495 Comments

I believe the Supreme Court of the United States of the 21st is dismantling democracy itself. Three things: 1. Citizens United amendment making money "free speech" making it legalized bribery to buy our elected officials. They are now voting 95% of the time with their donors not their constituents. 2. The 2006 gutting of the Voting Rights act that they decided was not necessary any more. In particular taking out the pre-clearance clause giving states carte blanche to suppress voters and gerrymander the districts to the hilt. States rights are not absolute even for the originalists of the Constitution who gave Congress the right to curb rogue state taking away voting rights. 3. This ruling taking away women's rights and installing the supremacy of states rights and super majority legislatures to install autocracy over EXISTING Constitutional Rights. That they are taking away rights based on a future reading of the law is abhorrent. That the rule of law is also obliterated and replaced by vigilante injustice means means all rights are at state. The Supreme Court is illegitimate because of then Majority leader McConnell double shenanigans first refusing to even hear the Merrick Garland nomination a year from the election and then pushing through the nomination of Amy Barrett even after early voting had started. If there hadn't been contempt of the Constitution by Grim Reaper McConnell, who has been bought by monied interests, we wouldn't have a super majority far right court. I'll go further and say both Justices Kavanaugh and Thomas should be recused on any law involving women's rights since they have been credibly accused of violating women's rights although justice has never been served on them. So, I'm looking to see if impeachment is a tool Congress (which is so corrupt) could use to pull the Supreme Court back from destroying democracy and having them enforce the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution saying it is guaranteed that all states must have a republican form of government, i.e. represented by the people. Adding more seats to the Court is at best a kluggy temporary fix. The answer may be in terms limits when each member of the court gets a nine year term and one rotates off the court each year. For now, we have an illegitimate Supreme Court in Contempt of the Constitution and set on destroying democracy altogether. I'm going to write to Justice Sotomayor and Chief Justice Roberts about this. They have staff that read all letters sent them. Here's how: https://legalbeagle.com/5704017-write-supreme-court-justices.html Time to remove the stench of the current rogue court. We the People, all of us this time!

Expand full comment

Thank you for stating this so clearly and accurately. The decisions of the conservative majority of our current SCOTUS are in direct violation of the Constitution they have pledged to support. The fight to recover and preserve the rights granted by our Constitution to We the People, all of us, all the time will be long and difficult. It is clear we should not expect a quick or easy victory in this critical effort. We must not lose heart or become discouraged by a lack of immediate progress in our struggle. The cause is worthy and our efforts must be unrelenting.

Expand full comment

Read David Pepper's book Laboratories of Autocracy who lists 30 actions items at the federal, state and individual levels we need to take. He is also very willing to come talk to groups as well. Never back off the fight! That's when they win.

Expand full comment

I agree with your recommendation of David Pepper's book and have read it as well. I also encourage all here in Texas to visit Blue Horizon Texas (https://www.bluehorizontexas.org/) and learn about their efforts to advance Progressive Democratic and Independent Non-partisan Candidates in elections everywhere here in Texas with a particular focus on rural and deep-red areas of Texas. Democrats need to run everywhere to win anywhere. Those of us working in this effort with Stephanie Phillips and Claire Barnett and the entire Blue Horizon Texas team is committed to turning Texas bright and glorious progressive blue. The team includes many current and former Texas progressive candidates for office. We understand this is a long-term struggle and are committed for the duration of whatever it takes to accomplish it. We are speaking with many including David Pepper who are committed to helping us in this struggle. Join with and support our efforts. There is a place on the website both to join and support our efforts - https://www.bluehorizontexas.org/.

Expand full comment

I dunno - I've been thinking "Australia" lately.

If only. I'm in the, "stuck here without a winning lotto ticket" crowd.

Expand full comment

Our two political parties speak for markedly different sections of the U.S. economy -

In order to better understand the two Americas we face and the degree of chaos and damage being done to us all by the GOP, I invite all to review this CNBC and Brookings analysis of the 2020 election voting by GDP. In the 2020 election, Joe Biden won 477 counties contributing 70% of US GDP. Trump won 2479 counties contributing 29% of US GDP.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/10/election-2020-democrats-republicans-economy.html

Republicans represent a far greater number of smaller counties with less-educated, more-homogenous workforces that, on average, tend to rely on manufacturing, agriculture, and mining.

Democrats represent a smaller number of densely populated and diverse metropolitan counties fueled by service-oriented industries such as finance, professional services, and software.

That’s similar to the 2016 results when Brookings showed that the nearly 2,600 counties Trump won generated 36% of the country’s output versus the 472 counties that Hillary Clinton won, which produced 64%.

Brookings researcher Mark Muro put it this way: “While the election’s outcome has changed, the nation’s political geography remains rigidly divided.”

“Blue and red America continue to reflect two very different economies — one oriented to diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital services professions and the other whiter, less-educated, and more dependent on ‘traditional’ industries,” he added.

To put a point on this economic-geographic divergence, Brookings noted that Biden flipped seven of the nation’s 100-highest-output counties in the 2020 election and further cemented the link between the Democratic Party and the nation’s core economic hubs.

Biden took away half of Trump’s 10 most economically significant counties from 2016, including Maricopa in Arizona, Tarrant in Texas, Duval and Pinellas in Florida, and Morris in New Jersey.

Blue districts have attracted the expanding segments of the U.S. population and workforce; 34% of their residents are non-White and 36% have at least a bachelor’s degree. Red districts, by comparison, are 15% non-White and 25% have at least a bachelor’s degree, Brookings found.

The problem, Muro suggests, is not only that Democrats and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power but that they represent “radically different” areas of the economy.

These differences, if they persist or worsen, could result in partisan gridlock for years to come, the researcher wrote.

Democrats represent voters who overwhelmingly live in the nation’s diverse centers and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, better social safety nets, transportation infrastructure, and racial justice.

On the other hand, Republicans represent the economies of the nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas that see little reason to weigh the needs of urban districts.

“If this pattern continues — with one party aiming to confront the challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant minority — it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective governance but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places,” Muro wrote.

“In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes,” he added.

I believe Muro and Brookings have this exactly right. We often hear that Republicans do not vote in their own interests. It is important to understand they do not vote in the interests of us all, every one of us. They are damaging American for all of us.

The fact is that we all need each other. There are not two Americas.

There is only one America in which we all need to live together. Unfortunately, only one political party both understands that reality and governs, or at least attempts most of the time, to govern accordingly in the interests of us all. This is not communism or socialism, it is simply an attempt to govern with kindness and compassion for all, every one of us, We the People. We have two political parties. Only one, however, is dedicated to the ideals of "charity for all and malice toward none."

Those words from Lincoln's second inaugural speech are carved on the walls of his Memorial in Washington, D.C.

"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

It seems one political party remains faithful to that vision and another is instead pursuing malice toward most and charity only for some. For those who subscribe to that alternate philosophy, I suggest they consider Lincoln's words and study history much more closely and without prejudice.

We can either be the "shining city on the hill" their one-time idol Reagan spoke of or descend into the chaos and hell they seem bent now on achieving.

Expand full comment

Red states are not contributing states. The lowest ranked states by economy and individual economic well being are all red states. The church has more influence in states with limited education and wide-spread poverty. In states where government and church have already formed a coalition, we see the most audacious and overweening behavior of both, passing laws based on "the laws of god" in violation of the 14th amendment.

Expand full comment

yes to everything you're saying with a few caveats: 1) this is entirely personal. if anyone else trots out Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, I will scream. no one reading this will hear it, but it will still be a scream. the fact is NO ONE CARES. if you tell the "other side" that they're violating this vision, they will either laugh at you or look like they don't know what you're talking about because they really don't and 2) I wish people would stop acting--and talking-- like Reagan was some kind of example of ANYTHING good. putting aside for the moment his completely impeachable behavior, his administration was an utter disaster for this country on virtually every level (certainly, any level that has any importance for ME). and if I hear anything about shining cities on hills, I will vomit. the phrase was a cliche by about 1970 and, in any event, was stolen by Reagan (who, in fact, wanted that COAH only if it met HIS specifications and considerations, both of which sucked), who took it from John Winthrop, who wasn't exactly celebrated for his openmindedness and benevolence. in fact, I have no problem considering Winthrop (and others who shared his profoundly ugly religious preoccupations) a dangerously bigoted asshole. I'm sure there are more elegant ways of saying this; in fact, I know there are. and I could have used them, but that would represent a waste of time. sorry for being so blunt, but, while we all use cliches, it's also always a good idea to eschew them when- and where ever possible.

Expand full comment

"I believe the Supreme Court of the United States of the 21st is dismantling democracy itself."

Correct. The Supreme Court AND about 50 million people who now view Democracy as against their own interests and want it dismantled.

50 million is 0.68*74 million, or that fraction of those who voted for Trump who also believe Biden stole the election thereby aligning themselves with the fascist trait of believing in blatant lies.

The Supreme Court has lots of support for what it is doing in America right now. Lots.

Expand full comment

Just to add one more thought:

Those 50 million people noted above want to return to a pre-1960's American and Federal and State policy set. Prior to the 1960's both the Federal and the State governments fully supported White Supremacy, Segregation, women not working outside the home, not getting abortions, blacks not buying property, etc.

In 1960 Harvard only admitted white people and almost exclusively men. Same with pretty much every other non-black college in America.

In 1960 the Federal "redlining" was still in place which provided those areas where real estate agents could show housing to black people, or mexicans, or asians, north and south. Outside of those areas real estate agents, north and south, did not show properties to blacks.

In 1960 Kodak was still hanging signs up at job fairs that said: NO BLACKS OR JEWS OR ITALIANS.

Same with basically all other American corporations.

50 million Americans want that back and the Supreme Court wants to help them.

So, although the Supreme Court appears to be the enemy and it is today. Many, many Americans smell a return to the good ole days when blacks and Mexicans and Jews and...(lots of others)...KNEW THEIR PLACE.

The Supreme Court is not alone.

Expand full comment

Actually, Mike, they want to return to the pre-1860s. Because they also want to cancel all of the stuff that made the 1940s and 1950s bearable for a lot of people: unions, the New Deal, etc.

Expand full comment

not only bearable, but prosperous. don't forget the GI Bill that enabled white veterans to buy new homes in the suburbs, the development loans and mortgages guaranteed by the federal govt. just as we have an old testament (angry, patriarchal god) and a new testament (warm, fuzzy jesus) we have a constitution written before the civil war and a constitution written after the civil war. we are always balancing the traditional and the new way. every day it's a new performance of fiddler on the roof. meanwhile we have been arguing over the meaning of the constitution since the ink was wet, but so-called originalists think they have a line on the true meaning of the pre-civil war constitution. they think they 'know how to read' and that the meaning is clear. this is just a cover. the real message of thomas, alito, barrett, kavanaugh and gorsuch is simple: sorry, we can't help you; there's nothing we can do., our hands are tied by the constitution. states vs federal gov't? the south loves federal law when it is on its side, rails against it when it isn't. the texas abortion law mirrors the fugitive slave law of 1850, part of the great compromise. it not only restated the right of slave owners to capture slaves that had escaped to the north, it required that northerners cooperate in the capture. any who didn't were subject to prosecution. they loved that federal law. but the north is so naive. read the 13th amendment, passed near the end of lincoln's term. you'd think there wasn't a lawyer in all of the north, or that lincoln himself wasn't a lawyer. such grand language, but it paved the way for jim crow, a way to arrest black men and make them slaves in prison. even today people moon over its language, as in that cartoonish steven spielberg movie, lincoln. after all the jim crow since 1876, how could anybody 'trust' the south and repeal the voting rights act? the south always says it seeks reconciliation, but what it wants is conciliation, generous gestures on the part of the north, which is naive enough to bend the knee still. at west point, there are portraits of robert e lee, there is a lee road, there is a lee barracks. there is even a beauregard road, named for the man who led the artillery barrage of fort sumter. there is a monument to confederate dead at arlington national cemetery. so where is the portrait of grant at the virginia military institute, where is the monument to union dead in south carolina? what idiots we yankees are.

Expand full comment

I like the analogy with the old and new testaments.

Expand full comment

Where can I read that?

Expand full comment

The North was, and is complicit. Not naive.

Expand full comment

i have to agree. a telling quote from a northern preacher: 'southern slavery is an institution that is in earnest. northern freedom is an institution that is not in earnest.' and of course, the north wanted the slaves to be free, but to remain in the south. perhaps the language of the 13th amendment, derived from the wilmot proviso (1848?) is one great carefully crafted loophole.

Expand full comment

That is what I don't get. What they want to do would also destroy the county economically.

Expand full comment

Yes, good point. The Works Progress Administration resulted in more infrastructure getting done (buildings, schools, roads, bridges) than at any other time in our history. If it were not for the WPA many, many rural schools were never have existed and you can see how beautifully built they were.

But, that was COMMUNISM. Very BAD.

Expand full comment

It is interesting and quite frightening that the GOP is saying the future of the US is at peril because the progressives are establishing communism. The DT psychological projection on progressives shows you exactly what the GOP is up to. Like when you point at someone else with your forefinger yet three fingers are pointing back at you.

Expand full comment

The argument for trying to interpret the constitution only by 'original intent' is a strawman that is easily defeated by the words of the Founders as they themselves explained it. Unlike the ten commandments, the Constitution of The United States is not ct in stone by the finger of god:

"We are free today substantially, but the day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility. It will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. A Republic cannot stand upon bayonets, and when the day comes when the wealth of the nation will be in the hands of a few, then we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nations to the changed conditions."

James Madison

"A Republic cannot stand on bayonets."

A Republic is not ruled by force of arms. It would not long remain a republic, or even anything resembling government.

The Constitution is a living document, in all its content demanding progressive legislation to keep up with the needs of society, not recognizing religion nor a political party.

Expand full comment

Yes, that is the ultimate goal to erase the New Deal!

Expand full comment

They think they do, but a lot of them are going to be surprised when they find out the real things the court is after - all the economic regulation, the administrative state they think they don't need but have depended on. But the South operated as a tight oligarchy with all the poor whites supporting their economic oppressors because they were "handlin' the darkies." I think it was LBJ who said a poor white man will give you his money as long as you keep telling him he's better than that black guy.

Expand full comment

Agree. Yes, this is about oligarchic kleptocracy and the hollowing out of the middle class and keeping the poor very poor. Supporting anti-abortion with the irony that so many children in the US are food insecure shows they want to take no responsibility for the life they insist must be brought into existence. And deregulation means poisoned water and air and not addressing the climate crisis. And, I bet they don't have a plan B.

Expand full comment

This is why the slogan Make America Great Again never applied to me, a woman. It wasn't suppose to. I broke the glass ceiling once and wouldn't want to have any woman go through that today. I'm optimistic that the younger generations seem much more supportive of each other and don't see the differences as significant.

Expand full comment

Absolutely correct, Cathy.

Expand full comment

Terrifying!

Expand full comment

Unfortunately, so true!!😢

Expand full comment

Support maybe but still by a minority which doesn't represent the new majority and women who have always been a majority in numbers but not in reality.

Expand full comment

Just remember, Hitler never had a majority. The election the Nazis claimed they "won" in 1933 was merely that they came in as the party with the most votes - but in a multi-party system, that was only about 35% of the total votes cast.

Expand full comment

Yes, I always found that an interesting parallel with tfg never getting a majority either. I'll also add that some of Hitler's inspiration came from the US especially the anti-semitism of Henry Ford. Hitler always had Henry Ford's photo on his desk.

Expand full comment

It was spurred on by Goebel’s propaganda but much of Germany truly believed that America would be aligning itself with the fascist axis powers with whom corporate America had much in common. After listening to Ford, Lindbergh and others it felt like a betrayal when the States joined against the Axis.

Expand full comment

Not to mention Preston Bush, founder of the Bush family fortune, who made his money investing in intrerwar/prewar Germany, who began investing in the Nazis in 1928, and only gave up his German investments in 1942, when he had to run for Senate and win to avoid being prosecuted under the Trading With The Enemy Act.

Expand full comment

The Nazi’s also studied the Jim Crow laws in the south.

Expand full comment

Unfortunately not just Ford and not just the Jim Crow laws - they looked on the US as the leader in "eugenics." And there are more than a few American "progressive heroes" (looking at you, Margaret Sanger) who saw "eugenics" as the road to their progressive utopias of pure reason.

Expand full comment

Check out what I just posted on here, before it disappears into the abyss of commentary.

Expand full comment

I found it buried two or three "load more" pages you get to by scrolling down. So here it is again, and I'll add it to my blog too.

"A few weeks ago, a frequent ex-pat commenter on LFAA (there are a few of them) invited us to consider moving to Merida in the Yucatan, where she lives. Were I thirty years younger, I would seriously consider doing so in view of the impending demise of democracy in the United States toward which the SCOTUS is leading us. "

Expand full comment

What’s so great about Mexico?

Expand full comment

Ask her the next time she comments, which includes mention of Merida next to her name.

Expand full comment

Read Laurence Tribe (he was on Biden’s commission studying the Supreme Court) on the expansion of the Court, which he recommends. wapo.st/3GuStBR

Expand full comment

And the day the Democrats have 60 D Senators, that can be done. Until that day, all the complaining in the world won't change anything.

Expand full comment

Yup. True for so many important things. I think it’s unfair to blame Biden for a lack of progress, when the D majority is so slim and fragile. And in any case, I think there’s been lots of progress. Just not on the one, most important thing - voting rights.

Expand full comment

But will Biden change SCOTUS, and if he would, can he get it done? Another angle: Do Barrett, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch revel in contrarian glory?

Expand full comment

I think Gorsuch, while a conservative, is a rule of law guy first. I don't know enough about Alito but Barrett, Thomas, and Kavanaugh have the goal of imposing their own beliefs on others whether it is religion or male superiority.

Expand full comment

I thought so too, until he wrote this most recent opinion (Texas abortion vigilante bill).

Expand full comment

I remember Alito’s confirmation hearing. His answers were blatantly dishonest. He, like William Barr in his hearings as AG, felt superior to the the senators and the public. In effect, the both flipped the bird and said, “What are you going to do about it.”

Expand full comment

Our majority is so slim. So probably not. Regarding the justices, I cannot begin to imagine what they’re thinking. Besides worrying about the legitimacy of the Court, which they themselves have damaged by such partisan rulings. I guess they don’t care enough about this American experiment.

Expand full comment

They've all been raised from birth nearly to believe what they're doing is the right thing - certainly through all their upper schooling.

Expand full comment

I suspect they feel superior and that they earned their successes and even earned their lucky breaks. And like Donald Trump, they feel those who have not reached the top of the mountain failed because they’re losers. Daniel Boones, all!

Expand full comment

True devastating words, resistbot also helps with letter writing

Expand full comment

Thanks, Cathy , for the summary and link.Hope it’s ok to plagerize these words:)

“illegitimate Supreme Court in Contempt of the Constitution” !!!!!!!!!

Expand full comment

Yes, please do. Impeachment is suppose to be the remedy for being in Contempt of the Constitution but we've seen that impeachment is basically meaningless in a divided Congress.

Expand full comment

I will do the same. Thank you for the link. Let’s make this a movement!

Expand full comment

Thank you Cathy for that well written comment. I support everything you have advocated. Reading so many well structured responses to Heather's Letter has been a valued added extension to this wonderful site.

Expand full comment

Spot on Cathy.

Expand full comment

Totally right, Cathy.

Expand full comment

So appreciate the link and your thoughts. Thank you.

Expand full comment

May I post this statement of yours to groups such as Minuteman Indivisible and broadcast it from my email? With attribution, of course.

Expand full comment

Yes, you may -- with or without attribution as you choose. Please correct my typo -- "all rights are at stake" (not "state") if you would. And add "21st century" rather than just "21st". Thank you for spreading the word and encourage people to action.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I believe it might but it would have to go through a number of legal challenges first and go to the Supreme Court before it is settled. The House has passed that bill and, of course, the Senate is dragging its butt.

Expand full comment

The Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA): federal legislation that will protect the right to access abortion care throughout the United States.

https://actforwomen.org/the-womens-health-protection-act/

Expand full comment

I am beyond angry. I am outraged that a small group of individuals -- mostly male -- have the power to control what is NOT and has never been their right to control: a woman's right over her own body. That Texans can place a bounty on women's heads diminishes womankind even further! How dare they co-opt the moral agency of every woman and young girl?!!! It is a profoundly dark day, when we are stripped of our physical and moral rights, our self-hoods and our well-being. There can be no more depraved nor vile infringement of our unalienable freedom TO BE ... just to be.

Thank goodness for the power of the pen through Justice Sotomayor and through you, dear Heather.

There must be an uprising throughout this land to let the Supreme Court know how low they have descended in our eyes, in our esteem. We cannot disappoint our daughters and granddaughters for generations to come. OUR BODIES, OURSELVES, OUR RIGHTS!

Expand full comment

Sadly, Rowshan, there are far too many people who believe in a God-given right for men to control women. These same people also believe that the white race is superior to all others, and should exercise control over those "others". A higher percentage of people (including some in our ranks here) fail (here) or refuse (there) to acknowledge that sex and gender are not a binary construct, and that the "one, true" match is between "one man and one woman" or that there can be a difference between assigned gender and perceived gender.

Expand full comment

Truth

Expand full comment

And there is one woman who is on the side of SC evil and as influential as any sitting on the court. Ginny Thomas. Prepare for a “Christian” nation.

Expand full comment

Thank you for putting quotation marks around Ginny Thomas's brand of "Christianity."

Expand full comment

She's not even a good Pharisee

Expand full comment

She appears to be above the law, or is funding the insurrection legal?

Expand full comment

Going to be interesting to find out if her husband’s job brings her special privileges

Expand full comment

Oy Vey

Expand full comment

I NEVER Heard of her! But, going to find out right NOW!

Expand full comment

She’s reportedly the keeper of the enemies list (anti-trumpery). Don’t remember where I read that.

Expand full comment

She's Clarence Thomas's wife.

Expand full comment

She in an interracial marriage with Clarence Thomas. Overturning Roe should seem like a bad omen for them.

Expand full comment

She's a real nutcase.

But I can't imagine banning interracial marriages at this point in our history. The races shade imperceptibly into each other. And nutty as she is, I doubt she ever extrapolates overturning Roe to overturning other legislation that relies on similar principles.

Expand full comment

She might not, but there are enough other nut cases that will try.

Expand full comment

I adore you Rowshan. But I do not share your optimism. The barn door has been blown off its hinges and all the horses are gone.

Expand full comment

I'm afraid I agree with you, Linda. And what the horses left behind is one big pile of s#$t.

Expand full comment

Truth

Expand full comment

oh oh No no No

again, oh no

Expand full comment

😢😢😢😢😢

Expand full comment

Rowshan - I notice you read Glenn Greenwald. He is today not the guy he used to be. In fact he's now a Trumper. It's not widely-known, so I thought I'd let you know.

Expand full comment

Oh, my goodness! Thank you! I actually haven't had much time to read his writing of late, so I really appreciate this heads-up!

Expand full comment

Yeah, when they regularly appear on Faux Snooze pushing the party line, you get a clue. Further proof that politics are circular, not linear, which is how so many far leftists so easily become far rightists.

Expand full comment

“. . . which is how so many far leftists so easily become far rightists.”

Expand full comment

Especially right now. The people who don’t have a solid moral anchor are really being challenged right now to know what reality is.

Expand full comment

That’s clarifying for me TC. Thank you. 🙏

Expand full comment

Rowshan, the Supreme Court has a great deal of support for what it is doing.

Roughly 50 million (mostly white) Americans (68% of those who voted for Trump) believe the election was stolen from Trump. Those 50 million people fully support anything the Supreme Court does to neuter the Federal government and get back to White Supremacy Federal and state policy, which, was American Federal and State Policy until the 1960's.

Expand full comment

White supremacy. Male supremacy. Straight supremacy. Supremacy of the moneyed class. Et al. I use slightly different statistics to support my argument about just how many people in this country want to keep the old social order in place, but of course I’m completely in agreement with Mike.

We are experiencing a backlash. Slavery (of women and blacks etc.) did not disappear or wane since Lincoln, it merely went underground. Now it is fighting for survival, right out in the open. The Confederacy, the society of the past, is in an existential crisis. That’s my repetitive and perhaps annoying story. I hope you are OK indulging me in that story, because I came to it on this very site earlier in 2021.

The people, like my dad and the truck drivers and warehouse workers I meet weekly, want men and whites to come first in society, period, and these reactionaries are clinging desperately to their lost cause. Screaming for dear life, as it were. However, unfortunately for them, resistance is futile. They are getting steamrollered by the diverse society (that is ripping down Confederate symbols & much more). I’m sorry Rowshan, this moment in history is really lousy.

Expand full comment

Roland, So right you are. An existential threat. But here's the real deal. Birth rates in the US (https://www.npr.org/2021/05/05/993817146/u-s-birth-rate-fell-by-4-in-2020-hitting-another-record-low); India, China, and Russia are BELOW replacement. Bye-bye white guys. Run those numbers out 20 years and we will have a totally different planet. (Note: Google birth rate sot get back up - I need more coffee)

Expand full comment

Hi Charlie! Thank you for chiming in. Resistance is futile.

Expand full comment

I have to optimistically disagree. We MUST resist.

Expand full comment

Roland, Read Duane's article. It's easy to see where this is all going.

Expand full comment

It seems to me that Paul Ehrlich’s message finally got across.

Expand full comment

Stopping global warming, and civilization surviving in a warmer world depends on having fewer humans to support.

Expand full comment

*Yes*

Overpopulation is probably our number one problem as a planet.

Expand full comment

It certainly is our #1 environmental problem. I do worry about preserving democracy in the US.

Expand full comment

Never thought about THIS!! OH BOY😢😠😡

Expand full comment

Implication: no growth, declining market demand. Can you say 'goombye capitalism' as a viable economic system?

Expand full comment

😢😢😢

Expand full comment

a small group of religious zealots . . .

Expand full comment

In case some of you believe my words are too strong . . . I suggest you read Justice Amy Barretts comments in Carson v. Makin which pits religious families against the state of Maine.

Expand full comment

“In case some of you believe my words are too strong . . . “

Oh Puh-LEASE. You are right on target Bill. 🎯 🎯

Expand full comment

ACB has been speaking in "far right-ese" all week. There's a good analysis of what she is doing in an article over at TPM. She's even more bad news than people thought she would be.

Expand full comment

An area of my concern is also that the courts are possibly/probably making a sweeping decision about a medical procedure. If they may legislate about this, where can they NOT insert themselves? Determining who gets or doesn’t gets the transplant of a vital organ? Who gets or does not get treatment for something curable, based on a financial situation? A political situation?

To me, this is the drop off point on a particularly slippery slope.

Expand full comment

YES! There MUST be an UPRISING!

Expand full comment

As others have pointed out, the court adopting this position means that every right that has been affirmed and enforced by the Warren and Burger courts is at risk, in fact all the rights of that have been enforced by the Supreme Court prior to 2016 are at risk, as well as New Deal precedents in the area of business regulation. It is not impossible to see all progressive 20th century jurisprudence on the chopping block.

Expand full comment

ALEC is hard at work to spread evil with lightening speed

Expand full comment

TC, I am sure that you're right. I see Loving, Obergfell, and Lawrence on the chopping block next.

Expand full comment

I think you are correct Ally. The very next important case may be Co-conspirator No: 1's appeal of Judge Susan Millett's 68 page appellate opinion in Trump vs Thompson, Case No: 1:21-cv-02769. The very scope of Congress; power to investigate & legislate would be at-issue. The Jan. 6th Committee has already taken evidence so far from over 300 witnesses regardless.

Expand full comment

😥

Expand full comment

Those are exactly the ones I had in mind Ally.

Expand full comment

The implications are far reaching and chilling, especially for those of us living in regressive states.

Expand full comment

Truth

Expand full comment

On December 10th, Maria Reza, the renowned Filipino journalist who started Rappler, an on line news service to preserve freedom of the press in the Philippines, a journalist under constant threat of prison and death, was given the Nobel Peace Prize along with another journalist. I understand from Reza's speech that the last time a journalist was given the Nobel Peace prize was in 1936 to a journalist held in a Nazi concentration camp.

I heard Reza's speech in full on Democracy Now on our local member supported radio station WERU. It was like listening to FDR during WWII talk to the public about the risks of fascism to our democracy and nation.

The following link is Reza's full video speech on YouTube. Ironically, it comes from a Hong Kong broadcast, under siege by China. I couldn't find it via a US broadcaster, under seige by Trump Republicans.

https://youtu.be/O0OWO9PJJfk

Reza's speech is the most important international speech on authoritarianism that I have heard in a time when every American and every nation should be concerned and fighting back against the legions of lies and misinformation, and attacks on facts, truth and those who endeavor to reinforce the foundations of freedom and democracy.

Share Reza's speech with everyone along with Isabel Wilkerson's book "Caste: The Origins of Our Discontent" which explains why our democracy and nation is under constant threat from within.

Expand full comment

Thank you, David.

I've been trying to do the same thing -- to bring the speeches of Maria RESSA and Dmitri Muratov to public attention. Especially the attention of this relatively enlightened public that is capable of producing powerfully persuasive arguments like those of Cathy Learoyd today.

Don't ignore Muratov. I took the trouble of watching him deliver his speech after I had read it over in English. I don't understand enough Russian to be able to tell much more than where he is in his speech. But, as with Maria Ressa, it is such a rare privilege to hear out a great human being who is totally at one with his message.

Bear in mind that both these two know that they could be killed at any moment. As so many thousands of Filipinos have been. As six of Muratov's greatest investigative journalists have been. And Ressa now risks spending the rest of her life in jail, for exercising her profession as it should be exercised.

Oh, and "out of the mouths of babes".

The truth matters even more than who speaks it. What counts is surely to listen for it, to listen to it. And to take heed.

But, to quote Seneca once again, "A large part of mankind is angry not with the sins, but with the sinners."

Expand full comment

David Souers Thank you for this important information and context. Reza's speech (and the work of all journalists to report facts) and Isabel Wilkerson's CASTE are extremely important to share.

I have been in several discussions of the book CASTE. It can be a challenging read in that it gives real life examples of events that the dominant - oppressive - caste does not want known (reflected currently in efforts to use the term CRT to be associated in the general parlance with "guilt" for what ancestors did). It hurts when a person tells their lived oppressive encounters, only to have those who have benefitted from white supremacy culture reject their accounting because they have not had that same experience. As one observation frames it, the underlying fear is not that they (Blacks) want equality, it is the fear they want revenge. "They" can refer to any group denied their basic human rights.

Expand full comment

A PBS Newshour report only a day ago on discrimination by the US Ag Department when giving out loans was a classic caste story. Freed blacks after the Civil War had managed to create a farming community in Iowa. Over the course of a few generations as all farmers experienced economic setbacks due to weather and recessions the Ag Dept gave loans and Grant's to white farmers but not black farmers. In time, white farmers bought out black farmers reducing them to tenant farmers or leaving farming. The news program featured a black couple in their 70s who pointed out the farmland that their extended family members had lost over generations. PBS then featured a white male farmer in his 50s who said farming is hard for everyone, that white farmers are also refused loans, and that the black farmers should just have gone to more banks until they got a loan, learned to do whatever it takes to be a farmer without a loan, and "pull themselves up by the bootstraps". Yes he actually said that. I was shocked and angry at how pervasive these ideas are with white people. My uncle was a dairy farmer in NY state. My brother a forestry company owner in ME. They both relied on huge loans that would scare the life out of most. Lobstermen in ME also borrow more for their near million dollar boats and pickup trucks than most of us could stomach. Large loans and degrees of government support are essential in these businesses. I always thought farmers were pragmatic. The white farmers and people who dismiss the help they get as nothing and the help blacks didn't get as unnecessary are either stupid or racist. Hearing white farmers talk like the one on PBS makes me want to withdraw all economic assistance that wealthier states give to poorer state in the form of our tax redistribution that actually goes from Democratic states to Republican states. Democrats are the makers. Republicans are the takers.

Expand full comment

It's race, not caste. Whites with little to no capital have secured loans that African Americans with capital to spare, would have to run an obstacle course to secure. Heather McGhee's "The Sum of Us:What Racism Costs Everyone and How We can Prosper Together," hits the mark for me. "Caste" is worth reading, muddled message aside.

Expand full comment

Thank you--Maria Ressa's speech is a great find that should not have been so hard to find. What a hero. She reminds us that third world countries are laboratories of kleptocracy for social media, as states in the U.S. are laboratories of autocracy for the Republican Party. "A Thousand Cuts" is a good documentary on her courageous work on behalf of truth and democracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQpjfWV_p6E

Expand full comment

People here think that the Philippines are a world away, not having a clue that the same fate awaits those who hesitate. Like the world watched German evil rise and fretted for too long.

Expand full comment

Here is a YouTube interview with Isabel Wilkerson about her book.

https://youtu.be/FxpouTYfJKY

Oprah Winfrey has an excellent series on Apple TV where she Zoom interviews Wilkerson with a Zoom panel of Americans who discuss their experiences of living in the American caste system.

Expand full comment

Isabelle Wilkerson's "The Warmth of Other Suns" was the most powerful non-fiction book of my life. Second is "To Make Men Free....." by HRC

Expand full comment

Extremely powerful speech! Many thanks for the link!

Expand full comment

(David, her name is spelled "Ressa")

Expand full comment

Thanks!

Expand full comment

Me too, janjamm. I misspelled it as well. 🥴

Expand full comment

She gave a very powerful speech. Thank you for the link.

Expand full comment

I watched some of her speech. Very powerful and thanks for the link.

Expand full comment

Thank you, the dye is cast

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

Excuse me, RESSA.

We're always fussing about nonentities, showmen, showgirls, nutcases both political and corporate, the brilliantly brainy but stupid... like Musk and the Fbook's one-and-only Sugarloaf.

But here we have memorable human beings. And so, memorable names. Let's get them right...

Expand full comment

Thank you for the correction Peter.

Expand full comment

Oh Yes! Getting names right! I am humbled.

Expand full comment

And I'm really sorry, Janet, because I hate making that kind of correction. It's a translator and proofreader's professional hang-up...

Yet, just look at all the missprints -- and worse -- that I let through, and please be patient with me.

Expand full comment

Oh. Please don't be sorry, Peter. I am grateful for your correction. I deleted my comment after finding I was unable to edit it and felt the main point of it was to thank Mr. Souers for posting the link. I hoped he'd already seen my thanks. I was especially humbled as I formerly worked as a proofreader. "Formerly" being the operative word.

Expand full comment

Never thought that I would live to see this. My Dad and Uncles, long gone WWII veterans lied about their ages to enlist. They thought they had a duty to fight White Supremacy and oppression. They must be turning over in their Graves. My family didn't "cheer" Roe v Wade". They were humbly grateful that women would not need to die or be severely injured from "Alleyway Abortions". There was respect and humility at the dinner table when speaking of The Supreme Court. I'm 69 and find this country unrecognizable. Perhaps I was just a naive idiot marching in the 60's. My Parents (both Union Organizers at the Local Level would not recognize this Nation today. I'm afraid that I will die before some semblance of sanity returns. Apologies for the incoherent rant.

Expand full comment

Not incoherent in my view. Much more rational and reasoned than what is going on in my head this morning, which is laced with profanity and only my need for coffee keeps me from flinging my cup across the room. My folks were much the same way; my Dad enlisted at 25 to fight in WWII, and were strong union supporters. They were huge civil rights supporters (can't really say activists, because they were both serious introverts; no clue how they got two extroverted daughters) and staunch supporters of women's rights. (More parenthetical commentary; my Dad refused to use the phrase "women's rights" because he believed that there should be no difference in the rights of humans. Man, I miss him. Close to 35 years gone.)

Expand full comment

To your parents... ^

Expand full comment

"....we are standing on the rubble of the world that was...."

(Maria Reza, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, referring to comments by David Beasely, as quoted in That's Another Fine Mess)

Expand full comment

My mom didn’t “ cheer” Roe v Wade . She would have been 102 and was a proud WWII vet who was strongly pro-choice.She had adopted four children and rarely talked about her infertility, but fiercely believed in a woman’s right to choose. She was well aware that others would often judge her for her views.

Expand full comment

To you and your mother.

Expand full comment

Kathy, I echo Fern!

Here’s to Ally’s fine folks as well — “ there should be no difference in the rights of humans❣️“

Expand full comment

😀🎷😉👩🏽‍🤝‍👩🏽🦜👀🧙🏾‍♀️🦅🧑🏿‍🤝‍🧑🏿‍🤝‍🧑🏻👳🏾‍♂️💕☃️

Expand full comment

Fern this is a gorgeous image collection, thank you 🏆❤️

Expand full comment

My Parents....would not recognize this Nation today.

Oh but they would. They would remember Federally sponsored red-lining. The Federal Policy started under FDR that set aside those areas where blacks could live, and, only live there in both the north and the south.

They would remember segregation, both in the north and the south.

They would remember women as only either teachers or nurses, or, best: Homemakers.

They would remember all the girls taking "Homemaking" classes in high school.

The would remember that all professional workplaces were all white.

They would remember very well what America once was, and, what a lot of people want to see again.

Expand full comment

Yes, a lot of people want to see this again…a lot more than we’d like to believe. However, I want to believe we (the majority) will never allow us to go back to that. Each day that passes more of us are realizing our democracy is being dismantled. How many of us lived our lives in the belief that our democracy would always be there without any civic duty or thought on our part? We are waking up to the realization that inaction only allows others to strip our rights out from under us. Time to mobilize! Imagine if all Americans would at the very least, exercise their right to vote?

Expand full comment

I am mobilized and you can too. Find a way to join with local like minded folks.

Expand full comment

Oh WOW! Mike S., your list brings back clear memories of those days.

Expand full comment

Not incoherent at all. I concur with everything that you've said. I'm 72, and marched in the 60's also. I'm aghast at the rights being taken away from women. I'm terrified for my daughters and granddaughters that contraception is next.

Expand full comment

Contraception was *always* the target. Once they get rid of abortion, then "preventing god's will be done" is the next crime the theocracy wants over. I remember a very prescient guy (yeah - a guy) telling me 45 years ago when the "anti-Roe" movement was just getting underway that what they were really after was "Griswold v conn". Griswold was where the "implied right to privacy" was first enunciated.

Expand full comment

This terrifies me. Why must the majority, who support abortion rights and contraception, bend to the will of the very vocal minority, who have been trying to get rid of abortion since Roe and Casey were first decided? Some 60% (someone correct my numbers) of Americans believe that abortion should be a decision between a woman and her medical care provider. A woman should absolutely have the right to control her own body. Alternatively, imagine if the Supreme Court decided that all men must use condoms or have a vasectomy.

Expand full comment

Actually, it wasn't until around circa 1978 that the "(Im)Moral" "Majority" got started when Jerry Falwell Sr. needed to find a way to attract people to help his "seg academy" that became "Liberty" University that the Xtian right discovered they were against abortion.

Expand full comment

I understand you clearly. Not incoherent at all. Anger makes us think sometimes that we’re not thinking clearly. I share this anger. We’re the same age. I fear for my children and grandchildren.

Expand full comment

My dad was a staunch Republican, even voted for Goldwater, but I believe even he would be upset at the current Republican Party. He was also an attorney and firmly believed in the rule of law.

My mother was 17 when Hitler took her country and lived through WWII in Austria. She was very upset when “no knock warrants” were legalized in the “war on drugs”. She commented “This is how it begins.”

Expand full comment

d017, My dad and uncle same-same, + Korea. My dad is spinning in his grave at about 600 RPM. If you’re incoherent then we all are. Shields Up!

Expand full comment

You must have a different definition of "incoherent" from the rest of us. :-)

"Incoherent" is what TFG does.

Expand full comment

You were not naive for marching in the 60’s. You actually participated in one of the greatest social movements in human history. And your parents and uncles must have been really cool people too. Thanks for sharing.

Expand full comment

Originalism is a sham. The partisan hacks on the Supreme Court wield it enthusiastically when denying reproductive rights, or environmental regulation. At the same time they conveniently forget originalism when extending “free speech” and religious rights to corporations. Originalism is a lofty-sounding, phony excuse for imposing a partisan, regressive, theocratic ideology on Americans.

Expand full comment

Originalism is an other attempt to reverse the decision of the Civil War. As Prof. Richardson makes so clear (on many occasions), the post-Civil War amendments, particularly the 14th, were a second Declaration of Independence--at declaration that all men (and, eventually, women) really are equal. The originalists may not admit it, but by harking back to 1787 and ignorning 1868, they want to overcome the Union triumph of 1861-65.

Expand full comment

Agreed. “Originalism” is a phony cover for return to whites-superior males-superior pre-Lincoln society of lynching with impunity and women without any legal rights or voice.

Expand full comment

Hi, Roland! Hearted this because so sadly true, as Kim replied below.

Expand full comment

True-true

Expand full comment

JR, you betcha. Truth.

Expand full comment

Suppose a liberal state like New York or California were to create a law that put a $10,000 bounty on the heads of anyone misusing a gun (or even owning a gun) and gave individual citizens the right to take action against gun owning individuals? How would the SC rule in that case? Have I got that analogy right?

Expand full comment

Very nice. Hand wringing and worry gets old. I like creative thinking. 🏆🏆

Expand full comment

Spot on. You have that analogy 100%.

Expand full comment

Ok! Then what Democratic state legislature should we urge to make such a law? I thought of Mass, my original home state, but there’s a Republican Governor there. Vermont? Any ideas?

Expand full comment

I think California is the best bet. They are already so anti-firearms that it would probably fly.

Expand full comment

Thanks Ally. I was wondering if there is a small “dark horse” state like Rhode Island that you never read about in the news that could come out of nowhere and shock the nation. California would be expected - could there be a surprise state?

Expand full comment

Connecticut, the site of the murder of 20 first-graders and six adults, nine years ago this month, might join such a movement.

Expand full comment

We already have safe storage laws as applied to children's access, as do many states, but as in many states they are not always applied consistently. When a child dies as a result of a parent's negligent storage, often the parent is not prosecuted because they "have suffered enough already." That has to end. Here's a site where you can quickly find the safe storages laws for your state. https://giffords.org/lawcenter/gun-laws/policy-areas/child-consumer-safety/child-access-prevention/

Expand full comment

California is not nearly as anti-gun and pro-democratic institution as our reputation suggests. Our assembly cannot even figure out how to implement the No-More-Clock-Changing referendum voters passed nearly five years ago. The power of county boards of supervisors here rivals that of many states, and most are riven with so-called conservatives. Though I think your suggestion would out SCOTUS most duplicitous justices, I don't calculate that California is your daisy.

Expand full comment

clock-changing is dependent upon congresscritters for approval

Washington and Oregon also have no more clock changing on the books...waiting on Godot

Expand full comment

Gov. Baker is not running for re-election. Maura Healy, our Democratic AG, is poised to run and could likely win. So don’t rule out Mass.

Expand full comment

But Baker of MA. will soon be Out!!!

Expand full comment

MA still has some of the nation's toughest gun laws, with or without the current Gov.

Expand full comment

An ABSOLUTELY GREAT IDEA.

I am writing my Congressman now.

Expand full comment

No, I am writing Kathy Hochul instead.

Expand full comment

Clarence Thomas already addressed that by saying that gun rights are protected by the second amendment. The inconsistency doesn't bother him.

Expand full comment

Yes, but what if enforcement were given to ordinary citizens with a bounty?

Expand full comment

50 years ago SCOTUS said that abortion was a constitutional right, too. If that can turn on a dime, so can gun rights.

Expand full comment

Maddow said it last evening

Expand full comment

Love this! ❤️

Expand full comment

That point was raised in the argument over SB 8 earlier, and the reactionaries will have to deal with it if they ultimately seek to uphold it. But the dec this week has done much damage that overturning that one statute will not undo.

Expand full comment

Here's a start by CA Gov. Newsom on 12/11/2021:

"If states can shield their laws from review by federal courts, then CA will use that authority to help protect lives.

We will work to create the ability for private citizens to sue anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in CA."

https://twitter.com/CAgovernor/status/1469865007517089798?s=20

Expand full comment

Wonderful! thanks for the posting.

Expand full comment

Lightweights, the scum SCOTUS have not considered the consequences

Expand full comment

The consequences were drawn to their attention by a brief filed by a pro-gun group against the Texas law, precisely because they saw this coming. The Stench Court doesn't care about consequences.

Expand full comment

ILLINOIS

Expand full comment

Sounds like the making of a nationwide Armageddon. Whoever has the most guns wins.

Expand full comment

I wonder if other readers are as fed up as I am with extreme right wing victories that sabotage democracy, women's right to control their own bodies, safety in schools, control over the pandemic, containment of Russian imperialism- the list could be longer. I would vote for Joe Biden a million times over any Republican but sometimes I wish for a far more aggressive, crusading, take it to you, do or die approach to bills such as the For the People Act. What I'm saying is that I'd like to hear stronger language and stronger resolve from our current democratic leadership. No more tut- tutting from the sidelines but a wake-up call that gets everyone's attention.

Expand full comment

His aim is clearly to re-establish normal, almost forgotten standards by leading through example. Number 1: no shouting, blustering or vulgar language. He's got stamina - he's withstood a terrible battering this year. To a recent press question, "I don't think about the previous president," with a laugh, as he turns, waving goodbye.

Expand full comment

Yes, I smiled when he said that!

Expand full comment

Let me add my truck driver voice to the chorus:

This $hit has got to stop.

Expand full comment

Amen!

Expand full comment

Well, since you put it that way ...

Expand full comment