Update no.1068

Update from the Sunland

No.1068

27.6.22 – 3.7.22

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

 

To all,

 

Happy Independence Day to all of my fellow American citizens. We will re-read the Declaration of Independence as we do on this holiday every year. “We hold these truths to be self-evidence . . .” has never had more poignancy because the fundamental rights of some of our citizens have been rejected and denied. Let freedom ring.

 

The follow-up news items:

-- On Tuesday, 28.June.2022, the United States House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6^th Attack on the United States Capitol {HSCJ6} [1020] held a short-fuse pop-up sixth hearing with the sole, featured witness being Cassidy Jacqueline ‘Cass’ Hutchinson.  She was Principal Aide to the White House Chief of Staff [Mark Meadows] in the White House Office of Legislative Affairs. Ms. Hutchinson was present and witnessed events in and around the White House during the insurrection [991], and she provided extraordinary first-hand testimony.

For the ‘Stop the Steal’ Rally [991] on the Ellipse during the late morning of 6.January.2021, the area was segregated by a security fence and entry required passage through magnetometers (mags). Of those who submitted to screening, the Secret Service confiscated bear spray, knives, brass knuckles, TASERs, body armor, gas masks, batons, and other blunt weapons. Several thousand attendees outside the fence chose not to go through the magnetometers. Police surveilling the area outside the Ellipse fence reported men with AR-15 rifles and semi-automatic pistols in their waistbands as early as 08:00 that morning. Those men were also reported to be wearing ballistic helmets, body armor, military grade backpacks, and carrying radio equipment. Circa 10:00 [6.January.2021], Ms. Hutchinson was in a meeting with Mark Meadows and Anthony M. ‘Tony’ Ornado, who was then Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations at the White House during the insurrection and the former Assistant Director of the Office of Training within the United States Secret Service (USSS). Ornado spoke of the police reports of armed men among the audience around the Ellipse secure area. Meadows asked Tony if he had informed the president of the weapons reports, and Ornado responded in the affirmative. Hutchinson testified that on the morning of the 6^th, [the person who shall no longer be named] was ‘furious’ there were not more people inside the secure area of the Ellipse. He wanted the secured area filled to capacity. Also, he was informed that only those people willing to pass through the magnetometers were allowed into the secure area. They had already confiscated multiple weapons. [The person who shall no longer be named] stated, “I don’t F’ing care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the F’ing mags away. Let my people in. They can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the F’ing mags away.” The meaning of his statement—he knows the purpose of those weapons, and he did not object. Ornado also told Hutchinson about a fracas in The Beast after his speech between the president and chief duty Secret Service agent ‘Bobby’ Engel. Hutchinson testified that Ornado told her that the president was furious that Engel refused to take him to the Capitol and grabbed the steering wheel. Engel grabbed the president’s arm to stop him. Again according to Hutchinson, the president assaulted Engel.

In the aftermath of Hutchinson’s courageous testimony, character assassination efforts by [the person who shall no longer be named] and his sycophant minions has been relentless. The USSS has also broken its characteristic silence to indicate that it would cooperate with the HSCJ6 and its agents were free to testify. While it would be beneficial to hear from Ornado under oath to corroborate or refute Hutchinson’s recounting of the incident, we really need to hear from Secret Service Agent Engel under oath to establish exactly what happened in The Beast after the president’s speech.

-- Putin’s war in Ukraine [1050] continues unabated. The Ukrainians reported the retaking of ostriv Zmiyinyi (Snake Island), 35 kilometers east of the Danube River delta, which has become a symbol of Ukrainian resistance. The Russians also attacked the Amstor shopping mall in Kremenchuk, central Ukraine. Video of the attack shows a large Russian, air-launched, Kh-22 cruise missile striking the mall. More than 20 have been reported killed with dozens injured. Russian war crimes continue to accumulate. Putin’s war was also one of the main topics for both the G-7 and NATO summits this week (see below).

 

President Biden was in Europe to attend the G-7 and NATO summit conferences this week. The NATO leaders announced that a formal invitation had been extended to Sweden and Finland to join the alliance. The United States announced it is moving the 5^th Army headquarters from Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, Texas, to an, as yet, unspecified location in Poland, as a highly symbolic move to make a clear statement to Putin and the Russians. For those not familiar with army organizations, an army is comprised of two or more corps (usually three), and a corps is made up of two or more divisions (usually three), with each division manned by 10-15,000 personnel. Support units are added to the combat divisions to ensure adequate field operations support. In essence, the action sets in place the structure for a major forward deployment of Allied combat forces at the Eastern NATO boundary. While President Biden has done more to support Ukraine and coalesce the Allied stance against Russia’s aggression than any previous president since the fall and dissolution of the Soviet Union [29.8.1991], the U.S. Government (USG) should have done in 2014 when Russia invaded Crimea and Eastern Donbas. Further, in my humble opinion, it is not enough. I appreciate President Biden reluctance to physically defend Ukraine against the naked Russian aggression, but the point is we simply cannot allow Russia to succeed with hegemonic expansion into the sovereign territory of a neighboring nation. We failed to confront Russian aggression in Georgia [8.8.2008] [348] and Ukraine [28.2.2014] [657]. Ukrainians are paying a very heavy price today, and we must bear the burden of that neglect.

Just an FYI for the record, [the person who shall no longer be named] and his sycophant minions try mightily to convince us that ihr Anführer did the most to support Ukraine. To those who think such things, I point you to the man’s first impeachment investigation, charging, and trial.

 

Hypocrisy is a highly destructive behavior no matter where or how it occurs. It implies capriciousness from the speaker—a double standard, i.e., we are not equal. When the speaker is the president, the House minority leader, or the Supreme Court, the destructiveness is amplified substantially. We witness this kind of conduct almost everyday if not incessantly. I despise, abhor, and condemn hypocrisy wherever and whenever it occurs. The current rendition to attract my ire comes from the Supremes in my reading of the Bruen and Dobbs rulings (see below).

 

First up in my assessment of judicial pronouncements is the Supreme’s ruling in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen [597 U. S. ____ (2022); No. 20–843]. As the Court recognized, New York’s concealed firearm licensing regime traces its origins to 1911 and the enactment of the “Sullivan Law,” which prohibited the carrying of handguns in public without a license (1911 NY Laws ch. 195, §1, p. 443).

New York amended the law to establish substantive standards for the issuance of a license two years later (1913 NY Laws ch. 608, §1, pp. 1627–1629). Those standards have remained in force in New York for more than a century, until the Bruen decision struck down the “Sullivan Law” as an unconstitutional violation of the 2^nd Amendment. As a reminder of convenience, the 2^nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, in toto:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Writing for the Court’s majority, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas offered an expansive history of weapons legislation and court rulings from Medieval England through pre- and post-revolution England and the United States, and into the 20th Century. His most salient observation was, “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.” That one sentence from Thomas’s 63-page opinion for the court seems to sum up the entire decision. From my reading of Bruen, the Court is saying that a constitutional right cannot be at the mercy and whim of a government bureaucrat. The dissent offers a cogent argument against the majority’s near exclusive reliance on history to justify its position. History is important to understanding the basis of any law, i.e., how did we get here? The reliance as expressly stated by the conservative faction within the Supremes on history has become a shield to avoid change. History only precludes evolution, which is precisely what conservatives seek—status quo. History does not mean issues were correctly decided in a bygone era. Further, the dissent expands on the history to include some of what Thomas chose not to include because they did not support his premise. Breyer also noted, “New York’s Legislature considered the empirical evidence about gun violence and adopted a reasonable licensing law to regulate the concealed carriage of handguns in order to keep the people of New York safe.”

The Bruen case highlights the dilemma faced with controversial individual rights legislation and enforcement. As illuminated by the Supremes, New York is one of seven “may-issue” states, which means the state executive has discretion in interpreting the law as applied to an individual applicant. [FYI: 43 states are “shall-issue” states with respect to firearm licensing.] The New York law allows concealed or open carry, but the state police who approve such applications deemed the reasons for the applications were not acceptable to them. Both were issued restricted licenses that allowed them to carry handguns only for purposes of hunting and target shooting. But they wanted “unrestricted” licenses that would allow them to carry concealed handguns “for personal protection and all lawful purposes.”

Yes, but the law allows far too much discretion by bureaucrats. Where I disagree with the dissent is Breyer’s failure to acknowledge the capriciousness of the administration of the law. I would agree the law prima facie appears to be reasonable. However, if the administrators choose to apply an extremely narrow window of acceptability, then the law becomes a de facto prohibition. And, we know how that goes.

To take an argumentative position, nowhere in the Constitution including the 2^nd Amendment, is the phrase “for self-defense” contained or presented. Why does Thomas show deference to unwritten words in one instance and not another? [My answer: because he does not want to. Doing so would not serve his purpose. Yes, my friends, hypocrisy!]

 

The conservatives among the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court decided that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.” They decided to politicize the Court. I will say at the outset of this sordid affair that the only thing that has changed is the membership of the Court, and the only thing egregious in this tragedy is the willful, purposeful abandonment of stare decisis to regress this once grand republic back to 1868—screw progress.

To establish a proper basis for the following review and opinion, I must publicly declare that I have been a fervent state’s right advocate throughout my adult life. There are, as I have acknowledged, limits on state’s rights. The states should retain the authority to regulate public conduct within their jurisdictions. Where the authority of states must end is the abridgement of civil rights of all American citizens. Citizens are residents of states; they remain citizens of the United States of America.

Further, there were, are, and should be in perpetuity certain unalienable Rights that remain inviolate for ALLcitizens regardless of any one or combination of the social factors. The fact that a passel of lawyers in black robes and sitting at a judicial bench do not like undefined, ambiguous “rights” not explicitly addressed in the U.S. Constitution should be irrelevant. I appreciate the concerns of those justices, but that does not alter our unalienable Rights. As the dissent properly noted, “However divisive, a right is not at the people’s mercy.” [emphasis mine.] Period, full stop, end of story!

The case at the center of this public debate was the recently decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization [597 U. S. ____ (2022); No. 19–1392] that overruled and overturned Roe v. Wade [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] [U-319] and de facto affirmed Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act [Miss. Code Ann. §41–41–191 (2018)]. The operative phrase for the conservative faction and the object of their attack in the U.S. Constitution is the 14^th Amendment, Section 1, Clause 2.

14^th Amendment

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. [Clause 2] No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
[emphasis mine]

Associate Justice Alito wrote for the 6-3 majority. He said: “Historical inquiries of this nature are essential whenever we are asked to recognize a new component of the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause because the term ‘liberty’ alone provides little guidance. ‘Liberty’ is a capacious term. As Lincoln once said: ‘We all declare for Liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing.’” [Apr. 18, 1864] I say, precisely, that is the very nature of liberty. The issue for us is, does one person’s liberty affect another person’s life, health, or well-being? If not, then that person’s liberty is their freedom of choice and right to privacy in making those choices. If it does, then that person’s choice becomes subject to common law. Alito went on observe, “The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions.” Society has long outlawed conduct it does not like. Inter-racial marriage was illegal. Women voting was illegal. Citizens with dark skin pigmentation drinking out of the same water fountain as white folks was illegal. Alito’s history reasoning is interesting, but it is woefully inadequate and misapplied. In our history, citizens with dark skin pigmentation were considered property. Only white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon, male, property owners could vote. Is this the history the conservatives are trying so desperately to take us back to? Alito also noted, “When legislatures began to exercise that authority as the century wore on, no one, as far as we are aware, argued that the laws they enacted violated a fundamental right.” Yeah, no kidding, because a woman had no rights unto herself. Alito concluded, “We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.” Alito is precisely correct—abortion is not mentioned, explicitly or even implicitly, in the Constitution. Of that, there is no debate, which is precisely why he inappropriately states the issue before the Court is abortion. Justice Alito (Thomas et al) is spot on correct. Abortion is not a fundamental or constitutional right, but every citizen’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice are! That is precisely why the Court’s very narrow, myopic view of the issue before the Court was wrong. Abortion is not mentioned or even remotely hinted at in the Constitution. Just for the record, neither is semi-automatic firearms, consensual sexual relations, marriage, God, automobiles, airplanes, medicine, et al ad infinitum ad nauseum. I do agree; the states have the right and responsibility to regulate the medical practice of abortion as long as those regulations respect the fundamental rights of the mother. That is where the majority’s position fails—they ignore the rights of a woman. If they had refined Roe to do both, they would have been correct and appropriate. They did not do so!Alito very effectively cited 13^th through 19^th Century laws in England and the United States prohibiting abortion. What Alito failed to acknowledge is during those days and that period, a woman had no rights. A woman was considered an appendage of her husband—the Doctrine of Coverture. Justice Thomas wrote in Bruen (above), “Fortunately, the Founders created a Constitution—and a Second Amendment— “intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 415 (1819). Why couldn’t he apply that exact wisdom and precedent in the Dobbs case? The Founders/Framers never intended the Constitution to be an explicit, literal-only document frozen in time at 1787. They left open many areas without definition. The current conservative majority on the Court has willfully chosen to ignore the wisdom and genius of the Founders/Framers. Justice Thomas and his conservative colleagues are flat assed wrong. Full stop! The Court concluded and by the Dobbs ruling they do not judge the validity of abortion. They declared abortion is not a federal matter and sent the matter back to the states, which means roughly half the states will likely prohibit abortions for any reason, while other states will legalize abortions within their jurisdictions. If the rights of the unborn were that important to violate stare decisis, why on God’s little green earth did they relegate the matter to the whims of the states? Roe and Casey may not be exquisitely written judicial pronouncements, but our unalienable rights are far more important than a passel of lawyers’ sense of propriety.

The Constitution of the United States of America begins “We, the People.” It does NOT begin with “We, the States.” As I have written for decades, abortion was simply the object of Roe, not the salient aspect. The Roe Court was very careful to parse the abortion dilemma in the light of a woman’s (nay, every citizen’s) fundamental right to privacy. By sending the matter back to the states, the Supremes are saying a woman’s rights do not deserve federal protection, and they must be relegated to the whims of state moral projection that imposes on their sovereignty, dignity, and autonomy. It is not abortion that was federally protected by Roe, it was a woman’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice that was (past tense) federally protected (and rightly so). The Roe Court was very careful to seek balance between a woman’s rights and the State’s need to protect developing life. Late term (third trimester) abortion has never been legal anywhere at any time, even when Roe was still valid.

History is a good and worthy metric. However, history is deceiving in some respects. For centuries, laws were driven by paternalistic Judeo-Christian religion, which in and of itself was not bad. Religion in history was largely a civilizing force. Yet, religious dogma in some instances was driven by parochial motives, i.e., what benefited that religious order. For centuries, homosexuality, premarital or extra-marital sexual relations, sodomy (i.e., sexual penetration other than penile-vaginal), (and yes) abortion were illegal, i.e., against the teachings of the prevailing religious dogma. Nonetheless, if history is the salient criterion, human rights would not evolve. For example, history dictated that interracial marriage was illegal, extra-marital sex was illegal, blasphemy was illegal, possessing a printed Bible was a crime, contraception was illegal, ad infinitum. History does not make it sacrosanct. If it was, we would be paralyzed in the past. Nothing would change. Conservatives seek that stability. The rest of us do not. Society evolves. Artificially holding any society in the status quo is akin to declaring ‘this is the best we can get.’ Societies must evolve. Progress is essential to life. I refuse to believe or even think that the Founders/Framers were that ignorant, insensitive, uncaring, or shortsighted to overlook the most basic and foundational elements of liberty—privacy and choice. I believe they saw those elements at the very heart of our “unalienable rights,” and thus, restating the obvious would have been redundant. Unfortunately, the strict constructionists (conservatives) stand on enumeration, i.e., if it is not explicitly written in the Constitution, it does not exist at the federal level. As a consequence, the authority to regulate, enforce, prohibit any unenumerated rights rests solely with the states. By their stance, there are no unalienable rights common to all American citizens other than those specified in the Constitution.

I believe the Roe Court got it spot on correct. At the point of viability outside a woman’s body as the threshold that the woman’s freedom of choice is exceeded by the fetus’s great right to life. I cannot subscribe to the conception notion of life. If medical science progresses to the extent that a few dividing cells can be sustained and nurtured outside of a woman’s body, then the viability threshold can be extended to conception. Until then, a woman’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choices are paramount.

Instead of trying to find a balance between a woman’s right to privacy and freedom of choice, with the State’s interest in protecting right to life of a fetus, the Supremes summarily dismiss a woman’s rights in favor of the fetus that cannot survive without the mother. So, the moral projectionists among us feel compelled and justified to negate a woman’s rights to satisfy their view of life. Can fundamental and civil rights be parsed to and relegated to the states? If a woman’s right to privacy and freedom of choice can relegated to a state’s whim, why cannot other rights be done exactly the same way. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that any citizen has a right to carry a semi-automatic rifle, or drive a car, or swim in a lake. Why don’t the states decide those rights and all others. This is where I go dramatically against the Thomas court.

Unalienable means impossible to take away or give up. What the Supremes did in Dobbs is de facto negate the meaning of unalienable. The majority had the opportunity to illuminate those unalienable rights, but they chose the status quo ante (1868). In essence, they stated there are no rights beyond what is enumerated explicitly in the Constitution and its amendments. Thus, if we want privacy and choice as American rights, we must amend the Constitution. We cannot regress the rights of women to the point of being a State-dictated and controlled incubator, especially since the State wants nothing to do with caring for or raising the child. Men are just as responsible for conception and thus pregnancy as women. Here is a thought, what about State ordered vasectomy? I wonder how the Court’s conservative majority would view that for of dictated intrusion of a man’s body? The outrageousness of the majority’s stated position is staggering. They write about the sanctity of life, the rights of the unborn, and standing for the rights of “potential life.” What they have done with Dobbs is say, no, those matters are not federal, individual states must decide. So the rights of the unborn are relegated to the will of the people in each separate state, which means all rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution have no federal protection—uniformity among all Americans.

What dramatically complicates the issue at the heart of the Roe, Casey, and Dobbs rulings is the progression of a dividing single cell into a zygote, fetus, and eventually an infant. Respect for life is an essential element of the very essence of freedom in which precisely why the Founders stated explicitly that among our unalienable rights are “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” I think the dissent made a fundamental mistake in attacking the majority’s reasoning based on abortion as a constitutional right. They should have attacked it on the underlying right to privacy and freedom of choice protected for ALL citizens regardless of the social factors including women and their biological processes.

In part, I agree with the majority in that the regulation of a medical procedures should be left to the States. Where I depart from the majorities position springs forth when they refused to even address the far greater and broader issue of a woman’s rights. In essence, the Court ignored a woman’s rights in order to confine their decision to the medical procedure of abortion. The balance is, when does a woman’s right to privacy and freedom of choice become subservient to the fetus’s right to life? As states restrict the medical procedures of abortion, when does that regulation impose upon a woman’s fundamental right to privacy and freedom of choice? There can be no neutrality with respect to any citizen’s fundamental rights. The question has been, is, and will be in perpetuity where does the public common good override a citizen’s fundamental rights. Case in point, a citizen does not have an unbounded freedom of speech, e.g., maliciously shouting fire in a crowded theater where no fire exists in order to cause panic. 

Prohibition is rarely, if ever, a viable solution in a free society. Yet, the Court chose to enable just such action. Several states have already taken steps or declared their intention to enact just that—prohibition. If there is no public interest involved, then it should remain with the individual citizen. Contraception is one of many examples. What is the public interest in restricting contraception? The strict constructionists (conservatives) apparently believe, although they will not explicitly state it, that social change should be covered under the Constitution by amendment only, which is a laborious, burdensome process intended to dampen structural change to the founding document. I cannot find and, to my knowledge, no justice has attempted to explain or differentiate between structural versus interpretative change. If you do not like sex, do not engage in the activity. If you do not approve of a book, do not read it. If you do not approve of homosexual sex, do not engage in it. If you do not wish to enjoy the benefits of psychotropic substance consumption, do not ingest those substances. If you think abortion is abhorrent, then do not choose to have one. Without some overriding public domain common good reason, no one has the right or authority to intrude upon another citizen’s right to privacy and freedom of choice. Period, full stop, end of story!

The majority could have just as easily and simply stated (and in a form they did), they did not like Roe, and they had the numbers to overrule it. They did so because they could. Extending the Court’s majority reasoning in Dobbs, psychotropic substance consumption and other morally objectionable conduct should be left to the states. At the end of the day, I stand with the Dobbs dissent. I stand for the equal rights of all citizens regardless of any one or combination of the social factors.

Despite the atrociousness of the Court’s Dobbs decision, it is Thomas’s concurring opinion that is the most chilling and ominous. In his concurring opinion, Thomas states, “[W]e should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous.’” Those cases targeted by Thomas:

·      Griswold v. Connecticut [381 U.S. 479 (1965)] [166, 189, 323] (contraceptive use by married couples)

·      Lawrence v. Texas [539 U.S. 558 (2003)] [082, 188] (sexual relations between consenting adults)

·      Obergefell v. Hodges [576 U.S. 644 (2015)]             [706, 710] (same-sex marriage)

The essence of Thomas’s statement is an invitation for social conservatives to present challenging cases for the current Thomas Court to strike them down as well. Other cases illuminated by Justice Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion were:

·      Loving v. Virginia [388 U.S. 1 (1967)] [175] (interracial marriage)

·      Eisenstadt v. Baird [405 U.S. 438 (1972)] [485] (contraceptive use by unmarried citizens) 

In drawing attention to the above precedents, Kavanaugh stated, “Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.” If so, then why did he feel the need to draw further attention to those rulings? Could this be a fracture in the conservative bloc? There are numerous other unmentioned “substantive due process” rulings from the Supremes across an array of topics including end of life, voting, education, and even travel. We have no choice now but to assume the conservative faction is making all of those “substantive due process” cases fair game and subject to reversal. Yes, the conservative faction intends to force us all back to a bygone era 150+ years ago. Progress, evolution, who cares about any of that nonsense.

Here is a prediction: the moral projectionists will NOT be satisfied with Dobbs. They will continue their attacks until they overrule even Dobbs and prohibit the practice/process in all states, i.e., dictate to every state and every citizen their moral choices. They are not going to respect the rights of other states. The calls have already begun.

 

The two Supreme Court cases above saturated my capacity this week. I have not yet been able to read the recently passed Bipartisan Safer Communities Act [PL 117-159; 136 Stat. xxx]. I hope to complete my review of the new law in next week’s Update.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1067:

Comment to the Blog:

“I’ll point out again that the Declaration of Independence’s high ideals have never been codified into U.S. law. Also, the actual subject of critical race theory is only one facet of racial sociology and history that needs teaching.

“The January 6 committee is indeed delivering damning evidence. The base will not be persuaded. It’s far easier to sell nonsense to the credulous than to take it back. Enough people to count might be learning, though. I’ll note again the differences between marketing and reality, which also apply to the Democratic Party’s legal machinations. Defending democracy only goes so far.

“Benjamin Franklin was probably one of the wiser Founders. In that spirit, I’ll note that he included instructions for ending an unwanted pregnancy in one of his almanacs with no comments about motivation or situation. From what I’ve seen so far, the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision simply overturns the precedent.

“The only analysis of mass shooters I’ve seen revealed that the subjects (about 40 or 50 of them) were 100% male and 90% or more were 25 years old or younger. I know that other shooters are more varied and more common.”

My response to the Blog:

Thank you for the reminder. Rest assured, I am well aware of that reality. I am still working on the Dobbs ruling. Nothing is safe from this Court—the Thomas Court. I also agree that Critical Race Theory (CRT) is only part—a fraction—of the full scope of racial sociology in this country. The actions and reactions of the fBICP regarding this issue is one more fatal nail in the coffin of the fBICP for me. Unfortunately, it is going to take a very long time to overcome the mindset of that portion of our population who support the fBICP.

Agreed, because the fBICP base refuses to learn; they prefer ignorance. I truly hope you are correct . . . that some of the fBICP supporters are learning, but I remain skeptical. We will find out who votes this coming November.

I just finished the Ken Burns documentary on Benjamin Franklin, an exceptional documentary as Burns so often does. Well worth the effort to watch. I learn more, although I did not know that fact about Franklin’s instructions for an unwanted pregnancy. Interesting.

As noted above, I am only part way through the 205-page ruling. My perspective may have to wait until this week’s Update hits the wire next Monday. It is going to be long.

That is my perception of the profile of mass shooters as well. I am still curious about what triggers a person to such drastic, dreadful action. The vast majority of us disagree, argue, debate, huff & puff, but we do not cross that line to injure other people. There is a reason or reasons, a few people cross that threshold.

 . . . with follow-up comment:

“I sadly agree with calling it the Thomas Court. At least interracial marriage is safe so long as Thomas is married to that insurrectionist.

“I referred to independents learning about King Baby rather than the base. The base is closed to reality.

“I’ll look for Burns’ work on Franklin. I wrote a book report (or something) on Franklin in junior high school and have been interested in him ever since.

“I also would like to know what pushes angry young men into mass shootings. They are few, though, compared to killers in general.”

 . . . my follow-up response:

I am not so sure that Loving v. Virginia is safe. Who knows, perhaps he wants cover for a split without a divorce. LOL I finished reading his concurring opinion in Dobbs yesterday. His words essentially invited challenges to the so-called “substantive due process” cases. He did not list Loving but other justices did. This may well become a “be careful what you wish for” statement. I shudder to think what may become of us if Thomas is successful. I have never liked him from his confirmation hearings to today. I do not like his writing, his reasoning, or him as a person. I often did not agree with Scalia, but I enjoyed his writing and him as a person. Yes, Thomas is married to an insurrectionist, and we are not done with her.

Ahso. Agreed.

The Burns’ documentary on Franklin should spark your curiosity even more. Very well done.

I share your interest. There are reasons that motivate people of any age to cross that line and harm people. Understanding those motivations is critical to eventually solving the problem.

 

Another contribution:

“Interesting on many fronts, but I only have time for one comment.

“I attended the Mississippi Libertarian Party convention, was impressed by sincerity if not numbers , made a significant contribution , and have hopes for at least a respectable showing by the almost-too-nice young fireman running for Congress in south MS against the GOP 14(?) year incumbent and the Biloxi mayor democrat. I may take up my yard signs and take a trip south to plant them , after I send my brave man a contribution.”

My reply:

My goodness, you are definitely putting your money where your mouth is, far more ambitious than me. Good luck to you.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)