“Right” To Dine???

Posted on July 10, 2022 by jilldennison under Law and justice, Social commentary

You may have heard that a crowd of peaceful protesters gathered outside a restaurant where Justice Kavanaugh was dining one evening recently. Now, I don’t approve of threats of violence under any circumstances, but from what I can gather, there were none … this was a peaceful protest. Actions have consequences, and when you make a decision that is life-altering (not in any good way) for more than half the population, I think you have to expect that people will make their displeasure known in whatever way they can. In fact, one section of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads …

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In his July 9^th newsletter, Robert Hubbell summed it up well, I think …

These two things are not alike.

A troubling aspect of the Dobbs decision is that many people view it as an abstraction rather than a significant change in the status of women under the Constitution. A small example of that occurred in a protest at Morton’s Steakhouse in Washington, D.C. Justice Kavanaugh was eating dinner at Morton’s yesterday. Word quickly spread, protesters gathered outside the restaurant, and someone called Morton’s to express their displeasure at Kavanaugh’s presence in the restaurant. Kavanaugh later left the restaurant through the back entrance to avoid the protesters.

Morton’s (read: a male manager at Morton’s who didn’t have the sense to consult a woman) issued an offensive statement that read, in part:

“Politics . . . should not trample the freedom of the right to congregate and eat dinner. Disturbing the dinner of all of our customers was an act of selfishness and void of decency.”

Wow! Strong words! Let’s take a look at Morton’s statement and consider the competing injuries of being subjected to free speech and being stalked by bounty hunters seeking a reward for reporting a woman who just had a miscarriage. Spoiler alert: Those two things are not alike.

First, Morton’s asserts there is a “right to eat dinner.” Well, let’s apply the Dobbs analytical framework to that right. The “right to eat dinner” does not appear in the text of the Constitution, nor is there an implied “right to eat dinner” that is a “deeply rooted tradition in our nation’s history.” As explained in Merriam-Webster’s usage note on “dinner” …

“The use of dinner to refer to the main meal of the day, eaten as the last meal of the day, is a relatively recent phenomenon.”

So, sorry, Morton’s, there is no express or implied constitutional “right to eat dinner” under Dobbs.

Second, Morton’s (like Kavanaugh) might be shocked to learn that the Constitution expressly protects “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Justice Kavanaugh might not like hearing the grievances of the people injured by his decision in Dobbs, but he has no constitutional right to prevent the protesters from expressing those opinions peacefully.

Finally, Kavanaugh knew when he joined the majority in Dobbs that women suffering miscarriages would be reported by bounty hunters to law enforcement in the hope of earning a $10,000 reward. Between 10% to 15% of pregnancies spontaneously miscarry. In Texas, women who suffer miscarriages and seek medical treatment presumptively expose their doctors to criminal prosecution and a $100,000 fine. Thus, the 10% – 15% of women who suffer miscarriages in Texas will likely be denied medical treatment because their doctors fear they will be charged with a felony. Compare that injury to being forced to eat a $75 steak while drinking a $200 bottle of wine as protesters gather peacefully on the street.

Kavanaugh lied his way onto the Court and has engaged in the bad-faith reversal of settled precedents in multiple cases. He should not be surprised that Americans are unhappy with his use of the Court as a raw political weapon. Let’s hope that the peaceful protests cause him to reflect on the fact that his actions have made the lives of American women immensely worse. Perhaps a bit of humility about the real-world consequences of his decisions will temper his thinking in future matters.

As for Morton’s, telling women that protesting their demotion to second-class citizenship is “selfish and void of decency” demonstrates that it is out of touch with what just happened in America. Someone who is not angry at women should take over the PR function at Morton’s.

Oh Da Snark … Try Watching Grass Grow!

Posted on August 12, 2021 by jilldennison under Bits 'n Pieces, education, Environmental Issues, Political commentary, Social commentary

It seems I keep finding things to snark about. I have tried to clear my mind of the detritus, tried lying in the yard watching the grass grow to find some peace of mind, but some of the blades of grass began looking like politicians after a while. I threw myself into housework … for all of ten minutes … and then I was tired, so I went back to reading the news. So, letting loose the snark here on ye olde blog seems to be the only way to evict it from my head!

Punished for doing the right thing

Okay, my friends … I’m going there again … ‘there’ being the place I try very hard to stay away from: religion. Well, not religion per se, but rather certain religious ‘leaders’ who have flown repeatedly onto my radar, almost as if they are begging me to swat them down. Sigh. I really don’t like delving into the realm, for I understand that in this area, I am a minority and my views have little or no value to the majority. However …

Greg Locke, pastor of the Global Vision Bible Church in Nashville, Tennessee, is not a nice man. He has floated across my radar numerous times, but until recently I swished him away, pooh-poohed him as just another foolish evangelical. Until recently, that is, when he actually had the unmitigated gall to tell his congregation that if they wore a mask, they would be thrown out of church!

“If you start showing up [with] all these masks and all this nonsense, I will ask you to leave. I am not playing these Democrat games up in this church.”

‘Democrat games???’ Who’s playing games now, Greg? What’s next for Mr. Locke? Will he throw out parishioners who have been vaccinated? What about those who eat healthy and exercise regularly … are they to be given the boot? Folks, this is not about whether one chooses to believe in a higher being or not … this is about life and death, about personal choices, about our health. Mr. Locke has just mandated that his congregation must engage in dangerous, life-threatening behaviour in order to have the dubious ‘privilege’ of hearing him opine on that of which he is proven ignorant.

This isn’t Locke’s first foray into the unconscionable. Previously he insisted President Joe Biden was not legitimately elected and claimed only “crack-smoking” leftists would think he beat Donald Trump to the White House. He has falsely accused the State of Tennessee of building ‘quarantine camps’ to house the unvaccinated, and last September he published a book titled, This Means War: We Will Not Surrender Through Silence (Pastor Greg Locke: Spiritual Warfare Series).

What a joke he is … I wonder how many people will die because they listened to him?

And on the subject of masks …

Do you ever look around, read the news, and just wonder if the whole damn world has lost its collective marbles???

On Tuesday night, a meeting of the school board was held in Williamson County, Tennessee, the wealthiest in the state and one of the 20 wealthiest counties in the country. The purpose of the meeting was to decided whether or not there would be a mask mandate in place when children return to school next week. Unlike some other states, there is no ban on mask mandates in Tennessee and the decision is left up to each school district.

The meeting was so chaotic that it ended up taking four hours to decide that yes, they would mandate masks for teachers and students at the elementary school level. Masks will be optional at the junior high and high school levels where most students are over 12 years of age and thus eligible for vaccination. Angry parents showed up, almost none wearing a mask, and frequently disrupted the meeting, expressing their fury that their child might be ordered to wear a mask. One person became so violent that he had to be escorted out by county deputies.

But it was what came afterward that makes me think our nation is devolving into something cruel and inhumane. As the meeting broke up, hundreds of protestors were waiting outside. The meeting had included health care professionals who attested to the value of wearing a mask during this time when the Delta variant of the coronavirus is running rampant. Upon leaving the building, the health care professionals were surrounded by protestors chanting and issuing threats such as “We know who you are,” and “We will find you.”

If this is what it means to be an American, then I want no part of it! These people are loons! Doctors and nurses, trying to keep the children of these loons safe and alive, are threatened for doing so. PEOPLE! WAKE UP! This is not how rational human beings behave!!! Or is it? Are people completely losing the ability to disagree in a civilized manner?

Something to ponder

Our friend Jerry, aka Grumpy1180, left a comment on my post about Andrew Cuomo’s resignation that I found very astute …

I’ve had several epiphanies since leaving the Republican Party. Here’s one of them: When a Republican “leader” gets caught with his or her hand in the cookie jar–or his or her pants down, or choose your cliche–Republican followers turn on the accusers, the law enforcers, the court system, the media, and anyone else who would dare to question the integrity of their hero. They side with the person over the principle. When a Democrat leader gets caught violating a law or an important social norm, Democrat voters say, essentially, “Sorry, _____. I liked you, but principles come first. Time for you to move on and be replaced by someone who understands the importance of upholding crucial, society-sustaining principles.”

Think about that for a minute … he’s right! Did you hear a single Republican call for Trump’s resignation in light of his many proven sexual harassment accusations, his lies, his corruption? He even admitted to some of them, yet not a whisper was heard from Republicans in or out of Congress. When confirmation hearings were being held for Brett Kavanaugh to occupy a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, and a highly credible woman accused him of sexual assault, who did Republicans turn on? The woman, not Kavanaugh. And more recently … have you heard a single Republican call for Representative Matt Gaetz, who is being investigated on sex trafficking charges, to step down?

Think about it … which party has shown integrity? Jerry is right … it damn sure ain’t the Republican Party!

The Supreme Court Speaks … or Doesn’t

Posted on June 16, 2020 by jilldennison under Law and justice, Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry, Social commentary

The Supreme Court made a number of decisions and non-decisions yesterday. Let’s start with the good news first!

As I’m sure you’ve all heard by now, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does provide protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. About damn time! It was a no-brainer to start with! Nobody should be fired for anything other than poor job performance … not because of skin colour, religion or lack thereof, gender or gender identity, or any other superficial criteria. But, in the United States of Bigotry, far too many people did not understand.

But one of the things that makes this decision by the Court so amazing is that Justice Gorsuch, a justice hand-picked by Trump, was on the side of right. In fact, he wrote the majority opinion which in part reads …

“An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. It is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

So, who were the three Justices who thought otherwise, who are such homophobes that they cannot abide the idea of a gay person being treated fairly? Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and predictably, Trump’s crybaby pick, Brett Kavanaugh. And what was their rationale? I read parts of Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion, and found it to be rambling rubbish. A few snippets …

“A more brazen abuse of our authority to interpret statutes is hard to recall. The court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. After today’s decision, plaintiffs may claim that the failure to use their preferred pronoun violates one of the federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination. For women who have been victimized by sexual assault or abuse, the experience of seeing an unclothed person with the anatomy of a male in a confined and sensitive location such as a bathroom or locker room can cause serious psychological harm.”

Bullshit! It seems that a number of people in this nation share Alito’s, Thomas’, and Kavanaugh’s opinion and still haven’t awakened to the fact that LGBT people are … PEOPLE. Human beings just like any other who have the right to an education, a job, and all the other rights and privileges enjoyed by others. It’s not surprising to see which political party has the most homophobes …At any rate, this is justice as it should be, and for once, fairness won the day.

The Court sometimes speaks as loudly in the cases they don’t hear as the ones they do. In three notable cases yesterday, such was the case.

The first notable case the Court decided against hearing was a compilation of nearly a dozen cases that gun rights groups claim violate their 2^nd Amendment rights. Among them were cases involving restrictions in Maryland and New Jersey to permits for carrying a handgun outside the home. For now, at least, the restrictions put in place by the states are allowed to stand. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh, of course, disagreed, with Thomas saying …

“This Court would almost certainly review the constitutionality of a law requiring citizens to establish a justifiable need before exercising their free speech rights. And it seems highly unlikely that the Court would allow a State to enforce a law requiring a woman to provide a justifiable need before seeking an abortion.”

Sorry, Thomas … not a valid comparison.

Next, the Court declined to hear a case concerning a California state law that prohibited state authorities from assisting federal immigration agents (e.g., alerting the federal government when someone in custody was to be released or handing off an undocumented person to federal authorities). The Trump administration, in its never-ending hunt to harass and deport undocumented immigrants (regardless of the danger they pose to society and their roots in the community), sued.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed with the district court that the California law was constitutional. Thus Trump’s lawyers took it to the Supreme Court, who has now refused to hear it. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito noted publicly that they would have granted the government’s petition, and I can only assume that Kavanaugh would have, also. This is a win in that it leaves in place California’s law, which reaffirms that states cannot be dragooned into performing services for the federal government.

And now for the bad news …

The court declined to hear eight cases challenging the doctrine of qualified immunity, which acts to shield police and others acting from lawsuits. It is this qualified immunity that has enabled so many officers to walk away without punishment after killing unarmed black men in situations that did not require the use of excess force.

In response to the Court’s decision not to hear the cases, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, Congressional Black Caucus Chair Karen Bass, and Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Chair Steve Cohen released a statement reading, in part …

“Qualified immunity has repeatedly barred victims of police brutality from having their day in court, and it has been criticized by liberals and conservatives alike.

The Supreme Court’s failure to reconsider this flawed legal rule makes it all the more important for Congress to act. The Justice in Policing Act of 2020 does just that: it makes clear that qualified immunity cannot be used as a defense in civil rights suits against federal, state, or local law enforcement officers. It is long past time to remove this arbitrary and unlawful barrier and to ensure police are held accountable when they violate the constitutional rights of the people whom they are meant to serve.”

I fully agree … in my book, it was unconscionable for the Court to refuse to review these cases, where their review might have ruled that police are, in fact, accountable for their actions.

Well, there you have it … a summary of the most important cases, decisions and non-decisions of the Supreme Court yesterday. The first, of course, is a huge win and should be celebrated. I am pleased that Justice Neil Gorsuch took a stand on the side of right, as did Chief Justice Roberts. I’m also pleased that the Court upheld California’s right to protect its immigrant population from draconian federal agencies directed by Trump. I’m less pleased by the final non-decision, but given the current situation, the protests that have come as a result of decades of police brutality against people of colour, I think change is going to happen, despite the Supreme Court refusing to be the agent of that change.

The Wife Of A Supreme Court Justice …

Posted on February 28, 2020 by jilldennison under Law and justice, Political commentary, Trump's Staff Picks

This story began with something that crossed my radar last night and set off red flags and warning bells. But, as sometimes happens, the story didn’t begin or end with that one story, but has an even deeper, darker understory. I want to warn you that some of this is going to sound a bit far-fetched, but I assure you, I have double-checked and verified everything I’m about to tell you, so hold onto your hats, folks.

Justice Clarence Thomas has had a seat on the United States Supreme Court since 1990 when he replaced one of the most-respected Justices in the history of the nation, Justice Thurgood Marshall. Thomas’ confirmation was sticky, to say the least, with a less-than-stellar ranking from the American Bar Association, his reticence to answer many questions, and lastly allegations of sexual misconduct, but still he was confirmed. He leans to the right … a bit too far for my tastes, but nonetheless, I’ve had no truck with him. His wife, however, is another matter.Ginny Thomas, it appears, has played a significant role in the recent purges within the Trump administration … purges not based on incompetence, but rather on not being considered to be ‘loyal’ enough to Trump. Loyalists, or close allies of Trump, provided him lists of names of those who were perceived as not being 100% on board with Trump, and Ginny Thomas was one of the leaders of the pack.

Before I proceed, let me just state for the record that the Supreme Court is expected to be completely independent from the president. The Justices do not work for, nor answer to the president. It seems to me that this is a gross conflict of interest, for the wife of one of the justices to be serving as an unofficial advisor to the president, bringing about the firing of staff for no reason that would pass the smell test in a court of law.

Ginny Thomas and a Republican Senate staffer, Barbara Ledeen, have been compiling lists of all those they felt lacked sufficient loyalty to Trump. One of the casualties of Ms. Thomas’ lists was Jessie Liu. Liu was a U.S. Attorney for the District Columbia, a position she resigned earlier this month, apparently at the request of U.S. District Attorney William Barr. She had been nominated by Trump to a high-level position at the U.S. Department of Treasury and had planned to resign her position with the DC U.S. Attorney’s office soon anyway, so not much notice was taken.

Then, suddenly, Trump rescinded Ms. Liu’s nomination. It turns out, the reason was a list compiled by Ginny Thomas and Barbara Ledeen listing at least three reasons she felt Ms. Liu was not loyal enough. One reason Ginny questioned Liu’s loyalty was that she failed to charge former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, for she found he had committed no crimes. Another was that she had recommended jail time for former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, who pled guilty and was convicted of “willfully and knowingly” making “false, fictitious and fraudulent statements” to the FBI regarding conversations with Russia’s ambassador in the matter of Russian interference in the U.S. 2016 election. Trump felt Flynn’s conviction was unfair, even though Flynn had pled guilty, so Liu’s recommendation that he serve time in prison made her, in Thomas & Ledeen’s book, disloyal.

The third, and perhaps most disgusting reason on the infamous list was that Ms. Liu refused to press criminal charges against certain of the women who came forward to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct during his confirmation hearing in 2018. To the best of my knowledge, none of those women had done anything that would warrant criminal charges, and obviously that was Ms. Liu’s conclusion as well. And a fourth reason Thomas & Ledeen apparently felt Ms. Liu had failed the loyalty test, is that she dismissed charges against “violent inauguration protesters who plotted to disrupt the inauguration.”

The compilation of these lists has been going on for some 18 months, but it was only after his acquittal by the Senate last month that Trump suddenly felt emboldened and invincible enough to act upon the information he had been given. Ms. Thomas, however, has been a right-wing political activist since at least 2013, in conjunction with a number of journalists from Breitbart and other right-wing organizations. Thomas has also been a columnist for the Daily Caller (a right-wing news and opinion website founded by none other than Fox News’ half-witted Tucker Carlson) and a tea party consultant and lobbyist.

I have no evidence that Justice Thomas has done anything wrong, but … by his wife acting in this capacity, advising Trump of who should be fired, of who is sufficiently loyal … there is the appearance of possible involvement where there should be none. The role of Supreme Court Justice is a very high honour that comes with an expectation that the wearer of that black robe will be above the fray, above suspicion. I’m afraid I no longer have faith that Justice Thomas is, in fact, above corruption. What his wife is doing is, in itself, disgusting, but that she is also the wife of a Supreme Court Justice is highly improper.

Chief Justice John Roberts Speaks …

Posted on January 1, 2020 by jilldennison under Law and justice, Political commentary

Yesterday Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary. The report is too long to replicate in its entirety, but there are a few salient points that are worth sharing. A summary from the SCOTUS blog …

The report began with the story of the Federalist Papers, which Roberts described as “America’s greatest civics lesson.” Roberts recounted how John Jay, one of the papers’ three authors along with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, “shouldered the lightest load of the trio, producing only five of the articles.” “Perhaps if Jay had been more productive,” Roberts observed, “America might have rewarded him with a Broadway musical.” But the reality, Roberts explained, is that Jay had fewer contributions because he was injured by “a rock thrown by a rioter motivated by a rumor.”

From there, Roberts segued to the need for civic education: “In our age, when social media can instantly spread rumor and false information on a grand scale, the public’s need to understand our government, and the protections it provides, is ever more vital.” Roberts described various ways in which the “judges and staff of our federal courts are taking up the challenge” of the judiciary’s “important role to play in civic education.” Not only are judges issuing opinions, now online, that the public can read, but the judiciary is also developing educational programs for students and the general public, courthouses are hosting “learning centers” and judges are participating in naturalization ceremonies. (Roberts did not, however, mention the practice of some federal appeals courts of providing live audio or video of oral arguments, which the Supreme Court has resisted.) Roberts gave a shout-out to the “current Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Circuit” – Merrick Garland, who was nominated but never confirmed to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016 – for his longtime volunteer work as a tutor at a local elementary school.

Roberts also cited efforts beyond the judiciary, including the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia and the iCivics program founded by retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. (Referring to the video games created by iCivics, Roberts wryly observed that “[a]s they say, to reach people, you have to meet them where they are.”)

Roberts’ conclusion turned away from the topic of civic education to send a message to his fellow judges. Perhaps echoing his insistence in 2018 that there is no such thing as a “Trump judge” or an “Obama judge,” and with a docket full of hot-button issues for the Supreme Court to decide in the new year, Roberts urged his colleagues to “continue their efforts to promote public confidence in the judiciary, both through their rulings and through civic outreach.” “We should celebrate our strong and independent judiciary,” Roberts continued, “a key source of national unity and stability. But we should also remember,” he cautioned, “that justice is not inevitable. We should reflect on our duty to judge without fear or favor, deciding each matter with humility, integrity, and dispatch.”

The Supreme Court is our last bastion against the corruption in Washington. More than once in the past years, I have been very disappointed in the decisions of the Court. The most disappointing, I think, was their ruling in the case of Citizens United v FEC in 2010, a ruling that left the door wide open for corporations and lobbyists to literally buy the votes of members of Congress. And just last June, the Court ruled that federal courts are powerless to hear challenges to partisan gerrymandering … another disappointment.

With the additions of first Neil Gorsuch and later Brett Kavanaugh, two judges appointed by Trump, but recommended by the ultra-conservative Federalist Society, a group with entirely too much power in our government, the Court has swung too far to the right, and many question whether at this point we still have a fully independent, non-partisan Judiciary Branch as the Founding Fathers intended. Chief Justice Roberts’ words in his annual report are encouraging and seem to indicate that he sees more than we may think, but with many crucial cases on the docket for the new year, the proof will be, as they say, in the pudding.

Burning The Constitution

Posted on October 13, 2019 by jilldennison under Law and justice, Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry, religion, Social commentary

The United States is a secular nation, meaning that the government is officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. It means that the government does not favour one religion over another, that people do not have more or less rights based on their religion, that all citizens are treated equally, regardless of their religion or non-religion.

The United States Constitution is the foundation for the nation’s government. It is the source of law and order. It is the guidebook, so to speak, for how this nation’s governing bodies will deport themselves, and outlines the rights and responsibilities of each branch of the government. While the Constitution does not use the phrase “separation of church and state”, what it does say in the Establishment Clause of the 1^st Amendment is this …

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Now that I’ve made that perfectly clear, I hope, let us take a look at what Attorney General William Barr, the man who leads the Department of Justice, had to say on Friday, when asked to speak at Notre Dame University:

“We must be vigilant to resist efforts by forces of secularization to drive religious viewpoints from the public square and to impinge upon our exercise of our faith. This is not decay. This is organized destruction. Secularists and their allies have marshaled all the forces of mass communication, popular culture, the entertainment industry, and academia in an unremitting assault on religion & traditional values.”

The head of the department tasked with overseeing the law and upholding the Constitution doesn’t even understand the Constitution?

Christians in this nation comprise some 70.6% of the population, down from 75% just two years ago. Of that, evangelicals comprise 25.4% of the population. Now, by Barr’s presumption, does this mean that our government only represents 70.6% of the people in this nation, and the other 29.4% of us are sh*t out of luck? Now, if that be the case, doesn’t it follow that those of us in the 29.4% should not be required to pay taxes, since the government we are paying those taxes to does not represent us?

William Barr was far out of line in his speech and seems to have interpreted the Constitution according to his own values, or perhaps, like his ‘boss’, he has never read nor understood the document that he took an oath to uphold.

Barr, however, is not alone in cherry-picking the parts of the document he wishes to support, while ignoring the rest. Take a look at Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, he of rather questionable morals whose nomination to the bench was shoved through at mach speed, despite credible allegations of sexual assault.

“But maybe Nixon was wrongly decided — heresy though it is to say so. Nixon took away the power of the president to control information in the executive branch by holding that the courts had power and jurisdiction to order the president to disclose information in response to a subpoena sought by a subordinate executive branch official. That was a huge step with implications to this day that most people do not appreciate sufficiently…Maybe the tension of the time led to an erroneous decision.” – Brett Kavanaugh, 1999

Say What??? It took away the power …??? Let’s be perfectly clear here … the president is not granted by the U.S. Constitution unlimited power to keep secrets and act on his own to make deals and agreements that are not in the best interest of this nation and its people! The president is granted broad authority in certain areas, but … the legislative and judicial branches are not only granted the authority, but tasked with the responsibility, to provide oversight to the executive branch. The purpose being to hold the president accountable for his actions.

“The House of Representatives … shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” — Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” —Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

I think that for a person with a law degree, as both Barr and Kavanaugh as well as all of Trump’s lawyers, many members of Congress and others in the administration have — including, believe it or not, Kellyanne Conway — this should be clear enough. If you and I can understand it … why can’t the lawyers?

We have layer upon layer upon layer of corruption and dishonesty in our federal government in quantities never before seen. Trump claimed he would drain the swamp, but instead he has further infested it with lethal, poisonous creatures … swamp monsters, as it were. Being a republican or a democrat is largely irrelevant, but being dishonest, hiding things from the people they work for (us), and being self-serving are crimes. It is time … past time … for us to hold these people accountable.

Today’s ‘Toons!!!

Posted on September 21, 2019 by jilldennison under Bits 'n Pieces, cartoons, Environmental Issues, Global Issues, Humour, Law and justice, Political commentary

The cartoonists have been working overtime ever since Trump took the Oath of Office (an oath he never understood nor intended to keep) on 20 January 2017. I have to hand it to them, they do one heck of a job! I wish I had their talent. Let’s take a look at a few of this week’s toons.

With the Global Climate Strike yesterday, and the United Nations’ Youth Climate Summit today, and the UN Climate Action Summit on Monday, needless to say climate change is on everyone’s mind this week. The U.S., specifically Donald Trump, is working hard to add fuel to the fires of the global climate crisis by rolling back environmental regulations, trashing the Clean Water Act, and attempting to forbid states from enacting their own, stricter emissions standards. To add insult to injury, while world leaders from around the globe travel to New York for the UN Summit on Monday, Trump has announced that he will be too busy at some religious conference to attend the Climate Summit. So it is only right and proper that the cartoonists have made the U.S. and Trump the brunt of their humour.

It’s been just three weeks since the last mass shooting in the U.S., and the subject of gun regulations is never far from most of our minds. We the People (at least the sane majority of us) have been calling for gun legislation for … forever, I think. Expanded background checks and a ban on assault weapons is a good place to start, but when you mention either of those, the gun nuts in this country go so crazy that you’d think we were asking them to give up their wife and kids. Well, actually I think some of them would give up their wife and kids with less argument than they would give up their guns!

Ol’ Brett Kavanaugh, the only person I’ve ever seen who can make even uglier facial expressions than Donald Trump, is back in the news this week, as a new book, The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigaton, by two New York Times reporters, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly, was released on Tuesday. The two reporters covered Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing and they say that the “foundational mission” of the book was not just to learn more about the allegations against Kavanaugh but to get “a much better context for who he was as a person and what his educational years and career were like, and who is the man who has been portrayed in these two starkly polarized ways.” I haven’t read it, and am not sure that I can stomach reading an entire book about such a horrible excuse for a human.

Recently, Ivanka was asked what she had gotten from her parents, and she said that from her father she got her moral compass! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

You’ll remember Trump’s juvenile antics, re-drawing the path of Hurricane Dorian on an official map, with a Sharpie? When you do something that bloomin’ stupid, you gotta expect it to catch the eye of the cartoonists for quite a while …

Lies. Trump lies. Most every time he opens his mouth, he lies. Need I say more?

And I end with just a bit of humour at the expense of former White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer.

Have a nice weekend!

Snarky Snippets … Yes, Again!

Posted on September 17, 2019 by jilldennison under Bits 'n Pieces, Law and justice, Political commentary

Will there ever be a day that there isn’t so much to be snarky about? Not in my lifetime, I suspect. A number of things came onto my radar late last night … here are a few of them:

Keeping it in the family …

Imagine that! Ol’ Mitch McConnell’s wife, Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao, is under investigation for possible ethics violations! Who would’ve thunk it, eh? Yesterday, the House Oversight and Reform Committee opened an investigation into whether Ms. Chao may have used her connections to benefit Foremost Group, a shipping company owned by her family, and whether hubby McConnell may have received preferential treatment. A few salient points from the letter sent to Ms. Chao …

Several reports indicate that you have used your official position to benefit Foremost Group, a shipping company owned by your father and sisters … These reports suggest that you used your official position to elevate Foremost Group’s influence and status with the Chinese government, which has extended hundreds of millions of dollars in low interest loans to the company …
In addition, you have appeared alongside your father, the founder of Foremost Group, in at least a dozen Chinese media interviews – many of which were behind the official seal of the Department of Transportation (DOT). During some of these interviews, your father touted your influence with the United States government and boasted about his access to … Trump on Air Force One.
DOT reportedly was forced to cancel an official trip you were planning to take to China in October 2017 after ethics officials at the Department of State challenged your attempts to include your family members in official meetings with the Chinese government.
Questions have also been raised about your involvement in the decisions to deprioritize or reduce funding for DOT programs that benefit U.S.-flagged vessels in the foreign trade, decisions that could benefit your family’s company, which owns entirely foreign-flag ships.
Given the decline in the number of U.S.-flagged vessels in foreign trade, DOT’s approach to these programs may threaten national security by increasing the likelihood that our military will be dependent on foreign-flagged vessels during times of war or emergency.
The committee is also investigating your failure to divest of stock in one of the nation’s largest construction companies, Vulcan Materials Company (Vulcan), where you served on the Board of Directors for nearly two years immediately before becoming Secretary of Transportation. Vulcan’s annual revenue depends heavily on annual infrastructure funding allocated by the DOT. Vulcan granted you approximately 3,000 “deferred stock units” for serving as a director, giving you a significant and direct personal financial interest in the company.

The letter goes on to describe in further detail the ethics breaches the committee is questioning and requests a number of documents and written explanations for the above. In addition, there are questions about special consideration being given to husband Mitch McConnell’s state of Kentucky, paving the way for grants totaling at least $78 million for favored projects as McConnell prepared to campaign for reelection.Corruption? Nah, surely not!

Paying for them to play …

The Secret Service wants jet skis. Why? So that they can ride along while the Trumps – Ivanka, Junior, and Eric – are participating in water sports. HELLOOOOOO??? Tell me again who pays for all this? The Secret Service wrote…

“President Trump and his family spend several weeks throughout the year in Mar-a-Lago, Florida and Hamptons, New York. The first family is very active in water sports. Several family members along with their guest participate in open water activities for which USSS Special Agent Rescue Swimmers are responsible. SA’s have rented watercraft with their own personal funds to allow them to be near our protectees in various water environments to fulfill the USSS Rescue Swimmer mission.”

The cost of the requested vehicles, made by Kawasaki, runs from $9,999 to $15,299. These won’t be normal jet skis, though, as they will feature special rescue saving equipment, such as rescue sleds. While most of us struggle to even afford a small vacation to the beach or the mountains, WE are paying for the entire Trump entourage to frolic in the surf and for them to have maximum protection while doing so. Tell me again how Trump & Co are not benefiting from his office? BAH HUMBUG!

Brett Kavanaugh — back in the news

New allegations of sexual misconduct have surfaced against Justice Brett Kavanaugh, whose Senate confirmation was pushed through without the initial allegations ever being properly investigated. Comedian Trevor Noah sums it up well, and with a bit of humour …

The Supreme Court Has Lost Its Way …

Posted on January 22, 2019 by jilldennison under Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry, Social commentary

The Supreme Court, the branch of the federal government that is supposed to be most independent, that is intended to hold the executive and legislative branches accountable, has made two major decisions today that indicate they have fallen and landed squarely in the camp of Donald Trump. I am beyond disappointed … I am incensed, and I see our rights as citizens of this plutocracy going down the drain.

Supreme Court revives Trump’s transgender military ban

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to go ahead with its plan to restrict military service by transgender people while court challenges continue. The court split 5-4 in allowing the plan to take effect, with the court’s five conservatives greenlighting it and its four liberal members saying they would not have.

Until a few years ago service members could be discharged from the military for being transgender. That changed under President Barack Obama. The military announced in 2016 that transgender individuals already serving in the military would be allowed to serve openly. And the military set July 1, 2017 as the date when transgender individuals would be allowed to enlist.

Trump, of course, had to undo that, for two reasons: a) it was a decision made during the Obama administration, and Trump has a goal to undo every single thing Obama did, and b) because Donald Trump and his supporters are homophobic bigots. There is no viable reason to ban transgender people from the military, and this decision does not reflect the feelings of the majority in this nation!

Supreme Court returns to gun rights for 1st time in 9 years

The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will take up its first gun rights case in nine years, a challenge to New York City’s prohibition on carrying a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun outside the city limits. The court’s decision to hear the appeal filed by three New York residents and New York’s National Rifle Association affiliate could signal a revived interest in gun rights by a more conservative court. The case won’t be argued until October.

New York’s ordinance allows people licensed to have handguns to carry them outside the home to gun ranges in the city. The guns must be locked and unloaded. The city residents who filed suit want to practice shooting at target ranges outside the city or take their guns to second homes elsewhere in New York state. The city’s top lawyer, Zachary Carter, urged the court to reject the case, arguing that the restrictions allowed New York police to reduce the number of guns carried in public.

Just about the last … the very last … thing we need in this country is an expansion of 2^nd Amendment ‘rights’! The NRA has already nearly ensured that gun deaths in the U.S. will continue to be the highest per capita on the globe. What do we want … are we shooting for some sort of record here … “let’s see if we can top last year’s gun deaths”?

Both of these issues are beyond merely concerning on their own merit, but the even greater concern is the trend that is appearing. It is a trend we all feared when first, Neil Gorsuch, then Brett Kavanaugh were seated on the Supreme Court. It is deeply disturbing that the Supreme Court appears to be making decisions strictly along partisan lines rather than considering issues on Constitutional merit. The real concern, however, lies on the path ahead. There are two prior Supreme Court rulings that ultra-conservative republicans, evangelicals, Trump’s base, want to see overturned: Roe v Wade, and Obergefell v Hodges. The first guarantees a woman the right to make decisions about her own body, her own life. The second guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. Both were long, hard-fought battles and are, in short, about human rights … civil rights.

In addition to those, it is highly likely that the Supreme Court will soon be asked to hear cases involving gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement. Our constitutional rights … all of them … may be in jeopardy if the Court cannot manage to overcome it’s partisanship. After Kavanaugh’s contentious confirmation, Chief Justice John Roberts, in an effort to quell growing concerns of partisanship on the Court, made the following statement:

“… We do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle, we do not caucus in separate rooms, we do not serve one party or one interest. We serve one nation. And I want to assure all of you that we will continue to do that to the best of our abilities, whether times are calm or contentious.”

Prove that to us, please, Chief Justice.

A Thumb-Up For The Chief Justice

Posted on November 22, 2018 by jilldennison under Political commentary, Racism & Bigotry

In the past week, since the November 6^th mid-term elections, we have seen the very worst of Donald Trump. He has acted alternately like a madman and a two-year-old, determined, it would seem to do as much damage to the nation, the government, and the Constitution as he possibly can before the 116^th Congress is seated on January 3^rd. It has been, frankly, de-moralizing and we have had a forewarning of the tyranny Trump might yet inflict upon this nation. But just in the past couple of days, a few people have slowly begun waking up … people in power are beginning to push back against Trump, to say, “No, sir, you cannot do that”.

One such person is Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, who has finally had enough. I have had concerns that Roberts was letting the Supreme Court be turned into a partisan arm of the government, that he was turning out to be yet another of Trump’s boot-lickers. But, yesterday he seems to have found his cojones and spoke out after Trump denigrated yet another federal judge.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of San Francisco issued a nationwide restraining order barring enforcement of the policy Trump announced Nov. 8. Trump’s policy would have allowed only people who cross at legal checkpoints to request asylum, a transformation of long-established asylum procedures, codified both at the international level and by Congress.

“Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” ruled Judge Tigar. The ruling is in effect until December 19^th, at which point it will be argued before the courts.

And predictably, Trump threw one of his tiresome tirades …

“That’s not law. Every case that gets filed in the Ninth Circuit we get beaten. It’s a disgrace. This was an Obama judge. Everybody that wants to sue the United States, they file their case in the Ninth Circuit, and it means an automatic loss no matter what you do, no matter how good your case is. I’ll tell you what, it’s not going to happen like this anymore. The Ninth Circuit is really something we have to take a look at because it’s not fair. People should not be allowed to immediately run to this very friendly circuit and file their case.”

It was the part where he called Judge Tigar an “Obama judge” that raised the hackles of Justice Roberts …

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

I have not always been pleased with Justice Robert’s decisions, especially in the last two years, but I give him a thumbs up on this, for it is important for all to remember that the courts do not answer to either Congress or the president but are indeed intended to be a fully independent branch. Trump appears not to understand that, and in truth, now that Brett Kavanaugh holds a seat on the bench of the Supreme Court, I am seriously concerned about the independence of the judiciary.

But then, of course, the fool on the hill had to hit back …

“Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country. It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an ‘independent judiciary,’ but if it is why are so many opposing view cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned. Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security — these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!”

There seems to be, among some of Trump’s loyalists, a prevailing notion that if he is the president, he can say and do anything he wants. Funny, but when Obama was president, these same people took the opposite view, that if Obama did virtually anything, he was overstepping his bounds. At least as of today, 22 November 2018, Trump is only a president, not a dictator, and no, he cannot do whatever he pleases. He does not have the right to change the law to suit his whims, he does not have the right to do as he has already done and send troops on a costly fool’s mission to the southern border to “defend the nation” against old men, women and children! Donald Trump is not, at least at this time, above the law and his position gives him only limited privileges. It’s time that he and his loyalists realize and accept that, for the rest of us are sick and tired of his mouth.

Filosofa's Word

Cogito Ergo Sum

Tag Archives: Brett Kavanaugh