Republican SCoTUS Debacle

Prs Obama Merrick Garland

.

                Welcome back, My Dear Shoevians, to The Other Shoe. Today I am going to take the opportunity to point out one of the failings of America’s Democracy. Hang on, let me be clear America’s CURRENT Democracy’ because, as you will learn from this article the level of intransigence, by Senate Republicans, is a new and disturbing wrinkle in our democratic process. If you are on of my American readers, you are completely aware of the publicized intransigence of our Republican Senators. Violating the Constitution, Senate Republicans abdicated there right/responsibility of “advice and consent” of a Presidential nomination of a replacement for a open seat on the highest court of our land, the Supreme Court of the United States.

.

Now, for those Shoevians that did not take civics in high school, here is the salient paragraph of the U.S Constitution:

.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”[1]

.

A simple read, even for all my readers that are not U.S. citizens, yes? According to Article 2 Section 2 Paragraph 2 the sitting U.S. President has the right/responsibility/honor/DUTY to nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court…” Now, AmericanRepublicans are always harping on; “follow the Constitution…”, “honor the Constitution…” “STICK TO the Constitution…” Unless/Until doing so puts their interests are jeopardy. Right?

.

MORE for my International Shoevians – America is embroiled in an era of hyper partisanship that we have not see since the Civil War[2]. I am not proud of this fact, in fact I have often written about this symptom of a social disease, and will continue to point out that it is (primarily) one party that had brought the division and intransigence to our government and our nation’s governance. This maladystarted with the (artificial) creation of the ‘Tea Party’. (A misnomer and disingenuous on its face because there never was a political party by that name) Now, the intransigence that has earned the House of Representatives the moniker “The Least Productive Congress in History”. Now, this social disease has infected the Republican leaders of our elder body (of our Congress) the Senate.

.

According to the U.S. Constitution clearly states that a sitting President shall (for every day of his term) shall appoint nominees for vacancies on the highest court of our land, the Supreme Court of the United States. Nowhere in our defining document of our democracy does it; state, hint, imply or define that a President, in his last year of elected office shall not exercise his Constitutional responsibility and neither shall the Senate do exercise their Constitutional responsibilities. This is an unusual, but not ever rare, occurrence. So, My Dear Shoevians, there is history for us to look at. I have barrowed the research, below, to minimize my level of pain… writing and publishing this article, today.

.

History of Final Year Nominations of Supreme Court Vacancies:

.

• 1968: President Lyndon Johnson — who announced he would not run for re-election — nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas as Chief Justice and Homer Thornberry to fill Fortas’ vacancy. Fortas’ nomination failed, Thornberry withdrew his nomination and Chief Justice Earl Warren remained on the bench, delaying his retirement.

• 1932, President Herbert Hoover nominated Benjamin Cardozo. Hoover lost to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

• 1912: President William Taft successfully nominated Mahlon Pitney to the Supreme Court. Taft lost to Woodrow Wilson.

Three other presidents made successful Supreme Court nominations while running for re-election, but unlike Taft and Hoover, they won another term:  

• 1956: Dwight Eisenhower made a recess appointment of William Brennan.

• 1940: Franklin Delano Roosevelt nominated Frank Murphy.

• 1916: Woodrow Wilson nominated John Clarke and Louis Brandeis [3]

.

There we have it, My Dear Shoevians. Whereas this does not happen often (a sitting Supreme Court Justice passing/retiring) it doeshappen enough for us to have a recorded history to review. One cannot dictate when any given person will pass away (die), and I am sure that if someone could have asked Justice Antonin Scalia, prior to his death, he would have not wanted to pass away while there was a sitting President that was/is a Democrat. However, the fact remains that Justice Antonin Scalia did pass away while there was a Democrat in office.

.

Finally, for my international Shoevians, there is a hard reason for the intransigence of our Senate Republicans. The current make-up of our Supreme Court is 5/4. There are five conservative/conservative leaning Justices sitting on that bench and there are fourLiberal/Liberal Leaning justices. This appointment can/will change that mix… and change it in favor of a ‘Liberal Bench’. These things happen, Americans. Maybe it is some Galactic Intervention because of rulings like; ‘Citizen’s United’[4] FYI that was a ruling, here in America, that gave corporations the same rights (as far as political contributions and influence) as a PERSON! Yes, that is completely absurd… bordering on insanity… and the why I think that reality is doing this shuffle on the bench.

.

Now, as all political followers know, there is brinkmanship in all types of self-governance. Be it a Republic or other type of Representative Government there is… discord and brinksmanship, but this is different, for America. I looked and looked and found one quote that helps me define how this is different.   

.

Senator James Inhofe, R-OK

Senator James Inhofe, R-OK

Sen. Jim Inhofe (Ok.) “…we will not accept any nomination from President Obama.”

.

Does that sound like it is not personal? Be sure, this is personal and it is against our TWICE elected sitting President of the United States – President Barrack Obama. Yes, Republicans are fearful that if ‘Citizens United’ is brought before a new Supreme Court of the United States that has a more left-leaning court? It will be overturned. That is there fear and that is there motivation of not ever giving a hearing to the man President Obama just nominated for the open seat on the Supreme Court of the United States.

.

My Dear Shoevians, this is March of the final year of his Presidency. It is not like it is November and the American people have gone to the polls and elected the Republican nominee. This is much different. Historically, Presidents get hearing for nominations for thewhole time they are elected to office!

.

America’s Republicans are making the American democracy appear broken! This is very very bad, and reflects poorly on our entire nation. Not just on Senate Republicans. Not just on Republicans. It reflects poorly on our entire nation… our Republic… our Democracy!America has the longest surviving democracy in the history of mankind. That is not just an honor. That is a responsibility! A responsibility to execute the responsibilities of your elected office every/all days your have been elected to serve. A handful of Senators, belonging to one party, cannot be allowed to besmirch the (long earned) reputation of this democracy. This is historically bad!

.

My Dear Shoevians, I am experiencing a lot of pain… at this point. So, I am going to cut this article short… here. I will be back to publish about this debacle… soon. I appreciate everyone that has come by to read and learn. Have a great Hump-Day and I will be back here, soon!

.

Adieu!

.

Thank you!

.

Danny Hanning Writer, Editor, Research Staff and Publisher at The Other Shoe

  Danny Hanning Writer, Editor, Research Staff and Publisher at The Other Shoe

© 2010 – 2016 Hanning Web Wurx and The Other Shoe

The ‘Other’ Side of Anti-Abortion Activism

It is better to light a candle, than sit and curse the dark.”  President John F. Kennedy

.          

            Welcome back My Dear Readers to The Other Shoe. First, I would like to say “Thank you!” To everyone that has made this blog the success that I it is today. As I mentioned, in my last article, this blog has received over 4,000 visitor from fifty nations world-wide in just the past two years. I know that I have yet to break into the filed with the ‘Big Boys’ but I am really making a showing for a one-man blog. In the coming weeks, months and year I hope to continue to bring you quality articles that both enlighten and entertain.

.

Today I have come here to write about a subject I seldom speak. This subject has divided our nation, since before any of us were born, and will likely divide our great nation for generations to come. AS with all things in life, there are two sides to this debate. Today, I plan on bringing you shocking information from a side with which I doubt you much exposure. The issue is abortion rights in America.

.

Well, me thinks that I just lost about 30% of those reading… perhaps not. Everyone that writes about politics and/or governance grabs hold of this ‘third rail’ of American politics. Today, I am going to reach out… touch it, and share some shocking facts.

.

The majority of Americans see themselves in one of two camps. They see themselves as either ‘Pro-life’ or ‘Pro-choice’, which truly doesn’t represent the attitudes behind these decisions. For the pro-life camp they see all abortion as a ‘Bad thing’. However, those that consider themselves pro-choice do not always support abortion as a viable option. Take for instance, myself. If it were completely up to me I would be a father. During my marriage, on more than one occasion, my wife became pregnant.

.

I very much wanted to have the children. Conversely, my wife very much did not want to have the children. I quickly found out that my rights to those children stopped at the wall of her uterus. I respect your decision but I thought, hard, to keep the children are love had made. In my heart I believe that each and every pregnancy should result in the birth of a child. The children are our future and I think children are the greatest gift any couple can give the community they live in. Now that I put my personal opinion in print I would like to go forward with the heart of this article.

.

Of the pro-life camp, the way I see things, is a small subgroup of fervent anti-abortionists. It is the actions… The dire results of the actions of these fervent and abortionists that is the subject of this article today. Much is made of how some feel the unborn children are victims of abortion. But there is another side to this topic. There are other victims in this fight over a woman’s right to choose.

 

My motivation for writing this article and sharing the following statistics arises out of the case that now sits before our Supreme Court of the United States of America. Perhaps unbeknownst to you a little-known ordinance in Massachusetts is the newest hotspot in the battle between antiabortionists in a woman’s right to choose. More specifically between the rights of anti-abortionists and the rights of the health care workers that make it their life’s work to help women with the exercise of their reproductive rights. In Massachusetts there is a legally mandated ‘buffer zone’ of 35 feet at the entrance of all clinics providing reproductive services. Just like the zone outside a polling area, and like the buffer zone the United States supreme court enjoys. In Massachusetts antiabortion activists cannot come closer than 35 feet of the entrance of, let’s say, a Planned Parenthood location.

.

This buffer so was originally enacted, and the law was written for, the protection of the health care workers in clinics providing reproductive services to women. Now let me share with you the number of death threats against workers and doctors and clinics where movements reproductive services are offered. These are just the number of death threats reported since I graduated high school. There have been 436 death threats against doctors and health care workers in reproductive clinics from 1977 to 2013.[1]

.

Of those 436 death threats, since I graduated high school, eight times those threats resulted in the murder of a doctor or healthcare worker who had devoted their life to women’s reproductive health. In that same length of time there have been 1,490 incidences of vandalism in 2,218 incidences of trespass[2]. In that very same length of time 181 clinics have been the victims of arson by fervent anti-abortion activists. There have been 198 incidences of assault and battery and, believe it or not, there have been four kidnappings by antiabortionists of healthcare workers merely working in the clinic devoted to women’s reproductive health.[3]

.

As a boy I worked in the Herman professional building for Herman orthopedic Associates every summer archiving old x-rays, for my father stop in the late 80s and early 90s I worked for Miller Children’s Hospital in Long Beach Memorial Hospital in every aspect of the pharmacy department. In the last years of the 90s I spent my time working in a clean room for Abbott Laboratories in Santa Fe Springs preparing IVs for home healthcare patients and patients in hospice. Each and every time I was just an employee of the hospital. An employee of the clinic stop or, an employee of us pharmaceutical laboratories Corporation. The victims of the 42 bombings[4] of clinics devoted to the care of women’s reproductive rights were just employees of a clinic, or of the hospital.

.

In the time since I left high school there had been seven team attempted murders and 99 attempted bombings or arson[5] against clinics providing reproductive care for women. There have been 391 instances of invasion in 1490 incidences of vandalism towards the workers of clinics providing reproductive care for women in the United States.[6] 17 times a fervent antiabortionists attempted to commit murder of a worker at a clinic providing reproductive care for women in the United States of America since I graduated high school.[7]

.

Just since 1995 state legislatures all over America have passed more than 700 new laws restricting their reproductive rights of women in America.[8] below you will see a chart I found showing this bike in the number of laws being passed just since 1985 restricting and or limiting reproductive rights of women in America stop just last week five Republican members of the House of Representatives put together a bill that would require all women in America that received an abortion due to rate and incest to have to undergo an audit by the Internal Revenue Service.[9]

.

700 new laws restricting and or limiting the rights of American women to free and equal access to reproductive health care, and that’s not enough. On top of that, as if to add insult to injury, healthcare working workers in women’s reproductive health clinics have been victim of anthrax are bio terrorism threats 663 times and victims of attacks done with butyric acid 100 times.[10] each and every year, in this great nation of ours, more and more states create more and more barriers between women’s and access to clinics providing necessary medical procedures for women’s reproductive rights. Yet each and every year workers of these clinics are made victims at their place of employment or in their very homes.

.

Antiabortion Laws Enacted by States Since 1985

Antiabortion Laws Enacted by States Since 1985

.

530 times medically trained workers, of clinics providing women’s reproductive care, have been stalked by antiabortionists, and 183 workers have been victims of burglary at their place of work or in their very homes.[11] all in all, since I graduated high school, there have been 6633 violent or offensive crimes committed by anti-abortion activists against the doctors and workers just trying to provide reproductive medical care to women in America.

.

Further, My Dear Readers, we all know that these are just the crimes that are reported to authorities. These numbers, as shocking and disturbing as they are, merely reflect the people who had the courage to report the crimes. This does not include the, I am sure, thousands of women beaten (every year) by their spouses for going to, or participating in, programs educating women about their reproductive rights… or seeking information or assistance from clinics providing reproductive care. I can assure you that the real numbers total into the tens of thousands of incidence, and we both know in our hearts what I am saying is true. Each and every year women see their reproductive rights limited, or eliminated. Each and every year, it becomes more and more difficult for women to get the testing they need to prevent cervical cancer.

.

Cervical cancer used to be the leading cause of cancer death for women in the United States.”[12]

.

That is a tragic reality, for women in America.

.

“However, in the past 40 years, the number of cases of cervical cancer and the number of deaths from cervical cancer have decreased significantly. This decline largely is the result of many women getting regular Pap tests, which can find cervical precancer before it turns into cancer.”[13]

.

Unbeknownst to the majority of men, especially Congressman and Senators, something like 60% of American women between the ages of 18 and 27 have their first test for cervical cancer at a Planned Parenthood location.

.

Planned Parenthood provides 585,000 Pap tests and nearly 640,000 breast exams each year…”[14]

.

2010 Planned Parenthood Procedures

2010 Planned Parenthood Procedures

.

“In 2011 it carried out tests and treatment for more than four million individuals with sexually transmitted diseases. It supplied 750,000 exams to prevent breast cancer, the most common cancer among U.S. women. And it performed 770,000 Pap tests to prevent cervical cancer, which was a leading cause of death among women before this screen became widely available. Planned Parenthood is one of the most important public health care institutions in the country, even aside from its work in rational family planning.”[15]

.

Yet in that very same year, 2011, workers in the clinics they work in ,like Planned Parenthood, were victim to; one arson, one bombing, 27 instances of vandalism, 69 incidences of trespass, one instance of bioterrorism threat, three instances of assault and battery, to death threats, and eight burglaries. The very same year, 2011, was a banner year for laws restricting women’s reproductive rights with 92 new laws being passed in the states.[16]

.

The ‘thirty-five foot buffer zone’ enacted in Massachusetts was done to protect the healthcare workers of clinics providing women’s reproductive care. These workers do not deserve to be protected from the nearly 100 violent acts perpetrated against them each and every year? Somehow, making an anti-abortion protester stand thirty-five feet from women seeking reproductive health care and the workers that provide these essential services? Somehow, we are to believe that this thirty-five foot ‘buffer zone’ some how… some way… infringes or hampers the write to free speech of the anti-abortionist?  If there is any anti-abortionist that is having a problem being heard from thirty-five feet? I promise that I will provide, for free, lessons in speech and projection to these workers that feel they cannot be heard. Come to my home, twice a week for one month, for one hour each time. At the end of the month? I promise you will be heard from thirty-five feet. You listen to me well, practice what I teach you, and you will be heard two blocks away from the clinic!

.

I do not like… the personal effect ‘a woman’s right to choose’ had on my life. However, I am appalled by the number and severity of attacks taking place (each and every year) ‘in the name of saving the life of unborn children’. I just cannot wrap my head around the logic that dictates violence against health workers justified as ‘protecting the lives of the unborn’. Honestly, if a person is ‘pro-life’ then there can be no way they can justify taking life… to protect life. That is not just illogical, that is immoral. I believe that abortions should be infrequent, if not rare. However, For the women that do choose abortion? Their access to an abortion should not be a gauntlet.

.

For the millions of American women, who each year, go to a Planned Parenthood for a PAP smear or breast exam? I do not feel that they should be made victim of; people yelling in their face outside the clinic, people impeding their entrance to said clinic by any means, fear tactics by anti-abortionists, made to view offensive pictures or materials just outside the clinic… and MOST OF ALL NO WOMAN SHOULD EVER FEAR FOR THEIR SAFETY just to go to a clinic that might also provide abortions as well as other tests and medical treatments necessary for proper women’s reproductive care.

.

We men… have no idea what this is like… for American women. We men have it so frigging lucky that nobody is camped outside our doctor’s office with humiliating or offensive pictures or chants or all that junk, just for us to go and get a scrip for viagra! For you, My Dear Readers, I want you to give some honest and genuine thought about the rights of women seeking medical assistance for their need(s) to maintain good reproductive care. Think about the woman that might not go for that PAP smear… merely because the only place she can afford to get that test is a Planned Parenthood. Envision that the only Planned Parenthood near her is under constant surveillance and scrutiny by one or more of these anti-abortion groups. That she genuinely fears for her safety, just to go and get that PAP smear. Now, imagine that is YOUR daughter… and you find out… all too late, she is diagnosed with end stage cervical caner.

.

Need I say more?

.

As always I am deeply honored that you come here and read my work.

.

Thank YOU!

.

 

Just a shot of a VERY thankful Danny in His Power Chair

Just a shot of a VERY thankful Danny in His Power Chair


America’s Future Is NOT in Its PAST!

.

America’s Future Is NOT in its Past!

.

That is true, America’s future does not lie in its past. Today the Untied States Supreme Court has made the worst decision since I’ve been alive. They have gutted the will of the American people to favor a party ready to die. Don’t be fooled by the numbers, of the SCOTUS decision. Because the ONLY woman (Justice Sotomayor recued herself due her ruling on a similar case) wrote the Dissenting Opinion on today’s ruling from this absurd court. Here’s a clue, that what I say is right, the dissenting opinion was LONGER and contained more Evidence and PROOF than the one written by Chief Justice Edwards.

.

I will share as much as I can, from the dissenting opinion, today. However, I am so very much pain I wonder just how much I will be able to accomplish. Right now I will share, the single most salient and intelligent sentence in either opinion:

.

“Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

.

I am going to post this, right now, so that I have something out. I am working, as you are reading, to finish this piece. There is so much to be shared, so much to be said!

.

Continued –

! Right now I have come back, to this article I write. For I have had a moment with out pain, and I must take advantage of that.

.

Here is more from Justice Ginsburg’s dissent:

“But, the Court insists, the coverage formula is no good; it is based on “decades-old data and eradicated practices.” Ante, at 18. Even if the legislative record shows, as engaging with it would reveal, that the formula accurately identifies the jurisdictions with the worst conditions of voting discrimination, that is of no moment, as the Court sees it. Congress, the Court decrees, must “star[t] from scratch.” Ante, at 23. I do not see why that should be so.”

.

SEE, there is a salient point,  that will be missed by most. That, in this decision, the Court has directed Congress to go back to the drawing board. However, this is NOT 1964 and the roles have changed. Justice Ginsburg put it best when she said:

“Congress’ chore was different in 1965 than it was in 2006. In 1965, there were a “small number of States . . . which in most instances were familiar to Congress by name,” on which Congress fixed its attention. Katzenbach, 383 U. S., at 328. In drafting the coverage formula, “Congress began work with reliable evidence of actual voting discrimination in a great majority of the States” it sought to target. Id., at 329. “The formula [Congress] eventually evolved to describe these areas” also captured a few States that had not been the subject of congressional fact finding. Ibid. Nevertheless, the Court upheld the formula in its entirety, finding it fair “to infer a significant danger of the evil” in all places the formula covered…”

.

FURTHER:

“The situation Congress faced in 2006, when it took up reauthorization of the coverage formula, was not the same. By then, the formula had been in effect for many years, and all of the jurisdictions covered by it were “familiar to Congress by name.” Id., at 328. The question before Congress: Was there still a sufficient basis to support continued application of the preclearance remedy in each of those already-identified places? There was at that point no chance that the formula might inadvertently sweep in new areas that were not the subject of congressional findings. And Congress could determine from the record whether the jurisdictions captured by the coverage formula still belonged under the preclearance regime. If they did, there was no need to alter the formula. That is why the Court, in addressing prior reauthorizations of the VRA, did not question the continuing “relevance” of the formula.

Consider once again the components of the record before Congress in 2006”

.

Some FACTS and NUMBERS before we continue: In 2006 The Senate voted 98-0 in favor of reauthorization and a Republican controlled House voted 398-3. It wasn’t like any other legislation, passed that year. It has near unanimous support from both sides of the isle. Yet SCOTUS (NOT elected representatives of the COUNTIES and States) expresses Judicial Hubris by placing their very limited experiences (outside their Ivory Tower), and total lack of knowledge of what  happens on the streets, and inflicted a wound to our Republic, our nation. 

James Radcliffe

Meditations on Philosophy, Strategy, and Life

Otrazhenie

Reflection

Allen's World

Personal Blog of Allen Hanning

J T Weaver

When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose. — Dylan.

Invisible Mikey

philosophic topics and the arts

tigerboose

a videolog about tigers

Hiking Photography

Beautiful photos of hiking and other outdoor adventures.

Movie Dr

Independent movie reviews and more...

palisadespete

10 Facts to Get You Started

The Other Shoe

Home to; 'Lost in Space', 'The Mars Report', 'News From Around the World', 'A Week In Review', and 'Sunday Funnies'

Ruijssantos's Blog

Na na na na naaaaa

%d bloggers like this: