The Briefing.
Tuesday, March 5, 2024.
It’s Tuesday, March 5, 2024. I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.
Part I
SCOTUS’ Major 9-0 Ruling: Supreme Court Unified as It Rules Colorado Cannot Bar Former President Trump From Its Ballot
The Supreme Court of the United States announced on Sunday that it would hand down a ruling yesterday as to whether or not, a decision by the Supreme Court of Colorado, would stand that would bar Donald Trump from being a candidate in the Republican primary, which by the way, will come as a part of Super Tuesday, today. Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States contravened the Supreme Court of the state of Colorado by stating that the state of Colorado, and in particular in this case, the state Supreme Court, has no right to strike anyone from the federal ballot. That is a power that is restricted to the United States of America when it comes to a national election, even if the election is conducted by the state.
The Colorado Supreme Court had made its ruling on the basis of what it claimed was a barring of the candidate, in this case, Donald Trump, according to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Adopted after the Civil War, that amendment with that section, barred anyone from the ballot who was guilty of being an insurrectionist.
Now from the start, this was a very questionable decision and that’s to state the very least, simply because Donald Trump, though he is facing some very serious legal charges, including criminal charges at this point, including some charges related to the events of January 6th, 2021. The fact is he has not yet been found guilty, and in particular, he has not been convicted of being an insurrectionist and he has not been struck from the ballot by any lawful federal authority.
So, the Supreme Court ruling was 9-0. That’s really, really important. As many have noted, this was the most direct involvement of the United States Supreme Court in an American presidential election since the year 2000 in the case Bush V. Gore. In this case, it’s crucially important that the nation’s highest court, which includes more liberal justices as well as more conservative justices, came down in a 9-0 ruling that said that the state of Colorado has no right to strike Donald Trump, or for that matter, anyone else from the federal ballot, or at least the state ballot for federal office. And indeed, that no state authority has the right to invoke Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
And it is for the sake of the country and for the sake of the Supreme Court, really important that this ruling was handed down 9 to zero. But there’s more to it than that because in one sense the math is not just 9-0, inside the decision it was 5-4, or even more accurately, it was 5, 3 and 1. Let’s break that down just a bit.
First of all, a clear majority of the conservative justices simply said not only that the Colorado Supreme Court action was unconstitutional and unlawful, but also that the only lawful authority that could invoke such a federal sanction according to the 14th Amendment, is Congress itself. Now, the three liberal justices on the court went so far as to say that the Colorado Court had no authority to rule as it did, but they did not go so far as to say Congress is the only unit with legal authority. The separate opinion from conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also indicated that in her view, the majority of the court had gone too far in restricting the application to the 14th Amendment.
So, really important to understand we’re dealing with nine legal minds and all nine of those legal minds are invoked, they are involved in this kind of ruling and it’s helpful in this case to know what it is. On the other hand, it is also important to recognize that that 9-0 math is what’s going to be most remembered in terms of the history of the Supreme Court. The unity of the court, three liberal justices and six conservative justices, the unity of the court in this case is really important, but it is important for another reason, and let’s keep this in mind. We are headed for other decisions, other rulings, other issues related to former President Donald Trump that are almost assuredly going to arrive at the Supreme Court.
Most importantly, one has already arrived. The court has already indicated that it’s going to accept the question as to whether or not former President Trump can invoke a claim of near total immunity when it comes to the charges against him. It’s going to be very interesting and we’re going to be watching this very closely, and it may be that there will be other 9-0 rulings in the future. It may be that there are split decisions on similar questions in the future.
For now, on the big question 9-0, on the ruling and on the rationale to get there, it’s 5, and 3, and 1, or 5-4 depending upon how you’re counting it. And while we’re counting, we’ve got an awful lot of counting that will take place today, not at the Supreme Court of the United States, that was yesterday, but rather in the ballot box because today is Super Tuesday and it is now to Super Tuesday that we turn.
By the way, the urgency before the Supreme Court was that Colorado is one of the states involved today in the massive primary system known as Super Tuesday, and thus the voters in Colorado needed to know whether or not former President Donald Trump was on the ballot in such a way that they could cast a vote for him in the Colorado Republican primary. So, that was the urgency of the Supreme Court. That’s why they made the announcement of the announcement on Sunday and why they handed down the ruling in a public way yesterday.
Part II
The Already-Clear Political Lines Will Become Even Clearer: What to Expect From Super Tuesday
But now let’s turn to Super Tuesday. The reason this particular primary week is referred to as Super Tuesday is because there are so many delegates at stake and there are so many states that are directly involved, who have scheduled their primary elections for this date to coincide with others. This is in one sense for maximum impact. In another sense, it is also to try to get as far ahead as possible, the part of many of these states, so that they are simply not left behind when the question is more or less settled in one or both parties.
The states voting today in Super Tuesday include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and American Samoa.
Now in Alaska, the only primary has to do with the Republican side of the equation. The same is true in opposite, that is to say just for Democrats, in the primary held in American Samoa. But nonetheless, you’re looking at the biggest single day in which delegates will be assigned for both the Republican and the Democratic National Conventions, which is to say, you are looking at the shape of the 2024 presidential election.
But in this case, the big news is there’s very little big news to be had in all likelihood today on Super Tuesday, and that’s because it’s almost certain that the vast majority, and that’s another statement, of the delegates to be assigned on the basis of the Democratic vote on Super Tuesday, it’s going to go to the incumbent President of the United States Joe Biden. And in all likelihood, we know that already. We also know this morning that it’s almost certain that former President Donald Trump will pick up almost all and certainly the vast majority of the delegates on the Republican side on Super Tuesday.
Now, the interesting question on the Republican side is whether or not former President Trump can simply wrap up the Republican nomination with the total of the votes today, and of course, added to the votes already assigned, the delegates already assigned. At this point, it is unclear as to whether that can happen. It probably won’t happen, but Donald Trump is likely to wrap up the Republican nomination no later than the 12th of March. So, we’re looking at just something like a week away. It’s going to be a finished question.
But in reality, let’s face it, on both sides it’s already a known quantity. We have felt like we have been in a general election cycle for weeks already, and this is an unprecedented situation, but of course, we are looking in modern history at something completely unprecedented, which is a former president running against an incumbent president and in what amounts to a rematch of the previous national election presidential cycle, that’s 2020.
So, we have known for a long time in basic terms where we were headed, but this is where the situation’s getting even more interesting, because even a Super Tuesday is going to answer a lot of the question, and certainly at the end of Super Tuesday, it’s hard to imagine how, at least in terms of how the voting patterns have been going, there’s any credible opposition to either President Biden or former President Trump. And you can like that or not respectively as to whether you’re Democratic or Republican, but in any event, this can hardly be claimed to be a surprise.
Super Tuesday comes as former President Trump’s about to wrap up the Republican nomination and current President Joe Biden’s about to wrap up the Democratic nomination. And what makes on both sides the situation very interesting is that a very significant number of Republicans say they don’t want Donald Trump as nominee. A very significant number of Democrats said they don’t want their own incumbent President Joe Biden as the candidate in 2024. As a matter of fact, later this week, we’re going to be looking at the fact that the New York Times, in a matter of just a few days, has run two front page articles on the massive loss of support among Democrats by President Biden. That in itself is a very interesting cultural signal.
But while we’re talking about Super Tuesday, let’s recognize that in the respective state primaries, there are generally many ballot questions that voters are going to face. By the way, it turns out that in many states the big story may be how few voters actually turn out to vote, that is the story right now in California, and I’m speaking to you from California. Here in California, after the presidential issue, which of course is pretty much a cake already baked, the big question is who will be on the ballot in the face-off between two candidates in the fall for the Office of United States Senator? In the seat that had been held by Senator Dianne Feinstein for so long, Democrat at San Francisco. She had died, of course, an appointed senator was put in place, and now we are looking at a face-off, and it’s a classic senatorial face-off except for one thing, and this is of incredible importance, California’s rules in terms of the Senate election and statewide election. It’s a very convoluted process. It is referred to as a jungle primary.
Now, the state of Louisiana also has what’s known as a jungle primary, but basically it means that at one point, regardless of partisan identification, everybody’s on the ballot and the top two vote-getters here in California will proceed to the November ballot. Whether or not they are both Republicans, that’s impossible, not going to happen, or they’re both Democrats. That’s exactly what people thought was going to happen. Or, a Republican and a Democrat. And as we’re going to see, that actually, surprisingly, just might happen.
Part III
The Story of Democratic Support for Steve Garvey: Why Democrats in California are Putting Loads of Money Behind a Republican Candidate
So, let’s look at the situation here in the state of California. No Republican has won a statewide election here in a matter of decades. This is a solidly blue, it is a steadfastly Democratic state. In this state, in California, the main question is whether it’ll be the left wing, the far left wing or the even further left wing that will win, but it’s going to be a Democrat. But there is a surprise in this, and the surprise is the popularity of former Los Angeles Dodgers first baseman, Steve Garvey. And Steve Garvey has actually skyrocketed not only into a position to say the top three or the top two, by many polls, he is actually leading and there are several Democrats who are bunched up together.
But most importantly, the Democrat who is solidly in the lead is Representative Adam B. Schiff, very well known by the way in the United States House of Representatives for his opposition to Donald Trump, his involvement in the impeachment process. And as you’re looking at Adam Schiff, you’re looking at a former prosecutor who has moved steadily to the left. That’s another part of the big story here. He has moved election cycle by election cycle, position by position, steadily to the left. And because of Dianne Feinstein’s advanced age, everyone knew she wasn’t going to be in the Senate forever. The jockeying for that seat had begun years ago, and all three of the Democratic candidates on the ballot, they’ve been working at this for some time, but it’s really clear, Adam Schiff has the commanding lead on the Democratic side, but again, jungle primary, there really isn’t a Democratic side.
The surprising thing here is not that Adam Schiff is going to be on the ballot, it is expected in the fall, but that Steve Garvey may well be there as well. He’s been very popular. He was a popular baseball player, but he’s 75 years old. This is really his first entrance into electoral politics. He isn’t well known on many different issues, and in terms of his personal life, let’s just say it’s been something of a mixed story. But nonetheless, he looks like a leader and he has spoken like a candidate who’s been gaining in attention and popularity. And so, out of virtually nowhere, Republican Steve Garvey has ended up in the top position in some polls. Now, is that the way it turns out on election day here in California? Well, we will find out in the course of the counting of the votes cast today, and of course, given the fact that this is California, cast through mail-in ballots and other means long preceding election day.
But there’s a very, very interesting story behind this. One interesting story is on the Democratic side, Adam Schiff does have a commanding lead, the other two major Democrats in the jungle primary ballot are representative Katie Porter of Irvine, and also Representative Barbara Lee. Now, it’s Katie Porter that is in say, the second place among the Democratic candidates. Barbara Lee has fallen off quite a bit. But it does tell you something that three incumbent members of the House put their political futures at stake to run for this Democratic seat that had been held by Dianne Feinstein.
But it’s also really interesting to understand that Steve Garvey, who again has all of a sudden skyrocketed up to what some people think is going to be first place, and thus someone who will be, according to this projection, on the ballot in November. The big question is going to be who’s going to be the Democrat against him? But the interesting thing is he really hasn’t raised much money and he hasn’t spent much money, but an awful lot of money has been spent on his behalf. So, what’s going on here? Where did the money come from and who’s spending it? Well, here’s the story. It’s Democrats who are behind the money, and it’s the Democrats who have been giving it. It’s the Democrats who put together the organizations that have come up with the ads, that have run the ads promoting Steve Garvey. Why?
Well, the answer is rather dark. It’s uncomplicated. The Democrats don’t believe, and Adam Schiff is in the commanding lead here, he doesn’t believe that he can lose given the Democratic preponderance of voters in the state if he’s facing a Republican. But if he does in November face a second-place vote-getter who turns out to be someone like for instance, Katie Porter or Barbara Lee, something could happen on the Democratic side that would lose him votes and gain his opponent votes. He doesn’t think that’s going to happen if he’s facing off against a Republican.
So, vast amounts of money are being spent by Democrats to supposedly support a Republican candidate, but it’s not because they actually support the candidate, but because they think it will put them in a better position on the November ballot. There is an old adage in politics and Christians understand why this is so important and so true, follow the money. You follow the money, the money’s going to tell you a story, and that’s just a moral reality that’s as old as the Old and New Testaments. You follow the money, you’re going to find a story. And in the state of California, it is a very interesting story indeed.
Well, we’ll be tracking with you what takes place today, and in all likelihood, there will be many open questions even overnight, as we come to terms with what exactly did or didn’t happen on Super Tuesday, state by state, because there are so many millions of Americans involved and potentially millions of votes, this could be a complicated process. We’ll give it just a bit of time.
Part IV
Politics of Representation on Display in California: Moral Revolutionaries Celebrate Placing Vote Center in ‘Transgender Support Facility’
There are some other dimensions that ought to have our attention right here in the state of California. A very telling headline appeared this time in the Pasadena Star-News, the headline is this, LA County Puts Vote Center in Trans Facility. Now, that caught my attention because that’s one of those headlines that doesn’t, at least on the surface, make a lot of sense. But we are told, quote, “When the Los Angeles County opens more than 500 additional vote centers for the upcoming election, one will be the first voting location in the United States in a transgender support facility.”
Now, just in case you were paying attention there to all of the words in that sequence, the big question is how in the world it ended up being news that a voting location was put here or there. It’s because of the new politics of representation that now goes all the way down to where you vote. And this is being presented in California as a great breakthrough for the transgender community, simply because a voting place has been put in what’s described here as, “a transgender support facility.”
The facility in question is the Connie Norman Transgender Empowerment Center in the Fairfax area there in LA. City Councilwoman Katy Yaroslavsky said, “I couldn’t be prouder that LA’s 5th Council District is now home to the first voting center in the nation located in a transgender facility.” And she went on to say, “As extremists across the country continue their endless attacks on both the LGBTQ community and our democracy, Los Angeles must stand as a beacon of hope.” She went on to thank the facility, “for opening this voting center and for the critical work they do every day to support the needs of the Los Angeles transgender and non-binary community.”
Now, the politics of symbolism on the cultural left as the state’s lieutenant governor appeared also to celebrate the occasion and to call the voting center, “A significant milestone in our efforts to champion equality, inclusivity and LGBTQA+ rights in California.” And yes, that is a quote. That’s exactly how the lieutenant governor made the expression, right down to all the letters and the plus sign, all in the quotation marks.
But what’s really important here is to understand, as Christians, in worldview understanding just how the politics of representation work and how central the politics of representation are in terms of our contemporary process of moral change, an intentional moral change driven by the cultural left in general, but also by the moral revolutionaries in the LGBTQ movement, however you’re going to define it.
The politics of representation come down to this. Everything has to be defined by identity politics. You are what you declare yourself to be or what you are conveniently claimed to be by someone else. In terms of identity, this identity politics becomes the most basic reality about you, or at least in terms of what’s called intersectionality, it is one point of intersection that indicates that identity that is put into political motion and the politics of representation are in the name of all the people who are X, Y, Z or whatever.
This has to happen in order that our community, and here’s the new postmodern language, is “made visible,” made visible. And that’s exactly what you’re doing when you put a polling place in a transgender support facility. You are making transgender ideology, and they would claim, transgender persons, by their own claim, you are making them “visible.” And this becomes so important that the local newspaper puts this on the front page of an inside section. It’s headline news. It is something that is so celebrated that California’s lieutenant governor leaves Sacramento to come down just for the media opportunity.
Part V
Is Governor Newsom Even Governing? Are His Presidential Aspirations (and Pro-Abortion Activism) Overshadowing His Governing Responsibilities?
But finally, as we’re thinking about all these developments today, let’s shift from California’s lieutenant governor to its Governor Gavin Newsom. We’ve talked already about the fact that Governor Newsom, who is in many ways an icon of the political left in the United States, he clearly sees himself one day sitting in the Oval Office, or at the very least being the Democratic nominee for that office. And Governor Newsom has been pushing the issue of abortion, abortion rights in the most crass, blatant and ideological way, and here’s what’s so important, not here in California where it’s a settled fact, but addressing himself to red states, to pro-life states.
Now, the interesting new development that brings our attention today is that even as people in California note this, and even as the governor said, “Look, I’m involved in this. I’m doing it for you, the people of California, I’m doing this in the name of women’s rights.” Remember, he has gone so far as to push for women basically to be paid to come to pro-abortion California for abortions. That is, to be transported here from pro-life states with restrictions on abortion.
But what’s most interesting in recent days is that Gavin Newsom, who was the subject of an attempted removal from office, that is to say, there were those who attempted to recall him, as is allowable according to California law. You get enough names on the petition, it can be put on the ballot and a governor can be recalled, it has happened before. But Gavin Newsom escaped a similar event, just a matter of a couple years ago, but a new effort to recall him has been launched. It is almost assuredly going to be a political dud, not going to get anywhere. Even if it gets on the ballot, Governor Newsom is going to turn it to his advantage. That’s part of the equation we need to note here.
But the other part of it is that one of the grounds claimed by those organizing this recall effort is that Governor Newsom is actually not leading the state of California as it is headed into a massive multi-billion dollar fiscal crisis, but instead is playing abortion politics elsewhere in the country. And it turns out, at least some voters in California think, “Well, that’s worthy of a recall.” It almost surely will not happen, but it does tell you that even here in California, there’s some people who look at their governor and recognize, “You’re clearly running for some other office. We elected you to do this one.” Meanwhile, conservatives in California are probably very glad for Governor Newsom to do as little governing as possible.
Finally, also of note here in California the state of Ojai, that’s O-J-A-I, population 7,500. Well, in the state of Ojai, the city council has called for a ceasefire in Israel’s war against Islamic terrorism, against Hamas, in Gaza. Yes, the city council of a little city of 7,500 people, in California, has a foreign policy. Now, this made the newspaper here in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Times. It may have made some other headlines elsewhere, and that’s assuredly what these city council members are all about.
It was identified by the Los Angeles Times as, “A symbolic measure.” Which passed on a 3-1 vote with one councilwoman absent. A special called meeting was the occasion for this 3-1 vote. “The little town of Ojai, population 7,500, joins about 70 U.S. cities that have weighed in on the nearly five-month war according to a Reuters analysis of municipal data,” “More than 50 of them have passed resolutions calling for a halt to Israel’s Gaza bombardment, or advocating more broadly for peace, and at least 20 have condemned the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel that sparked the counteroffensive.”
Now, the city of Ojai passed a resolution, and we are told that it was two pages long and calls for Congress to, “demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire.” And by the way, for the United States to immediately cease support for Israel until certain conditions are met. Okay, let me give you the good news and the bad news. Well, let’s talk about the bad news first. Here you have a city in the United States, only 7,500 population, by the way, that thinks it has a foreign policy, that evidently thinks it can speak to this kind of issue supposedly with not only national, but international effect.
Let me give you the good news. Municipalities in the United States do not have foreign policies. That’s a very important thing. And by the way, our constitution makes very clear that in the truest sense, states don’t have foreign policies either. There are certain powers reserved to the federal government and to the president of the United States and the conducting of foreign policy, well, like the president or not, it simply comes down most importantly to the White House.
Part VI
Small Town of 7,500 Has Foreign Policy on Gaza? No, Municipalities Do Not Have Foreign Policies (Be Thankful)
Finally, also of note here in California the state of Ojai, that’s O-J-A-I, population 7,500. Well, in the state of Ojai, the city council has called for a ceasefire in Israel’s war against Islamic terrorism, against Hamas, in Gaza. Yes, the city council of a little city of 7,500 people, in California, has a foreign policy. Now, this made the newspaper here in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Times. It may have made some other headlines elsewhere, and that’s assuredly what these city council members are all about.
It was identified by the Los Angeles Times as, “A symbolic measure.” Which passed on a 3-1 vote with one councilwoman absent. A special called meeting was the occasion for this 3-1 vote. “The little town of Ojai, population 7,500, joins about 70 U.S. cities that have weighed in on the nearly five-month war according to a Reuters analysis of municipal data,” “More than 50 of them have passed resolutions calling for a halt to Israel’s Gaza bombardment, or advocating more broadly for peace, and at least 20 have condemned the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel that sparked the counteroffensive.”
Now, the city of Ojai passed a resolution, and we are told that it was two pages long and calls for Congress to, “demand an immediate and permanent ceasefire.” And by the way, for the United States to immediately cease support for Israel until certain conditions are met. Okay, let me give you the good news and the bad news. Well, let’s talk about the bad news first. Here you have a city in the United States, only 7,500 population, by the way, that thinks it has a foreign policy, that evidently thinks it can speak to this kind of issue supposedly with not only national, but international effect.
Let me give you the good news. Municipalities in the United States do not have foreign policies. That’s a very important thing. And by the way, our constitution makes very clear that in the truest sense, states don’t have foreign policies either. There are certain powers reserved to the federal government and to the president of the United States and the conducting of foreign policy, well, like the president or not, it simply comes down most importantly to the White House.
But of course, politics is also filled with symbolism and symbolic moves, political gestures, ideological motions. That’s what’s going on here. And so, it’s just important to recognize that from time to time, a town like Ojai, California, population 7,500, will adopt a resolution taking stand A or B on American foreign policy. It might have some tiny ripple effect, certainly cumulatively, in terms of political pressure in the United States, but it is just vitally important that we all remind ourselves regardless of the headline, that American municipalities do not have foreign policies, and that recognition, by the way, will likely help you to sleep better tonight.
Thanks for listening to The Briefing.
For more information, go to my website at albertmohler.com. You can follow me on Twitter by going to twitter.com/albertmohler. For information on the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com.
I’m speaking to you from San Jose, California, and I’ll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.
