CREDO Mobile Blog

If Brown v. Board is Not Sacred, What is?

Since the Supreme Court’s momentous decision in Brown v. Board of Education 65 years ago, there has been universal consensus within the legal community that the opinion striking down de jure segregation in our schools was correctly decided. As the most important civil rights ruling in our nation’s history, it has been undebatable, affirmed time and again by judicial nominees, attorneys, scholars, and politicians on both sides of the aisle. That is, until the Trump Administration.

During his recent confirmation hearing to serve as Deputy Attorney General, Jeffrey Rosen refused to state that the Court’s unanimous opinion was rightfully decided. “I don’t think that it would be a productive exercise for me to go through the most – thousands of Supreme Court opinions and say which ones are right and which ones are wrong,” Rosen told Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn). This answer is astounding for countless reasons, but chief among them is that it ignores that Brown is not just any Supreme Court precedent. It ended legal apartheid in this country, it redefined what equality means in the eyes of the law, and it touched the lives of every single American in the process.

With his disturbing answer, Rosen joined a growing chorus of Trump’s judicial nominees – starting with Wendy Vitter – who have demurred on this question. Roughly 30 nominees for the federal court have failed to unequivocally support the decision in Brown, with their responses ranging from, “I don’t think it is appropriate to comment on whether a Supreme Court case was correctly decided,” to “Brown v. Board was a landmark decision, but I cannot say if any Supreme Court decision was rightly decided.” Neither response is acceptable. Brown, like Marbury v. Madison, is an essential part of this country’s legal canon.

The refusal to acknowledge Brown serves as a dog whistle. It’s a signal of a candidate’s amenability to reassessing key tenets of our democracy. It is dangerous that judicial nominees for lifetime appointments to our federal courts would be unwilling to acknowledge and affirm Brown.

Rosen is not a judicial nominee. He would serve in the second-highest position at the Justice Department and if confirmed, his job will be to enforce the law, including Brown. The Deputy Attorney General is tasked with the day-to-day management of the department, including overseeing the Solicitor General’s Office and the Civil Rights Division. How can we trust Rosen to enforce our nation’s civil rights statutes if he is unwilling to affirm the bedrock opinion upon which they are based?

At his hearing, Rosen said, “I have views about lots of Supreme Court cases, but I’m not being nominated for this position to be the Solicitor General.” If Rosen is willing to concede that the Solicitor General’s view on Brown would be relevant, shouldn’t the views of the person to whom the Solicitor General reports also be germane?

Ultimately, it’s irrelevant whether Rosen is being considered for a position as a line attorney or in the highest echelons of Justice Department leadership. The rule of law remains a crucial pillar of our society, now and always. If he cannot affirm this landmark decision, he has no business serving in any role at the department or anywhere else in the federal government.

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in the Brown opinion that, “in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place.” Sixty-five years later, it should be axiomatic that the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place in any field.

Lisa Cylar Barrett is the Director of Policy at the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund is the country’s foremost civil rights law organization, working to achieve racial justice, equality, and an inclusive society. The organization is a close ally of CREDO, and CREDO members have donated $206,428 to help fund their important work.

10 Million Petition Signatures in Support of Impeachment. Here’s What’s Next.

Last week, I had the honor of representing CREDO members at the U.S. Capitol. I joined progressive champions Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Al Green along with friends from MoveOn, Women’s March, Need to Impeach, Free Speech for People and By the People to deliver 10 million petition signatures demanding that congressional Democrats start an impeachment investigation against Donald Trump.

Our petition delivery in front of the Capitol made national news, with major media outlets including CNN, CBS, NBC and Newsweek reporting on the momentum behind impeachment. Here is Rep. Tlaib’s impassioned speech demanding that Democrats immediately hold Trump accountable:

Hundreds of thousands of CREDO members like you are part of a movement of millions of people committed to using their power to defend our families, communities, and democracy. We have the momentum, and we need to keep the pressure on House Democratic leaders now.

Speaker Pelosi recently indicated that she’s doubtful  Trump will accept the 2020 presidential election results and said that Trump has created a constitutional crisis. She and House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler are two of the most powerful elected Democrats in the country, but instead of using their power, they are asking us to wait. Can you help flood their offices with calls to show them their constituents and millions across the country will have their back if they lead on impeachment now? Click here to make a call.

Every day that Democrats wait to hold this administration accountable is a day too long. Let’s not forget that Trump is:

• Terrorizing our families, neighbors, and friends;
• Separating and indefinitely detaining families;
• Closing our borders to refugees;
• Building a fascist deportation force to criminalize immigrants and target people of color;
• Banning Muslims from entering our country and inciting violence against an entire religion;
• Trying to erase transgender people.

We gave Speaker Pelosi and Democrats in the House of Representatives 10 million reasons to stop playing politics and stand on the right side of history. We know that our message is getting through, so it’s important to keep the pressure on. Can you call today to remind them they have a constitutional obligation and moral imperative to use their power and lead?

Thank you for your activism and all you do to hold Trump accountable.

Don’t believe the right-wing spin. Social Security is in strong financial shape.

The Social Security Board of Trustees recently released its annual report to Congress. And with the report came the expected headlines predicting doom for our Social Security system.

Thankfully, these headlines couldn’t be further from the truth. Social Security is in strong financial shape. These scary headlines are the product of a decades-long, billionaire-funded campaign to undermine confidence in Social Security.

The Trustees Report shows that Social Security has an accumulated surplus of roughly $2.9 trillion. It further shows that at the end of the century, it will cost just 6.07% of GDP. That is considerably lower, as a percentage of GDP, than what is spent today by Germany, Austria, France, and most other industrialized countries on their retirement, survivors and disability programs.

Unsurprisingly, because Social Security’s income and outgo are projected out so far – three-quarters of a century – the report projects a modest shortfall. This is a much longer valuation period than private pensions use and even than most other countries use for their Social Security programs.

According to the new report, Social Security is 100% funded for the next 16 years, 93% funded for the next 25 years, 87% funded over the next 50 years and 84% funded for the next three-quarters of a century. There is no question that Congress can raise enough revenue to eliminate the projected shortfall. Indeed, we can afford to expand Social Security.

That brings us to the second misreporting we are likely to see. Along with that modest, unsurprising shortfall being the cause for breathless media reports about supposed collapse, the report will be greeted, again if past experience repeats, with lamentations from many observers that Congress has no plan to address Social Security’s projected shortfall. That is incorrect.

Democrats have specific concrete plans that they stand behind. They plan not just to ensure that all promised benefits will be paid in full and on time for the foreseeable future, but to address our nation’s retirement income crisis by increasing Social Security’s modest benefits.

It is only congressional Republicans who have no plans – at least that they are willing to publicly embrace. That is perhaps because (given that they reject requiring even the wealthiest to pay more) their preferred “solutions” involve benefit cuts, which are overwhelmingly opposed by voters across the political spectrum, including Tea Partiers and the most conservative Republicans.

Democrats are moving forward with their plans. The Social Security 2100 Act, introduced by Rep. John Larson, is one such bill. It has 203 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives – over 85% of all Democratic representatives. Rep. Larson has held several hearings on the bill and intends to bring it to the House floor this spring.

Several other bills to protect and expand Social Security benefits have been introduced in the House and Senate, and nearly every 2020 presidential candidate serving in Congress is a member of the bicameral Expand Social Security Caucus.

Again, it is Republican politicians who have no plans that they are willing to stand behind.

Not only has not a single Republican this Congress co-sponsored any of the Social Security bills introduced by Democrats nor introduced one of their own, they appear to be standing in the way.  No one believes that the Senate will act once the House of Representatives passes a bill expanding Social Security and restoring it to long-range actuarial balance.

Notwithstanding that none of the bills have Republican co-sponsors, they are totally bipartisan – at least, by the measure that matters most. As divided as the American people are over many issues, we are not divided about our deep support for Social Security. Support for Social Security expansion and opposition to benefit reductions, cuts across ideological divides. An overwhelming majority of Republican voters, according to poll after poll, support Democratic proposals to expand Social Security.

This March, the Pew Research Center released a poll showing that 68% of those identified as Republican/Lean Republican believe that Congress should make no cuts to Social Security whatsoever. A year ago, in the lead-up to the 2018 midterm elections, Public Policy Polling found that 56% of those who voted for Donald Trump and 55% of those who identify as Republican would be more likely to vote for a candidate who “supported expanding and increasing Social Security.”

Furthermore, a 2014 National Academy of Social Insurance survey found that 80% of Republicans believe that Social Security is more important than ever, 72% of Republicans responded that they “don’t/didn’t mind paying Social Security taxes,” and 65% of Republicans agreed that “we should consider increasing Social Security benefits.”

And this bipartisan, consensus view of the American people is the right one. Social Security is a solution. It is a solution to our looming retirement income crisis, which threatens the retirement of so many of today’s working families. Social Security is a solution to the increasing economic squeeze on middle-class families, a squeeze that jeopardizes the economic security of all generations. And Social Security is a solution to the destabilizing and immoral income and wealth inequality, which has resulted in a handful of Americans richer than Midas, while most Americans find their economic security crumbling. In light of these challenges and Social Security’s important role in addressing them, Democratic leaders – and the American people – are asking the right question: Not how can we afford to expand Social Security, but rather, how can we afford not to expand it?

Republican politicians are standing in the way. For those for whom Social Security provides basic economic security now or promises to do so in the future – that is, virtually all of us – what we must do is clear. In 2020, we must make our voices heard. Those office seekers who support expanding Social Security and restoring it to long-range actuarial balance must be voted into office. Those who don’t should be retired. Fortunately, for them and thanks to the rest of us, they will have their Social Security to fall back on.

Nancy Altman is the president of Social Security Works and chair of the Strengthen Social Security coalition and campaign. She has a forty-year background in the areas of Social Security and private pensions. To learn more about the Social Security Works, please visit www.socialsecurityworks.org.

Social Security Works is a longtime partner of CREDO, and CREDO members have voted to donate more than $504,597 to the organization since 2013. To learn more about who we fund and how we distribute our donations, visit CREDOdonations.com.

What is the Green New Deal? (And why we need it now)

A Green New Deal is any plan with the scope and ambition necessary to transition our society and economy away from fossil fuels in order to fend off the oncoming climate crisis.

According to a major report by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, unless we take drastic action to get carbon emissions under control in the next decade – by the year 2030 – the global ecosystem will tip into an irreversible slide toward breakdown. In the United States, warming will devastate every sector of the economy, from agriculture to public health. Mass migration, widespread flooding, uncontrollable wildfires – all of it will arrive in a matter of years.

A Green New Deal is a plan to prevent this – and it’s much more. Named for Pres. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal that helped lift the United States out of the Great Depression in the 1930s, a Green New Deal is a sweeping program of investment – not only in clean energy, but also in jobs, income inequality, infrastructure, and racial justice. It would give us an economy that is sustainable, strong and fair after our transition away from carbon.

By some estimates, a Green New Deal could create 10 million jobs over the next decade by putting Americans to work on sustainable technology and infrastructure projects we need to transition away from fossil fuels. It would reduce income inequality and bring solutions to communities that have been left behind.

Like the original New Deal, this plan would mean a major transformation of our economy. To achieve its goals, we would need to accomplish a lot that is not explicitly mentioned in the plan, like keeping existing fossil fuels in the ground. This vision is bold – but it is necessary, and it is possible. We already know what we need to do to get off of fossil fuels today. What we need is the political will.

And that much-needed political will is coming. Progressive champion Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, along with her colleague Sen. Ed Markey, recently introduced an ambitious resolution for a Green New Deal in Congress. Their plan would transition the United States to 100% clean energy by 2030, invest in communities on the frontlines of poverty and pollution, and guarantee a good job to anyone ready to make this happen. As of May, 92 representatives and 12 senators have signed on as co-sponsors so far.

But passage of such a bold plan won’t be easy. Big Oil special interests, which have hundreds of billions of dollars at stake, plan to fight this plan to protect their bottom line. In fact, according to an analysis by Maplight, an organization that tracks the influence of money in politics, opponents of a Green New Deal received 24 times more campaign cash from the oil and gas industry as those who support the resolution.

We can fight to counter their influence. If we push as many of our elected officials to support a Green New Deal resolution as possible, we will force congressional leadership to recognize that there is a powerful movement behind a Green New Deal.

That’s why we’ve launched a petition urging Congress to stand with Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey and sign on to support a Green New Deal resolution. You can add your name here to join the more than 70,000 CREDO members who have already signed on.

With your help, CREDO and our allies can help tackle the climate crisis and ensure Congress takes this bold step to address the biggest crisis facing our planet. The climate crisis is too urgent to do anything else.

It would look infinitely better. And that’s why CREDO and our allies are ramping up pressure on the Democratic House of Representatives to pass bold, transformative climate and green jobs initiatives and legislation.

If you’re concerned about climate change, here’s another step you can take right now: switch your phone service to CREDO Mobile and your home electricity to CREDO Energy. We fight for climate justice through CREDO Action and donate to environmental organizations that are fighting the climate crisis every day, as well as many other progressive groups. Take a look at who we fund and vote to determine how we distribute donations this month.

The Green New Deal Isn’t Unrealistic, It’s Necessary

For as long as I can remember, I’ve been scared about climate change.

Growing up, I heard about how my hometown of Boston could be largely underwater by the end of the century. I grew up watching increasingly severe droughts and floods take thousands of lives in southern India, where my family is from, and fearing my family might be next. Every step of my life, fear of climate change has been a potent, tangible force. It feels less like some abstract scientific fact in a textbook and more like knowing a giant asteroid is heading toward my family.

Today, much of my generation can’t escape that fear even as we make life decisions about whether or not to have children. Is it moral to bring someone new into a planet that’s 3degrees warmer? How much of our income should we save for retirement? What’s really the point, if the planet’s going to look like Mad Max?

Which is why, when I read the UN reports that say we have little more than a decade to solve this problem, I’m overwhelmed by a powerful sense that this is an emergency. We simply don’t have time, as a society, to keep having the same pointless debates about whether the science is real or to continue predicting the odds that some particular piece of legislation can clear the Senate. All that’s left is to put forward an idea that actually meets the scale of the crisis within the necessary time frame – one that can ensure millions of people, who are disproportionately low-income and people of color, don’t lose their lives to climate-charged storms, floods or other natural disasters – and then do everything in our power to make it happen, in a coordinated effort across every sector of our economy.

There is not a single idea being debated in the halls of Congress today ambitious enough to do that, except for the Green New Deal, written by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey. As we worked with Sen. Markey and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez on their resolution, we expected the usual objections to come our way. We expected, as had been the case with the Waxman-Markey bill early on in the Obama presidency, that Washington Republicans bought out by fossil fuel CEOs would scream bloody murder. We correctly predicted, as had been the case with numerous proponents of carbon tax proposals over the years, that we would be dismissed as idealistic children, too naive to be concerned with the details of how experts think politics happens. But what we truly didn’t see coming was this new notion that we are unrealistic, that the lofty ambition of our idea is itself proof of our lack of seriousness.

Pundits, from the pages of New York Magazine to Mother Jones, hammer away with the argument that the Green New Deal is too ambitious to even consider seriously. They are joined by billionaire coffee magnate Howard Schultz, who dismisses the idea with much the same condescension as Sen. Dianne Feinstein and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who pretended not to remember even the name of the resolution in mocking it as a “green dream.” Even the New York Times  editorial board declares the Green New Deal only a little better than the apocalyptic nightmare it aims to prevent, advocating instead for “step-by-step measures” like reversing Trump-era environmental deregulation and “tax incentives for electric vehicles.”

Those well-intentioned critiques outlining a more “realistic” alternative might have been convincing 30 years ago, before Exxon’s decades-long disinformation campaign and systematic bribery of elected officials forced our political system into stalemate on this issue.

Thirty years ago, step-by-step policy tweaks might have given us a fighting chance at avoiding catastrophic climate change within my generation’s lifetime. But in the time since, we’ve seen every opportunity to pass meaningful climate legislation crushed by moneyed opposition and cynical poisoning of the public dialogue. We’ve had to organize tirelessly to push our own allies, like President Obama, to reject dangerous oil pipelines and drilling. If we’ve learned anything, watching report after report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sound the alarm while politicians debate dead-on-arrival, small-bore policies, it’s that a step-by-step process of incremental changes, as a strategy, has failed to safeguard our future or our planet.

If we are serious about averting catastrophe, it’s clear that we need a new approach to this crisis, something that can break through all the forces that make climate action so difficult: corporate power, partisan polarization and the debasement of the nation’s “conservative” party into a vehicle for plutocrats, racists and anti-science cynics.

Any chance of winning this fight depends on igniting powerful social movements to change the political weather and build an expansive political coalition capable of taking on the fossil fuel lobby. To do that we need to make a new, salient and values-based argument that speaks to America’s hopes and fears: A vision of our future where all of us can thrive in a prosperous and healthy world.

Varshini Prakash is the Executive Director of Sunrise Movement. She lives in Boston.