High court manages to upset everybody's beliefs w/ pair of rulings

Perhaps this is the Supreme Court of the United States’ idea of what constitutes bipartisanship – rule in ways that manage to offend the sensibilities of just about everybody.

The nation's Supreme Court issued a pair of rulings that … 

I couldn’t help but have that reaction myself when I learned Thursday of the way the court ruled with regards to gerrymandering and the Census.

WITH REGARD TO the latter, the Supreme Court ruled against the desires of President Donald Trump – who wanted the Census Bureau’s official population count next year to include questions about one’s citizenship.

Making it seem that Trump and his ideologue minions want to officially regard non-U.S. citizens as non-people who wouldn’t get fully counted.

Who knows? Maybe Trump fantasized about compiling all that information into some sort of hit list of people who could then be harassed openly – so as to appease the jollies of the xenophobic types who are inclined to think that Trump himself is the equivalent of a “royal highness” of the Americas.

Which we all ought to realize applies only to states whose political majorities lean toward Trump-type Republicans.

THE SUPREME COURT ruled against that notion, with a 5-4 vote in favor of a legal opinion saying the official argument that such information is needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act is fraudulent.

For what it’s worth, that’s the same voter tally the high court reached in another measure – one that said lawsuits challenging the setting of political boundaries based on political considerations are not proper.

In short, all of those Republican-leaning states whose legislatures chose to draw boundaries meant to benefit their own partisan interests aren’t necessarily doing anything illegal. For the court ruled that such action is a state issue – and not one for the federal courts to go about trying to overturn.

… struck down Trump's desires to use the Census, ...

I don’t doubt that the people who would have wanted some sort of singling out of so-called foreigners when it comes to the Census will be pleased the court left the composition of their Legislatures alone.

WHILE OTHERS WHO would have seen the population count measure as a blatantly-partisan political move that deserved to fail now are wondering how in the heck did those nitwits on the high court blow it so badly with regards to undoing the practice of gerrymandering – the rigging of electoral boundaries for political purposes.

Maybe it’s all that time walking around wearing those black robes that look like dowdy dresses.

There is one key to comprehending these two actions – the votes were similar. By and large, the people who wanted to single out non-citizens in the Census count also wanted to protect the Republican-leaning Legislatures. The people who wanted to stop the Census from becoming a political weapon also wanted to have the court undo Legislature composition they consider to be unfair and unjust.

The difference was in the form of Chief Justice John Roberts, who as it turned out voted against the Census count measure and for the measure saying that gerrymandering is not an issue for the Supreme Court to decide.

REINFORCING THE CONCEPT that Roberts is the “swing” judge on the court whose opinion breaks a tie either way. Meaning that much of America probably despises him these days – although for different reasons that say much about our own partisanship leanings than anything about the merits of the laws themselves.

Personally, I don’t doubt the Census question was a hate-inspired proposal. Seeing it die off is a good thing.

… while indirectly benefitting Madigan

While as for gerrymandering, I wonder if the court would have viewed it differently if the legal case at hand regarded the structure of the Illinois Legislature. Would the ideologue-minded people have been willing to approve a measure that targeted the Democratic-leaning Illinois House and state Senate – rather than the measures that focused on blatantly-Republican leaning states.

Which may be the way I wind up viewing the latter ruling – it offers some protection to the political set-up we have in Illinois, which means it sort of benefits the interests of Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan. Most definitely a concept that will offend the conservative ideologues as much as their own partisan rants offend me.

  -30-

State Line Road becomes battle front in the abortion “war” some want to wage?

Venture to Chicago’s far southernmost tip, and you’ll reach that point where the streets of the Hegewisch neighborhood are named in letters until you reach the appropriately-named “State Line Road.”

This part of State Line Road (between Calumet City and Hammond) is now loaded with shops selling cheap cigarettes, generic pop brands and fireworks … 

That is where Hegewisch becomes Hammond – and Illinois becomes Indiana. And the way things are going, it could become a battle front in the ideological war that some seem determined to fight as to whether or not we ought to regard abortion of a pregnancy as a fully-legitimate medical procedure,

ILLINOIS SEEMS TO be a place determined to protect the availability of a woman’s right to have a choice on whether to end a pregnancy. While Indiana seems to have officials inclined to want to revert back to the old days when abortion would be regarded as a criminal act.

Off in Washington, D.C., the Supreme Court on Tuesday issued rulings with regard to actions that the Hoosier state tried to implement against abortion availability there.

The high court upheld an Indiana law that required the remains of an aborted fetus to be disposed of similar to the way a dead person. Perhaps reinforcing the belief in ideologue mindsets that the unborn is a full-fledged life – instead of an appendage whose life is dependent upon its mother.

Although the court wasn’t as supportive of an attempt to put into Indiana law a measure forbidding a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the yet-to-be born person was not of the race or gender preferred – or may be suffering from a disability once it is born,

IDEOLOGUES HAVE LONG said they view such restrictions as a way of preventing science from trying to create babies-to-order and have tried to use this as an excuse for limiting abortion, The high court made a point of saying its ruling this week “expresses no view on the merits.”

Although Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas issued his own dissenting opinion that tried comparing abortion practices to “modern-day eugenics.” But in a sign that the rest of the court doesn’t want to get involved in this issue, no one signed off in support of his stance.

In short, it seems that for every ideologue who is determined to do whatever they can to restrict a woman’s ability to decide her own fate with regards to giving birth, there are others who probably wish they could focus on other issues – rather than having abortion become the ultimate Scarlet letter “A” of the 21^st Century.

Will it someday be loaded with dueling abortion protesters?

Then, we have our own situation on our side of State Line Road, where the ideologues who favor the Indiana measures (or those of places like Alabama or Missouri that are trying to make abortion impossible to obtain) are trying to demonize Illinois.

I’VE LITERALLY LOST count of the number of commentaries I’ve read where people are trying to scare everybody into believing that Illinois – and most likely Chicago – will become THE place where women flee to in order to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

Largely because of the political situation, where in addition to marijuana legalization and sports gambling, the future of abortion access could be one of the key issues to be contemplated (or not) in this final week of the 2019 spring legislative session.

Back when the Supreme Court struck down all the various state laws restricting abortion, Illinois officials included a legal clause saying that if the “Roe vs. Wade” ruling that legitimized abortion ever was struck down, Illinois law would automatically revert to the old days – when a miscarriage could be considered reason for a police investigation to determine that the mother didn’t do anything to bring the end of pregnancy upon herself.

But the Illinois House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a bill that would strike down all those restrictions – so that if ideologues really do succeed in their effort to abort abortions, Illinois could remain as one of the few places that didn’t explicitly ban them. Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan said that "women's health will always be a fundamental right in Illinois." Just a thought to keep in mind the next time you hear ideologues demonize the Madigan persona.

IT’S A LOT of legalistic maneuvering to try to keep Illinois on the side of women who, for various reasons, may think it not in their best interests to have a baby. A concept that will offend the ideologues.

And could well make the Illinois/Indiana border – particularly the part between Chicago and Hammond, Ind. – a place where people will glare at each other and shake their fists in outrage while accusing each other of being immoral.

Will Illinois Legislature act to protect abortion rights, regardless of what other states choose to do?

Of course, what constitutes a more-immoral act (letting a baby die, or thinking you have a right to meddle in someone else’s decision about that act) is probably going to be one of those perennial ideological splits. We’ll never come to an agreement.

But just think, before you start ranting about Chicago’s potential support for immoral acts, keep in mind that less than a mile to the east of State Line Road is the Horseshoe Casino.

A WOMAN COULD end her pregnancy legitimately in Illinois, while gambling away her money in Indiana – with the state and local governments taking a cut of the proceeds.

Does that really make the gambling any more legitimate in the eyes of the overly-moral?

  -30-

Dems hope ideologues shoot selves in 'right' foot with Alabama abortion law

There’s a lot of rhetoric flowing around about abortion these days – what with the state of Alabama having passed an overly restrictive law against terminating a pregnancy that many believe is intended to be the measure that the Supreme Court ultimately upholds as a way of striking down the Roe vs. Wade ruling of 1973 that found women have a right to abortion being legal.

Much of it is coming from Democratic partisan politicos who are quick to express their revulsion at people who think ending a pregnancy ought to be a criminal act. As the Washington Post is reporting, many Republicans are going out of their way to keep quiet.

ALMOST AS THOUGH they’re behaving like accused criminals who are exercising their Miranda rights “to remain silent” as “anything you say can be used as evidence in a court of law against you.”

That actually has some of the proponents of abortion remaining legal hoping that Alabama is the bit of evidence as to the immorality of the anti-abortion argument – along with the legal legitimacy of Roe vs. Wade!

Have the Republican ideologues overplayed their hand by showing how repulsive their intentions truly are? Will so many people wind up being turned off by what Alabama has done that it will drive many people into the “pro-choice” column?

Has Alabama done the progressives a favor by provoking the legal fight that will take down their pet cause – which is to go back to the days of viewing a woman as a criminal if she wants out of that unplanned pregnancy!

AND IS THIS going to make an even bigger priority out of abortion come the 2020 cycle – making the issue a key point for voters who may already want Donald Trump kicked out of the White House on his keister?

Right now, Trump benefits from the potential circumstances that Democratic voters may not be able to agree on a single candidate to challenge the president.

But if they really see that abortion could become such a mess, it could be the factor that forces many Democrats to shut up and vote for the nominee – even if their preferred candidate doesn’t win in the primary portion of the election.

As things stand, Ralph Reed, one-time head of the Christian Coalition, tells the Washington Post, that the possibility exists that anti-abortion stances will be turned on the campaign trail into support for what Alabama is trying to do – which could put abortion critics on the defensive.

OF COURSE, PUTTING those ideologues on the defensive may well be the just thing to do. Because all too often, the abortion critics want to claim a high-and-mighty moral tone to their stance – which is really nothing more than having people butt in to the actions of a woman whose pregnancy puts her in a predicament.

Personally, I know of one person (whom I’ve known for decades) who recently posted on Facebook that Alabama officials should be thanked, “for doing what is right instead of what the world tells you.”

To which I can only think that everybody has the right to be wrong. Although for all I know, she probably thinks the same of me (I don’t think the two of us have ever explicitly discussed the issue).

Perhaps it’s time we should. And I mean everybody -- and not just the usual ideologue nonsense about "baby killers."

THAT COULD BE the benefit of what Alabama has done with their measure – which basically is meant to take away the argument conservative politicos have long used to try to make themselves sound sensible. They say they favor abortion restriction exemptions for women who are impregnated by rape or incest.

While the ideologues are trying to undo such talk by claiming that a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy ought to end at the point when a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

Which comes so early in the process of human conception that many women aren’t even aware yet that they’re pregnant. Causing many to complain that old, white men in Alabama are trying to impose their own morals on us all about what a woman should be permitted to do with her body.

I’ve often wondered if my own thoughts about abortion are of less importance because, as a male, I’m never going to be in a situation to have one. But am I now going to be dragged into the argument to provide a sense of balance to the political debate – rather than letting the ideologues and their bullying-like behavior prevail.

  -30-

EXTRA: Bureaucracy (sadly) rules!

We’ve been hearing a lot in recent weeks about these caravans of people from central American nations who’d like to have a chance at a better life in the United States.

Within sight of United States, Trump creates more bureaucracy to thwart caravan

The ones that have been traveling throughout Mexico, and some of whom have actually made it as far as Tijuana. Meaning they’re literally here. Right across the border from San Diego and U.S. territory proper.

WE’VE ALSO HEARD the stories of U.S. military personnel being amassed along the border, so as to appease those people who approve of the Age of Trump we now live in who want those foreigners kept out of the country in whatever way possible.

It was encouraging to learn of military officials expressing objections to being used in such a manner. Yet in some ways, it is equally discouraging to see the tactic being used by Trump to achieve the ultimate goal of keeping those people out of the country.

Let the bureaucrats rule!

As in throw so many legal obstacles in the way of actually being able to enter this country (the one that claims it is all about helping “your tired, your poor. Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free”) that maybe, just maybe, many of them will merely give up and go back home.

Leaders of U.S. and Mexico (below) … 

IT SEEMS THE U.S. officials have actually reached an agreement with Mexico; by which the people now waiting their turn in Tijuana to have a chance at seeking asylum here will have to wait in Mexico.

Even though their cases will be decided in U.S.-based courts, they won’t be able to wait it out here. And it will be a wait – because the number of individuals now seeking and likely to seek asylum will take months for the courts to properly dispose of.

If anything, this has been the attitude that our federal government has taken in dealing with immigration – creating a bureaucratic mess meant to thwart the desires of those who’d want to be a productive part of our society here.

Rather than try to reform our immigration laws so as to deal in any sensible way with the masses who want to be part of life here, we’d rather create as many obstacles as we can dream up.

… work out deal that lets bureaucracy rule

ANYBODY WHO TRIES to say that we’re merely trying to deal with the masses of people passing through Mexico on the way to the United States in logical manner is spewing nonsense-talk. Trump, after all, also let it be known he’s prepared to close the U.S./Mexico border outright “if for any reason it becomes necessary.”

Such as perhaps if too many of the people who have caravanned their way from central America to Southern California actually manage to get the U.S. court system to approve their desires to live here.

It’s not surprising that, in Mexico, there are people who are getting upset at the notion of these central American natives having to be held within their country just because the United States has certain officials who wish they could make the issue go away.

It’s like our ideological nitwit officials are trying to dump a problem off on someone else – exactly the same way they always try to claim other countries are dumping their problems off on U.S.

THIS WHOLE SITUATION is one that is bound to become an embarrassment to the United States. It will be one of the biggest buffoonish acts to be committed by the Trump presidency.

ROBERTS: Challenging Trump viewpoint

Not that I expect the fanatics who approve of The Donald to ever admit any of this. All they’ll hear are the words “foreigner” and “Mexico” and they’ll be desperate to accept it, no matter how absurd the mechanics of it all are.

Because if they really had faith in this nation and its systems of operating, they’d be willing to trust the courts to weed through the large number of people seeking asylum in this country.

Then again, these people are the ones who these days are denouncing Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts for his recent statement that, “there are no Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. An independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

  -30-

We’re getting a double-blow over just how split our society has become

Guilty, to the second degree

Perhaps it was all-too-appropriate that Friday in Chicago was a cloudy overcast day with a chill in the air and soggy sopping wet. In short, a miserable day that perfectly reflected the miserable events that reflect the social split that our society faces these days.

Friday was the day that a jury in Cook County came back with a guilty (of sorts) verdict against Jason Van Dyke – the Chicago police officer who faced criminal charges related to the shooting death four years ago of a teenager.

Will Kavanaugh receive the ultimate prize?

ALTHOUGH THERE ARE those who want to see the case of nothing more than a white man with legal authority using it to kill a young black man.

That is a case where the legal outcome is going to manage to offend just about everybody – and not just those people who live in Chicago. Some of us were all too eager to see a cop go down to defeat, while others will see anything that doesn’t coddle a cop as evidence of our society gone awry.

As if this isn’t enough to leave people p-o’ed, we’re going to get a similar response either Saturday or Sunday from Capitol Hill in Washington. At about the same time that a Cook County jury neared completion of its two days of deliberations Friday, the U.S. Senate took a procedural vote that narrowly (51 to 49) voted to advance the process for filling a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States.

The scene is now set for a final vote possibly Saturday (although I’ve heard reports of at least one senator being unable to attend that day because his daughter is scheduled to get married – and he’s not about to miss that big event!).

WHICH MEANS THE split at the federal level between people who think Brett Kavanaugh is unfit to serve on the nation’s high court and those who want to think he’s being attacked by (as they insist on viewing it) hysterical broads making stories up is going to get those same people all riled up.

Police conduct itself on trial in some minds

Things are looking more and more like the Senate WILL go ahead and confirm President Donald Trump’s appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the Supreme Court (which is a life-time political appointment).

There will be people who will feel that the legitimate concerns of women are being ignored because Republican officials are eager for a politically-partisan victory. Some of them may well be the same people who think there had to be a “guilty” verdict against Jason Van Dyke, or else a miscarriage of justice will have occurred.

PERSONALLY, I BRACED myself mentally some time ago for the concept that Van Dyke would NOT get whacked with “GUILTY!!!!” on every single criminal charge – which is an outcome some people think is the only appropriate one. Although the ruling of guilty of second-degree murder, combined with all those convictions of aggravated battery, could be seen as a way of appeasing all while satisfying none.

So while I know Van Dyke’s family has said they wouldn't be surprised if he’s found guilty of something because they feel like political people want that outcome to appease the public, I seriously expect people are going to be upset for a long, long time regardless of what happened Friday.

It may well be a double-whammy for some if the U.S. Senate gives Kavanaugh their support.

While I’m also sure there is a segment of society that will be totally pleased with such outcomes. We are, after all, living in the Age of Trump – in which a right-wing element wants to think they’re taking over again and erasing all the deluded, liberal attitudes they want to believe have corrupted us.

OF COURSE, WE could get the societal split, so to speak.

Does it all come down to Donald Trump?

What with Kavanaugh getting confirmation of his appointment, but Van Dyke getting some sort of verdict that turns him from a law enforcement officer to a convict, of sorts.

I’m sure the right-wing ideologues will have fantasies of their own, in which a right-leaning Supreme Court ultimately has an opportunity to rule on an appeal filed on Van Dyke’s behalf. Would an “Age of Trump” court be sympathetic?

And are the news happenings of this weekend leading into the Columbus Day holiday  (a holiday whose very existence offends some people) going to be the cause of countless protests – which were already up-and-running Friday even before a verdict was announced – that will take place for many years to come?

  -30-

Watching TV while at work? Why not!

Call it one of the perks of being a reporter-type person who has worked in newsroom-type environments – nobody thinks it odd to have the television or radio tuned in to a broadcast of some news-worthy event.

Allowing workplace to be informed about Kavanaugh

I recall back in 1989, when I was a reporter based at the Thompson Center state government building for the now-defunct City News Bureau, I had a radio tuned in (to WBBM-AM, I believe) for the entirety of the confirmation hearings to determine whether Clarence Thomas was fit to serve a life-time appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.

MEANING I HEARD the live broadcast that included all the tidbits that got written up and caused many of us to snicker – although not enough of us so as to thwart Thomas from getting the post.

I thought back to this when I learned there is a Chicago company that is not only willing to let employees listen to the hearings taking place now for whether Brett Kavanaugh is worthy of being Thomas’ colleague on the Supreme Court, they’re willing to make their employees comfortable.

Avant, an online lender, opened the board room of its downtown headquarters to the company’s workers. The Chicago Tribune reported they organized a current event-type discussion, giving workers the chance to express their thoughts on the issue.

To accommodate such a desire, they arranged for a video stream of the broadcast into the board room so their workers could watch the happenings in real-time.

THAT IS, IF the workers don’t want to be holed up at their desks, watching the same video stream on their work computers.

Now I’m sure there are some people reading this who are about to engage in a rant telling me I’m an idiot – those workers ought to be doing their jobs. Nobody pays them to watch the news.

Although I have to admit to thinking there’s something incredibly honest about a company willing to concede that many of their workers are going to be focusing their attention on their computers to learn the latest about Kavanaugh’s chances of actually getting the Supreme Court appointment that is part of President Donald Trump’s desire to remake the high court in his own image.

Work got done despite Thomas hearings

Either that, or they figure they’d rather have their employees using the computers to watch the livestream of the Kavanaugh hearings, instead of playing video poker or whatever other type of time-wasting event they’d be engaged in.

NOW IT’S ALWAYS possible that some people are going to be tuning in out of some desire to hear titillating details. The Kavanaugh case has devolved into one of a man who back when he was a teenager and a college kid couldn’t exactly keep his hormones under control.

Which will turn into an ongoing argument amongst us over exactly what constitutes attempted rape. What is appropriate behavior between the genders?

It might be a very worthwhile use of time for many of us to engage in such a discussion. Perhaps we’d be better off if more entities were to permit such activity so as to encourage such frank talk.

Although I’m sure there will be those who will merely be amused by the more absurd things that got said. Just as the reason I will never forget the Thomas “pubic hair” line was because it was so overly ridiculous to think anyone could seriously believe that – or would be absurd enough to think such a line would be humorous.

BESIDES, IT IS possible for people to train themselves to focus on more than one thing at a time. I know in my case, I can write copy and listen to conversations simultaneously. Which is means that I can listen to a TV broadcast and write.

I may not see the images, but I can get the substance.

Managed to write college paper while watching Super Bowl

Which actually is how, back when I was in college, I managed to write a paper of great significance (it was the totality of my grade for a course I took) while listening to the Super Bowl broadcast from the lone year the Chicago Bears ever won that sporting event.

And as for spending days listening to Anita Hill try to take down Clarence Thomas, I managed to get my work done as well.

  -30-

What were the lessons learned from Anita Hill with regards to Kavanaugh?

I still remember the moment of the “pubic hair on my coke.”

KAVANAUGH: Purely partisan politics?

As in listening to a radio broadcast of the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, when his former colleague Anita Hill recalled a moment of the two of them together when Thomas made his little quip to her.

MY COLLEAGUES AND I couldn’t quite believe anybody could be that lame in thinking such a line would be humorous. Or that Thomas could actually think that such talk would make him appealing to women.

But it really happened, the Senate eventually confirmed Thomas to his appointment that he still holds nearly 30 years later, and I’m sure there are political people out there who think the lesson learned from the whole “Thomas affair” is that such allegations are outlandish and best ignored.

Because, hey, we’ve had a misogynistic sort on the Supreme Court for all these years now, and it hasn’t brought an end to the Republic. Similar to how I’m sure they’re also thinking that it doesn’t matter what President Donald Trump (the man who supposedly thinks the way to appeal to women is to “grab ‘em by the pussy”) may have done in his life.

It only matters when Bill Clinton does it, because he has partisan leanings they are directly opposed to. Taking him down politically is the whole purpose, along with destroying anybody who might be remotely like him in any way.

GORSUCH: Does he need Trump allies on ct?

ALL THESE THOUGHTS have been popping into my head a lot with the hearings taking place concerning the political fate of Brett Kavanaugh. He’s the man whom Trump wants to put on the Supreme Court of the United States – in large part because of a belief he’ll shift the partisan leanings of the court sufficiently enough that the ideologues can start making good on their more-than-four-decade-old desire to do away with the 1973 ruling that made abortion a legitimate medical procedure.

So to try to take him down, we’ve learned about the woman who says that back when she was 17 (and Kavanaugh also was a teenager), he tried to molest her. She had to fight him off.

As if that isn’t sufficient, we’re now learning of another woman who remembers back to her freshman year of college in the mid-1980s when she says fellow student Kavanaugh used a college party to expose himself and try to get her to touch his genitals.

GARLAND: Some still bitter he's not on ct?

We actually have some people making the claim of, “How many women have to come forth before we see Trump’s appointee as unfit for such a position?”

ALTHOUGH I ALSO don’t doubt that Trump-types will never make such an concession – and not only because they just don’t care what these women say Kavanaugh did to them.

It’s all about the fact that Trump himself wants to be able to reform the Supreme Court in his own image, and needs as many people of his partisan persuasion to be appointed to the high court.

He has the one appointment he got because the Senate successfully managed to keep former President Barack Obama from filling the vacancy caused by the death of Antonin Scalia – an act that some find disgraceful. Although I’m sure the ideologues think the real disgrace is that Obama got to make two other appointments – and we now have Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in life-time legal posts.

Now, the conservative strategy is to ensure that Sotomayor and Kagan ultimately become isolated – and we get a whole slew of Supreme Court rulings of the future that come down to 7-2 votes. Which could happen if Trump is the one who gets to pick a replacement someday for 85-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

WHILE THE OPPOSITION will do what it can to thwart Kavanaugh – and theoretically any other opening there might be on the Supreme Court. Perhaps some think they can literally take back the high court seat they want to believe should be held by Merrick Garland (the man Obama tried to pick for the court, but couldn’t).

THOMAS: Does he need companion?

The shame of all this is that the women themselves become a sideshow. The reality of what happened to them all those years ago becomes irrelevant – to the point where back in 2010, Virginia Thomas (Clarence’s spouse) had the nerve to publicly demand that Hill apologize for letting the world know about his awkward-bordering-on-tacky sense of humor

Are we going to get similar demands in the future of the women who now are coming forth to tell their stories of back when they knew Brett Kavanaugh?

While it may be true that his behavior as a young man wasn’t much different from other males, it really doesn’t excuse him. And the fact that we already have Thomas on the high court doesn’t mean we need to have another boor to keep him company!

  -30-

Is it just a matter of time before Supreme Ct overrules Chgo justices?

It’s no secret that President Donald Trump doesn’t think much of the political establishment of Chicago. Our public officials, after all, are clearly in opposition to the will of The Donald and are willing to publicly point out how wrong he is on so many issues.

LEINENWEBER: Standing up to Trump

So when a federal justice in Chicago ruled this week to reject the Attorney General’s attempts to have a lawsuit by Chicago against the federal government dismissed, a part of me now wonders if the presidential focus will shift to the Supreme Court.

THE ONE THAT could wind up with a solid margin of political partisanship intended to present his take on the law as the one that must be legitimate.

Just as it took several months before Trump got his way on travel restrictions meant to make it seem that people from Islamic-influenced countries were of being permitted in the United States, maybe he expects that a court rigged in his favor will gladly give him his take on “sanctuary cities.”

As in claiming that Chicago and other municipalities that refuse to have their law enforcement do the dirty work of federal immigration officials are somehow being un-American and ought to lose federal funding they now rely upon.

The scary part is that his line of “logic” isn’t totally absurd. A partisan court could wind up giving legitimacy to Trump’s ideologically-inclined ramblings.

ON THE ISSUE, U.S. District senior judge out of Chicago issued rulings saying the federal government is overstepping its bounds in its efforts to force Chicago to do away with the Sanctuary City concept.

Leinenweber a Chicago holdover from Reagan

Leinenweber isn’t a liberal-leaner by any means.

He’s a judge who got his appointment to the federal courts back in the days of President Ronald Reagan. He is the spouse of one-time Rep. Lynn Martin, who later served as Labor secretary under President George Bush (the elder),

He’s an establishment-oriented Republican. But in this Age of Trump, he’s the kind of person who finds a strong sense of shame in thinking his political party could produce someone of the ilk of the current president.

WHICH IS WHAT makes it possible for him to follow the letter of the law, which is along the general line of thinking that federal officials have jurisdiction over federal issues. Local people do their own work.

TRUMP: Waiting for Supreme Ct to overturn?

Crossing over that boundary in either direction causes serious problems that undermine the concepts upon which our society is based. Such as us not being a police state looking to harass the people who live here for political reasons.

If anything, the Leinenweber rulings may add a sense of legitimacy to Chicago’s hard-headed support for the Sanctuary City concept – one which the U.S Court of Appeals for the 7^th district (based in Chicago) is expected to consider later this year whether it should apply nationally.

Something that Trump most definitely won’t want to happen – largely because he still has his vision of the presidency being about him being the “Fearless Leader” (remember Boris and Natasha’s boss and their repeated failed cartoon attempts to “kill moose and squirrel”) who can bark out orders at will?

WHICH IS WHY he likely is counting on that partisan-leaning Supreme Court to undo every attempt to maintain a sense of logic and sensibility in the way our government operates in this Age of Trump.

Are these Trump's kind of characters?

Just as I’m sure the president is peeved with that Federal Communications Commission head who is publicly speaking out against the proposed merger of broadcast properties across the nation with Sinclair Broadcast Group – whose own clueless leanings are in line with the presidential vacuous ideology.

Maybe Trump fantasizes the high court will give him sufficient authority to make “The Apprentice,” that lame television program he once appeared on, a reality by being able to bark out “You’re Fired!” at anyone who offends his sensibilities.

We can only hope the electorate comes to the rescue and the vocal minority does not once again prevail as it did in 2016. Because we need to dump Trump, then work to undo the damage this man has caused through all his egomaniacal acts.

  -30-

The payoff for helping to undermine organized labor influence in Illinois?

I’m sure some are going to accuse me of being overly cynical. Why can’t I appreciate the honesty of someone fighting for their personal ideals, they’ll say about me.

JANUS: W/ Honest Abe looking over his shouder

Yet I couldn’t help but snicker a bit at the weekend news reports about Mark Janus.

HE’S THE CHILD care specialist with the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services who allowed his circumstances on the job to be used by the partisan ideologues who were anxious in filing a court case to try to undermine the influence that organized labor has within Illinois state government.

When the Supreme Court of the United States last month ruled in his favor, it was Janus’ name that got national attention. I’m sure for some people, the name “Janus” is now as big a deal as the names of “Roe” and “Wade.”

As in the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that tossed out all the state laws that considered abortion to be the equivalent of a criminal act, and not a decision that was truly a woman’s personal business.

Janus is a long-time state worker who claims he enjoyed his job. But he also has personal views that make him object to having a labor union being involved in his employment.

HE PARTICULARLY RESENTED the notion that even though he didn’t want to join the union (Council 31 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), union dues were deducted from his paycheck to cover the cost of the work the union did in representing his on-the-job rights.

That was the basis of his lawsuit, and the high court has ruled in his favor.

Now, the Illinois Policy Institute has offered Janus a job – one he plans to accept and will begin work at come Aug. 1.

Some will forevermore view "Janus" as a bad word

Which probably benefits Janus, since he’ll now be doing blatant partisan political work (a senior fellow speaking out on behalf of workers’ rights, from the social conservative perspective). He’ll probably be happier that way.

BUT IT REALLY comes across as Janus getting his payoff for helping partisan ideologues undermine organized labor – which many state employees do rely upon to ensure the state doesn’t run roughshod over their concerns.

SHAKMAN: Will Janus name gain similar aura?

For the point of this lawsuit is to spark an effort by which many government employees get swayed (or possibly strong-armed) into thinking they should drop out of the AFSCME labor union.

A significant loss of membership would result in a financial loss if it means the union has less in membership dues to fund its work. Get enough people to go along with such talk, and you could start to have a movement for revoking recognition of the union altogether.

Which is the real goal of the ideologues who engage in such rhetoric. Make those “lazy bums” on the state payroll realize they ought to be grateful anybody bothers to employ them. Even though anyone with sense realizes treating employees with a modicum of respect is the real way to get efficient labor from them.

JANUS, WHO IS now 65, likely wasn’t far from being able to retire. Although I’m sure his financial future is significantly stabilized, what with private sector employment that he gets largely because his name was used as the legal basis for the Janus v. AFSCME lawsuit.

Of course, I’m sure those people who think more highly of organized labor will feel he sold them out, so to speak. But I’m not out to put the “Judas” label on Janus. In fact, I’m fairly sure the state payroll would no longer be a pleasant place for him to be employed in the months and years following his involvement with the lawsuit.

How will AFSCME recover from partisan court ruling?

All I know is that a part of me wonders if there’s any truth to the rhetoric being spewed by AFSCME types saying that not many state workers are looking to quit paying dues, and a significant sum of state workers who hadn’t previously joined the union are now doing so!

Janus’ name is going to be remembered for his partisan action far more than the work he did on behalf of children. It will be interesting to see what kind of taint, in coming decades, that will develop. Or if it develops an aura similar to that of "Shakman" (as in Michael, the attorney/activist who inspired the lawsuits that heavily restrict government hiring for partisan political purposes) which I'm sure Janus thinks is likely.

  -30-

EXTRA: Will Chicago-based federal judge get Supreme Court appointment?

It seems there are those inclined to believe that a federal appeals court judge currently based in the Dirksen Building will soon be on her way to Washington for the (literal) job of a lifetime – an appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.

BARRETT: A Chicago-based Hoosier for high ct

Both of the Chicago metro newspapers on Friday went with the notion that Justice Amy Coney Barrett is a very real possibility for President Donald J. Trump to choose for the post that replaces Anthony Kennedy – who is retiring now that he’s reached his 80s in age.

BARRETT (WHOM SOME have taken to nicknaming the “Conenator” to try to make her sound tough) is far from being a part of the legal establishment of Chicago. She only got her judicial appointment last year (she’s only 46 now), and from none other than President Trump himself.

Meaning she’s someone who hasn’t had a chance to become “tainted” by being exposed to courts based in Chicago or dealing with attorneys who work her.

Just the perfect pick for someone with the mentality that everything in Chicago is somehow tainted. If anything, it would be Trump’s way of delivering a smack across the forehead to the establishment of this city.

He literally picks someone who, in terms of seniority, is at the bottom (or close to it) of judges who work in Chicago and offers her the post of being on the court that ultimately oversees the nation’s whole legal system.

THE FACT THAT she’s Catholic, but part of the People of Praise group that integrates elements of other religious faiths that hard-core Catholics would think of as blasphemous, likely makes her all the more appealing to the kind of people who want Trump (an extremely vocal minority of our society) to stack the Supreme Court in ways that will last for decades. While scaring those senseless those who care about abortion or women in general.

For the record, Barrett isn’t one of those judges who came out of Chicago-Kent or DePaul law schools and likely has little ambition beyond their judicial post in Chicago. She’s a graduate of Notre Dame, a long-time faculty member of the law school, and still lives in South Bend, Ind.

Some wonder if her religious faith is so intense that she’s bound to use it to influence her on any future high court ruling that regards Roe v. Wade – the Supreme Court case of more than four decades ago that legitimized abortion and which some are determined to have the court overturn.

I’m sure on a certain level, a Barrett appointment (if it really happens) would be Trump at his most sarcastic and cynical. Particularly if it puts someone with Indiana roots in a position of overseeing Chicago and Illinois.

  -30-

Abortion – an issue that won’t go away; even if high court tries to make it so

The commentary with regards to the legitimacy of abortion as a medical procedure has already started up. I’ve come across one train of thought that says President Donald J. Trump will choose a woman to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States so that when the high court eventually does away with abortion, it won’t be by an entirely-male group of justices.

I’ve found another commentary that says the Supreme Court won’t have the nerve to want to step into the political mess that would assuredly be created if the court really tries to undo the 1973 ruling of Roe v. Wade – the one that struck down the laws of those states that tried to regard abortion as a criminal act.

THERE ARE A wide range of opinions out there with regards to whether a woman has a right to end a pregnancy – and it’s pretty clear that somebody is going to turn out to be dead wrong in what they’re stating now.

Which also means someone, by the purest of dumb luck, is going to wind up being correct – and will probably go about the rest of their lives boasting of “supreme intelligence” just because they managed to “guess” correctly.

For what it’s worth, the Morning Consult group released a poll saying some 52 percent of us want the high court to maintain abortion as legitimate – with only 29 percent wishing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade.

Of course, it’s a partisan issue – among those who identify as Democrats, 73 percent want abortion to remain protected by law, while 54 percent of those who identify as Republican wish for abortion to go away.

AND IN THIS Age of Trump, we have leadership determined to piddle on the desires of anybody who happens to be either Democrat, or not sufficiently ideological enough to fit their definition of what a Republican ought to be.

Meaning there are a number of people who are going to get all bent out of shape with their prognostications about what will happen once Trump makes his nominee to the Supreme Court known publicly. Which he has hinted could come as soon as Monday.

Then again, Trump has been known to be unpredictable – which is probably the safest thing for anybody to predict about him. Who’s to say what will happen?

Personally, I think Trump will be inclined to pick someone whom he thinks will be a predictable choice to want to “undo” abortion – joining with a solid majority of other ideologically conservative justices to vote against it.

FITTING IN WITH what seems to be his general theory that he’s “the boss” and that the rest of government ought to just do what he tells them. If the majority of us don’t approve – well I doubt he cares!

Because all he has to do is look at the minority of voters who, in 2016, picked him to be president. He probably thinks they’re the only ones who matter – just as I suspect he sees the 29 percent who want Roe v. Wade undone matter more than the rest of us.

Which is why I’m not amongst those getting all worked up over Monday. We have a political structure right now that is rigged against much rational thought – one that is primarily focused with trying to appease the sentiments of the ideologues who want to impose their own ideas upon the bulk of us.

What I’m saying is that the “harm” already has been done. The thought that there’s much anything Trump will do now to suddenly make a difference is a bit of an overstatement.

IF ANYTHING, WE’RE going to have to rely on the unpredictability of justices when it comes to interpreting the law. There have been instances in the past when the ideologues amongst us thought the high court was on the verge of undoing abortion when a majority managed to figure out legal means by which it remained.

Will ideologues want to 'erase' old hedlines showing what court once did?

Those of us who have enough sense to see laws against abortion as meddling in a woman’s physical well-being will have to count on the prevailing of the rule of law.

But then again, in this overly-partisan age we’re now in, it might be asking a bit much to think the Supreme Court of the United States can truly rise above it all.

Meaning we may well have to wait for a future version of the Supreme Court to take it upon itself to undo the harmful actions being imposed upon us by this Age of Trump.

  -30-