Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg and What Comes Next

***Due to Blogger's new format change, there are random changes font size and colors***

The two Chinese characters  wēi (危) and jī (機/机) comprise the word for crisis. Separately, these two symbols express two related but separate ideas,  the notion of danger and a critical juncture. At this time, due to the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on September 18th, President Donald Trump is facing potential political crisis that is both dangerous and represents a critical juncture in our history.

With about two months to go until what promises to be one of, if not "the" most contentious election in U.S. history, President Trump has to decide what to do about filling the seat, which could tilt the Supreme Court to the ideological Right...or Left (depending on who is appointed) for many years to come. 

As an aside, Amy Coney Barrett is Trump's top choice. She is a legal scholar and a circuit court judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit. Her father was an attorney for Shell Oil.  She graduated from Notre Dame Law School in 1997 top in her class summa cum laude.She clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia. She considered to be politically conservative. 

Justice Ginsburg was known for her outspoken views, especially on issues involving women. It was no secret to anyone that those views were often very liberal. Her fellow justices, while not always agreeing with her, felt a sincere respect for her opinions and for her as an individual. Justice Ginsburg was one of the longest serving justices on the nation's highest court, having served 13 years following her appointment by then President Bill Clinton.

With Ginsburg's death, the ideological tilt of the Supreme Court is solidly conservative, with only Sonia Sotomayor, Steve Beyer, and Elena Kagan  remaining on the ideological Left. The Democrats are demanding the president hold off until after the November elections before someone is nominated to fill the seat. Ideally, they would like it to be a female (especially as racial minority and perhaps even gay) and someone who leans to the Left as did Ginsberg. What they are afraid of is that President Trump will select someone is conservative. Even a conservative leaning moderate like John Roberts would be too much.

Meanwhile, Establishment Republicans, are mostly siding with their Democrat counterparts. They too want the president to hold off for now. Of course, should Trump lose and Biden win, there's no question as to the type of individual he will select to replace Justice Ginsburg. So, what would happen if Trump went ahead with an appointment or waited, especially given what's at stake nationally?

America is a deeply divided country. The ruling Oligarchy has helped to make sure of that. A divided America is a America which is easier to control and manipulate. That's not to say that there aren't some real areas of disagreement, however, those areas are not naturally as deep or decisive as they've been made out to be.

In fact, pretty much everyone regardless of gender, race, ethnic background, or even political affiliation knows that the political system in this country is broken beyond repair. Reform won't cut it. It needs a total overhaul. The Democrats trot out retread Joe Biden, a man with 47 years of living in the political muck of Washington. He, we are lead to believe, is the best the Democrats can provide for the highest office in the land; an individual who is a much a part of the problem as Mitch McConnell.

Donald Trump is far from the ideal president, but he was elected because he wasn't part of the Status Quo. He was someone who was legitimately outside of ruling clique. The ruling Oligarchy has been trying to get rid of Trump since literally day one. Every scheme they could think of has been tried and has, thus far, failed. What if Trump nominated someone from outside of the political system? Someone whose career was not beholden to ruling elites? How would that affect the balance on the Supreme Court?

If Trump was to nominate someone, then the process of review would start, distracting the public from the manufactured chaos going on now. It would also mean that if Trump lost, this individual would still be there, although I think the various Senators and Representatives would "green light" them if at all possible. They would obviously want to all the new incoming president to have an opportunity to nominate.

Given that so many of polling places are closed because of the COVID virus (and all the issues and concerns about mail in ballots), what would happen if we ended up in another one of those "hanging chads" or "pregnant chads" situations like we did with George Bush Jr and Al Gore back in 2000?

For those too young to remember, the Supreme Court  settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election. The ruling was issued on December 12, 2000. On December 9, the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring. The result was that Bush won. Now, with only eight justices currently setting, that could create a problem right? Well no.

First off, five of the eight lean conservative, so that would be in Trump's favor. However, many of those same justices have made statements indicating that they may not be too fond of "the Donald". That could either it to the Left or worse, result in a tie decision.  But that's just part it.

Presidential elections are supposed to be decided by the Electoral College, which was created originally to keep one or a small group of densely populated states from dominating elections. It takes 270 votes in the Electoral College to win (with virtually all voting along partisan lines). In the event of a tie, the House will decide the outcome with each state getting one vote (the magic number needed to win is 26).

Many legal scholars at the time and since have criticized the top court even accepting the case; suggesting the matter should have remained in the Florida Supreme Court. Notably, Justice Ginsburg dissented and stated that the Supreme Court had no business taking this case and that in doing so was creating new election law.

The last thing our country needs right now is a repeat of the Bush-Gore election of 2000 or to be caught up with a Electoral tie and having the subsequent proceeds being over seen by Nancy Pelosi, the current Speaker of the House.

While it's President Trump's prerogative whether to nominate someone to fill Ginsburg's seat now or allow the election to run its course is solely up to him. I think that if he was the challenger instead of the incumbent, he would want the opportunity to name whomever he wanted.  Certainly that's what Biden and the political establishment want.

However, if we're playing hardball partisan politics, why take the chance? Why not go ahead and nominate who you want? It would force the media's attention onto the nomination process and away from the election, and with a little luck, might just get your person on the bench whether you win or lose in November. At the worse, it would give the incoming president a hot potato to handle right off the bat.  

 

The political leanings of the Supreme Court

Bush v Gore

Electoral College Ties

Bush v Gore law case

A New Direction for America?

A man wrestled down by officers and fatally shot twice in the chest at point blank range. A man setting in the passenger of a car stopped for a minor traffic violation. Shot four times at point blank range in his right side while reaching for his wallet as instructed by one of two officers. He announced to the officer that he had a Conceal and Carry Permit and was armed, yet murdered. Both incidents caught on camera and broadcasted to the world. If we are to believe the initial narratives, neither individual had done anything to warrant their murders. One had permission to sell items outside of a store. The other was heading home with his girlfriend in the driver's seat. The only commonality was that they were black males and the officers were white. However, further inquiry proved that there was more to the each story; much more which continues to unfold.

Within a few days, roughly 1000 protestors, mostly black, with some carrying "Black Lives Matter" banners and signs took to the streets in Dallas Texas. All the proper permits were obtained. Officers were assigned to help with the usual difficulties, traffic control and monitor to events. The protest was peaceful. Then, as darkness fell and the protestors began to disperse, shots rang out, seemly from everywhere and within minutes there were five dead police officers and approximately 11 injured individuals. There was a sniper. At first, it was believed there were multiple snipers coordinating their fire, however, it was quickly determined that due to the echo effect, there was just one shooter who was quickly located. Attempts to negotiate with the shooter, who claimed to be acting alone, failed. What was learned was that the shooter was intentionally targeting whites, especially white officers, and he was acting on behalf of ISIS. In the end, the sniper refused to surrender and to avoid risking any further lives, the Dallas Police sent in a robot armed with a bomb. In a single instant the sniper was sent to hell, yet the fallout is still being felt.

Since then we've learned his name and all the usual information; the denials and disbelief from friends and family, and that the sniper was former military. He was also in possession of a gun which the Obama Administration is attempting to restrict. Still, he wasn't a weapons specialist. His MOS was construction and carpentry. He was stationed in Afghanistan, but received a "less than honorable discharge" after only six months of active duty for sexual harassment. He was a Dallas member of the black racist organization, "The New Black Panthers" a recent convert to Islam, and member of "Black Lives Matter". It also appears that he had been "radicalized" and gave allegiance to ISIS, which was reciprocated by their public approval of the attack. Meanwhile, about 20 representatives of The New Black Panthers, a resuscitated version of the militant Black Power Movement organization founded in 1966 by Bobby Seale and Huey Newton, announced that they were coming to Dallas. They even claimed they would at the Republican Convention in Cleveland, and they would be armed. Never miss a good PR opportunity.

As the fallout continued to spread, agents for "Black Lives Matter" began making more noise by demanding the non-blacks cease using the phrase "All Lives Matter"; citing it as a form of "racism". The same goes for "Blue Lives Matter", which is a reference to police officers as well as to all first responders. The group also began demanding that all non-blacks, especially whites, publically apology for their "whiteness" and renounce their so-called "white privilege". There have been a few misguided souls who've complied. It seems that black lives and only black lives matter. A few black celebrities and wannabe celebrities spoke or acted out their support for "Black Lives Matter", even though the corporate media has reported on its connections to the black Muslim separatist Nation of Islam headed by Louis Farrakhan. There have reports of a few recent sporadic protests popping up here and there, noted mostly for primarily blocking traffic on city streets and across highways, along with their promise of massive protests and civil disobedience to come shortly.

Elsewhere, President Obama continues to avoid using words like "Islamic" or "Muslim" terrorists or call this recent murders of the five officers a hate crime (the former Attorney General, Eric Holder, in reviewing a case pertaining to white voters being denied access to election polls by members of "The New Black Panthers", opined that hate crime laws were for members of minority groups only, which excluded whites. Of course, whites, especially white males, are a minority according to the US Census Bureau ). Obama did use the occasion to ask that Americans surrender their guns and strongly hinted as possible future legislation to deny Americans of their Second Amendment rights (for our own good naturally), which has been seconded by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a vocal critic of the 2nd Amendment while liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg committed a ethical taboo by publically speaking out against GOP Presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Speaking of the AG, Ms. Lynch made a possible ethics violation by having a 90 minute private conversation aboard her private---I mean taxpayer owned---Lear jet with former President Bill Clinton while investigating Hillary Clinton on a number of violations concerning the use of personal cell phones and disposition of government emails--some of which being highly classified---on non-secure servers as well as the improper disposal of the emails. Thankfully, both the AG and Mr. Clinton both confirmed that they only discussed golf and their grandchildren for the entire 90 minutes. Whew! No need to worry about any unlawful efforts to influence a prosecutor folks. By coincidence, a few days later FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not recommend any felony charges against the Democrat nominee for President, although he was very critical of her handling of sensitive government emails; citing three statutes under which Ms. Clinton could be prosecuted, nor did he recommend blocking her from future secured communications as allowed under federal statute. Several senior military officers who were forcibly discharged and sentenced to federal prison terms have been held up as examples of what could have happened for lesser security violations by various media pundits, both liberal and conservative.

I think this is proof that America is coming loose at the seams. This is not the America I remember from my youth during the 60's and 70's. There were protests, sit-ins, draft card and bra burnings, riots and yes, even assassinations. But, we still saw ourselves as Americans. We believed there were possible solutions. That sense of optimism is gone. Perhaps technology is to be blamed. Nowadays, we can record and broadcast events worldwide in real time, although in doing so we may be lacking the full story so that actions, based on emotions result without knowing the full facts. We are more globally interconnected now than ever. It used to be said that when America sneezed, the rest of the world caught a cold. Now, we are just as likely to catch a cold! Our actions impact the entire world, but the world's actions impact us too. During the Cold War, the Russians had little direct impact here in the States. However, thanks to technology and global connectedness, groups such as ISIS or Great Britain's break from the EU can directly affect us in ways that was impossible a few decades ago.

The use of cover groups are more common than before. These are groups who operate essentially as fronts for other groups, some international, which often remain hidden. Once upon a time, cover groups were the domain of the CIA, KGB, FBI, China's 8341 Unit, or various criminal enterprises. Nowadays, we're seeing religious extremists, cyber criminals and terrorists organizations---foreign and homegrown---making easy use of these. In fact, some are one or two person operations who just don't do recruitment, but fundraising, spread their propaganda and conduct online training. Thus we must be more aware and questioning of what we see and hear.

But there's also the fact that some of this misinformation originates from our own government. America, as most know, is no longer a democratic republic, although many of our politicians like to pretend that it is in their speeches. We are a defacto Oligarchy. We are ruled not governed by this elite caste of obscenely wealthy individuals and their corporations. They, through their agents, the professional Beltway political class and lobbyists, often direct if not actually write legislation they want passed. They dictate how the government will function. By that, I mean how government will serve their interests. Wars have almost always been about economics. Patriotism is considered quaint, unless it can be used to stoke the fires of nationalism and direct its population toward war. You see, these Oligarchs are transnational. They don't see nations or borders. They see economic zones. Governments are there to "manage" these zones for them. The military is used to help settle economic "misunderstandings", be it acquiring or protecting assets and resources or enforcing compliance. We've all known or suspected that there were different rules for these elites and the rest of us. Well thanks to Hillary's email scandal, we've seen it on full display for all to see. All may submit to the law, but not equally.

Citizens are not really "citizens" in the way we used to think of them. They are now consumers. Their loyalties are conditioned through advertising and marketing toward products, not abstract ideals. Instead of being largely self-sufficient or "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps", the government sees itself as your guardian and protector. It manages your life from cradle to grave...and afterwards thanks to probate court and tax laws. Your "value" is your credit rating, based on your debt ratio and ability to pay. Education has been repeatedly dumbed down. Why? The workforce should be smarted enough to do a job, but not smart enough to question management to paraphrase that American innovator and supporter of fascist ideology, Henry Ford. Unions, which used to the bulwark against corporate abuse, is a mere shell of its former self. Don't like what management is doing? Too bad. Adapt or risk seeing your job shipped overseas. Unions these days are focused on keeping workers on the assembly lines and off the picket lines at any cost because there is some poor slob in India or China or wherever willing to do your job for next to nothing which beats the nothing he or she is currently getting now, and thanks to various federal laws, unions can't do much about it.

The Oligarchs fear people like you and I. We are the ones who may look up from the artificial reality they've created for us---video games, mindless TV programs, so-called "reality TV" and celebrity oriented programs and magazine rags. We're conditioned to be more concerned about how white our teeth are or how clean are clothes can smell rather than special tax breaks, our national debt or oil spill. We're fed a form of Pablum; tidbits of strained or preprocessed news while Congress jumps from one self-induced crisis to the next to the point where we're so confused we just tune it out or turn it off. Which, by the way, is their whole point in case you haven't already guessed.

So, how does this fit in with the shootings and all the rest? To our credit, Americans are becoming quite aware of what's been happening to us, and most of us aren't too pleased. We know the election system is rigged. We know that our Constitutional rights are at serious risk. We know how the government thumbs its nose at our demands (like stopping illegal immigration for example). We are intentionally being divided in every way possible, economic class, religion, sexual/gender, and especially racial. If events can be managed properly, we could have widespread violence, be it racial or wage gap or seeing illegals not prosecuted or granted benefits we are denied. It could be bringing Muslims "refugees" to communities who don't want them and the possibility of embedded terrorists (or faux terrorists) as well as demands that we conform. Whatever, so long as it was wide spread and intense enough to get the American People to demand "something" be done about it; anything as long as it stops. Enter martial law.

Under martial law, the government through their Oligarch overlords could impose direct control, from wages and price controls to travel restrictions, curfews or allocation of resources, including food and medicine. It could impose restrictions on ammo and guns (if any previous sort of "volunteer" surrender of our guns didn't get them all), to even direct oversight over Internet traffic, and so forth. All, of course, for our own good...and it was at our request. We have the Oligarchs. We have the separation of classes and application of laws. We have the surveillance state. We have the militarization of the police. We are seeing the dividing of the nation. We have rigged elections, thanks to the absence of term limits, Citizens United, and gerrymandering.

What I am mentioning here isn't so farfetched. In fact, it's been the common fate of all democracies and republics down through history in one fashion or another. Besides, to prosper, corporations require stability...economic and social. What we must do is refuse to be divided, regardless of gender, orientation, race, or religion. We are Americans and if we are to remain free, we must remember who our common foe is; the ones behind the curtain and those in front of it who do their bidding; those who seek to destroy this nation in exchange for a new global order which precludes ideals like a Constitution or Bill of Rights or anything which restrains the government or the rights they believe are due the ruling class.