9 Letters

This week, I found myself doing something I never imagined: writing a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts. In fact to all the Supreme Court justices (hence the Ruth Bader Ginsburg stamps). It wasn’t because I needed legal advice, was looking for a pen pal or wanted to chat about robes and gavels.

It was because I’m deeply concerned, as are all Americans who aren’t republicans, about the virtually blanket immunity the court has given Cadet Bone Spurs.

The ruling suggesting presidents have total immunity for “official acts” isn’t just a legal hiccup. It’s a full-blown constitutional crisis.

This doesn’t just put one person above the law. It creates a reality where a sitting president can commit crimes with impunity as long as they call it “official.” For those of you late to the party, that’s not how democracy works.

The Felon-In-Chief has wasted no time waving this “official acts” pass like an all-access backstage pass at a chaos concert. He’s used it to attack democratic institutions, downplay violence, threaten judges and make statements that sound less presidential and more like deleted Twitter drafts.

And now, he’s coming for the courts.

You know, that last branch of government still trying to keep the lights on in this constitutional storm. But the orange asshole has directed his puppet justice department to arrest judges that disagree and decide against his inhumane immigration policies.

If this immunity decision stands, what’s next? Will dissent be criminalized under “Operation Hurt Feelings”? Suddenly, it doesn’t feel far-fetched.

When the courts are under attack and presidential immunity becomes absolute, we’re not talking about “leadership” anymore. We’re talking about a fast-pass to authoritarianism. I want to say no one voted for that, but sadly millions of gullible, grievance-fueled people did.

Our Constitution was designed with checks and balances, not “get-out-of-jail-free” cards. The Founders weren’t perfect, but they knew a king when they saw one, and came up with this little document to make sure we wouldn’t get another.

So, and I say this with urgency and respect to Chief Justice Roberts and the Court: reverse this decision. Because the idea a president can silence critics, weaponize government, or worse — all while enjoying a legal force field — doesn’t just bend the rule of law. It breaks it. Shatters it. Sweeps it into a drawer labeled “For Future Autocrats Only.”

If we don’t course-correct now, we risk losing the very thing that makes America worth all this messy, passionate fighting: our democracy.

Justice is supposed to be blind, not asleep.

So to the Supreme Court: wake up, suit up, and fix this. We’re counting on you.

Climate change

If climate change deniers need proof it exists, all they had to do was watch the first day of hearings to name Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

The mood, between Republicans in the room anyway, was warm and amiable. They were praising Brett Kavanaugh's judicial experience, his good character as a family man and his track record in over one thousand court cases.

When they took a break, Kavanaugh stood up and the first person to talk to him was Fred Guttenberg, who tragically lost his daughter Jaime in the Parkland shooting. As Mr. Guttenberg extended his hand in a friendly, unthreatening manner, hoping to have a conversation with the nominee, the temperature in the room instantly turned very chilly.

Kavanaugh scowled at the grieving father, then upon hearing he was the parent of a Parkland victim, turned his back on him without shaking his hand and walked out.

To add insult to injury, when the hearing reconvened, Kavanaugh talked about his daughters, their bright futures and how he loved coaching them in sports. It was painful to listen to knowing Fred Guttenberg's daughter would never realize her future.

Here's the thing: Kavanaugh is whole-heartedly endorsed by the NRA. He is against assault weapons bans, and has been vocal about it. Since the NRA is suing every state that enacts gun control laws that Guttenberg is promoting, they're hoping Kavanaugh would be an ally when the lawsuits reach the supreme court.

And despite his statements about judging cases solely on their merits and adherence to the law, he will almost assuredly be the ally the NRA is hoping for.

Money talks, and judges walk. Especially when they're confronted with the reality of gun violence.

Supreme stupidity

Never underestimate the ability of conservative, Republican Supreme Court justices to uphold a woman hating, base-pandering, self-serving, Obama-bashing, turning-the-clock-back decades decision.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today certain for-profit companies, on grounds of religious beliefs, can’t be required to pay for specific types of contraceptives for their employees.

Just when I thought conservative Republicans couldn’t stoop any lower. They must be breaking out the streamers and confetti at the Hannity house.

This decision would be comical and unthinkable – more like a parody of the Court on Saturday Night Live – except for the fact it’s so heinous, and so transparent in its agenda to derail Obamacare.

Justice Ginsburg, always a center of common sense and decency - not because of who she was appointed by but because of who she is and how she thinks - wrote the court’s dissenting opinion. I completely share her views, and certainly can’t word it any better than she did. Here are a few choice selections from it:

"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."

"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."

"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"

Conestoga Wood Specialties and the Hobby Lobby were the companies that brought the case to the Supreme Court. On the Hobby Lobby website, co-founder Barbara Green posts the decision as “A victory for religious liberty,“ which is one way to look at it - if you happen to share Ms. Green’s religious point of view, which I'm willing to bet not each and every one of the Hobby Lobby's female employees do.

What will probably, and should, happen now is the Obama administration will find a work around to this lamebrain decision. It will probably end up covering contraception in one way or another. And of course the lawsuits against the insurance companies will start shortly.

So hats off to the Republican party by way of the Supreme Court. Your misogyny, your hatred for Obama (Huh, wonder what could be the reason for that?), your desire to set back progress time and time again either by doing nothing or by undoing what's been done, has today handed you a victory I have absolutely no doubt will backfire on you in a way so huge, it'll have Karl Rove babbling like an idiot again saying you've won when the numbers say you've lost come election time.

If this wrong-minded, partisan decision didn't hurt so many, that might almost make it worth it.

Score one for the death penalty

I'm going to be getting up on my soapbox in this post, so you might want to take a couple steps back.

Not only am I going to disappoint some of my friends here, I'm also going to be politically incorrect - two things I manage to do on a regular basis.

Buckle up, here it comes: I'm in favor of the death penalty. Especially when it's applied to someone like the piece of human garbage you see here.

This is Rodney Alcala. He was convicted in February of kidnapping and murdering a 12 year- old girl in Orange County, and raping and murdering four Los Angeles women in the 1970's. Without going into the finer points, some of his instruments of choice were a rock, the claw end of a hammer, a shoelace, a nylon stocking and a belt.

For those of you keeping count, this is his third death sentence for these crimes. He was caught, tried, convicted and sentenced to death twice before. But the convictions were overturned, once by the California Supreme Court and once by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The good news however is that in this third trial, they had irrefutable DNA evidence. That's what finally did him in.

Here's the thing: I don't buy the argument that putting him to death brings us down to his level. It's a false analogy. Murdering innocent adults and young children, then executing the murderer as a consequence of their crime are two completely different things. They are not morally equivalent.

While it would be nice if the penalty worked as a deterrent, I don't really care whether it does or not. What does matter to me is that by putting him to death, one less monster walks among us.

A little bit of evil bites the dust.

The death penalty isn't handed out the same way sample cigarettes are on a street corner. You have to earn it. The sadly ironic thing is that once you do, the state then gives you years of automatic appeals to prove you don't deserve it. Many prisoners have been on ("languished" is far too sympathetic a word) death row more than 25 years in California while their appeals wind there way through the court system.

I wonder how many years that girl's parents will have to wait before seeing justice done. To bad there's not a bonus round where those years could go back to his victims.

Maybe it's just the parent in me because one of his victims was a 12 year-old, but I can't find a reason to justify his continued existence. He isn't mentally ill. He wasn't on drugs. He's not legally insane. He wasn't just sitting in the getaway car while the crimes were being committed.

And while it's probably true he did have a bad childhood, I'm just gonna call bullshit on that excuse.

A lot of people will say just the fact he's a human being is reason enough not to execute him. But see, that's another false argument. Obviously he's isn't.

The sister of the young girl Mr. Alcala viciously murdered said, "If there is a hell, I hope Rodney Alcala burns eternally. I wish he would experience the terror he put his victims through."

Ditto.