Update from the Heartland
No.1224
23.6.25 – 29.6.25
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,
The U.S. Supreme Court considered the appeal of a 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case of United States v. Skrmetti [605 U.S. ____ (2025)]. The 6-3 ideologically divided Court affirmed the Circuit Court’s judgment. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority. The case centered upon a Tennessee law created by SB1 that prohibited gender-affirming medical care to minor children in the state. The argument among the justices involved what level of judicial scrutiny the case warranted. The majority decided the lowest level of analysis would suffice—rational basis review. The dissent insisted that the facts justified intermediate scrutiny. That judgment alone allowed the conservative majority to wave their hands dismissively regarding the rights of individual children and their parents.
At issue is the authority of a State to intervene in the medical treatment of a teenager or minor child. Like any other medical treatment, informed consent is essential. In the case of minor children that decision rests with the parents or legal guardians. Part of that informed consent is the advice of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the benefits, risks, and efficacy of any treatment process. The majority argues that that this case is not about sex. The argument is outrageous. By the very essence of the case, it is about sex. The majority does not want it to be about sex, because they do not want increased scrutiny of the fundamentals of the case.
Associate Justice Thomas, as he often does in such cases, provided a concurring opinion, in which he asserts that the law exceeds the medical expertise in determining the best medical treatment for medical matters. He invariably reverts to his strict constructionist ideology. The Tennessee SB1 law may not be explicitly about sex, but the central topic and issue is emphatically about sex. His convoluted reasoning is an insult to all transgender individuals of any age.
Associate Justice Alito treated us to a really lame assessment in his concurring opinion as to why he believed trans-gender individuals do not deserve the protecton of enhanced scrutiny in their claims before the court. The undercurrent beneath his words suggest he holds considerable animus toward anyone not like him. By his words, he has no clue regarding sex discrimination in general and especially with respect to trans-gender individuals.
In her dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Sotomayor provided real world examples of teenage minor children dealing with gender dysphoria. She put a live face on the issue before the Court. She does a masterful job of debunking the majority opinion and clearly stating why the majority should not have been so dismissive of the medical issues faced by the parents of minor children with faced with gender dysphoria.
While this ruling does not establish new federal legal position, it does directly affect residents of Tennessee, and worse, it signals to other conservative states that they too can pass discriminatory laws against minor children dealing with some form of gender dysphoria. Medical treatment is not a legal matter; it IS a medical issue. The assessment of risk and benefit in any medical treatment for a minor child rests with the parents and legal guardians, NOT with any state legislature, which leads me to ask, where are the parents in all this? As best I can determine, the SB1 law and the Supreme’s Skrmetti ruling virtually ignore the parents in the decision-making process. The social conservatives in legislatures and sitting in judgment in the courts are imposing their beliefs on all citizens. They are superseding the judgments of parents and medical professionals. As with the conservative faction’s grossly wrong ruling in Dobbs {[597 U. S. 215 (2022)] [1067, 1068]}, the same conservative majority once again demonstrated, the conservatives are quite comfortable imposing their beliefs, their perspectives, their opinions on all citizens. This is what the strict constructionists like Thomas and Alito bring us—regression.
The judicial conservatives want to revert all cases not explicitly and precisely written in the U.S. Constitution back to the states for judgment. They conveniently ignore the protection of human rights for all citizens. Human rights cannot be parsed by state. The Supremes are allowing the states to interfere directly in the progressive advance of medicine, asserting that the politicians in state legislatures know best. In medicine, efficacy determines what procedures and processes are retained and advanced. Parents are in the best possible position to assess the appropriateness of any medical treatment for their child.
If you only listen to or favor the critics more so than the beneficiaries, then you take on a lopsided or biased perspective. The majority has definitely fallen victim to the biased phenomenon of the religious right and social conservatives. Looking back at virtually every medical advance in history, there were substantial dissenting factions and forecasts of doom & gloom—vaccines, radiation, transplants et al ad infinitum.
The Skrmetti decision is typical, if not classic, moral projection by conservatives. It is sad, if not tragic, that this bunch has so little compassion for other citizens, especially those who are dealing with deeply personal and private medical issues. These are the times in which we live.
As if we needed more examples of the gauche, crass character of our current employee occupying the White House Oval Office, [no name] held an impromptu Press gathering on the lawn as he departed for a NATO summit conference in the Netherlands. Reporters asked him questions about including one about the recent air raids on the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). He answered in part, and I quote, “They have been fighting for so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they are doing. Do you understand that?” And then, he waddled off to the waiting and turning Marine One helicopter. He has had a hair trigger temper all his adult life and probably since he was a toddler learning to speak. As is so often the case these days, I can agree with his point, but I strongly object to the way he chooses to deliver his perspective.
The de facto penchant of the U.S. Supreme Court to release controversial rulings at the end of each session remains the Court’s modus operandi. So, it is once again. In addition to Skrmetti reviewed in this week’s Update and numerous other cases, we have cases expanding presidential power, Medicaid constraints, birthright citizenship, and yet another LGBT rights ruling. I barely got through Skrmetti this week, so my reading of the other noted decisions will take some time. I have four more Supreme Court pronouncements to get through in the latest data dump.
I will add a quasi-footnote to this edition of the Update. I gladly pay my taxes, federal and state, each year to have the government we need. I do not want a government driven by the profit-motive. Humanitarian objectives are not divisive by some concept of profit. Human rights are “inalienable rights” and NOT subject to the capriciousness of state governments or transient administrations. I do not want to pay more tax than is my share. Yet, I want a federal government that is compassionate, that helps those in need, that has a heart for those suffering around us.
I do not want a government in the image of the conservatives currently in power. Yes, I gladly pay my taxes without complaint or objection. I do not need a tax cut, and I know emphatically that billionaires do not need another tax cut; they need to pay their share. We can argue about how and on what the federal government expends our precious tax dollars, and we can find some mutually acceptable compromise. Nonetheless, at the end of the day, we need a government with heart and concern for our disadvantaged citizens.
Comments and contributions from Update no.1223:
Comment to the Blog:
“Robert Reich really hit the nail on the head. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has been letting the other party control the national discussion, among other failings, for decades.
“SpaceX blows up a few million more tax dollars. (Yawns) Do we know what the Muskrat’s doing?
“The Resident’s own Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, recently stated that Iran wasn’t close to having nuclear weapons. The Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to make war, but that has been ignored over and over since World War II.
“The various attacks on LGBTQ+ people are attacks on real people, which matters. However, the underlying purposes of the attackers are (a) keeping the hateful base voting for them, and (b) distracting the rest of us from financial maneuvers.
“I wish you well in your settling in and peace with the process.”
My response to the Blog:
Yes, he did. And, I do believe your assessment is correct.
I understand your criticism of SpaceX. Based on the success of the Falcon 9 launch system development, I still believe they will lick these development problems. They do have an advantage—no living creatures on these flights.
Yeah, I saw that. I suspect Gabbard is not long for the job. The con-man-in-chief cannot tolerate any dissent, and she contradicted the Oh-So-Great-Orange-One. At least she had the balls to tell the truth as the Intelligence Community sees it.
I must quibble with one aspect of your comment regarding “Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to make war.” By the Constitution, Congress has sole authority to ‘declare’ war—a formal action. However, the president retains the authority to act with offensive military force when faced with a clear and present danger; he does not need a declaration or permission. Usually, the president will inform the Congressional leadership of a pending action. This is NOT a usual president. We have only to look at what Bill Clinton did. Every time he got into political trouble, he would lob a passel of cruise missiles at one country or another. The president has the authority to act, e.g., War Powers Act of 1973 [PL 93-148; 87 Stat. 555] {BTW, passed over Nixon’s veto}. The key in all this is the rationale and justification for any action, which must be investigated and assessed by Congress. The paramount focus is (or should be) whether the rationale for such aggressive action was warranted. With a MAGAt controlled Congress, accountability for the con-man is not likely to happen.
The difficulty in LGBT treatment by the MAGAts and the current administration is they do not care a twit for other people, especially not like them. They have no sense of humanity, equality, equal protection, privacy, and freedom of choice. I agree with your recognition of the purpose, although there are many other issues that they seek distraction for.
Thank you so much for your kinds words and generous thoughts.
. . . Round two:
“I have the ‘advantage’ of not making enough money to pay income tax these days. SpaceX is your loss. If Muskrat ever gets a Mars colony, he will abandon Earth’s nations altogether at your expense.
“Tulsi Gabbard’s confirmation to the National Intelligence job surprised me. That said, she’s probably still the best source of information.
“Come on, Cap. Presidents have acted on nonexistent ‘clear and present danger’ in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and many other places since World War II.
“The operators of the MAGAts don’t feel one way or the other about LGBTQ+ people. One of the Felon’s early mentors was Roy Cohn, who was gay. However, they thrive by inflaming the fears of the ignorant. It’s an art form with them.”
. . . my response to round two:
That is a rather cynical perspective, it seems to me, but not without substance. Only time shall tell.
Re: Gabbard. Surprised me as well. However, placed beside Hegseth & RFK Jr., she is a breath of hope, having stood up and publicly contradicted the orange one. We shall see how long she lasts.
We can argue each of those points, but that is not a couple of sentences proposition. To my surprise, [no name] has not cited that rationale, yet. He has given us nothing beyond “because I said so.”
I agree. I think you described “they don’t care.” They are using their assault on non-heterosexual citizens as political cover for other activities like their decimation of the federal government.
. . . Round three:
“The Constitution doesn't discuss rationale. The Congress has the power to declare war. The fact that Presidents have been skirting that clause doesn't make it right.”
. . . my response to round three:
No, of course it does not. You are quite correct. It has been a persistent, chronic, political issue. This president has gone farther down that road, in that he did not inform Congress or even congressional leadership, and certainly made no effort to seek an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which seems to be the common workaround to a proper declaration of war. I doubt the Founders/Framers ever intended to constrain presidents to only a declaration of war. The problem we have is, this president has stretched virtually every constitutional restraint on Executive authority.
Just a side note, we have very little from the congressional minority on the president’s persistent abuses to his constitutional constraints. The Democrats seem to immediately jump to impeachment, which is a bridge too far in many instances. They have got to find a more effective voice.
. . . Round four:
“I did a quick search and found an interesting MSN article on the legality of the Felon’s attack on Iran: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/was-trump-s-attack-on-iran-legal-experts-weigh-in-on-us-and-international-law/ar-AA1HlVqK. AUMFs are basically irrelevant. The article also discusses international law, which is clearer.
“The Democratic Party as operated by the DNC does little. The victory of Zohran Mamdani in the NYC Democratic mayoral primary upset Wall Street and the DNC, so that’s a sign of hope.”
. . . my response to round four:
I have never been a proponent of AUMFs, but it is not clear to me why you consider them ‘irrelevant’?
Mamdani seemed rather steady and far more seasoned than his age would suggest. He is still a long way from the mayor’s office. Eric Adams is going to run as an independent. I cannot imagine Adams has a prayer, but then again, that is exactly what I thought in 2016 about a different fellow. Go figure!
. . . Round five:
“AUMFs are irrelevant because (A) Presidents sometimes don’t bother with them, and (B) the Constitution gives a different method of authorizing military force.
“I haven’t studied Mamdani’s presentation yet, but I know it counts in marketing him. Never underestimate the importance of marketing. New Yorkers saw through the DNC’s marketing of Cuomo (or oppo of Mamdani). Adams might actually perform worse than Cuomo; his scandals are more recent. The Felon won his races by marketing the hateful ideas we’ve talked about here. I doubt Wall Street and their DNC lackeys can match the powerful appeals of those campaigns. I hope not. So far, their opposition ads feature Mamdani’s platform. I guess Wall Street doesn’t understand the appeal of those ideas.”
. . . my response to round five:
Interesting perspective. We could argue the point, but I am not convinced it is worth the time. I do not believe the Founders/Framers intended to constrain the president to an all or nothing process. The Supreme Court has validated that assumption.
It will be interesting how Mamdani evolves politically. So far, his calm, measured rhetoric has been noteworthy.
Another contribution:
“Welcome home to you and your wife! As a champion procrastinator I cannot imagine personally tackling such a challenge, so I admire you two for your intellectual and physical courage. It will be for the best, once the painful downsizing details are complete.
“As you near that point, please dive back into this forum of yours, which enlightens and encourages more passive patriots like me.”
My reply:
Thank you for your generous words. This proved my contention—I’m too old for this sh*t. As I have publicly proclaimed, this is where I die. But, then again, I thought our home in Arizona was that final place. I am not (cannot) do this again. The last phase, unpacking & downsizing, is underway and will likely take many months. I finally have begun stepping into normalcy, although a long way from the solace of my routine. This last phase is going to take months.
I have tried to keep the Update alive, at least. It is my intention to get back to a higher degree of commentary and opinion, but that will take time.
. . . follow-up comment:
“I very much appreciate your warm response and proud confession of normalcy, a goal or process I have been trying unsuccessfully to perfect for all of my six years as a surprised octogenarian. Keep your eyes on the target in accordance with your habits of adulthood, service, and parenting. and y'all will soon be settled in. Don't worry about those unpacked boxes-- that's for later fun. I'm pretty sure some of ours are gathering a 49th year of dust in the barn loft.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
Wise words, my friend.
Despite my extended efforts to organize things to enhance displaced recovery, things did not go according to plan. Movers are interested in only one thing, transporting a bunch of stuff from point A to point B. They could not care less about normalcy, routine, or stability at point B. Like we are prone to joke, what we want or need to move forward is “in a box.” We’ll get their eventually. Our challenge is to get there before patience runs out and we buy replacement parts. In the meantime, life goes on.
A different contribution:
“Read your update. How did we put humans on the moon 50+ years ago but still have rockets/spacecraft that blow up?
“Maybe conspiracy theorists are right? :-)”
My answer:
I suppose that is a natural assessment. Until we know the root cause, we cannot know the answer. I am quite reluctant intellectually to embrace any of the various conspiracy theories rumbling around. That said, it is quite unusual for a COPV to fail and especially to an extent leading to cascading ruptures. We cannot eliminate sabotage at this stage; it would be easy enough if someone had a mind to do such a thing.
. . . follow-up comment:
“My question was definitely said with an ounce of sarcasm, but it is weird no other country (not even us) have been back to the moon since.”
. . . my follow-up reply:
But we’re going back.
And then onto Mars.
Yet, another contribution:
“Thanks for your update on the SpaceX explosion, during testing on the ground, in Texas. Being as paranoid as a cat, my first thoughts of concern were whether the explosion could have been sabotage, and I even thought of the Persians as they are quite smart on the I.Q. scale.
“Like you, I would think unless there is a dire emergency for America, POTUS should get Congress to approve of war. I suppose such Constitutionality is a bit too much to ask, and we would lose the element of time and surprise.
“We are seeing the so called ‘peace’ or ‘truce’ or ‘ceasefire’ between Israel & Iran, is faltering, as I suspected. I wrote this just last night:
“I've sent the Drudge headlines in the attachment, and a PIC they posted from Iranian news media, of Trump's hair ablaze.
“I suspected the ‘ceasefire’ deal was fake or imagined. I don't see it between Israel who does not seem to back down out of a fight, nor Iran. There has been much more enormous damage done to mainly Tel Aviv, then their news services admit. On Iran, we have no true confirmation that our bombs from the B-2's even destroyed Iran's nuclear development capacity. Many experts doubt we really took out Iran's development.
“One question I see hardly no one ask is since Israel has hundreds of nukes, why are we so concerned in the collective West, that Iran seeks some too?
“We've had sanctions against Iran since 1979 and pigeonholed them as the dark demon and they with us that we're the Great Satan and Israel the Small Satan. Along these decades, had anyone considered diplomacy, the old fashion kind? Instead of Iran entering agreements with Russia and China, maybe that could have been USA. Maybe we could have $old them some great F-16's to replace their very aged F-14's (which BTW, Israel destroyed a bunch of them last week while they were AOG).
“Let's just say we live in Disneyland at the moment. Hopefully it does not go kinetic for everyone else.
“Pray for the innocents in both Israel & Iran. As far as I am concerned, Israel started this conflict. So, about the Jews, Christians try to tell me they are ‘God's chosen people’ which is ironic as they start so many wars and conduct genocide. If you did a sample of their DNA and compared it to those Jews of our Old Testament Bible, I doubt we would get much a match. I just got my copy The 10 Tribes of Israel. If one wants to call themselves ‘God's chosen people’ well then, they might try acting like it.”
My response:
Such a causal factor cannot be eliminated at this stage. Where there is a will, there is a way. It is fairly rare for a COPV to fail.
War is a step too far for me. Unfortunately, we do not know what the triggering events were. It is my humble opinion only, that POTUS approved the preparatory assault by the IAF to soften the IRI air defense system as a prerequisite for the B-2 raid—a deal done in secret. Perhaps, diplomacy was a cover for the offensive action that he had decided some time ago to take, ala the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor. The objective of stopping IRI nuclear ambitions is a good one, and in that, I support the extraordinary intervention. But, I ask, why now? What triggered this attack? I am not keen on his MO, yet I must laud his efforts to inject a ceasefire immediately after the attack.
Imagination seems quite appropriate to me.
The ceasefire appears to be holding so far. The president’s insistence on the use of the word ‘obliteration’ with subterranean, presumably hardened, targets seems to be yet another gross exaggeration on his part that simply diminishes his credibility even further. Worse now, he is castigating the IC for contradicting him.
Well, the last time I checked, no one in the Israeli government has been shouting, “Death to America.” Just an additional thought, the IRI theocracy, like all autocratic and dictatorial systems, needs a villain to focus the people and deflect them from social unrest they face.
I am an outspoken critic of Netanyahu. Like the orange one, I vehemently object to his MO in dealing with the affairs of state. So much of his saber-rattling is a direct consequence of his legal and political troubles.
I will not get into antisemitic intercourse. The Israeli government is markedly and demonstrably different and separate from the Jewish people and the Jewish faith. The Israeli government has been captured and dominated by far-right wing conservative factions within the Israeli population, much as the MAGAts have done in this country. Let us be very careful not to extend the beliefs of those Israeli conservatives to the population in general. Likud is not all Israelis and especially not all Jewish people, just as MAGAts are not all Americans.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
