EDITORIAL: Glass Smashing Rage

EDITORIAL: Glass Smashing Rage

EDITORIAL: Glass Smashing Rage

By Dani Davis

Not So Good, ‘Ol Days

I was born in 1946. That makes me 76 years old.  The Allied soldiers had just liberated Europe from Hitler’s fascist grip, AND saved the world from the jingoism of the Japanese Empire when I was delivered kicking and screaming into the world. The boys were back to the land of the not so free. A history lesson is appropriate at this time, for those have been separated from what it was really like in those days. Let me tell you; it ‘effin sucked for a hell of a lot of people, particularly people of color, women, and the queer.

Writing Law, Not interpreting Law

On June 24, 2022, I woke up to learn that the right wing-radical SCOTUS had overturned Roe v Wade. The first thing to suffer were two wine glasses sitting on the kitchen counter, which I sent flying across the room in an angry rage.  We all knew it was coming, since the ‘leak’ of Sam Alito’s draft opinion nearly two months ago.  I am furious. I am shocked. I am dismayed. But, more than that, I am deeply saddened for our country; and the meaning of law, and justice.

Pretzel Time

I am saddened and alarmed that the six ideologues chosen by the Federalist Society, who now sit on the highest court in the land, seem to have no brakes. It is clear they intend to smash through anything that gets in their political way. These isolated radicalized folks are willing to ignore 50 years of established precedent, twist themselves into pretzels looking to 15th century doctrine to support an outrageous 21st century decision. The justices, despite the wishes of 70% of the American people, overturned Roe. They could have chipped away at the law, which they have been doing since 1993, instead they are so brazen they did not hesitate in wiping Roe off the legal landscape.  Greatly emboldened they do not intend to let anything stop them. I am convinced nothing we call sacred in our society, is safe from this out of control court.

Mitch McConnell Is The Cause 

This “Catholic-Christian” majority Supreme Court just tossed out 50 years of progress and has sent this country into a very dark place. Lest not forget how we got to this imbalance on the court. Republican Mitch McConnell, when he was Majority Leader in the Senate, denied Barack Obama a chance to install his choice for Supreme Court Justice, Merrick Garland. In 2020, Mitch again, went against all Senate history and jammed through Amy Cony Barrett as Trump’s 3rd appointee, during the last days of the Trump administration.  Those two actions by McConnell have resulted in the current imbalance of conservative justices on the court.

More To Come

Abortion is not the only ‘right’ under attack. There is much more to come. All you need to do is read Clarence Thomas’s opinion. Frankly, with the court’s decision to overturn Rue, came with a threat to end many long established rights. Clarence Thomas, in his assenting opinion foreshadowed many rights he was willing to take the judicial hammer to. It looks to me like, we have an over-active, ‘law-creating’ court that will soon be targeting many cherished privacy rights. The right to contraceptives, same sex marriage, and the right to decide the race of your sexual partner may be in the cross-hairs of this politically active court.

Most Egregious

It seems a bit odd that ‘Uncle Tom’ Clarence Thomas has forgotten that his right to marry a white woman isn’t many steps away from the topics he suggests were decided egregiously.  I’d like to remind Clarence and Virginia (Ginni) Thomas, that it wasn’t until June of 1967, when I was a senior in college, the Earl Warren Supreme Court issued it’s landmark opinion in Loving v Virginia. Let me repeat that, it wasn’t until 1967, that Clarence and Ginni could have even traveled together, much less gotten married in nearly a third of the states in these good old United States. Looking backwards might not be the best choice for this duo.

The United States Is Not A Christian Country

The United States was founded as a secular republic, not a ‘Christian’ country. What unites us is a common Constitution, not a common religion, or a common culture. The U.S, Constitution is meant to protect the rights of us all; not just the rights of the “believers.” Nobody is supposed to be burned at the stake anymore; yet Sam Alito had to reach back to the time of the witch trials to find basis for his anti-abortion ruling. Please, it is 2022 and it is fucking time a woman should be allowed to make the decisions that effect her, and her family. Literally, a woman could be pregnant 3/4 of every year, for 35 plus years, producing potentially a child a year.  Without contraception, or abortion a single woman could if forced to produce 35 kids. Really? This is what the conservatives want for 21st century women? Total crap.

Lawless Abandon

The Catholic-Christian majority that has been jammed onto the Supreme Court have decided that they can wield their 6-3 voting power with near lawless abandon. Don’t just clutch your pearls ladies; these six SOB’s want to impose their religious beliefs onto the rest of us; it is time for action, not whining and moaning. We are a country of 330, 000,000 people, from different religions, different cultures and backgrounds, each of us with different dreams. The recent Supreme Court actions on voting rights, gun rights, the EPA, and Roe v Wade are total BS. The idea that the Founding Father’s believed that every citizen, no matter how crazy, should be able to openly carry a weapon of war is total absurdity. I think Ben and the boys would have put the kibosh to that idea quickly and decisively.  The eighteenth century philosphosper/revolutionary was part of his world, and for a court to suggest that the eighteen century and the twenty-first century are equivalent is patently ridiculous.

A Fraudulent Court

The fact that the last three of the nine justices, were appointed illegitimately, thanks to Mitch McConnell, by a twice impeached, one-term president, makes any of this court’s decisions suspect. Furthermore, from taped testimony, it looks like Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh may have misled, or perhaps committed perjury during Senate questioning. I would go so far as to suggest this is a fraudulent court. There is no way we can wait forty years for this court to die of old age; while it destroys the fabric of our society.  These folks were not elected, yet they are sitting in lifetime positions, making decisions that effect the most basic of our rights; privacy. Outrageous.

My Final Days

I will not be silent. I may be 76 years old,  but I can still march, I can still vote,  I can still vocalize my anger. I’m not dead yet, and until that final day comes I will be working for a re-do of the ‘third’ branch of government. The idea that you can remove court decisions from the time and place of the decision is absurd.  The Founding Fathers were a part of their time.  When Ben, Tom, Jimmy and George were imagining a new country, they sure as hell had no idea that the country of 2.5 million would eventually spread from to sea to shining sea, with a  population  nearly 10 and a half times the size of the original country. There were no cars, no cell phones, no railroads, no astronauts, no AR-15’s, no female CEO’s, no black legislators. For the ‘purists’ on the court who want to take us back 245 years let’s remember that the Ninth Amendment offered flexibility and growth. The FF knew that the constitution could grow and stretch to the needs of the country, not contract and penalize the many.  We can grow past 1619. We can grow past 1776 It is 2022, time for a new perspective, not an old and outdated one.

Real, True Outrage

Should a woman be forced to carry her rapists baby until birth? I say, “hell no.” What if the impregnated person were a child, carrying her father’s baby, as a victim of incest. Or perhaps, an uncle or a  grandfather; or some other relative. My fucking god, this ordeal is guaranteed to fuck up just about anybody. Let’s start thinking with our hearts. Let’s begin with love for the hopeless, for the abandoned, let’s offer them a life line, not an anchor.

Conclusion

It is time for court reform. If there isn’t court reform I  predict that people will just stop listening to anything that comes out of their biased mouths. At least 90 attorney generals and state prosecutors have stated for the record they will not prosecute any abortion cases. The Robert’s Court has already damaged the public view of the court. I  think the last time I looked, the Supreme court approval rating was about 20%.   It is time to enlarge the court, institute term limits, and come up with a code of ethics, to reign in the likes of Clarence Thomas and his anti-democratic wife.

 

OPINION: The Moral Argument For Abortion

OPINION: The Moral Argument For Abortion

Abortion is a difficult decision.

OPINION: The Moral Argument For Abortion

Abortion is a highly emotional issue that is once again on the front pages of newspapers across the country as conservative states enact more and more restrictive laws directed at a woman’s right to choose. 

By Ezekiel Gracee

Talking Past One Another

Too often in the abortion debate, proponents for each side just seem to be talking past each other, as opposed to actually engaging. The reason? A failure to define the question(s). In this emotionally charged discussion it is important to try to step back, and attempt to place some of the stated arguments into a single conceptual framework concerning the moral permissibility of abortion.

Two Central Questions

There are two central questions at the heart of the debate over the morality of abortion.

  • The first is, who or what constitutes a “moral person”? (That is, a “person”, within the context of moral decision making, defined, depending on your theory of morality, variously as an entity deserving of rights, membership in society, or entry into the utilitarian calculus.)
  • The second is, how do we balance the right of self-determination and autonomy of one moral person against the right to life of another, when the two are in conflict? Obviously this question, weighing the rights of the mother and the fetus against each other, is only relevant if we answer the previous question by saying that the fetus is a moral person.

The argument that abortion is impermissible, to my knowledge, necessarily entails the following answers. (1) The embryo/fetus does constitute a moral person and (2) the right of any moral person to live outweighs the right to self-determination, autonomy, or privacy, of the mother.

Permissibility

The argument that abortion is permissible, on the other hand, can take two routes. The first route is asserting that the embryo/fetus is not a moral person, and thus abortion is prima facie permissible. The second route is to concede the first point; the fetus is a moral person, but challenge on the second point, arguing that the right to self-determination of the mother supersedes the rights of the fetus when they conflict.

Both of these questions are difficult.  The first is, I think, the most interesting. It’s also one that is often avoided by pro-choice people. Prima facie, it looks easy. During our daily life, we generally equate the concept of “moral personhood” with simply looking like a fully formed human being.

The common argument is that a fertilized egg is rendered a moral person via its potential to develop into something that looks like an obvious person. Whether this argument holds water is a whole other can of worms. (I personally think it’s weak.) It is nonetheless one of the arguments used to explain why a fertilized egg has the “moral person” status, which as I said above, is essential to the anti-abortion (ProLife) argument.

The second major question — how we balance the right of self-determination against the right to life — is also a doozy. I think this is an argument that’s often not grappled with as strongly as it deserves to be, especially by political conservatives who generally value autonomy and self-determination extremely high among the “pantheon of rights”.

My Take 

Having outlined how I view the whole debate, it is suffice to say that abortion stands as permissible based on the second — that self-determination trumps life.

EDITORIAL: Who Will Judge The Judges?

EDITORIAL: Who Will Judge The Judges?

EDITORIAL: WHO WILL JUDGE THE JUDGES?

By  D.S. Mitchell

Turtles All The Way Down

According to absurdist and other folks more clever than I, there is no inherent meaning to anything. Not that there’s no meaning, that would be nihilism, just that all things are arbitrary at their core. As famed genius Bertrand Russell put it, while addressing the issue of infinite regress, it is ‘turtles all the way down.’ An odd phrase based on the metaphor of the world sitting on the back of elephants, which in turn stood on the back of a turtle. Fans of Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series of novels will likely recognize the concept.

The Price of Tea In China?

What does this have to do with the Supreme Court? Trust me, I’m getting there. The idea of ‘turtles all the way down’ also applies to society and the application of authority there in. Leaders, officers, and elites are not born. At least, supposedly, not anymore. Every position of power is designated by the people who constitute society. In a very real way the exercise of authority is ‘people all the way down.’ Humans chosen by other humans to hold power over them. In the context of a participatory democracy those humans are the elected officials.

Continue reading