So Much for the Rule of Law

'Something about this court makes me uneasy.'

I’m worrying about the powerful abusing the weak and the need to expand rights and opportunities. Them’s my rules.

The Trump regime’s goal of returning us to the days before even the Progressive Era, 1890 to 1918 or 1920, when women finally got the vote, has now given us a truly horrendous Supreme Court pick. [By the way, I’m not one of the sad sack progressives who believes this guy will automatically make it onto the court although I am very close to a state of sad sackism…]  In case you’re not familiar, watch this video for a history of the Progressive era, the good and bad https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0Q4zPR4G7M

Let’s circle back to the hue and cry of late from Democrats and some progressives among them that the Republicans are not obeying the “rule of law” by which I think they mostly mean, the norms of civic life more than actual laws. Okay, there are also things like the “emoluments clause” which none of us had likely heard of til now and few yet know what exactly it entails. It seems it was written for folks like Benjamin Franklin who, “for instance, had accepted a snuffbox festooned with 408 diamonds from the King of France.”  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-the-emoluments-clause-does-it-apply-to-president-trump/2017/01/23/12aa7808-e185-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ca92c7adcdf6

Here’s a tweet which typically references “the rule of law” without stipulating what that means, “In the end of this debacle, there will either be a Republican Party that has joined with Putin to reform our gov.into an authoritarian state, or there will be the rule of law. There can’t be both. The Republicans have committed treason and need to be prosecuted for the crime.”

If it’s referencing colluding with a foreign state, then the law would seem to work as many already have been indicted and given prison terms but if it references the president, it’s vague. Because, by law, the Republican run congress can set aside the findings of the investigation and it’s a toss-up as to whether a sitting president may be indicted. In fact, it’s a political question, not a legal one.

But, if you’re asking whether a politician is above the law, yeah, that’s another issue and we all know the answer to that. Our system was set up to favor a certain group, a group I don’t have to describe. There have been years, even a decade here and there where laws were made to equalize the playing field, although equalize is not really fair if you were placed at a different starting block than others.

So now the Supreme Court and to a greater extent, the lower courts, which we had come to rely on, will be stacked against, hmmm, take a long lunch break while I type these-(Warning-I’m dropping the useless apostrophe here) workers rights, consumers rights, womens rights, Black folks rights, Brown folks rights, disabled folks rights, LGBTQ folks rights, immigrants rights, childrens rights, people who need healthcare rights, people who need to breathe clean air rights, endangered species rights (we should be added to that list). Hey, even most straight white males who own property actually need to preserve some of those rights.

Well, we kept saying, the system worked. The courts have stopped him/them. Yeah, good luck with that now. They will just ignore any judge who disagrees with them after ignoring any existing laws, statutes or NORMS until they get to SCOTUS where their perfidy will be upheld.

Why is any of this a surprise? For most of our history the courts have protected the Wealthy, the White and the American Aristocracy, whether it’s landed dudes who own their workers or tech dudes who, almost own their workers, and so-called Christian dudes who don’t wanna bake cakes in case they call for lavender icing.

We learned to love the Warren Court and hold it as our image of the goodness of lifetime appointments and the belief that if the same guy who proposed the internment/imprisonment of Americans of Japanese descent could turn out to oppose segregation and uphold the 4th Amendment, could evolve so could they all.

Well, good luck with that. But if it’s cause you now wanna defend the FBI, I got some movies that show even Hollywood can set the lie to that. Now I don’t mean to say that the folks who run that Republican organization are all like J Edgar, no, they are more polished than that. And should we defend them, those agents, against the GOP’s obvious partisan and personal attacks, yes, of course. We can read and chew at the same time, right?

BUT, let’s stop getting our panties or our boxers-tired of the feminine reference being used to show weakness and Warning don’t read this if you are offended by gross language-everybody knows a pussy is way more resilient and powerful than a dick-whenever a norm is broken or a law misused. It’s the American way.

I’ve gone to jail twice because I ignored the rule of law, minor laws, laws imposed for expediency sake, for sure. But I’ll do it again and I’d even prefer doing it for “greater” laws as we shall soon see the return of laws against free speech like we did under Woodrow Wilson, yeah, that guy. Check out the Sedition Act of 1918, https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitalism/sources_document1.html

Or the ones that go back to John Adams, sigh.

Relying on such a concept of the Rule of Law is a recipe for acquiescing to more racially punishing laws, more denigration of individual and group liberties and the complete collapse of our environment.

No, we need to coalesce around a group of principles against which we will give not an inch. It starts with preventing any of Trump’s SCOTUS picks from getting a fair hearing, Yep, I said fair. All those judges were picked by folks who oppose equal rights for the rest of us so the list is biased against us and we must act accordingly.

Anyway, please discuss, especially the legal minds, tear into this if you will but please define the rule of law before you do, cause really, I don’t know what you folks are worrying about. I’m worrying about the powerful abusing the weak and the need to expand rights and opportunities. Them’s my rules.

download

Has SB 562 actually moved Universal Healthcare Forward?

images

“Are we turning into Trump-like voters who believe that wishing will make it so and who refuse to take on the hard work of designing, fundraising and door knocking for something as important as this?”

On this 4th of July, I have a question for all those people imploring us to talk to the folks across the aisle or the country or the political divide. How the hell can we do that when progressive Democrats can’t even talk to each other here in California?

Yeah, you already know I’m talking about the shitshow that resulted from the shelving of our holiday wish list or our progressive letter-to-Santa, SB 562.

I was refused healthcare for many years in my own so-called-progressive state. Why, cause I had been on workers’ comp but it could have been any number of minor pre-existing conditions that gave insurers the right to tell me no. I once worked for a union which treated me as a contractor so I had to fight to pay for my own insurance on their plan-being a single mom of 2 kids with chronic illnesses-it was a necessity I was ready to fight for.

So along with many Californians I was very excited when Single Payer, which had been variously vetoed or ignored by our state government over the years, looked like it’s time had come. But you know when you start a relationship, then start to see red flags, but you try to convince yourself that you can fix it? You gravitate toward any explanation for their troubling behavior until everything falls apart and you see how it happened??

I was excited and ready to try and explain this bill to friends who had been suspicious of previous attempts at single payer. I kept asking questions, none of which got answered sufficiently but I wanted to try and see it through the eyes of skeptics so that I could attempt to explain their concerns away.

There’s all this money out there for healthcare and this would be cheaper than what we are currently doing. Yep, I believe that one, the evidence around the world proves that. But how would it be financed, well, we don’t know but we’ll figure it out and then let you know, trust us, right? Uh, I thought, I can’t use that sort of non-explanation with folks who are already leery. Hell, I can’t even use that on myself.

Framing is All in Politics

Immediately after those questions began to surface, I saw how it got framed by the opponents of our not-for-profit healthcare system. They’re coming to take your salary, half of it every year, they said. Absurd, I responded, asking again for a formula with actual numbers…

images (9)  Do we live in the state that birthed, Don’t Think of an Elephant, for nothing? Do you even need George Lakoff to know that the first one who frames the debate, especially in a fear-fueled atmosphere, usually wins? So I freaked out, geezus, why didn’t we set up our talking points first? Why lay our own land mines in the way of victory? I think I tore a little hair out trying to tell anyone who would listen–we’re already making terrible mistakes.

No, they patiently told me, we’re gathering support for the concept. Really, didn’t we have that from every person who had realized that Obamacare was saving lives, maybe their own, and that it’s demise would ruin or even take them?! If not, this bill probably wasn’t going to convince them.

Well, I said to myself, maybe the threat against the ACA will move the legislature and even Jerry can detect political rumblings [I ‘m convinced he doesn’t hear actual human voices, but like an animal, he can sense when a thunderstorm is about to break, especially as he’s been hit by lightning a couple times already.]

California Democratic Convention Organizes Firing Squad

So I gathered my desperation and painted it as hope. Then the Democratic Convention happened and instead of California’s governing party discussing how to resist the Trump regime or even, with so many Berniecrats and the powerful nurses’ union in attendance, how to get the Business Dems (we’re supposed to call them Mod Dems) to our side by overwhelming them with our logic, we shouted them down. Oops, no, we shouted everyone down, including long time fighter John Burton then we kept shouting until everyone else had left the room-here I’m being metaphorical or hyperbolic or whatever, cause I had already left myself, so I don’t know.

But the California Senate passed 562 so I thought, where there’s a will… etc, but it was more–where there’s buck to pass, a career to be advanced…Didja know that Senator Lara who designed this bill, this mission statement of notions, is running for Insurance Commissioner, and is termed out soon?

I’ve been told by many politically savvy folks that this bill is being used as a litmus test for anyone running for office. I can’t imagine having to support any candidate who doesn’t believe in some form of universal healthcare but, apparently, it has to be this bill-a bill which ignores the realities of Prop 98 and the Gann amendments-or you must walk the plank!

Fake News = Any News We Don’t Want to Hear

Orthodoxy on the Left is nothing new but it seems more dangerous at a time when facts and journalism are being eschewed as fake news. Within my own 18th AD Caucus of the county Democratic Party, questioning the viability of SB 562 is a good reason for personal attacks. You can almost see folks covering their ears and yelling “lalala.”

I do not claim to understand all the pros and cons of this particular bill so I kept reading about it and you can too. See the Intercept https://theintercept.com/2017/06/30/california-single-payer-organizers-are-deceiving-their-supporters-its-time-to-stop/

or Mother Jones  http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/06/some-notes-on-californias-single-payer-health-care-plan/

If you actually read those articles, either of them or this one, you will see that a voter initiative is the next step- http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/newsletters/capitol-alert-newsletter/article143463329.html.

Note the final quote from Paul Song, a board member for the nonprofit advocacy group Physicians for a National Health Program and the former chair of the Courage Campaign, We’re eventually going to have to go the initiative route.”

Knowing this, why are we purging each other and clinging to false hope? Are we turning into Trump-like voters who believe that wishing will make it so and who refuse to take on the hard work of designing, fundraising and door knocking for something as important as this? Would we rather blame those who question this orthodoxy or think long and hard before raising their hopes on a campaign that threatens to turn into an inquisition?  5af6de65a6c7b56e89a53ac50e46ffcf--facebook-news-organizing-tools

Beyond the blacklisting of those who see the obstacles littering our way, this approach may deepen the cynicism in an electorate that is in despair when we tell them such stories. So have we have taken a moment of progressive activism and turned it into a call for passive righteousness? Though you may raise a red flag in front of some folks to get a rise out of them, they will not charge for long when there is no payoff at the end.

Don’t lie or spin to people whose energy and good will you will need for a serious and difficult campaign. We’ll all have to put in long hours and thoughtfulness to win healthcare in this state and this country. Like #45 said, turns out it’s complicated. Who Knew?

 

Top 10 Reasons Why I Don’t Understand Republicans

Political parties are like the people in them, contradictory and conflicted but for the current GOP, the dissonance has become deafening.

  1. They say they’re for deregulation—then why do they want to regulate every aspect of women’s reproductive lives, who marries whom and where folks go to the toilet?   images (7)download (6)
  2. They say they’re for business, large and small–then why do they want to ban the marijuana business AND punish those for whom it provides medical benefits-is it re-regulation of deregulation?
  3. They say they’re for individual liberty–but love to tell you where and how you may protest, if at all?
  4. Many claim they’re Christian–so unless it’s the version popularized by the Inquisition, why are they for oppressing and suppressing everyone else and yeah, that little thing of do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-them-do-unto-you, didn’t have a codicil that says, unless there’s a tax break involved0335171bb0bd1ac6ad5be4321a88d400--spanish-inquisition-green-teas
  5. They say they’re for state rights–unless the state wants to provide-in a Judeo-Christian sort of way-sanctuary for its most vulnerable citizens.
  6. They say they’re for government transparency—unless they are the ones doin the governin.
  7. They say they’re for the 2nd amendment but why is that the only one they care about-don’t the 1st, 4th, 5th. 6th, 8th and 10th amendments count? And if not, why not?
  8. They say they’re for jobs and a strong economy but in many states immigrants represent the majority of entrepreneurial activity and the marijuana industry offers jobs and tax funding to local economies which would make them less dependent on federal government spending yet they seem to want to prohibit both from flourishing.
  9. They say they want us to be world leaders–then why do they weaken our influence by reneging on treaties.  download (7)
  10. They claim to want a strong nation—but—our country became powerful (besides through imperialist policies which both parties love) because the majority of our people were well fed and educated. When we cease funding these basic needs and allow our country’s health to deteriorate, that is, the health of our people and its institutions, its infrastructure, its support of scientific exploration (I would include- of the arts but we have never been a country which cares about art or artists,) its land and its air–decline is inevitable and perhaps, irreversible. nuclear-union-25890-1920x1080-min

I just don’t get you guys.