#impeach amy coney barrett

[aunti-christ-ine]

The majority of today's Supreme Court: four old white men, one black man and a handmaiden who imposes her religious cult beliefs on 170 million women.

[reasonandempathy]

Perjury is a felony and is grounds for impeachment.

[lenbryant]

A very SCOTUS 4th it was.

[phroexx]

It is with a heavy heart that we must call for the impeachment of Supreme Court justices who have perjured themselves before Congress. The United States of America is a nation built on the rule of law, and the integrity of our judicial system is essential to maintaining that rule of law.

The Supreme Court of the United States is one of the most important institutions in our government. Its decisions have far-reaching consequences, shaping the direction of our nation for years to come. As such, the justices who serve on the Court must be held to the highest standards of integrity and honesty.

When a Supreme Court justice perjures themselves before Congress, they betray that trust and undermine the very foundation of our judicial system. Perjury is a serious crime, and it is one that we cannot tolerate, especially from those who hold such an important position in our government.

The Constitution of the United States provides for the impeachment of any civil officer who commits high crimes and misdemeanors. Perjury before Congress certainly qualifies as a high crime, and it is incumbent upon Congress to take action to remove any justices who have committed such a crime.

We understand that the impeachment of a Supreme Court justice is a serious matter, one that should not be taken lightly. However, we believe that the integrity of our judicial system is more important than any individual justice. If we allow those who have perjured themselves to remain on the Court, we risk undermining the very foundation of our democracy.

We call on Congress to take action to impeach any Supreme Court justices who have perjured themselves before Congress. It is time to uphold the rule of law and restore the integrity of our judicial system. The future of our democracy depends on it.

[wilwheaton]

The conservative justices had an opportunity to rally to the defense of democracy, to gird the system against further attack, to righteously defend the rule of law, and to protect its own prerogatives and powers against a wannabe tyrant who is counting on them to be his supplicants. They could have drawn a sharp line. They could have summoned indignation and outrage. They could have overlooked their partisan priors in favor of principle – or more cravenly in favor of self-preservation. With the possible and limited exception of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, they did none of that. They failed in the worst possible way at the most crucial time.

Rogue SCOTUS Abandons Democracy In Her Hour Of Greatest Need

Say this with me: This SCOTUS majority is not an impartial arbiter of law. This SCOTUS majority has no respect for precedent, the will of the people, or its fundamental role in government.

This SCOTUS majority is doing through force what the other members of their movement could not achieve through elections: change laws to take equality and freedoms away from as many people as possible, to completely remake America into something we don’t recognize.

Donald Trump and his cult are the greatest threat America has ever faced in its history, with this corrupt, venal, activist group of unelected liars (and at least two rapists) enabling him.

Democrats absolutely have to expand the court and begin an impeachment inquiry into Thomas and Kavanaugh the instant they have congressional majorities. 

I don’t think it’s too late, but it’s about five seconds away from being too late. If Congress doesn’t act hard and fast, these seven people will turn America over to corporations and megachurches.

We have to stop this, and the only way we have any chance at all is to turn out in massive numbers this November to overwhelmingly defeat the people who will put Project 2025 into action.

[violetfaust]

In the last two weeks alone, Trump's Supreme Court has:

Overturned Roe v. Wade.

Severely limited Miranda protections by ruling that citizens can't sue the cops who don't read them their Constitutional rights.

Expanded gun rights less than two months after schoolchildren were slaughtered and weeks after a racist shooting in a community supermarket, by striking down sensible New York gun control laws.

And now eviscerated the power of the EPA to do its job and try to protect against climate change by ruling it can't regulate emissions from power plants.

These "justices" are not only legislating from the bench and making decisions that are stripping human rights and WILL CAUSE DEATHS in opposition to decades of precedent (50 years for Roe, 60 for Miranda, 110 for the NY gun laws):

Many of them are unfit to serve.

Clarence Thomas's wife is an insurrectionist and election denier who is refusing to cooperate with the January 6 committee. Thomas has also not recused himself from decisions regarding the January 6 committee. He is married to a literal traitor to this country and has blatant conflict of interest. He MUST resign or be impeached and removed.

Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation to the bench was rammed through the Senate despite credible accusations that he is a rapist (as well as possibly guilty of financial misconduct or crimes). Investigators refused to consider evidence. This investigation must be reopened, and if more evidence is presented (as I suspect it will be), he should be impeached, removed, and prosecuted.

Neil Gorsuch perjured himself in his Senate confirmation hearings about Roe. He said he recognized and respected it as the law of the land, yet last week he cosigned Alito's reactionary brief that claimed not only that Roe was not law, but that it never had been. Thus Gorsuch should be impeached, removed, and if possible prosecuted for lying under oath.

While I don't know of evidence that Amy Coney Barrett is legally unfit to serve (despite being a far-right-wing reactionary), her appointment was illegitimate under the Republicans' own arbitrary rules: they refused to even consider Obama's candidate for the Court after Scalia's death because it was "in an election year" although that was MARCH, then forced through Barrett's a WEEK before the election (and less than a month after RBG's death). Senate Republicans need to acknowledge that either her appointment or Gorsuch's was illegitimate (and McConnell should be censured for it).

[foreverlogical]

Well-known political expert, author, journalist, and CEO David Rothkopf is blasting conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court after their disastrous rulings last week, warning the Court is now a “threat to democracy” and suggesting some justices should be “considered” for impeachment.

Rothkopf, also a national security and foreign policy commentator, is a columnist for The Daily Beast and the author at least seven books, including American Resistance.

“Watching debates about Supreme Court here and elsewhere is the latest study in GOP efforts to normalize the unconscionable, the corrupt, and the contra-constitutional. This is a court in which a majority of those on the right took their seats under questionable circumstances,” Rothkopf said at the start of a lengthy thread on Twitter.

“Of them, a cloud of corruption hangs over Thomas & Alito. Kavanaugh took [his] seat despite allegations against him that were not properly investigated. Questions surround his payoff of personal debts. Gorsuch’s ascension is also clouded by questions surrounding Kennedy’s departure,” he says.

READ MORE: ‘Treacherous March of Normalization’: ABC News Slammed for ‘Puff Piece’ Profile on Moms for Liberty

Justice Clarence Thomas has been under fire for months over his relationship with billionaire GOP donor and businessman Harlan Crow, who reportedly has had business before the high court. The far-right wing justice and his wife, Ginni Thomas, (who has been accused of working to undermine the 2020 presidential election results,) may have received gifts totaling over $1 million in luxury vacations, travel, food, lodging, and clothing. Experts say Thomas was required to disclose portions of those gifts and that he did not.

Justice Samuel Alito is also the beneficiary of luxury travel, including a fishing trip to Alaska courtesy of another billionaire, and a trip to Rome during which he delivered a highly-criticized speech just days after delivering his opinion striking down Roe v. Wade. That trip was reportedly paid for by a religious liberty organization whose leader reportedly bought Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Indiana home.

Indeed, Rothkopf also skewers Justice Barrett, or at least her confirmation.

“Barrett received her seat in a rush to judgment that was unlike any we have ever seen and completely contrary to the way the GOP Senate treated prior Dem nominees (Garland). In the time since the majority took over, they have cast aside one core principle after another,” he observes.

READ MORE: ‘Tyranny’: Legal Expert Says Ruling in Favor of Anti-LGBTQ Discrimination Makes It ‘Impossible’ to Respect Supreme Court

“Stare decisis went out the window. (Precedents were ignored without any sound justification.) Promises to honor past decisions as established law (like Roe) proved worthless. Past claims that the right valued originalism and condemned judicial activism were wholly ignored,” Rothkopf charges.

“When precedent went against them, absurd arguments drawing on ancient and irrelevant legal decisions were used to supersede the clear intent of the framers and decades, sometimes centuries of legal precedent.”

Last week, he says, we saw “a decision on affirmative action that ignored precedent, reality, and justice and contained, in its carve-out for military academies, a sub-decision that refuted the logic of the main opinion. In the case of reversing the Biden student loan decision,” Rothkopf writes, “a brand new doctrine was presented out of whole cloth. The decision regarding the ‘right’ of a website designer to refuse to do work for a ‘gay’ couple was based on both a lie and a hypothetical, should never have been taken on as a case and was grossly wrong on the law,” he adds.

Rothkopf appears to believe the conservative justices will not stop.

“These judges are acting with impunity because they believe a GOP controlled Senate will never challenge them and that a fundamental flaw in the way the Constitution grants power to underpopulated states assures that the document that was created to evolve never will,” he writes.

And he suggests some of the Supreme Court’s justices might need to be impeached.

“They also know that Senate rules essentially mean they can act with impunity despite their wholesale corruption and the fact that several of them should, in all likelihood, be seriously considered for impeachment.”

READ MORE: Sotomayor Slams ‘Embarrassing’ SCOTUS Anti-LGBTQ Decision That Marks ‘Gays and Lesbians for Second-Class Status’

Pointing to Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, he adds: “This is, as [she] has said a constitutional crisis. This is an illegitimate, rogue institution that is seeking to reverse decades of progress and impose the will of a white, wealthy, Christian, male, straight minority on the majority of Americans.”

“This is a moment that calls for action on the part of Democrats in power to use their ability to call Senate hearings and to challenge this extremist cluster of judicial terrorists wherever possible. But more than that, it demands absolutely clarity from the voting public,” he says.

Rothkopf warns conservatives in the Court are poised to do even more damage to democracy and the American people.

“Unless Democrats win the presidency, hold and increase their majority in the Senate and retake the House, this tiny band of malevolent and dangerous actors will gut many of the most important provisions of the past century and a half of American law.”

“They will destroy lives and put millions of others at risk. Next year’s election must be in part, about this threat to democracy even as it is also about the threat posed by GOP presidential candidates. Stop. Consider the consequences.”

He warns minority Americans will continue to see their civil rights “stripped” away.

“Consider the basic rights that will be stripped away from women, people of color, our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, voters, and all who believe in the ideals that have guided American leaders as we have struggled to perfect our nation,” he says. “The only people who can save us are you and your fellow voters. The only way to do so is to mobilize, be active, donate to candidates and remain committed to defending our country against the threat posed by the MAGA GOP in our legislature and our judiciary. Starting right now.”

[anamericangirl]

With all the calls from left wingers to impeach Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito for "lying under oath" during their confirmations when they said Roe was "settled law" and would uphold it, please be aware this is an outright lie they have concocted.

None of the above Justices referred to Roe or Casey as settled law during their confirmation hearings and none of them promised to uphold it, which you can see for yourself by watching their hearings.

Even if they had, referring to something as "settled law" does not mean you believe the law cannot be challenged or changed. We have had "settled law" overruled before. Dredd Scott v Sanford was "settled law" for several years before being overturned. So for the leftists who are upset and believe "settled law" should be permanent, are you mad that decisions, such as the Dredd Scott, were done away with?

Please don't fall for the lies of the left. They make up rules, change their supposed principles on a whim, and spread lies about people to achieve their political goals. It's important to know that none of the Justices accused of lying under oath by the left have done so.

[wushigod]

Donald Trump US former President may not run from jail terms as evidence lines up against him. These are some of the hypothetical questions posed during oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Thursday as the Justices wrestled with the practical implications of what could happen if they grant former President Donald Trump immunity from criminal prosecution in special counsel Jack Smith’s election interference case against him. ”Can a President order a political rival’s assassination and avoid criminal prosecution? What if he sold nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary or staged a coup? “This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh. During nearly three hours of arguments in Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court Justices raised concerns about the broad implications for future Presidents depending on how they rule in this historic presidential power case, often avoiding discussing the specific allegations against Trump. “We’re writing a rule for the ages,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said. Many of the Justices seemed skeptical of Trump’s lawyer’s argument that a former President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts related to the presidency. That, they suggested, could violate the bedrock legal principle that no one is above the law, and could turn the Oval Office into “the seat of criminal activity,” as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called it. She argued in a line of questioning that Presidents would have no incentive to follow the law they are duty bound to uphold if the Supreme Court granted them immunity from criminal prosecution. “I think that we would have a really significant opposite problem if … someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crime,” Jackson said. Justice Elena Kagan offered hypothetical scenarios in which a President ordered his military to conduct a coup, or sold nuclear secrets to a hostile power abroad. Trump’s lawyer D. John Sauer argued the President couldn’t be held criminally accountable for those actions unless he were to be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate first. “That sure sounds bad, doesn’t it?” Kagan replied. Yet Justices also worried about the practical effects of the government’s argument that a President isn’t immune from such criminal liability. Justice Samuel Alito noted that a President is in a “peculiarly precarious position” given the high-stakes decisions he has to make and enormous amount of power he wields, and Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch both raised the specter of overzealous prosecutors targeting former Presidents after they leave office. “I’m not concerned about this case, but I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives,” Gorsuch said. He raised a hypothetical scenario in which a President staged a peaceful civil-rights protest outside the Capitol that inadvertently delayed legislative business, and could be held criminally liable for that action. The Justices and Sauer also discussed whether the threat of criminal prosecution might constrain a President’s decision making or ability to govern. At the heart of Trump’s argument before the Supreme Court was that his actions after the 2020 election fell under official conduct that should be protected rather than private actions, which all parties agree do not enjoy criminal immunity. If the Supreme Court does find that there is at least some presidential immunity, the question that follows is where to draw the line between official and private actions—and into which category Trump’s actions in the Smith case fall. In response to questioning from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who seemed wary about granting absolute immunity, Sauer admitted that some of the allegations against Trump...

[aunti-christ-ine]

[nodynasty4us]

From the March 5, 2024 analysis:

Well, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Colorado ballot-access case yesterday. And our assessment, in a sentence, is this: They reached the right conclusion, but took the absolute worst possible route to getting there. ... You just can't let states have the power to disqualify candidates for president for whatever reason they deem fit, because you cannot guarantee they will operate in good faith. This is obvious enough that the Supremes agreed 9-0 on this point. So, Donald Trump will stay on the Colorado ballot, and those of the other states (Illinois, Maine) that had also booted him. The political impact here is probably a wash. Booting Trump off the ballot [in Colorado, Maine, and Illinois] would have made Democrats feel good, but would not likely have cost Trump any EVs (except maybe one in Maine). At the same time, it would have fed into his "victim" narrative and would have enraged the base. So, while this is nominally a "loss" for Democrats, it's not much of one. And while it's nominally a "win" for Republicans, again, it's not much of one. ... The actual question before the Court was decided 9-0. But... the five conservative men just could not help themselves, and felt the need to go further. So, they added a bunch of extra findings that were not needed. That, in turn, caused Amy Coney Barrett to write one dissent, and the three liberals to write another (that is a scorcher). And so, a decision that is 9-0 on the top line is as bitterly divided as is possible when you look more closely. ... Consider what happens if Donald Trump wins this year's election, and then, on 1/6/2025, Democrats in the House (assuming that party regains the majority) assert their Supreme Court-granted right to reject him as president. Since yesterday's decision is very vague, it's at least possible it could happen, triggering a constitutional crisis, in which both sides claim the law and precedent are on their side. Democrats are not known for their willingness to play hardball like this, but since they (quite reasonably) regard Trump's return to the presidency as a giant constitutional crisis, they'd really be choosing the lesser of two constitutional crises. ... Not only did the five in the majority fail to define what constitutes insurrection, they also did not specify a timeline for the exercise of Congress' newly bestowed authority. And so, consider this situation: Joe Biden is reelected in 2024, but Republicans gain control of both chambers of Congress in the 2026 midterms. Not only is there nothing stopping the GOP from passing a bill on Jan. 3, 2027, declaring Biden to be an insurrectionist (and Kamala Harris, along with him, thus putting the Republican Speaker in the White House), they would have clear Supreme Court sanction for doing do. And, assuming the Republicans would be willing to put aside the filibuster in order to steal the White House (which, who are we kidding, of course they would), then they could do it with a bare majority in both chambers. Who needs something as onerous as impeachment under those circumstances? ... To summarize, then, we have a decision that is bitterly divided, undermines the legitimacy of the Court, has no real basis in anything other than hand-waving and wishful thinking, is badly written, does not really solve the problem it was supposed to solve, and brings with it the very real possibility of triggering a constitutional crisis in two different ways. And that's before we get into the fact that the Supremes were willing to fast-track this one, but are sitting on the presidential immunity decision. Nice job, Mr. Chief Justice. Somewhere, Roger Taney is smiling at the prospect of moving up, out of the doghouse.

[guam-671-dv8]

FBI interviewed individuals who accuse Amy Coney Barrett faith group of abuse

People don't want to hear these claims, but here's another republikkkan doing bad things. IMPEACH!

[thesheel]

Amid all the failures and setbacks, Republicans tried to steal the American mandate one last time by filing a Texas lawsuit in the Supreme Court.  The Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, in his bid to make Trump happy, filed a lawsuit and demanded that the Supreme Court invalidate the results of four states, including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Michigan. However, despite having a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, the court threw out the lawsuit by a sheer majority. Even Trump-appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a high hope for Republicans, ruled against the lawsuit. Although this lawsuit was a part of the three dozen lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign in the aftermath of the November elections, it was different from the other ones in many aspects. Evidence suggests that the Texas Attorney General wanted to come in the eyes of Donald Trump just to get a presidential pardon. He is expected to face severe charges of security fraud, which can put him in jail.  As this was the last major attempt by the Republicans to overturn the elections before the safe harbor, they decided to come in with full force. Hundreds of Republican congressional representatives and more than a dozen Attorney Generals supported this lawsuit.  Many Republicans stayed on the bandwagon to remain in the good books of Donald Trump, who is expected to have a strong influence over the Republican party in times to come. Most of the signatures come from the deep red states and the far-right conservative wing of the Republican Party.  The lawsuit also made evident that roughly one-quarter of the United States Congress believes that the Supreme Court should invalidate Joe Biden's victory. However, as per the predictions of the political pundits, this lawsuit is also history now.  The Misery of Texas: Texas Lawsuit Explained The major aim of the Texas lawsuit was to nullify more than ten million American votes in Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The lawsuit demanded that the Supreme Court invalidate the 62 Electoral College votes in the states mentioned above.  The distinctive news about this lawsuit was that it was directly filed with the Supreme Court. The Texas government was of the view that the changes to the election rules amid the pandemic in these states were illegal and that the results should be discarded in these states. According to Paxton, the changes made in the electoral procedure due to the pandemic were illegal, and so these states should be stopped from participation in the Electoral College.  Two days after Paxton filed the case, seventeen states filed a motion in support of the lawsuit, and six of these asked to join the lawsuit themselves. This is being termed as the one last shot for the Republican Party to get Trump another four-year term. Who Tried to Come in the Good Books of Trump? The Texas lawsuit had the biggest support from Congress, as 106 Congressional Republicans signed an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit. The brief voiced the concerns of the Republican members of Congress that there have been large-scale constitutional irregularities in the presidential election.  For instance, consider the following elements that supported the lawsuit.   The Republican Study Committee Chairman Mike Johnson, who is one of the closest allies of President Donald Trump, led the effort to garner support from Congressional Republicans. He also served in Trump's impeachment defense team. Congressman Mike Johnson also urged fellow Republicans to join the lawsuit. He also said that most of the Republicans have serious concerns over the election results.      Other Republicans who have been key figures in the campaign for the Texas lawsuit include Minority Whip Steve Scalise, Representative Jim Jordon, Representative Andy Biggs, and Representative Jim Banks.      Six states asked the Supreme Court to let the

m join the Texas lawsuit. These states include the deep red states of Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah.    President Trump has also asked the Supreme Court to allow him to become the plaintiff of the lawsuit. Trump asked Senator Ted Cruz to personally argue the case in front of the court if the court allows him to do.  Texas Lawsuit and Republicans Bandwagoning: A Dangerous Precedent The Supreme Court of the United States made a correct call by rejecting the lawsuit altogether. Otherwise, it was going to create an era of political instability where states would intervene in the elections conducted by the other states. This was one of the main reasons why the accused state officials also came to the front to defend their states. Consider the following statement by the officials of Pennsylvania, for example.   “Let us be clear...Texas invites this court to overthrow the votes of the American people and choose the next President of the United States. That Faustian invitation must be firmly rejected." (Attorneys for Pennsylvania)   The Texas lawsuit is the most significant effort by the Republican party to overturn the election results, yet many Republicans have also shown their disagreement with the lawsuit. Who opposed Trump’s bid in the Texas lawsuit? Let’s look. Rep. Chip Roy, one of the ideological supporters of Trump, opposed the Texas lawsuit in the following words.   "A dangerous violation of federalism and sets a precedent to have one state asking federal court to police the voting system of other states." (Rep. Chip Roy)   Republican Senator Benn Sasse also castigated the attempt and rebuked the lawsuit loudly. He said,   "Every American who cares about the rule of law should take comfort that the Supreme Court - including all three of President Trump's picks - closed the book on the nonsense." (Senator Benn Sasse)   Similarly, Republican Senator John Cornyn has also raised serious questions concerning the merit of the suit. Why Republicans Followed Trump Blindly in the Texas Lawsuit In the aftermath of the 2020 presidential elections, Donald Trump took some decisions that put many Republicans in a confusing position. While on the one hand, they wanted to support the century-old electoral system of the United States, on the other hand, they had to prove their allegiance to Donald Trump. So, many Republicans wanted to prefer Trump over democracy.  However, the very inception of this Texas lawsuit raises some serious questions. Why did Ken Paxton raise this lawsuit in the first place?  The answer is simple; he wants a presidential pardon, so he wanted to be in the good books of Donald Trump just before the end of his presidency. Paxton was accused of security fraud charges in 2015. However, he is yet to be proven guilty. If Trump grants him a preemptive presidential pardon, his only aim will be completed, and he will not be charged with any federal crime in the future. The Republican party started to follow Donald Trump in his baseless lawsuits right after the elections. This culture of the blind following shows how powerful Donald Trump is and how Republicans praise him as a God. The Republican party started to complain about the election results once it became apparent that Joe Biden had won the election. The president and his team have been spreading fake information and conspiracy theories of voter fraud along with filing lawsuits to make the election controversial.  The president and many Republicans were calling the lawsuit as the long shot and big win; they gave it everything they had. Trump's allies urged other members of the party to become involved in it to maximize the pressure on the court.  Another reason for Republicans joining the lawsuit could be their fear of angering the Trump base. Trump supporters supported him in almost all the legal battles, and this is the only reason why 70% of Republica

n supporters still believe Donald Trump’s version of events. The GOP legislatures know that making the Trump supporters angry can cost them their political careers.   Conclusion President Trump has played the last card in his deck, and now Joe Biden is all set to win the electoral college officially.  Despite getting such strong backing by the Republicans, the failure of the Texas lawsuit decries the transparency of the elections. The perception of Donald Trump about the judges also proved to be wrong, as he believed that the judges appointed by him would favor him in all the cases. However, the unilateral decision by all of the judges suggests that the justices give decisions based on the facts and law and not on the conspiracy theories.

[progressive-politico]

Impeach Clarence Thomas! Impeach Samuel Alito! Impeach Amy Coney Barrett! Impeach Neil Gorsuch! Impeach Brett Kavanaugh! Impeach These Liars! Impeach These Monsters! Impeach These Charlatans! https://www.instagram.com/p/Cgm3KQKA_lA/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[carolinemillerbooks]

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/jujitsu-of-the-me-exception/

Jujitsu Of The Me Exception

Recently, I learned a bumble bee is a fish. California, wanting to extend environmental protection to pollinators, tucked them under laws pertaining to scaly creatures. What did the two have in common? According to officials, both were invertebrates. Ingenious!  As a writer and former English teacher, I know language is as limber as a double-jointed belly dancer. Note how the U S. Supreme Court contorted words so that a corporation could be defined as a person.  These are the same folks who decided Settled law could be unsettled concerning Roe v. Wade. As for the Constitutional line between church and state, it exists wherever the high court says it does. The upcoming  October session should be interesting. That’s when the judges will clarify the meaning of free speech and the rights of sexual minorities. Mental jujitsu isn’t reserved for governments and courts. The human brain’s agility is a source to all.  Workers at abortion clinics tell tales about pro-life picketers who break from their protests to have the procedure. One classic story has a pro-lifer sitting in a clinic waiting for her appointment while excoriating the women around her who’d come for the same reason. Clinic workers see this hypocrisy so often, they call it the “Me exception.” Being blind to our shortcomings makes it easy to dislike those who share them. Former President Donald Trump played upon this blindness until hypocrisy seemed like a virtue. He called people who attacked the nation’s capital patriots, and they believed him. Republicans who saw through this delusion left the party. The majority of those who remain can no longer distinguish between truth and lies.  Surprisingly, data reveal the number of extremist groups has fallen in this country. But, that isn’t good news. It means radical groups have gone mainstream. (SPLC Report, Summer 2022, pg. 1) Like the psychopath, so many radicals exist among us, their hatred no longer seems like an aberration.   Normalizing hate didn’t happen overnight. Those who felt aggrieved had a long-term strategy.  They infected local politics, and legitimized gerrymandering in key states so that the Electoral College no longer represented the views of the majority. Free to anoint Presidents of their liking, this rabid minority has gained influence over judicial appointments. Bold as brass, they let no contradiction interfere with progress. Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell blocked Presidents Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court because a presidential election was a few months away. Nonetheless, he offered no objection when Donald Trump nominated ultra-conservative Amy Coney Barrett to the high bench days before he lost the 2020 election. (SPLC Report, Summer 2022, pg 2.) Thanks to the minority’s iron will, the Court has tilted so far to the political right that a majority of voters have lost faith in its rulings. The institution’s approval rating has plummeted to a historic low of 25%.  Overturning Rove v. Wade worsened the majority opinion.  Says one detractor, Part of the rule of law is that you can count on things tomorrow being kind of like yesterday.  Worse, several of the presiding judges appeared to have lied during their Senate hearings. The credibility of one judge is so suspect there are calls for his impeachment. Senator Mitt Romney who stands apart from many of his Republican colleagues advises us to rise above our grievances and resentments.    But how do we escape the juggernaut of mental jujitsu?  Happily, a way exists. First, we must call out contradictions, lies, and hatred so they are no longer the norm. Second, we should demand changes to the Electoral College. When minorities rule, democracy dies.  Third, the filibuster as its stands must go. It impedes the will of the people. Here’s one example. The majority of Americans want assault rifles off our streets. No more blather about Second Amendment rights. Even a grammar school child knows the difference between a “militia” and an individual.  The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men [women and zies] to do nothing.  – John Stuart Mill.

[save-our-children]

Helping The Cause

I'm aware that not everyone is able to do much to help with all that's currently happening, as I am one of them. However, that doesn't mean there's nothing we can do.

If you can and are willing, physically protesting is a great option. There are tons of organized ones happening all across the country.

If you can't, there's still things you can do. Spread the word by telling friends and family or by making social media posts. Share and spread social media posts that you find. Make yourself and others heard. Research other issues going on, because Roe V. Wade is just the tip of a massive iceberg. Sign petitions.

Speaking of petitions, here are 4 to sign:

https://chng.it/ghD5mwYwkv (reinstate Roe

https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/clarence-thomas-must-go?source=rawlink&utm_source=rawlink&share=4f3f26aa-aa89-4456-989e-2113c3d38994 (impeach justice Clarence Thomas)

https://chng.it/hFtRbwfyJV (Impeach justice Amy Coney Barrett)

https://chng.it/4S2HNp9SgK (Impeach Justice Brett Kavanaugh)