Update no.1124

 Update from the Sunland

No.1124

24.7.23 – 30.7.23

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

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- In the continuing sordid saga involving the former president in the classified documents case [1117] [just an FYI; it should be called an obstruction of justice rather than classified documents case], the original indictment against [the person who shall no longer be named] and his valet/body man Waltine Nauta was superseded. The new indictment is largely the same but adds another defendant—Carlos de Oliveira, property manager (chief of maintenance) at Mar-a-Lago—and four (4) additional charges. One of those four is a new charge of making false statements and representations to the grand jury and FBI against [the person who shall no longer be named]. Two new charges against all three defendants for attempting to erase the server at Mar-a-Lago on orders from Tiny. One new charge against de Oliveira alone for making false statements and representations to the FBI, for which he faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison. As this case evolves in public, it appears [the person who shall no longer be named] failed to learn a very important lesson from history—the cover-up is often far worse than the crime itself, i.e., United States v. Nixon [418 U.S. 683 (1974)] [870]. These new charges tighten the noose a couple of notches tighter. I suppose we another moniker to his long list: conman, huckster, liar, accused & charged felon, snake-oil salesman, and now gambler. It appears he is betting everything, all in, on him becoming president again with the power to pardon anyone he wants, anytime he wants, including himself. He cares nothing about the Constitution, history, tradition, precedent, or basic morality. He thinks he is above all that trivial, menial nonsense. He thinks he is god on earth; no law applies to him. So far, the steps he has been ahead of the law have kept him free, but the number of steps is diminishing. Only time will tell whether he remains free.

 

From a friend and occasional contributor to this humble forum, I listened to an interview with Representative Elijah James ‘Eli’ Crane of Arizona. He is a former Navy SEAL, who was elected to Congress in 2022. Crane is not one of the crazies like Gosar and Biggs, but he is more on the evangelical spectrum well to the right and in the social conservative bunch. The URL, if you care to listen, is: 

https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxg97nIWS9Dd7S1FXR_NiqO9TwXFsM9EYu

I found myself agreeing with him on a number of topics. Yet, when he ventured into the social arena, he crossed the public-private threshold . . . at least as I define it. I get crosswise with evangelicals at the public-private threshold. They want the threshold far more to the right than I can accept. I say it is none of their business. They thump their fists on the Bible, and say it is written. I say you have no right to dictate to others. They claim the left wages a cultural war on Christianity and their beliefs, when it is the right that doing all of the attacking . . . invading the private domain of citizens. It is fellows like Eli Crane who apparently think it is their mission from God to impose his beliefs on all citizens regardless of their religious beliefs or paucity of religion, because . . . well . . . they know best for everyone. After all, they believe this is a Christian nation—theirs to rule. No one is telling Crane or any evangelical Christian what they can think, believe, or practice in private. Their public conduct is a matter for the public domain. The public-private threshold is where I must turn my back on folks like Eli Crane. Freedom is freedom. Either we have it or we do not. The conservatives do not define the only freedoms We, the People, can enjoy.

 

What is left of the GOP along with the fBICP and MAGA bunch bark about education freedom for parents. What they really mean is they want to dismantle public education and have the government, i.e., all of us taxpayers, pay for the education of their children with a curriculum they define and enforce, or, failing that objective, they seek to reduce public education to the lowest common denominator. Facts be damned; who cares about facts! The worst of their initiative we witness today is playing out in Florida, but it is happening in more than a few states including Arizona. This observation is validation of what should be the new motto of the GOP, fBICP, MAGA bunch—Nescientia supra scientia (Ignorance over knowledge!) [1071]. Except, this social conservative and thus political conservative agenda has been grinding away for 150 years: exhibit no.1 - Federal Anti-Obscenity Act of March 3, 1873] (AKA Comstock Act) [PL 42-III-258; 17 Stat. 598 (1873)]; exhibit no.2: The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes (1925), the so-called Monkey Trial. The conservatives have been at this for a very long time, and they are not about to stop anytime soon. The only way to stop this damnable ignorance nonsense is to vote conservatives out of public office at all levels of government from village council to federal government (all three branches).

 

Adding insult to injury for Tiny, United States District Court Judge Anuraag Hari ‘Raag’ Singhal of the Southern District of Florida, dismissed with prejudice Tiny’s defamation lawsuit against CNN—Trump v. CNN [USDC SD FL Case 0:22-cv-61842-AHS (2023)]. Tiny sought US$475M in damages. The judge noted that “[the person who shall no longer be named] alleges that the use of the phrase ‘the Big Lie’ constitutes defamation per se because it ‘create[s] a false and incendiary association between the Plaintiff and Hitler.’” Judge Singhal was not impressed. Interestingly, Judge Singhal was appointed by [the person who shall no longer be named]; oh well, so much for Tiny’s presumption of loyalty by his patronage. He must be burning with rage. I must say Tiny does a good job (most times) of concealing his rage. The Big Lie is not and cannot be defamation; if anything, CNN’s statement was a gross understatement of the truth. Big Lie, indeed! The truth can never be defamation. Once again, Tiny could not make it past the probable cause threshold. Judge Singhal did what had to be done in accordance with the law . . . with prejudice.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1123:

Comment to the Blog:

“Judge Cannon setting a compromise trial date for Tiny may show relative objectivity about the case. If Tiny wins the Republican primaries, then goes on trial, that will be interesting.

“Someone was explaining a conspiracy theory to me yesterday and I mentioned Florida’s dictum as an example of mind control. Various organizations still advise against travel to Florida; I share their prudence.

“George Orwell’s insight scared me when I was in high school. Sad to say we’re living it out, especially in ‘red’ states.

“I have seen no discussion of whether Ukraine has alternative means of shipping its wheat. Ukraine borders Moldova, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Lithuania, and especially Poland. Have they no roads or railroads?

“Senator Tuberville resembles a tantrum-prone 8-year-old with a handgun.”

My response to the Blog:

Perhaps, but for me, the date is far too close to the election. I expect Tiny’s legion of lawyers to file various appeals demanding judicial pronouncements on various issue, e.g., warrant validity, executive privilege, prosecutorial misconduct, attorney-client privilege, et cetera. You are spot on correct; the process will be interesting to watch. We are well into historic judicial territory. I will be watching.

Yeah, what we see unfolding in Florida is classic propaganda technique—aggressively ignore the facts, and pick out and emphasize the positive to distract from the facts. History is still history. The facts are relentless, and they cannot be erased or hidden forever. Unfortunately, a generation of Florida children will be adversely colored by the propaganda & indoctrination. I would agree with you, the Florida action is a form of mind control. I am with you regarding travel to Florida.

That is precisely why I continue to illuminate his writing in multiple fora. Orwell was quite sentient regarding authoritarianism in any form. Some of those conversative states are so calcified and isolated that it will likely take generations to overcome.

The only alternative I am aware of is by rail to Poland and the Baltic. They might be able to use Romanian or Bulgarian ports, but I do not think they have the infrastructure to handle that quantity of grain. Trying to move that much grain by truck is impractical. The Ukrainians have roads and railroads, but they also have a track gauge difference that complicates the movement of product by rail with other European countries. Ships are the most efficient grain transport. They will adapt. Nonetheless, I think the paramount international interest remains freedom of the seas. Whether NATO uses its minesweeping capacity in a freedom of the seas basis is yet unknown publicly. At this juncture, I think doing so would be appropriate based on what we know publicly.

I liked your five-year-old with a bulldozer analogy better for Tuberville. An eight-year-old has more maturity than he does.

 . . . Round two:

“Election seasons seem to be growing increasingly stressful. Next year promises peak madness.

“Since yesterday, I see news of the Russians bombing a port ‘across the river from Romania.’ Apparently, Romanian ports are the preferred alternative for shipping Ukrainian grain. When there’s money to be made, people will find a way.

“Tommy Tuberville’s my 8-year-old with a handgun. He has a smidgen more intellect than Tiny, but still lacks any discernible maturity.”

 . . . my response to round two:

Yes, they do . . . thanks in no small part to [the person who shall no longer be named] and his crowd of believers. Yes, the silly season has begun is going to get far crazier as we approach election day next year.

Romania is a NATO nation. Crossing the line does not take much of a mistake. Article 5 is very close . . . another step closer. We need to prepare.

You are most generous with Tuberville. I am not so generous or forgiving. His action is still an infantile temper tantrum that is both foolish and misguided. Worse, apparent the Majority leader cannot find 10 Republicans to override Tuberville’s imprudent initiative. There is always hope . . . until there is none.

 

Another contribution:

“Thanks Cap-excellent job. So how’s this case against him who cannot be mentioned going to proceed ? I would hazard a presumption that the blog will become a very well occupied gathering of our joint languages. Should be virtuous and full of the words we wish to hear.”

My reply:

Judicial procedure in the United States is largely drawn from British law, although there are notable differences. Now that Tiny has been charged and arraigned, the lawyers are going through discovery. There is an added complication that the lawyers must be vetted and issued security clearances, which takes time. The defense team will file a series of motions to exercise their client’s rights under the law that may well delay the trial start. Much of that will depend upon the judge’s actions and circuit court of appeals on how much latitude they allow. This is going to be an historic event no matter how we cut it.

Yes, I am afraid this prosecution will appear all too often in the coming months. History is history—good, bad & ugly.

 . . . Round two:

“Thanks Cap-yes agreed, this will be, as we all thought a complex and demanding test for you all. The fact that you can expect a former leader of a most respected nation to face such charges is utterly overwhelming to your previous expectations and trust. We shall see my friend. These proceedings will be followed with substantial interest by us all.”

 . . . my reply to round two:

Well said, my friend. I just hope and pray it does not become an understatement. This is what happens when a large number of citizens vote for a conman, huckster, snake-oil salesman who has no morality or respect for the Constitution and tradition. We shall continue to hope that man feels the full weight of the law and suffers the full punishment for his transgressions. We will suffer the consequences of his tenure for a very long time. We shall endure and overcome.

 . . . Round three:

“Cap, we will follow your comments with our best endeavour. Yes, I fear it will take a lot of time to reach a satisfactory conclusion. To put it mildly it’s a bloody dire mess, the sort of untidiness that you all, or us too do not deserve.

“Hell’s , you’ve had some high temps-global warming or normality?”

 . . . my reply to round three:

“A bloody dire mess” is putting this situation mildly, I am afraid. Precisely, none of us deserves this sordid, disgusting, embarrassing and humiliating trash that man has wrought upon the nation and the world. The fact that such a despicable man could become president of the United States certainly illuminates the reality that no system of governance is perfect. He managed to exploit the flaws in our system, and now we see the consequences. The recovery from this bloody dire mess is probably going to take longer than the years I have left I am sad to say. Our children and grandchildren will have to work to repair the damage. These are the times in which we live.

Some of this is normal for us, although 37degC ocean temperature levels in the waters around Florida are definitely not normal. We have but to look at the glaciers, the ice cap on Greenland, and the polar ice caps to see the hard evidence of global warming. The point in question is whether it is human induced. The scientists have long advised lowering our expellation of greenhouse gases. We must do that regardless of whether they are the cause. We must wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, period, full stop, drop the mic.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

Update no.1123

 Update from the Sunland

No.1123

17.7.23 – 23.7.23

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

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- Judge Aileen Cannon set a trial date of 20.May.2024 for Tiny’s classified documents case [1074, 1108]. Apparently, the May date was a compromise between prosecution who sought a speedy trial and Tiny’s lawyer army who sought an indefinite postponement at least until sometime after the 2024 presential election. Of course, he does! He is rolling the dice that he will become the default winner so he can attempt to pardon himself and terminate all federal investigations into his criminal conduct. Both actions would cause a constitutional crisis. At best, for him, he is successful. At worst, he utilizes the appeals process to delay, delay, delay. One way or another, he seeks to escape justice.

-- Of course, being a loyal minion, Representative Gaetz of Florida has introduced legislation to remove the Special Counsel’s funding and stop the investigation and prosecution of the former president [991], according to the so-called “Freedom Press” (which actually appears to be neither about freedom nor about proper journalism). My oh my, that will step Gaetz up a few more notches in the hierarchy of sycophants & minions for ihr Anführer. The audacity, hypocrisy, and depravity of the MAGA bunch is unbounded, and still, the snake-oil consumers believe. Will wonders ever cease?

 

In the category of just-when-we-think-it-can’t-get-any-worse, the Florida Board of Education issued another dictum (they call it ‘academic standards’—cute [sarcasm]) requiring middle schools to teach children in their charge that enslaved people in our past "developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit." WTF! This is typical white supremacy crap . . . cover up the truth and point to the positive, whatever there is of it. They tell us, forget about the Holocaust, Hitler built the Autobahn and made the trains run on time, as if that would somehow convince the people to ignore the millions of innocent people who were murdered because they had convenient transportation. The advocates claim they do not want to make anyone feel uncomfortable or guilty about the past. This is a lowest common denominator action. To which I say, the history of slavery should make us all uncomfortable, very uncomfortable. It was wrong 400 years ago, and it is still wrong to this day. We must remember! We must teach our children the vile consequences of slavery in order to prevent the practice from ever happening again, and now more importantly, to correct the wrongs and injustice that generated institutional racism. It is going to take a long time and considerable effort to unravel this ridiculous and despicable tripe, but these are the troubled times in which we live.

 

I do not recall what triggered my urge to write about BLACK LIVES MATTER (BLM), but here we are. The movement began in the wake of the Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman confrontation in 2012, formed by Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi. To me, BLM has a very noble and justified purpose.

The white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-cons, MAGA bunch, and all the other affiliated groups have railed against the movement with accusations and epithets like all lives matter, or white lives matter too. The fallacy of their lame complaints is the presumption of equality and thus the implicit taking away of rights and privileges. From my perspective, BLM is only a public protest against the institutional racism Americans with dark skin pigmentation have suffered for 155 years, perhaps 160 years, but most emphatically for 404 years. I have long resented the white reaction to BLM, instead of understanding and support—their disdain. I have come to see the white reaction to BLM as exhibit no.1 for the existence and sustainment of institutional racism.

Now, the Florida Legislature and Governor DeSantis have directed the teaching of Florida school children that slavery had positive benefit in that their indenture taught them a useful trade like blacksmith, cooking, or tending crops. The absurdity exceeds the audacity of such nonsense, which is precisely why we desperately need the teach a simpler equivalent of Critical Race Theory. Florida’s justification is they do not want white children to feel guilty or uncomfortable for what happened in the past. To me, the Florida action is yet another example of ignorance over knowledge. I condemn ignorance in all its forms.

I am reminded of George Orwell’s writing in Nineteen Eighty-Four:

“War is peace.

Freedom is slavery.

Ignorance is strength.”

Orwell articulated the dictum of Big Brother to emphasize the absurdity of autocracy or dictatorship. War is killing and death. Slavery is the ultimate oppression. And, ignorance . . . well, ignorance is the paramount weakness. And yet, the conservatives insist upon living in the past . . . in an era when they dominated society, and they dictated the rules to suit their dominance. BLM, CRT, all of it are a yearning to be free and enjoy true equality under the law and in the conduct of society. The fight for freedom is not over and, in some ways, has only just begun.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That was the ideal that founded this nation. We have yet to achieve that noble ideal. None of us shall know freedom until we all have freedom. Let freedom ring!

 

A friend and occasional contributor to this humble forum sent the following URL under the subject line: “Russia-US nuclear war is no fantasy, says Kremlin ally.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yizj4haNMM

To which I replied:

This is a tad off the mark, I do believe. No one is (yet) talking about attacking Russia. No one is mocking Russia's nuclear deterrence. Many nations are helping to defend a sovereign nation that has been invaded by an aggressor nation (Russia). If Russia chooses to attack commercial shipping of free nations in freedom of seas violations, we have every right to defend those ships and international commerce. If Putin and the right-wing fanatics in Russia choose to attack, they will be dealt with accordingly. We are not going to cower in fear of what Russia might do.

We must never be intimidated by Putin’s saber rattling and Russia’s nuclear arsenal. Reality is just that simple. So far, I think President Biden and the other allied leaders are doing a masterful job in trying to sustain Ukraine in defending their homeland despite the best of the neo-cons in all countries to retain their blinders and wishful thinking.

 

Russia announced this week that they have mined Ukraine’s Black Sea ports, as they pounded Odessa with missiles and attack drones attacking primarily the city’s grain storage infrastructure in retaliation for the second Ukrainian attack on the Kerch Bridge.

I commented to the announcement that this was another step toward general war.

The question was asked, “when you suggest ‘general war,’ how much of an escalation do you suspect?” 

To which, I answered, “By ‘general war,’ I mean direct combat between U.S., NATO, and Russian forces. Such engagement could easily escalate to broader combat. Frankly, I cannot imagine it going as far as NATO forces on Russian territory ala Korea 1950, but that decision would likely be made in Russia. The bottom line is, Putin and the ultra-nationalists who support him cannot be allowed to invade, occupy, and subsume a neighboring sovereign nation. Putin's interpretation of history is irrelevant, just as Hitler's was in 1938.”

In an expanded version, we are approaching, if not beyond, the point where we should be mobilizing our armed forces and converting our industrial capacity for national defense. Russia is trying to choke Ukraine to death. The question to us is, are we going to standby and watch a sovereign nation be strangled into non-existence? The neo-cons in this country are of the general mind . . . hey, none of our business. Ironically, that mindset is the very same position that conservatives took in 1938. History recorded the consequences of conservatives in the United Kingdom and in the United States advocating for isolationism—it is not our war. In questions like these, I am constantly reminded of the wise words.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

-- Edmund Burke, 1770

We cannot . . . we must not turn our backs on evil. If we do, the only thing that will happen is we will get stabbed in the back as we were in 1941.

 

President Joe Biden has selected Admiral Lisa Marie Franchetti, USN, to be the next chief of naval operations. If she is confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Franchetti will be the first woman to be a military service chief and the first female member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in history. She has been the vice chief of naval operations since September of last year. I offer my congratulations to Admiral Franchetti and gratitude to President Biden for taking the historic step.

Of course, Admiral Franchetti’s appointment faces Senator Tuberville’s singular obstruction [1107]. Until her appointment is confirmed, she will serve as acting CNO until she is confirmed or rejected. This whole Tuberville nonsense is taking on a theater of the absurd dimension, and there is no sign of him coming to his senses (if he has any common sense, which we must acknowledge, he may not). The Senate must have 60+ votes to overcome Tuberville’s hold. The majority leader apparently does not believe he can gain 9 Republican votes for cloture on this issue. So, we wait!

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1122:

Comment to the Blog:

“Tommy Tuberville stands out in his opposition to democratic government. His actions obstruct national security and well-being. He’s like a bratty 5-year-old at the controls of a bulldozer.

“Gangsters don’t like law enforcement, but most don’t reach the audience that Tiny & Co. does.

“The Elenis case is an attack on LGBT people rather than some nebulous fear. None of the rhetoric around this mentions Muslims, Buddhists, or even pagans, who presumably would also upset radical Christians. Also, Ms. Smith takes a needlessly difficult path in addressing her ‘fear.’ Including the phrase ‘traditional Christian wedding’ in her branding would fend off the rest of us. That would cost her money if she ran an actual business, but she’s free to lose money. She just wanted to attack gay people. Sad to say, she succeeded. (Your disclaimer wouldn’t affect actual events, so that lady would be offended sooner or later.)”

Comment to the Blog:

Yes, Tuberville most certainly does. He cares far more about his believes regarding women’s reproductive rights than he does about national security. A very good analogy . . . a bratty preschooler indeed . . . like ihr Anführer. It seems many of the MAGA crowd are in the bratty 5-year-old category.

Another very accurate observations . . . gangsters as well.

Yes, the Elenis ruling most emphatically is a direct assault on LGBT rights, but it is also an assault on the 1st Amendment. The majority (conservative) Supremes claim they are protecting speech and religious rights, but they are not. They are selecting who they favor. Elenis is a negatively astonishing decision on multiple levels. But, I guess that should not be a surprise after Citizens United and Dobbs. My point with the suggested disclaimer was a valid, commonly used discriminator. I agreed; she wanted personal objections in a non-existent, hypothetical situation before this conservative Supreme Court bench to gain an affirmation of personal beliefs; she succeeded and won. Supreme Court justices, regardless of their personal beliefs, should have abided stare decisis—their prior rulings. Yes, I am sure you are correct; Smith is going to be offended by LBGT folks (and probably other social factors) regardless, and now, she has the sanction of the U.S. Supreme Court. I am gobsmacked!

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

Update no.1122

 Update from the Sunland

No.1122

10.7.23 – 16.7.23

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

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- Senator Thomas Hawley ‘Tommy’ Tuberville of Alabama continues his singular obstruction of the Senate confirmation for senior military officers [1107]. For the first time in 113 years of glorious history, the United States Marine Corps is without a commandant. As you may recall, the senator is upset about the Defense Department policy to pay for travel expenses for female service members who cannot obtain proper gynecological or reproductive care in the state of their current assignment. Social conservatives want to dictate acceptable medical practice to affected service women. While Tuberville’s action is extraordinarily selfish and disrespectful, it was a public statement he made this week that sparked my ire.

In an interview, Tuberville said, “My opinion of a white nationalist, if somebody wants to call them a white nationalist, to me, is an American. It’s an American. Now, if that white nationalist is a racist, I’m totally against anything that they want to do, because I am 110% against racism.”

In part, Tuberville is correct. White nationalists are American citizens, of that I have no doubt, just as neo-Nazis, anarchists, communists, and so many other malcontents among us. In no small measure, that is the price of freedom. We must endure and tolerate those who believe in radical ideologies. The difference here is, Tuberville is not some common citizen who is entitled to believe what he wishes; he is a United States senator for the State of Alabama. He is not some ignorant fool, although he certainly appears to be oblivious at the least. White nationalist is synonymous with white supremacist. I think he knows it and was parsing his words to paint lipstick on a pig. It is still a pig.

Tuberville is an embarrassment of a U.S. senator that deserves all the condemnation we can heap upon him. Most of us did not elect him. He represents Alabama, all of Alabama, not just white supremacists who seek to regress at least 150 years to the ante-bellum era. Yes, he has earned our societal censure. The Senate must find the wherewithal to bypass Tuberville’s obstruction and pass the senior officer promotion/assignment list. Now! Basta! Enough is enough.

 

Here is an epiphany for you. [The person who shall no longer be named], his cronies & sycophants, the fBICP, MAGA bunch, Freedom Caucus and such rant and rave about the Deep State and the politically weaponized FBI against them. They have reason to be so publicly paranoid and accusatory. They break the law and defy the U.S. Constitution on a regular basis. Of course, they will be and remain targets of the FBI—they break the law. It is for this reason, among multitudinous others, that bunch has attracted so much law enforcement attention, period, full stop, end of story, drop the mic.

So, when the MAGA bunch and ihr Anführer scream about bias against conservatives by the FBI and other law enforcement organizations, please remember the criminal charges and more to come. We, the People, will eventually break the grip the MAGA movement has had on so many innocent American citizens, but it will take time. These conspiracy fueled, stoked delusions are often generational in duration.

 

A 6-3 majority of the Supremes split along purely ideological lines in the case of 303 Creative v. Elenis [600 U.S. ___ (2023); No. 21–476]—a 1^st Amendment case. The creator, owner, and sole operator of 303 Creative LLC, Lorie Smith, filed suit preemptively against Aubrey Elenis, the Director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division, claiming that she felt her religious beliefs were threatened by the Colorado law the prohibits discrimination individuals with a protected class—non-heterosexuals being within a protected class. Associate Justice Gorsuch wrote for the majority and concluded, “The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is Reversed,” thus finding for the appellant. Social conservatives in society and dominating the U.S. Supreme Court bench are so bloody desperate to impose their values, opinions, and beliefs, the conservative justices abandoned conventional practice and precedent to provide an advisory opinion without standing. There was no injury. No one claimed discrimination. She refused no one service, and no one sought her services. The state filed no charge against Smith. There was only her imagination that she would surely face a claim by the same that she had refused service to a request for she did not agree with. So apparently, the majority feels it is acceptable to restrict the respondents’ speech in order to protect the petitioner’s speech—very odd reasoning. Associate Justice Sotomayor wrote a masterful dissent, in which she observed, “the law in question targets conduct, not speech, for regulation, and the act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment. Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group.” She went on to conclude, “It is that in a free and democratic society, there can be no social castes. And for that to be true, it must be true in the public market. For the ‘promise of freedom’ is an empty one if the Government is ‘powerless to assure that a dollar in the hands of [one person] will purchase the same thing as a dollar in the hands of a[nother].’”

Does one citizen’s religious preferences or proclivities give them the right to impose upon another citizen’s rights? That seems like the relevant question. The issue is once again public or private. Everyone, every citizen, is entitled to believe and conduct themselves in private as they wish as long as they cause no harm or injury to anyone else. They are free to do and believe as they wish. However, when it comes to the public domain, they are obligated to be and remain neutral to any one or combination of the social factors. To me, the only threshold criterion is public or private. If a company, business, organization, or what is open to the public, then it has no right to discriminate (refuse service) to anyone on the basis of any one or combination of the social factors. No one is asking for Ms. Smith to agree, to endorse, to support, or otherwise confirm the content of her customers. A gay couple harms no one or anything.

I am gobsmacked astonished that the obvious solution was not discussed by either the plurality or the dissent—a disclaimer. “This website created by 303 Creative Ltd. The words, views, and opinions on this website are not those of the creator.” No one—not the State, not the customer, not her neighbor—is telling Ms. Smith what she can think, say, believe, and such. No one is telling her how to live her life. She is essentially a contract employee, generating material for a customer. A disclaimer seems like the obvious solution.

Yet, even with all my objections to the Elenis ruling, the aspect that bothers me the most is the hypocrisy. For years, the conservatives pointed their crooked fingers at the progressives and accused them of being activist judges—legislating from the bench. The Elenis ruling is the most graphic of judicial activism because the majority violated their own rules and precedent to reach this conclusion. The Thomas court continues to the lower the bar.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1121:

Comment to the Blog:

“I don’t have the stomach to read or listen to an interview with RFK, Jr. at the moment. I’ve read about him already. I suspect he will woo away the part of Tiny’s base that completely ignores the reality the rest of us know.

“‘Affirmative action’ admission doesn’t actually affect very many students one way or another, including black people. Much more social benefit would result from ending ‘legacy’/donor family preference (How do you suppose Tiny’s sons got into college?) and from treating poor-to-middle-class social factors as the disadvantage they are.

“I’ve seen an allegation I didn’t confirm that the plaintiff in 303 Creative v. Elenis wasn’t even in the business of creating wedding pages. Get out your hip waders; it’s getting deeper.

“It might be wise for all of us to have generators or power packs as the climate worsens.” 

My response to the Blog:

Understood. I do not have anymore curiosity about RFK Jr. Done! What got me into that interview was a short clip of his Ukraine opinion. I thought that cannot be true; I need more context for why he said what he did. We have not heard such nonsense from a wannabe national leader since the days of Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax (well, excluding [the person who shall no longer be named], of course, who is in a low class all by himself). Fridman should have pressed Kennedy on what should have been done about Putin’s hegemonic aggression in Georgia and Ukraine, but alas, he did not. Personally, I think President Biden has done the best he can short of preparing the United States for war. You may well be correct, but I suspect that is a long shot.

I have not seen sufficient data to validate your observations. Yet, neither do I have the information to debate your assertion. Yes, certainly, I agree that legacy/wealth admission is just as insidious as racial discrimination, and the practice should be terminated. Stand on your merits and performance, or do not. Affirmative Action may not be as effective as we would like but it is a damn sight better than what we had. In 50 years, Harvard went from virtually zero to nearly 12% fraction of the student body population being citizens with dark skin pigmentation. Affirmative Action does not guarantee success, but it does open opportunities. The point in the Students case was my fundamental disagreement with the Thomas majority; enough has NOT been done. Sure, university admittance does not correct the grip of poverty and oppression, but it is a start, not the end.

I am into the Elenis ruling. It is only 70 pages, so I should finish this week . . . barring obstructions. The majority GAF’d off the initial standing hurdle, so I really need to read the dissent’s opinion (coming). While this ruling appears to be based on an imaginary, hypothetical situation, which in itself is quite unusual, the Supremes raise some important 1st Amendment matters—what is the reach of government?

That last thought has not escaped me either.

 . . . Round two:

“One of the points I’ve seen about affirmative action is that the minority applicants who benefit are from a higher demographic than typical minority students. Thus, it didn’t address the actual people who still experience harm. One way or another, the admission process needs to be less elitist.

“I don’t see a butt-hurt hypothetical as a legitimate case. ‘If I went into this business, I might be made uncomfortable’ doesn’t show harm.

“Prepping makes more sense to me as a response to climate events than in fear of man-made Armageddon.”

 . . . my response to round two:

I have not seen such data, but I do not doubt the observation either. I see multitudinous difficulties in sorting out the application of that information. Universities are not a corrective action tool for the failures of society. The institutions are intended to teach critical thinking in a variety of disciplines. They must select candidates who have demonstrated the scholastic performance and skills to succeed in a higher didactic environment. It seems to me that the observation of which you note is more a product and thus a problem of society in general, i.e., all primary and secondary schools are not the same. A university cannot admit a candidate who can barely read or write coherently. You can call that selective process elitist; I do not. I call it a necessary reality.

I am not sure I appreciate the “butt-hurt” descriptor. I am currently into the dissent of Elenis. I will finish this week. I am struck by and writing about several stark observations on this ruling. The social conservative agenda on the Supreme Court bench continues to clarify. It is sad and intellectually discouraging that they are so intent on social regression and constriction of civil rights. We have a very long way to go before we reach a more enlightened state.

Prepping indeed is a more cogent approach to climate change than fear and despair. I continue to look for a more sustainable solution to electrical power generation. Close but no cigar.

 . . . Round three:

“Why are universities not ‘a corrective action tool for the failures of society’? They seem an ideal place for that to me. If a university cannot admit a candidate who can barely read or write coherently, perhaps several members of Congress and Tiny’s older sons ought to be seeking refunds.

“I think ‘butt-hurt’ fits precisely the kind of person who refuses to serve hypothetical people they might be asked to serve should they decide to do business with the public. The Supreme Court’s agenda appears to be Christian nationalist with underlying service to the donors.

“I favor dispersed energy generation with locally-appropriate sources, but that wouldn’t serve the utility companies.”

 . . . my response to round three:

Like corporations, universities are not state welfare organizations. We can argue that every organization in the nation from elementary schools, to mom & pop shops, to law enforcement and corporations are welfare entities. It is a valid argument. The difficulty in that notion is one of thought versus action. A university has no authority to take action, only a council, legislature, or Congress has that action authority. Further, universities are not configured for societal welfare activity. As such, a university can affect thought, and that is a step forward. There is a fundamental presumption that stages of education build on the previous stages, which is why they call it higher or advanced education. A candidate must demonstrate a minimal skill level to function at a university level of education—building blocks on a strong foundation.

I did get a chuckle. I appreciate your sentiment. Tiny was one of those students who stood on daddy’s money. ‘Nuf said.

Yes, this hypothetical Elenis antagonist is emerging as I read the dissent in Elenis. It is a very unusual and bizarre ruling to say the least. I would tend to agree with you, although the social conservatives on the bench are displaying some decidedly un-Christian traits. They cite strict constructionist ideology, and then they drop rulings like Elenis, Students, and Dobbs—very strange. Social conservatives are a minority in the nation, any yet, they are a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. That is not balance!

Dispersed energy generation is far better for a host of reason, which is one reason I would like to get our home self-sufficient and an all-electric vehicle.

Just a little FYI footnote: I saw a new conspiracy theory yesterday that is being circulated; they claim that the push to wean us off of fossil fuels and to move us to electric vehicles is an (unknown hidden cabal) effort to restrict our travel in the future . . . to isolate and control us. Interesting hypothesis in a rather whacky manner . . . from the bizzar-o-sphere.

. . . Round four:

“I’ve no idea what you mean by ‘societal welfare activity.’ The term ‘didactic environment’ is a bit much for general audiences also. Merriam-Webster’s thesaurus gives me ‘moralizing’ as didactic’s closest synonym.

“These arguments around university admissions don’t really apply to the likes of the Ivy League; public institutions are a different discussion. The Ivy League and most private schools exist primarily for the purpose of keeping the next generation of the elite on top. They demonstrably serve that purpose well, regardless of the student’s actual aptitude for learning. Hence, the many less-competent politicians and high-level appointees including Tiny, Junior, and Eric. To name only one other of those schools, George W. Shrub, Dick Cheney, and Gerald Ford are all Yale alumni, and so are Justices Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh. That pretty much demolishes the arguments for scholastic or moral training as priorities at Yale.

“Public institutions, however, could have the opportunity to set realistic standards of admission that favor actual potential over connections. My experience of college is that it’s just not that difficult as far as learning, and none are sorting admissions primarily by scholastic aptitude. If they were, the schools would have to be publicly funded well enough to make up for wealthy alumni and sports entities withholding large donations. Some two-year schools run that way, and they’re doing well at educating the capable.

“I have no idea why you’d expect Supreme Court Justices (or most important people) to act on their ideological statements. History shows that more than half of them don’t come close, and colleges don’t teach that.

“There’s always another wacko. Some of them actually believe whatever delusion they’re selling.”

 . . . my response to round four:

The welfare of its citizens is a direct function of the various levels of government. The government is charged with “insur[ing] domestic Tranquility,” and “promoting the general Welfare.” No university has that charge. That is what I mean by “societal welfare activity.”

Moralizing was not my usage of the word ‘didactic.’ My usage was “designed or intended to teach.”

Well, yes, they do apply. The Students cases was against Harvard. The University of North Carolina is a public institution with a profound history of racial discrimination. I think your assessment of higher education institutions is rather harsh, but I appreciate your condemnation.

Having worked at a private higher education institution at a top level, I do not share your criticism of private or public universities. I stand by my words.

I think you meant “not to act” rather than “to act” on their ideological statements. Regardless, those conservative justices claim they state strictly within the instruction of the U.S. Constitution. We clearly known by multiple examples that they do not abide their ideology. They hide behind their ideological shield when it is convenient to their argument and opinion. It is their hypocrisy I try to illuminate and expose for critical public review . . . and presumably rebuke.

Ya got that right! Wackos indeed! But, they have swallowed the snake-oil; they continue to consume the worthless snake-oil; and far too many citizens actually believe that nasty gruel has cured them of various maladies. We, the People, must deal with the consequences of that minorities affliction.

 . . . Round five:

“I see any organization receiving government funding, public universities for example, as having a direct obligation to benefit society. Private universities enjoy a tax exemption that ought to carry a similar obligation. Proprietary schools are a different category. Ironically, most of them offer more of a public benefit; the question then is whether they actually deliver that benefit. Many do.

“My wording observation was from a writer's viewpoint. I eventually figured out your ‘didactic’ usage, but excessively technical or high-flown language poses a problem for a non-technical audience.

“My reading was that you’d expected the Justices to act on their statements. Perhaps you intended sarcasm; I always miss that. Hypocrisy bothers me but comes as no surprise.”

 . . . my response to round five:

I appreciate your argument, but a great deal of this discussion boils down to how “benefit society” is defined. What do you expect? This discussion thread began with affirmative action and the SCOTUS Students ruling. Do you think universities should teach disadvantaged young adults to read and write? What is they do not want to learn? What if they have had their will beaten out of them by abusive parents; do they provide long-term psychiatric treatment? How far does it go?

At the bottom line, my contention remains that affirmative action stepped forward to correct the injustice of 400 years, however so slight, is better than what we had or what the Supremes have relegated us to now with the Students ruling.

Agreed. My apologies.

I am saying the majority abandoned the law and did in fact decide on their personal ideological beliefs . . . the very practice they have accused the progressives of doing for 70 years. Justice Sotomayor wrote a masterful dissent as she dragged the Elenis ruling into the bright sunlight. To be blunt, the Elenis ruling is atrocious on many levels, but it is now the law. Proprietors can discriminate against whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish as long as they claim religious beliefs. The conservatives on the bench are WRONG! Religion does not surpass the law, reason, and commonsense, despite what they have stated.

Hypocrisy bothers me greatly as well.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)

Update no.1121

 Update from the Sunland

No.1121

3.7.23 – 9.7.23

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

 

To all,

 

The follow-up news items:

-- A friend and occasional contributor to this humble forum sent along the following URL:

https://youtu.be/NPtBkw5uD-0

It is a link to the Lex Fridman podcast no.388 with Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. The Kennedy scion offers a number of opinions that I agree with and can support. However, it was his comments on the War in Ukraine [1050] that touched a nerve and instigated my response below.

I must say RFK Jr. is absolutely batsh*t crazy. Make friends with Putin! He is out of his freakin' mind. Putin and his far-right, hyper-nationalist supporters invaded several other independent sovereign nations based on a specious, disgusting premise of an 80-year grievance. Should we have made friends with Hitler, Al Capone, or Frank Costello? They are all f**king violent murderous criminals who violated an infinite number of laws of common decency and respect for other people.

I understand Kennedy’s sentiment--Rodney King's "Can't we all just get along." I wish King's (and Kennedy’s) idealism was achievable, but there are very bad men in this world, and some of those bad men eventually gain the power of the instruments of state. I desperately want to be friends with the Russian people. I have broken bread with more than a few Russians. I want to see the history in Russia. I want Russia to be a valued member of the league of peaceful nations. But that objective is not up to me and thankfully not RFK Jr. either. Putin and his cronies decided to kill Ukrainian civilians wholesale using the modern weapons of war. Putin must be defeated and prosecuted as Hitler would have been if he had not taken the coward's way out. Ukraine must be restored to its safe, secure, pre-2014 borders in peace and freedom, and must be healed and restored to prosperity. The right-wingers in Russia are a relic of a fading distant past. They belong in the dustbin of history.

Junior is wrong! We cannot standby an allow Putin’s hegemonic nationalism to subjugate neighboring countries because a bunch of right-wingers have a paranoid view of history. The Ukrainian people want to be free and independent, to make their own choices. If Russia is distrustful of the West’s motives and Ukraine’s aspirations, there are other ways to assuage their concerns.

 

I finally ground through the 237-page U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of [Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College] or Students v. Harvard [600 U.S. ___ (2023); No. 20–1199]. Actually, a dual, parallel set of cases against Harvard College and the University of North Carolina, each institution having a markedly different past regarding segregation and discrimination. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the 6-3 majority. He said, “Twenty years later {Grutter v. Bollinger [539 U.S. 306 (2003)]}, no end is in sight. ‘Harvard’s view about when [race-based admissions will end] doesn’t have a date on it.’” The majority decided that the time was up for affirmative action at universities. What Chief Justice Roberts failed to acknowledge at the outset is one other selection criteria at Harvard College is who one’s parents are, i.e., heritage (who the applicants’ parents are). Justice Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, observed, “Ignoring race will not equalize a society that is racially unequal.” She also clearly and accurately stated, “Lost arguments are not grounds to overrule a case. When proponents of those arguments, greater now in number on the Court, return to fight old battles anew, it betrays an unrestrained disregard for precedent. It fosters the People’s suspicions that ‘bedrock principles are founded . . . in the proclivities of individuals’ on this Court, not in the law, and it degrades ‘the integrity of our constitutional system of government.’ Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U. S. 254, 265 (1986). Nowhere is the damage greater than in cases like these that touch upon matters of representation and institutional legitimacy.” In the lengthy concurrences and dissents, we find an intriguing contrast of opinions between those who wish to emphasize the negatives with affirmative action and those see only the positives. The whole ruling boils down to whether you believe sufficient corrective actions has been undertaken so that all citizens are equal under the law, and compensation is no longer required.

The importation of slave labor from Africa arguably began in 1619 and flourish in the Southern States of the fledgling nation. After the blood and carnage of the Civil War, Congress passed and We, the People, ratified the 14^thAmendment, the first section of which states:

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. 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. [9.July.1868]

Yet, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not good enough, not sufficient. Congress passed a series of laws that became known as the Reconstruction Acts in an effort to boost the newly freed former indentured citizens, for example, the Freedmen's Bureau Act [PL 39-200; 14 Stat. 173; 16.7.1866] [448] and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 [PL 39-031; 14 Stat. 27] [448, 535] to secure for all citizens the same civil rights as enjoyed by white citizens. President Andrew Johnson vetoed it because he decided the law “discriminat[ed] . . . in favor of the negro.” Congress passed the bill over the president’s veto, and it became law. There were many others. The U.S. Supreme Court found a path to reconcile the preferential new laws with the 14^th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The former Confederate and newly re-integrated states found myriad imaginative ways to circumvent the Reconstruction Laws that were collectively referred to as the Black Codes. Then, the Supreme Court validated “separate but equal” in its infamous ruling—Plessy v. Ferguson[163 U.S. 537 (1896)] [537] affirming the “separate but equal” segregation practice as within the 14^th Amendment. From that ruling, the Jim Crow laws evolved that further calcified segregation, oppression, and discrimination against citizens with dark skin pigmentation. By 1950, the inevitable truth of the 14^th Amendment had begun to reemerge: seprate but equal was inherently not equal—Brown v. Board of Education [347 U.S. 483 (1954)]. From Brown came forced integration, mandatory school busing, and such. But even all that was not sufficient to achieve the ideal of all citizens are equal under the law. In 1964, Congress passed and President Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [PL 88-352; 78 Stat. 241], from which came government-mandated affirmative action—Executive Order 11246 and the central object of the current Court ruling.

Although Justice Thomas holds a rather cynical view of affirmative action, there is no debate that he is correct. The Constitution once amended in 1868 intended and sought equal treatment of all citizens . . . well, except women; that equality objective did not come until 1920. Unfortunately, that lofty proposition has yet to be realized 155 years later, and it is that blindness to history that colors and faults the Students ruling today. The 14^th Amendment recognizes the present and future, but it does not acknowledge the debt of the past. The challenge for all of us—society, communities, the law, and our politics—remains finding the balance between the ideals espoused in the 14^th Amendment and the correction and reconciliation of centuries of institutional abuse, segregation, and discrimination. Political and social conservatives seek to forget the past, e.g., banning Critical Race Theory (CRT) or the teaching of our children about the history of our nation—good, bad, and ugly. We do not get to say, Oopsy-Daisy, sorry about the 400 years of segregation, abuse, enslavement, and denigration your ancestors suffered. Let’s zero the slate and start over. We will pretend those centuries of broad general offense did not happen. Those centuries of abuse created and cultivated that diminishment into institutional discrimination that produced red-lining, de facto segregation, discriminatory profiling, et al.

I doubt and genuinely object to the stated notion that those universities, or any university, is using “race-based” admissions. Utilizing race as a criterion is not making it a primary or paramount factor. Taking the reasoning of the Court’s Students plurality, whatever gains toward equality for citizens with dark skin pigmentation that have been achieved in the last 30, 59, or 155 years are the only advancement they will benefit from with the government’s assistance. From here on out, citizens with dark skin pigmentation are on their own.

As perhaps a footnote or postscript, I truly enjoyed reading Justice Jackson’s collateral dissenting opinion in the Students case. I think I am going to like reading future opinions by her.

 

Next up for the following Update is the 1^st Amendment case—303 Creative v. Elenis.

 

Comments and contributions from Update no.1120:

Comment to the Blog:

“I don’t agree that the conservative Supreme Court Justices are only concerned with the law, although they make that claim. They are concerned with carrying out their patrons’ will and with controlling anyone different from them.

“I’ll note that in the case of 303 Creative v. Elenis, the plaintiff sued based on an imaginary request for a wedding page. Per my reading, ‘Stewart,’ the person allegedly asking her to make a web page for a gay couple has been married to a woman for 15 years, has the professional capacity to make his own page, and knew nothing of the case until recently. Oops, no legitimate standing exists for the case.”

My response to the Blog:

Happy Independence Day! Despite all our flaws and fractures, it is important to remember what occurred nearly a quarter of a millennia ago. We will do our part. Stay safe and enjoy.

First, perhaps, I simplified my comment too much. There are many factors that influence the justices. I cannot argue with your perspective and assessment as you are within the plausible range. I condemn the unethical conduct of Thomas & Alito, and I often strongly disagree with their judicial reasoning, but I also give them credit when they strike resonance. However, your words are a touch too cynical for my concurrence. Yet, as Justice Brandeis observed, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

I am currently working on Students v. Harvard, which is quite long. I have already taken notes on Elenis for many reasons, including the one you cite. The paucity of standing popped out promptly, and I need to read their reasoning on that aspect. There are other elements of Elenis that deserve illumination. I am not sure I can get to Elenis this week, but my review of the ruling is coming.

 . . . Round two:

“Sunlight is indeed the best disinfectant. The Internet increases transparency, but I’m impatient (as usual) with the pace of actual change.

“As Robert Reich points out, standing has become an issue. If the person or group bringing the action isn’t harmed by the subject, they’re just one more opinionated party.”

 . . . my response to round two:

I am perhaps a tad more patient I suppose. These things have their way of working themselves out, just as we are now seeing indictments (plural) for Tiny three years after many of his crimes. I may be naïvely optimistic, but the day of him facing justice is moving inexorably closer by the day.

And Reich is precisely correct. The Elenis case is quite troubling for that reason alone. Yet, I need to read their reasoning and the details before rendering my opinion, FWIW. I am only 2/3s of the way through Students, and I have already noted that one side emphasizes the negative of affirmative action, while the other side highlights the positive. The truth is probably in the middle somewhere. I need to get through the dissenting opinions . . . hopefully, this week.

 . . . Round three:

“Crowds bother me, and I saw enough fireworks long ago. I spent the day outdoors on a bike trail and contemplating our national progress, failure, and regression.

“Nothing seems to break Tiny’s base. Certainly, the Democrats look very weak against him. That is dangerous. If he can be denied access to ‘megaphones,’ that might help but would have to happen soon.

“I’m not lawyer enough to analyze lengthy legal opinions/decisions. I merely read the Constitution and publicly available information, then point out any obvious issues with a given case.

“One could dispose of many arguments against affirmative action and similar remedies by focusing on social class rather than race. That would address almost all of those still suffering and would improve society more than race-based solutions.”

 . . . my response to round three:

I am not a crowd person either. I complete my daily exercise indoors. This year, it was my turn to read aloud the Declaration of Independence (to an audience of one) . . . to remember the genesis of the holiday. In times of contemporary struggle, it helps us keep things in perspective.

Unfortunately, I do not think anything is going to happen soon, although various judges are applying restraining orders on Tiny as his trial dates approach. The Special Counsel continues to work feverishly on additional ever more serious charges, but those will not be soon enough either. I think the only way to deny him “access to megaphones” is prison, and even then, he will attempt to use his lawyers to get messages out. In this instance, perhaps death is the only effective muzzle.

We each have our own paths to information and analysis. Yours is better than most IMHO. I am not a lawyer either. As I have read every word of the Declaration and Constitution, I feel compelled to read these judicial decisions from the bottom to top. I learn from them, but I also gain a lay impression of what supports the rulings. In most cases, I try to absorb other opinions, insights, and analyses in forming my opinion.

I am still working on the Students case (dissent now); I expect to finish this week. Affirmative Action, like many socio-political constructs, can be seen from many perspectives. In the Students case, the ideological motivations surface as well as the legal basis, but the bottom in this instance seems to be how far is far enough? What and where is the end state? That element will be a central theme of our discussions. Social class is another facet of the social factors that color our public discourse and conduct. The Students case is one of those rare events where I agree with Justice Thomas in his concurrence. The Constitution (as amended) does not countenance discrimination in any form or any direction. Whether we classify affirmative action as reverse discrimination is a valid point of debate.

 . . . Round four:

“My moral values don’t allow for wishing anyone dead, but I recognize that Tiny’s poor health habits could take him out to the benefit of society.

“The social class issues the USA claims not to have (‘created equal,’ right?) need to be addressed as much as the harm done to Black and Native American people. Maybe more. Even at universities that use affirmative action, most students’ families make too much money to receive Pell Grants. That’s about social class, not race.”

 . . . my response to round four:

I am with you, my friend. I do not wish anyone dead . . . including Putin, for that matter. I was only reflecting my opinion of what it may well take to silence [the person who shall no longer be named] {I suppose I should amend my chosen moniker for the man to “no longer deserves to be named”}.

Equally, you are, of course, quite correct; the social class issues reconciliation is a vital, key element in our maturation and advancement as a society and species. The hypocrisy of the wealthy (well, most of the wealthy) is staggering. Most want and in fact enjoy the benefits of their wealth without the responsibility of what that wealth has done to the rest of society. We cannot ignore the past and the social class matters. I have not yet finished the Students case reading, but it is clear the social conservative majority Supremes believe the time has come to terminate the helping hand we have offered to the underprivileged. I fundamentally disagree as I will soon state in my review of the Court’s ruling.

 

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

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)