Update no.1060

 Update from the Sunland

No.1060

2.5.22 – 8.5.22

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

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- The bombshell this week exploded on Monday, 2.May.2022, in the form of an unprecedented leaked draft document from the U.S. Supreme Court. Politico published the draft document.

“Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows – ‘We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,’ Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.”

by Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward

Politico

Published: 05/02/2022; 08:32 PM EDT

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21835435/scotus-initial-draft.pdf

Subsequently, Chief Justice Roberts validated that the leaked document was authentic but emphasized that it was a draft, and it can change. The case at issue before the Court is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. It is a frontal assault on Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973); 22.1.1973] [319] and the main affirmation of Roe was Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v. Casey [505 U.S. 833 (1992); 29.6.1992]. I was sorely tempted by my curiosity to read the draft document. I decided I must resist. What matters is the publicly published decision, which given the controversy of this case, will not likely be released until the end of the session in late June.

I shall reserve my review and comment on the Dobbs ruling once it is official and final in a couple of months.

 

The leak of the draft opinion in the Dobbs case noted above instigated quite a few background thoughts. As I have written multitudinous times, Roe is a Supreme Court precedent case that was ostensibly about abortion. However, from my perspective, Roe had a far greater purpose—a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.

Justice Thomas has always been correct. The word ‘abortion’ appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. His interpretation, and that of most judicial conservatives, is that as such the federal government including the Judiciary has no authority whatsoever to regulate or render judgment on the employment of abortion as a medical procedure. When you see the U.S. Constitution as just a stack of words, I suppose Thomas’ interpretation is natural and understandable. Regrettably, for Thomas and his conservative brethren, the Constitution is much more than a federal authority document.

The Founders/Framers were wise enough and sufficient foresightful to quickly add the bill of rights to the recent completed [1787] and ratified [1788] U.S. Constitution. The first ten amendments—the Bill of Rights—were ratified on 15.December.1791. Included among those first ten amendments were the 9^th and 10^th Amendments.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

When you search for the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence regarding the 9^th and 10^th Amendments, the pickings are rather thin. Most pundits of the Judiciary point to two cases:

-- United Public Workers v. Mitchell [330 U.S. 75 (1947); 10.2.1947]

-- Griswold v. Connecticut [381 U.S. 479 (1965); 7.6.1965] [166, 189, 323]

Neither case is an expansive examination or interpretation of either amendment. However, the amendments were mentioned and the basis the judicial reasoning of the majority in those cases. And yet, the 9^th and 10^th Amendments are every bit as much part of the U.S. Constitution as every other word of the document. Justice Thomas and the other ‘judicial conservatives’ on the Court cannot ignore the reality of the 9^th and 10^th Amendments.

I have often wondered and debated why the Supreme Court has tried so hard to avoid those two amendments. My conclusion: Those two amendments are unbounded, undefined, and thus wide open to interpretation.

To me, “retain by the people” is exactly where the fundamental rights of all citizens reside. The Framers were wise enough to not attempt an all inclusive document, as it would not allow for the maturation and growth of the nation. The ideals of the Declaration—Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness—are embodied in those undefined “retained” rights. The Founders/Framers were keenly aware of English common law, as it was in large part the basis of our laws. The privacy of citizens was plainly recognized in Blackstone’s Commentaries {1-1-139 (1766) [176]; 3-19-288 (1768) [236]}. There can be no liberty or happiness without privacy. The Founders/Framers did not feel the need to write an amendment concerning a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy because they understood that privacy was an inalienable right endowed by our Creator.

Citizens like me [male, Caucasian, retired (old), unemployed] could easily declare, hey, not my problem; I don’t care. This case does not affect me. I can only say, well, my friend, the imposition of a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy affects every citizen whether you realize it or not. In reality, this process began insidiously 150 years ago, and We, the People, did not see the threat coming. So here we are.

This brings us to the elephant in this forum (and elsewhere within this once grand republic). This is exactly why privacy matters. Abortion is a very, very private matter. In fact, I am not sure anything can be more private. Abortion is not a political issue. Fundamental rights are not political matters. States do not have the right under any authority to impose upon the fundamental rights of citizens. If a state wants to make littering a Class A felony punishable by decades in prison, it is the domain of the states. There is no right whatsoever at any level for such injurious public conduct. Littering is the public domain; a woman’s body is not. A woman’s body and biological functions are as private as private can be. This is also exactly why I have such a deep disagreement with the conservative approach to the Constitution. The conservatives respect no rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Neither the federal nor state governments have the authority to impose upon a citizen’s fundamental right to privacy without an overwhelming public domain cause of action. Unfortunately, we have allowed such encroachment over many decades, and the current Supremes appear to be hellbent on taking us back even farther into oppressive governance.

 

A friend and former neighbor sent along this poignant repost that directly reflects our opinion. I do not know who wrote the words. I do not know if the women referred to in the letter are real citizens. I do know the sentiments offered are authentic. It is too important and must be shared in this forum, especially given events of this week.

“I'm not ‘pro-murdering babies.’

“I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20-week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.

“I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.

“I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.

“I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust, and her 11-year-old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.

“I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.

“I'm pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.

“I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses.

“I'm pro-Christina who doesn't want to be a mother, but birth control methods sometimes fail.

“I'm pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.

“I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.

“I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.

“I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.

“You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:

“I'm pro-life.

“Their lives.

“Women's lives.

“You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.

“Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!”

Amen! Spot on! And right on! Just because some citizens are born with ovaries and a uterus does NOT give any level of government the authority to impose upon the very private choices a few women may be faced with making at some point in their lives for reason(s) that are very private. We must stand with the women to defend every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy.

 

In the category of a “sign of the times” matter, I note the candidacy of James Richard ‘J.R.’ Majewski for the House of Representatives in Ohio. He is seeking to represent the Ohio 9^th Congressional District, which is a well gerrymandered district along the shore of Lake Eire from Cleveland to Toledo. Majewski is an Air Force veteran, and a political novice. He also attended the January 6^th “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington, DC, although I have seen no evidence that he took part in the assault on the Capitol Building that day, and apparently is a QAnon believer, having publicly espoused several QAnon conspiracy theories. Majewski will face the longest-serving woman in the House history (40 years)—Representative Marcia Carolyn Kaptur.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1059:

Comment to the Blog:

“Back in 1974, I underestimated the importance of Ford’s pardon of Nixon. I have since come to see it as the beginning of the breakdown of the rule ‘of laws, not of men’ in this country. I can’t understand why the Department of ‘Justice’ doesn’t move against King Baby and his crime family.

“I see the cloth masks as an attempt to control the population. I had masks that exceed the EU standard when all this began, but I stuck to using them only when my medical condition called for it. I still don’t see an ‘ample supply’ around me. There’s a somewhat better argument for vaccines, but accept responsibility for your own self-care.

“Don’t give me that about being obliged to vote. I sit here skipping the Ohio primaries because neither party offers me a candidate worthy of my vote.

“On King Baby’s rallies: decibels don’t equal votes.”

My response to the Blog:

I was serving on active duty in a Marine attack helicopter squadron at Camp Pendleton, California, when Nixon resigned, and Ford pardoned the criminal. If I had been blogging back in those days, I still would not have felt comfortable expressing my opinion (publicly) due to the uniform I wore and the position I held. Nonetheless, I did express my opinion privately. My opinion has not changed during the ensuing nearly 50 years. Nixon committed multiple felonious crimes, but what Ford did was disparage the rule of law and thumbed his nose at American society and community order. No previous president had ever so blatantly broken multiple federal laws. I see Ford’s unilateral action as far more devastating to American societal structure than Nixon’s crimes.

Re: cloth masks. We shall respectfully disagree. I understand and appreciate your medical condition. I do not see the box of sealed 3M N95 masks at our pharmacy, so I suspect the box was empty, tossed, and not reordered. I guess we shall have to wait until the next respiratory viral epidemic or pandemic to see if the USG learned its lesson about stockpiling masks.

For argument’s sake, what is “your own self-care” in the face of a highly contagious respiratory viral pandemic?

Re: a citizen’s obligation to vote. Again, we shall respectfully disagree. I choose not to vote in the party primaries, because I refuse to declare a party affiliation . . . been so for 50 years; I do not see me changing my predilection.

Re: King Baby. Quite so! Only votes count. If we do not vote, we will get another crazy like the last one, and the next time we might not be so lucky. The fBICP and their supporters are a minority, and they are a willful minority that believes they have been anointed by God to impose their will, their beliefs, their values, and their moral choices on everyone. At the end of the day, we get what we deserve.

 . . . Round two:

“Your self-care with regard to COVID probably exceeds mine. Mine has consisted of understanding airborne transmission (before all this started) in order to avoid hot spots and ‘super-spreader’ events and of eventually getting vaccinated and boosted as safely as I could. The real problem with your statement is that you try to get others who disagree to take responsibility for ‘protecting’ you, and a great many people have a big negative reaction to that dose of guilt. I’m one.

“I could have chosen to vote in the Democratic primary, and there’s actually one candidate who’s worthy of my vote. Between the weather, the rest of the ballot is a waste of time, and the unlikeliness of her winning, it’s just not worthwhile. I’ll say it again, we express our will by not voting when no good candidates are available. What we ‘deserve’ is another of those morality statements, and it disregards the reality of the two-party failure.”

 . . . my response to round two:

You know, if the mask-resisters, anti-vaxxers were as conscientious as you, we would not have lost nearly 1 million citizens and done untold damage. Regrettably, they are not. The public health challenge has been and remains the transmission of the virus and the overload of our health care system. The virus cannot survive outside a host.

With respect, my friend, I am not trying to guilt anyone. I am only observing and offering words for contemplation. Receiving a vaccine is very much a personal private choice; I do not think anyone should be forced to receive a vaccine. I am advocating for consequences to those personal choices that affect the public domain. No citizen has any right whatsoever to infect other people with this virus, which means if an individual does not want to wear a facial mask or get vaccinated, society has the right and authority to keep that individual from infecting others. Society is not cohesive if it becomes every person for her/his self-interests.

The primaries are not the issue with respect to voting; they are simply political party selection processes. The general elections are the events where we choose our representatives and political leaders, not the primaries. My observations and opinions are directed at the general elections only.

I understand, appreciate, and accept your disappointment with our current two-party political system. I share much of your frustration. As Sir Winston so succinctly observed, “Democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” Democracy depends upon voting.

 . . . Round three:

“I deal less with motivation than with results. Whether or not you consciously intend to bring guilt, there it is anyhow. Those who don’t perceive the facts as you do will not take responsibility for you—and let’s face it, sound information is hard to come by in COVID.

“Okay, so the primaries are only an issue within the parties. So after the Ohio primaries, we have two choices for a U.S. Senate seat. I read as much as I could stand of the book that made JD Vance a celebrity and was repelled by his personality. The other joker is Tim Ryan, basically Republican by policy but running as a Democrat. No, I won’t be voting for either of those.

“We don’t have the ‘heat of summer’ here at present, although we did have ‘summer storms’ yesterday. We may get a taste of summer next week. I don’t have a pool (and I can’t swim), but I have shorts and bicycles, and that works for me.”

 . . . my response to round three:

If you feel guilt by my words, then I am sorry; that is not my intent. I am only observing and offering an opinion for consideration. We have discussed voting numerous times, so I doubt there is anything I can say that might change your mindset. So be it. We shall respectfully disagree.

When I look at the voting data, I do not see consistent voter turnout levels; 24.4M more citizens voted in 2020 than in 2016. In 2016, Hillary Clinton received 3M more votes than [the person who shall no longer be named], but the Republicans managed the Electoral College votes better, and he won 304-227. The historic voter turnout in the 2020 election was still only 66% of the eligible-to-vote population. To me, abstinence or complacency are corrosives on the fabric of any democracy. Exhibit no.1: the worst president (by a long way) in the history of this once grand republic nominated three (3) Supreme Court justices, and we witness the consequences today—our fundamental rights are being regressed 50+ years.

I have not seen or heard anything that raises a scintilla of curiosity in reading Vance’s book. To me, his book is no different from one of the screeds with the name of [the person who shall no longer be named] on the cover. [FYI: I have found no evidence to date that the man has constructed a coherent sentence ever. I do not believe he ever wrote a book. Like too many buildings, he just puts his name on them in gold, and people actually pay him for that act.] As is so often the case, we may well be voting for the lesser of two evils. If I was an Ohio resident, Ryan is far better than Vance. Vance is just another MAGA lackey—no thank you. I do not know if there will be a Green or Libertarian candidate on the Ohio ballot for Senate. Voting is very important. Vote for the best candidate on the ballot.

 . . . Round four:

“Along with many others, I have learned to spot that guilt when it’s offered. We respond with annoyance rather than guilt, which is why your communication doesn't work.

“You seem to look only to voters to take responsibility for low turnout. I don’t share that. I see it as the responsibility of candidates and parties to offer us some positive motivation. If I’m seeing only negatives, there’s no reason to vote for that. In this century, that has been compounded by the increasing difficulty of voting in poorer areas.

“JD Vance’s book was actually pretty good storytelling for more than half of its length. It’s when he strays into his opinion that he sounds like a more literate King Baby. Tim Ryan is more coherent than that but sounds like Governor DeWine, who’s a traditional business-friendly Republican. DeWine has an opponent, Nan Whaley, who will get my vote. Ryan, not. Most Democrats, not.”

 . . . my response to round four:

Work or not is up to you. I am only offering my opinion.

I understand and appreciate that you do not share my opinion regarding voting. That is the beauty of democracy.

We always have a choice to see any situation for the positive or negative. You exercise your choice, as do I. There are positives in everything, although there are plenty of examples where the negatives outweigh the positives. I continue to fall back to Exhibit no.1—the presidency of [the person who shall no longer be named]. He was a direct product of general voter malaise and the action of a willful minority. Exhibit no.1 is the amplifier of my opinion.

Oh my, I absolutely agree on the current fBICP aggressively seeking to activate Jim Crow v2.0. Voters with less resources than me will have greater difficulty in voting. I do not have sufficient resources to assist less well-off citizens. I only have my words. Voter suppression is the tool of that willful minority to hold onto power. We must vote for candidates who will make it easier for all citizens to vote, which is one of multitudinous reasons we must vote.

Re: the Vance book. I will likely never know.

Voting is a very personal and private matter. I am only concerned with voting. I am convinced the fBICP is a demonstrable minority. If the rest of us vote, they will be rendered to an even smaller minority. The hard part is getting citizens to vote.

 

Another contribution:

“Do you know I had to go back in time and research Nixon and Watergate. I was somewhat busy with military concerns to worry about such a distant upheaval. But having read up the history of this event he certainly had to go. The story of the Whitehouse security guard Frank Wills unearthing the fact that former FBI/CIA agents had, while unauthorised, entered the building down loaded telephone messages and actually stole some paperwork I found quite staggering.

“Your top office has had some palpitations Cap and currently so has ours with what we know as ‘Partygate’ when members of government and staff enjoyed social gatherings while the entire nation was in ‘lockdown’. Such incidents raise doubts in my governing mind that we may need a deeper look at individuals who wish to govern before they are given the chance to do so.”

My reply:

Quite understandable. It was a tumultuous time 50 years ago. Nixon not only had to go, but he should have been tried in a court of law for his criminal conduct. He violated numerous federal felonious laws and state laws. Yet, I see Ford’s pardon of Nixon as far more egregious and damaging to the fabric of this once grand republic than Nixon’s crimes. Nixon should have gone to prison like his lieutenants had to do.

Also quite so! The compromise of the FBI, CIA, and other federal agencies was profound. We did not see how much FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover denigrated the rule of law until the Venona Papers were declassified and exposed to public scrutiny. Hoover’s disregard for the law was carried on by his successors, and we are still paying the price today. Yet, it should also be remembered that the extraordinary disclosures that led to Woodward & Bernstein’s All the President’s Men exposé were provided by FBI Associate Director William Mark Felt Sr., also known as ‘Deep Throat,’ who provided the clues and guidance to Woodward & Bernstein. He felt his civic duty.

We are aware of ‘Party-gate’ in the colonies. However, we do not see a lot of the detail. I suppose it is a common phenomenon among all of humanity—laws only apply to us common folk. I suppose we bear witness to Blackstone’s observation that “the King can do no wrong” sovereign immunity applies to our political leaders as well. We are a very long way from sending our previous president to prison where he belongs, but the gears of justice continue to turn.

Oh my yes, we see on graphic display that we really must examine personal values, conduct, and beliefs when we enable these political leaders with our votes.

 . . . follow-up comment:

“Thanks for your reply to my last-I see we invariably agree! Which is good.

“In my last to you I was tempted to comment re the advantages/disadvantages of having a military background in a politician. I’ve often thought that to be quite acceptable. Of course, I can see the disadvantages too, such as threatening the strength of democracy which of course is fundamental to our style of government. Ah well Cap let’s continue as we are but we do need to be very ‘selective’ in our selection of leaders. Is that something we are capable of undertaking more profusely?”

 . . . along with my follow-up reply:

Agreed. Military service provides multiple beneficial skills and invariably gives the individual a sense of team, community, and service beyond self. I could easily argue that military service should be a requirement for political positions, but that is not practical.

Yes, absolutely. As citizens, we need to be informed and critical of matters before society, but most importantly, we must vote; it is our primary means of participation—selection of our representatives. Capable of, yes, we are capable. Unfortunately, far too many citizens do not care enough to be informed or to vote. Such complacency abdicates to a willful minority, which to me is one step short of autocracy and dictatorship.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)