Update no.962

Update from the Sunland

No.962

15.6.20 – 21.6.20

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            Some of you may be aware that the Bush Fire in Arizona began across the Verde River Valley eight miles from us.  It was reportedly initiated by a vehicle fire near the intersection of Bush and Beeline Highways.  I called 911 a week ago Saturday afternoon to report the fire.  Unfortunately, we watched the fire grow in the mountains to the east of us.  As of this Sunday, the fire has grown to 115,000 acres and is as yet not contained.  We could see the flames from our property for the first handful of days.  The visible flames have progressed beyond the farthest ridgeline.  The smoke has diminished but is still present.  The fire is still burning.

            Here is the salient question of the day.  If police are expected to serve and protect the communities as well as enforce the laws applicable to their jurisdiction, why do they tolerate and protect (by their silence) criminals who wear the same uniform as them?  When one police officer looks the other way when another police officer is committing a crime, e.g., Chauvin murdering George Floyd, that complacency or acquiescence taints the whole organization, thus fostering distrust of the whole.  That mindset among police must change, and We, the People, must help the police change that destructive thinking.

            Contrary to what the Bully-in-Chief (BIC) incessantly tells us and desperately wants us to believe, the COVID19 pandemic is NOT over and infections are not going down.  He claims the virus is dying out.  He cannot will it to be so.  Forget about the infection rate; that could easily and understandably be discounted by the frequency or extent of testing.  Yet, how on God’s little green earth can the BIC claim the virus is dying out when the hospitalizations and fatalities are continuing to rise?  Hospitalizations and fatalities are hard physical evidence, not subject to interpretation or sleight-of-hand maneuvers.  How can he possible deny the facts?  Oh wait, that is exactly what snake-oil salesmen do—deny facts.

            As Americans, our greatest strength yields our greatest weakness and vulnerability.  Freedom of choice inherently means we are free to be stupid.  Today, we suffer that reality.  Yet, I am encourage by the wisdom of Howard Stern, who declared, “Freedom does not mean you get to do whatever the f**k you want.”

            When the BIC failed to intimidate John Bolton or his publisher to stop the publication of Bolton’s upcoming book, the BIC resorted to his go-to tool—a civil lawsuit.  The book in question is titled: The Room Where it Happened; the publisher is Simon & Schuster.  The BIC had the Justice Department file suit against Bolton to block the publication of the former national security advisor’s book.  The BIC ordered the Justice Department to file the blocking legal action—United States v. Bolton, USDC for DC Case 1:20-cv-01580, filed: 16.June.2020.  It is interesting, relevant and telling that the suit is against Bolton, singularly, not the publisher. The suit is focused upon Bolton’s alleged violation of NDAs he voluntarily signed at the time he entered the White House as the president’s national security advisor.  Bolton’s legal counsel, Charles J. ‘Chuck’ Cooper, Cooper & Kirk PLLC, submitted a detailed objection of the USG’s administration delaying tactics [Exhibit P to the USG’s complaint] and is quite illuminating.

            On Saturday, U.S. District Judge Royce Charles Lamberth of the District of Columbia denied the BIC’s and USG’s efforts to block the publication of the book.  For believers in the curative properties of the BIC’s magic snake-oil elixir, this is just another so-what.  They believe, and their belief is unshakeable.

            I sure hope and trust Bolton and his publisher will take this to court as soon as possible to gain a formal judicial statement that the suit is a frivolous attempt to avoid embarrassment for the BIC and stifle Bolton’s perspective on events he observed.  I do not trust the BIC, the White House, or the Justice Department.  The USG has been so bloody compromised by the BIC and his serving minions.  A federal judge needs to properly assess this standoff and resolve it.  The BIC cannot stonewall yet another derogatory report by using the instruments of states as he has done more than a few times during his tenure.

            The U.S. economy is finally showing signs of recovery, although the unemployment situation remains net negative but diminishing.  The Labor Department reported 1.5M American filed for unemployment benefits bringing the total to 45.7M unemployed, 28% of the entire workforce.  The difficulty we face at the moment is balancing the re-opening of the economy with the inherent increase in infections, hospitalizations, and deaths.  There will be a price to pay.  The virus does not care a hoot about our economic well-being.  As noted early on in this crisis, the choices are decreasing the infection rate or increasing the ICU capacity of the country and specifically at sites of infection outbreaks.  We clearly failed at the former.  Perhaps, it is time to seriously focus on the latter.

            Once again, the BIC proudly displayed his ignorance, paucity of any intellectual curiosity, and fundamental unwillingness to learn.  Oddly, he publicly admitted to his ignorance when he confessed that he had never heard of “Juneteenth” or its significance.  He was surprised that the White House staff had issued an official public statement every year of his presidency to acknowledge Juneteenth.  He clearly was not paying attention in American History class in school.  Then, he had the bloody audacity to claim he alone had brought the day in history to public attention (with his ignorance).  We have to admire the guts of his malignant narcissism.

            Friday night, as is the BIC’s modus operandi, he had the attorney general announced the resignation of United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) Geoffrey Steven Berman.  A short time later that night, Berman publicly stated he had not resigned and had no intention of resigning.  Then, the following day, the BIC himself fired Berman.  So, now, we have one more bloody sordid affair perpetrated by Agent Orange—the BIC.

            Prior to his current assignment, Berman was in the law firm of Greenberg Traurig LLP, the same law firm in which Rudi Giuliani served.  Berman was appointed by Attorney General Sessions to replace Preetinder Singh ‘Preet’ Bharara, who was himself fired by the BIC.  What complicates this situation, Berman was not nominated under the normal 28 USC 541(c) provision, but rather the 28 USC 546(d) section under which he was confirmed by the district court judges.  Whether Berman will press this distinction to challenge the BIC’s action is yet to be seen.  I hope he does.  What the BIC and his lackey Bill Barr were wrong in some bloody many ways.  The SDNY happens to be conducting many of the investigations into the BIC, his companies, and some of the BIC’s cronies, not least of which is Giuliani himself.  One more time, this whole thing stinks to high heaven.  The BIC is using his office and the instruments of state for his personal gain (and obstruction of justice).

            Agent Orange held his campaign rally in Tulsa, after he had to back down from his originally scheduled day because of his paucity of knowledge or empathy.  The BIC claimed there were more than a million people seeking to attend his rally, so many applied, they engaged and adjacent venue to video simulcast his greatness.  The Oh So Great Orange One was supposed to address the vast number of overflow folks next door before the rally, but there were only 12 people, and they cancelled.  Then, their primary venue, the BOK Center, was only a third full.  It had to be such a disappointment to the BIC’s grotesquely inflated ego.  Yet, you have to hand it to the man, being the consummate snake-oil salesman, the BIC stood up there and delivered his usual sales pitch.  Of all the outrageous things he said, there was one that jutted out above all the others.  He railed against the pandemic response (because it was making him look bad), then he said, “So I said to my people slow the testing down please.”  What the BIC is really saying is ignorance is far better than knowledge—so BIC-ish.  Now, we wait to see whether the infection rates increase in Oklahoma and neighboring states.

            Supplemental: if the BIC had been a trustworthy, honorable person, his jokes, ‘tongue-in-cheek’ attempts, and ‘just kidding’ would be tolerable and perhaps even entertaining.  Unfortunately, we have NO FREAKIN’ CLUE when Agent Orange is trying to be truthful or lying through his teeth; thus my comment about needing a decoder ring to understand the BIC [758].  No, the BIC does NOT get to say things like he did above, and then when he gets called on his idiocy, he and his sycophants claim ‘oh he was just speaking tongue-in-cheek, he didn’t really mean it’ – like they did with his potential fatal suggestion about injecting disinfectant [954].  This guy was not worthy to be president, and he continues every day to prove that observation is correct.

            On Monday, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County [590 U. S. ____ (2020); No. 17–1618], which is actually a consolidation of three similar cases with different appellate rulings.  The case (or actually the ruling) is notable for numerous reasons—stellar jurisprudence is not one of those reasons.  The 6-3 decision was written by Associate Justice Gorsuch, which really has to stick in the craw of all the noble evangelicals and conservatives who had to sacrificed their ideals, beliefs, positions and expectations for the BIC and Supreme Court nominations to serve their needs.  The short version of this ruling: discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is now illegal.  The decision hangs upon one word of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [PL 88-352; 78 Stat. 241], Title VII, §703 that prohibits employment discrimination based on an “individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” [78 Stat. 255].  By this decision, the word ‘sex’ includes sexual orientation and gender identity.  Gorsuch argued in his majority opinion that if Congress intended the law to be constrained to only an anatomical, bilateral, genitalia classification at birth they would have chosen the word gender rather than sex.  Thus, the majority’s interpretation is that the word ‘sex’ is characteristically more expansive.  Five other justices joined Gorsuch without qualification.  Justice Alito wrote a rather expansive but disjointed dissent that centered up textualist versus literalist interpretation of the law.  According to the texualists, the definition of the word ‘sex’ in the context of the Title VII, 1964 timeframe, and the intention of the Congress of the day.  Alito argues that in 1964 that ‘sexual orientation’ was a distant moral question largely ignored by society, and ‘sexual or gender identity’ was wholly unknown.  Further, if Congress had intended to include sexual orientation or gender identity in the list of classes covered by Title VII, it would have done so. The 88^thCongress (1964) could have chosen far more precise words in the construction of §703, but they did not; they chose broad, general terms.  Alito notes expansively that homosexuality and homosexual conduct was a federal felony in 1964, therefore inclusions of sexual orientation could not possibly be included in the meaning of ‘sex’ in §703

            The law is not static monolith, as if engraved in granite to remain solidified and calcified in perpetuity.  It is interpreted by nine (9) justices using their best judgment of the meaning and application of the words.  Alito (successor to Scalia) holds a very narrow, constrained, and restrictive view of interpretation.  The Founders/Framers never used the word ‘sex’ in the construction or in their writings regarding the Constitution, thus they were mute with respect to the applicability of the law to anyone other than ‘men’ as they understood the word, i.e., adult male, Caucasian, educated, Protestant landowners who spoke English. Is that really what the Founders/Framers intended?  I, for one, do not and cannot believe the answer is yes . . . that they intended to be just that restrictive.  I see nothing in history that even remotely suggests such a narrow interpretation.  Does Alito’s (the apparent successor to Scalia in such discussions) preclude the shifting meaning of a word over decades, centuries and millennia?  I cannot and do not believe that was the intention of the Founders and Framers.  Further, I believe strict constructionists (or in this instance textualists) fail to acknowledge that judges and the Supreme Court must interpret and render judgment based on their understanding of the law as written.  There is a very real, tangible reason the Supreme Court has nine justices who must find a majority consensus for the interpretation of the law.  There has NEVER been ONE Supreme Court justice to make such judgments.

            The definition of sex in the context of §703 is quite akin to the on-going debate about what is meant by a “well-regulated Militia”?  This philosophical debate has relevance far beyond this case.

            So, using Alito’s reasoning, when Thomas Jefferson wrote, “[T]hat all men were created equal,” he literally and precisely meant only adult males were created equal.  Thus, women and children (both male and female) were less than equal, or rather had essentially no rights whatsoever, in other words only adult males had unalienable rights—no one else.  Further, by the standards of 1775, ‘men’ were considered to be only educated, Protestant, Caucasian, landowners who spoke English.  Is this really what we have become?  We are unable to see the majesty of Jefferson’s words beyond the strict meaning of the words (or a word) in 1775?  Extending Alito’s reasoning, this means the Constitution and other laws must be re-written anytime there is a new scientific discovery, or expanded knowledge of our human existence is realized.  Did the Founders really believe that?  Or, did they believe the system of governance established by the Constitution would be interpreted by judges and justices of the day?  There is no evidence I am aware of that the Founders and Framers were so rigid in their establishment and definition of the law.  Alito then goes into an expansive discussion of various state efforts to suppress and oppress homosexuals as further justification for his narrow judgment.  Justice Thomas joined Alito’s dissent without qualification.

            Justice Kavanaugh offered a separate dissent based upon the separation of powers.  I must say at the outset that I was impressed with Kavanaugh’s writing and his reasoning—a worthy and compelling argument.  Yet, what is the most striking in Kavanaught’s dissent is one sentence in his conclusion.  He stated, “Notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans.”  How about that!

            As a footnote or perhaps a postscript, after reading Bostock, and especially both dissenting opinions, I was reminded of an earlier SCOTUS ruling—Dred Scott v. Sandford [60 U.S. {19 How.} 393 (1856)] [322].  The dissent aside, the Court did what was long overdue.  Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is wrong and needed to go.  Unfortunately, those so inclined will not accept this ruling, but the decision gives disenfranchised Americans the weight of law on their side now.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited DACA ruling—Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California [591 U. S. ____ (2020); No. 18–587].  The ruling was a consolidation of three similar cases and a narrow 5-4 decision, although rather convoluted.  The chief justice wrote the opinion for the Court in which the liberal wing joined. 

The previous decision [Bostock] took longer than expected to review, so my assessment of this decision will have to wait until next week.  I really must get back to my writing . . . at least for a few days.  Standby!

            Continuation from Update no.960:

“Short and sweet .. I respect your desire to voice your opinions over mine . As you don’t agree with me, I don’t agree with you .. your mental block will always be to disagree with pretty much everything Trump says and does because based on your perception of his character, you just don’t like him .. I would never vote for Biden .. it is blatantly obvious he is not mentally fit .. everyone sees it .. which makes the Democrat party look ever more mischievous because we know whoever he picks as a running mate would be the actual President In a short time so it is obvious they are going to pull yet another shady, surprise attack in his choice of VP.  Like Michelle Obama which over half of America, maybe more by now, would not like at all.  And this is NOT about racism, far from it .. this is about transparency and the lack of it .. We do NOT want Barack in the White House ever again.”

My reply:

            No, [anonymous], NO!  I absolutely, categorically, and emphatically do NOT want to express my opinions “over” yours . . . only with yours.  I do not edit any opinions, including yours, expressed in this forum; they are as you chose to say them.  I have never sought to overcome, overpower, overwhelm, or otherwise diminish your opinions.  Yes, I do not agree with some of your opinions, but disagreement, debate, argument, and discussion among citizens is essential—vital—to any democracy, not just ours.  That observation goes back more than two millennia to the ancient Greek democracy. That principle is exactly why I encourage anyone and everyone to express their opinions on things in this forum.  I am most grateful that you have chosen to take the time to express your opinions.  I truly and genuinely appreciate your efforts.

            Who you choose to vote for is your personal and private choice, which I respect and defend.  At least you vote; the majority does not.  That is all I seek.  I just want people to VOTE.

            My condemnation of the BIC is only a product of his gargantuan personality flaws; his ascendency to the presidency has dramatically amplified the BIC’s personality flaws.  As I wrote before he ever gained the nomination or election, I have seen the destruction of his kind far too many times in my life; I did not and do not need more examples, but here we are.  He has proven my observations in spades.

            I believe good citizens see him in exactly the same light as I do, but they choose to overlook his malignant narcissism because they believe he will give them the ultra-conservative Supreme Court justices they ultimately seek.  If it had not been for Moscow Mitch and his defiance of the Constitution, I would have been saying, these are the consequences of elections.  He was duly and properly elected to be president; this is what presidents do.  But I do not see the BIC’s appointments as those consequences; I see them in the light of McConnell’s unconstitutional action.

            Interesting assessment.  The BIC is just three (3) years younger than Biden; what makes you believe their general health or durability is different?  Did you see the video clips from West Point?

            There is no point for me to waste your time and mine in any effort to defend President Obama.  You have made your position crystal clear.  ‘Nuf said.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.961:

Comment to the Blog:

“In connection with Mr. Fuller’s death by hanging, I will note that Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has blocked a bill making lynching a Federal crime.

“Your ‘good friend and former colleague’ provides an example of why the slippery slope argument is a fallacy in logic.

“I recognize your experience in Arizona, but we are not seeing a resurgence as we re-open here in Ohio.  It’s pointless to argue against the human-nature result of the lock-down in any case.

“In regard to nicknames, I’ll note that the Chump has moved his address to Florida, perhaps to escape state income taxes.  Down South, a white racist is often called a ‘peckerwood.’  Perhaps we have a Red-Headed Peckerwood?”

My response to the Blog:

            I was aware of Rand Paul’s action against the lynching law—speaks volumes.  Thank you for reminding me.

            Opinions are opinions; all are welcome.

            Yes, I agree in the general sense.  However, I think my comment was applied to a more specific element beyond the general human nature level.  To be precise, a society of people and their willingness to submit to restrictions of freedom of choice.  We see in dramatic contrast in the effect of draconian measures to break the chain of infection versus a more flaccid approach, e.g., PRC versus USA.  Sometimes our freedoms are our own worst enemy.  Add on top of that the graphic defiance of the so-called leader to compromise weak voluntary measures, we have hundreds of thousands dead versus tens of thousands—an order of magnitude.  I was only recognizing this apparent reality.  Perhaps in the future, we should just bite the bullet and let people choose to kill other citizens by their complacency and obliviousness.

            More like Orange Peckerwood.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)