Update no.1040

 Update from the Sunland

No.1040

13.12.21 – 19.12.21

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

 

           To all,

 

The launch of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has been delayed from the 18^th to no sooner than the 22^nd and more likely the 24^th at 07:20 [R] EST. I appreciate the caution with this one-of-a-kind payload worth US$10B. More to follow.

 

            The follow-up news items:

-- U.S. District Judge Trevor Neil McFadden for the District of Columbia dismissed the lawsuit by [the person who shall no longer be named] to keep his tax returns [705] from the House Ways and Means Committee—Committee on Ways and Means v. Trump [USDC DC Case No. 1:19-cv-01974 (TNM) (2021)]. In the second paragraph of his 45-page opinion, Judge McFadden stated, “But even if the former President is right on the facts, he is wrong on the law.” He concluded, “It might not be right or wise to publish the returns, but it is the Chairman’s right to do so. Congress has granted him this extraordinary power, and courts are loath to second guess congressional motives or duly enacted statutes. The Court will not do so here and thus must dismiss this case.” Judge McFadden also allowed a 14-day suspension of his order to leave the window open for appeal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which judging from past performance is a safe bet. {BTW, Judge McFadden was appointed by the previous president; go figure.} I am certain it is a shock to [the person who shall no longer be named] that the law applies to him like every other American citizen. Regardless, he has lost in court in multiple jurisdictions and at all levels. The end is near for his obstruction.

 

In the latest, evolving, Supreme Court move to invalidate or resend the landmark Roe v. Wade, [410 U. S. 113 (1973)] decision, the 5-4 conservative majority in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson [595 U.S. ___ (2021)] sent the case back to the District Court after they dismissed the suit against most of the respondents based on narrow, strict, interpretation of the law. They allowed the suit to proceed against a few state government civil servants. Roe, the basis of the legal action, is not even mentioned in the majority opinion for the Court. You may recall, the Supremes refused to issue a stay or injunction in their first pass at Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson [594 U.S. 21A24 (2021)] [1025], thus allowing the punitively restricting law to remain in force while the courts chew on the validity of the law. Justice Gorsuch wrote for the majority, and he noted, “[E]ight Justices hold this case may proceed past the motion to dismiss stage against Mr. Carlton, Ms. Thomas, Ms. Benz, and Ms. Young, defendants with specific disciplinary authority over medical licensees, including the petitioners.” Although they differed on which of the four categories of respondents should go forward, eight of them agreed on the one category noted above. While this is a procedural decision, it offers us a glimpse into where and how the conservative majority is headed. Worse yet, by their inaction, the majority allowed the Texas anti-abortion law (S.B. 8) to remain in force and active. Justice Thomas, the one justice who would have dismissed the case against all respondents outright, bemoaned the fact that supporters of abortion have been sued just three times, while opponents have been sued 14 times over the same period. What Justice Thomas apparently refuses to recognize or acknowledge is opponents are NOT having their civil rights infringed upon. Supporters must defend their rights; the same is not true for opponents. Chief Justice Roberts joined the dissenters. He observed, “Texas has employed an array of stratagems designed to shield its unconstitutional law from judicial review.” And further, “The clear purpose and actual effect of S.B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings.” The chief justice concluded, “The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.” And yet, the conservative majority plows ahead. Justice Sotomayor wrote a far more direct dissent at the root issue. She said, “The Court thus betrays not only the citizens of Texas, but also our constitutional system of government.” “S.B. 8 authorizes any person—who need not have any relationship to the woman, doctor, or procedure at issue— to sue, for at least $10,000 in damages, anyone who performs, induces, assists, or even intends to assist an abortion in violation of Texas’ unconstitutional 6-week ban.” This is exactly the point I have been most concerned about since I first became aware of Texas S.B. 8. How is any particular accuser going to have sufficient evidence to establish a basis for their accusation? A guess, a hunch, a suspicion, a rumor, supposition, somebody told me, are those all sufficient basis under S.B. 8 to file suit against the person(s) of attention? S.B. 8 was ridiculous on its face, and yet, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority refuses to even recognize this reality. Justice Sotomayor concluded, “While the Court properly holds that this suit may proceed against the licensing officials, it errs gravely in foreclosing relief against state-court officials and the state attorney general. By so doing, the Court leaves all manner of constitutional rights more vulnerable than ever before, to the great detriment of our Constitution and our Republic.” I think Justice Sotomayor hit the nail squarely and drove it home in one stroke. That is exactly the acid and fire the conservatives are playing with to validate their social conservative morality and agenda.

 

A recent newspaper article sparked my curiosity and tickle-bone.

“3 residents of The Villages arrested after casting multiple votes in 2020 election”

by Joe Mario Pedersen and Monivette Cordeiro

Orlando Sentinel|

Published: DEC 14, 2021 AT 5:16 PM

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-ne-the-villages-arrested-casting-multiple-votes-2020-election-20211214-ee3t4xa7qzbqtmt2xf563km644-story.html

Three residents of The Villages, a community 20 miles northwest of Orlando, were arrested and face felony charges for 2020 election fraud. See, see, there was real election fraud in the last election! Joan Halstead, 71, Jay Ketcik, 63, and John Rider, 61, tried to cast multiple ballots and were caught. You might be surprised to know that there is no evidence that they knew each other. Halstead and Ketcik are registered Republicans. Rider has no party affiliation in the registry. All three of them have posted messages in support of [the person who shall no longer be named]. So far, the only citizens arrested for election fraud have been Republicans. Is [the person who shall no longer be named] accusing everyone else of doing what he has been doing just another sleight of hand deception by a wannabe dictator and consummate snake-oil salesman?

 

On Tuesday morning, the U.S. House of Representatives voted upon and passed H.Res. 851 [House: 222-208-0-4(1)]—the charging of former White House chief of staff Mark Randall Meadows with criminal contempt of Congress. The resolution goes to the Department of Justice for action. Meadows is now the first former member of Congress since 1832 to be held in criminal contempt of Congress. Judging from Steve Bannon’s arraignment on the same charge [1032] and Bannon’s trial date set for July 2022, which is an extraordinary delay on a such an important task, I suspect Bannon’s and Meadows’ lawyers will be spending much of the intervening time plotting ways to delay the trial further. Meadows has not yet been charged by the Justice Department, and assuming he will be charged, his trial date will likely be even later. A pattern seems to be evolving, these guys appear to be far more afraid of [the person who shall no longer be named] and his supporters than they are fearful of prison. What will be will be.

 

From a continuing exchange with a friend and occasional contributor in this humble forum, I offer this relevant extract:

“The weather people selling fear porn (similar to the fear sold on COVID), tried to make me think I need to be constructing the ARK, and as usual this was a simple cold front moving through San Diego with minimal problems.

“I too share your concerns about where the geopolitical/geoeconomic aspects are as you and I write.

“Maybe I should clarify/qualify that I do not think all racial equality is wrong, I am saying it often is unfair, unbalanced in the totality of problem, and very much exploited by the likes of Jesse Jackson, the good Reverend Al Sharpton, the alphabet news mafia, and other clowns amongst them.

“You mentioned ‘driving while white’: Well a few years ago I was driving in Santee, California and out of nowhere, a sheriff's patrol deputy red/blue lighted me while I was safely driving. She walks up, good looking black woman. She asks for my DL/REGS/INS and I hand them to her, she said she stopped me for one light on my license plate lights being out. She runs me thru system, code-4's her backup unit that arrived, and does not go paper (write and tickets/fix-it stuff) and tells me just to take care of the problem, ‘have a good night.’ I admit it was nighttime and midnight, and she was wanting to bag a DUI. I admit she could not see if I was white, at night. But I could have pulled the proverbial race card, jumped up and down, claimed police brutality and that she only stopped me because I am a white man. No, I did not, and that is why I did not even get ‘paper’ on that one. If Anderson Cooper had for 10-years indoctrinated me too, telling me ‘poor white man, the blacks abuse you’ then I would have jumped up and down that night.

“Does racism exist, it sure does. Are we tribal people? We sure are.

“Do you think I am racist? I had a black (well half Italian) semi-girlfriend. Back in the 1980's my coworker who was black, took me into an all black bar in Culver City. He laughed when I went in because I looked around and it was all black people, I was the only white guy in there. So I acted tough (but Clint Eastwood cool), sat down, and ordered a beer (likely a Colt 45 malt liquor). My friend/peer laughed and laughed because he said no white people would ever sit down in there. I had ‘THOSE’ people coming up to me like I was some celebrity, welcoming me, and saying they never see a white guy in there.

“Let's talk about the hypocrisy Cap: Months back I had a limo gig to our local casino on the Indian reservation, Viejas. The night I took these ladies up there for a B-day dinner, Viejas was incredibly busy unlike ever that I witnessed. It happened to be Latino Nights, for one concert, and then an indoor play/music called Black Pride Magic. Black Pride Magic was cross dressers who were of course black, men dressed as women, putting on a performance. Of course, all were black. Do you think you and I could put a performance together called White Pride Magic????? No, we'd be hauled off by FBI and demonized for life in the news and social media. That is the hypocrisy! You & I try to do White Pride Magic or White Southern Nights, and the villagers would hang us from trees then burn us. So much for equality!

“Back to more serious national security matters: Today on the nationally syndicated Jesse Kelly show (local: 760-AM from 1500 hrs to 1800 hrs), Jesse who is an Iraq War VET, started talking about the woke'ism infecting our military. Cap, you know what Jesse Kelly said? He said this is a cancer and that everyone in the military indoctrinating for woke'ness, advocating it, sympathizing with it, needs to be PURGED from the USA military from the levels of generals to janitors! Jesse has become much more important to me to listen to, after today's show.

“This campaign for SOCIAL JUSTICE is not about equality or helping our nation heal. It is just a tool/instrument to divide us, to cause more strive, to shame whites, and spread the mental illness and madness, in my humble opinion.”

My response:

Weather is weather no matter what we say or think about it. Extreme weather phenomena have occurred throughout history, i.e., 1709, 1816, ad infinitum. We just got a spit last night; expect high winds today.

Beyond the double negative, I assume from your statement that you believe racial equality is an appropriate and worthy social objective. Correct?

Wow! Perhaps my assumption above is incorrect. Pointing an accusatory finger at Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for racial inequality or injustice is rich, really rich (he said with dripping sarcasm). To my knowledge, they have never asked for more than simple equality and the expungement of racism or racial discrimination/segregation from the public domain. They know perfectly well that racism will persist in the hearts of men taught from birth to distrust and yes hate those not like them. You call that division. I call it striving for equality.

Now, for the record, my wife can attest to the validity of the following statement. Every time I see someone (anyone) mouthing off at and defying law enforcement, or fleeing law enforcement, or worse yet, physically resisting law enforcement, I nearly shout and rant at the screen—stop! Stop resisting! In every case I’ve seen in the last several decades of cell phone videos, body cams, and YouTube, I have not seen one officer being disrespectful or acting in a racially biased manner. I have also seen officers not handle situations in a responsible manner, but those are usually instigated by active resistance or defiance, e.g, Derek Chauvin. He would not have found himself in that situation if George Floyd had not resisted.

I can offer a comparable traffic stop example. I was driving down a 5-lane (center turn lane) residential street on a bright, dry, sunny day. There were no other cars (none) on that block of the roadway in either direction. I was distracted by an internal matter and drifted perhaps a tire width across the center white dashed line and promptly corrected. A Wichita PD officer noticed my transgression, pulled me over (lights ablazing), and issued me a ticket for my improper lane change. I did not argue or debate his judgment or action, even though I thought it was a really chicken-shit action. I did not rant and rave about the ridiculousness of his action. Resisting or defying law enforcement is simply wrong no matter what your skin pigmentation happens to be. Resistance and defiance is a threat.

Re: “Do you think I am racist?” Frankly, with your statement above “telling me ‘poor white man, the blacks abuse you,’” I will suggest you really should carefully search your heart. The differentiation of public conduct by the genetic pigmentation of your skin is simply wrong—either way, or any way. Anderson Cooper has never even hinted at such a thought. I am glad you dated a woman with dark skin pigmentation, and you could have a beer in that Culver City bar, but none of that absolves you of potentially racist thoughts. I freely confess that I may have it wrong, but I cannot see any of the civil rights actions from Nat Turner to the Freedom Riders and BLM as seeking dominance, subjugation or abuse of their white oppressors; they simply seek equality and respect. Just because Americans with dark skin pigmentation are trying to achieve equality does not mean they seek to deny equality to Americans with light skin pigmentation. If you think “white privilege” is a right, then I can understand your sense of division and abuse. The impression I am left with is, you feel there is a yin & yang to racial equality, i.e., if we lift up one social factor, we must push down the opposite factor.

With respect, neither of us have ever even remotely felt the oppression, discrimination, disrespect, or outright criminal abuse that Americans with dark skin pigmentation have felt and still feel to this very day. I am grateful that I am what I am by birth, but I also hold considerable sympathy for my fellow Americans who have not enjoyed the same freedoms I have enjoyed; thus, my support for BLM. I have never been a fan or supporter of this new term ‘woke-ism.’ I think it is just one more attempt at division and demonization of the boogeyman—“not like us.” 

Also with respect, I have not and probably will not listen to Jesse Kelly, but if he believes ‘woke-ism’ is destroying the U.S. Armed Forces, then I will respectfully disagree. Critical Race Theory (CRT) is long, very long, overdue throughout American society, not just the military or our educational system. CRT does not denigrate Americans with light skin pigmentation nor does it advance Americans with dark skin pigmentation beyond equality. CRT illuminates history. Racism was NOT limited to the ante bellum South. Redlining existed in Chicago and New York well into the 80s.

I could point to cases like Emmett Till or Medger Evers, but the one case that is irreparably burned into my consciousness occurred on 25.July.1946, honorably discharged WW2 veteran George Dorsey, his pregnant wife Mae, and their friends Dorothy & Roger Malcom were driving down a dirt road near Moore’s Ford Bridge, between Monroe and Athens, Georgia, when they were ambushed by a white mob. The mob tied the four to an oak tree, tortured them, and shot them at least 60 times at close range (according to the coroner’s report). It was the ultimate “driving while black” crime.

Just an odd, off-hand, unsubstantiated opinion, I suspect the children of that white mob at Moore’s Ford Bridge that day in 1946, are probably the same people who elected Marjorie Taylor Greene to the House of Representatives.

Lastly, I cannot and will not agree with anything in your last paragraph. I believe you are dreadfully wrong with every word up to “in my humble opinion.” I respect your freedom of choice to believe and say such things, but I am comparably compelled to confront such thinking. You are wrong, but you have a right to be wrong, but please do not expect me to sit idly by in silence. So, you ask, “Do you think I am racist?” By that last paragraph, I would answer, yes, I do. As a friend, I strongly recommend you seek professional counseling to confront your racism. I do not believe you are overtly racist, as in lynching someone solely because of their skin pigmentation, but the inverse is equally racist and more insidious. Americans with dark skin pigmentation are NOT trying to oppress you or deny you any of your civil rights or freedoms; they are only seeking equality and respect. I say this with a very heavy heart, but it must be said. I hope you can take my words in the spirit of Sir Winston Churchill’s very wise words—”Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body, it calls attention to an unhealthy state of things.”

“That’s just my opinion, but I could be wrong.”

 

A recent article sparked my curiosity in a vital societal question of our time.

“Does Law Exist to Provide Moral Order? – Is social cohesion possible in plural societies? Philosopher H. L. A. Hart weighed in amid debates on abortion and same-sex relationships.”

by Matthew Blackman

JSTOR Daily

Published: December 15, 2021

https://daily.jstor.org/does-law-exist-to-provide-moral-order/?utm_term=Read%20More&utm_campaign=jstordaily_12162021&utm_content=email&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_medium=email

A little more specific history might be helpful as a supplemental to the above article. The original British law that criminalized homosexual conduct was the Labouchère Amendment that became §11 of Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 [48 & 49 Vict. c 69 (1885)] [14.August.1885]. Seventy-two years later, Her Majesty’s Government commissioned a committee of 11 men and 4 women from various intellectual disciplines and charged them with examining the basis of English laws against homosexuality. The committee was chaired by Sir John Frederick Wolfenden, later Lord Wolfenden, Baron Wolfenden of Westcott in the County of Surrey. By a vote of 12 to 1, the committee’s final report titled “Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution,” more popularly known as the Wolfenden Report, was published on 4.September.1957 and recommended decriminalization of homosexual conduct. With the ensuing public debate, Justice of the High Court, Queens Bench, Sir Patrick Arthur Devlin, Bt, later Lord Devlin, Baron Devlin of West Wick in County of Wiltshire, offered his opinion of the Wolfenden Report in his Maccabaean Lecture in Jurisprudence at the British Academy on 18.March.1959. The lecture as given was titled: The Enforcement of Morals [later published under the title “Morals and the Criminal Law”]. Ten years after the Wolfenden Report, British law was finally changed—Sexual Offences Act 1967 {1967 c 60} [27.July.1967]. It was Lord Devlin’s lecture that garnered my attention.

Lord Devlin presented numerous probative and salient points to rationalize his opinion that there is a public morality, and the State has the authority and responsibility to enact laws to enforce public morality. I could argue with much of Lord Devlin’s reasoning, but he was a reflection of his time, and his opinion is not the object of my thinking beyond as a catalyst for public debate. He also acknowledges that the rationale for using the law to enforce public morality is a very tenuous matter since it opens the door to entry into the private domain and can be boundless in its application. Lord Devlin argued that morality is thread, or perhaps the reinforcement of the threads, that define the fabric of any society, and thus without those reinforcements, the fabric will disintegrate under pressure. He also stated that “Immorality then, for the purpose of the law, is what every right-minded person is presumed to consider to be immoral.” On this point among others, I respectfully disagree. Who defines “right-minded”? Further, Lord Devlin repeatedly declared, “I return to the statement that I have already made, that society means a community of ideas; without shared ideas on politics, morals, and ethics no society can exist.” I do not dispute his statement. However, the issue is and remains one of balance and based on what criteria. Lord Devlin does not offer us such a criterion other than a “right-minded man.” Two areas of morality addressed in the Wolfenden Report and Lord Devlin’s lecture are homosexuality and prostitution, but the principles apply to all morality laws.

The homosexuality laws in the United States did not change in their entirety until Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003); 26.June.2003] [082, 188]. The root issue with homosexuality is public versus private conduct. Although the proper resolution took an inordinately long time to resolve in the United States, it was eventually made right. The same root principle applied to many morality laws, which drew me to read Lord Devlin’s rationale in favor of morality laws.

The demarcation in his debate is the public versus private domain and a collateral variation of harm or injury versus neither. As with all debates of this nature, the devil lays in the definitions and the basis for those definitions, i.e., who and how do we define harm or even injury? 

Morality is often practically defined as what a person does when no one is watching, i.e., it is a very internalized, individual construct, taught and learned from parents, religion, and society. Moral outrage is likewise quite individual and intangible in the mind of the offended. As a consequence, moral indignation cannot and never should have been rationale or the basis for law—applicable to all citizens under the jurisdiction of the law. Lord Devlin is correct in that we need morality and moral laws, but the rub comes in where we draw the limit of reach by those laws.

A woman’s uterus is by definition private—very private, the ultimate in private, NOT public. The State has no right or authority to intrude upon that private sphere. What conflicts in this question is one of when does private conduct cause harm? To the social conservatives, that milestone is conception—a state that current technology is unable to identify instantaneously or even promptly. From a logic and reason perspective, I think the Supreme Court established in Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] [319] that milestone under the law as what they call quickening—viability outside the womb. As the time Roe was decided, quickening was circa 26 weeks. Medicine has lowered that threshold to circa 20 weeks. It is not 6 weeks as set for in Texas S.B. 8. The social conservatives use the harm metric in that context to justify their advocacy before the law. The debate brings us to the question, when do the rights of the fetus exceed the rights of the mother? How do we find balance between the two often-opposing forces? As I have written numerous times, if social conservatives showed just a smidgen of more respect for a living child as they do for an inanimate clump of dividing cells, I might be more amenable to their arguments. They are not, so I am not. We, as a society, culture and nation, have violated the public-private demarcation far too many times in almost two centuries of misguided morality jurisprudence. The nine-justice Supreme Court panel voted 7-2 in deciding Roe. Justice Blackmun’s opinion for the Court sought to find the balance between private and public, between the constitutional rights of a woman and the “rights” of a developing fetus. They never made unrestricted abortion “legal” despite the extraordinary misinformation campaign pushed by the social conservative segment of American society and the unilateral unconstitutional conduct of Mitch McConnell.

We seemed to have learned from our dance with prohibition of alcohol when it came to tobacco. We could have prohibited tobacco, but we did not want to repeat the destructive trauma of the prohibition (alcohol) era. We took a far more intelligent approach to tobacco. We informed and advocated for cessation, but we passed laws to allow tobacco usage while protecting public safety and well-being. Somehow we could not apply that intelligent approach to psychotropic substances. We should take the tobacco approach with abortion rather than the alcohol or drugs approach.

 

            Comments and contributions from Update no.1039:

Comment to the Blog:

“Thank you for calling attention to the disbarment referrals in that Michigan case. I agree about the importance of those. A fine is an inconvenience at that level of law; disbarment is killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

“Amateur hour in space is useless for science or engineering, but is a familiar marketing method.

“The New York Times has a newsletter report this morning on GOP election manipulation. Horror is an appropriate response.

“Racism has persisted the whole way, but incidents like the George Floyd killing have drawn attention to it. Also, I believe racism goes back not as far as language, but only as far as real property. Fear of the other is the deeper foundation of that entire category of strife. Also, the police here “did something” about the BLM protesters here. A violent protester has been sentenced to 9 years in prison. Also, various members of the police force are being convicted or losing lawsuits as a result of body and other cameras. Interesting note: experts on genetics make a point that race is a social construct, not a scientific reality.”

My response to the Blog:

Agreed all the way around. Far too many lawyers have prostrated themselves at the altar, and they must suffer the consequences. It is one thing for a pseudo-politician to espouse the BIG LIE. It is all together a different matter for an officer of the court to perpetuate the BIG LIE.

There were four paying tourists aboard NS-19. At the level of the New Shepard missions, it is just tourism and marketing.

Indeed! And, it is getting worse. Further, I suspect it will get much worse before we have any hope of seeing improvement. The fBICP seeks an autocracy they direct, or worse yet, a dictatorship, not entirely different from Saddam Hussein and his dictatorship for the Sunni minority in Iraq.

The prosecution of a violence inciter is encouraging, although not widely publicized. Yes, law enforcement officers are being prosecuted as well as vindicated by body cam and other video sources.

Racism is a social construct, not a scientific reality, has been my contention for decades. Racism is learned, thus my comment about language. [I had to choose something. Language seemed like a reasonable demarcation (goes back 200-250,000 years ago). We can see the “not like us” phenomenon in nature, e.g., lions attacking a leopard or hyenas, elephants attacking hippos, et cetera.]

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)