Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Ticker Views

How well are America’s governing institutions holding up? | ticker VIEWS

Published

on

This week, two branches of the government of the United States, as established by the Constitution of the United States, face clear and present dangers – actions of contempt – that threaten the rule of law in the United States

Contempt challenges for congress and the supreme court

The House of Representatives will begin the process of punishing, by seeking criminal prosecution, a man named Stephen Bannon, a former aide to President Donald Trump who continued to serve as an unofficial advisor in the last years of Trump’s term.

Bannon was with Trump and in conversations with Trump in the days leading up to the deadly insurrection on January 6, whose purpose was to stop the certification by Congress of the 2020 presidential election and the peaceful transfer of power to Joe Biden, who won the election.

BRUCE WOLPE ON Former Trump Aide Steve Bannon is under fire for not cooperating with the investigation in the January 6 capitol riots

The House of Representatives has established a Select Committee to investigate all aspects of the insurrection:  what happened, who was responsible, what plans were in place to protect the Capitol, what was the chain of command and steps taken to send forces to put down the violence and clear the Capitol.

The Select Committee also wants to know what the President did that day, who he talked with and what was said, what decisions were made, what his intentions were. Both the Vice President and the Speaker of the House – the next officials in the line of succession to the President – were targets of the mob.

Bannon’s testimony is crucial to understanding the events of that day and what Trump did that day

Bannon is refusing to testify, citing orders from Trump that he not cooperate, with Trump citing “executive privilege”: the ability of a president to shield officials and documents from investigation.

But the United States has but one president at a time. The only president who can assert executive privilege is the one in the Oval Office. And President Biden has waived any assertion of executive privilege for the purposes of the Select Committee’s work.

Bannon is happy to talk to the media, and to authors of books about Trump, and is free to give them his account of what he knows of what Trump was doing to overturn the election. But he will not comply with a subpoena from the House Select Committee to give evidence.

The Select Committee will find Bannon in contempt for refusing to testify. The House will vote a resolution seeking action by the Justice Department to enforce the Committee’s subpoena to Bannon through a criminal prosecution for his contempt. 

Why is this important?

Under the Constitution, the Congress is a co-equal branch of government, equal in stature to the Executive. Congress’ constitutional responsibility is to ensure that the Executive Branch conducts its business in conformity with the laws Congress has passed.

If Congress cannot oversee activities by Executive Branch officials and those who engage with it, Congress cannot fulfil its duties, meaning that there is no check and balance on what the president does.

With only a handful of exceptions, Republicans will vote against this contempt proceeding. Which means they are voting to permanently weaken the Congress with respect to the President.

Which means that, should Republicans take control of the House, there will be a precedent for their oversight work to be stonewalled. Which means that presidential abuses of power can easily be beyond the reach of the rule of law under the Constitution.

United States Supreme Court Building

The Supreme Court will receive an urgent appeal from the Department of Justice, asking to overturn a lower court decision that removed an injunction on the new abortion law of Texas. That law bans abortions after 6 weeks and enables any citizen to sue – and get a $10,000 bounty if successful – anyone who provides an abortion or assists in an abortion (including anyone who drives a woman to a health clinic for an abortion that is illegal under the Texas law).

The Texas statute on its face is plainly, inescapably unconstitutional under landmark Supreme Court decisions in 1973 and 1992 that established abortion as a woman’s right to so choose under the Constitution. As the New York Times explains,

Supreme Court precedents prohibit states from banning abortion before fetal viability, the point at which fetuses can sustain life outside the womb, or about 22 to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. That makes the Texas law unconstitutional under the controlling precedents.

The unconstitutionality of the Texas law could not be plainer. 

In addition, it is a tenet of jurisprudence that judges be guided by the doctrine of stare decisis. A legal policy unit at Cornell Law School describes the doctrine:

Stare decisis is Latin for “to stand by things decided.”  In short, it is the doctrine of precedent.

Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. According to the Supreme Court, stare decisis “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” In practice, the Supreme Court will usually defer to its previous decisions even if the soundness of the decision is in doubt.

Trump appointed three justices to the Court during his term, giving the Court a solid conservative majority

All were selected with the belief that they could – and likely would – vote to overturn Roe v Wade, the bedrock abortion rights decision. In the hyper-intensive atmosphere involving the confirmations of now-Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Comey Barrett, they all pledged respect for stare decisis.

We are about to fund out, as the Supreme Court considers the Texas case, and also in December a Mississippi case outlawing abortion after 15 weeks, if this Supreme Court will overturn abortion rights. 

And we will therefore find out whether this Supreme Court also has contempt for the rule of law.

These challenges test how well America’s governing institutions are holding up under the immense strains of the Trump presidency. And how strong governance truly is in the US right now.

Bruce Wolpe is a Ticker News US political contributor. He’s a Senior Fellow at the US Studies Centre and has worked with Democrats in Congress during President Barack Obama's first term, and on the staff of Prime Minister Julia Gillard. He has also served as the former PM's chief of staff.

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

Trump heads to the Gulf aiming to bolster trade ties

Published

on

Trump heads to the Gulf aiming to bolster trade ties – but side talks on Tehran, Gaza could drive a wedge between US and Israel

President Donald Trump and Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman attend the G20 Summit in Japan in 2019.
Eliot Blondet/AFP via Getty Images

Asher Kaufman, University of Notre Dame

President Donald Trump will sit down with the Saudi crown prince and Emirati and Qatari leaders on May 14, 2025, in what is being heavily touted as a high-stakes summit. Not invited, and watching warily, will be Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Like many other members of his right-wing coalition, Netanyahu appeared delighted at the election of Trump as U.S. president in November, believing that the Republican’s Middle East policies would undoubtedly favor Israeli interests and be coordinated closely with Netanyahu himself.

But it hasn’t quite played out that way. Of course, Washington remains – certainly in official communications – Israel’s strongest global ally and chief supplier of arms. But Trump is promoting a Middle East policy that is, at times, distinctly at odds with the interests of Netanyahu and his government.

In fact, in pushing for an Iran nuclear deal – a surprise reversal from Trump’s first administration – Trump is undermining long-held Netanyahu positions. Such is the level of alarm in Israeli right-wing circles that rumors have been circulating of Trump announcing unilateral U.S. support for a Palestinian state ahead of the Riyadh visit – something that would represent a clear departure for Washington.

As a historian of Israel and the broader Middle East, I recognize that in key ways Trump’s agenda in Riyadh represents a continuation of the U.S. policies, notably in pursuing security relationships with Arab Gulf monarchies – something Israel has long accepted if not openly supported. But in the process, the trip could also put significant daylight between Trump and Netanyahu.

Trump’s official agenda

The four-day trip to the Gulf, Trump’s first policy-driven foreign visit since being elected president, is on the surface more about developing economic and security ties between the U.S. and traditional allies in the Persian Gulf.

Trump is expected to cement trade deals worth tens of billions of dollars between the U.S. and Arab Gulf States, including unprecedented arms purchases, Gulf investments in the U.S. and even the floated Qatari gift of a palatial 747 intended for use as Air Force One.

There is also the possibility of a security alliance between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

So far, so good for Israel’s government. Prior to the Oct. 7 attacks, Israel was already in the process of forging closer ties to the Gulf states, with deals and diplomatic relations established with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain through the Abraham Accords that the Trump administration itself facilitated in September 2020. A potential normalization of ties with Saudi Arabia was also in the offing.

Dealing with Tehran

But central to the agenda this week in Riyadh will be issues where Trump and Netanyahu are increasingly not on the same page. And that starts with Iran.

While the country won’t be represented, Iran will feature heavily at Trump’s summit, as it coincides with the U.S. administration’s ongoing diplomatic talks with Tehran over its nuclear program. Those negotiations have now concluded four rounds. And despite clear challenges, American and Iranian delegations continue to project optimism about the possibility of reaching a deal.

The approach marks a change of course for Trump, who in 2018 abandoned a similar deal to the one he is now largely looking to forge. It also suggests the U.S. is currently opposed to the idea of direct armed confrontation with Iran, against Netanayhu’s clear preference.

Diplomacy with Tehran is also favored by Gulf states as a way of containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Even Saudi Arabia – Tehran’s long-term regional rival that, like Israel, opposed the Obama-era Iran nuclear diplomacy – is increasingly looking for a more cautious engagement with Iran. In April, the Saudi defense minister visited Tehran ahead of the recent U.S.-Iranian negotiations.

Netanyahu has built his political career on the looming threat from a nuclearized Iran and the necessity to nip this threat in the bud. He unsuccessfully tried to undermine President Barack Obama’s initial efforts to reach an agreement with Iran – resulting in 2015’s Iran nuclear deal. But Netanyahu had more luck with Obama’s successor, helping convince Trump to withdraw from the agreement in 2018.

So Trump’s about-turn on Iran talks has irked Netanyahu – not only because it happened, but because it happened so publicly. In April, the U.S. president called Netanyahu to the White House and openly embarrassed him by stating that Washington is pursuing diplomatic negotiations with Tehran.

Split over Yemen

A clear indication of the potential tension between the Trump administration and the Israeli government can be seen in the ongoing skirmishes involving the U.S., Israel and the Houthis in Yemen.

After the Houthis fired a missile at the Tel Aviv airport on May 4 – leading to its closure and the cancellation of multiple international flights – Israel struck back, devastating an airport and other facilities in Yemen’s capital.

But just a few hours after the Israeli attack, Trump announced that the U.S. would not strike the Houthis anymore, as they had “surrendered” to his demands and agreed not to block passage of U.S. ships in the Red Sea.

It became clear that Israel was not involved in this new understanding between the U.S. and the Houthis. Trump’s statement was also notable in its timing, and could be taken as an effort to calm the region in preparation of his trip to Saudi Arabia. The fact that it might help smooth talks with Iran too – Tehran being the Houthis’ main sponsor – was likely a factor as well.

Timing is also relevant in Israel’s latest attack on Yemeni ports. They took place on May 11 – the eve of Trump setting off for his visit to Saudi Arabia. In so doing, Netanyahu may be sending a signal not only to the Houthis but also to the U.S. and Iran. Continuing to attack the Houthis might make nuclear talks more difficult.

Bibi’s political survival-first approach

Critical observers of Netanyahu have long argued that he prioritizes continued war in Gaza over regional calm for the sake of holding together his far-right coalition, members of which desire full control of the Gaza Strip and de-facto annexation of the West Bank.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warns of the Iran nuclear threat at the United Nations in 2012.
Mario Tama/Getty Images

This, many political commentators have argued, is the main reason why Netanyahu backed off from the last stage of the ceasefire agreement with Hamas in March – something which would have required the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Gaza Strip.

Since the collapse of the ceasefire, Israel’s army has mobilized in preparation for a renewed Gaza assault, scheduled to start after the end of Trump’s trip to the Gulf.

With members of the Netanayhu government openly supporting the permanent occupation of the strip and declaring that bringing back the remaining Israeli hostages is no longer a top priority, it seems clear to me that deescalation is not on Netanyahu’s agenda.

Trump himself has noted recently both the alarming state of the hostages and the grave humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Now, in addition to the release of Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander, the U.S. is also engaged in negotiations with Hamas over ceasefire and aid – ignoring Netanyahu in the process.

The bottom dollar

Current U.S. policy in the region may all be serving a greater aim for Trump: to secure billions of dollars of Gulf money for the American economy and, some have said, himself. But to achieve that requires a stable Middle East, and continued war in Gaza and Iran inching closer to nuclear capabilities might disrupt that goal.

Of course, a diplomatic agreement over Tehran’s nuclear plans is still some way off. And Trump’s foreign policy is notably prone to abrupt turns. But whether guided by a dealmaker’s instincts to pursue trade and economic deals with wealthy Gulf states, or by a genuine – and related – desire to stabilize the region, his administration is increasingly pursuing policies that go against the interests of the current Israeli government.

Asher Kaufman, Professor of History and Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

Two ministers and the Nationals discover the limits of loyalty in politics

Published

on

View from The Hill: two ministers and the Nationals discover the limits of loyalty in politics

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Labor’s extraordinary election result has triggered a power play that has exposed the uglier entrails of Labor factionalism.

Even before the new caucus met in Canberra on Friday, the Labor right had dumped two of its cabinet ministers: Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus and Industry Minister Ed Husic. Dreyfus is from the Victorian right, Husic from the New South Wales right.

In Labor, factionalism can trump merit. Not always, of course, but undoubtedly more often than is desirable, and certainly in this case.

These dramatic demotions to the backbench have been driven by two factors.

The left has more numbers in the caucus after the election, meaning that to preserve factional balances, one minister from the right had to go.

And then Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles used his heft as chief of the Victorian right to protect the numbers of that group in the ministry, at the expense of the NSW right, and to secure a key promotion.

In sacrificing Dreyfus who, while from the right, isn’t a serious factional player, Marles has seen the elevation into the outer ministry of his numbers man Sam Rae (as well as another Victorian right-winger, Daniel Mulino).

Rae, little known publicly, has only been in parliament since 2022. He’s a former Victorian Labor state secretary and was a partner at PwC. Mulino, with a substantial background in economic policy, has served in both the Victorian and federal parliaments.

Some see the Marles move as, in part, looking to shore up his numbers for any future leadership race. While this might sound far-fetched, given Anthony Albanese’s huge win and declaration he’ll serve a full term, aspirants always have an eye on the future. The manoeuvre won’t be missed by another leadership aspirant, Treasurer Jim Chalmers, a Queenslander who is also from the right.

Given his enhanced authority, Albanese could have intervened to protect the two ministers – there was an attempt from within the NSW right to get him to do so for Husic – but has chosen to let the factional power play take its course. He said on Thursday, “we have a process and we’ll work it through”, adding that “no individual is greater than the collective, and that includes myself”.

In the fallout, with the loss of Dreyfus there will be no Jewish minister, which is unfortunate in light of the government’s strained relations with the Jewish community. Husic’s demotion takes the only Muslim out of cabinet, although the speculation is another Muslim, Anne Aly, will be elevated to cabinet.

Former prime minister Paul Keating was scathing of the demotions, denouncing the “appalling denial of Husic’s diligence and application in bringing the core and emerging technologies of the digital age to the centre of Australian public policy”.

Keating said Albanese’s non-intervention in relation to Husic “is, in effect, an endorsement of a representative of another state group – in this case, the Victorian right faction led by Richard Marles – a faction demonstrably devoid of creativity and capacity”.

Keating described the treatment of the two ministers as “a showing of poor judgement, unfairness and diminished respect for the contribution of others”.

It will take a while to see what ripples the factional power play brings. Husic, certainly, is feisty. He could become a strong voice on a Labor backbench that has been basically quiescent. He is already booked to appear on the ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday and its Q&A panel on Monday.

Now that the factions have had their say, the prime minister allocates jobs, with particular interest on what Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek receives.

On the other side of politics, it is not surprising there is widespread anger, ill feeling and recriminations, given the magnitude of the Liberals’ defeat. The contest for leadership between the party’s Deputy Leader Sussan Ley and Shadow Treasurer Angus Taylor had already become willing before the bombshell defection of Senator Jacinta Price from the Nationals to the Liberals increased the angst exponentially.

The Nationals feel betrayed that their star performer has walked out on them. Her defection will complicate negotiations between the Liberals and the Nationals over their inter-party agreement.

The move, part of the attempt by Taylor, from the right, to boost his support, is further dividing the Liberal party. It is not yet clear whether Price will join a ticket with Taylor to run for deputy. In interviews on Thursday night and Friday morning she kept her options open, presumably to determine what numbers she would draw.

While having the Liberal deputy in the Senate would be inconvenient, it has precedent. Fred Chaney, then a senator, became deputy in Andrew Peacock’s coup against John Howard in 1989. It didn’t end well.

If Price did run, that might help Taylor with some Liberals currently uncertain of which leadership contender to support, because they would know she would be popular in their branches.

But for the moderates in the party, who want the Liberals to find a path back in traditional urban areas, the arrival of Price, with her hardline right views, sends all the wrong signals. The leafy city suburbs are populated with small-l voters and professional women, who would not see themselves in tune with Price’s views.

It there was a Taylor-Price leadership team that would be an unmistakable message – that the Liberals were tracking very significantly away from the mainstream in which most voters swim.

Price was the leading figure who helped sink the Voice referendum, but she has not yet proved herself on the broader range of issues. In the campaign, her reference to “make Australia great again” was used against the Coalition to claim it was “Trumpian”.

Explaining her move, Price says that she had actually always wanted to sit in the Liberal party room. She comes from the Northern Territory Country Liberal party, whose representatives sit with either the Liberals or the Nationals, according to a formula.

On her timing, Price said, “right now, amongst many of the conversations I have had with those leading up to making this decision, is that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures”.

Within the Liberals, Price, given her profile and her status as a poster-woman of the rightwing media, will potentially be hard to handle.

While Labor savours the taste of triumph, and the Coalition drinks the the bitter brew of defeat, a week on Dreyfus, Husic and the Nationals discover the limits of loyalty.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

Who is winning battle of the heavy weights NRL or AFL? The ‘code wars’ revisited.

Published

on

The so-called ‘code wars’ continue in Australia winter sport with National Rugby League (NRL) chair Peter V’Landys claiming victory over the Australian Football League (AFL) in his latest salvo. But is he right?

What does the AFL say in reply and how about the other football codes, soccer and rugby union?

First of all, they are not wars. Wars are what happens between Israel and Hamas, or Russia and Ukraine or India and Pakistan. This is just healthy competition for talent, fans, sponsors and increasingly eyeballs via TV, digital media and streaming.

Most nations have only one football code — soccer (short of its official name ‘Association football’) — or maybe two, soccer and rugby union. But the lucky country has four codes of football – home grown Australian rules (run by the AFL), rugby league (NRL), soccer and rugby union. And as economic theory tells us more competition is good for the consumer, in this case the consumer is the Aussie sports fan.

But in the battle of the footy superpowers why does V’Landys claim that:

“Rugby League has reaffirmed it’s standing as the No. 1 sporting code in Australia and the Pacific after the Australian Rugby League Commission (ARLC) announced record breaking attendances, TV audiences, participation, revenue and assets.”

Source: https://www.nrl.com/news/2025/02/21/no.1-sport-in-australia–the-pacific-a-lot-to-be-proud-of/

Note that the NRL refers to audiences in Australia and the Pacific, explaining the push into Papua New Guinea (PNG) and potentially further expansion in New Zealand in response to rivalry from rugby union’s Super Rugby Pacific competition and even the US National Football League (NFL)’s foray into the Pacific.

But is the NRL right to claim the crown? What’s his basis for that? Thanks to the folks from SportsIndustryAU we can make a direct comparison between the codes.

Indicator NRL AFL ‘Winner’
Revenue $744.8m $1,039m AFL
Profit $62,327,000 $41,327,000 NRL
Net Assets $322,390m $482,246m AFL
TV 153,700,000 140,300,000 NRL
Attendance 4.3 million 8.4 million AFL
Membership 400,000 1,319,687 AFL
Participation 531,323* 641,390 AFL

In terms of Revenue, in 2024, the AFL earnt 39 per cent more than the NRL, earning just over a billion dollars Australian at $1,039 million compared to 744.8 million even though NRL revenue was up by 6.2 per cent on the previous year.

In terms of Profit, the NRL reported a profit 51 per cent higher than the AFL. This was thanks to the NRL having only half the operational expenses of the AFL, but the AFL still had an operating profit prior to the distributions to the clubs that were 13 per cent higher than the NRL.

In terms of Net Assets, the AFL is richer than the NRL. The AFL has total assets of $765,708m but with liabilities bringing the net assets to $482,246m. The AFL owns Marvel Stadium and a share in Champion Data. By contrast, [the NRL] has total assets of $402,531m and net assets of $322,390m including a share in hotels.

In terms of TV audience, the NRL was 10 per cent of the AFL in terms of average aggregated attendance for 2024 — 153.7m to 140.3m. However, many analysts think reach is more important, and there are complications in terms of AFL going for longer and having more games than NRL, whilst the NRL has more people watching in the Pacific.

This does not include streaming that will be part of a future broadcast deal. In fact, streaming is growing exponentially overseas. In the NFL for example, streaming media rights are said to be worth more than US$100 billion (A$161 billion) and a reason why the NFL is playing an exhibition game in Melbourne in 2026.

See: https://theconversation.com/its-the-most-american-of-sports–so-why-is-the-nfl-looking-to-melbourne-for-international-games-248870

In terms of attendance and membership, the AFL is a clear winner. NRL recorded 4.3 million fans through the gate whilst AFL attracted 7.7 million fans for the home and away season plus another 592,000 for the finals and always gets almost 100,000 to the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) for the Grand Final. The AFL clubs have 1,319,687 members in 2024, with just over 400,000 expected for the NRL (based on club data as the NRL does not release membership data).

In terms of participation, Ausplay estimates 641,390 Aussie rules players (kids outside school hours and adults in organised clubs) compared to 531,323 for Rugby League — but including Touch Football and Oztag. But soccer participation is much higher than both codes: 1.4 million participants (kids and adults), with official affiliated club participation at 640,234 for 2024.

But this heavy weight battle is not settled and expansion is on the way for both codes. The NRL has just announced the Perth Bears (reviving the old North Sydney Bears with a new Western Australia base) to join the new PNG team. That will leave the NRL with 19 teams, with a possible 20th team slated for New Zealand or Ipswich in the Western Brisbane corridor.

Similarly, the AFL is looking at either the Northern Territory team based in Darwin or a Canberra team to join as the 20th team after Tasmania consolidated its position as the 19th.

In addition, after a successful Magic Round in Brisbane, CEO Andrew Abdo floated the possibility of taking the event overseas, with Hong Kong and Dubai reportedly expressing interest. This could be done to start a bidding war and extract more out of the Queensland government. Also after the razzle dazzle of opening round in Las Vegas, the NRL may expand offshore and may take a stake in the UK Super League (the Wigan and Warrington clubs also played in Vegas as part of the NRL extravaganza).

Likewise, the AFL has a very popular Gather Round in Adelaide, instigated by Premier Peter Malinauskas. But could it go anywhere else? There could be a Tassie Round when the Tassie Devils arrive but it is likely to remain a South Australian fixture.

Of course, as a domestic game Aussie Rules cannot expand beyond our shores. But is this a disadvantage? After all, they don’t lose players overseas like the more globalised codes, rugby union, soccer and even basketball. The A-League is dwarfed by the English Premier League (EPL) and many Australians who barrack for Liverpool may pay not much attention to the A-League — similarly in basketball. Rugby union also loses players to better paying leagues overseas. There’s no doubt in the AFL and NRL, like cricket, you are watching the best in the world when you watch in Australia.

However, soccer and rugby union have the excitement of the World Cup, when the whole nation gets behind the national teams — especially the Matildas, Socceroos, Wallabies and Wallaroos. The World Cups are big events like the Olympics attracting global attention. This probably explains Peter V’Landys’ push into the Pacific and into the UK Super League for some northern exposure. And that will open up a new front in the competition between the NRL and AFL in the ‘healthy rivalry’ (i.e. not a war) between the codes.

Professor Tim Harcourt is industry professor and chief economist at the Centre for Sport, Business and Society (CSBS), University of Technology Sydney and author of Footynomics and the Business of Sport
https://www.cambridgescholars.com/product/978-1-0364-1158-9

Continue Reading

Trending Now