What it means to be American.
What is an American? What does it mean to be an American? The Fourteenth Amendment states that all person born or naturalized in the United States are citizens, but that is merely the legal/constitutional definition of a citizen. It doesn’t help answer the question of what it means to be an American. We will often hear politicians across the spectrum pay lip service to the idea that there is “more that unites us, than divides us.” That is a lovely idea, but is it anything more than mere sentiment? In 2024 it is difficult to believe that statement to be anything more than political pandering. After all, the definition of an American- the meaning beneath the title - differs dramatically depending upon who you ask or when you asked.
From the perspective of when, there can be little doubt that the meaning of American has changed dramatically. It is taught that the Revolutionary War began with the idea that the people of the colonies could not and should not be ruled and governed by a foreign power. Our schools teach that the belief/right of self-determination was the motivation for the war. But even as those crates of tea were tossed into the water and an army of citizen soldiers prepared to fight for “freedom” it was in the context of a people that had arrived to find a populated “new world” and drove those native population from their ancestral homes.
Perhaps, the founding fathers believed that an American was one who had fled their country of origin to find a better life and greater freedoms. They may have believed, that to be an American meant a willingness to fight against the yoke of tyranny. There was some truth to that belief, but it was accompanied, unironically, by a legal system that granted full rights of citizenship to only white land-owning men. Thus, while the founding fathers strove for an inclusive and broad-based form of self-governance it was in the context of the irreconcilable contradiction that women, people of color, Native Americans and the poor were not fully included in the definition of an American. But even then those white, landowning men placed limitations onto their own power.
Over time, the exclusivity of the legal definition of an American was transformed to include all those who had been excluded. That process took centuries, but, perhaps, the slow march of progress hints toward a greater idea of what it means to be an “American.” Wwhat did the former slave share in common with his former master? It is hard to imagine a value or belief that could unite people of such disparate experience. When the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified in 1920, how much was there truly shared between the women who struggled to achieve the beginning of legal equality with the men who opposed them?
Today, we all fall along a spectrum of political, and moral belief. Some people that identify as conservative or Republican will espouse a very specific definitions of what a real American is. To them, if you do not share in their values and their beliefs you are not truly American. Of course, the opposite can also be true. If your are of a liberal persuasion you may feel that America is defined by the values you hold and anything else is un-American.
Both sides are wrong, both sides are right.
Our differences are great and vast. I do not believe that there is more that “unites us that divides us.” That statement is nothing more than a patronizing bumper sticker slogan which delegitimizes the great ethical and moral questions of our time. Nonetheless, I do believe that there are some, near universal values which do give shape to what it means to be an American. First among them was our willingness to live with the great contradiction of American democracy.
If you are a traditional small-government conservative you probably believe in deregulation, free access to firearms, lower taxes and a full free market economy. I suspect you also believe that those goals are best pursued at the ballot box. If given the choice, would you choose a dictator that would impose your believes over a democratically elected President and Congress? If you are a religious conservative you are probably pro-life, anti-trans rights, and in favor of the right and ability to fully practice your own religion. Those beliefs might be so deeply-held that the define who you are. Yet, do you not also believe that you must promote values through debate, protest, and the election of candidates that match your values?
Perhaps you find yourself on the left side of the political spectrum. As a traditional-liberal you might believe that the government should provide education to all, a safety-net to the most vulnerable, and protect the environment. Liberals will generally believe that LGBTQ rights should be protected and that race and gender inequities must be found and cured. But, just like your conservative counterparts, you believe that the pursuit or your values must occur in the context of the democratic process. If given the choice between the democracy with all its struggle and uncertainty and an autocrat with the power and willingness to impose your agenda, wouldn’t you still choose democracy?
It is this contradiction that provides a shared meaning to being an American. We all hold strong personal beliefs, that define both who we are as individuals and communities we live in. Sometimes, those beliefs are held so strongly that we see only in black and white and miss the shades of gray. And yet, most of the time, there is (or was) a limit to how far we will go to pursue those beliefs. That limit is, or used to be, the constraints of the democratic system. For the better part of the last century (or longer), we have lived within the contradiction of unshakeable conviction and self-imposed restraint.
What does it mean to be an American? It means living with the contradiction that we can be certain of our own righteousness but accepting that the pursuit of our beliefs must be done through the democratic process. Maybe the simpler way of saying this is we believe in the limitation of power. We believe in debate and voting. We do not believe that any one man or woman can or should ever hold absolute power. In other words, we believe in democracy. Or… at least we did.
Democracies rise and fall. The 20th century saw an explosion of the democratic form of government across the world. The 20th century was, arguably, the spring for the worldwide democratic movement. In the summer of the democratic movement, we saw democracy flourish in unexpected places (the former soviet republics, the Arab spring). But the season turned to fall and now we look toward winter as those promising experiments in democracy have failed.
In the United States, we weathered the change of seasons, but fall has arrived. Our 250 year-old democracy is under siege. The shared beliefs that the Executive, the President must be checked and balanced, that power must have limits, and that no single man or woman can or should ever wield absolute power is being challenged.
I am asking you to vote for democracy. To be fair, I think it unlikely that any conservatives will find their way to this blog, but if you are here, you are who I want to talk to. So, if you are reading this – I know what I am asking of you. I am asking you to set aside your deep and personal beliefs when you vote tomorrow. I am asking that you take not just your religion into the ballot box, but also that you carry with you that contradiction that I once believed, and still hope, that we share – the contradiction of a self-imposed limits on our pursuit of our values. I am asking you to oppose the candidate whose words and actions have demonstrated a contempt for democracy and a disdain for limitations on his own power.
There is only a very small set of ideas that unite us and give shared meaning to the definition of an American – the belief in the limitation of power, the abhorrence to tyranny, and the contradiction of democracy. If we don’t share in that, then we share in nothing. I truly hope that tomorrow enough of us can remember what it means to be an American.
again- apologies, no grammar check. No time for proper editing.
Sometimes there is kindness….
Lately I feel that the world is giving me very few reasons to put much faith in the human race. There are senseless wars being raged across the world. Solvable poverty is a plague more pernicious than any disease. Our politics have devolved into fearmongering and the dehumanization of our perceived enemies. It is hard to see, let alone believe, that our better angels will prevail. And yet…. there are moments when I am reminded of the deep capacity we have for generosity and kindness.
As I write this, I am sitting with my youngest son in his room on the pediatric oncology floor at Lurie Children’s Hospital. To be clear, he does not have cancer. His primary diagnosis/condition is a rare marrow failure syndrome called Diamond Blackfan Anemia (DBA). DBA is a congenital condition wherein the body is unable to produce enough red blood cells. It’s a bit like he is constantly and slowly bleeding, but his body cannot make enough blood to replace what is lost. As a result, he periodically receives blood transfusions. This is a long way of saying, his primary service is hematology and hematology is always attached to oncology. We have spent many days and nights in this hospital and around the oncology unit for his anemia treatment. Indeed, we have spent many days and nights of his five short years at this hospital to manage all of the varied aspects of his medically complex picture. And before anyone is overly concerned, we aren’t even here because of DBA, at least not directly. He is ok, and we’ll be going home soon.
Most of us will never set foot on a pediatric oncology floor. If that is you, then I hope you can reflect on your gratitude. For me though, I am grateful that I have spent time in these halls and rooms. I am grateful that I have been graced with the opportunity to bear witness to the best of humanity.
It is unavoidable to feel the weight of tragedy in a place like this. This is a floor filled with children being treated for diseases that are, at best, entirely life-altering and, at worst, terminal. To see a child ravaged by chemo and radiation is heart-breaking every time. It is a horribly unfair burden to place on one whose life is supposed to be just beginning. At least the child’s burden is lightened by their own innocent ignorance. The parent that holds their child’s hand is not permitted the grace of ignorance. The parents carry the burden of knowledge, depth of fear, and the responsibility of decision. All that, while also knowing that they are powerless in the face of circumstances they can’t control.
The tragedy is the first thing to be seen. But if that is all that you see, then you will miss the opportunity to see a beauty without parallel. In each child is a hope that outpaces objective reality. The strength and courage of a sick child is awe-inspiring. If you are looking, then you can see that child finding joy in all of the everyday things the rest of us take for granted. Each parent wears their courage as an armor to fortify their child’s. There is fear, but also that rare understanding that life has to be lived now. You will see the victims of one of life’s greatest injustices rising above it.
All around you will see healthcare workers that have devoted their lives to serving these children and families. Nurses who show up everyday wearing a smile and bearing a gentle touch. Those nurses who are by their patients’ sides whether the news is good or bad. Nurses who are the first-line recipients of a family’s misdirected anger, grief and frustration, but who show-up anyway and always manage to find a reserve of sympathy and empathy. Physicians burdened with the responsibility of finding the sickness, cause and cure, while knowing that if the outcome is bad their efforts may be rewarded with litigation. Those physicians, nurses and other healthcare workers leave the oncology unit at the end of each shift not knowing if occupied beds will be found empty the next day and yet nevertheless find the courage to return, never knowing whether tragedy or triumph awaits. It is a transcendent courage that asks more from a person that almost any other job.
You will also see generosity. Small, simple acts of generosity that help buttress those children and their families against the darkness. Today, my son, and every other kid in this unit was given a Build-a-Bear. When my boy opened his eyes and saw his Build-a-Bear (a monkey actually) in a Batman costume his eyes lit up, and he squeezed it tight. It was a moment of pure joy for him in the midst of a really shitty night. Moments later the entire floor was treated to boxed lunches from Chick-fil-A. I didn’t need someone to donate a lunch to me. There are probably many parents that also do not need it. There are undoubtedly many parents and families that do need that free lunch. Whatever the circumstance, it is a gift that slices off just a bit of the day’s burden. It is a kindness, that helps a parent, a family member feel truly seen. In 2019, my son and I spent Christmas Eve and Christmas morning in this same hospital. I woke to find a small pile of gifts for my 5-month old son from Santa. My wife went home on Christmas Eve to be with our other boys, but when she left it was with an armful of gifts from the unknown donors to be given to the boys at home. It was a recognition that my son’s complex health is a burden borne not only by my youngest son, my wife and me, but also by his brothers.
Sure, there is probably some corporate marketing strategy that underwrites this generosity. I could choose to view this through the lens of practiced cynicism that colors my view of so much of the world. I won’t do that today though. Because today I feel the kindness of strangers, I feel the impact of generosity. And I know that even a small act of altruism given to an anonymous stranger can have a profound impact. I’ll be honest, Build-a-Bear and Chik-fil-A brought me to tears. Perhaps the 30 straight hours of uninterrupted consciousness played a role in the swell of emotion. However, I am inclined to believe it had more do with feeling that I was seen by strangers for what I am - a parent that loves his children profoundly while living with a constant fear of what the future might hold for his medically-complex child. How often does anyone really feel seen, how often does that feeling come from the generosity of strangers.
Today I a bear witness to the best humanity has to offer and I am humbled.
I wish that it took less than the tragic inspiration of a pediatric oncology unit to remind me of how deeply and unselfishly courageous, kind and generous humans can be.
I have avoided politics with this piece, and I don’t want to mar it with the indignity of American politics. However, if we could all adopt just a bit of the joyful strength of a sick child; the stoic courage of an embattled parent; the selfless perseverance and empathy of a healthcare worker and exercise the altruistic generosity of strangers toward strangers, our world would be a far better place. If we all carried these traits into our homes, workplaces and polling places, perhaps the dignity of the American political system could be restored.
Please forgive any spelling and grammar errors. I haven’t slept in over 30 hours and I don’t feel like proofing!
A forgotten truth: Migrants = Humans.
What do French, Filipinos, Guatemalans, Nigerians, Jordanians, Mexicans, Canadians, Turks, Chinese, Hatians, and Americans all have in common? Maybe I can turn this into a joke – An Italian, a Salvadoran, a Japanese, a Palestinian, a Norwegian, an Israeli, a Haitan and an American all walk in to a bar. The Bartender says “We don’t serve your kind here!” The Italian, Salvadoran, Japanese, Palestinian, Norweigian, Israeli, Haitan and American exchange confused looks and ask “Who don’t you serve?” The Bartender says…. “Humans” and immediately transforms into his true form as a Robot Lizard from space…. Yeah, I know, I’ll stick to lawyering and writing snarky blogs, but without jokes. But, did you get the point? They are all people, humans, Homo Sapiens. A single species spread across the planet.
If you are a conservative Christian, you might believe that we are all common descendants of Adam and Eve. Science tells us that human beings are primates which evolved from single-celled organisms, as with every other animal on the planet. (To be clear, this is not about evolution vs. creationism, I don’t want to wade into that debate.). Thus, whether viewed through the lens of religion or science, it is agreed we are all human beings.
The Declaration of Independence states that “All men are created equal…” Of course, in 1776 “all men” meant all white land-owning males (everyone else was excluded). Overtime, that phrase has evolved to represent a fundamental principle of governance/political philosophy in the United States - that under the Constitution, under the laws of the United States, all humans are equal. The criminal justice systems of all 50 states operate on the idea/principle/value that criminal codes are applied equally regardless of gender, race, religion or ethnic/cultural background. The criminal codes apply to all people, all humans. (Yes, I agree, the idea of equality under the law is aspirational at best, and largely ignored, at worst. But I am making a point about principles.).
Whether its religion, science, governance or political philosophy, we are supposed to, as a structural norm, believe that people are people. This isn’t a Democratic or Republican belief, it is not liberal or conservative, it is just true. It is the most apolitical, universal truth.
Why is it, then, that Donald Trump and by extension the Republican Party have forgotten that migrants (their legal status being irrelevant) are humans too? What began as a debate about differing policy perspectives on our immigration system has devolved into the naked dehumanization of all people born south of the United States. Trump and his party’s focus has shifted toward blatant efforts to convince voters that migrants are not people, do not share in our humanity and instead exist as something lesser.
The examples are innumerable:
- “… bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” – Donald Trump 6/15/15.
- “It’s poisoning the blood of our Country.” – Donald Trump, 9/2023.
- “…. If you can call them people. I don’t know if you can call them people. In some cases, they’re not people in my opinion.” – Donald Trump, 3/16/24.
- “Democrats say, 'Please, don't call them animals. They're humans.' I say no, they're not humans…They're not humans. They're animals." – Donald Trump, 4/2/24.
- “I’ll use the word ‘animal,’ because that’s what they are.” – Donald Trump, 4/2/24.
- “… coming into our country with contagious diseases.” – Donald Trump, 5/22/24.
- “… prisoners, murders, drug, dealers, mental patients and terrorists, the worst they have.” – Donald Trump, 4/2/24.
- “They’re eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there, and this is what’s happening in our country, and it’s a shame.” Donald Trump, 9/10/24.
- “Reports now show that people have had their pets abducted and eaten by people who shouldn't be in this country.” – JD Vance, 9/10/24.
- “…. Most of them are garbage.” - Tommy Tuberville, 7/23/24.
Of course, most of the quotes above fell from the lips of Donald Trump himself, and perhaps, some would argue this demonstrates the rhetoric belongs to him and not the GOP. But make no mistake, he is the Republican Party in 2024 and has been since 2015. He was their President, he was their kingmaker. The party faithful still line up to kiss the ring. He is their chosen Presidential candidate again. His voice is the party’s voice. If you don’t believe me, just ask him.
The point, if it isn’t painfully clear, is that instead of promoting a set of rational policy goals for the border and immigration, the Republican Party’s avowed policy is that migrants are not human. Through Trump, the Republican Party has adopted the strategy of intentionally dehumanizing migrants. Any decent American should find this shift appalling. Americans should be deeply and profoundly ashamed that our mainstream political discourse has deteriorated to such a point.
What makes matters worse is the dehumanization of migrants is done with intent. Trump and the Republican Party undoubtedly believe that they can gain political advantage and power by denying a migrant’s humanity. It is a truism in politics, psychology and sociology that people will unite when they have a common enemy to direct their ire. In 2015 Trump found a way to tap into an undercurrent of resentment among white conservative voters, mostly male but not entirely. He found the embers of misplaced anger that arose from evolving cultural norms, slight redistributions of power and wealth and burgeoning inclusivity that some felt left them excluded from the opportunities they had previously held and hoarded to themselves. He fanned the embers, gave voice to the resentment and rode those flames into the White House. But all fires need fuel, and for moments since 2020 it seemed as though he and the Republican Party were running out of wood.
In 2024, Trump and the GOP have succeeded in maintaining their traditional sources political power (Christian conservatives, the wealthy and small government/libertarian proponents) but have also focused on three sources of fuel for the flames of resentment: the economy; the misplaced perception of political persecution and the southern border. To be fair, the border has been a political football for at least the last six presidential election cycles. However, in the past there was actually debate about policy (or at least that is how it was framed). In retrospect, even Trump’s language in 2015 and while in office was, in relative terms, tame.
A “border crisis” and the nuance of immigration policy, like all things, eventually loses its ability to ignite passion. Particularly, when the vast majority of Americans live far from a border state. Thus, Trump and his party have sought to reignite those passions by creating a less-than-human enemy upon which their voters can direct their previously unfocused resentment. The Trump/GOP strategy is to lay blame for crime and economic immobility at the feet of migrants. Of course, merely blaming migrants, a group of humans, is insufficient to create a full-blown conflagration, because most people maintain a degree of empathy and sympathy for the plight of other humans. Most people will understand that migrants are mothers, fathers and children who are merely trying to find a better, safer, healthier life. Humans all deserve food, shelter, clothing, clean water and opportunity. Few people would truly debate that point. But, when the shared humanity is stripped away and the commonality of a species denied, the empathy and sympathy will wither into the dried fuel Trump and the GOP need to burn their way to power. Because, when the migrant is transformed into “garbage”, “rapists” and… “animals”, there is no longer any need to balance the debate. Instead, the “animals” can carry all the blame because “animals” are not granted a valid perspective. “Animals” do not need empathy. Cruelty toward a human is one thing, cruelty to an “animal” another entirely.
By dehumanizing migrants Trump and the Republican Party have created an evil boogeyman they can pretend to fight against and protect their voters from. Moreover, Trump and the Republican Party shed the need to adhere to basic moral and ethical constraints when the enemy is less-than-human. Policy choices that might normally raise moral and values-based objections from all sides become permissible to those who adopt the migrants are “animals” viewpoint.
Let’s be honest though, do Trump and the Republican Party really believe migrants are less-than-human “animals.”? Certainly, some in the Republican Party do, but for the most part the answer is no. I do not think Trump even actually believes his rhetoric. Instead, it is a conscious and intentional strategy that they believe can yield dividends. It is a place to find the fuel they need to burn. It is also nothing new, just look to the Salem Witch trials, and McCarthyism (to name just a couple). Those with coveting power/advantage dehumanized a perceived enemy to accumulate more power/advantage. Certainly, in each historical example there were those who truly believed in the inhumanity of their enemy. But if you look more closely, at the core you’ll always find shrewd cynics exploiting an anger for their own benefit.
The most troubling aspect of political dehumanization is that it is uncontrollable, and results in the justification of unthinkable atrocities. The examples are innumerable. We need only look to our own history of slavery and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans. The 20th Century saw the genocide of Jews, Bosnians, Cambodians and Tutsis, to name just a few. In each circumstance one political, racial or ethnic group sought power over another and justified its actions by dehumanizing its perceived enemy. Trump and the Republican Party find themselves in very poor company when utilizing this strategy.
The greatest irony of this shameful rhetoric is that the Republican Party expressly claims to represent Christian values. There is no reasonable or respectable interpretation of Christian values which allows for the degradation of other people simply because they were born in another country. The language Trump deploys, and the Republican Party accepts is the absolute antithesis of Christian values. What would Jesus do? He sure as shit would not declare Guatemalan children to be animals. There is no reconciliation between Christian Values and the dehumanization of migrants. It is the worst kind of hypocrisy.
Alas, this is where we are. This is what American politics has degenerated into. We can disagree about policy, but it is beneath us, as Americans, as humans, to allow this shameful approach to politics to be the mainstream discourse. It can be stopped though. Americans have the power to stand up and say enough is enough. Indeed, the solution is simple. Don’t vote for Trump and vote out those who enable him. This election is about a lot of things, not least of which is decency. I’d like to believe that the American people are, at the core, decent. But it is increasingly hard to hold that belief.
*Please forgive, spelling and grammar errors. I am incapable of self-editing.
Hot take: Self-restraint is a desired quality in the President.
Have you ever said something just to get a rise out of someone? Let’s be fair, we all have. How many times do we succeed though? Human beings are confrontational. We have opinions, believes, values and morals that often conflict with the opinions beliefs, morals and values of the person standing next to us. Debate and argument are fun! Many of us try to incite it just to enjoy the debate. Pot stirrers. But how often are you successful in a conversation with another grown adult in baiting them into a narcissistic defense of their own worth?
If you are reading this, you probably already know that I am a lawyer. Which is relevant here because it means I spend a lot of time asking people questions. Most of the time those questions are straight forward and primarily intended to find the information that I do not already have. Sometimes though, it is more than finding the information, and is, instead, about controlling, spinning and interpreting that information. In those situations, the questions are designed to influence the presentation of the information and impact the consequence. As lawyers we succeed in directing the flow of information and managing its contours with preparation and strategy. We lay traps through the course of a deposition or cross examination. Frankly, much of the time it really isn’t that hard to lead a witness down the path you want them to go. The best witnesses, though, see the traps, see the path you are directing them down and decline to take the bait. Those people are smart, well-prepared, experienced and can be very tough, even impossible to crack (they are also the most fun to question). If this is in a deposition, it can tell you a lot about the strength or weakness or your case. How your witnesses and your opponents witnesses perform under pressure might tell you everything you need to know about your case, for better or worse.
Which brings me to my point, I have been watching presidential debates since I was in high school. I haven’t wanted them all because, lord knows, they can be boring as hell. In most debates we do not actually learn anything of value about the candidate. All we see is how good or bad they are at avoiding a question (how well they dance) and how successful they are at repeating the scripted talking points (making soundbites). A debate never actually told me anything about a candidate’s ability to do a President’s job. That is… until September 10, 2024.
There has been no shortage of hot takes on Trump/Harris showdown. The consensus is that Harris had a great night, and Trump a terrible one. Of course, the stark policy positions were plainly visible, but we did not learn anything new, and no one bothered to spend time talking about what they would do in the oval office. That part is all typical. What made this debate unique was the difference in self-control. Look, wherever you fall on the political spectrum you cannot, with a straight-face, deny that VP Harris comported herself with a calm poise. She was the definition of cool, calm and collected. More importantly, with the skill of a seasoned trial lawyer she laid the bait and set the traps for Trump.
Trump, for his part, was most concerned with mounting an ego-centric defense of his own self-perceived excellence or touting ridiculous lies and conspiracy theories. Of course, the sheer magnitude of his ego and self-aggrandizement should give anyone pause. His willingness to put forward ridiculous lies on a national stage – see his claims of Democrats wanting to execute babies (honestly, whoever who could imagine a former President of the United States, needing to be told/fact-checked with “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after its born.”) – is disturbing. No doubt, his penchant for engaging with unsupported sensationalist rumors about immigrants eating house pets denigrates the entire conversation. But honestly, all of that is very much typical Trump behavior. Perhaps a little more extreme than his typical rhetoric when in a national spotlight, but only a little. Those are the sorts of things we expect to see from him, if a bit less extreme.
This debate was qualitatively different and more educational because it demonstrated Trump’s complete inability to exercise self-control or restraint. As mentioned, VP Harris laid the bait and set the traps, and Trump unselfconsciously took the bait every single time. He was that one fish in the shallow lake that keeps getting hooked because it sees the worm and thinks only of its own hunger.
There are numerous examples, but I’ll mention just a couple. Remember when VP Harris threw in a dig about people leaving Trump’s rallies early? It was a low blow, an unnecessary comment, but put out there for the specific attempt of drawing Trump into responding. Of course, Trump did exactly what VP Harris expected him to do and wasted precious debate time defending the size of his rallies. Let’s be honest, if Trump had just ignored VP Harris’ snide comments on Trump’s rallies, the whole strategy would have backfired. Harris would have looked petty and mean, and Trump would have appeared mature and controlled. Instead, he did what Harris (and all of us) knew he would do – he attacked Harris rallies and defended his own as “… the biggest rallies, the most incredible rallies in the history of politics.” Sure, Don, whatever you say. Instead, of taking the high road (has he ever?), he demonstrated an utter lack of self-control. He placed the fragility of his ego above a cohesive political strategy. Stated another way, he put his own narrow, silly self-interest ahead of his campaign, his constituents and voters.
In a different exchange, Harris pointed out that Trump’s former chief of staff, national security advisor and secretary of defense have all been publicly critical of him. Again, there were a number of ways Trump could have flipped that script. Instead, he bragged about his propensity for firing people (not sure callbacks to the “Reality Star” section of his resume is the best for credibility). Nevermind, that that he hired those people and consistently claims to have the “best people” working for him. How did this exchange even occur? Trump was asked about a border security bill he killed in Congress. His answer was an incoherent rant on immigrants eating cats, which drew a fact check from the moderator. Harris was given time to respond and very deftly took the opportunity to point out how the extreme right-wing rhetoric coming from the Trump/Vance camp has lead to prominent Republicans endorsing her, and Trump’s former staffers acknowledging the danger he represents. Harris hit him where it hurts most – his very delicate, but all-important ego. Instead of raising above, Trump gobbled that hook and incoherently attempted to belittle and insult the very people he had hired.
Let’s be plain, Trump’s inability to exercise even a modicum of self-control should lead any reasonable person to wonder how he could ever successfully represent the United States in negotiations or conflicts with foreign leaders. It was embarrassingly easy to throw him off-topic and into a full-throated, if incoherent, defense of his own self-perceived greatness. His ego is so shockingly fragile that he is completely unable to control himself. How could a man who can’t resist an attack on his “rally size” hold his own with political savvy world leaders?
Trump showed American voters that he is an easy mark. Perhaps more importantly, he showed world leaders, and most concerningly our enemies that outclassing, outmaneuvering and manipulating him is pretty simple. Maybe they already knew. But I can’t recall a moment when it was more perfectly and plainly on display than during that debate.
Whether you agree with him on his politics and policies or not, it is difficult to deny that it doesn’t look like he can hack it. This man cannot be trusted to deal with the Putins, Kim Jong Ils, and the Hu Jintaos of the world because he will be manipulated in their favor with simple appeals to his ego or baited to act rashly by simple attacks on his “rallies.”
A good witness sees the traps and avoids them. A good negotiator ignores the extraneous and irrelevant details to get toward the heart of an issue. A good President when performing their duties as Commander in Chief, and the country’s principal ambassador sets their ego entirely to the side and pursues the collective interests of the people of the United States.
Is anyone reading this? No? Ok, well I’ll start posting again anyway.
So… I took an extended break from politics, social issues… the world because I felt like I needed some time to focus on my own mental health, my career and my family. I can lose sight of the things that are most important to me, if I spend too much of my time an energy wringing my hands about the death of democracy. I saw that happening and I unplugged. Instead, I spent time in SciFi and fantasy reading and listening to audiobooks, trying to find joy in my work, and being present with my family.
But here we are in 2024 with another “most important election of my lifetime.” Because let’s be honest 2008 was the most important election of my lifetime. That is until Trump and Hillary faced off in 2016, and that was the most important election of my lifetime. Except, even then, few of us realized just how consequential that election would be. It was easy to recognize that Trump was not a typical Republican candidate. But did anyone really recognize that he was an existential threat to democracy? I didn’t. Between 2016 and 2020 we learned how a narcissistic, wannabe strongman could begin eroding the centuries old democratic safeguards. American democracy survived, but only just. Which rendered 2020 the most important election of my lifetime. Everything was on the line. Every “most important” election was child’s play next to 2020. Biden pulled it out, somehow the American dream (aspiration really) of democracy survived to fight another day, but not without blood, not without scars that will never heal. We survived but not without sustaining the harshest injury, darkest bruise, worst scar that the American democratic experiment has sustained since the Civil War.
It hasn’t been an easy 3.5 years. It hasn’t necessarily been a successful 3.5 years. There are reasonable arguments regarding Joe Biden’s performance as present. But it has been 3.5 years where we did not need to worry that we were at imminent risk of devolving into tyranny.
Yet, while I, like most Americans, sat complacently and enjoyed the benefits of something that resembled normalcy, the full-throated attack on democracy never stopped, it hardly even slowed. Because of that, 2024 is now the most important election of my lifetime. It is the most important election in the lifetime of anyone who is still above ground and breathing.
So, with that in mind, I will start screaming into the void again. I intend to rant and rave to whoever might bother to read this blog (Hi mom!). I’ll write because, honestly, it’s the only thing I know how to do. More honestly, it’s the only thing I have time to do.
“Real America”
“Real America knows the Biden Administration has been a disaster.” - Jim Jordan, 4/25/23.
It is pretty obvious what Jim Jordan means when he says “Real America”. For Jim, to be part of real America you must:
Oppose a woman’s right to choose;
Support unlimited gun rights for all;
Blindly and uncritically support Donald Trump;
Believe racism is dead and
Oppose trans rights, indeed you must work to erase the existence of Trans people.
If you are LGBTQ+, supportive of democratic norms and institutions, if you are liberal or democrat you are not part of “Real America.” You can be black and in Jim’s “Real America” but only if you believe there is no such thing as racism. You must think, act and look just as Jim and others in the GOP do. This “Real America” is defined by exclusion. If you cannot fit the conservative mold, then you are other. You are on the outside, and you just can’t come in.
According to Jim Jordan, I am not a part of “Real America'.” Luckily, Jim and his conservative buddies do not define what America is, or what it means to be American. In my youth I was an idealist, I am no longer. But I do believe in an America that is always on the horizon. I believe in an America we are always approaching. The progress is slow, to be sure. There are days when we take two steps back for one forward. But its out there, I see it and I believe in it.
I believe “Real America” is a place where we will move toward greater tolerance. It is place where trans people have rights, and can be respected as human beings irrespetive of their pronouns. It is a place, where we work to move past racism, religious intolerence and gender inequity. “Real America” is populated by liberals, democrats, republicans, conservative, LGBTQ+ persons, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, blacks, hispanics and asians. “Real America” is also populated by racists and bigots. The criteria to be in “Real America” is to be human. It is a place that moves toward inclusion.
Jim Jordan’s “Real America” is defined by hate and intolerance. It is defined by pushing people out. Mine is defined by progress toward inclusion. All are welcome. Jim can keep his “Real America”, his views are small and narrow-minded.
The Ukraine Imperative
The record of human history is defined by the phrase “might makes right. “The growth and expansion of nation states was accomplished through violence. Alexander the Great created an empire that extended from Greece to western Asia and Egypt through invasion and warfare. The Roman Empire was built on the blood of conquered peoples. Genghis Khan’s Mongol Empire was built from the bones of millions of dead. The British Empire extended to every corner of the globe, and with each expansion it tried to erase and destroy cultures as it sought to assimilate. Modern history exhibits the same trends. World Wars I and II were fought over German expansionism. The land upon which the United States rests is all stolen, conquered or purchased from sellers that had themselves stolen the land. The point is that human history was characterized by violent conquest. From the beginning of recorded history wars have been fought to steal or control land and resources.
As humans that is our heritage. But as humans we have evolved. In the 20th and 21st centuries the idea of what a nation state is and should be, has evolved. Democracy has flourished in the post-war era. The philosophy of governance and international affairs has changed. In prior millennia if resources and land could be taken, then the sheer ability to conquer was itself the justification. In the modern era, most governments have come to a new understanding – in the absence of direct threat, a nation-state is entitled to sovereignty and territorial integrity.
In the post-war era the western world has seen an unprecedented level of stability. Without a doubt, the 21st century feels violent, bloody and barbarous at times. Yet, it is a time when a U.S. invasion of Canada or Mexico is unthinkable. The U.K. firing missiles into Dublin is inconceivable. Even in those regions of the world where the superpowers and empires have exercised their imperial fantasies with impunity in the past are now universally considered off limits.[1] Wars fought for territorial advancement alone are simply not permitted. The relatively newfound stability is anchored in the west by universal commitment to democratic governance.
Acceptance of sovereignty and territorial integrity has led to economic prosperity. With economic prosperity comes a commitment to education. Better education results in a respect for human life, and a commitment to the protection of universal Human Rights.
Which brings me to Ukraine and Russia. Russia has violated the most basic of modern international norms. It invaded Ukraine to increase its own territory by stealing land and resources. Let us be clear, Ukraine did not present any sort of real threat to Russia. The lives of Russian citizens were not at risk from Ukraine. Russia wants to look like an empire and Putin wants to feel like an emperor. Russia has shown that it wants to drag the world back to an era of “might makes right”. Putin wants to live in a world with the strength to do a thing is also the justification.
This is why it is imperative that Ukraine prevail in this war and the USA remain steadfast in its commitment to support Ukraine. We, as Americans, have direct security and economic interests in the outcome of this war. From a security perspective, if Russia is allowed to unilaterally and without provocation invade a democratic country that posed no security threat, it sets a new precedent throughout the world. If Russia is allowed to act with impunity, so will others. China is anxiously watching and waiting to see how this plays out. China has its eyes trained on Taiwan waiting for a new precedent and new international norms to justify a military takeover. If the West’s support for Ukraine falters, and Russia prevails, China will interpret that as a green light to fire its guns on Taiwan. The dominoes will fall. Moreover, is there any real reason to believe Russia would stop at Ukraine? When the west’s commitment fails in Ukraine it will not be revived to defend any other Eastern European countries. If support for Ukraine waivers, and the country falls, do we really believe that our treaty obligations to NATO nations will be honored?
However, if the USA aids Ukraine in holding the line, Russia’s expansionism can be contained. If Russia fails in Ukraine, it will lack the resources and will to try again. China will continue to look toward Taiwan, but it’s ships will remain docked and its planes in their hangers. The USA is more secure when its allies and enemies adhere to international norms of peace.
Undoubtedly, supporting Ukraine costs the American taxpayers exorbitant amounts of money. I’ll concede, it is difficult to see and understand how the USA benefits directly from pouring its treasure into Ukraine. There are no short terms gains. There is no short-term economic advantage to be gained. Supporting Ukraine requires a long view. Most of foreign relations involve the ability to look ten steps down the road. The modern American political landscape is ill-equipped to take the long view. Politicians are focused on short term goals – secure a minor win to tout to your constituents so you can win the next election or force a minor loss on your opponents, so they lose the next election. Foreign policy does not work that way. The individual short-term interests of politicians must give way to the long-term interests of the republic.
If we believe in democracy, we must support Ukraine. If we wish to live in a world where nations respect the territorial integrity of other states, we must support Ukraine.
[1] Of course, there are exceptions. Many exceptions. The most obvious of which is the US invasion of Iraq. U.S. drone strikes throughout the middle east. India and Pakistan are in a perpetual border war. Middle Eastern nations engage in forever-wars. But I am writing a blog post not treatise on international relations. So please forgive the rhetorical shortcuts.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck… then it must be witness tampering.
Remember last week when the New York DA’s office indicted former President Donald J. Trump on 34 counts of felony Falsification of Business records? Do you recall that Michael Cohen, former lawyer/fixer to the the former President, is the star witness in that case?
This week, Trump filed suit in Florida against Cohen seeking $500 million in damages. The lawsuit alleges that Cohen spread false information about Trump. The lawsuit accuses Cohen of revealing confidential information in media interviews about the Manhattan Distract Attorney’s grand jury investigation that lead to Trump’s indictment. The lawsuit also alleges that Cohen revealed confidential information in the books he has published.
To lawyers, the attorney-client privilege is sacrosanct. To the uninitiated, attorney-client privilege basically means that statements you make to your lawyer are strictly confidential and cannot (under most circumstances) be revealed to outside sources by your attorney. It is a bedrock principle in the practice of law. Without it, effective representation is impossible. When an attorney violates their client’s trust and expectation of confidentiality, that is a tremendous breach of the attorney’s fiduciary responsibility and ethical obligations. However, there are circumstances when the privilege can be overridden. For example when both the attorney and client are being investigated for criminal wrongdoing. I can imagine situations where an attorney can be compelled to speak during criminal proceedings. All that is to say, Cohen’s actions have been questionable. I do not know the details of what confidential information he may have revealed, or if it was revealed in circumstances that violated the law or his duties to his client. Cohen is not innocent, and he may very well have violated his duties to his client. That being said, if the client is asking the attorney to engage in illegal conduct… well that changes the equation.
But….. this lawsuit was filed on April 12, 2023, about a week after Trump was indicted based on the very statements and information Trump is suing Cohen for revealing. That is not a coincidence. Whether or not the Trump lawsuit against Cohen has a valid factual/legal basis is beside the point. The lawsuit’s single solitary purpose is to intimidate Michael Cohen. Trump has millions of dollars and an army of lawyers to do his bidding. Michael Cohen…. he has … revenues from his book deals? Certainly, Cohen’s resources are the tiniest fraction of what Trump has at his disposal. Trump wants to intimidate Cohen into withdrawing his testimony. Trump wants to hang a $500 million lawsuit over Cohen’s head in order to make him think twice about testifying against him. Trump wants to stop Cohen from testifying.
We have a phrase for that - witness tampering. Using the legal system to intimidate a witness into silence might be legal. However, that does not change what it is. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck… well you get it.
Idiot or Liar?
Idiot or Liar? Is not a question that should have to be applied to a Supreme Court Justice. But sometimes there are actions, statements, decisions that lead inevitably to that question. For the sake or argument/discussion let us accept the idea that Supreme Court Justices are supposed to be some of the greatest legal minds in the country. Obviously, that is an uncertain and debatable proposition. Nonetheless, to become a Justice of the highest Court you must be highly intelligent or at least moderately intelligent and well-connected. First, you must attend an elite law school and graduate at the top of your class. Then you must clerk for a Supreme Court Justice, which is the most elite job a newly minted lawyer can find. In the clerkship, you must demonstrate to sitting Supreme Court justices your legal reasoning skills and legal acumen. You may then spend some time working in Big Law making connections. Finally, you might transition into academia or into lower court judicial appointment. Arguably, at each of these stages that lawyer must demonstrate that their grasp of legal principles, argument and reasoning is a cut above the rest. All that is to say, that not just any lawyer can become a Supreme Court Justice. As a practicing attorney, I believe I am qualified to say that high intelligence is not a prerequisite to a successful career in law. Indeed, I know many attorneys of questionable intelligence. But to be a Supreme Court Justice excellent reasoning skills and high intelligence are necessary (or minimally some reasoning skills, moderate intelligence and good connections).
To be clear, there are many Supreme Court Justices with whom I vehemently disagree in almost all areas of law; for example, Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas. Perhaps the best example is the late Antonin Scalia. Of his opinions that I read, I probably disagreed with 80% of his reasoning and conclusions. However, I have never, and would never question his intelligence. True, he was an asshole, but he also possessed an extremely gifted legal mind.
So… Liar or idiot? Last week ProPublica revealed that for 25 years Justice Clarence Thomas has been accepting extravagant gifts from Republican megadonor, Harlan Crow. When I say “extravagant” I mean extremely extravagant. In fact, “extremely extravagant” does not even adequately describe the luxury bestowed upon him. Frankly, the English language does possess words to properly describe the largesse at issue. Justice Thomas participated in at least six trips on Crow’s private jet to destinations across the world. He vacationed in Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks yearly. Justice Thomas used Crows superyacht for luxury vacations. Justice Thomas and his wife Ginni (best known for trying to overthrow our democracy) were gifted a nine-day, island-hopping ultra luxurious vacation to Indonesia. Some analysts have estimated that had the Thomas’ paid for this vacation it may have cost up to a half a million dollars. Let that sink in. That is not a vacation that could be financed on a Supreme Court Justice’s salary (annual salary for Thomas - $285k).
Government ethics laws require that government officials, elected or appointed, disclose such gifts. Inexplicably, the rules for gifts to and disclosures by Judges are much less stringent than those applied to other government officials. Nonetheless, Judges must disclose gifts aggregating more than $415 in value. A “gift” can include “anything of value.” The reason for disclosure laws should be obvious. First, we do not want our officials to be bought and paid for. But let’s be real (or cynical), somewhere between many and most officials are in the pocket of someone. So, second, we at least want to know who is trying to buy and exercise influence. Democracy is supposed to work for the benefit of all citizens, not just those with the resources to buy it. Theoretically anyway…
It is unfathomable that anyone, let alone a Supreme Court Justice, could look at these gifts and conclude that this sort of largesse should not be disclosed to the American public. To decide these gifts are outside the scope of disclosure laws and basic ethical norms requires either 1) an incredible degree of idiocy or 2) desire to conceal. In other words, failure to disclose means Justice Thomas is either a complete idiot or an unrepentant liar.
How did Justice Thomas choose to respond to the bombshell allegations? He chose to argue idiocy: “Early in my tenure at the Court, I sought guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was advised that this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable,” Apparently, he believed that half a million dollar luxury vacation to Indonesia, yearly vacations to a luxury resort in the Adirondacks and private jet flights across the country were just gifts between friends. His defense is that a GOP megadonor (millions upon millions of donations) showered him and his wife with hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of gifts for… friendship? Justice Thomas wants us to believe that he believed that a real estate magnate worth over $2 billion, that donates millions to conservative causes and candidates was interested only in friendship and not political and legal influence. On top of that, Justice Thomas and Crow want us to believe that during their yearly vacations to the Adirondacks and a nine-day luxury cruise around Indonesia they did not talk about work. For real….
Justice Clarence Thomas, idiot or liar? He wants us all to believe he is an idiot (which is disturbing enough). He is not. It is simply not possible to attain a seat on the highest court while being irredeemably dumb. You can be self-obsessed, egomaniacal, a pure ideologue or a purely political hack and a liar and reactionary. But you just won’t make it to the bench without some intelligence and some base common sense. To believe that hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gifts from a GOP megadonor does not need to be reported requires a complete lack of intelligence.
Thus, the verdict is in – Justice Clarence Thomas is a liar. He chose to conceal the gifts from Crow because he knew they were unethical. Justice Thomas knew that accepting such gifts was unethical for any judge, let alone a Supreme Court Justice. Justice Thomas knew that Crow was buying influence for himself and conservative causes. It is entirely irrelevant that Crow has not had business before the Court. Supreme Court decisions have widespread ramifications across all aspects of American life. One cannot overstate how impactful Supreme Court decisions are (just look at Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Jackson). Justice Thomas knew that disclosing hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from a GOP megadonor would erase any lingering vestiges of impartiality in his judicial reasoning. He knew, so he concealed and lied.
What makes it all worse, is the certainty that consequences are very unlikely. He will remain on the bench until he retires or dies. The wheels of justice will continue to slow toward a complete halt. Corruption will run rampant behind closed doors. The wealthy will buy their influence, while the rest of us will watch in horror as democracy devolves into oligarchy.
This should be a non-partisan cause. Republicans and Democrats alike should be outraged and demand investigations and, if warranted, impeachment. Everyone should be opposed to corruption in government. Everyone should want our judiciary to be as impartial as possible. If these same allegations came out against Justices Sotomayor or Kagan my anger would be the same (though I’d probably be more surprised). Unfortunately, you can be sure the GOP will pretend this is a witch hunt, and rush to defend plainly unethical, possibly illegal conduct. Prepare for a storm of “whataboutisms.” It is what they do.
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-response-trips-legal-experts-harlan-crow
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow
https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/4/6/23672921/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-propublica-luxury-trips-harlan-crow
A letter from the NRA to the American Public
FROM: National Rifle Association (NRA)
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
TO: Citizens of the United States of America
Dear American Public:
On behalf of the gun-owning, constitution-loving, patriotic members of the NRA, we wish to extend our heartfelt condolences to the families of the children killed in Nashville last week. We understand that this is a tragic and horrible event. However, in the wake of yet another school shooting we, at the NRA, have raised millions of dollars to support our efforts to protect the rights of every man, woman and child to own a gun. Firearms dealers across the county saw an uptick in sales. Truly, the American People will stand up for the right own a firearm, even in the face of tragedy.
Our purpose is a glorious and righteous one. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arm Arms, shall not be infringed.
Of course, it is only the last phrase that matters – “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Scholars have proven that the first phrase was a typo. Indeed, the founders had intended to write “Everyone gets a gun!” Unfortunately, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Joe Biden, Barack Obama and (of course) George Soros switched copies of Bill of Rights at the last minute, and we ended up with the wrong copy. But fear not! We know that the Second Amendment was meant to say. Because of the mass shootings in elementary schools, high schools, colleges, grocery stores, night clubs, malls, public transit, churches… everywhere really… our coffers have grown by millions of dollars. That money will fund our efforts at ensuring the right of every person to carry an automatic weapon is protected. Truly, these deaths were not in vain.
With this money we will be able to pay our employees through another election cycle! (Oh wait, sorry, the legal department just informed us that we can’t call them “employees”, allow us to rephrase.) With this money we will be able to pay U.S. Representatives and Senators. (No? Ok, Legal says that’s not right either). With this money we will be able to make perfectly legal campaign donations to politicians from all parties (looking at you Joe Manchin 😉 ), for which we expect nothing in return 😉.
We will also take this opportunity to announce our new line of classroom tactical gear. We firmly believe that only a good guy (teacher) with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Thus, we are partnering with gun manufacturers to produce classroom-ready automatic weapons for all teachers. Our NRA-branded tactical gear will allow our beloved teachers to wear classroom-friendly camouflaged Kevlar vests, with enough pockets to hold hundreds of rounds of ammunition! If that is not enough to demonstrate our commitment to school safety, we also intend to donate money to college education programs to sponsor basic combat training for every teacher. None of this would be possible without your sacrifice!
We would also take this opportunity to speak directly to the families of the victims of mass shootings. To you, we send our thoughts and also our prayers. How can anyone be sad when the NRA has sent both thoughts and prayers directly to you! You are so honored! In fact our employees, ahem, we mean Republicans have sent their thoughts and prayers too! What will you do with all those thoughts and prayers!
So let us conclude with a reaffirmation of our commitment to arm every many woman and child in America. There can be no doubt that God’s greatest gift to mankind was the firearm!
Very truly yours,
The NRA
(this is satire)
An Interview with Republicans - Part 2
Below is the Second Part of my recent interview series with Republicans. This interview occurred after the New York City indictment against Donald Trump was unsealed.
Travis: Yesterday the 34 Count Indictment was unsealed and released to the public. What is your initial reaction?
Republicans: Clearly, this prosecution is motivated solely by politics. Alvin Bragg is a puppet of the liberal, socialist, transgender, mainstream media, deep state. Alvin Bragg is a left-wing George Soros prosecutor.
Travis: You have said that before. But, now we know that there are 34 Counts of Falsifying Business Records. What are your thoughts on the actual felonies charged.
Republicans: What about Hillary Clinton? She did the same thing in the 2016 presidential election. Where are the charges against her? Rioters burned Portland and New York City but there were no prosecutions. Why isn’t Alvin Bragg bringing charges related to the Hunter Biden laptop? Hmm? Maybe because he is a Democrat? What about the classified materials found at Joe Biden’s home! Tell me Mr. Mainstream Media why are there no charges against sleepy Joe?
Travis: Ok. But do you want to specifically address the 34 Felony Counts against Trump?
Republicans: Congressional Republicans will bring the full weight of their investigative authority against Alvin Bragg. This Soros-backed DA cannot be allowed to bring political prosecutions with impunity.
Travis: Well… your plan sounds an awful lot like the weaponization of government against a political opponent.
Republicans: This is completely different. Alvin Bragg is backed by the liberal, socialist, transgender, mainstream media, deep state. Government officials cannot use their power to investigate and prosecute their political opponents.
Travis: So, it is your position that the power of Congress should be utilized to investigate Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, because the grand jury indicated Trump on 34 felonies?
Republicans: Yes, we are glad you understand. We intend to use every tool at our disposal to expose the liberal, socialist, Soros-backed Democrat Alvin Bragg for his crimes against Donald Trump.
Travis: In other words, you want to weaponize the powers of congress to investigate a political opponent?
Republicans: Yes!
Travis: Isn’t that exactly what you are critiquing Alvin Bragg for doing?
Republicans: Yes!... wait… no. This is completely different. Donald Trump did nothing wrong! The payments to Stormy Daniels did not even come from campaign funds. Whereas, Alvin Bragg continues to commit crimes against President Trump. Alvin Bragg should be disbarred and removed from office, immediately. Honestly, we do not even need an investigation, everyone knows he is a criminal.
Travis: You do not see the hypocrisy?
Republicans: We have never been hypocritical in our lives! Donald Trump has never, and could never commit a crime. It is unconstitutional, illegal and anti-American to charge him or even investigate him as a former President. However, Alvin Bragg, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Hunter Biden should all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law because they are part of the liberal, socialist, transgender, mainstream media, deep state.
Travis: Wow. In any event, the charges here are for falsifying business records. Based on the charging documents, and everything already publicly known about the hush-money payments, it seems that proving that business records were falsified will be pretty easy. Would you care to comment on the actual charges?
Republicans: The thing to understand about Alvin Bragg and the liberal, socialist, transgender, mainstream media, deep state, is that, while their target is Donald Trump, they are really out to get all of the freedom-loving Trump supporters throughout the country. They want to destroy Trump but also destroy all Americans who believe in the freedom to own guns, freedom to force a woman to carry a child to full term, freedom to discriminate against transgender persons, and freedom to believe that Christians are the primary victims of hate crimes. When Pres. Trump was indicted all of America was indicted!
Travis: What does that even mean…?
Republicans: This is about power. This is about the Democrat party with its liberal, socialist, transgender, deep state support retaining its power and position at all costs. The case against Trump has nothing to do with the law, nobody has ever been prosecuted for falsifying records. The Democrats want to hold their power over this country at any and all costs! They don’t care if an innocent, god-fearing, duly elected President gets in their way!
Travis: You do not really believe this country is controlled by Democrats, do you? Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives, correct?
Republicans: Yes!
Travis: Republicans control 56 state legislative chambers, and Democrats control only 41. There are 26 Republican Governors and only 24 Democratic.
Republicans: Yes!
Travis: Republicans have a 6 to 3 supermajority on the U.S. Supreme Court and control 27 State Supreme Courts. While Democrats control only 16 State Supreme Courts with the remainder split.
Republicans: Yes!
Travis: By the numbers, the GOP holds the lion’s share of political power in this Country.
Republicans: Yes!... wait… we mean, No! The liberal, socialist, transgender, mainstream media, deep state controls everything and will stop at nothing to maintain its power! Including, prosecuting an innocent man on trumped up charges, no pun intended.
Travis: Oh boy. But setting all of that aside, do you have any comment on the 34 Counts of Falsifying Business records?
Republicans: Did we already mention weaponization of government; the purely political motivation behind the charges; prosecuting Alvin Bragg; prosecuting Hillary, Joe and Hunter; the idea that an attack on Trump is an attack on America and that the left will stop at nothing to maintain its power?
Travis: Yes. You said all that already.
Republicans: Ok great. (mumbling to an aid – “Make sure Donald knows we used all of his talking points and be sure to kiss the ring.”).
Travis: So, I’ll ask one last time. Do you have any comment on the actual charges unsealed yesterday?
Republicans: What have we been saying this whole time!
Travis: Anything other than addressing the 34 felony Counts of Falsifying Business records contained in the unsealed indictment.
Republicans: Did Alvin Bragg charge Richard Gere with Falsifying Business Records when he made payments to Julia Roberts and saved her from the sex trade? No, he didn’t. That speaks volumes.
Special thanks to Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Rep. Matt Gaetz, Rep. Jim Jordan, Sen. Ted Cruz, Rep. Thomas Massie, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, Rep. Paul Gosar and Sen. Josh Hawley for providing inspiration for this post. Without your public statements, Facebook posts and tweets, writing satire might be difficult! I wrote this satirical interview, but everything is paraphrased from or inspired by actual statements of the esteemed lawmakers listed above.
An Interview with Republicans - Part 1
I recently had the opportunity to speak with Congressional Republicans regarding the indictment issued against former President Trump. The interview below has been lightly edited.
Travis: Donald Trump was recently indicted in New York City…
Republicans: It is an outrage a political prosecution!
Travis: I did not even ask a question yet.
Republicans: It doesn’t matter! That is what we are supposed to say first.
Travis: Well, what makes you say the prosecuction is politically motivated?
Republicans: It is against Donald Trump, what else could it be!
Travis: But what are your thoughts on the charges?
Republican: Well, we have not actually read the sealed indictment. No former President has ever been indicted before. This is an unprecedented attack on a political opponent.
Travis: You raise an interesting point, this is the first time in history that a former President has been indicted, why do you think this has never occurred before.
Republicans: The secret liberal, socialist, transgender, elitist, deep state have been out to destroy Trump for his entire life. Democrats are terrified of Trump running for President because he will win again! For the third time.
Travis: Is it possible that among the 46 Presidents in U.S. History, only Donald Trump has committed acts that could form the basis of a felony prosecution?
Republicans: Well we know that is not he case. What about Barack Obama? We know he has committed multiple felonies, lots of felonies. Why hasn’t he been prosecuted? The answer is simple because he has the support of the liberal, socialist, transgender deep state.
Travis: What felony should Barack Obama be prosecuted for?
Republicans: ….. um…. Well we could never know the extent of his crimes because the liberal, socialist, transgender, mainstream media, deep state has covered it all up. But we do know that his birth certificate is a forgery. He is a Nigerian muslim. The Constitution prohibits Nigerian Muslims from holding elected office.
Travis: Actually, his birth certificate was authenticated multiple times over. Barack Obama is a U.S. Citizen and born in the United States.
Republicans: Oh really? Well what about his name “Barack Obama” - sure doesn’t sound very American to me. And what about the color of his skiiiii…. Suit.. yeah, we meant suit. Remember when he wore a tan suit? Where were the fashion police? They did not even investigate that incident. What about Hillary Clinton’s emails? Tell us Mr. Mainstream Media, where are the emails? Why has she never been locked up?
Travis: As I understand it, during the lead up to the 2016 Presidential Election Donald Trump paid off Stormy Daniels to prevent her from revealing their extramarital affair during the campaign. The payment was then actively concealed from the American Public. In other words, Pres. Trump used his wealth and power to suppress her speech, and worked to make sure that the alleged affair was hidden from the American people during an election, but also that the payments were concealed from the authorities that regulate campaign finance. Does that set of facts and circumstances, at least, justify further investigation?
Republicans: It is a political prosecution? Is it a crime for consenting adults to engage in sexual relations? Is it a crime for a man to provide financial support to a woman? There is nothing to investigate. In fact, President Trump should be lauded for his effort to support a woman transitioning her life out of pornography and into a moral Christian life. This is a real life Pretty Woman. Donald Trump is Richard Gere with better hair, and Stormy Daniels is Julia Roberts, but with pure liberal bias in her heart.
Travis: As of this morning, the indictment has not even been made public. How can you be so sure that this is a political prosecution and that the charges are without merit?
Republicans: Because the liberal, socialist, transgender, mainstream media deep state has been trying to destroy freedom since the day Trump was elected. First, he was impeached and all he did was try to extort the Ukranian President into interfering in the 2020 election. Where was the high crime or misdemeanor? That is just politics! Then, the Presidency was stolen from Trump in 2020 when the liberal, socialist, transgender, mainstream media, deep state defrauded the American People. How do we know votes were stolen? Because Donald Trump said so! If that wasn’t enough, Pres. Trump was impeached a second time because some of his supporters toured the capitol on January 6. You can’t make this stuff up! But it keeps going, his home was raided by the FBI merely because he kept boxes of highly classified materials in an entirely unsecured location. But those documents were not even classified. We know, they weren’t, because Trump said they weren’t. As should be clear, President Trump has never done anything wrong, unethical or illegal in his entire life.
Part 2 to come after the indictment is unsealed.
Josh Hawley sponsored a bill on government ethics?
Do I agree with Sen. Josh Hawley? The guy who fist pumped the capital rioters? This is the dude who was a reliable Trump lackey and election fraud conspiracy theorist? Didn’t he vote against certifying the electoral college vote? Yup. That’s the guy. This is a weird feeling. I will probably need to take a shower.
Nonetheless, as a matter of ethics, principal and good governance – I agree, wholeheartedly, that elected officials in the federal government should be prohibited from owning or trading individual stocks or other securities. This is a perennial issue in congress, that never quite seems to muster the votes to pass. In essence elected officials should be prohibited from engaging in what amounts to insider trading. In the private sector corporate executives are prohibited from buying or selling stocks based on non-public information they have received as a consequence of their position. For example, let’s say corporate executives at ABC, Inc. learn that XYZ, Inc. wants to acquire ABC, Inc. In all likelihood, when information regarding the acquisition of ABC, Inc. is made public the stock price will climb because investors will anticipate their shares being bought by XYZ, Inc. The CEO of ABC, Inc. cannot buy up ABC, Inc. at the lower pre-public-disclosure price to take advantage of the anticipated valuation bump. That is insider trading. CEO of ABC, Inc. also can’t tell her brother to buy up ABC, Inc. That is also insider trading.
Just like corporate executives, elected officials often possess nonpublic information that, once public, will have a substantial impact on a corporation’s stock value. For example, elected officials become aware that a pandemic is likely to spread across the country forcing many workers to switch to a remote work. Once in possession of that nonpublic information, Senator ABC buys up stock in Video Conferencing, Inc. at $1/share. The pandemic then spreads as predicted, schools are closed, business send their employees home. Schools race to adapt and children are taught via Video Conferencing, Inc.’s software. Corporations begin using Video Conferencing’s Inc.’s software to conduct their regular meetings. Due to the swift and dramatic increase in business, Video Conferencing, Inc.’s stock price jumps to $100/share. As a result, Senator ABC made $99 for every share of stock he bought based on his non-public information.
The inverse is also problematic. Rep. ABC learns that Tech Goliath, Inc. is being investigated by the Depart of Justice for Antitrust violations. Rep. ABC acquires this knowledge as a consequence of her position in Congress. Rep. ABC holds 100 shares of Tech Goliath, Inc. stock that is currently worth $100/share (total value is $10,000). Rep. ABC knows that once information regarding the investigation and charges become public, Tech Goliath, Inc.’s stock value will plummet. Rep. ABC sells off all 100 shares, and pocket’s $10,000. Once the investigation and charges are made public shares drop to $1/share. If Rep. ABC had held her stock she would have lost $9,900 but she avoided that because she acted on information the general public did not possess. Incidentally, our friend Rep. Nancy Pelosi may have done exactly that. She appears to have sold large holdings of Google (Alphabet) stock just months before news of a major antitrust case became public.
So where does the infamous Sen. Hawley come in? He sponsored a bill called the Pelosi Act to bar elected officials from owning and trading individual stocks and securities. I am with you Sen. Hawley! (I just threw up in my mouth a bit). I agree wholeheartedly that this is a matter of the most basic government ethics.
I do wish he was wholly sincere in his effort to hold public officials to account. If only, doing the right thing for his constituents and the country was what guided his actions. Unfortunately, the title of his bill the “Pelosi Act” demonstrates his true motivation – to “own the libs; score political points; attack one of the right’s favorite punching bags. This sort of effort could have been bipartisan. But by calling it the “Pelosi Act” he showed his true colors and prevented anyone from across the isle from supporting it.
Logical and rational efforts for better government ethics will always be defeated by self-interest. You need a healthy spoonful of cynicism to digest anything from the federal government.
The image at the top shows 97 members of congress that reported trades in companies influenced by their comittees.
It’s me. Hi. I’m the problem. It’s me.
Hello. My name is John Travis. I write a blog that a couple people read (Hi Mom!). I have not posted in awhile. Life has laid out numerous stresses. Work has revved up, and I am running trying to catch up with it. Excuses. Excuses. Truth is, motivation dried up. I half wrote a few things, then became distracted by children, work or a really good fantasy novel. I became fixated on the lack of readership, while forgetting why I started doing this in the first place. I am now trying to remember that I started this for me… to scratch an itch that work couldn’t reach… to let a younger more idealistic John speak up (just a little bit). It’s me. Hi. I’m the problem. It’s me (I am really feeling this one Taylor!).
Anyway, my soul has became very itchy again, so I’ll start scratching. The next few posts will probably be half-assed, half-complete, half-analyses of the stuff that is important to me, or annoying to me. Some (maybe all) of the next posts will be outdated and irrelevant. But, I am going to post them anyway. Nothing will be “good”, but I hope you enjoy it anyway.
The Worst Halloween Costume of 2022 goes to….
In the days leading to the 2022 midterm the GOP and conservatives everywhere are dressing up in costume to hide the true identify of their positions. So, what is this year’s costume of choice for incumbent and aspiring Republican officials? It is concern for State’s rights. Since the day Roe v. Wade was overturned (long before that really) Republicans have pushed the narrative that abortion should be decided by the states. They have argued that each state should determine whether a woman can access abortion. Candidates across the country are trying to avoid saying that they are “pro-life” or “anti-choice” or “anti-women’s rights” or “pro-gross-misogyny”. Instead, they say Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because it was not a proper issue for the Court or Federal Government to intervene on. Rather, it is an issue that should be decided by the states.
This argument is nothing more than dressing up a “pro-life” stance into something more palatable to independents, voters in the middle, right leaning democrats and left leaning republicans. It is a disguise, a costume and a transparent effort to conceal the most basic truth – these candidates do not believe a woman should be allowed to decide what occurs in her own body. Any argument/position that is intended to deliberately obscure the politician’s true argument/position is indeed spooky. However, it wins worst costume of 2022 because it is so transparently false. It is like the Emperor’s New Clothes – not really hiding anything.
The majority of Americans support a woman’s right to choose. A majority of Americans were really pissed when SCOTUS abandoned 50 years of fundamental rights for women. This is the reality that Republican candidates are facing in the 2022 midterms. “Pro-life” is not popular at the moment, so they need to cover-up their anti-women’s-rights bona fides as something else.
Not only is it transparent obfuscation, it is also bullshit. Should the state you live in determine what fundamental rights you possess? Do we want a situation where women in Illinois, New York or California have the right to bodily autonomy, but those unfortunate enough to live in Texas, Alabama or Oklahoma do not? What about the teenage girls who can’t even choose where to live? This is not how fundamental rights should work. Do I have fewer free speech rights if I cross into Indiana? No. Is my right to own a gun very different between in Illinois than in Texas? Not by much. Is the right to practice your religion different in New York than in Nevada? No. Is your right to vote curtailed if you live in Florida or Georgia? … well yes, but that is a whole different discussion.
Is my right to full bodily autonomy in any way limited by what state I reside in? No, but that is because I have a penis. Allegedly, the United States of America is “one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” Right? Except that if you are a woman your liberty depends on where you live. The right to bodily autonomy, as fundamental as it is, is not guaranteed to everyone in this “one nation” and apparently that right is wholly divisible by state lines. At least that is the costume the Republican’s are wearing in 2022. That, my friends, is utter bullshit. It is the lie that is told today, so that tomorrow the endgame – national abortion ban – can be accomplished.
As a final thought, off the top of my head, I recall another time in history when politicians raved about the importance of state’s rights. In the 1850s and 1860s southern politicians argued that slavery should be a state decision, not federal. In the decades that followed revisionist historians and confederate apologists tried to make the case that the Civil War was actually about wonky questions of federalism. But the state’s rights argument was nothing more than a costume for the truth– that those southern politicians wanted to own other humans. So, there is nothing new about hiding an anti-fundamental rights position behind a veneer of state’s rights. Maybe I am crazy, but emulating the rhetoric of the white-slave-owning class is probably not the best strategy. If those are your philosophical forebears you should probably rethink your position….
Dear Gov. Ron Desantis:
Dear Gov. Ron DeSantis:
I do not know your level of education or life experience, so forgive me if I seem obtuse. I am not sure how to explain this to you, but I will do my best to be gentle. You live in Florida right? There is a large Latinx community in Florida right? Oh sorry, you probably don’t know that word. How about Hispanic? Does the work? Cuban! Yes. You know that one because there are lots of Cuban voters in Miami. So, people from Cuba are Latinx, or Hispanic. We refer to the people from the different countries in the Caribbean, Central America and South America as Latinx for shorthand. I am sure you understand that Cubans are human beings, right? … Right…? That is why they can vote for you, because they are human beings and American citizens.
There is another country called Venezuela, whose people are also considered Latinx. Have you heard of it? No? Ok, fair enough, they are not a major voting block in Florida. So, interesting fact about Venezuelans: like Cubans they too are human beings. Just like you and me! I know their skin is darker than yours and they speak Spanish, but trust me they are just as human as you and I.
I wonder if knowing that Venezuelans are also human beings (like you) would impact how you handle migrants entering Florida? I must assume, that it would change your policies and practices. Afterall, human beings are not cattle. Human beings are not political pawns that can be moved around or shipped off to another state.
I assume you did not know they were humans. I know I am making a lot of assumptions in this letter, but I tried to think of a reason why you would load two planes full of humans and fly them off to Martha’s Vineyard and dump them there. The only thing I could come up with is that you were unaware that Venezuelans were human beings, like you. I mean… It feels like I am giving you the benefit of the doubt here! There is no way you shipped off two planes of Venezuelans (human beings) and treated them like cattle or amazon packages! Right? This is the United States! We treat all humans with basic dignity! … Right…?
So anyway, now that you know, I would suggest adjusting your policies toward migrants (whether legal or illegal) to ensure that they are treated with basic dignity and respect. You are the elected Governor of the great state of Florida! Surely, you did not intend to use two planes full of human beings as political pawns and entirely disregard their dignity.
I know what you are thinking – How could I have ever made such a mistake? Don’t worry, it is a mistake your colleagues in the Republican Party make all the time. They have probably had a bad influence on you, like they have had on the whole country. But that’s in the past, now you know Venezuelans are humans, like you. You can begin to make amends! Americans love a great redemptions story.
….. Oh wait…Shit….. I just read in the mainstream media that you absolutely knew that Venezuelans were human beings, like you. It seems you also knew exactly what you were doing when you loaded them onto planes and dumped them like garbage. Your whole idea was to treat them as less then human to make a political point.
Well don’t I have egg on my face! You can disregard this letter, as you disregarded their human dignity. Obviously, extending the benefit of the doubt to you was not warranted.
Best,
John
Welcome to the land of Make-Believe.
My kids love to play make-believe. My youngest is often stomping around the house declaring himself a power ranger and running off to “get the bad guys” (while wearing the most serious expression). My middle child has a whole basket of costumes. Some days he is spider-man, others a pirate, he has even performed as Alexander Hamilton. Pretending and exercising imagination are wonderful exercises as a child. But I am tired of playing make-believe with the federal government, and specifically the federal judicial system. We call it make-believe for children, but for adults I believe the correct term is bullshit. I am tired of hearing that the Supreme Court is an institution separate and apart from political viewpoint. I am tired of the faux legal reasoning that is used to justify politically motivated ends.
In Dobbs, Justice Alito utilizes the Gluckesburg test to argue that there is no constitutional right to an abortion. Without getting lost in the weeds, the “right to abortion” (which is more properly understood as a right to privacy or personal autonomy) was derived from an interpretation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. In short, Roe and its progeny held that the promise of life and liberty provide for a fundamental right of privacy in decisions related to procreation. The Gluckesburg test says that 14th Amendment protects only those rights which are firmly rooted in this nation’s history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. This, my friends, is utter bullshit.
The test is designed to maintain and promote a politically conservative viewpoint. What rights are firmly rooted in our nation’s traditions and history? Very few, and certainly none which would be called progressive today. One need only look at our nation’s history and tradition to understand how little validity there is in such a concept. Our nation’s history and tradition demonstrate a distinct lack of respect and consideration for anything that might be considered women’s rights. At the founding, women did not have the right to vote. As a tradition, women were largely seen as the property, or under the control of the husband. Woman could not hold elected office. It was not until the 20th century that all women had the right to own property. It is 2022 and the Equal Rights Amendment is still not in the constitution. Thus, women’s rights, understood broadly, are not firmly rooted in our nation’s history, therefore, the right to abortion, or better stated as the right bodily autonomy is not protected by the Due Process Clause.
If you look across U.S. history you will find numerous examples of oppression of people based on gender, race, religion, sexual-orientation, gender-identity and socio-economic status. To be fair, I think the trajectory has always been a slow (very slow) march (maybe crawl) toward greater freedom for all. But the road is littered with the detritus of our past prejudices, violence and oppression. When you look to history and tradition you will find little support for the rights of women, people of color and the LGBTQ+.
That is why Alito’s reasoning is bullshit. That is why we and our institutions are playing make-believe. The test is designed to ensure a particular outcome. It is result oriented. When you look to history and tradition you will always find support for a conservative viewpoint/outcome. Alito is rigging the game. Yet the Supreme Court and their GOP benefactors will pretend to be applying a doctrine of interpretation that protects the integrity of the Constitution. Make-believe. If you believe otherwise, then you are also lost in the land of make-believe.
The Supreme Court has other imaginative doctrinal tools as well. Originalism being the conservative majority’s favorite plaything. Originalists claim to interpret the Constitution in the same way it would have been understood by the drafters. 21st Century considerations be damned, let’s try to think like 18th Century-wealthy-landed-white-men. Most of the Constitution was drafted by 1791. Let’s be clear, culturally, scientifically, educationally, 18th century America is more similar to the time when women were burned at the stake as witches than it is to the 21st Century. When the Constitution was drafted people settled disputes with duels. Indeed, in a sitting Vice President killed a former Secretary of the Treasury in a duel! Originalists believe we should be taking our cues from men whose grandfathers or great-grandfathers might have been burning witches and shooting their political rivals. Men who owned slaves, and oppressed women. No doubt they were men of vision, but their vision was limited by the times in which they lived, their own prejudices and the limits of imagination.
In the 21st Century why would Supreme Court justices apply a doctrine so silly on its face? Because its pretend. It provides Judges and Conservatives a philosophical and doctrinal basis to support their pre-determined outcomes. It is a means to justify the ends.
Framing is another way the Supreme Court and Conservatives like to play make-believe. How the question or issue before the Court is framed will establish the outcome. The best example is the detestable decision of Bowers v. Hardwick. In that case the Court considered the constitutionality of laws that criminalized sodomy. The laws were intended and enforced to oppress homosexuals. The Bowers Court framed the issue as whether there was a constitutional right for homosexuals to engage in sodomy. Obviously, when framed that way the outcome is decided. The Court pretended that the issue was narrow and specific. The Court phrased the issue in a way to make the reader/public uncomfortable. In Lawrence v. Texas the Court overruled Hardwick and reframed the issue as the right to privacy and/or the right to engage in private consensual sexual conduct, which really was the issue all along.
Similarly in Dobbs, Alito and his conservative majority frame the issue as the right to abortion. But the better framing, as addressed by the Court in Roe and Casey, is the right to privacy and the right to privacy in decisions related to procreation. But that is not even the best or most accurate framing. The issue at stake is a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. The idea that a woman should have control over her own body should be incredibly non-controversial. It is 2022, it is truly insane that women no longer have control over their own bodies.
Justice Gorsuch is so committed to the land of make-believe that he has shown himself willing to make-up facts to justify his preferred outcome. The recently decided Kennedy v. Bermerton case involved a high school football coach who lost his job after a consistent course of praying on the football field with students after games. Justice Gorsuch states that the coach “offered his prayers quietly while his students were otherwise occupied.” According to Vox.com, this is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Instead of a quiet prayer, the coach engaged in very public prayer at the 50-yard line, with members of his team, the opposing team and the public. It is a matter of the most basic common sense that a young football player with a desire to impress his coach and accumulate minutes on the field would feel compelled to participate in his coach’s prayer. That is the problem. It is not a coach’s private exercise of his religion, he is free to do that. It is the imposition of religion by a school official in a school event and the implicit coercive effect that has on a student. It is not about free exercise, it is about the school official impliedly establishing a religion in a school setting. Which is, quite obviously, a violation of the establishment clause.
The conservative majority on SCOTUS do not believe in their made-up doctrines. The play make believe with legal reasoning to justify arriving at the political or social outcome they desire. The Second Amendment is the example that proves the rule. Originalism cannot justify striking down reasonable gun restrictions. The founders did not and could not conceive of the technological advancement of modern weapons. The founders had muzzle loading muskets. We have semiautomatic AR-15s. The drafters did not contemplate easily firing 30 rounds a minute. Originalism fails for this reason, and a host of others. Thus, the Conservatives have look into their toy box of pretend doctrines to find another way to justify their predetermined outcome. Textualism is the preferred toy for the Second Amendment. The Constitution says “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Therefore, by a textualist interpretation, laws restricting gun ownership are unconstitutional. Conservative Justices don’t believe in their doctrines, they believe in their outcomes.
So maybe you are asking yourself “What’s your point John?” The point is SCOTUS is now deeply and irreparably political (maybe it always was). It was intended to be above, separate and insulated from politics. SCOTUS is the most undemocratic of all branches of government. Once appointed to the Court a justice serves for life and without accountability. They cannot be voted in or out, and only one justice has ever been impeached. Thus, we are left with a profoundly undemocratic institution applying make-believe doctrines to ensure the predetermined political/social outcomes that are desired by its conservative majority.
The point is that I am tired of the make-believe. I am tired of the bullshit. The point is that it is past time we stopped pretending the Constitution and SCOTUS are sacred and reckon with the ways in which it no longer achieves its intended purposes. We need to look with open eyes and clear heads at the ways in which our system, our Court is failing us.
P.S. If you are reading this, and you feel it is worthwhile please share with others. I am writing because I feel a growing panic about the country my kids are inheriting. Thus, if you think my writing has value, please help me spread these ideas.
Democratic Outline of Abject Failure
The GOP’s tried and true play book will lead to another win over the gun control lobby, and American children. It always does. Democrats have their own predictable responses. Of course, the predictable responses will lead to inevitable failure.
1. “We should not live in fear of sending our children to school.”
Translation: Let’s show that we are angry too. Maybe this is a good election issue for us!
2. “We need to ban assault rifles, ghost guns, high capacity magazines, and bump stocks. We need universal background checks and waiting periods.”
Translation: We have to ride the public sentiment and use this momentum to get something done. Also, let’s make sure our voters see us responding!
3. “We need common sense gun laws, like universal background checks.”
Translation: Ok… we were too ambitious. We could never get all that done. But maybe something small to show voters that we are trying. In any event, we need to back off a bit to support our purple district colleagues.
4. “We are not beholden to the NRA.”
Translation: We aren’t! We swear!... Ok… some of us are…. Ok, ok… many of us are in purple districts and if we push too hard the gun rights lobby will come after us.
5. “The GOP refuses to work with us. It’s their fault nothing gets done.”
Translation: We failed again. But let’s point the finger. We should not look too closely at our own ineptitudes. We do not want our voters to know that we are afraid of the NRA.
6. “…”
Translation: If we keep our heads down and wait, this will blow over. It ALWAYS does. The American public has an extremely short attention span. They will forget, and we can avoid taking on a difficult issue.
To be an elected Democrat you must be comfortable failing… all the time. To be a liberal, progressive or just a human with empathy you must be prepared to be continually disappointed in those who are supposed to represent you. Be prepared for angry calls to action, nervous hand wringing, ambitious proposals, followed by less-ambitious proposals, and finally silence. In a month we will be back to where we started and nothing will have changed.
GOP Playbook for Mass Shootings
The GOP has a typical and predictable response to mass shootings. Below is the continuum of escalating non-response to the gun violence crisis and the translation from political BS to plain English.
1. “Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.”
Translation: Let’s pretend to empathize and sympathize with the victims while also emphasizing our religious credentials.
2. “We should focus on coming together as a country and mourning this loss.”
Translation: Let’s not talk about guns.
3. “Democrats are weaponizing this tragedy for political purposes. This horror should not be politicized.”
Translation: We really do not want to talk about guns. Our campaigns are funded by the NRA and guns rights groups. We really need their money. Retaining our position of power is more important than any common sense gun laws, the children of average Americans and any basic notions of morality.
4. “This is a mental health issue. We should focus on red flag laws.”
Translation: We cannot concede this is about guns. Where else can we point? Mental illness is low hanging fruit. But we have to be careful not to overstate our case. Because we will not agree to fund mental health services in schools, we will not support universal health care with mental health services, and we definitely do not support universal background checks. Indeed, we will not agree to any sort of public mental health services.
5. “The Second Amendment is fundamental, we cannot allow isolated incidents to lead to an infringement of those rights.”
Translation: Look at us NRA, we are saying what you want! Now spend your money on reelection campaigns, and we will keep acting as your mouthpieces.
6. “This school shooting was a false flag operation staged by democrats and the gun control lobby. The victims are paid actors. Don’t believe the conspiracy!”
Translation: Americans are angry, and we are desperate. So let’s lie. Our voters will believe anything! After all, they believe Trump won the 2020 election!
7. “…”
Translation: if we keep our heads down, and hold the line, this will blow over. It ALWAYS does. We must rely on the short attention span of the American public!
That is the playbook used every time. It is already being used today, the day after the tragedy. Guess what? It works. Every time. Republicans continue to get their money from the NRA, nothing changes, and I get to feel nauseous sending my child to school.
SCOTUS controls your rights.
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.
That is the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. That sentence is where a constitutional right to abortion is derived. A long line of Supreme Court cases has interpreted this language to include fundamental rights. The reasoning is that “due process of law” protects not just procedural rights (think criminal rights), but also fundamental rights. Fundamental rights refers to those rights specifically enumerated in the constitution (free speech, religion etc.) but also those rights which are widely accepted; exist independently of the constitution and are derived from our very nature as human beings.
In Roe v. Wade, the SCOTUS found that the substantive due process clause guarantees and protects a right to privacy. Within that right to privacy is a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy. Roe recognized that women have autonomy and privacy in their own bodies. But the right to privacy was never limited to the question of reproductive rights. Roe recognized, for the first time that the U.S. Constitution protects a fundamental right to privacy for everyone.
It is a near certainty now that Roe v. Wade will be struck down in the next few months by a conservative majority that is no longer even trying to hide its politics. The day the opinion is released abortion will become immediately illegal in nearly half the country. In that same instant a constitutional right that women and doctors have relied upon for almost 50 years will evaporate. Women will be rendered second class citizens.
That is not the end of story though. The consequences reach beyond the abortion debate. When Roe is overturned the broader right to privacy, first recognized in Roe, is weakened, indeed, the foundation will crumble. In the 50 years since Roe the fundamental right to privacy has been acknowledged, interpreted, and applied as the legal and philosophical basis for the recognition of additional rights that are not already enumerated in the Constitution. Roe’s right to privacy is the trunk of a family tree. Roe’s progeny (those later decision which rely directly upon it for legal authority) grew into branches that extended and stretched in multiple directions. The most well-known branch, of course, deals with abortion rights. Roe’s right to privacy also grew into Lawrence v. Texas. In that case, SCOTUS held that criminalizing homosexual conduct was unconstitutional. SCOTUS in 2003 established, for the first time, that homosexuality could not be criminalized because private sexual conduct between consenting adults is protected by the right to privacy.
Dobbs will take a chainsaw to the abortion branch and in so doing harm the entire tree. SCOTUS cannot overturn Roe without also irreparably damaging the right to privacy. From Roe came the right to privacy and the right to abortion. These two rights are so thoroughly intertwined that elimination of one profoundly harms the other.
Lawrence v. Texas and its progeny will, at best, be left weakened, and, at worst, entirely without a legal/constitutional foundation. For a time, I believed the culture wars, at least with respect to the LGBTQ+ community, were winding down. That was naivety and ignorance on my part. The right’s culture war against the LGBTQ+ community never really ended. In 2022 it has been, once again, pushed to the forefront by opportunistic, power-seeking politicians. Republican legislatures across the country are passing laws that dehumanize and delegitimize (under the law) LGBTQ+. Many of the laws squarely aim at marginalizing transgender youth (yes, Republicans are taking aim at children).
Roe’s right to privacy provided part of the constitutional foundation for Lawrence. Lawrence, in turn, has its own progeny. Specifically, there is a direct line from Lawrence to Obergefell v. Hodges. In Obergefell, SCOTUS recognized same-sex couples had a fundamental right to marry.
To recap – Roe is the foundation of Lawrence. Lawrence (and Roe) is the foundation for Obergefell. Do you see the dominoes? Without Roe the right to privacy has been dealt a mortal wound. Without the right to privacy is there still a constitutionally protected right to private consensual sexual conduct? If homosexuality is not protected from criminalization, can there still be a constitutional right to marry?
In 2022 it is not hard to imagine that cynical power-seeking conservatives would seek to turn back the clock on LGBTQ+ rights. It is not inconceivable that states like Texas could revive long anti-sodomy laws in order to criminalize the LGBQ+.
Maybe, this is alarmist. But four years ago, I would have told you Roe would never really be struck down. Maybe death by a thousand cuts, but never fully overturned. I would have been wrong. The right to privacy will be diminished or destroyed and with it other fundamental rights that people have come to rely on. Anyone who believes that women should control their own bodies, and that LGBTQ+ community should have the same rights as anyone else should be deeply concerned.
*I am not a constitutional scholar. The constitutional issues are complex and multifaceted. This essay, admittedly, only touches on the surface, there is more nuance than I have the time or energy to address. My intent here is to highlight, the broader devastation that could be wrought by overturning Roe.