January 5, 2023

I'm thankful; to have friends who open up new avenues for me to explore, learn, debate, and enjoy. The other dayI read an emails between a small group of mostly attorneys (I'm a retired psychiatrist) about interpreting the Constitution of the U.S.A. Issues of privacy, various interpretation of rights concerning pregnancy, abortion, interracial marriage, sexual activity in one's home, and freedom versus the common good (whatever that means) are discussed related mostly to the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. Alito's posting of originalism and Scalia's influence in the court on what the original language of  the constitution really intended (the limits to law interpretation depends on historical analysis i.e. whose ?) is brought up to liven the email exchanges. Since we now have justices who are originalists examples of the hubris of history was shared with for example Jefferson commenting about birth control used during his time with his slaves and other races i.e. women who needed to travel frequently so unburdened with pregnancy. The fact that our Supreme Court has reversed direction in a number of important areas such as is a slave a person therefore protected under the constitution and the Bill of Rights is mentioned and discussed in light of the human nature of the court system prone to changes related to political forces and what I interpret as prejudices. So with the reversal of Roe vs Wade assumed settled law we have states now getting in on deciding for their citizens what their rights are concerning access to abortion through criminalizing a settled issue. Then the statistics of the Supreme Court's longevity and other statistics are brought in. Clarence Thomas is mentioned with some tongue in cheek ire by some of the emailers as part of the group of originalists and religion is brought in as a backdrop to some of the motivation of some of our justices to limit women's rights in the name of preserving life. When does life begin is brought up and personhood is mentioned to round out the debate (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/31/us/human-life-begin.html). 

How do we find what is fundamental so we can then related the changes in the law to the original intent? Should we do this when we may have changed as a species with medical advances, changes in our brain development due to our technological revolution, and our advances in science, education, journalism, WIERD mind development (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/12/books/review/the-weirdest-people-in-the-world-joseph-henrich.html). My small group discussion and reading brings up repeatedly to me that the second law of thermodynamics is settled and remains a leading proven hypothesis. Entropy prevails so that change is inevitable and we cannot escape this laws destructive and fantastic implications. Well, our Supreme Court justices that are originalists (and reactionary) are not interested in science or what one author calls the Constitution of Knowledge (The Constitution of Knowledge A Defense of Truth by Jonathan Rauch) (see my previous blog). 

My legal scholars seem to point out to me that the Supreme Court has no serious guidance to the individual justices in their individual decision making. There is no procedures to monitor their in and out of court behaviors, contacts, associations, and outside influencers. There are no procedures to examine their competency taken that some are of the age where cognitive decline rears its ugly head possibly in some. Instead, we have a court made up of people who have achieved some recognition by the political establishment in power as having acceptable attributes to the politicians causes. Well, can our political system elevate winners for us all this way? Here's an example to me that answers this question. Our political system has elevated Donald Trump as president. To me to write the least, he's an incompetent psychopathic narcissist whose opinion does not matter to me (I am not making a clinical diagnosis!). 

My understanding to simplify nine justices spend time looking at written briefs and arguments for one side or the other concerning some issue which because of disagreements in lower courts is theirs to decide. In the oral meetings with both sides usually represented by an attorney the justices present questions and hypothetical situations for the attorney to answer. Is there any group dynamics involved in this process? Most certainly with the Chief Justice and various factions of justices dialoguing and strategizing. Are there cognitive biases as I described in my previous blog? Of course, so the resulting decision in rife with controversy depending on who is grinding that ax. Web don have the written decision and the rationales used for the decision and we have the dissenting opinions which bmay be helpful. 

I have lived through the times where separate but equal, Jim Crow laws dominations in certain state, lynchings of black people with a party atmosphere of the spectators, special places for water fountains, rest rooms, and bus seat and restaurant seat placements separating black from white was common. People who protested our nation's folly in wars such as Vietnam and Cambodia were labeled as socialist, communist, and anti-American. They were subject to harassment by a congressional committee and blackballed from their profession. Sexual orientation was discriminated against so that coming out of the closet spelled trouble for the free speech victim. A.I.D. s infection epidemic was viewed as a punishment from God and their followers so that research and access to treatment was harder won. My wife was an early joiner of NOW and participated in advocacy. Ronald Reagan's era brought in a reaction to all the civil rights gains in these and other areas with an appeal to the virtue of the wild west, freedom, and white Christian values being threatened by all those immigrants who were taking away jobs, changing values, and changing our language, customs, and way of life so some day most of us will no longer be Caucasian. As a boon to the rich Reagan's era included tax benefits and other laws that shifted wealth to the super rich and was a serious blow to middle class life. This is another whole subject that this blog can not further comment on due to my need for clarity and focus. All these laws included a Supreme Court ruling writing that a corporation has some qualities as an individual. The Republican party greatly benefited from this ruling opening up funding for politics with revved up ferocity as a consequence. 

I must mention the Second Amendment and gun lobby successes in selling assault weapons to our average citizen who in my view are not militia. Here I would support the revisionist court principles of Alilito and Scalia. What did our founding father’s and our voting population have in mind with this amendment.

Will the Supreme Court take up states restrictions in voting registrations, voting locations free of intimidation, gerrymandering, etc. We’re currently living through the controversy of the big lie.

Well, today congress is at a standstill with a Republican party demonstrating its ineffectiveness and incompetence. The ability to filibuster remains unchecked and supported by a radical few in the name of democracy. Our Supreme Court justices remain uninvestigated for leaks, incompetence, and malfeasance. Well, I have in previous blogs commented about the state of our planet, the world, and our propensity from violence. Yet I am optimistic since a small group of mostly lawyers have included me in their post so I can give me 2 cents!

Leonard