I Am Back

I went offline for a few days because I was angry and didn't want to inflict that on friends.   I am very political in some ways, but it is more personal views than organized politics.  I am not a member of any political organization.  Well, OK, I am registered as a Democrat.  Maryland US is a very definite Democratic State, and I want to vote in the Primaries.  

I have strong political/social views.  Always have.  When I was 10, I was allowed to stay up late to watch the Nixon/Kennedy debates in 1960.  Then in 1964, I supported Goldwater because the Democrats were just dithering about Vietnam and Goldwater said he would settle it.  I was 14, what did I know?  

In 1968, I went off to college (safe from the draft) but demonstrated against the increasing warfare (to no purpose as I saw it).  The body bags were coming home...

And I hated Nixon.  He lied and cheated.  I didn't know worse was to come with Reagan and Trump.  Today, I would take Nixon over Trump any day.  But you never know what the future will be when you are in the present in the past.

I screamed and yelled when Gore was denied the Presidency for reasons I considered cheating.  Probably slightly the same as Trump supporters do now.  But Gore conceded after the courts decided against him.  Trump did and does not.  So there are differences in accepting "the rule of law".

Which brings me to today.  I had "anger issues" in the past.  I spent my time on yelling and screaming sites into the early 2000s.  I punched a few holes is those cheap Luan doors I have (had them replaced later).  

I left those sites and I left the anger.  I started following a few calmer sites.  Max The PsychoKitty, a book discussion site (Clan Of The CaveBear) which focussed on the story and facts about 20,000 BCE.  A site that discussed religions factually (which was surprisingly calming, as it forced rational replies).

Last week, the US Supreme Court approved anyone carrying concealed guns.  I have concerns about guns.  I can argue about what a "well-regulated militia" means regarding the 2nd amendment.  But I did not "lose it then".

I "lost it" Friday morning upon hearing the the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade.  After the leaked draft opinion a couple months ago, I thought it would have to alter the opinion because of what I (personally) thought were serious errors and was in opposition to the know general will of the population.

I really just didn't think they would do it!

I threw the radio across the room, scattering backup batteries everywhere.  Talk about "blaming the messenger" (sigh)...  I wanted to yell and shout here.  I stopped myself...  I decided to go offline for a few days to not say anything to upset friends.  It took several days to calm down.

I am no less angry, but I am back in control of it.  Being angry won't change the Supreme Court decision.  I will focus on future political actions.

I was wrong.  And I shouldn't have been surprised.  We have a very conservative Supreme Court now.  But I am not going to argue about it here.  I don't want Cavebear's Lair to be a political debate venue.

So while my first instinct was to yell and scream about the decision, I decided to avoid doing that.  You are all too important to me as long-standing friends.

I apologize for upsetting you all with the too-brief post saying I would be gone for an undetermined time.  I wasn't sure how long it would take.  But it was all I could say at the time.  Best to stay offline a few days than to post something I might regret for months or years.  

Can't Stay Away

I thought I would probably just stay offline for a week and see what developed after US Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg died, but there is little value in doing that. The Republican party has made it clear that they will appoint a very conservative justice to replace a liberal one.  I just didnt expect them to act so fast.

There are couple things going on here and I just can't stay silent.  The first is that Justice Ginsberg was an unusually thoughtful and careful thinker.  I always personally thought she was special.  While I don't try to read detailed legal decisions, I always found summaries of her questions and arguments to be clearer and more focused than most other Supreme Court Justices (some of whose were downright bizarre and represented political goals more than they did law).

The second is that her replacement will likely be extremely conservative and likely to tilt the Court to a degree of reactionary conservatism.  I am scared, angry, and worried about a generation of reversals of basic civil right decisions.

For the benefit of those who do not pay as much attention to The Supreme Court as they do the Presidency or Congress (as so many do not in the US and do not really need to elsewhere), here is a brief summary of the politicalization of the US Supreme Court...

In our history, there have been times when the Supreme Court nominees were very political chosen.  But after WWII until a few decades ago, nominees were generally moderates chosen for legal expertise and a sense of some political neutrality.  That was mostly because both the Democratic and Republican parties had liberal and conservative members and no extremely ideological judge could get through the Senate for approval.

As the political parties began to chose a side in "self-purging",  Supreme Court candidates became more representative of party politics.  One could blame Richard Nixon for bringing Southern Democratic conservatives and Republican conservatives together to form a new majority Republican party under the idea of "law and order" (a code word for racism and white supremacy).  Economic and liberal Republicans moved to the Democratic party which promised "a big tent".  I was one of them.

Over the next couple of decades, both parties spread apart ideologically.  The Republicans realized that taking over The Supreme Court had advantages for a decade or more (the Democrats, to my constant amazement, never seemed to catch on to that).   Republicans went for advantage; Democrats stayed respectful of the Preident's right to select Judges at all levels

In this century, timing of Supreme Court retirements and deaths has given the Republicans the opportunity to name more Supreme Court judges than the Democrats.  But it isn't JUST that.  There is a major difference between Republicans and Democrats.  

Republican politicians come from businessmen and lawyers used to fighting to win by any means.  Democrats tend to come from community activists used to succeeding by creating consensus among groups.  Republicans enjoy high-stakes poker; Democrats let their kids win at Candyland*.  Let's say both play chess.  Republicans will try a a Fool's Mate playing their Mother; Democrats will try to let their friends get a draw.  Republicans are Dad who sends you to your room for not finishing dinner; Democrats are Mom who sneaks you dessert later. 

That may be changing as Democrats see the lack of benefit by seeking consensus and getting kicked in the face for trying.   

But here's my point...  

In February 2016,  conservative Supreme Court Justice Scalia died.  It was the right of President Obama to name and expect to have approved a replacement.  He nominated Merrick Brian Garland (who serves as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He has served on that court since 1997 with good reputation).  

Republican US Senate Leader Mich McConnell declared it was improper for a President to name a Supreme Court Judge in an election year  (this was 10 months before the election).  Most all other Republicans agreed and some even swore on camera that they would never change their minds on this issue as a "matter of principle".  Because the nominee should be chosen by the next President.

Now it is 2020, only 48 days before the next election.  President Trump is demanding to name Ginsberg's replacement and those Republican Senators who swore never to allow a Court approval at any point in an election year are saying they will approve anyone Trump names within days.

My Dad hated "lying"; I hate "hypocrisy".  They are close but different.

In a way, it doesn't matter what the views of Trump's nominee are.  It is the hypocrisy of the Republican Senators who changed their views just as a matter of winning.  I am disgusted by the amorality and
hypocrisy of the Republican party in this matter.

    -----------------

* When I was growing up, my family played board games a lot.  Dad was lethal.  Mom probably was kinder.  But Dad never explained how he won.  He just LOVED winnng at anything.  And when I got better at any game than him, he stopped playing it.  Granted, I learned a lot from losing and DID figure out his secrets slowly.

Move ahead to 1980.  My parents (who said we should always stay close together as a family) suddenly went and moved from MD to NH taking my minor sister with them.  So I visited them each Summer.  Sis liked to play board games too.  Her favorite was Careers.  I was lethal, like Dad.  And that probablt distressed her at first because I was her "adored Big Brother".  

But I kept showing her what I had done to win (and there were many ways), and she caught on o the idea that I was teaching her how to play games.  I explained there was a way of looking at how a game worked and taking advantage of that.  In Careers you could win by meeting goals you set in your mind at the start.  Any version of $, happiness, or fame that got you to 60.  But you just had to focus on it.  She mentioned that to me years later saying I had helped her look at some parts of life more analytically and clearly.

The point was Dad killed, Mom was kind, and I explained.   Dad was  Republican, Mom was a Democrats, and I was somewhere between...