the worst supreme court opinions of all time

The United States has been in existence for two hundred and forty-eight years.  The first opinion rendered by the Supreme Court was West v. Barnes, 2 US 401 (1791), a long and deservedly forgotten and ultimately minor issue regarding a dispute over payment for goods the plaintiff in the case before the Court argued had been improperly granted in the lower courts due to the fact that the writ of error leading to his losing his farm in the payment dispute was not properly signed by a Supreme Court clerk.  In other words, in today's society, who cares?

It got me to thinking, however, that the Court has now been issuing decisions since 1791, which obviously covers the entirety of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, as well as the twenty-first up to the present date.  It also got me to wondering, the nine years of the Court's opinion issuing existence of the eighteenth century aside, what the single worst opinions of the Supreme Court were in each of these centuries.  When I am referring to the single worst decisions, I do not necessarily mean that the opinions were necessarily against the language or penumbras of the Constitution, but were against all humanity, all common sense, or were simply so cruel that any rational present day thought would immediately lead to the decision that the cases were wrongly decided from the outset.

Starting with the nineteenth century, I would imagine that the outright winner for the worst opinion of the century would be Scott v. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857), commonly known these days simply as the "Dred Scott" case.

As most know, the Court in Dred Scott ruled that black persons born into slavery or brought into the country and sold as slaves in the pre-Civil War days were nothing more the property of their masters.  They otherwise had not rights as humans.

There is no particular analysis of the decision that is necessary present day.  Nobody, at least nobody with any sense of decency or humanity, would argue that a Black person, or any ethnicity for that matter is not a human, and as such entitled to all the protections of the Constitution.  It is noted, however, for the time the case was decided, 1857, the provisions of the Constitution if strictly read and applied, allowed for such an opinion to be reached by the Court.  My brother has written an entire book on the subject. The case, however, has been explicitly overruled by the Civil War amendments to the Constitution; therefore, there is really no reasonable need to fear that Dred Scott will somehow be resurected and brought back to life, regardless of the make up of the present Court.

In the twentieth century, the worst single opinion by the Supreme Court was Korematsu v. United States, 323 US 214 (1944).

In spite of what some may say, including people very close to me who have offered the opinion, Korematsu has never been overruled. Yes, Justice Roberts and Justice Sotomayor have statede that it has been overruled in the "court of public opinion", and it is clear that if the issue was ever raised before this Supreme Court in its current make up, it would be overruled.

But as of right now Korematsu v. United States has, in fact, not been overruled.

Oh sure, the conservative bloc of justices may say the case is abhorrent, but will they actually rule that way if the issue of whether or not blocs of citizens can be detained simply because of their ethnicity actually comes before them?  Can we rely upon any sense of decency from conservative justices who clearly can be swayed by the "court of public opinion", which has no actual legal standing, but acts as a threat to the justices?

As of right now, if the incoming administration issued an emergency executive order similar to the order issued by FDR, directing the military to round up Muslim Americans on the grounds that they present a potential threat to the safety of the rest of us, or Chinese Americans on the same grounds, or Panamanian Americans on the grounds that Panama allegedly charges too much for American ships to pass through the Panama Canal, who is to say that this Supreme Court with these justices will actually overrule Korematsu?

And who is to say that the incoming president and his incoming justice department will not argue that Korematsu is still precedential as it has not actually been overruled?

Which brings us to the present century.

I admit, which is to say the obvious, that the century is not quite one quarter of the way over; however, I believe we already have the United States Supreme Court decision that history will prove to be worst of the twenty-first century, if not the worst decision ever rendered by the Court for all of eternity.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Trump v. United States, 603 US 593 (2024).

This is the legal gem that ruled that the incoming president held immunity from all acts committed as president, as long as they were in good faith committed as part of his official duties.  There is nothing in the Constitution that grants immunity to a sitting president for crimes committed while in office.  There is something in the Constitution that says all persons are equal and equal before the law.  It is also noted that while he has argued that the office of the presidency is too important and too time consuming to force him to defend himself from his own actions in court, this overhelming importance of the office has apparently deterred cadet bone spurs from pursuing his own patently frivolous lawsuits as a plaintiff against any and all he believes have aggrieved his petty mind.

The immediate effect of this opinion is that the cases brought against cadet bone spurs over the events of January 6, which could not possibly have had anything to do with presidential duties, have now been dismissed, other than the state action in Georgia that is on life support due to the fact that the District Attorney in the case, Fani Willis, could not figure out that it was not a good idea to have a sexual fling with the special prosecutor she appointed to handle the case.  So now, he will get away with it.

He may also ultimately get away with his tax and fraud schemes for which he was convicted in New York earlier this year even though the acts for which he was prosecuted not only had absolutely nothing to do with presidential duties, but were acts committed before he even became president, which would logically lead to the conclusion that they were not acts covered in the Supreme Court opinion.  The trial court has not dismissed the case based upon the motion filed on behalf of cadet bone spurs' legal team claiming the acts for which he was convicted are covered in the Supreme Court decision.  He will appeal.  The appeal will be brought eventually to the Supreme Court, with this same set of justices who pulled the immunity reasoning out of thin air.

The ultimate effect of this is we are now in a situation where we have a convicted felon about to resume office.  He will undoubtedly pardon his co-conspirators from all his cases, at least those who did not turn on him in some fashion a la Michael Cohen.  Even though he will claim complete immunity from the Supreme Court opinion, he will likely try to pardon himself, which sort of admits that he committed crimes in the first place.

We are also left with the distinct possibility, already announced by him and his justice department nominees, that he will pursue criminal charges against those he perceives to be his foes.  He will go after Liz Cheney, Jack Smith, Christopher Wray, Letitia James and anyone else who tried to prosecute him for crimes he has already committed.  He probably cannot tell you what statute any of them will be prosecuted under, but since when would that make a difference.  He has already announced that he will go after any media outlet that he believes his dissed him, even if that is a blatant constitutional violation and simply another situation in which he cannot tell you the statutory violation committed by the media he is persecuting.  His nominee to hed the FBI has already announced he is compiling an enemy's list.

Nixon had an enemy's list.

He is going to claim that anything he does after January 20, 2025 is an official act for which he is entitled to immunity.  If it means he orders the murder of Liz Cheney, etc., do not be surprised.

And do not be surprised if this Supreme Court screws up the logic to support that act of murder and any other ones that would follow.

And do not be surprised if he tries to suspend the Constitution under some sort of emergency power that does not exist, and this Supreme Court allows him to do so.

And do not be surprised if future candidates for the office of the presidency run simply so they can avoid being prosecuted for any number of crimes they have commited or intend to commit in the future.

None of any of this is in the Constitution.  Indeed, it is likely that the Founders would ask anyone who made the suggestion to them that any of this was explicitly or implicitly covered anywhere in that document if they had lost their mind.  Does anyone really think those who fought against a tyrannical monarch overseas would approve of a felonious one in office here at home?

But that is what Trump v. United States has brought us.  And that is what we are likely to see starting a few minutes after noon on January 20, 2025.

God help us.

america is ugly

You will please forgive me.  I am trying to put words to what has just transpired, to make sense of the unfathomable, and I am not sure what is coming out is what really needs to be said, at least by me.

When I was a child, one of the defining moments of the time was the "I Have a Dream" speech on the Mall in Washington.  On that day, August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. gave a soaring, speech seeking to inspire the better angels in all of us.  I was in the crowd that day, although I was only five going on six years old.  Mom and Dad had driven my brothers and I along with a caravan of inner city folks to Washington for the march and the moment.  Although I have very little actual memory of the day, it was a defining moment in my life and for people of my generation. It set us on the path of decency and respect for all.

On October 27, 2024, there was another defining moment.  He held a rally at Madison Square Garden.  It evoked a similar rally held by the American nazi party at the previous Madison Square Garden on February 20, 1939.  All that was missing were the swastikas. Speaker after speaker spewed hate and filth.  Women were "bitches".  Fellow Americans, who happen to be Puerto Rican, were a "floating pile of garbage".  In no particular order, he vowed vengeance upon the press, the Department of Justice, "liberals", immigrants, anyone who ever disagreed with him.

It was dark.  It was disturbing.

It was ugly.

And then on November 5, 2024, with the MSG rally fresh in our minds, we as Americans went to vote.  We had a choice between goodness, decency and competence and hate and ugliness.

And we chose ugly.

Our next president has been convicted of thirty-four felonies and is under indictment for fifty-seven others.  He is only out of prison due to the fact that courts have rushed to protect him.  The Supreme Court gave him a get out of jail card for the ages in a decision that will go down in infamy along with the Dred Scott decision and Korematsu v. United States.  According to the Court, a president is above the law.  He can brazenly break the law and there is nothing we can do about it.  Think about it.  He can commit outright felonies in which somebody dies -- come to think of it, he already has -- and there is nothing we can do about it, because six justices of the highest court in the land told us he is immune from prosecution even thought there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution confirming this.  There is something in the Constitution about all men being equal.

As a result, we have a president-elect who is not eligible to enlist in the military as a private, but is going to be the commander in chief.

This is what we chose.

The next president is a felon.

The next president is a sexual predator.

The next president is a serial liar.

The next president is a shallow shadow of an adult out for vengeance against any perceived slight ever foist upon him, real or mostly otherwise.

So say goodbye to the right of women to make their own health decisions.  Say hello to women dying because the government tells doctors they will go to jail if they try to save their lives.  So say goodbye to having access to doctors who will stand up to that and follow the hippocratic oath.

Say goodbye to access to affordable medicine and the right to medical care even if you have a pre-existing condition, all so big pharma and insurance companies can make more money on our illnesses.  As of very soon, every single one of my family will likely be among the class that would not be able to switch insurance for this very reason.

Say goodbye to clean air, to clean water.

Say goodbye to millions of law abiding neighbors who came here for a better life.  Say hello to visiting them in concentration, er... detention camps as they are sent back to wherever they fled in the first place to be slaughtered.

Say hello to more tax cuts for billionaires and higher prices for just about everything for the rest of us.

Say goodbye to Obamacare.  Say hello to "concepts of a plan".

Say goodbye to the Department of Education and respect for learning.

Say hello to bullies, white nationalists, racists and thugs.

Say hello to bigotry wrapped in religion -- even though the odds are there that he will be struck by lightning if he ever actually steps into a house of worship.

Say hello to cheap huckstering from the oval office.  Cheap sneakers and knock off watches in aisle two.

Say hello to an aging, insane lunatic with his hands on nuclear weapons.

I could go on, and probably will in the days to come.

We had a choice, but we could not bring ourselves to vote for an obviously qualified, experienced leader, all because she is a black woman.  Was she perfect?  No.  But then again, compared to him, she was a shining beacon sent from heaven.

I cannot think of a single redeeming feature about him.

And given the choice this is who we voted for.

We chose ugly.

As I wake up this morning and look out my window, all I can think of is my fellow citizens voted for this. This is what we want for me, my family and my friends.  We can all suffer so he can seek out his vengeance upon the world.  We can turn neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend.

All for... well, I don't know.

America is ugly.

guns -- again

Here's one for all you historical tradition/trivia buffs, with a special shout out to Justice Clarence "I made up the historical tradition test out of thin air" Thomas:

Q.  What is the difference between a slightly drunk gunslinger entering the town of Tombstone, Arizona in 1881 and a completely sober, but mentally disturbed individual entering a church in Sutherland, Springs, Texas in 2017?

A.  The slightly drunk gunslinger entering the town of Tombstone, Arizona in 1881 would willingly hand over his guns to the sheriff without whining about his second amendment rights.

A2.  There were no politicians bending over backwards to please the National Rifle Association in 1881 to claim that the second amendment protected the rights of a slightly drunk gunslinger from entering the town of Tombstone, Arizona in 1881 and taking their loaded weapons into a bar, into a church, into a school, or wherever they damn well pleased.

A3.  There were no justices on the United States Supreme Court in 1881 making up "tests" out of thin air for purposes of determining whether or not "historical traditions", whatever that might be, decided the constitutionality of gun control regulations, simply to please the National Rifle Association.

A4.  In 1881, the National Rifle Association was only ten years into its existence, and concentrated on "promoting and encouraging rifle shooting on a scientific basis".  In otherwords, it was not out there in 1881 claiming that any law, statute, rule, regulation or mere guidance that protected the public from persons intent on misusing firearms was unconstitutional and a mere attempt by an out of control government to subjugate the people by seizing their lawful firearms.

You know what else was not around in 1881?

There was no claim that guns were needed for private citizens to protect themselves from our own government.

There was no claim that private citizens were entitled to own weapons designed for war.  There was no claim that people had the right to automatic weaponry, and that any attempt to prevent citizens from possessing weapons that had not legitimate use other than killing was nothing more than tyranny.

Which brings us back to Clarence "Historical Tradition" Thomas.

In "gunning" down -- ok, groan at the lame wording -- the New York statute limiting the carrying of weapons in public, the good Justice declared that such statutes were only valid if there was a historical tradition that could be traced back limiting the carrying and use of such weapons in public.  We will ignore the fact that the weapons used in mass shootings had not been invented until recently.  Justice Thomas and his buddies on the Court, aided by NRA funding, found no such tradition.  In holding so, they ignored...

1. A 1786 law in Boston prohibiting the storage of loaded firearms in homes.

2. A 1756 law in Maryland confiscating guns from Catholics from owning guns.  We can only imagine the outcry if Justice Thomas found that to be part of the historical tradition of this country.

3. An 1838 law in Virginia prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.

4. An 1875 law in Wyoming prohibiting the carrying of any firearm, concealed or otherwise.

5.  Presser v. Illinois  (1875) and United States v. Cruikshank (1876), two Supreme Court cases that held that the second amendment did not prevent states and localities from enacting their own gun control laws.

This is why elections matter.  Too many of you did not vote in the last few presidential elections, which led to the present make up of the Supreme Court, which is squarely in the pocket of the gun manufacturers via their terrorists at the NRA.  As a result, we are where we are now.  We have a Supreme Court that makes up constitutional tests for gun control out of whole cloth, ignoring the precendents their own test says should have led to the conclusion that the statutes they routinely strike down are constitutional.

It matters not if you have to wonder if your child is going to come home from school.

It matters not if you will be ducking behind a pew in church.

It matters not if attending a music festival will end in a drumroll of automatic weapons fire.

It matters not the number of innocent bodies gunned down going about their every day business.

For crying out loud, it matters not if you are a congressman playing a fucking softball game.

The means is there for protecting ourselves, our loved ones our communities, and I am not talking about arming ourselves.

Guns kill.  People with guns kill.  Take away the guns and there will be fewer incidents, fewer deaths.  It is simple logic.  One cannot shoot anyone if one does not have a gun.

Get over the fear mongering from the NRA.  The government is not looking to take away law abiding citizens' rights when common sense gun legislation is passed.  Slightly drunk gunslingers entering Tombstone in 1881 handed over their guns because the good townsfolk figured out that without their guns, slightly drunk gunslingers could not shoot anybody and the town remained safer.

It was that simpe.  It should be that simple.

Instead, cowardly politicians and justices of the Supreme Court make up nonexistent rules to justify gun manufacturers making money, money and more money.  It is also that simple.

And for that, this latest one at Apalachee High School is on them as much as it is on the 14 year old kid authorities knew was obsessed with school shootings, but did absolutely nothing about because there was nothing they could do about it due to the NRA, gun manufacturers, judges and politicians who are more interested in the money they get from the sale of weapons and the contributions they get from the NRA and the gun manufacturers than they are in the health and welfare of the rest of us.

Thoughts and prayers my ass.

take me out to the ball game

I just read that the jersey that Babe Ruth wore when calling his famous home run shot in the 1932 World Series was sold at auction today.  It sold for twenty-four million, one hundred and twenty-thousand dollars.

That's $24,120,000.00.

For a Babe Ruth very famous World Series, "called shot" baseball jersey.

Somebody, somewhere is popping what is probably a million ($1,000,000.00) dollar bottle, perhaps a magnum, of champagne, and wondering what to do with an old, worn, stained baseball jersey; albeit, an iconic one.

Don't get me wrong.  I am a sports fan.  My wife jokes around that I will watch anything on television as long as there is a ball thrown into it.  I am surprised she has not thrown a tennis ball across the yard to see if I will chase it, bring it back to her, perhaps even in my mouth, and then beg her to throw it again.  Then again, if I brought the ball back in my mouth, I doubt if she would ever touch it again.

$24,120,000.00

For a used baseball jersey.

Why would one even want to spend that kind of money on an iconic used baseball jersey?

According to Chris Ivy, the director of sports auctions at Heritage House, the place that ran the auction of the jersey, "This stuff is a great conversation starter as opposed to, you know, buy more IBM stock, investing in real estate -- a lot of people felt they were kind of maxxed out on those things"...

So they went and spent $24,120,000.00 on a used baseball jersey.

$24,120,000.00

I just checked on line.  I can buy a Babe Ruth White "Cool Base" Jersey for $135.00 at Dick's Sporting Goods. E-Bay has a Babe Ruth pinstriped numbered jersey listed for $45.00 -- plus $8.87 for shipping, but I need to hurry because they only have one left.  I guess the last one just sold for $24,120,000.00.  For real Yankees' fans, the only place to buy Babe Ruth paraphernelia would be Stan's Sports World, which is practically across the street from Yankee Stadium.  Well, until they built the new Yankee Stadium, it was across the street from the old ballpark, which is why they advertise that they are still across the street from the "real Yankee Stadium".  I looked on their website, but could not get the cost of a Babe Ruth jersey to load on my computer.  Perhaps they were embarassed at the $24,120,000.00 asking price.

Or maybe if I had asked one of their salespersons I would have been told "If you have to ask you can't afford it".

But it got me to thinking...

What else could somebody have done with $24,120,000.00 rather than spend it on a Babe Ruth "Called Shot" game worn baseball jersey?

How many schools could you repair so the children could be better equipped to learn?  For that matter, how many qualified, motivated young teachers could you hire at a decent salary to push those children to reach their potential?

How many school lunches could you buy for hungry children?  For that matter, how many people could you feed in a soup kitchen?

The neighborhood where Yankee Stadium is located is not exactly the most affluent neighborhood in the City.  How many homeless families could you provide decent, livable permanent housing with $24,120.000.00?  How many of the buildings in the neighborhood could you repair so that there would be heating in the winter, air conditioning in the summer, and hot water year round?  How many of those families could you provide with decent clothing?

How many student loans could you pay off?  I know, these days, the answer to that is probably one or two...

I could go on, but you get the point.

Whoever it is that just forked out $24,120,000.00 for a baseball jersey is undoubtedly thrilled to death to now own it.  I cannot say I am unhappy for this person, nor do I envy them.  Let them enjoy their "deal".

As for me, I will settle for the $24,119,865.00, less applicable tax I will have left over after buying my Babe Ruth White "Cool Base" jersey at Dick's Sporting Goods, and not really care if it is not game worn.  At least it will not smell like a game worn jersey that has not been laundered in nearly one hundred years, so there is at least a chance my wife will let me wear it in the house where we can contemplate what we will do with the leftover cash...

After we finish playing fetch in the backyard.

Oh, Wyoming, Part Three

I am not quite sure if I should not really call this one "Oh, Connecticut".  Anyway...

In spite of the earlier "Oh, Wyoming" entries from a few years ago, we are still here.  And we are still meeting... well, let's just call them "interesting people".

The latest "interesting people" are a slightly older than us couple who are from Connecticut.  They have recently left the Nutmeg State for greener pastures, which now includes Wyoming. We met them yesterday at the tasting room of a vineyard in the town of either Cowley (pronounced "Cali" by the locals) or Lovell (pronounced "Lovell"), Wyoming.  The exact location of the vineyard, and apparently every home on the road the vineyard is situated upon is up to great debate, as neighbors get to choose where they are from resulting in an absolute mishmash of folks claiming to be either from Lovell or Cowley with no particular rhyme or reason for their choice.  The vineyard claims to be in Lovell, although as far as I am concerned they are much closer to Cowley.

But I digress...

I had never heard of this vineyard before turning into their driveway yesterday.  My wife found out about it via a page she follows on Facebook and decided to surprise me.

And what a surprise it was.

The place is run by Nancy and her husband, whose name I never got, and their daughter Nicole.  Nancy has roots in the area.  She and her husband were living in the Seattle area prior to "retiring" and moving here with the original thought of buying and flipping properties.  Nicole had been living in Texas, and is a certified vintner.  They are all thoroughly delightful.  When the family bought the property, Nicole is the one who planted and nutured the grapes that eventually became the vineyard.  They opened to the public in 2020, just as COVID struck, but somehow managed to keep the place above water.

It is now a hidden gem in Big Horn County.

Nancy and Nicole were regaling us with the story of the vineyard and the wines we were about to sample, when the interesting people walked in.  As seems to be part of their customary greeting, Nancy and Nicole asked the interesting people where they were from, and were told they live in the same town our place is located.  Mr. Interesting then announced they had recently arrived having escaped "communism".  They did not look like they were from China, North Korea or Cuba, so I made the mistake of asking where they had fled from, figuring if it was within the USA, this was another jab at California or even New York.  Instead, we were advised that the seat of the red menace in the United States is...

Connecticut.

I will concede the obvious that Yale University is located in Connecticut, although I am not exactly aware that Yale is run under a charter written by Karl Marx.  I will also note that George W. Bush, not exactly your typical Commie, is a Yalie.

It appears that Mr. Interesting believes that Connecticut is a "corrupt communist state" because his real estate taxes went up this year.  We were supposed to be completely aghast that his taxes went up somewhere in the neighborhood of twelve percent over last year.  He repeated the twelve percent for emphasis, or in case we did not hear him the first time.

Apparently, Mr. Interesting did very little research when he decided to buy property here.  If he had, he would have found out that property taxes around here just about doubled over the course of the past three years.  When told this, Mr. Interesting's hat almost fell off his head.

It turns out that Mr. and Mrs. Interesting also moved away from Connecticut to avoid what seems to be pesky rules and regulations, although we were not told exactly what those pesky rules and regulations are.  We were told that the rules and regulations are proof that the entire state is corrupt.  They apparently believe there is nothing corrupt about Wyoming, which may or may not be the case, or the state where they maintain their other residence...

Florida.

We managed to steer the conversation away from communism and corruption, primarily in order to avoid a discussion about politics which would undoubtedly turn entirely ugly, and found out that Mr. and Mrs. Interesting are avid travelers.  They like to cruise out of ports in Florida for months at a time.  Since we have cruised a bit ourselves, I tried to engage them on their favorite cruises and ports of call, and was regaled by Mr. Interesting over the abject poverty of ports of call on the west coast of Africa and Central America.  Nothing about the beauty of the land or the people.  We were told, however, that they liked Australia, where they have cruised at least twice.

At this point, Nicole decided it was a good time to enjoy a glass of her wine with a couple who had sat at a table on the other side of the tasting room.

Mr. and Mrs. Interesting decided they had to move along as well.  They did, however, leave us with a parting shot...

The place they bought is not only in the same town as our place, but on the same road.

We are neighbors.  

We should stop by for a drink some time.

I can hardly wait.

Are We a Christian Nation?

An old friend of mine recently posted a photograph from "Romper Room" of what purports to be children and a teacher saying grace before the afternoon milk and cookie snack.  For those not in the know, "Romper Room was a children's television show that ran for a bit more than forty years beginning in 1953. The photograph was accompanied by the caption, "Don't tell me we were not a Christian nation".  The implication from the caption and the photograph is clearly that this nation was born Christian, is Christian and will always be a Christian nation.

The translation of this to many of us is "Don't tell me we ARE not a Christian nation".

I have known the friend who posted this for just about fifty years.  I will not name him here.  I will say he is as good a man as there is.  When we disagree on issues of the day, which is frequently, he is always respectful and goes out of his way to tell others on his thread that he respects my opinions and the way I voice them.  I do not believe he posts things like "Do not tell me were were not a Christian nation" in any kind of hurtful or mean way.

But...

I am not Christian.  I do believe I am basically a good and decent person who tries to do what is right for as many as I can.  In the long run, isn't the goal of humankind and most religions to produce good and decent people?  Even if some of us do not go to any kind of church, temple, mosque, etc. to pray to whatever your image of God may be?  I for one would rather put my trust in a good, decent, law abiding, charitable atheist than a good looking, sermonizing person wearing religion on his sleeve and willing to tell anyone about it, who then turns around and swindles you at first opportunity.  Or worse, uses their religion as a sword against all who do not believe as they do.

That is not religion.

When items like this are posted, what must be taken into account is not only how the message is received by people just like you, but also by people who are not.  When you say things like "Do not tell me we are not a Christian nation" that makes me wonder if you believe I am not welcome here or if I somehow do not have the same rights as a human that you do simply because I do not pray to the god you have chosen to. Does this mean you believe all Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Shintos or whatever other member of any other organized religion other than Christians should leave the United States or convert to your preferred religion and worship your preferred deity? If we don't, do we lose the right to vote?

When you say "Don't tell me we are not a Christian nation" that message is received in the Orwellian terms of "all men are created equal, but some men are more equal than others".  As far as I am aware, that is not what Christianity in its purest form is about.

It is also not what this nation is about; therefore, when you tell me that I cannot tell you that this is not a Christian nation...

This is not, and never has been a "Christian nation".  

This is and always has been a "Freedom of Religion nation". That is what it says in the Constitution, not that only Christians get to fully observe their religion. The First Amendment guarantees the right of all religions, not just Christianity.  The word "Christianity", "Christian" or "Christ" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution.  In fact, there is no document of the Founding Fathers that guarantees the rights of only Christians or takes away or advocates taking away the rights of any other religions.  The documents do guarantee that all members of all religions are to be treated equally in this country.

That means that all are free to follow whatever religion they wish and to worship whatever deity they wish, even if it means not belonging to any religion or praying to any god at all.  If you are Christian and want to worship your God, your Jesus and your Holy Ghost, by all means, feel free to do so. I will fight for your right to worship as you wish.

But that does not mean you get to tell me that I cannot worship whatever deity I wish, and don't tell me in the name of your religion I have to follow the rules of your religion, even in secular aspects of public life, especially in a country founded not upon Christianity, but upon the right to to pray, to worship, to congregate, to socialize and indeed to live as we wish.

And don't tell me that there are consequences for not following your religion and that you have the right to force your belief through legislation and decree of all sorts upon the rest of us.

Before you tell me this is or is not a Christian nation or any other kind of nation for that matter, read your history.  Start with the Constitution.  Consult with historians.  I know a few I can point you to.

 

 

us postal blues

If you want no greater example of how bureaucrats in search of justification of their political/personal agenda can foul up just about everything they put their hands on, look no further than Louis DeJoy's United States Postal Service.

I briefly touched upon the Post Office in my note of October 17, 2022 on turning sixty-five, in which I outlined how the Post Office managed to hold a month's worth of junk mail while forwarding bills, my Medicare card, instructions, etc. to an address I had left in Wyoming that month earlier, leaving a simple forward order as I do every year at the end of the summer season.  I had no idea of what I was in for this season.

Apparently, the procedure for forwarding mail changed some time this spring from the usual fill out a forwarding order and wait for your mail to actually get forwarded to something akin to an episode of "The Twilight Zone".  The simplicity of the new system is such that the Postmaster here in Wyoming told my wife and me the system is screwed up and she does not know how to unscrew it.  To add to our confidence in the system, she told us she had never seen anything as bad.

It all started on June 21 when my wife went to our post office on Long Island to submit the annual forwarding order for the summer to our home in Wyoming.  She went in person.  She submitted all the paperwork in person.  She had her government issued photo id with her, and showed it to the nice person at the post office counter, although at the time we did not know this was necessary.  She asked if anything else was necessary.  She was assured it was not.

So off we went to Wyoming.

Having our suspicions about the post office, upon our arrival, we went to the post office location here in our hometown in Wyoming.  We showed our governmental issued id to the nice person at the counter, who turned to her handy dandy desk top, clicked a few buttons, hummed a bit, and assured us that our hold was in the system, and that we should expect to receive mail shortly.

So we waited...

On July 8, having seen nothing arrive in our mailbox yet, we went to the local post office again, showed our governmental issued id, and were once again assured that our forwarding order was in the system and mail was on its way.  Upon our return home, we stopped at our mailbox, where we found a notice in the mail from the post office on Long Island that we had twenty days from the date we had requested our mail be forwarded to Wyoming to show up at the post office with our governmental issued id to confirm who we were and that we were where the mail was to be forwarded so that the mail could actually be forwarded.  Our carrier from Long Island had thrown a bunch of mail that had accumulated in the enveloped stack, including bills, checks and a jury summons for my wife informing her she was to report for jury duty the week prior to the date the package arrived in our mailbox in Wyoming.  The package sent by the carrier from Long Island to Wyoming was postmarked June 27.  It took the post office eleven days to get it to Wyoming.  I could have gotten it faster myself by bicycle.

I immediately called our Long Island post office, and was assured that our mail was not being sent back to senders, but that I should go to our post office in Wyoming to confirm we were here, something we had already done, but that they could not confirm in Long Island.  It was too late to go back to the post office, so we returned on July 10 at which time the nice worker behind the counter took our governmental issued id again, this time my driver's license, turned on his handy dandy post office computer, entered the information on my driver's license, and hemmed and hawwed for a few minutes while the computer would not accept my license in spite of the fact that it is governmental issued photo id.  Not to worry.  I had my global entry photo id.  The program would not accept that either.  The nice person behind the counter then told me THIS WAS HAPPENING TO PRACTICALLY EVERYBODY.  After disappearing into the back offices for several minutes, the nice worker returned and told me everything was fine and we would be receiving our mail shortly.

So we waited.

At the end of July, having still received no mail, we went back to our local Wyoming branch.  My wife spoke with the postmaster, showing her driver's license with her photo.  The postmaster then personally contacted our Long Island post office while standing directly in front of my wife, and told her this should satisfy things, but if they did not, she did not now what else to do.

So we waited.

By the end of August, with our local Wyoming mailbox threatening to sue for non-support, I lodged a complaint with the local Long Island post office.  This resulted in a call several days later from a postal inspector from Long Island, in which she first told me I had to go to the local Wyoming post office.  When I told her we had already done this four times, she told me she would look into this.  In the mean time, she volunteered that the new system requiring everybody to confirm their confirmations was screwed up, not working at all, and you can't believe how may people are complaining that they are not getting their mail.

I think I can believe it. 

The next day, she called back and left a message for me that there was nothing she could do as our original forwarding order had expired without our confirmation being entered into the system.  We would now have to submit a new forwarding order and attempt to repeat the process.

In the mean time, after I spoke with the postal inspector, our carrier put together another stack of accumulated mail and shoved it into an envelope where this time, it only took five days to arrive in Wyoming, meaning I could not bicycle it faster here, but I could personally drive it faster.  This time, we had the usual collections of bills, checks owed to me, and another jury summons for my wife, this time telling her if she did not show up two weeks prior to the mail arriving with the summons that a warrant would be issued for her.

Also in the mean time, we have still yet to receive any mail all season long in Wyoming, other than a grand total of three letters, each of which were addressed here in Wyoming rather than to our address on Long Island.  

Two were birthday cards for my wife.

Instead of  conforming to the definition of insanity by doing the same thing over and over and expecting a new result, on September 7, I simply placed a hold on the mail on Long Island.  The longest we are allowed to place a hold is thirty days.  Today, October 1, I went on line to extend the hold another two weeks.  I was told I cannot do that.  I tried submitting a brand new hold, but was told I could only do that if I cancelled the original.

So now, there will be a race to the Long Island post office when we get back to claim mail before it is all returned to sender, I am told ten days after the expiration of the hold order on October 17, assuming the Long Island post office is actually holding mail, which I must assume, as there has been no mail delivered here, but then again who knows?

I am, however, looking forward to eventually receiving a stack of accumulated mail, either when we get to Long Island or when we eventually return to Wyoming, including the arrest warrant for my wife for ignoring her jury summons yet again.