In this episode, Andre and Todd discuss their different views on the threat of racial violence, whether anyone is capable of being pushed to violence, what’s behind the caution that Andre brings to Black-white relationships, and how canceling each other’s views and experiences impedes our ability to have open, honest conversations about race.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
U.S. Associate Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor bow their heads during inauguration ceremonies in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla
How Often Does a Supreme Court Justice Rebuke a President?
Mar 19, 2025
In an extraordinary move yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a public statement rebuking President Donald Trump following Trump’s call for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg.
The controversy began when Judge Boasberg ruled against the Trump administration’s deportation plans under the Alien Enemies Act, citing misuse of the rarely used 1798 law. Trump responded furiously on Truth Social, writing:
“This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President – He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING!”
Trump explicitly demanded Boasberg’s impeachment, further stating:
“This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”
Justice Roberts quickly countered, emphasizing that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreements over judicial decisions, and made it clear disagreements should be adjudicated through the appellate review process. Historically, impeachment is reserved for cases of serious misconduct, such as corruption or criminal behavior, not for disagreements over judicial rulings.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
This moment is particularly striking because the judiciary typically maintains careful distance from partisan conflicts to preserve impartiality and independence. The last notable rebuke of this nature occurred in 2018, also involving Roberts and Trump. President Donald Trump denounced a judge who ruled against one of his immigration policies as an “Obama judge” and Roberts responded by saying, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."
Historically, direct public rebukes from the judiciary toward sitting presidents are extraordinarily uncommon. Even President Obama’s pointed State of the Union criticism of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United ruling in 2010 prompted only a quiet, informal reaction from Justice Alito—not an official rebuke.
Throughout American history, tension between the executive and judicial branches has occasionally surfaced with lasting impressions:
- Marbury v. Madison (1803): This landmark case established the principle of judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional. It arose from a conflict between President Thomas Jefferson and Chief Justice John Marshall over judicial appointments.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt's Court-Packing Plan (1937): Frustrated by the Supreme Court striking down several New Deal programs, President Roosevelt proposed adding more justices to the Court. This plan faced significant opposition and was ultimately abandoned, but it highlighted the tension between the executive branch and the judiciary.
- United States v. Nixon (1974): During the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that President Richard Nixon had to release tape recordings of Oval Office conversations. This decision reinforced the principle that no one, not even the president, is above the law.
- Bush v. Gore (2000): The Supreme Court's decision effectively resolved the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. This case underscored the judiciary's role in politically charged disputes.
The balance of power, as written into our constitution, is an important foundation for the rule of law in the United States. A Chief Justice rebuking a President, as occurred yesterday, illustrates this delicate balance of power between the branches of government and should be watched carefully by all members of Congress and all citizens who believe in preserving the strength of our democratic republic.
Kristina Becvar is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and Executive Director of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
A speakerphone locked in a cage.
Getty Images, J Studios
Free Speech and Freedom of the Press Under Assault
Mar 19, 2025
On June 4, 2024, an op-ed I penned (“Project 2025 is a threat to democracy”) was published in The Fulcrum. It received over 74,000 views and landed as one of the top 10 most-read op-eds—out of 1,460—published in 2024.
The op-ed identified how the right-wing extremist Heritage Foundation think tank had prepared a 900-page blueprint of actions that the authors felt Donald Trump should implement—if elected—in the first 180 days of being America’s 47th president. Dozens of opinion articles were spun off from the op-ed by a multitude of cross-partisan freelance writers and published in The Fulcrum, identifying—very specifically—what Trump and his appointees would do by following the Heritage Foundation’s dictum of changing America from a pluralistic democracy to a form of democracy that, according to its policy blueprint, proposes “deleting the terms diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), plus gender equality, out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation and piece of legislation that exists.”
We’re about 1/3rd of the way through the Heritage Foundation’s 180-day blueprint and have witnessed 129 executive orders, resulting in 113 legal challenges (Litigation Tracker), which should come as no surprise to anyone who understands the principle of separation of powers in the Constitution.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Rather than just claim that the Trump administration has authoritarian tendencies, I feel it is more worthwhile to explore the question more fully. Five books were cited in the June 4 op-ed to assist readers in better understanding how an authoritarian dictator acts and can—rather quickly—convert a democracy into a totalitarian and oppressive-ruled country. Four of the books were written by the contemporary authors Anne Applebaum, Barbara McQuade, Heather Cox Richardson, and Timothy Snyder. The other book was George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984.”
You might like to know the #1 most banned book by right-wing agents is Orwell’s “1984,” which warned against autocracy’s reign of terror. After Donald Trump made unprovable and “alternative fact” statements in 2017, sales of “1984” soared 9,500 percent. After Trump’s 2024 election victory, “1984” sales went “soaring off the shelves” (Axios, Nov. 8).
In Orwell’s “1984,” Big Brother and his acolytes installed the practice of eliminating words, called ‘Newspeak.’ 'The Party’ was the name of the totalitarian government that used Newspeak to delete words, discourage free thought, limit people’s ability to think critically, and control its citizens.
Jump to 2025, and the term `Newspeak’ will now be applied to a portion of our 47th president’s administration. Despite Mr. Trump claiming to be the “champion of free speech,” The New York Times found that hundreds of words used in Trump 2.0 documents have disappeared on hundreds of federal document websites and more than 5,000 pages.
A partial list of words that Mr. Trump has eliminated from America’s lexicon includes advocacy, biologically female, Black, clean energy, climate science, cultural heritage, disability, discrimination, diversity, equal opportunity, equity, female, females, feminism, gender, hate speech, Hispanic minority, inclusion, Latinx, LGBTQ, mental health, minority, multicultural, Native American, pregnant person, race, sex, social justice, transgender, tribal, under-represented, victims, and women.
Notice what words are not on Trump’s banned list: male, man, men, and White.
Another example of Orwellianism in Trumpism exists...
In George Orwell’s “1984,” several citizens in the authoritarian superstate of Oceania work for the Ministry of Truth, whose job was to alter historical records to fit the needs of ‘The Party.’ On the sixth day of Trump’s 47th presidency, he ordered that “the U.S. Air Force will no longer teach its recruits about the Tuskegee Airmen, the more than 15,000 Blacks pilots (first Black aviators in the U.S. Army), mechanics, and cooks in the segregated Army of World War II.” Trump’s very own ‘Ministry of Truth’ is attempting to erase the history of active Black fighters from 1940 to 1952, who flew in over 15,000 sorties and destroyed more than 100 German aircraft.
Recall one of the words Mr. Trump has eliminated from U.S. documents: Black.
Orwell’s Big Brother also wanted to destroy the literature of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Bryon, etc., so he could control how people could think, how much they could believe, and what they could think about.
In a similar literature vein, Donald Trump has controlled what news agencies can work at the Pentagon; CNN, The Washington Post, The Hill, War Zone, NBC News, NPR, New York Times, and Politico have been kicked out (AP, Feb. 7). Four news agencies (i.e., Associated Press, Reuters, HuffPost, and Der Tagesspiegel) have been barred from attending Trump cabinet meetings. Americans are being controlled over what the media can report to us and, therefore, how much to think and what to think about.
Evidence is replete. Mr. Trump is not only following the Heritage Foundation’s right-wing playbook with his multitude of executive orders but many of the actions are employed by the fascist rulers and tenants of George Orwell’s “1984.”
Now is the time to act. Life often imitates art, and perhaps this is one of those circumstances, as the words of “1984” serve as a warning as to where the current trajectory of Democracy in America might result in.
Call your two Senators and U.S. Rep. (202-224-3121) to remind them that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press and demand it is their job to put a stop to Trump’s 2.0 anti-free speech and anti-freedom of the press dystopian movement.
Keep ReadingShow less
Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Co-Chair of the newly announced Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), arrives on Capitol Hill on December 05, 2024 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images, Anna Moneymaker
Just the Facts: Elon Musk's Conflicts of Interest with DOGE
Mar 19, 2025
Our ongoing series, “Just the Facts,” strives to approach news stories with both an open mind and skepticism, so we may present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we look to remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces.
Does Elon Musk have conflicts of interest running DOGE?
Elon Musk's involvement with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Critics argue that his leadership role in DOGE, which aims to cut federal spending, could intersect with his business interests, as his companies like Tesla and SpaceX have received billions in government contracts.
Additionally, some have pointed out that Musk's companies might benefit from decisions made by DOGE, such as regulatory changes or budget cuts, targeting agencies that have previously investigated his businesses. While Musk has stated he would recuse himself from situations involving conflicts of interest, skepticism remains about the extent of his influence.
Have any legal actions been taken against Musk in this regard?
There have been legal actions involving Elon Musk and his role in DOGE. A notable example is a class action lawsuit filed in February 2025. The lawsuit alleges that Musk and DOGE improperly accessed sensitive personal and financial data from federal databases without proper authorization or legal justification. This case has raised significant concerns about privacy and data security.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Details as to the above:
There have been several legal actions and controversies surrounding Elon Musk's role in DOGE. Here are some key details:
- Privacy and Data Security Lawsuits: Musk and DOGE have faced lawsuits alleging unauthorized access to sensitive federal data. These cases have raised significant concerns about privacy violations and breaches of the Federal Information Security Modernization Act.
- Constitutional Challenges: A coalition of 14 states has filed a lawsuit arguing that Musk's appointment and DOGE's actions violate the U.S. Constitution's Appointments Clause. The states claim that Musk's role has led to "chaos and confusion" in federal operations.
- Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) Violations: Multiple lawsuits allege that DOGE has failed to comply with transparency and disclosure requirements under FACA. These include accusations of secret meetings and lack of public access to records.
- Judicial Orders: Recently, a federal judge ordered Musk and DOGE to provide documents and answer questions about their authority and actions. This is part of ongoing efforts to clarify the scope of DOGE's influence and its compliance with federal laws.
Has the board of directors or stockholders of Tesla raised concerns about conflicts of interest that Musk might have?
Concerns have been raised by both Tesla's Board of Directors and stockholders regarding potential conflicts of interest involving Elon Musk. Here are some key points:
- Board Oversight: Critics, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, have expressed concerns that Tesla's Board of Directors has not adequately addressed Musk's potential conflicts of interest. For example, Musk has been accused of redirecting critical resources, such as AI-related GPUs, from Tesla to his private ventures like X Corp.
- Stockholder Concerns: Stockholders have voiced worries about Musk's divided attention and the impact on Tesla's performance. His involvement in multiple ventures, including his role in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has led to fears that Tesla is not receiving the focus it requires.
- Board Composition: Tesla's board has been criticized for having close ties to Musk, which could compromise its independence. Several board members have professional or personal connections to Musk, raising questions about their ability to exercise unbiased judgment.
These issues highlight the ongoing debate about corporate governance and the responsibilities of CEOs who juggle multiple high-profile roles.
How has Tesla stock done since President Trump was inaugurated and is it related to his role with DOGE?
Tesla shares saw a sharp decline, dropping from around $433 to as low as $215 by early March 2025. This represents a 47.6% decrease. While Musk's role in DOGE has drawn criticism and legal challenges—as the department has been associated with aggressive cost-cutting measures and federal workforce reductions, which has led to public backlash and protests—it is impossible to say to what extent, if any, this has contributed to the significant drop in the stock price of Tesla.
Has President Trump or Elon Musk commented on potential conflicts of interest for Musk?
Both President Trump and Elon Musk have addressed concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
President Trump has publicly defended Musk, stating that Musk has been treated unfairly and praising his contributions to Tesla and DOGE. Trump has also emphasized Musk's patriotism and downplayed concerns about ethics violations.
Elon Musk has claimed that he would recuse himself from any situations where conflicts of interest might arise. He has also highlighted DOGE's transparency, while downplaying his own potential conflicts, asserting that his actions align with the will of the voters.
These comments have sparked debates about the ethical implications of Musk's dual roles in government and private business.
The situation surrounding Elon Musk's potential conflicts of interest is layered and controversial. Critics argue that his dual roles in government and private business blur ethical lines.
Musk himself has stated that he would step back from decisions where conflicts might arise, but skepticism remains, especially given the scale of his influence and the intertwined nature of his ventures.
All data and information were obtained from Copilot, an AI-powered chatbot owned and operated by Microsoft Corporation.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.Keep ReadingShow less
- YouTube
Rollie Olson: Religious diversity for the common good
Mar 19, 2025
Rollie Olson is the Program Manager who supports the Democracy and Bridgebuilding Initiatives at Interfaith America.
Interfaith America believes religious diversity is a foundational American strength.
I spoke with Rollie on a recent episode of Fulcrum Democracy Forum (FDF). The program engages citizens in evolving government to better meet all people's needs. Consistent with the Fulcrum's mission, FDF strives to share many perspectives to widen our readers' viewpoints.
Olson discussed building a nation that achieves the promise of religious diversity for the common good. "We believe in unlocking the power of pluralism," he said. "This idea that people can cooperate across difference. That's really the key for everyone to thrive. Our organization does this through equipping and connecting leaders across different sectors."
He wrote a column published on the Fulcrum titledElections Reveal Preferences, Not Who We Are, where he wrote about the limitations of what a vote communicates–and what it doesn’t. "The weight we put on our national identity through the means of voting and what voting really is, is not a true form of self-expression that we put in America. We put this almost mythical weight on you do your civic duty to go vote and make your voice heard, but I think there's a lot of limitations about what that can say about us," Rollie said.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Rollie spent five years working for Congressman Dean Phillips (MN-03) in his election and as Congressional staff focused on stakeholder outreach, constituent services, and finding common ground with constituents across backgrounds and ideologies. "His mandate was about finding common ground across the aisle. He thought no party had the monopoly on good ideas. He just had a remarkable way of connecting with people. He didn't compromise his own beliefs, but he was able to find common ground," he said.
SUGGESTION:
Marcela Betancur: Improving policymakers' understanding of the community's needs
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
Anusha Harid-Paoletti: "Diversity is intertwined with success"
- YouTubeyoutu.be
If you have a suggestion for a change leader I should profile in an upcoming episode of the Fulcrum Democracy Forum, please email me at Hugo@thefulcrum.us.
I am the executive editor of the Fulcrum and a board member of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund, the parent organization of The Fulcrum. I am also the publisher of the Latino News Network and an accredited solutions journalism trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More