Here’s a clue.
What Do The Three Branches of Government Have in Common?
Reply
Tag Archives: Supreme court
Liberals Are Being Crybabies
I’m a liberal so I can say that. Or maybe my extreme privilege disqualifies me from pontificating in that manner. Here goes anyways.
Among other recent devastating losses for liberals, the Supreme Court undid Roe, race cannot be factored into college admission decision-making anymore, Biden lost the loan forgiveness fight (for now), and businesses can discriminate against LGBTQ people.
Liberal discontent with the Supreme Court’s recent decisions and disillusionment with the conservative majority makes perfect sense especially given all their right wing nutter billionaire friends. And of course, the 2016 McConnell-Garland bullshit still lingers.
But come on. We’re still a democracy, meaning executive, legislative, and judicial power constantly shifts. The only constant is change, well as much change as two parties can muster. Sometimes majorities vote Republicans into office.* Fairly and squarely. Sometimes Republican Presidents pick conservative Supreme Court justices. Sometimes enough to create conservative majorities on the Court. Sometimes liberals lose.
What to do? Or more specifically, how to deal with it?
For example, what’s the left to do with a Court that says a web designer can refuse to make wedding websites for gay couples?** There are several problems with this decision, the most obvious being that it’s the first time the Court has made it okay to discriminate against a protected group. The primary concern is of course for LGBTQ Americans, but the less obvious concern is for the possible rollback of protections for other groups based upon race, national origin, or religion. The Court has cracked open the public discrimination door that was famously shut in 1955.
The lashing out is understandable, but what does it accomplish in the medium-long term? How do LGBTQ people and their millions of allies win the “hearts and minds” battle for equal dignity so that any business that discriminates against them has no chance to survive in our free market economy. I’m not gay, but if you won’t do business with LGBTQ people, I won’t do business with you. Times one hundred million. Or two hundred million. Or three.
It’s just like all the businesses over the last 30 years who got religion about the environment. The vast majority of corporations didn’t do it out of the goodness of the heart, they only went green because it was in their self interest. Consumers and shareholders demanded it.
Could a web design business exploit a niche as the “go to” place for soon-to-be married, anti-gay straight people looking to create gay-free wedding websites. Theoretically yes, but most people in the (dis)United States of America would join with me in not doing business with any entity that denied LGTBQ people equal dignity. How do we turn “most” into the vast majority?
By pivoting from complaining incessantly about a huge step backward in the arc of the moral universe bending towards justice and collectively acting in ways that make explicitly discriminatory businesses completely unviable. By voting, everyday, with our rainbow colored pocketbooks.
*cue the anti-Electoral College activists
**adding to the frustration, the case is based on a made-up hypothetical
Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson Does Not Hold Back
In her dissent against the Court’s decision to strike down race-based admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
Consistently Inconsistent
With the exception of pregnant women, personal freedom is of paramount importance. Most especially when it comes to the right to arm oneself. Also, leave overtly religious people in the public square alone. And as of today, hands off the environment. ‘Live free or die’ and all.
The Overturning of Roe v. Wade
Thank You Ginni Thomas
Calling the Court’s independence into question, Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, pressed Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff, to overturn the 2020 election.
From The New York Times:
“In one message sent in the days after the election, she urged the chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to ‘release the Kraken and save us from the left taking America down,’ invoking a slogan popular on the right that refers to a web of conspiracy theories that Trump supporters believed would overturn the election.
In another, she wrote: ‘I can’t see Americans swallowing the obvious fraud. Just going with one more thing with no frickin consequences.’ She added: “We just cave to people wanting Biden to be anointed? Many of us can’t continue the GOP charade.’
Other texts end with “I hope this is true”. Here are two examples:
“Watermarked ballots in over 12 states have been part of a huge Trump & military white hat sting operation in 12 key battleground states. I hope this is true.”
“Biden crime family & ballot fraud co-conspirators (elected officials, bureaucrats, social media censorship mongers, fake stream media reporters, etc) are being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right now & over coming days, & will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition. I hope this is true”.
I’ve struggled mightily to understand some of my fellow citizens growing number of conspiracies related to our national politics, among other things. Now, for the first time, thanks to Ginni, I may actually get it.
Whenever Tucker Carlson, Ginni Thomas, or your QAnon brain addled neighbor says, “This is true,” what they really mean is, “I hope this is true.”
I hope the Ginni Thomas’s of the world get the help they need.
The Beginning Of The End For The (dis)United States
As one part of my history major, I studied Central and Latin American history in college. And there was one thing I could never figure out. Until this weekend.
I didn’t understand why, whenever a populist, land-reform promising political party gained control of political power, they never managed to follow through on their promises to upset the status quo, distribute power more fairly, and improve ordinary people’s lives.
Forty years later*, I realize it’s because the idealists’ hatred for their predecessors became so all encompassing it distracted them from the day-to-day work of building a brighter future.
The common good took a backseat to getting even with the bastards in the other party for the sometimes decades-long laundry list of political grievances including massive corruption, and in some cases, government sponsored death squads.
The political class in the (dis)United States thinks the (dis)United States is superior to any country to the south, so my reference is irrelevant. But it’s dead wrong, human nature doesn’t respect political boundaries. We are prone to the exact same desire to get revenge. I know that because I feel it in a more visceral way this weekend than ever before. Others do too, no doubt.
Consequently, we are on the precipice of a very similar downward spiral that’s seemingly inevitable when every political party assumes the worst of the other.
Listening to the Senate Majority Leader, the President, and other Republicans unprecedented, unapologetic politicizing of the Supreme Court convinces me that they care way more about their party’s interests than the country’s.
The Democrat’s refrain this week will be, “Never forget.” Democrats risk being overwhelmed by anger at the Republican’s historic hypocrisy. When they gain power, which they inevitably will sooner or later, they are likely to seek revenge. And when the Republicans regain it, which they inevitably will sooner or later, they will do the exact same.
Just like that, if it hasn’t already, the organizing principle of our politics will become revenge. Instead of looking to the future, we’ll be mired in the past. And our national debt will grow large; our natural environment will grow more inhospitable; our infrastructure will erode further; racial justice will remain more illusive; and more people will struggle to meet their basic needs for food, shelter, and clothing.
And I will take zero joy in being right.
*better late than never
The Kavanaugh Nomination Explained
Thank you Lili.
“The nominee looks good on paper—he’s Ivy-educated, Federalist Society–approved, and has the sorts of credentials serious thinkers like to solemnly enumerate. More importantly, though, Kavanaugh isn’t just a booster for presidential power, he’s someone who—having once laid out the grounds for impeaching President Bill Clinton—has since (in a move his advocates will no doubt cite as evidence of his broad-mindedness) changed his mind about how presidents should deal with being investigated. In brief, he doesn’t believe they should have to: ‘[T]he President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office,’ Kavanaugh wrote. ‘We should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions,’ he added. The ‘indictment and trial of a sitting President’ would ‘cripple the federal government.’
Imagine Trump’s feelings when he heard that. Trump used the phrase equal justice twice in his speech, but what he really wants is exceptional justice. And Kavanaugh is willing to give it.
But installing a judge who will quietly immunize you from any legal consequences for wrongdoing requires finesse. It’s a challenge even for a showman of Trump’s caliber. A maneuver like this must look quite, quite normal in order to successfully mask his real rationale. It can be easy to forget, especially on the heels of a bile-filed rally in Montana, that Trump can ‘code switch’ when he has reason to, and he had reason to do so Monday, when what he needed was to make filling a Supreme Court seat look like the act of a statesman rather than a robber baron.
Kavanaugh went out of his way to play his part in catering to Trump’s ego.”
Highly plausible. I also LTM (laughed to myself) as Kavanaugh’s acceptance stretched from one minute to seven or so and Little St. Don couldn’t mask his complete and total annoyance at having lost the limelight. I’ve heard some people have been saying he’s a bit of a narcissist.
What the Affordable Care Act Gets Wrong
Poor form to be contrarian following a week liberals can’t stop celebrating, but count your blessings I’m done writing about golf. For now at least. I always reserve my right to tap my inner Alan Shipnuck.
Thursday night near the end of another spirited training ride. Soft spinning on North Street, two friends and I head for home. One is a well-to-do 59 year old who just retired. His very nice lake home is paid for and he and his wife just returned from another trip to Europe. Euro vacations aside, as his threadbare cycling gloves illustrate, he’s actually on the frugal side. He says he can afford the vacations because of the gloves. Decades of having made very good money no doubt help too.
“You’ll never guess what medical plan I’ve signed up for,” he says. “No clue,” I replied. “Medicaid!” “Wait, you’re 65?!” “No, I’m 59, that’s Medicare. I was surprised to learn I qualify for Medicaid because I have no income now.”
Quick google search. Medicaid is “a U.S. government program, financed by federal, state, and local funds, of hospitalization and medical insurance for persons of all ages within certain income limits.”
I was stunned. He told me a person can make about $20k/year and still qualify for Medicaid. He hardly has any capital gains because he hasn’t sold any assets for a long time. Apart from his international vacations, I’m guessing his expenses are minimal and he’s living off of savings that he previously set aside. I’m not sure how he’s sheltered his wife’s income.
Then he tells me the adult son of a mutual cycling friend is also getting “free” Medicaid despite the fact that he has a very large trust fund that must consist of tax-free municipal bonds.
Undoubtedly, if my friends are doing this, so are other high wealth/low income people. Especially those whose income stems largely from tax-free municipal bonds. Why isn’t anyone writing about this gigantic loophole and what we should do to close it?
More generally, why does the Affordable Care Act (ACA) use income as it’s sole reference point instead of some combination of income and wealth? The same can be asked about the IRS and college financial aid offices. When it comes to health care premiums, college financial aid, and taxes more generally, it’s far better to be wealthy than to have lots of income. Just ask Mitt Romney. My guess is, and I’d love a more tax savvy reader to enlighten us on this, IRS agents, ACA bureaucrats, and college financial aid officials are unable to determine people’s total wealth with any certainty.
Why not ballpark it though I wonder. If the government knew my friend owned his home outright, would it compromise his Second Amendment rights to privacy? How do we balance well-to-do people’s right to privacy with public policies that, through subsidies, take from those of modest wealth and give to those with considerably more?
Pressing Pause 