I think this week’s Supreme Court decisions and what they mean for our future has my head in a spin, for I tried to come up with something fun for a Saturday Surprise post and couldn’t, then I tried to finish a post I have been working on all week, off-and-on, but I simply wasn’t able to focus. So, in lieu of anything else, I figured I’d share my latest collection of political cartoons from the past week!
Time was when I would have to go in search of enough political cartoons I felt were worthy for my weekly ‘toon post, but these days they just drop into my lap! The cartoonists never sleep, it seems, and I know from following Clay Jones’ blog that he rarely does sleep … he’s always under one deadline or another, yet he never seems to run out of material! Anyway, sit back and enjoy the latest, the ‘best of the best’, the ‘cream of the crop’!
Integrity and Trust. Over the past year or so, the Supreme Court, once the most trusted of the three branches of government, has lost both its integrity and the trust of the public. I turn to the wisdom of Robert Reich for his ideas on how to restore integrity and trust to the Court …
Three reforms to restore trust in the Supreme Court
On the anniversary of Dobbs, and the revelations about Alito
By Robert Reich
24 June 2023
Trust in the Supreme Court has hit an historic low. A Quinnipiac poll last week found that only 30 percent of registered voters approve of it.
Why don’t Americans trust the Supreme Court?
Because its opinions appear arbitrary, capricious, and partisan. Just look at Dobbs vs. Women’s Health Organization, which reversed Roe v. Wade a year ago today — and with which the majority of Americans disagree.
And because Supreme Court justices have been subject to bribery.
Last week, ProPublica detailed how billionaire Paul Singer, a GOP mega-donor, flew Justice Samuel Alito to Alaska on Singer’s private plane at no cost. The trip would have cost Alito an estimated $100,000, not including accommodation, food, and wine.
Alito never disclosed any of this, apparently violating federal financial disclosure rules applying to all federal officials, including Supreme Court Justices.And Alito failed to recuse himself from participating in a case of financial significance to Singer.
In April, ProPublica revealed that billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow gave Justice Clarence Thomas free luxury vacations and other gifts over a 20-year period, none of which was disclosed by Thomas.Crow also purchased two houses from Thomas and agreed to let Thomas’s mother live in one of them at no cost. Crow also paid the private school tuition for a student Thomas has described as a person “he is raising as a son.”
Thomas has failed to recuse himself from participating in cases of financial interest to Crow.
Orchestrating these bribes has been Leonard Leo, who last year received an unprecedented $1.6 billion donation to continue his work stacking the courts with ideologically conservative jurists. Leo played a pivotal role in the selection of the three Supreme Court Justices appointed by Trump.
What to do to restore trust of the highest court? Congress should enact three reforms:
- A code of ethics
Every other federal judge has to sign on to a code of ethics — except for Supreme Court justices. This makes no sense. Judges on the highest Court should be held to the highest ethical standards.
Congress should enact a code of ethics on Supreme Court justices. It would (1) ban justices from receiving personal gifts from political donors and anyone with business before the Court, (2) clarify when justices with conflicts of interest should remove themselves from cases, (3) prohibit justices from trading individual stocks, and (4) establish a formal process for investigating misconduct.
- Term limits
Article III of the Constitution says judges may “hold their office during good behavior,” but does not explicitly give Supreme Court Justices lifetime tenure on the highest court — even though that’s become the norm.
Term limits would prevent unelected justices from accumulating too much power over the course of their tenure — and would help defuse what has become an increasingly divisive confirmation process.
Congress should limit Supreme Court terms to 18-years, after which justices move to lower courts.
- Expand the Court
The Constitution does not limit the Supreme Court to nine justices. In fact, Congress has changed the size of the Court seven times. It should do so again in order to remedy the extreme partisanship of today’s Supreme Court.
Some may decry this as “court packing,” but the real court-packing occurred when Senate Republicans refused to even consider a Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court on the fake pretext that it was too close to the 2016 election, but then confirmed a Republican nominee just days before the 2020 election.
Rather than allow Republicans to continue exploiting the system, expanding the Supreme Court would actually unpack the court.
***
Enacting these reforms won’t be easy. Big monied interests will fight to keep their control of the Supreme Court.
But these three reforms have significant support from the American people, who have lost trust in the court.
The Supreme Court derives its strength not from the use of force or political power, but from the trust of the people. With neither the sword nor the purse, trust is all it has.
When the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, women did not have the right to vote, they did not have the right to divorce their husband, and they did not have the right to own property. We now have all three of those rights and more, but they were hard-earned, fought for over the course of centuries! It was more than a century after the Constitution was ratified before women finally began getting the right to vote in some states (from 1890-1919), but 21 states only granted women the right to vote after passage of the 19th amendment in 1920.
I could go on and on about the uphill battle women have had to fight for the past two-and-a-half centuries, and how today the courts are chipping furiously away at our rights with the overturning of Roe v Wade and strict abortion bans being put into effect in many states. I could opine about how the Equal Rights Amendment has been on the table in Congress since 1923 … 100 years … and has still not passed. Next, we are warned, the Supreme Court plans to go after our right to birth control … what next??? You comin’ for our right to equal pay, or our right to even have a career outside the kitchen? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr …
If you sense that I’m angry today, you’d be right. Throughout the centuries, we have fought long and hard just to be treated equally to men. We haven’t asked for special privileges … just allow us to have the same rights as our male counterparts. But apparently some women don’t like the 21st century, want to go back to the days where it was said that a woman’s place is “in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.”
Last Friday in a place called Grapevine, Texas, there was an event called Young Women’s Leadership Summit that was hosted by Turning Point USA, the uber right-wing organization co-founded by the bigoted talk show persona Charlie Kirk. Speaker after speaker emphasized to the audience that they should become wives, mothers, and accessories to the astro-turfed conservative movement rather than pursuing a demanding career.
The “unofficial emcee” for the event was someone named Alex Clark, who told the audience, “What I’m here to tell you is, if you were to just go back to biblical roots in what God had designed for women to do, we will be happier.” I don’t know how she can be so sure what her god intended for women, but I’m pretty sure she’s saying something along the lines of that “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen” theme.
The speakers at this event included such “luminaries” as Charlie Kirk himself, Lara Trump, Margie Greene, Fox’s Laura Ingraham, and Candace Owens, and the overall theme was that women should leave politics to men, seek fulfillment exclusively in the domestic sphere, and have lots of babies.
Margie Greene used her allotted time to call for President Biden to be impeached and to tout a bill she proposed that would criminalize gender-affirming care for transgender youth – that one earned her a standing ovation by the audience.
But the main topic, apart from putting women back into chains, was transgender people …
“They ruin opportunities for women,” said one, while another proclaimed that “If you start mixing genders and we can’t identify what a woman is, a lot of other things become kind of blurry.” And yet another said that “This is a fight against cultural evils — against the erasure of women.” OH FOR PETE’S SAKE!!! Get over yourself! Trans people don’t threaten anybody, they don’t blur anything, and they damn sure don’t ‘erase’ anyone!
What a slap in the face this all is to women like Susan B. Anthony, Alice Paul, Sojourner Truth, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Ida B. Wells, and others who dedicated their lives to the fight for women’s rights. I’ve said before that it seems the United States is moving backward in many ways, and now I’m convinced that there is a portion of the population in this nation who would take us back … way back … back to a time when Blacks worked in the cotton fields, women spent their days nursing babies and baking apple pies, and the white male dominated all. At this point, I would like to reprise a chant that was well-known back in the 1960s … “Hell no, we won’t go!!!” At that time, it meant Vietnam, but today it means backward. Hell no, we won’t return to the kitchen, to the dominance of men, no matter what the Supreme Court and Turning Point USA have to say!
This post by blogging friend Michael Seidel needs no introduction … thank you, Michael, for reminding us to keep things in perspective.
A small rant, s’il vous plait. A first world thing. First, apologies.
Apologies to the people being denied rights for me being so upset by my ‘plight’. Apologies to women who have lost control over their bodies to male-dominated governments who arrogantly decide what is right and wrong for you because of what they decided their religion tells them, regardless of your religion or circumstances.
My apologies to those dying in wildfires, or fighting wildfires, or enduring the terrible smoke.
Of course, apologies to people still getting COVID, still dying from it, or coping with long COVID.
I’m sorry, everyone having heart attacks and strokes, or dealing with cancer, and other diseases.
Likewise, apologies to everyone still rebuilding after a hurricane or tornado flattened your domicile, or who lost their home, loved ones, and belongings in a flood or other natural disaster.
My abject condolences and sincere apologies to the…
View original post 191 more words
Monday afternoon seems like just about as good a time as any for a bit of political humour, don’t you think? I’ve been collecting political cartoons for the past week or so and it’s time to clean out the file and share some of them! Mind you that you have to consider the broader definition of the word “humour” here, for it’s a darker humour than, say, a Pickles cartoon or Charlie Brown & Snoopy, but the political cartoonists have an innate understanding of what is happening in our world, and the talent to reduce a situation into a single image.
Look closely at the images in the letters on this one
Dr. Caitlin Bernard, Indiana law, abortion, 10-year old, rape victim, political cartoon
Putin, Lukashenko, nucleau weapons, Belarus, Russia, Ukrains Warm, political cartoon
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
No matter how many times I read this poem, written by German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller, I never fail to be moved by the words. Niemöller penned this in 1946, at the end of WWII, the end of the Holocaust that took more than 6 million lives. It is engraved on a plaque at the New England Holocaust Memorial in Boston, Massachusetts, and is known worldwide. The poem speaks volumes and should serve as a warning to people all around the world today.
I have shared this poem before, used it in different contexts, for it seems that “they” are always coming for someone. But today, the fourth day in Pride Month, I am especially moved to share it for it seems many people, groups, politicians, and religious leaders are coming for the LGBTQ community. Our friends, our neighbors, our family … are being vilified, even threatened with their very lives if they dare to be publicly proud of who they are.
In addition to coming for the LGBTQ community, “they” are coming for women, for people of colour, for Jewish people. Apparently in “their” eyes, the only people who have a right to be proud are white, Christian, straight males. The rest of us are the dirt beneath their feet. If we hide in our closets, wear camouflage in hopes of not being noticed, if we do not speak out against the atrocities being committed against the LGBTQ community and others, then perhaps we will be overlooked and allowed to exist. For now. Until someday …
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
On January 6th, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave his State of the Union Address. This speech would come to be known as the Four Freedoms Speech, for he talked at some length about the four freedoms he believed that people “everywhere in the world” ought to enjoy:
Today, the Republican Party has its own set of ‘four freedoms’ that are not nearly so noble as were those of President Roosevelt. New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie explains …
The Four Freedoms, According to Republicans
Jamelle Bouie
19 May 2023
On Tuesday, Republicans in North Carolina overrode Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto to pass a strict limit on bodily autonomy in the form of a 12-week abortion ban.
In addition to this new limit on abortion, the law extends the waiting period for people seeking abortions to 72 hours and puts onerous new rules on clinics. As intended, the net effect is to limit access to abortion and other reproductive health services to everyone but those with the time and resources to seek care outside the state.
North Carolina Republicans are obviously not the only ones fighting to ban, limit or restrict the right to bodily autonomy, whether abortion or gender-affirming health care for transgender people. All across the country, Republicans have passed laws to do exactly that wherever they have the power to do so, regardless of public opinion in their states or anywhere else. The war on bodily autonomy is a critical project for nearly the entire G.O.P., pursued with dedication by Republicans from the lowliest state legislator to the party’s powerful functionaries on the Supreme Court.
You might even say that in the absence of a national leader with a coherent ideology and agenda, the actions of Republican-led states and legislatures provide the best guide to what the Republican Party wants to do and the best insight into the society it hopes to build.
I have already made note of the attack on bodily autonomy, part of a larger effort to restore traditional hierarchies of gender and sexuality. What else is on the Republican Party’s agenda, if we use those states as our guide to the party’s priorities?
There is the push to free business from the suffocating grasp of child labor laws. Republican lawmakers in Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri and Ohio have advanced legislation to make it easier for children as young as 14 to work more hours, work without a permit and be subjected to more dangerous working conditions. The reason to loosen child labor laws — as a group of Wisconsin Republicans explained in a memo in support of a bill that would allow minors to serve alcohol at restaurants — is to deal with a shortage of low-wage workers in those states.
There are other ways to solve this problem — you could raise wages, for one — but in addition to making life easier for the midsize-capitalist class that is the material backbone of Republican politics, freeing businesses to hire underage workers for otherwise adult jobs would undermine organized labor and public education, two bêtes noires of the conservative movement.
Elsewhere in the country, Republican-led legislatures are placing harsh limits on what teachers and other educators can say in the classroom about American history or the existence of L.G.B.T.Q. people. This week in Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill that bans discussion in general education courses at public institutions of “theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States and were created to maintain social, political and economic inequities.” He also signed a bill that prohibits state colleges and universities from spending on diversity, equity and inclusion programs beyond what is necessary to retain accreditation as educational institutions.
Nationwide, Republicans in at least 18 states have passed laws or imposed bans designed to keep discussion of racial discrimination, structural inequality and other divisive concepts out of classrooms and far away from students.
Last but certainly not least is the Republican effort to make civil society a shooting gallery. Since 2003, Republicans in 25 states have introduced and passed so-called constitutional carry laws, which allow residents to have concealed weapons in public without a permit. In most of those states, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, it is also legal to openly carry a firearm in public without a permit.
Republicans have also moved aggressively to expand the scope of “stand your ground” laws, which erode the longstanding duty to retreat in favor of a right to use deadly force in the face of perceived danger. These laws, which have been cited to defend shooters in countless cases, such as George Zimmerman in 2013, are associated with a moderate increase in firearm homicide rates, according to a 2022 study published in JAMA Network Open. Republicans, however, say they are necessary.
“If someone tries to kill you, you should have the right to return fire and preserve your life,” said Representative Matt Gaetz, who introduced a national “stand your ground” bill this month. “It’s time to reaffirm in law what exists in our Constitution and in the hearts of our fellow Americans,” he added. “We must abolish the legal duty of retreat everywhere.”
It should be said as well that some Republicans want to protect gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits. Gov. Bill Lee of Tennessee did just that this month — after a shooting in Nashville killed six people, including three children, in March — signing a bill that gives additional protections to the gun industry.
What should we make of all this? In his 1941 State of the Union address, Franklin Roosevelt said there was “nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy” and that he, along with the nation, looked forward to “a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.” Famously, those freedoms were the “freedom of speech and expression,” the “freedom of every person to worship God in his own way,” the “freedom from want” and the “freedom from fear.” Those freedoms were the guiding lights of his New Deal, and they remained the guiding lights of his administration through the trials of World War II.
There are, I think, four freedoms we can glean from the Republican program.
There is the freedom to control — to restrict the bodily autonomy of women and repress the existence of anyone who does not conform to traditional gender roles.
There is the freedom to exploit — to allow the owners of business and capital to weaken labor and take advantage of workers as they see fit.
There is the freedom to censor — to suppress ideas that challenge and threaten the ideologies of the ruling class.
And there is the freedom to menace — to carry weapons wherever you please, to brandish them in public, to turn the right of self-defense into a right to threaten other people.
Roosevelt’s four freedoms were the building blocks of a humane society — a social democratic aspiration for egalitarians then and now. These Republican freedoms are also building blocks not of a humane society but of a rigid and hierarchical one, in which you can either dominate or be dominated.
What Is R.E.S.P.E.C.T.?
Yesterday, I played Aretha Franklin’s wonderful song, R.E.S.P.E.C.T. And then, I did my usual perusal of the day’s news and a question began to form in my mind: What, precisely, is respect? My first answer was that it is something we have far too little of in this world today.
A quick look at the online dictionary gives two definitions for the word “respect”:
Both are apt, I think, and certainly there are people who deserve our respect as per the first definition, though we might not agree on who those people are. But the context in which I typically speak of respect is more aligned with the second definition … which can be simplified by my motto: Live and Let Live!!!
So, let’s talk about this just a bit. I’ve written about this before and will no doubt have occasion to write about it again, but I keep trying to understand, and keep hoping to make a difference somehow, even if only to open one mind.
I am a woman and I believe in women’s rights. I believe in women having the same rights as men to vote, to be treated and compensated fairly in the workplace. I believe women have just as much right as a man to own property, to divorce her spouse if a marriage isn’t working, and to make her own decisions about her own body. I believe that a woman has a right to have access to birth control and to have an abortion if she deems that is what’s right for her, just as a man has a right to have a vasectomy if he decides he does not wish to sire children. This does not, however, mean that I don’t respect women who choose not to have an abortion. It is every woman’s own personal decision … it is NOT the decision of legislators, governors, and Supreme Court justices – or at least it should not be. Just because I believe in the right to an abortion does not in any way mean that I would impose my will on your body. It should, however, work the other way too.
Respect is a two-way street. IF you expect me to respect your rights, then you must also respect mine … that’s just the way it works.
I am also an atheist, but I am very careful to show respect for other people’s religious beliefs as long as they do not harm anyone. The law of this land, the U.S. Constitution, provides for freedom of religion … that means you can follow Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or be an atheist … you cannot be discriminated against for it! But, the law of the land also calls for a “wall of separation between church and state” so that no one religion can become the national religion to the exclusion of all others. I don’t tell you where to go to church or what to believe, and I respect your right to believe as you wish, but again … it must work the other way, too. You must, in turn, respect my right to not believe in the religious rites and rituals of any religion.
I keep asking why people are so determined to attempt to force everyone into their own mold, and I think perhaps the answer boils down to fear of the unknown or the misunderstood. Perhaps people spend so much time living in their narrow enclaves that they do not understand the world and therefore fear it. Fear is a powerful motivator, and unfortunately people in power, whether political heads or religious heads, know how to use fear to drive hatred. And We the People, like a herd of cattle, allow ourselves to be driven.
In this country, it is fear of Black people, fear of Muslims, fear of LGBTQ people, that are keeping the country so divided that it is truly a tinderbox just waiting for someone to throw a lit match. You mind if I let you in on a little secret? I have Black friends, Muslim friends, gay friends and trans friends, Christian friends, atheist friends, agnostic friends, and Jewish friends, and I love them all … I do not fear any of them. I respect them, their beliefs, and it is in part our differences that keep our friendships interesting! We learn from one another! Wouldn’t the world be a lackluster, boring place if we were all exactly the same?
We need to learn to embrace our differences, to respect others’ rights as we expect them to respect ours, and we need to learn to LIVE AND LET LIVE!!! If we don’t, we will soon destroy ourselves, destroy the nation from within, and turn it into some dystopian society in which nobody would want to live.
Roger and I have often talked of our mutual blogging buddy, Keith, as being our ‘gold standard’. While Christians have that saying, “What Would Jesus Do?”, or WWJD, Roger and I have one that is WWKS, or “What Would Keith Say?” But despite the fact that he is calmer, more soft-spoken and mild-mannered than people like myself and Roger, he does a fine job of getting the point across, as you will see in his most recent post!
People who follow this blog know I am not a fan of labels or name calling, as I view them as lazy arguments. The user wants you to accept their labeling without debate or further study. It is akin to weaponization of a term that can do the dirty work for the user.
I would prefer to define the actions rather than actor. So the focus should be on the lying not the liar, although it is very hard to separate them sometime. There are occasions where actions are so over-the-top that it is interesting to contrast them to characters who do the same over-the-top actions to illustrate the inappropriateness.
Earlier this month, the former president was found liable to the tune of $5 million for the sexual assault and defamation of E. Jean Carroll. While he is appealing the decision, his own deposition did not help his cause nor…
View original post 595 more words
Filosofa's Word 