Update no.1111

Update from the Sunland

No.1111

24.4.23 – 30.4.23

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

 

To all,

 

With recent Press reports on repeated conflict of interest transgressions by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, I recall a similar . . . oh, shall we say . . . predicament involving an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In the case of Cheney v. United States District Court [542 U.S. 367 (2004); No. 03-475]. Justice Scalia was accused of conflict of interest, and the Sierra Club filed an official motion to recuse Scalia since he had flown with then Vice President Cheney on a duck hunting event (5.January.2003) while the case was before the Court. The Supremes issued a 7-2 decision with Scalia and Thomas dissenting. Of particular note in this case was Scalia’s 21-page assessment of the motion to recuse against him in his Memorandum of Justice Scalia [No. 03—475. Decided March 18, 2004]. 

The memorandum attached to the decision was not high up on the list the scholarly Scalia writing. He pitched his rationale in a personal ‘nothing happened’ manner, rather than an impartial legal perspective. He actually stated in words that his job as an associate justice is too important to recuse himself since doing do so might alter the eventual outcome of the Court’s decision. Scalia concluded, “I believe, however, that established principles and practices do not require (and thus do not permit) recusal in the present case.” In essence, Scalia tells us, trust me, neither the vice president nor he did anything inappropriate or untoward during the hunting trip, and they barely talked on Air Force Two or at the encampment. After all, they were not in the same duck blind together. His reasoning was rather juvenile.

What Scalia failed (or refused) to acknowledge is the appearance of impropriety and the tarnishment of the Supreme Court’s integrity and impartiality. The myopic presentation was far beneath Scalia’s usual lofty ideals. By the way, I will note here that Scalia and Thomas would have found for the appellant in Cheney. Fortunately, Scalia and  Thomas did not prevail in the Cheney case . . . but they could have. Since Scalia was Thomas’ mentor, I now understand why Thomas was also so bloody myopic and self-serving. Scalia was wrong then. Thomas is wrong now.

 

If I was looking for or needed another reason to never vote for another Republican (ever), Senate Republicans gave me to perfect, if not ultimate, reason on Thursday, 27.April.2023, at 12:30 [R] EDT, when the Senate voted on S.J.Res.4. The resolution sought to approve the Equal Rights Amendment [H.J.Res.208; 22.3.1972] having been ratified by ¾ of states. They voted 51-47-0-2[0], with 60 votes required for passage. Two Republicans (Collins & Murkowski) joined 49 Democrats & Independents to vote in favor. One Democrat, none other than Senate Majority Leader Schumer, joined 46 fBICP members to vote against the resolution. Two senators (Feinstein & Lee) did not vote.

The issue with the Equal Rights Amendment was the deadline. The original H.J.Res.208 placed a seven-year deadline that was extended by three years. Thirty-five states had past the amendment by the extended deadline. The ratification tally became quite confusing when a few states revoked their original ratification. One state revoked its ratification after the extended deadline. Three additional states ratified the amendment after the extended deadline. The question of revocation has not been tested in Court. S.J.Res.4 sought to supersede all that confusion and certify the ratification. There is no provision in the Constitution for revocation of a ratification.

The tragedy in all this nonsense is the Equal Rights Amendment should have been passed when Suffragette Alice Paul drafted the original language in 1921. The amendment has been introduced in every session of Congress since 1923. The original amendment text was:

Section 1. No political, civil, or legal disabilities or inequalities on account of sex or on account of marriage, unless applying equally to both sexes, shall exist within the United States or any territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The current [1972] amendment:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

I have been and remain an outspoken supporter and advocate for the Equal Rights Amendment since I became aware of it. Equal rights under the Constitution should have been explicitly and emphatically stated by amendment a century ago. The fact that the fBICP has decided to continue resistance to such an obvious declaration is unconscionable and inexcusable.

 

Now, as seems to be the case these days among fBICP-dominated states, Montana decided to join Tennessee [1108] in the realm of intolerance of anyone different from them. The Montana House of Representatives voted 68–32 along party lines to bar a member from the House floor, gallery, and antechamber until the adjournment of the 2023 session, the first week of May. The member will be allowed to vote remotely for the remainder of the session. The offending House member is a self-professed bisexual, transgender, 34-year-old, woman—State Representative Zooey Zephyr of Missoula (100^th District). Her offense to the Montana House . . . she chose to speak against draconian anti-LBGTQ+ legislation restricting or denying rights to LBGT citizens in the state.

For all the whining and whinging the fBICP, MAGA bunch does about woke culture, they actually pass laws to deny freedom of speech to non-heterosexual citizens. Zephyr had the audacity to say no; denial of equal rights and protections is wrong. As a consequence, the fBICP, MAGA bunch muzzled her, denying her the right to speak on behalf of her constituents. I will take woke over these fascist dicta we see denying freedom to women and other minority groups. The fBICP is NOT Making America Great Again. They are corroding and destroying the very foundation and fabric of this once grand republic. The fascists must be defeated at the ballot box, and permanently relegated to the dustbin of history.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1110:

Comment to the Blog:

“Corporate marketing includes showing the public only impressive successes on TV. SpaceX had a major failure in that sense.

“I also regret the settlement in the Dominion versus Fox “News” case. The money penalty won’t harm Fox. Nothing short of repeated on-air apologies would heal the damage to viewers of the nation’s largest “news” source. Publicized firings might help, too. Perhaps Smartmatic will do better.

“Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling hasn’t been overturned, only stayed. Of course, by the time the case comes before the Supreme Court, justice may come to Justice Thomas.

“What on earth makes your local writer insist that independents have no ideals unless they belong to one of the two political parties that are failing the electorate? That’s ridiculous. I respect your independence. Like you, I am an American first. I think for myself, and my ideals are for the good of all. After that, I am a Green Party member because I agree with their ideals and agenda most of the time.”

My response to the Blog:

“Maximize the positive, minimize the negative” is an axiom of marketing, speechwriting, politics, and other forms of salesmanship. If you recall the early Starship atmospheric tests, they had a number of dramatic failures until they figured out the control issues. SpaceX will sort this out, and we will see successes. We all learn from failures.

I agree. The Dominion settlement was a fraction of Fox News annual profit. Plus, the money will be written off as a business expense, which means We, the People, are ultimately paying the bill. The firing of Tucker Carlson, allegedly for his contribution to causing the Dominion suit, is a big step forward. I do not think any of these “penalties” will put a dent in the hold Fox News has on the far right. Likewise, I have hope that Smartmatic’s turn at bat will yield the court jury decision we need.

Correct. Kacsmaryk’s order has not been overturned . . . YET! It was a foolishly written, poor jurisprudence ruling that must be struck down. The 5^th Circuit’s assessment is expected next month. Hopefully, the Supremes’ decision will come before the end of the session. I am not confident justice will come to Thomas. Justice Scalia faced a similar but less egregious conflict of interest than Thomas’s transgressions. I just finished Scalia’s 21-page justification for his refusal to recuse himself from a case before the Court and review the memorandum in Update no.1111.

Short answer: insufficient curiosity and blind loyalty to a political party . . . ‘us’ versus ‘them’ tribalism. Yes, her reasoning is ridiculous, myopic, and grossly ill-informed. As I respect your independence. I find positive and negative in all political parties, but I cannot find affinity with any of them. Further, even if I could, I feel internal resistance to risking the negative consequences of joining the corrosive political tribalism that is so injurious to this once grand republic.

 . . . Round two:

“I agree about the ‘tribalism.’ I get a ‘word of the day’ email from Merriam-Webster. I think I found my term for the different approaches to life in a linked essay comparing pragmatism to dogmatism. That, rather than specific policies or philosophies, shapes our problems and progress. The dogmatic approach to politics (and life in general) has done great damage. I'll stick to being pragmatic about the national well-being.”

 . . . my response to round two:

We have an awful lot (far too much) of dogmatism in these troubled times. Made even worse, far too many people refuse to do the necessary due diligence with respect to the information they are being fed by unchallenged social media, unethical talking heads, and blatantly politically biased so-called news outlets like Fox News, News Max, and such. Likewise, I prefer pragmatic and try to avoid dogmatic. I will add here that I think dogmatic on the left is just as bad as dogmatic on the right. We need thinking, debate, negotiation, and compromise to find solutions.

 . . . Round three:

“A dogmatic approach always creates trouble, whether the dogma comes from Tucker Carlson, Don Lemon, the Bible, the Quran, or any given source.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Oh my, yes! Dogmatism is a cancer within the body politic. Yet, the social conservatives and far right are driven to dogmatism and authoritarianism by their diminishing position. There are dogmatics on the far left, but they appear to be less stringent and pervasive than the far right version. Also agreed, the source of dogma is irrelevant; it is all bad and not helpful to any democracy.

 

Another contribution:

“Good morning! I’ll respond to Nancy Plencner’s letter with an excerpt from George Washington’s farewell address, a prophetic caution regarding political parties, which beautifully and eloquently articulates why I, an independent voter, choose not to affiliate with them.

“. . . I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

“This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

“Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

“It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

“There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume….”

-- President George Washington (19.9.1796)

My reply:

Thank you for your contribution.

Excellent choice and wise words from President Washington. If only more citizens would read and heed his wisdom.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)