'I Don’t Know Why We Would Expect Them to Do the Right Thing'
Famed radio host doesn't trust the Supreme Court if Kamala Harris wins the U.S. Presidential Election
Imagine, if you will, Kamala Harris winning the presidential election. Her opponent, Donald Trump, contends the election results. Could the Supreme Court get involved and declare a different victor? One prominent media voice believes that will occur.
Charlamagne tha God does not believe for a moment that if former President Trump falls short in his pursuit to reclaim the White House and the presidency in the election that he will accept the results. Charlamagne is confident however that if that does happen that unethical, corrupt help will help Trump regain power.
“When you look at the recent rulings of the Supreme Court — whether it’s abolishing Roe v. Wade, whether it’s the presidential immunity for presidents to get away with crimes, whether it’s the fact that elected officials can take bribes now — it’s like, what happens in November if (Harris) wins and then Donald Trump challenges the results of the election, in light of all of those recent rulings?” Charlamagne says.
In his mind, it’s not that far-fetched or even fiction, it’s a strong likelihood.
“That’s honestly what I see coming. I see that happening right now,” he warns.
“I think that that is going to be the biggest constitutional crisis of our lifetime come November,” Charlamagne laments, pointing out that Trump, as president, nominated three court justices: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.
“I don’t see how anybody can’t see this coming.
“To be 100-percent clear,” Charlamagne forecasts, “I absolutely believe that come November, if he loses, Donald Trump is going to challenge the results of the election, and I think the Supreme Court would overturn the results of the election in light of all their recent rulings.”
“I don’t know why we would expect them to do the right thing.”
That is a bold, scandalous forecast. Going to the root of Charlamagne’s feelings, if in the relationship with a segment of the population, professionals within an organization are not believed to be credible or trustworthy, that is a large trust gap and a relationship and reputation that needs immediate attention and improvement.
Patrick Jones, who is known as “Mr. Jones” on Tik Tok and is a diversity and inclusion expert, activist and political commentator, says that the SCOTUS has to talk about that gap between trust and reality and the mistrust or distrust that is circulating within a large part of the country.
“I believe that the first step is to acknowledge that the perception exists,” Jones says.
“To illustrate this, I would use an analogy that I frequently use when trying to persuade others to engage in introspection: If you wake up in the morning and your partner tells you that you smell and you get dressed without showering, then while fixing your children breakfast, they tell you ‘mommy, daddy, you stink’ and you leave for work without acknowledging them and while at work your co-workers are whispering about how someone has an odor, at some point, you must address the ‘stink.’
“Questions about the institution's (Supreme Court’s) credibility and trustworthiness will linger until they are addressed substantively,” he states.
From there, the conversation can go deeper and begin to take greater shape.
“Once the institution has acknowledged the existence of the issue, they can now begin to reflect on what decisions have been made to create this public perception and diminish their credibility,” Jones says.
And, as he adds, "‘You Can't Really Know Where You Are Going Until You Know Where You Have Been (Maya Angelou).’
“Using this principle, we can ensure that future decisions are based on sound reasoning and with full transparency,” Jones adds.
One expert says that journalists and media voices would benefit themselves and society if they would adopt a more thorough and fact-based approach in their communication.
“The widespread adoption of seemingly outlandish beliefs and conspiracy theories indicates that as communicators, we have allowed — and fueled — the deterioration of public discourse,” says Jared Meade, founder and principal at Rayne Strategy Group.
“Instead of striving to provide the public with in-depth information for better understanding, we are now simplifying complex issues into catchy soundbites, while vilifying those who hold opposing views.
“As communication professionals, it is our duty to foster relationships and consensus by offering complete, honest and transparent communication, allowing the public to form their own opinions.
“Our professional response should be to demand, of ourselves and others, ethical, transparent communication in all forms, whether that be in business, politics or in personal interactions.”
Critics, such as Charlamagne, are saying, with distrust, about the ultimate authority in the nation, "I don’t know why we would expect them to do the right thing.”
When that is taking place, unwanted and hardline beliefs and poor reputation are going to be a hard road forward. It’s possible with an effective mindset and response.
“In an effort to restore credibility and faith in the institution, open dialogue is imperative,” Jones says. “Honest discussion with the public that allows their concerns to be voiced and questions answered. Public forums and direct engagement with the community are vital to rebuilding an image of integrity.”
He questions whether the court is conducting itself to expectations and its potential.
“The institution must commit to the ethical standards set forth… There must be a code of conduct that demands strict adherence and any deviation should be seen as a direct affront to the community.”
Court justices as a collective and the institution of the court don’t have as much widespread trust, credibility and respect as it once, long held. Resiliency won’t be easy.
“Reputation is a tricky thing. It takes years to build and seconds to destroy,” Meade says. “If you, whether an organization or person, have reached a point where the public doesn’t believe you will do the right thing, it’s going to be a difficult battle to regain that trust. Once trust is lost, it's hard to win back.”
If it’s possible, there is a better way, he advises.
“The first step to rebuilding trust is to make sure that your actions and words are consistent,” Meade says.
“If the public sees that you follow through when you say you will do something, then you have a chance to begin rebuilding the reputation and trust that was lost but it will take time.
“How much time depends on many factors and ultimately is up to the public.”
He says there are required checkpoints for improvement.
“Consistency and patience are the key,” Meade explains.
“It’s important to remember that you will never win the approval of 100% of the public, so you must remain authentic to who you are. By doing so, you may at least gain the respect of those who disagree with you.”
Meade does express concerns about some conclusions being made and points to what he insists is an important distinction.
“Unfortunately, most of the American public has confused mistrust for dislike,” he says. “We may not always like the decisions of the Supreme Court but that shouldn’t automatically mean we distrust the court as an institution.”
Meade elaborates as to what is reality and what is perceived as the duty to the public.
“The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret laws, determine their relevance to specific facts and decide on their application,” he says. “(It) must remain impartial to the sway of public opinion. This impartiality protects the minority by ensuring that laws are applied fairly.
“With that being said, the court must continue to remain impartial and stay above petty political disputes. It is also imperative for politicians to stop using the court as a political tool to cast aspersions on both sides of the aisle.
“Much of the public's mistrust stems from the hyperbole of today’s political discourse rather than the actions of the court itself,” he asserts.
Jones sees it differently.
“Our justices are expected to be fair and impartial arbiters of the law. SCOTUS must demonstrate their ability to maintain that expectation and the courts integrity. This can only be accomplished by making decisions that are clearly rooted in legal precedent and unbiased constitutional interpretation.
“Further, we must demand increased accountability, including mandatory scheduled reviews of justices’ performance and conduct, ensuring they adhere to an agreed-upon ethical standard,” he says.
The makeup of the court is another fundamental concern for trust in the eyes of many.
“I feel that we must also field a panel of justices that reflects the population of this country,” Jones recommends. “A diverse and inclusive judiciary would help to increase faith and understanding among our ever-expanding demographic groups.”
Organizations have a responsibility to clearly, regularly communicate.
“Communication being the foundation of any relationship, it is critical that the nation's highest court be vocal about its commitment to upholding the constitution and ensuring equal protection under the law,” Jones says. “(The) SCOTUS must demonstrate that all decisions are grounded in sound judgement and principles.”
Doing this will could inform the public to a degree where it knows where the court stands, remind them often and help it align its professional actions with its messaging.
“By addressing these concerns directly and transparently, the Supreme Court can take steps to rebuild trust and credibility among the American people,” Jones states.
“This will require a concerted effort to listen to public concerns, educate the population and maintain the highest ethical standards and judicial integrity.”
Thank you for reading this issue of Communication Intelligence. Please consider subscribing, free or paid, to support the work of this publication.
For those interested in advertising in Communication Intelligence: Contact me at comm.intel.newsletter@gmail.com or click here to learn more about communicating your value offering. This publication offers links, ads and sponsorships.