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                  :-)