Cuomo in hell of his own making -- Aug. 5, 2021 column

By MARSHA MERCER

In Dante’s “Inferno,” hypocrites are found deep in hell, forced to walk in circles while wearing gilded robes that appear dazzling but are heavy with lead.

The eternal punishment reflects hypocrites’ outward profession of virtue, belied by their private corrupt actions.

Dante’s focus was on hypocritical religious leaders, but the punishment could apply to other hypocritical leaders as well.

And that brings us to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the scion of one of America’s great political families, and his stunning descent into political hell.

Just a year ago, as the federal government dithered over how to fight the coronavirus pandemic and New York became its epicenter, Cuomo’s calm leadership was a balm to the nation.

His daily news briefings became must-watch events nationwide, and he was even considered a possible Democratic presidential contender.

Cuomo insisted his sights were set on 2022 and a fourth term as governor, a prize that had eluded his father. Mario Cuomo also served three terms as New York governor but was defeated on his fourth bid in 1994 by Republican George Pataki. Democrats tried twice to persuade Mario Cuomo to run for president, but he declined. He died in 2015.

Son Andrew Cuomo married into political royalty. His ex-wife, Kerry Kennedy, the mother of their three daughters – twins, 26, and a 23 year old -- is a daughter of Robert F. Kennedy. The couple divorced in 2005 after 15 years of marriage.

Publicly, Cuomo was a righteous defender of women, saying God told him he was a feminist “when He gave me three daughters.”

In 2018, he tweeted, “Only a political skeptic could find a reason to disbelieve” Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault decades earlier, when they were in high school.

Calling Blasey Ford’s charges against Kavanaugh “disturbing and deeply concerning,” Cuomo signaled his virtue with such tweets as “We owe it to the American people to #BelieveSurvivors.”

In 2019, he signed into law a revision of New York’s sexual harassment law, removing the requirement that harassment needed to be “severe or pervasive,” which made it easier for victims to seek justice.

We now know there was a lot going on behind closed doors in Albany and elsewhere as Cuomo’s inappropriate behavior went unchecked and covered up.

This bad behavior wasn’t decades ago. The first young woman came forward in December to accuse the governor of kissing her without her consent in 2018. Others followed, some telling stories of more recent harassment.

The slow drip of allegations culminated in a flood Tuesday when the New York attorney general reported, after a meticulous investigation, that Cuomo sexually harassed 11 women.

“I believe these 11 women,” Attorney General Letitia James, a former ally of Cuomo, said, as she released the report of 165 pages and 1,371 footnotes.

“Specifically, we find that the Governor sexually harassed a number of current and former New York State employees by, among other things, engaging in unwelcome and nonconsensual touching, as well as making numerous offensive comments of a suggestive and sexual nature that created a hostile work environment for women,” the report said, adding that the behavior extended beyond his staff to other state employees and members of the public.

Cuomo is resisting calls to resign by President Joe Biden, once an ally, several Democratic governors and members of Congress. If he stays, he likely faces impeachment and removal from office. Plus, four county district attorneys are weighing criminal charges.

Cuomo thus becomes the latest powerful politician to believe the rules don’t apply to them. They never learn.

Cuomo himself seems confused. He apologized in March for making anyone uncomfortable but denies harassing anyone.

His pathetic defense this week is that he comes from a different “cultural and generational” background, claiming his hugging and kissing the young women reflects his Italian-American roots. That’s offensive to those of us who share Italian heritage. At age 63, he claims he sometimes slips and calls someone “honey” or “sweetheart.”

It’s 2021, and he of all people should know the difference between light banter and sexual harassment.

Cuomo’s fall from grace is shocking, but he brought it on himself. Instead of walking in circles, he should clear out his desk.

©2021 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30

 

Supremes take up case of endangered frog -- Oct. 4, 2018 column

By MARSHA MERCER

As the Brett Kavanaugh saga played out, it was reassuring to see the Supreme Court at work and focused on, of all things, the fate of a frog.

This was not the Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County made famous by Mark Twain but the endangered dusky gopher frog, now found only in Mississippi. The frog gets its name from the gopher tortoise holes where the mature frog lives.

The first oral argument of the court term Monday weighed the federal government’s responsibility to protect critical habitat of an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act against the rights of landowners. 

Historically the dusky gopher frog (Rana sevosa) lived in Louisiana but was last seen there in the mid-1960s. It was declared endangered in 2001, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated 1,544 acres in St. Tammany Parish in Louisiana as critical habitat in 2012.

The property has ephemeral or temporary ponds where the frog could breed, making the land necessary as a Plan B should efforts to save the frog in Mississippi fail, the government said.

But the land is a commercial tree farm, leased to Weyerhaeuser Co., and thickly planted in loblolly pines. Gone are the canopy of longleaf pines and the grassy understory the frog needs, but the government says the land is “restorable with reasonable effort.” 

The landowners, who want to develop the parcel, say the critical habitat designation has cost them $34 million. After six years of legal battles, the case, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, landed in the Supreme Court.

It’s risky to draw conclusions from questions at oral arguments, but three of the four conservative justices seemed sympathetic to the landowners who want the government to butt out. Justice Clarence Thomas, as usual, asked no questions. The four liberals seemed sympathetic to saving the frog.

But, Lisa Heinzerling, law professor at Georgetown University Law Center, wrote in her analysis on Scotusblog.com: “It was not even clear whether the justices were puzzling mainly over whether the Louisiana parcel was `essential’ to the conservation of the frog or over whether it was `habitat’ at all. The case seems more complicated after today’s argument than it seemed before.”

The frog case came to the court as the Endangered Species Act is under assault from President Trump and House Republicans.

The administration has proposed three changes in how federal agencies implement the act. In a letter Sept. 24, three professional organizations – the American Society of Mammalogists, Society for Conservation Biology North America and American Ornithological Society wrote:  

“We strongly believe that if these three proposals are enacted, they will severely weaken protections for endangered and threatened species and, counterproductively, could result in more extinctions of plants and animals in the United States.”

House Republicans are pushing a package of bills they say will “modernize” the act but which environmentalists say will ruin it.

The bills “undermine key provisions of the Endangered Species Act and result in increased harm to protected species and their habitat,” Robert G. Dreher of Defenders of Wildlife told a Sept. 26 hearing of the House Committee on Natural Resources. 

He called the package “a prescription for extinction.”

But many Republicans, especially those from Western states, view the act and other environmental laws as impediments to development.

When his committee approved the bills, House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said “these bills honor our heritage, lighten regulatory burdens for communities, increase transparency, and strengthen relationships between states and the federal government. Ultimately, these bills aim to bolster our country’s natural resources.”

The frog case reflects the importance of the swing seat held for decades by Justice Anthony Kennedy. If the court splits four-four, the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in favor of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s support for the frog would stand. 

But once the ninth justice is confirmed, the court could order new oral arguments. Conservative Kavanaugh likely would be the swing vote.

And that is why those who care about a little frog may be breathing a bit more easily -- but only for now.

©2018 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30

Women's equality -- yes, it's political -- Sept. 20, 2018 column

By MARSHA MERCER

Asked when there will be enough women on the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has a ready answer.

“When there are nine,” she says. “People are shocked. But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that.”

Ginsburg’s provocative response came to mind during the debacle surrounding President Donald Trump’s selection of Brett Kavanaugh for the nation’s highest court. Trump could have nominated a woman.

After all, President Ronald Reagan nominated the first woman justice – Sandra Day O’Connor.

We’re nowhere near Ginsburg’s goal. Only three of the nine are women – Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. 

Not that choosing a woman to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy would have guaranteed smooth sailing. It’s easy to imagine Trump choosing the wrong woman just as President George W. Bush did in 2005.

Bush crashed on the rocks of public opinion with his ill-conceived choice of White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace O’Connor. Miers, who had no judicial experience, was such an unsuitable pick she withdrew before her confirmation hearing.

Bush then chose federal appellate judge Samuel Alito, who is one of the most conservative justices.

Americans consistently tell pollsters they’d like to see more women leaders in both politics and business.

Majorities of Americans say having more women in top positions in government and business would improve the quality of life for everyone, for men and for women, according to the latest Pew Research Center survey released Thursday.

But there’s a gender gap. Seven in 10 women say there should be more women in high political office and in top business jobs, but only about half of men say so.

And – no surprise -- Democrats and Republicans see the state of women’s equality very differently. Nearly eight in 10 Democrats and Democratically-leaning independents say too few women hold high political office, but only one in three Republicans and Republican-leaners think so.

With the most women running for Congress ever, the looming question for the midterms is whether voters will make this truly a Year of the Woman.

The dismal approval rating of the Republican-controlled Congress – still bumping the bottom at 19 percent in the latest Gallup poll – suggests a desire for change.

Only 31 percent of Republicans approve of the way Congress handles its job, but that’s far higher than the 8 percent of Democrats who approve. Among independents, 17 percent approve of the job Congress is doing.

The current Congress has a record 112 women – 89 in the House and 23 in the Senate – but that’s only 21 percent of the total. Most the women are Democrats – 64 in the House and 17 in the Senate.

For a sense of how long it’s taken women to get this far, 52 women have ever served in the Senate and 23 are serving now.

Of the 53 women who filed to run for the U.S. Senate this year, 23 made it through their primaries and are still in the running. In the House, 239 of the 476 women who filed are still in the running, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

Several Democratic women in the House are forming Elect Democratic Women, a PAC inspired by the Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus, that plans to raise money for female Democratic candidates.

“We really feel very strongly that better decisions will be made by government when it represents the diverse population it is supposed to represent,” Rep. Lois Frankel, D-Florida, chairwoman of the group, told Politico.

Winning for Women PAC, whose leaders include former Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire, formed last year to endorse conservative candidates and serve as a counterweight to EMILY’s List, the powerful Democratic group that endorses abortion rights candidates.   

The competing PACs are emerging as women worry women candidates may be losing ground. Women are more doubtful now than they were four years ago that voters are ready to elect women, Pew found.

In 2014, about 41 percent of women thought the main reason women were underrepresented in high political offices was voters weren’t ready to elect women. Now, after Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss, 57 percent of women say they think voters aren’t ready.  

We’ll know the night of Nov. 6.

©2018 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.