Rant – Against The Law: You Ain’t Seen Nothin’ Yet

The U.S. Supreme Court – the law of the land – has just begun a new term. This is scary because the court is made up of the same judges who brought us the Citizens United decision, which legalizes bribes to politicians.  Looking at the Supremes is also timely because we have also begun the race for the presidency, the winner of which will likely appoint new justices for a lifetime on the court of the last resort. And finally, it will soon be Halloween and at night, before I sleep, I see the terrifying masks of Justice Antonin Scalia everywhere.

The great failure of Scalia is that the premise on which he hangs his understanding of the U.S. Constitution is wrong — backward, really. Unfortunately he has followers on and off the Court who make the same mistake. As a self-proclaimed “originalist,” or ‘strict constructionist” as he is sometimes called, Justice Scalia and his allies miss the original purpose of the document and therefore pervert the document’s enduring meaning.

I apologize for stating what is or should be obvious. The Declaration of Independence was written to make it clear that the inhabitants of colonial America were about to set up their own government because, in short, they sought economic freedom from the Royals and their trade allies, and religious freedom from a shameless and cruel theocracy.  The new country’s founders wanted individual legal protections the Crown withheld. They tossed the rules and those who enforced them overboard.

The writing of the U.S. Constitution followed to set the rules of governance for this new, sovereign country.

The writers almost immediately added the Bill of Rights, fearful that some of their comrades might suggest that the constitution would be interpreted as the limitation of rights rather than the extension of rights, which was what the revolutionary war was about.  And thus began a dreadful confusion.  And it is the fossilized Scalia and his minions – slow-witted Alito, taciturn Thomas and a caught-in-the-middle Roberts who have a bizarre and muddled understanding of freedom and who have deserted original intent.

Getting it right is important. It boils down to this: Are you entitled to all rights not specifically prohibited by the document or are you entitled to only those rights explicitly granted by it?  This question pits the literal or fundamentalist against the conceptualist or liberal. Is this profound document, conceived by the finest minds of the time, a living and adaptable philosophy that accommodates the evolution of our culture or is it an ironclad set of rules frozen in the time of muskets and quill pens?

The battle is familiar. Christians have long debated the literal meaning of the Bible with those who urge folks to view the words more broadly and find meaning that relates to our times. It is a battle, involving various faiths and governments throughout the world. Most enlightened Christians do not worry about wearing clothing made of two different fabrics or eating scallops.

But back to the U.S.A.  and our Constitution.  Below is the text from Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Justice Scalia cannot find in that last clause that discrimination against women because they are women, is forbidden by our constitution. To deny women equal treatment is either in defiance of the Constitution or women aren’t people.

“Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it.  It doesn’t,” Scalia said in an interview with the magazine California Lawyer.

The word, “person” baffles Justice Antonin Scalia

When people remind us that justice should be blind, it didn’t mean it should be without vision.  And, of course, this same, logic-free Scalia interpretation of equal protection sets a precedent on other equal protection issues based on ethnicity, religion, height, disability, vocation – you name it. Chances are this affects you.  The Fourteenth amendment clearly states, “equal protection.” What Scalia seems to say is we have a right to equal victimization.

To me, this kind of restrictive interpretation of freedom comes from a petty mind, not to mention a stingy heart. This conclusion is not exactly in the spirit of American freedom, nor, for the unsentimental, can it be found in the actual words of our governing document.

And this is the man who somehow construed the Constitution to recognize corporations as people and money as speech.  He can find that in the Constitution, but not that women are entitled to equal rights?

He has also told us we have no right to privacy. The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 This is pretty straightforward, a simple, direct statement that even a strict constructionist should understand.

What’s more frightening is that most of the current Republican Party presidential nominees name Scalia as the kind of Supreme Court justice they would appoint if they became president.  

If Yogi Berra were still around, maybe he’d ask what the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments mean if they don’t mean what they mean?

Rant — Nominees For Most Arrogant Human Alive

WARNING: The following contains political commentary

All cover, no content

Donald Trump: is the personification of the “Ugly American.”  He is brash, loud, bullying, misogynistic, xenophobic, and has no notion of the meaning of the word, “honorable.”  All right, nothing new here. Wait, Trump’s bluntness leads to an accidental honesty.  He admits he regularly buys politicians to build his business, that he declares bankruptcy (screwing over investors and suppliers) as a business strategy, and hates losers including U.S. prisoners of war because they got caught. Logic would extend Trump’s definition of “loser to those wounded in action or victims of catastrophic disease who had an actual reason to declare bankruptcy. Trump inherited his “winner” status, but unlike his moneyed peers, he is very low on the list of charitable givers.  My guess is that should he actually become the next U.S. President, while he screwed over the country, he’d laugh at the losers who voted for him. The question is: Is he important enough to be in this race, let alone one for the presidency?

Where's 007 when you need him?

Vladimir Putin: The Russian leader is so ashamed of his country’s fall from power that he is willing to do anything to anyone in order to restore a Kingdom worthy of his leadership. Much like Trump, Putin is a chest-thumping narcissist. The difference is Trump thinks that’s normal, even desirable. Putin, KGB trained, may be absurd, but he is not harmless. His ability to do harm is global.  There is the old saying that writers don’t like to write; they just want to have written.  I think that while Trump doesn’t want to be president, he wants to have been president. Putin truly wants to restore Russia to what it was under Stalin.  Trump wants to be on TMZ or the cover of People.  Putin wants to be in the history books along side Mao and Adolph. I suspect Russia will be a great country again — creating the art, music and literature it once did  — just not under another ego-driven, bullying war criminal.

What do you want from me? Logic?

Antonin Scalia:  Here is a man not only stuck in time, but also clutching the backward concept that you only have the rights the constitution specifically says you do. It is a negative way of looking at the concept of freedom.  His mind is not at all conceptual.  He cannot or will not extend the logic of the document so that it remains relevant to or in touch with reality as reality evolves. Freedom of speech, for example, now encompasses tweets, or cell phones capturing an arrest, a riot or an accident in the making.  Our forefathers could not have imagined it as they put the document together. But did they need to identify every method by which speech is shared in order for it to be free? On the other hand, a rude and bullying Scalia was quite willing to turn the concept of speech on its head when he sided with Citizens United‘s position that money is speech and worse, corporations are people.  Here he abandoned even his own outdated principles to stretch and twist free speech into a pretzel. Nowhere does the constitution say or even imply that money is speech or that corporations are people. Where is the strict constitutionalist he claims to be? He has turned out to be just another showman with half a brain.  Unlike Trump, however, Scalia can use two syllable words in his prayers for the rich and powerful.

Where's my shotgun?

Dick Cheney: Cheney has talent.  He can calmly lie through his teeth and somehow seem sensible. The man who headed war profiteer Halliburton…the man who sent Americans to die in Iraq over nothing…the man whose military expenditures while part of the Cheney-Bush presidential team nearly destroyed our economy, wants us to go to war with Iran. And he’s getting free airtime to promote this folly.  More lives lost. More money spent. More hatred toward us generated. I’m with group that believes no one contributed more to the creation of ISIS than our former ventriloquist and war criminal VP. The problem is he still talks like he knows what he’s talking about, as if he has not regularly and with an incredibly straight face lied to us and got caught. He talks as if he is actually relevant. And when the right wing talks, we can barely see Cheney’s lips move.

Let's you and him fight!

Benjamin Netanyahu:  Everyone I know has long supported Israel.  We want the country to succeed. Israel has a right to a peaceful, sovereign existence.  The U.S., rightfully, has been a good friend to Israel, providing economic aid when it was needed and military aid and support.  In other words, we have their back. In turn, Israel has been a strong ally in a troubled region of our planet. That we don’t always approve of each other’s actions is to be expected and respected. We should not expect to buy their love or have them act in a way that would conflict with their interests as a nation. However Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has proven to be an arrogant, war-mongering backstabber. While the Mideast situation is beyond complex, Netanyahu’s proclivity toward violence, and his unlawful occupation of land that does not belong to his country shows the same megalomania that inhabits most tyrants.   His appearance in front of the U.S. Congress violated international protocol and showed how little he regards U.S. friendship. His action showed extreme disrespect for our President and our country.  Netanyahu is another bully wanting relevance on the world stage, when what is needed is wisdom and leadership.

Rant — The Life, Death And Fog Lifetime Achievement Awards

When I first came upon Esquire magazine, the monthly was both a bawdy and sophisticated men’s magazine, just respectable enough to occupy a space on the cocktail table.  Playboy, more often hidden a way in the sock drawer, still managed to disrupt, perhaps overwhelm Esquire’s prestigious spot as the ultimate in men’s magazines. In my opinion Esquire was the original. In its attempt to compete with this surprisingly successful upstart, Esquire tried all sorts of things and in doing so they came up with some innovative ideas.  My favorite was the annual “Dubious Achievement Awards.”  With a nod toward Esquire, during Playboy’s 60th anniversary, here are some special award categories and my top two nominees for each award offered in the same spirit.

BIGGEST BULLY

Vladimir Putin vs Chris Christie:.  My vote goes to the Russian dictator only because he can actually kill a lot people and invade a lot of land. Christie may want to, but he’d have to keep it quiet.  Another reason Putin gets the prize is that anyone who would buckle under in a Diane Sawyer interview as Christie did can no longer be feared.  The man deserves to spend the rest of his life in a cartoon. Christie may have his own border battles, but Putin is trying to recreate the old USSR. There are a number of former Soviet puppet states that legitimately fear a Crimean fate and sadly a number of folks in those states seem to prefer a country run by a Stalin wannabe.

MOST ARROGANT

Justice Antonin Scalia vs. Dick Cheney:  It’s a difficult choice between these two hunting buddies. Both are cigar-smoking, small-game hunters.  Both are skilled speakers and debaters. Cheney has that unemotional, matter-of-fact delivery that lulls the listener into thinking he’s spewing “the-facts, just-the-facts, ma’am.” Scalia’s technique is equally interesting. He uses theatre. He sets a regal “how-dare you-question me tone.” He knows everything.  And you are a fool. He’s a kind of male chauvinist Judge Judy, though I’d take Judge Judy for her consistent application of the law as she sees it. Scalia is all over the place.  However, his bitter edge, which he can’t hide as well as Cheney is similarly based.   Cheney, though he ran things during Bush’s first term, was always number two in the eyes of the world. Scalia runs things on the court, but he knows he will never be Chief Justice. Forced to choose, I pick Scalia as the most arrogant and currently the most dangerous. He was appointed for life.  He’s also continually pissed off. At this point, Cheney doesn’t mind being unpopular. He’s the most likely to say, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”

 

MOST OBLIVIOUS

George W. Bush vs. Donald Rumsfeld:  Unlike Rumsfeld, there is some indication that Bush the younger finally understood what happened under his watch and decided to take up painting. (Anyone, to pick up on Andy Borowitz’ suggestion, want to take up a collection for a beginner’s paint set for Jeb?) Rumsfeld gets my vote. One of the best-known known knowns is that the man had no idea what he was doing in Iraq and to this day doesn’t know that he didn’t know it. He seems happy, which is further evidence that “ignorance is bliss.”  Actually he also disproves the Peter Principle. He rose well beyond occupying a job for which he was merely incompetent. He would do it all again, he said.  One more time: What’s the popular definition of crazy?

 

DUMBEST

George W. Bush vs. Kim Jong-un: I might have given this award to Bush the Younger, but he was smart enough to go into hiding. I can’t imagine anything worse than being stupid and mean. One would think KIM II was a born-again Texas Republican — Perry and Cruz, for example. (Not all Texans, mind you. Molly Ivins was my hero.) However the current Kim Jong wins this contest hands down because he is still in the seat of power where his narcissistic stupidity is a danger not only to his own people, but also to the world. Worse, he really is in a position to improve the lives of millions and chooses instead to keep them starving, in prison and isolated from the world.  We shouldn’t be surprised. (Look at his haircut). On the other hand, I suspect a dark fate awaits him, sooner rather than later. Perhaps it will be his uncle’s revenge from the grave.