supreme court

by

Wake Up America! Trump is Working Towards Nulifying the Next Election!!!


My title sounds a bit bizzare but is it? We are supposed to be a country that has three equal parts of government, the President, the Congress, and the Judiciary. But what we have witnessed has been Trump combining the three into one, him. It seems that if something seems legally suspicious on Trump’s part he merely defers to the SJC and they have consitently given him the rubber stamp he desires.

Let’s back up to Trump on day 1. He gives the hundreds of men and women who purportated an insurrection against our government a pardon!!

He has openly stated the DEI must be done away with and that he is limiting the number of people who can come from other countries to study at our universities. This defies all logic. Diversity is all about having a “diverse” work or study place. Republicans do not like that but the reasoning is beyond belief. Equity, this is about giving any person an equal chance at whatever they are doing regardless of their color, religion, or ethnic background. That was the Civil Rights act of 1965!! But in Tumpland, that cannot be tolerated. And then there is inclusion. We are told we must be all inclusive in anything we doing which means giving everyone an equal chance. I think these ideals scared Trump since his MAGA followers are largely non-college grads who watch only Fox news. But they forgot what happen to Fox news when it was shown that Fox was deliberately airing items that it new were not true!

In case you were not watching, Trump is systematically, along with his Allies, ruining the lives of people with regard to their health care. First he took aim at Planned Parenthood because they perform abortions. The truth is, 90% of all women who go to Planned Parenthood are not their for an abortion but for information. Planned Parenthood does not push women into having an abortion, just the opposite actually. Why is it the Trump and his MAGA minions not see this? Because it is a truth he simply cannot deal with. Now he has taken aim at Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act. Democrats have maintained that millions upon millions of Americans, Republicans included, rely upon this act for insuranced they can afford. Part of the bill to reopen our government maintains the ACA and that does not sit well with Trump and his billionaire buddies who will get a tax reduction from monies now go to the ACA!!

Tump has the Speak of the House, Mike Johnson, toeing the line of not engaging in discussions with Democrats over getting this bill passed. Chuck Shumer, who Trump dearly hates, has requested that two Democrat, two Republicans and Trump sit down and hammer out a solution. Trump refuses. Why? Because he knows he will not get his way and it is his way or the highway.

Trump has muted the Judiciary, blunted the Congress from doing its business, and brung a high degree of power to the Excutive Branch. There is a parallel here. This is exactly what Hitler did. He consolidated power to become all powerful and one of Hitler’s first moves was to eliminate elections. Then he went after undesireables, a.k.a. Democrats in the U.S. Trump is only withholding Congressionally approved funds from highly visible universites in blue states. He has sent out the Texas National Guard to Chicago to quell all the violence there, when in face violent crimes have dropped 40% in the last 10 years, and, this also is probably an illegal act under Chapter 32 of the U.S. Code, the National Guard of a state may only be used in its own state. He also took U.S. Marines to Los Angeles which is absolutely against the law according to the law found in Chapter 10 of the U.S. code which says that active duty soldiers may not be used against American citizens. He has done it and not a single Republican has called foul. Well, I, an unaffiliated voter, am calling foul!!!

Republicans are supposed to be all about small government and pushing as much power down to the states as possible. Is Trump doing this? No!

Wake up America!! Your country is being stolen from you piece by piece by a despot!!

by

Rise of Fascism in the United States?


At first blush the title would seem to greatly overreach the present political status in the United States. It may be a bit but when you look at the definition of fascism certain parts are an undeniable part America’s political makeup today. (Fascism: A philosophy or governmental system marked by stringent socioeconomic control, a strong central government usu. headed by a dictator, and often a belligerently nationalistic policy; Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary, 1988, Houghton Mifflin Co., p. 466). With slight modifications of that definition, we can arrive at the far right, and controlling, portion of the Republican Party today. From 2017 to 2020, in Donald Trump, we had a man who acted like a dictator, and, who like true fascists of the 20th Century, tried to invalidate a national election when it did not go his way. Fortunately, men and women of good conscience did not sign on to his rhetoric.

Right now, with a decidedly very conservative U.S. Supreme Court, activist judges are attempting to push their religious views upon the entire population of America. This thinly veiled chicanery has the conservative majority in the USSJC taking the almost unprecedented view of reversing precedent after precedent held in that very court with regard to Roe v. Wade. I, as someone who actually opposes abortion, find that overturning Roe is contrary to the interests of the American population at large. And what is the legal precedent for not overturning Roe? The second part of the First Amendment which states that the government shall make no law with regard to religion. This is a moral issue founded in our religious beliefs and not one based in historical law.

Fascism, at its core, tries to limit and/or restrict individual rights to self-expression and access to good medical care. Roe, quite simply, ordered that the right of a woman to medical care according to her conscience could not be infringed upon. This is the part that the SJC seems to be ignoring in favor of its own religious beliefs which, in the case of the two of the most recent appointees to the SJC are rooted in Roman Catholicism. It might also find its roots in the basic beliefs of Justice Samuel Alito as well, the writer of the likely SJC decision.

From a purely public view, only 35% of Americans are in favor of overturning Roe! And yet, because of this minority’s activism, almost half of all states will make abortion illegal with some making laws to criminalize a citizen of its state from getting an abortion in another state!

Next in line, most certainly, will be birth control, contraception. The line between the legalization of birth control and Roe is a mere 5 years! When I was attending Boston University in 1967, Bill Baird, a birth control activist, started to give a talk at Boston University about birth control. City of Boston police arrested him for just talking about it! That was where we were! Are we now heading back to that? Again, fascism, at its root, restricts free speech. Worse, it also dictates morality, and this is at the heart of what is going on right now in America.

I am someone who is against abortion, even though what I have just written might belie that. But, as a male, it is not a decision I have to make. What I view as morally wrong is not enough for me to visit my views upon those who see it differently. That is why I have always supported a woman’s right to choose. I have never been in favor of legislating morality, and this is most certainly what is happening in America today. It is a sad day for America if this minority opinion is forced upon the majority. It is what makes fascism work!

by

Have Americans Lost Control of Their Government?


The current state of our government and, in particular, the chasm that exists between Republicans and Democrats, seems like a child’s food fight rather that an ongoing adult conversation. Each side is doing what is called, “right fighting.” That is, each side is so convinced that it is right that the art of compromise seems to have gone out the window. An old cliché says that a fish stinks from its head down. Our government right now is exemplifying that more than ever.

Our government was via the Constitution set up with three branches, none of which was supposed to have more power than the other. But our present Congress is so fearful of doing the next right thing, and its job, has abdicated in favor of the Executive Branch. Article 2 of our Constitutes delineates the powers granted the President. What amazes me the most is that Article 2 section 3 clearly states that the President “. . . from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient . . . “ The framers of the Constitution left many parts of it vague as they judged that with the passage of time necessary changes to the Constitution or different interpretations of It would be necessary. But it is my opinion the Article 2 Section 3 is rather clear in its intention; that being that changes to law and policy may be suggested by the President and that Congress would then act upon them. The Constitution is also repeatedly clear that a 2/3rds vote should be the standard for passing any legislation.

Over the years, however, Congress has made changes to what is necessary for certain measures and that being a simple majority favor the law.

Most recently, President Trump made the unilateral decision to scale back some remote (Utah) national monuments at the behest of industry. He has also charged his Interior Secretary to find other locations to which he can to the same. The idea of National Parks and National Monuments was the idea of President Theodore Roosevelt when he created Arcadia National Park and Yosemite National Park. “The Antiquities Act is the first law to establish that archeological sites on public lands are important public resources. It obligates federal agencies that manage the public lands to preserve for present and future generations the historic, scientific, commemorative, and cultural values of the archaeological and historic sites and structures on these lands. It also authorizes the President to protect landmarks, structures, and objects of historic or scientific interest by designating them as National Monuments.” (Public Broadcasting Service, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/legal/american-antiquities-act-of-1906.htm). The law is quite specific in saying that the President is obligated to preserve “objects of historic and scientific interest. Pres. Trump has chosen to ignore this law and turn over these precious lands to commercial interests, destroying artifacts that favor the public interest and the scientific community.

The Constitution, and all its framers in their writings, made very clear that the first job of the Federal Government is to act in the best interest of the people. But for decades now our Congresses and Presidents have only too frequently done the bidding of powerful interests and PACs. It would be only too easy to show how the Republicans Party over the past 6 years or so has worked mostly in a self-serving manner. But that would less than truthful. The fact remains that the Democrats are equally responsible in bending to the will of powerful and well-monied interests instead of the people. The Democrats have not had control of Congress for many years now and the Republicans have been able to run rough-shod over them by passing bills that make a simple majority vote the rule of Congress. No Democrat has been able to find the inner fortitude to challenge such bills in front of the US Supreme Judicial court.

Time-and-again the Republican Congress has passed bills which are clearly unpopular with the people of the United States. The most visible action at present has been their persistent attempts to gut and eliminate the Affordable Care Act. Their most recent move has been to tied changes to the ACA to the government funding bill now in Congress. Such actions are referred to “rider bills.” It is the blatant attempt to circumvent the proper way to have a bill passed, a “clean bill.” That refers to a bill which has no riders and is voted up or down on its own merits.

Both parties in Congress are not doing the “right thing” but rather doing the most self-serving thing. That has never more true when Senator Mitch McConnell declared that he would not allow then President Obama to seat a new Supreme Court justice when Justice Scalia unexpectedly died two years ago. Not only was that self-serving but it went entirely against the spirit of our Constitution and the manner in which all justices have been confirmed since 1789. Such actions must stop. This means that U.S. Citizens, regardless of political favor, must make Congress accountable for its actions.

A majority of U.S. citizens of both parties has said they do not trust congress to do the right thing. There is an easy solution to that; stop re-electing your representatives and senators.

There is an old saying, “nothing changes if nothing changes.”

by

Put Politics Aside: We Need a New Supreme Court Justice


In Webster’s Dictionary few words are defined by a single word. Balderdash is just such a word. Webster’s uses the word “nonsense” as the descriptor! Ergo, my dictum of the political circus that has been going on can be described quite aptly by the word balderdash!

Yesterday, the Honorable Mr. Antonin Scalia died. Although I was not a fan, as much as anyone can be a fan of a Supreme Court Justice, Mr. Scalia suffered no fools and never minced his words. Even in the midst of disagreement to the extreme, I always respect anyone who can define their starting place and never vary from that. Thus was Mr. Scalia. From the outset of his career on our nation’s highest bench, he described himself as an “originalist” where the constitution is concerned. He remained faithful to that definition oft times to the scorn of his supporters. Originalism means applying the ideas of those who wrote the constitution to legal decisions. He quite openly stated that the framers never considered homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion and a myriad of other issues when they wrote the document. He believed that making a decision which revised the constitution without the use of the Amendment procedure was simply wrong. Hence his stand of opposition of Roe v. Wade.

I have just spent too much time describing a man I can admire, even though I bitterly disagree with ideologically, why? Because of where we go from here, who will be the next justice.

I decided well over a month ago that the Democrat candidate for president will be Hillary Clinton with Bernie Sanders as her running mate. The Republics I feel are likely to nominate John Kasich as their presidential candidate. Kasich will have the unenviable job of choosing a running mate from a party so splintered it has become an amorphous rendering of its past glory. I suspect Ted Cruz will emerge for ethnic identification and to assuage the far right, a.k.a. Tea Party.

Scalia was not dead two hours when Sen. Mitch McConnell announced President Obama would not be allowed to have a nominee take Scalia’s place. What! He is hoping that his party will retake the White House. He can effectively bottle up any nominee procedurally in the Senate so the candidate’s name never comes up for a vote. I cannot help but believe the Mr. Scalia would have reprimanded McConnell for such chicanery.

The 114th Congress, now in session, is far from the most contentious. That dubious honor is owned by the 37th and 38th Congresses. Those are the sessions held during President Lincoln’s tenure and were well known not just for their theatrics, long and boisterous arguments but also for physical altercations. There were “war democrats” and “peace democrats,” “war republicans” and “peace republicans.” There was also the “Constitutional party.” It amazed many that these congresses were able to get anything done.

Is that where we are at today? The Republicans hold 56% of all House seats and 55% of all senate seats, Bernie Sanders and Angus King declaring themselves Independent. That means neither is veto proof but that the Republicans have enough power to slow down if not totally stop any and all Democrat initiatives, which they have shown a propensity for doing these past 4 years.

The prime purpose of each senator and representative is to champion the desires of those he supports. But you would not know that by the rhetoric coming out of Washington. A recent Gallup poll shows that Americans favor abortion 80% to 20%. That is an overwhelming majority and yet to hear Washington politicians speak one would think the American populace is evenly divided if not slightly tilted towards against abortion.   The American public wants abortion and it is the responsibility of the elected officials not only to respect that view but push aside attempts to countermand that.

On other issues it is tighter but still a message is being sent. On the issue of tighter gun controls, Gallup polls show 55% want stricter gun control while only 33% want the laws left as they are. Sixty percent of Americans favor gay marriage, but disapprove of the Affordable Care Act 50-44%. That last poll cautions, however, that the ACA, or Obamacare, shows 57% of all Americans were unaffected by the law. The caution here is that the ACA has more importance, more impact and a much more positive view by younger and ethnic Americans than by older Americans.

I would ask only that each U.S. Representative vote according to: 1. The desires of their district, 2. The desires of their state, 3. The desires of all Americans, and 4. Their conscience. I fear that Republicans as a whole put number 4 as their first priority and that Democrats put number 2 as their first. Neither is correct considering the mandate of the voter is always to do his desire.

I doubt most Americans can give a reason for why we even have a Supreme Judicial Court but that notwithstanding, they would likely want a vacancy filled reasonably quickly. That’s just how most Americans want most things done.

by

Supreme Court’s Healthcare Decision: Democrats Should Not Cheer Just Yet


Democrats should restrain themselves at today’s Supreme Court decision.  What the SJC did may have made the healthcare issue more confusing now than ever.  Why?  It ruled that Congress overreached in a part of the law where commerce is concern; that is, the law would have acted as a sort of restriction to free commerce which the Constitution absolutely prohibits.  These are the words that can be found in Thomas’s dissenting opinion.  It is curious, however, that the SJC being 5 – 4 in conservative leanings, had conservative Justice Roberts voting for the measure’s passage.  This could easily be a case of the conservatives of the United States “all or nothing” approach to government these days.  They argued that since the commerce portion of the law was invalid it should have invalidated the entire law.  Roberts, however, it seems felt differently.

What the SJC did say is that Congress could levy a tax penalty upon persons who do not have health insurance starting in 2014.  That is a problem because President Obama has already stated that it is the law’s intent that each state will make key decisions on the enactment of the law within that state.  But not all states have a personal income tax which by default means that the Federal return will necessarily be impacted.  The SJC also said that Congress could not entirely withhold healthcare funds from states that opt to not take part in mandatory health insurance.  How will that play out?  The SJC has effectively made this law a lot more difficult and, possibly, killed it by making its provisions too difficult for Congress to satisfactorily meet.  And that is saying we can even have a Congress that works to make the bill usable.  I believe the Republican Party will simply stonewall participation in making the necessary changes.

What I do not understand more than anything is why the Republican Party is so against affordable health insurance for all Americans.   Mitt Romney, who started this whole thing when he was governor of Massachusetts and successfully lobbied for mandatory health insurance in that state, now has reversed himself 180 degrees.  He has failed to offer a reason.  But the question remains, why would anyone be against requiring health insurance companies to make available affordable insurance to all Americans, and, even more importantly, be restricted from denying young people insurance because of pre-existing conditions, of unreasonably raising health insurance rates when someone incurs a life-threatening illness, and from simply over-charging the tens of millions of present policy holders?  These are questions that have not been answered by those who oppose “Obama-care” as they call it.

I challenge all those who are against the Obama healthcare program to offer what they would do in its place.  Doing nothing is not an acceptable answer as our healthcare system was, and still is, broken.  They are defiantly against socialized medicine as exists in Canada, England, and many other countries, which, by the way, get rated more highly than the U.S. in health care, but I do understand and agree with the sentiment against socialized healthcare.  But short of that what do you propose?

Here is what I suggest to those who persist in being against healthcare reform.  Consider that your wife, your sister, your mother has breast cancer.  Under the present system she will receive the care she needs but she can expect her premiums to go up drastically.  She will also likely face an arbitrary life-time limit, in dollars, to how much the company will cover.  Breast cancer has a very high rate of recurrence even when it is successfully treated.  These limitations and consequences are eliminated under the present healthcare reform.  Kill the reform and retain the conditions.

Most people, as they age, lose bits and pieces of their health to one degree or another.  Medications and treatments become necessary to sustain life at a comfortable and reasonable level.  Simply put, as your grow older your need for comprehensive health insurance becomes greater.  And right now, like it or not, agree with it or not, hospitals and other medical professionals decide the level of care each individual will receive according to that person’s ability to pay.  If you think that is wrong, next time you visit your primary care doctor ask for a candid response to the question.  You will likely be surprised by the response as long as he does not leave with “it all depends.”  You must start at a worst case scenario because that is, in truth, why we all have major health insurance in the first place.  Otherwise we would each simply pay the $150 or so cost of our annual visit and avoid paying a thousand or more dollars a year in insurance premiums.

by

Should the Government Require People to Buy Health Insurance?


Here in Massachusetts it is already law, yes, you must buy health insurance.  On Massachusetts tax forms you must certify that you have health insurance and provide proof.  If you do not, there is a penalty you must pay.  But is this a good thing?  Is it a legal thing under our Constitution?  Those are the very questions the US Supreme Judicial Court is considering right now.

Republican Governor Mitt Romney was responsible for bringing this law into effect in Massachusetts.  The Democrats since Pres. Obama has been in office have made it their priority to get health care to everyone while the Republicans have been four square against it.  But should the U.S. have a law that requires all American buy health insurance?  That is the question before all of us right now, and it seems a majority of Americans are against this requirement as it now stands.

I have heard that upwards to 40% of all Americans are not covered by health insurance.  But when they get sick, hospitals are required to treat them.  Doctors cannot turn a patient away for lack of health insurance.  Even more, hospitals and doctors supply medication and other items generally covered by health insurance.  These costs are picked up by those of us who have health insurance.

I have always had health insurance.  Even though I am retired I still have health insurance as a part of my retirement plan.  I do, however, still have to pay 50% of the premium but I consider that insignificant when I think of what life would be like without health insurance.  Actually, I do not want to have to think about such a thing but millions of American do have to think of exactly that.  Some, upon retiring, lose company supplied health insurance.  I suspect such people put off retirement for as long as possible.

This particular portion of President Obama’s health care plan is tricky.  It is reasonable for us to expect the 25-year-old who is employed by a company that supplies health insurance to buy it, but he has no requirement to do so.  That means when he is sick or injured he has a right to “free” care at a hospital.  But his bill is paid by those of us who have insurance in our premiums.  But should we require self-employed people and small companies to buy health insurance?  Do we do this to make it fair for the rest of us who do buy insurance and pay the sometimes pricey premiums?

Well, I cannot in good conscience, my Democrat Party leanings not-withstanding, go along with a law that requires someone to buy insurance.  I think it goes against the basics of a free society.  I do believe, however, that affordable healthcare in the form of insurance, is a right the every person in a free society should have.  Right now that is not true.  Regardless, it is my belief that the US SJC is going to declare this part of the health care bill as being unconstitutional, and it should be.

This should bring into focus for the Republican party the absolute necessity for a comprehensive health care plan that covers all Americans without penalizing any portion of Americans as is now true.  Maybe that means hospitals and doctors can turn away anyone who does not have insurance?  That would at least be fair.  Or maybe it means if you are on some sort of public assistance you must be given free care while everyone else must pay?  You see, that is the problem!  How do you resolve getting health care to those currently not covered by insurance without penalizing those who are covered.  The Democrats solution of throwing a lot of money at it or requiring everyone to get health insurance is not the solution.  But the Republican idea of ignoring it altogether, and offering no solution what-so-ever is equally as unacceptable.

We are supposed to be a very intelligent nation.  We are, in fact the richest nation in the world.  But then we are ranked only 37th in healthcare by the World Health Organization.  What this says is that the Democrats have the right idea but the wrong solution and the Republicans need to join the Democrats in finding a solution to this problem even as they, properly, object to the law as it is.  The only moral high ground here is that which includes a solution to this long-standing problem.  Nothing short of that is acceptable.