Here's my Christmas letter to Chief Justice Roberts and a similar one to Justice Sotomayor. Enjoy!
The Honorable Chief Justice John G. Roberts
The Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543
Dear Chief Justice Roberts,
On this Christmas Day 2021, I feel the most important thing I can do is write to you and Justice Sotomayor on my concerns with the loss of democracy in many states and the United States Supreme Court's role in dismantling our republican form of government. Texas, the state I live in, is now an autocracy under minority rule and is blatantly and with audacity taking away my Constitutional rights.
First, I'd like to commend you for your courage and fortitude in speaking up on the Solemn Mockery now hanging over the Supreme Court. I also commend Justice Sotomayor for her statement on the stench permeating the current state of the Supreme Court.
Three points I'd like to call to your attention:
1. Rulings of the ilk of Citizens United which says money is free speech and corporations have the same rights as people are basically legalized bribery of elected representatives. Ninety-five percent of the time they now vote with their donors ignoring the wishes of the People which has made the United States into an oligarchic kleptocracy, no longer a democratic republic.
2. The gutting of the Voting Rights Act in 2013 stating that pre-clearance was no longer needed has led to extreme partisan discriminatory gerrymandering and voter suppression to assure the minority rulers stay in power assuring autocratic rule for decades to come.
3. The recent rulings by the Supreme Court on the Texas anti-abortion vigilante injustice law seem to be based on anticipating the overturn of the Roe v. Wade precedence and totally ignoring the existing Constitutional Rights of women. In my opinion, that means the Supreme Court is in Contempt of the Constitution.
While I'm not a lawyer, I am a concerned citizen who carries a copy of the U.S. Constitution with me at all times and refers to it frequently. I'm finding so many of the questions and arguments being made in recent hearings fallacious.
1. I want to hear the answers to Justice Sotomayor's fine and relevant questions about why the rights of a potential person, a fetus, is given total priority over the rights of an existing person, the pregnant woman, no matter what the risk is to her. No exceptions. My sister was a Type 1 diabetic and giving birth put her life in a precarious situation. She chose to have two sons but at great risk to her life and the life of the babies. Saying she has no choice and the government decides in a situation like this is simply cruel and inhumane. Justice Barrett's contention that is no problem to carry a fetus to term and then you can just throw away your parental responsibility by dumping the baby at the nearest fire station makes me sick. For me, Roe v. Wade strikes a fair and just balance protecting both the woman and the developing fetus.
2. I bristle when Justice Gorsuch points out the word "abortion" isn't in the Constitution and therefore the Supreme Court should just be silent about abortion. Neither is the word "woman"! So that means women have no rights under the Constitution at all?
The Guarantee Cause seems to me the relevant clause here -- that a Republican form of government (by the People or their freely elected representatives) is guaranteed in every state by the United States Constitution.
3. I bristle at the vigilante injustice Texas is invoking to get around the Constitution. That means the rich bounty hunters get to bankrupt people who can't afford to defend themselves whether they are innocent or not. This isn't Justice; it's anarchy. All rights are now at risk across the United States.
4. I believe that two of the last three Justices joining the Court are illegitimate because of then Majority Leader McConnell's contempt of the Constitution and due process and the third is unqualified. Justice Gorsuch and Justice Barrett should not be on the Court after those shenanigans. Justice Kavanaugh would have had his nomination pulled if he had been a woman blubbering in the hearings like he did. I also feel, Justice Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh should be recused from any ruling on women's rights even if justice has not yet been served on the credible claims of sexual harassment.
In conclusion, I find the Supreme Court of the United States in Contempt of the Constitution of the United States for being an anti-democratic, anti -republican force leading toward the imminent demise of the experiment with democracy. I keep thinking about women scorned and how the country will erupt when the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.
That's the legacy of the current Supreme Court - your legacy! I so hope you can turn it around to the Supreme Court who saves our American democratic republic. In addition, it may be notorious for being the first Court to take away rights rather than expand them.
Please stay strong and use a lot of air freshener! I admire you greatly.
Respectfully but emphatically,
Catherine Learoyd
We, the People, all of us this time!
In Texas, where a virus has reproductive rights and a woman doesn't!
Cathy, I cannot think of a single word of this letter I would change or add to. It is powerful and extremely well crafted. As others have, I urge you to submit it as an opinion column to at least one national publication for publishing. I understand the challenge of getting such a piece published and suggest you reach out to a well recognized figure such as a respected progressive Texas political figure or university professor to write a letter in support of publishing this piece or perhaps even listing them as a coauthor for its submission. It may increase the chance of its publication in the NY Times or Washington Post.
I'm not sure that's a good idea. I think that would be an obvious ploy. I also think it's extremely compelling and I think it would have a good chance of being published. I ***could*** see getting someone with a name to send it somewhere, FOR Cathy, simply saying they read HCR and this was among the comments, and they thought it merited publication, but making it clear it's Cathy's. But even that might not be necessary.
The Washington Post oped submission form does ask for both the author and the submitter separately. In any case, the letter must stand on its own merits.
Isn't it interesting that corporations and fetuses are "persons" but the rest of us don't matter, particularly if female or black. We need to shout loudly and often that we do matter, such as you have done in this letter. Thank you.
For purposes of litigation corporations are considered persons in order to allow them to be sued or to sue. However how that got morphed into other legal issues like voting rights and donating to political campaigns Is to my way of thinking too broad a use of that legal construct to consider them “persons”.
Cathy! This letter is so compelling! I couldn’t stop reading! (I can’t stop using exclamation points, either, apparently!)
I agree with Michele L-R, you should submit this to some publications. This is brilliant. Someone thanked you for putting their thoughts into words, and my immediate thought was, I wish I had the intelligence and writing skills to have these coherent, compelling thoughts to put into words. But I can recognize their righteousness! And so could many readers if this could be published somewhere.
Your letter was wonderful to read. Thank you for your stellar effort. I hope to see it soon in LTTEs across the nation. An aside: I wonder if you think it was appropriate and necessary for SCJ Thomas to recuse himself in all cases involving groups with which his wife, Ginni, has prominently figured in fund raising and leadership for decades and from which those groups would stand to gain immense benefits from favorable SCJ decisions involving them? Ginni Thomas' active leadership and fundraising for right wing conservative (as I understand it, often extreme "Christian" organizations) is rather akin to her husband sitting on the court with three day old fish in his lap. Her right to full freedom to exercise her duties and privileges of US citizenry should not, IMHO, override the expectation of US citizens to "blind" justice, a full and unbiased consideration of the issues to come before SCOTUS. In this case, the appearance of bias is unavoidable. Surely, SCJ Thomas should be obligated to remove himself from the case. Why this is not happening in this case and others is a problem for me. I wonder how others feel about this, especially you, Cathy, since your letter is so carefully and thoughtfully crafted?
To me that would be self-evident for him to recuse himself when there is a clear conflict of interest as is expected in every other court in the nation. This is something that needs to be clarified as a result of tfg's flagrant disregard for the law. I once had a District Court Judge tell me that we would be OK if the Rule of Law held. I'd love to ask him today if the Rule of Law has held. Certainly not in the Supreme Court although I do see tfg's appointed judges upholding the law and taking seriously their oath to the Constitution and not to an individual. But, the rule of law has the same problem with the oligarchy kleptocracy where the rich aren't held accountable while especially minorities get more punishment than would be fair in a fair system. And, this vigilante injustice that Texas is putting in place is as horrendous as taking away women's rights. In fact, it gives states a way around Constitutional rights so all our rights are now in jeopardy.
Cathy, Thank you for an extremely well written summary of some of the most severe and persistent problems America now faces. Everyone should read this clear summary.
But, I do have a question for you?
How can Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Sotomayor help outside of writing dissenting opinions when they have them?
It seems to me that the Republicans "play to win" while, in some ways, Democrats sleep at the wheel. Ginsburg's ego would not let her retire under Obama, right? Whereas Scalia picked a nice resort down in Texas to vanish himself into the ether under a Republican.
We demonize McConnell for not allowing a vote on Merrick Garland, but, honestly, the current structure of US law enables him to do that and Democrats should be playing the same game instead of whining and crying about somebody who is playing to WIN.
At any rate, your writing is quite honestly a must read summary, but, ALL Democrats should read it and get their veritable "arses" in gear and stop whining about Republicans playing to win and GET IN THE GAME and play to WIN.
A way for Biden to do this, and, the Democrats, is to immediately and forthwith return to majority rule and get rid of the filibuster and laugh at any Republican who whines and complains and then tell them, aye, we are going to win. You? Republican whiner? Are going to lose.
I don't think your collective opinion of Democrats is accurate. Democrats are doing good things and doing them within the framework of the law, as the impeachments and Jan 6 investigation reveal. To stoop to renegade tactics is to become the problem. I think that good prevails, ultimately. Indeed, as today's substack letter tells us, the problem is deep with powerful, even criminal elements that are deeply entrenched in our country and our body politic. Small voices of individual citizens, such as this letter will have an impact if enough of us rally.
Yes, the Democrats are doing excellent things but not getting credit for them partly because they are using good messaging and partly the way the media has to cover controversy rather than the positive. Listen to Representative Jayapal, head of the House Progressive caucus for excellent messaging. Other Democrats should follow her lead.
Hope, I completely agree with you. May I simply add that I believe our Democratic leaders have indeed acted with deliberate brilliance — while republicans are perverting the laws to destroy the law, democrats are using the law in order save Democracy. I also believe that millions of democratic (I can’t figure out when to capitalize the party names) voters are still not energized, which weakens our leaders in D.C. and state capitals. Our leaders need us voters more solidly behind them in this crucial hour! Thank you for your comment. May you be well.
Our leaders need our votes to be counted. In Repugnant Party states, that is no longer a guarantee. DO WE HAVE A FEDERAL VOTING RIGHTS LAW? Only 11 months before the next election, WTF are the Dems waiting for?
Hi Gus, Here is my little essay on you capitalization question:
small "d", small "r"
In our bifurcated political world, we have two major political parties - Democrats with a capital D and Republicans with a capital R. As John Adams warned when he said "a two-party system would be the greatest evil to befall the Constitution", these two parties now represent an ever more extreme left and extreme right and, I'll posit, leaving the vast moderate middle without representation. On Inauguration Day for President Biden, a Gallup Poll showed party affiliation as 25% Republican, 50% Independent and 25% Democrat. Are we forgetting what small r republic and small d democracy mean? The United States is a constitutional democratic republic, "if we can keep it", as Benjamin Franklin said coming out of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
Small d democracy (from Greek dēmos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule’) is defined as government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. Another definition of democracy is a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. Stockholm-based International IDEA think tank has rated the United States as a back-sliding democracy.
A small r republic (from Latin res publica 'public affair') is a form of government in which "supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives". In republics, the country is considered a "public matter", not the private concern or property of the rulers. Our Constitution in Article 4 Section 4 states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government ... " This is a guarantee!
Instead of over-emphasizing the "OR", let's see our country as the "AND" of small d democracy and small r republicanism. Let's talk to each other and discuss our common values in civilized discourse. I believe in Synergy, meaning together we can come up with better solutions if we consider our many perspectives rather than declaring one as inherently better than the other.
To quote the late, great, Ray Charles: “Hallelujah, I just love her so!”
A deep and most respectful bow to Ms Catherine Learoyd, and to her awesome Constitutional scholarship!
Of the many debts of gratitude we owe the Founders, we must include their more profound and prophetic utterances. Few of their statements can be considered more impactful than that of John Adams: “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.” (That’s the version that I have.)
And our nation’s “Father”, George Washington warned: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”
However you slice it, there were those among the Founders who feared the end result of “two-partyism”. We can now view––and experience––the end product for ourselves.
I think Cathy is on to something when she counsels, “Let's talk to each other and discuss our common values in civilized discourse. I believe in Synergy, meaning together we can come up with better solutions if we consider our many perspectives rather than declaring one as inherently better than the other.”
Hear, hear, dear Cathy! E pluribus unum, that unofficial motto of our nation, inscribed on its Great Seal, says it all. “Out of Many, One.” In other words, from disunity––the clamor of many ideas and opinions––to unity! That is: the melding of various lesser perspectives into one concept that is greater than the sum of its parts.
I don’t think we have enough “Band-aids” to heal our broken nation and its peoples. And I don’t believe that the ultimate remedy will come forth from the District of Columbia!
Only “We, the People, all of us this time”, can concoct the balm with the power to mend our broken body politic.
Thank you for your kind words, Bill. I'll give you the Kansas state motto as our next step: Ad astra per aspera. To the stars through difficulties! Let's reach for stars! All of us this time.
Since we just talked about Digital Equipment Corporation, here is a bit of trivia. John Adams, the first born of the first born of the first born ... descendant of Founder John Adams was a Vice President at Digital and lived in Concord, Massachusetts. One question I haven't figured out is what do you call a follower/supporter of Adams and his writings -- an Adamsist?
He blocked Scalia’s replacement for basically a year. I think McConnell’s game playing with the Scalia replacement, Gorsuch, was dereliction of duty. But the Republicans have shown that that oaths of office are worthless without someone to hold the officeholders accountable. The Republicans have no shame. They don’t care when their hypocrisy is displayed for all the world to see.
Thank you, Michael, To answer your question, Chief Justice Roberts has his legacy to consider. This is the Roberts Court. He does not want the demise of democracy on his watch. I see him trying to balance the court's rulings. He is clearly frustrated with the current shenanigans of "his" Court. Because this a very politically influenced Court, they will be influenced by public opinion at least to some degree. Maybe that will be choosing to modifying Roe v. Wade versus throwing it out all together. Both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Sotomayor are showing the courage to speak up which is unusual for SC Justices. I want to applaud them and encourage them in that. They need the support of all of us, the People! And, this letter goes beyond the two recipients. The staff member who reads it may pass it on to other staff members. Hopefully, they'll pass it on to all the Justices as well. If SCOTUS does overturn Roe v. Wade, I do believe the eruption of women's voices is going to be a major factor in the November 2022 election. I believe the Texas Republicans don't realized what they are unleashing here. Even my very conservative Tea Party brother fully agrees with me on women's rights. He thought Governor Abbott's remark that he would make it his top priority to eliminate rape (therefore, no need for any exceptions in the anti-abortion law) from Texas was the stupidest thing he'd ever heard a politician say! So, perhaps we'll see action in the Senate (the House has already passed a Women's Rights bill) on Women's Rights or the make-up of the Court. Perhaps even censure Senator McConnell. Just because the Senate rules allows you to stretch them beyond ethical boundaries doesn't mean you should do so. And, then all the people here on LFAA who are saying this letter needs to be shared can snowball across the country and hopeful move people to action and even start a movement. One stone thrown into a pond can send out many ripples. I think of this letter and its shared copies as seeds being tossed out to find futile ground. Not all the seeds will find futile ground, but other places they will blossom into something beautiful!
Ah! Exactly where my mind went again! Good memory, Ellie! I cannot wait to get my writing spade out this morning and zing Cathy's letter to local papers, commentators, and many of our Vermont elected officials who who listen to The People. Time to seemingly frozen yet fertile terre firma that awaits our actions. "Ad astra per aspera. To the stars through difficulties! Let's reach for stars! All of us this time." I have so much gratitude to Heather and to all commenters here. I love this your inspiration as I begin my day!
It's a bit lengty for publication in such major papers (unless you have a "name"), but Cathy, consider submitting it to local publications in Texas, those beyond Dallas and Houston.
Dear Catherine... I just read HCR's piece and your response to my 83 year old mother. She says this is one hell of a letter that should be published for all to see (perhaps in a book that you author), and that you should run for office. I agree!
Thank you KC and thank your mother for such kind words. On running for office, I think I'd prefer more of a back room job like working on messaging and strategy.
Cathy, once again, every word simply brilliant. Common language, easy to understand, this could be a letter to the whole country. Thank you for your effort.
(Of course he WON'T listen- that might hurt his "reputation" w/ The Federalist Society and its corporate donors, which gave him his job. One might wonder if the money continues to flow now that he's Chief "Justice".)
Yes, BRILLIANT, Cathy!! And one of the most important pieces I have had the honor to read on our constitutional rights and their current sabotage by this "court" (not capitalizing it anymore). May I copy, post and credit you? Maybe we should ALL copy and send to each Supreme Court Justice, as well as to our own congresspeople. Democracy is being overruled.
I think she should try to get it published rather than simply sending it to Roberts. I think it will be much more powerful that way. And I think it will be published if she tries. Once it's published, people can cut it out of the publication and send it to Roberts. I would advise people not to send it as is to Roberts unless Cathy says she does not want to publish it.
In my year plus as a subscriber, I haven't seen any comment here that approaches the merit of this one. I mean, people have made plenty of good comments, but this one is eminently publishable (with minor edits that Cathy need not worry about).
Let this column not only give Roberts superb advice, but let it tell the world that the trump justices are illegitimate and that Barrett's incompetent.
Thank you so much for you kind words, David. Yes, I would like people to share this letter or write their own and share it widely. I have submitted to the Washington Post as an oped.
sharing ok. but high level publications specify that anything to be published must not have been posted somewhere--as in on FB, or in comments on articles in newspapers. (don't think it's a problem that it's been posted here, as I don't think they'd have any way of finding out that it's been posted here, but I think it WILL be published, and I think it's best to be careful until it is.
I dont' think it's a good idea to post this anywhere. Most high level publications stipulate that they won't print anything that has been posted somewhere.
This is an interesting point, David. I will wait to hear from Cathy once it is published and then send it out. But it is difficult to not want to shout it from the rooftops...
I use to submit a readers response question to the WSJ 10-point column when they were asking big issue questions like what did you think of tfg's first budget. Here is what I said. It's a hoot to be quoted in the WSJ!
March, 2017: “Mr. Trump’s budget proposal is one I would expect from some third-world, despot dictator who has no empathy for the well-being of its citizenry. This does not make us safer since it encourages an arms race; it does make us dumber by devaluing the arts and science. The world loses because climate catastrophe can only be diverted by world cooperation. In buying Mr. Trump’s narcissistic, vindictive reality, Earth is headed for the failure of its experiment with civilization. If I have a choice between Sesame Street and another new fighter, I choose the Big Bird that doesn’t fly or carry nuclear weapons.”
AMEN...! I am old now too but hey, I'll take 85 to mean "middle-age". Angry that women are constantly being trampled on. If men would think with their tiny brains instead of their lower extremities, they'd realize that without women, they wouldn't even exist. I do believe that is why you see our birthing population decreasing here in the U.S.. Women cannot afford to have children and they do not want to raise them in this very volatile society. Can't blame them and that's why the issue of getting a safe abortion or getting ahold of the abortion pill is so crucial to their continued existence.
Roberts is no longer the center balance point of SCOTUS, so why should he bother to do anything? Even when he was the supposed balance point, he went along w/ allowing Citizens United and Shelby v. Holder; both of those decisions are a direct result of his being Chief Justice. As far as judicial reform, that won't happen either if the R's take back the Senate. The ultra right wing of SCOTUS is now in charge and we can expect that things will get much worse for women, POC., and non-Christians. We already know that if the R's take the Senate, they will do anything to keep any nominee from being appointed if Biden were to choose anyone but a ultra RW nominee. They've got a definite bad faith record. As far as Justice Sotomayor, currently she's one of only 3 liberal justices; The balance will be 7-2 if Breyer retires/dies, even if Biden is still in office. God help all of us when that happens if Republicans win back the Senate and/or Presidency. Gotta keep the RW white "christian" men happy, right? S/
I love everything you wrote except the air freshener part, because they’re made with many problematic chemicals which are allowed because of regulation loopholes.
Loopholes given as a gift to the Flavors & Fragrances Industry which polices itself (just like our police and look how well that is working out).
Now scented products are one the biggest contributors of indoor AND outdoor air pollution.
Hi Lisa, I didn't know that about the Flavors & Fragrances Industry. Thank you for the education! I always use Scent-free and Fragrance-free products. Can't stand the fragrance added to anything. Just needed some way express getting rid of the stench. I'll keep this in mind from now on.
Here's my Christmas letter to Chief Justice Roberts and a similar one to Justice Sotomayor. Enjoy!
The Honorable Chief Justice John G. Roberts
The Supreme Court of the United States
One First Street N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20543
Dear Chief Justice Roberts,
On this Christmas Day 2021, I feel the most important thing I can do is write to you and Justice Sotomayor on my concerns with the loss of democracy in many states and the United States Supreme Court's role in dismantling our republican form of government. Texas, the state I live in, is now an autocracy under minority rule and is blatantly and with audacity taking away my Constitutional rights.
First, I'd like to commend you for your courage and fortitude in speaking up on the Solemn Mockery now hanging over the Supreme Court. I also commend Justice Sotomayor for her statement on the stench permeating the current state of the Supreme Court.
Three points I'd like to call to your attention:
1. Rulings of the ilk of Citizens United which says money is free speech and corporations have the same rights as people are basically legalized bribery of elected representatives. Ninety-five percent of the time they now vote with their donors ignoring the wishes of the People which has made the United States into an oligarchic kleptocracy, no longer a democratic republic.
2. The gutting of the Voting Rights Act in 2013 stating that pre-clearance was no longer needed has led to extreme partisan discriminatory gerrymandering and voter suppression to assure the minority rulers stay in power assuring autocratic rule for decades to come.
3. The recent rulings by the Supreme Court on the Texas anti-abortion vigilante injustice law seem to be based on anticipating the overturn of the Roe v. Wade precedence and totally ignoring the existing Constitutional Rights of women. In my opinion, that means the Supreme Court is in Contempt of the Constitution.
While I'm not a lawyer, I am a concerned citizen who carries a copy of the U.S. Constitution with me at all times and refers to it frequently. I'm finding so many of the questions and arguments being made in recent hearings fallacious.
1. I want to hear the answers to Justice Sotomayor's fine and relevant questions about why the rights of a potential person, a fetus, is given total priority over the rights of an existing person, the pregnant woman, no matter what the risk is to her. No exceptions. My sister was a Type 1 diabetic and giving birth put her life in a precarious situation. She chose to have two sons but at great risk to her life and the life of the babies. Saying she has no choice and the government decides in a situation like this is simply cruel and inhumane. Justice Barrett's contention that is no problem to carry a fetus to term and then you can just throw away your parental responsibility by dumping the baby at the nearest fire station makes me sick. For me, Roe v. Wade strikes a fair and just balance protecting both the woman and the developing fetus.
2. I bristle when Justice Gorsuch points out the word "abortion" isn't in the Constitution and therefore the Supreme Court should just be silent about abortion. Neither is the word "woman"! So that means women have no rights under the Constitution at all?
The Guarantee Cause seems to me the relevant clause here -- that a Republican form of government (by the People or their freely elected representatives) is guaranteed in every state by the United States Constitution.
3. I bristle at the vigilante injustice Texas is invoking to get around the Constitution. That means the rich bounty hunters get to bankrupt people who can't afford to defend themselves whether they are innocent or not. This isn't Justice; it's anarchy. All rights are now at risk across the United States.
4. I believe that two of the last three Justices joining the Court are illegitimate because of then Majority Leader McConnell's contempt of the Constitution and due process and the third is unqualified. Justice Gorsuch and Justice Barrett should not be on the Court after those shenanigans. Justice Kavanaugh would have had his nomination pulled if he had been a woman blubbering in the hearings like he did. I also feel, Justice Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh should be recused from any ruling on women's rights even if justice has not yet been served on the credible claims of sexual harassment.
In conclusion, I find the Supreme Court of the United States in Contempt of the Constitution of the United States for being an anti-democratic, anti -republican force leading toward the imminent demise of the experiment with democracy. I keep thinking about women scorned and how the country will erupt when the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.
That's the legacy of the current Supreme Court - your legacy! I so hope you can turn it around to the Supreme Court who saves our American democratic republic. In addition, it may be notorious for being the first Court to take away rights rather than expand them.
Please stay strong and use a lot of air freshener! I admire you greatly.
Respectfully but emphatically,
Catherine Learoyd
We, the People, all of us this time!
In Texas, where a virus has reproductive rights and a woman doesn't!
Cathy, I cannot think of a single word of this letter I would change or add to. It is powerful and extremely well crafted. As others have, I urge you to submit it as an opinion column to at least one national publication for publishing. I understand the challenge of getting such a piece published and suggest you reach out to a well recognized figure such as a respected progressive Texas political figure or university professor to write a letter in support of publishing this piece or perhaps even listing them as a coauthor for its submission. It may increase the chance of its publication in the NY Times or Washington Post.
Thank you, BruceC. I have submitted it as an oped to the Washington Post.
YAYAY!!
Perhaps even Dr. Richardson may agree to support its publication?
Yes !
HEAR! HEAR!
Yes !
I'm not sure that's a good idea. I think that would be an obvious ploy. I also think it's extremely compelling and I think it would have a good chance of being published. I ***could*** see getting someone with a name to send it somewhere, FOR Cathy, simply saying they read HCR and this was among the comments, and they thought it merited publication, but making it clear it's Cathy's. But even that might not be necessary.
The Washington Post oped submission form does ask for both the author and the submitter separately. In any case, the letter must stand on its own merits.
What you said has all the merits it needs.
Isn't it interesting that corporations and fetuses are "persons" but the rest of us don't matter, particularly if female or black. We need to shout loudly and often that we do matter, such as you have done in this letter. Thank you.
For purposes of litigation corporations are considered persons in order to allow them to be sued or to sue. However how that got morphed into other legal issues like voting rights and donating to political campaigns Is to my way of thinking too broad a use of that legal construct to consider them “persons”.
Yes, only power matters and their privileges.
Cathy! This letter is so compelling! I couldn’t stop reading! (I can’t stop using exclamation points, either, apparently!)
I agree with Michele L-R, you should submit this to some publications. This is brilliant. Someone thanked you for putting their thoughts into words, and my immediate thought was, I wish I had the intelligence and writing skills to have these coherent, compelling thoughts to put into words. But I can recognize their righteousness! And so could many readers if this could be published somewhere.
BRAVA!! BRAVA!!
!!!!!!!!!!!! Helps all of us that Cathy Learoyd is President of her area League of Women Voters in Texas. So accurate and powerful!
Although I'm speaking for myself in this letter, I do believe it is largely consistent with the League's advocacy positions on its major points.
Thank you for your kind words! Please share it as widely as you can.
Your letter was wonderful to read. Thank you for your stellar effort. I hope to see it soon in LTTEs across the nation. An aside: I wonder if you think it was appropriate and necessary for SCJ Thomas to recuse himself in all cases involving groups with which his wife, Ginni, has prominently figured in fund raising and leadership for decades and from which those groups would stand to gain immense benefits from favorable SCJ decisions involving them? Ginni Thomas' active leadership and fundraising for right wing conservative (as I understand it, often extreme "Christian" organizations) is rather akin to her husband sitting on the court with three day old fish in his lap. Her right to full freedom to exercise her duties and privileges of US citizenry should not, IMHO, override the expectation of US citizens to "blind" justice, a full and unbiased consideration of the issues to come before SCOTUS. In this case, the appearance of bias is unavoidable. Surely, SCJ Thomas should be obligated to remove himself from the case. Why this is not happening in this case and others is a problem for me. I wonder how others feel about this, especially you, Cathy, since your letter is so carefully and thoughtfully crafted?
To me that would be self-evident for him to recuse himself when there is a clear conflict of interest as is expected in every other court in the nation. This is something that needs to be clarified as a result of tfg's flagrant disregard for the law. I once had a District Court Judge tell me that we would be OK if the Rule of Law held. I'd love to ask him today if the Rule of Law has held. Certainly not in the Supreme Court although I do see tfg's appointed judges upholding the law and taking seriously their oath to the Constitution and not to an individual. But, the rule of law has the same problem with the oligarchy kleptocracy where the rich aren't held accountable while especially minorities get more punishment than would be fair in a fair system. And, this vigilante injustice that Texas is putting in place is as horrendous as taking away women's rights. In fact, it gives states a way around Constitutional rights so all our rights are now in jeopardy.
Cathy, Thank you for an extremely well written summary of some of the most severe and persistent problems America now faces. Everyone should read this clear summary.
But, I do have a question for you?
How can Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Sotomayor help outside of writing dissenting opinions when they have them?
It seems to me that the Republicans "play to win" while, in some ways, Democrats sleep at the wheel. Ginsburg's ego would not let her retire under Obama, right? Whereas Scalia picked a nice resort down in Texas to vanish himself into the ether under a Republican.
We demonize McConnell for not allowing a vote on Merrick Garland, but, honestly, the current structure of US law enables him to do that and Democrats should be playing the same game instead of whining and crying about somebody who is playing to WIN.
At any rate, your writing is quite honestly a must read summary, but, ALL Democrats should read it and get their veritable "arses" in gear and stop whining about Republicans playing to win and GET IN THE GAME and play to WIN.
A way for Biden to do this, and, the Democrats, is to immediately and forthwith return to majority rule and get rid of the filibuster and laugh at any Republican who whines and complains and then tell them, aye, we are going to win. You? Republican whiner? Are going to lose.
I don't think your collective opinion of Democrats is accurate. Democrats are doing good things and doing them within the framework of the law, as the impeachments and Jan 6 investigation reveal. To stoop to renegade tactics is to become the problem. I think that good prevails, ultimately. Indeed, as today's substack letter tells us, the problem is deep with powerful, even criminal elements that are deeply entrenched in our country and our body politic. Small voices of individual citizens, such as this letter will have an impact if enough of us rally.
Yes, the Democrats are doing excellent things but not getting credit for them partly because they are using good messaging and partly the way the media has to cover controversy rather than the positive. Listen to Representative Jayapal, head of the House Progressive caucus for excellent messaging. Other Democrats should follow her lead.
Hope, I completely agree with you. May I simply add that I believe our Democratic leaders have indeed acted with deliberate brilliance — while republicans are perverting the laws to destroy the law, democrats are using the law in order save Democracy. I also believe that millions of democratic (I can’t figure out when to capitalize the party names) voters are still not energized, which weakens our leaders in D.C. and state capitals. Our leaders need us voters more solidly behind them in this crucial hour! Thank you for your comment. May you be well.
Our leaders need our votes to be counted. In Repugnant Party states, that is no longer a guarantee. DO WE HAVE A FEDERAL VOTING RIGHTS LAW? Only 11 months before the next election, WTF are the Dems waiting for?
Hi Gus, Here is my little essay on you capitalization question:
small "d", small "r"
In our bifurcated political world, we have two major political parties - Democrats with a capital D and Republicans with a capital R. As John Adams warned when he said "a two-party system would be the greatest evil to befall the Constitution", these two parties now represent an ever more extreme left and extreme right and, I'll posit, leaving the vast moderate middle without representation. On Inauguration Day for President Biden, a Gallup Poll showed party affiliation as 25% Republican, 50% Independent and 25% Democrat. Are we forgetting what small r republic and small d democracy mean? The United States is a constitutional democratic republic, "if we can keep it", as Benjamin Franklin said coming out of the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
Small d democracy (from Greek dēmos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule’) is defined as government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. Another definition of democracy is a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. Stockholm-based International IDEA think tank has rated the United States as a back-sliding democracy.
A small r republic (from Latin res publica 'public affair') is a form of government in which "supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives". In republics, the country is considered a "public matter", not the private concern or property of the rulers. Our Constitution in Article 4 Section 4 states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government ... " This is a guarantee!
Instead of over-emphasizing the "OR", let's see our country as the "AND" of small d democracy and small r republicanism. Let's talk to each other and discuss our common values in civilized discourse. I believe in Synergy, meaning together we can come up with better solutions if we consider our many perspectives rather than declaring one as inherently better than the other.
To quote the late, great, Ray Charles: “Hallelujah, I just love her so!”
A deep and most respectful bow to Ms Catherine Learoyd, and to her awesome Constitutional scholarship!
Of the many debts of gratitude we owe the Founders, we must include their more profound and prophetic utterances. Few of their statements can be considered more impactful than that of John Adams: “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.” (That’s the version that I have.)
And our nation’s “Father”, George Washington warned: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”
However you slice it, there were those among the Founders who feared the end result of “two-partyism”. We can now view––and experience––the end product for ourselves.
I think Cathy is on to something when she counsels, “Let's talk to each other and discuss our common values in civilized discourse. I believe in Synergy, meaning together we can come up with better solutions if we consider our many perspectives rather than declaring one as inherently better than the other.”
Hear, hear, dear Cathy! E pluribus unum, that unofficial motto of our nation, inscribed on its Great Seal, says it all. “Out of Many, One.” In other words, from disunity––the clamor of many ideas and opinions––to unity! That is: the melding of various lesser perspectives into one concept that is greater than the sum of its parts.
I don’t think we have enough “Band-aids” to heal our broken nation and its peoples. And I don’t believe that the ultimate remedy will come forth from the District of Columbia!
Only “We, the People, all of us this time”, can concoct the balm with the power to mend our broken body politic.
Thank you for your kind words, Bill. I'll give you the Kansas state motto as our next step: Ad astra per aspera. To the stars through difficulties! Let's reach for stars! All of us this time.
Since we just talked about Digital Equipment Corporation, here is a bit of trivia. John Adams, the first born of the first born of the first born ... descendant of Founder John Adams was a Vice President at Digital and lived in Concord, Massachusetts. One question I haven't figured out is what do you call a follower/supporter of Adams and his writings -- an Adamsist?
"... republicans are perverting the laws to destroy the law, ..."
Perfectly stated, Gus.
Understood.
This, Hope. Exactly.
Justice Scalia left the court because he died. McConnell would have blocked a nomination for Ginsburg's replacement under Obama.
He blocked Scalia’s replacement for basically a year. I think McConnell’s game playing with the Scalia replacement, Gorsuch, was dereliction of duty. But the Republicans have shown that that oaths of office are worthless without someone to hold the officeholders accountable. The Republicans have no shame. They don’t care when their hypocrisy is displayed for all the world to see.
Joan, you make two very real points. Thank you.
He is dead. No doubt. How that occurred remains unknown.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/16/donald-trump-antonin-scalia-death-conspiracy-theories
Justice Scalia’s family declared natural causes for his death. The conspiracy theories otherwise come from known peddlers of fiction.
Thank you, Michael, To answer your question, Chief Justice Roberts has his legacy to consider. This is the Roberts Court. He does not want the demise of democracy on his watch. I see him trying to balance the court's rulings. He is clearly frustrated with the current shenanigans of "his" Court. Because this a very politically influenced Court, they will be influenced by public opinion at least to some degree. Maybe that will be choosing to modifying Roe v. Wade versus throwing it out all together. Both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Sotomayor are showing the courage to speak up which is unusual for SC Justices. I want to applaud them and encourage them in that. They need the support of all of us, the People! And, this letter goes beyond the two recipients. The staff member who reads it may pass it on to other staff members. Hopefully, they'll pass it on to all the Justices as well. If SCOTUS does overturn Roe v. Wade, I do believe the eruption of women's voices is going to be a major factor in the November 2022 election. I believe the Texas Republicans don't realized what they are unleashing here. Even my very conservative Tea Party brother fully agrees with me on women's rights. He thought Governor Abbott's remark that he would make it his top priority to eliminate rape (therefore, no need for any exceptions in the anti-abortion law) from Texas was the stupidest thing he'd ever heard a politician say! So, perhaps we'll see action in the Senate (the House has already passed a Women's Rights bill) on Women's Rights or the make-up of the Court. Perhaps even censure Senator McConnell. Just because the Senate rules allows you to stretch them beyond ethical boundaries doesn't mean you should do so. And, then all the people here on LFAA who are saying this letter needs to be shared can snowball across the country and hopeful move people to action and even start a movement. One stone thrown into a pond can send out many ripples. I think of this letter and its shared copies as seeds being tossed out to find futile ground. Not all the seeds will find futile ground, but other places they will blossom into something beautiful!
Some seeds will find futile ground. Let’s toss a bunch more onto fertile ground!
😬
We shall proudly be your gardeners!!
Earlier this year, Penelope Simpson described our work as “deep gardening.”
Ah! Exactly where my mind went again! Good memory, Ellie! I cannot wait to get my writing spade out this morning and zing Cathy's letter to local papers, commentators, and many of our Vermont elected officials who who listen to The People. Time to seemingly frozen yet fertile terre firma that awaits our actions. "Ad astra per aspera. To the stars through difficulties! Let's reach for stars! All of us this time." I have so much gratitude to Heather and to all commenters here. I love this your inspiration as I begin my day!
You give me hope in Texas. I needed that. Thank you.
Cathy, I appreciate your detailed and very helpful and clearly written expansion. I understand now.
So everyone, SHARE THIS PIECE FAR AND WIDE AND TO CRUCIAL PEOPLE!!
Yes, thank you!
Exactly my question and my thoughts!!! Thank you Cathy and Michael!
So well put! Why not make it an open-letter opinion piece to the Wall Street Journal, Washington post and New York Times?
It's a bit lengty for publication in such major papers (unless you have a "name"), but Cathy, consider submitting it to local publications in Texas, those beyond Dallas and Houston.
The Washington Post wants opeds that are 800 words or less. I did some slight edits to get it right under 800.
Then give it a shot!
WONFERFUL!!
I LOVE wonferful! I’m happy the auto-correct ogre didn’t eat it!
Perfect!!!!
Cathy has a name as President of her area League of Women Voters in Texas. Each of us should share this as well.
But I thinks it very expensive to do that.
Dear Catherine... I just read HCR's piece and your response to my 83 year old mother. She says this is one hell of a letter that should be published for all to see (perhaps in a book that you author), and that you should run for office. I agree!
Thank you KC and thank your mother for such kind words. On running for office, I think I'd prefer more of a back room job like working on messaging and strategy.
You are certainly well suited for that as well!
Cathy, once again, every word simply brilliant. Common language, easy to understand, this could be a letter to the whole country. Thank you for your effort.
Yes! Every person needs to have the opportunity to read this!
Please feel free to share it to others. Thank you.
What a well thought out letter. Thank you for put my thoughts into words.
Bravo, wish I thought he would listen.
(Of course he WON'T listen- that might hurt his "reputation" w/ The Federalist Society and its corporate donors, which gave him his job. One might wonder if the money continues to flow now that he's Chief "Justice".)
That's presumably why Cathy has submitted it to the Washington Post.
Yes, BRILLIANT, Cathy!! And one of the most important pieces I have had the honor to read on our constitutional rights and their current sabotage by this "court" (not capitalizing it anymore). May I copy, post and credit you? Maybe we should ALL copy and send to each Supreme Court Justice, as well as to our own congresspeople. Democracy is being overruled.
I think she should try to get it published rather than simply sending it to Roberts. I think it will be much more powerful that way. And I think it will be published if she tries. Once it's published, people can cut it out of the publication and send it to Roberts. I would advise people not to send it as is to Roberts unless Cathy says she does not want to publish it.
In my year plus as a subscriber, I haven't seen any comment here that approaches the merit of this one. I mean, people have made plenty of good comments, but this one is eminently publishable (with minor edits that Cathy need not worry about).
Let this column not only give Roberts superb advice, but let it tell the world that the trump justices are illegitimate and that Barrett's incompetent.
Thank you so much for you kind words, David. Yes, I would like people to share this letter or write their own and share it widely. I have submitted to the Washington Post as an oped.
Glad to submitted to the WaPo. If they have good sense they'll publish it!! Keep us posted!!
Yes, all are welcome to freely copy and share the letter. Thank you!
sharing ok. but high level publications specify that anything to be published must not have been posted somewhere--as in on FB, or in comments on articles in newspapers. (don't think it's a problem that it's been posted here, as I don't think they'd have any way of finding out that it's been posted here, but I think it WILL be published, and I think it's best to be careful until it is.
I dont' think it's a good idea to post this anywhere. Most high level publications stipulate that they won't print anything that has been posted somewhere.
I've only sent it to the WaPo. I'll wait for their reply. They are good about telling you that they will not be using it ... or will be.
I hope you can somehow tell us all when it's published. I will be very happy, and I'll certainly send a copy to Roberts.
This is an interesting point, David. I will wait to hear from Cathy once it is published and then send it out. But it is difficult to not want to shout it from the rooftops...
Brilliant. Can I be your friend? I feel like Big Bird has met the sensible Ms Rogers.
Sure! Love that you mention Big Bird.
I use to submit a readers response question to the WSJ 10-point column when they were asking big issue questions like what did you think of tfg's first budget. Here is what I said. It's a hoot to be quoted in the WSJ!
March, 2017: “Mr. Trump’s budget proposal is one I would expect from some third-world, despot dictator who has no empathy for the well-being of its citizenry. This does not make us safer since it encourages an arms race; it does make us dumber by devaluing the arts and science. The world loses because climate catastrophe can only be diverted by world cooperation. In buying Mr. Trump’s narcissistic, vindictive reality, Earth is headed for the failure of its experiment with civilization. If I have a choice between Sesame Street and another new fighter, I choose the Big Bird that doesn’t fly or carry nuclear weapons.”
IMHO, you were ahead of the curve. Am enjoying your posts for their edge and substance.
Damn You’re Good ! My Sentiments Exactly ! Being a Senior woman isn’t much better.
I am a Senior woman although I hear middle age now goes to 85. And, I'm livid about my rights being stomped on. Thank you.
AMEN...! I am old now too but hey, I'll take 85 to mean "middle-age". Angry that women are constantly being trampled on. If men would think with their tiny brains instead of their lower extremities, they'd realize that without women, they wouldn't even exist. I do believe that is why you see our birthing population decreasing here in the U.S.. Women cannot afford to have children and they do not want to raise them in this very volatile society. Can't blame them and that's why the issue of getting a safe abortion or getting ahold of the abortion pill is so crucial to their continued existence.
An outstanding letter. We said. Well constructed. You may not be a lawyer, but I think I want you on my side of the courtroom!
We, the People, all of us this time! ❤️ Thank you, Cathy
Great letter, but what do we expect Robert’s and Sotomayor to be able to do about the present state of the court?
Roberts is no longer the center balance point of SCOTUS, so why should he bother to do anything? Even when he was the supposed balance point, he went along w/ allowing Citizens United and Shelby v. Holder; both of those decisions are a direct result of his being Chief Justice. As far as judicial reform, that won't happen either if the R's take back the Senate. The ultra right wing of SCOTUS is now in charge and we can expect that things will get much worse for women, POC., and non-Christians. We already know that if the R's take the Senate, they will do anything to keep any nominee from being appointed if Biden were to choose anyone but a ultra RW nominee. They've got a definite bad faith record. As far as Justice Sotomayor, currently she's one of only 3 liberal justices; The balance will be 7-2 if Breyer retires/dies, even if Biden is still in office. God help all of us when that happens if Republicans win back the Senate and/or Presidency. Gotta keep the RW white "christian" men happy, right? S/
And that title of ‘Christian ‘ is in name only also. We’re Screwed !
I usually use a small "c" w/that word; since I was describing those not of that persuasion, I used the "C" to emphasis the difference.
I love everything you wrote except the air freshener part, because they’re made with many problematic chemicals which are allowed because of regulation loopholes.
Loopholes given as a gift to the Flavors & Fragrances Industry which polices itself (just like our police and look how well that is working out).
Now scented products are one the biggest contributors of indoor AND outdoor air pollution.
Hi Lisa, I didn't know that about the Flavors & Fragrances Industry. Thank you for the education! I always use Scent-free and Fragrance-free products. Can't stand the fragrance added to anything. Just needed some way express getting rid of the stench. I'll keep this in mind from now on.
Lord, I agree. Hate the false scents