One of the recent controversial and in my opinion dishonest ruling from the Supreme Court of The United States is Kennedy v Bremerton School District which ruled that the school district violated Coach Kennedy’s right when it fired him for conducting prayers on the football field directly following games. I will not relitigate the case, there are numerous good sources to understand the legal issues in contention, but I want to point you towards a podcast, Advisory Opinion, where the lawyer representing Kennedy appeared and argued the case for the hosts and the public. Hiram Sasser abused the English language so thoroughly that words ceased to having meaning, particularly the word ‘private.’

Sasser argued that his client had engaged in private prayer which is Kennedy’s right to exercise and the school district trampled on his religiously liberty by firing him.

This ‘private’ prayer took place on the football field, immediately following the game. A field which just moments ago had been the focus of attention for a stadium full of people. It is difficult to conceive of a setting less private. Had Coach Kennedy strode out to the 50-yard line and begun masturbating I doubt a single conservative in the nation would have considered this a ‘private’ act. The abuse of the word continues. Members of the football team followed Kennedy to the field as asked if they could join him to which he reported replied ‘It’s a free Country.’ Call me a stickler for language but when you participate with other in an activity, others who members of the general population and not there by invitation, that is public and not ‘private.’ The continued abuse of the language in describing any of this as ‘private’ is nothing short of dishonest doublethink. In my personal opinion, clearly not private as I am stating it in the open and in full view Sasser, the Supreme Court engaged in deceptive contorted logic with selective facts to arrive at the conclusion that the conservatives had already decided was the one that they wanted.

In the classic SF film Forbidden Planet Professor Morbius enhanced by alien technology unleashes his Id as an indestructible monster to protect his paradise. In a very similar manner, the GOP crafted and unleashed their own Id when they struck the bargain in the Southern Strategy welcoming racists to win elections and now that monster is the party instead of the party’s beast. None of the those ‘wiser’ heads foresaw or intended for today’s Republican party. They had the very best of intentions, but forces unchained are quite difficult to contain.

Today I am seeing many on the left looking to their own monster to wield and that monster is violence. In their minds the recent and terrible court decisions are not a call to political action and work but rather a ‘justification’ to unleash the mob. hat rioting and violence are the bargains they would strike today.

I would ask them whose deaths are justified by their anger?

Thomas?

Roberts?

McConnel?

The Capitol Police person who just happens to be ‘in the way.’

Violence by its nature is uncontrolled and unruly. It will spread further then you ever intent and its final results are unforeseeable.

Violence is always justified in the first person and a crime in the third.

Friday’s SCOTUS decision to reverse Roe is utterly unprecedented. Yes, the court has reversed and overturned decisions, major monumental decisions, but never before has the court rescinded a legally recognized individual right. A week ago the people had X number of rights, today it is X-1. The long, arduous path that this nation had struggled on of slowly, inexorable, expanding individual rights has ended. The line has been crossed and it can never be uncrossed. For the rest of the nation’s existence the member of court will know that with enough cajoling and pressure they can remove any right that they find unpleasant. We know already that a member of the court is looking are more recently won rights as targets for elimination. “Cooler heads” tell us to not panic, that this lone voice on the bench has not the votes to imperil those rights. Well, for 50 years there was not the votes to imperil any individual rights and then there were. Precedent and legal traditions no longer stay the court’s hand from the political ends they wish to obtain and for those conservatives cheering you are far too short sighted. That abandoned respect of precedent and tradition can just as easily apply to Heller and MacDonald. Why should liberal justices have any more respect for you recently won rights as you had for theirs? You have initiated a no rules cage match where only victory matters and it will not end any time soon. The aged old guard of the liberal party has continued to play by rules that right has long abandoned but the next generation of liberal pols have watched and learned the lesson to whipped them with and the tables always turn.

I do not celebrate this, but I do welcome it. A return to politics with rules and norms can only be achieved if the right suffers, and suffers terribly, for the unrestricted warfare that they have unleased.

I dream, I hope, but sadly without a lot of faith that it will come to pass, that Friday represents the Right’s Pearl Harbor moment. A devastating attack that was meant to cripple an enemy but instead woke a slumbering giant and that brought about the attacker’s utter ruin.

David French, social conservative and never Trumper, has said for quite a while and reiterated his stance in the wake of the leak from SCOTUS, that overturning the precedent of Roe v Wade and its associated constitutional rights is far less consequential than most people assume. His argument is built upon three core legs and in each of these I think it is likely events will prove him wrong.

The three premises of his arguments are as thus:

1. Few voters actually value the abortion issues highly
2. The nation is already divided by the states into stable abortion zones.
3. With the issues delegitimized as a right and returned to politics the compromise nature of politics will cool the waters and finalize into an agreed upon solution.

To support his premises that few voters actually care about the issues French often cites recent election data and he is particularly fond of Youngkin’s victory this year in Virginia. Exit polls do indeed show that few voters listed abortion as a driving factor in their decisions. However, this follows on decades of the issues being ‘settled law’ and if you are under 50 your entire life had been one in which this was a right. It is true that the storm has been gathering for some time and with the 3 justices appointed to SCOTUS by the previous administration this outcome was highly predicable. But I would contend that there is a vast emotional gulf between what is predicted and an event happening. A live example of this is the Russian invasion of Ukraine. For months we have been warned that Russian was likely to invade it democratic neighbor. For weeks the US warned that the invasion was coming soon, not likely, not possible, but actually coming. The American electorate cared very little. Ukraine was not pressing political issue. And now it is. That seems very odd, we have quite clear polling that people really didn’t consider Ukraine very important, so they shouldn’t now when the easily predictable thing came to pass. But they do. Because it a very different thing to speak of possibilities and another to have reality come crashing into the consciousness. Being told smoking causes cancer and being told you have cancer are emotionally quite different in their impact and I think the same mechanism will be at work here. For decades people have been warned their rights are in danger and now those rights are gone. It is quite likely there will be a political firestorm.

Yes, the nation is already divided into states with abortion freedoms and those without. Far more abortions, even controlling for population, in California than Mississippi, but there is no reason to believe that will hold after the destruction of the right. Already liberal at the national level are scrambling in search of a way, probably in vain, to pass national legislation on this issue. I have no doubts that future government with the GOP in control will also attempt to pass laws criminalizing abortion nationally. After all, if you sincerely believe that this ‘murders children,’ a premise I do not accept, then how can you do nothing to stop it once you have cleared the barricade that has barred you from doing so? No, once Roe is dealt with the next objective will be a national legal movement. I am sure French would argue that it is against conservative principle to overrule the states with a national law. I will point out that there is no ‘conservative principle’ that held the GOP back from embracing and literally idolizing Trump. No ‘principle’ will stay their hand here.

And now we come to the most delusional and wish-casting section of his argument, that political compromise will be found.

We have a repeat of the trouble from the second premise, if someone believes that abortion is murder what possible compromise can that person make? How could they say, you may ‘murder these babies but not these?’ It’s preposterous but set that aside for the moment, either because it is untrue, the political movers and shakers do not hold this belief dear to their hearts or because it is impractical the third legs still collapses. Because of physical sorting and gerrymandering fewer and fewer political areas are competitive between the two camps, California is not going to compromises and give ground to the powerless GOP within the state and Mississippi will behave the same toward the Democrats there. As with every other issue before us there is absolutely no incentive for any political party to compromise. It only opens you up to attack from your more dedicated factions and wins you nothing in the contest. The battle has now crossed no man’s land and the two factions are going to be in hand-to-hand knifing fighting.

Of course, this will not stop with abortion. Yes, the leaked said that this reasoning doesn’t apply to anything else at all, but this is from the same liars who proclaimed Roe as ‘settled law.’ Sadly, the war only grows.

Among the political reading and podcasts, I follow there has been a debate concerning if Trump is losing his grip upon the Republican party. For those assessing the environment and concluding that his influence is waning a key item of evidence is that Trump endorsed candidates are doing poorly in the GOP primaries and his win/loss record when the primaries are completed may be negative.

I think these people are wish-casting, seeing the outcomes as indicative of a political environment that want to be true not the reality that is before them.

Yes, many, perhaps even most, Trump endorsed candidates in the current Republican primaries are faring poorly and may be likely to lose. But they are not losing to candidates that repudiate Trump’s administrations, who plainly and cleanly recognize that the 2020 election was fair, free of any result altering fraud or corruption. The winning candidates from coast to coast all repeat the core conspiracy-ridden Trump approved accounts of the election and the mythical fraud. None stand athwart the conservative tide and shout STOP! None endorse Cheney and her election. They are all, with or without his endorsement, Trump’s people.

But if Trump backs losers, puts his finger on the scale and it matters not, doesn’t that prove his influence is not that great?

Here is rule one for Trump and politics, ignore it at your peril.

Objective reality does not matter to Trump and his political fortunes.

Hundreds of thousands dead from a pandemic he denied and dismissed? Inconsequential.

Massive Tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy when he campaigned otherwise? Meaningless.

Disparaging and disrupting alliances in favor of geopolitical enemies? Irrelevant.

Issuing directives against LGBTQ when he had promised to be their best friend? Trivial

What Trump does, as long as it does not directly contradict a white supremist narrative, is without any weight or meaning. Trump’s political power is not generated by policy, principle, position, or actions but solely from emotion. And that emotion is anger. Anger at the ‘other,’ anger at the ‘elite,’ anger at the world not catering to his voters’ whims. So what if Mandel wins the primary in Ohio over Vance, they are both stoking the anger, they are both bending the knee to the Orange God-King, they are both Trump’s men and he wins if either does.

I have friend that collect firearms and I have friends that trade in curio and collectable firearms to supplement their income. I understand that domination of the federal government, enough to expand the courts, kill the filibuster, and admit new states to the union, would also bring draconian and in all likelihood ineffective gun bans. But I must still work for and hope for that Democratic party achieves such a dominate position.

I must take this stand because I also have friends who are trans, who are gay, who are black, who are female, and the GOP has made it crystal clear for some time now that individuals of such categories value far less to them than tax breaks, deregulation, and cultural hegemony.

Categorically I classify as a cis white male, free from the GOP’s insidious targeting, so why should I really care?

Beyond the dear friends in the above-mentioned classifications, I have more than a gram of empathy and imagination. I can see and foresee what cruelty this is even if I myself am untouched directly by such wanton malice. It is also philosophically consistent with my world view that unless they are harming others should be free to live their lives, their one and only life, in the matter that brings them the most satisfaction, happiness, and fulfillment and that they are the sole judge of what meets those needs.

But aren’t I turning a back on the friends for whom happiness and fulfillment comes from a diverse and interesting collection of firearms?

I cannot politically help both. I must choose one side or the other and while the firearm issue may be important to some it is not a core component of one’s identity. You are not born a firearm fan you choose to become one but for all these others there was no choice, no option, and that crushing their rights in my opinion is a greater crime. When these people are free and secure then I can turn my attention elsewhere.