and temporary housing."
The debate over the rights of the "homeless" has always stumbled over an agreed definition of the homeless population. Some may be families unable to meet rising rents. Some are mentally ill. Some are addicts, while others are "drug tourists." Some reject the accommodations at shelters, preferring to sleep under the stars.
Is the solution to let any of these groups take over parks where children play? Is it to let them visit squalor on the very business districts cities need to pay for public services, including theirs?
The city of Los Angeles holds that homeless camps deny pedestrians and the disabled use of the streets. Cities in Arizona have argued that the law is simply unworkable. The enormous encampment in Phoenix has reportedly cost Arizona millions of dollars and years of litigation.
Drawing lines isn't always easy. Can a city criminalize public urination by someone who doesn't have access to a toilet? What about lighting a fire to cook on? Addiction is not a crime, though it is constitutional to punish someone for using illegal drugs.
It may be necessary to dust off a term coined by John Kenneth Galbraith in the 1950s, though in a way the economist did not intend. It's the existence in this country of what he called "private affluence, public squalor." While the urban rich may have five acres at their country house for their kids to play on, their housekeepers' children have only public parks as their green playground.
We don't pretend here to have an answer for the homeless problem. Because the population is diverse, the answers must also be diverse. But one answer can't be to strip away the public's right to use the public spaces that ultimately belong to them.
Reprinted with permission from Creators.
Keep reading...Show less