No consensus

 

Should courts and judges strive to be fair and impartial, strictly following the letter of the law, while political parties are expected to actually be partisan, representing a particular point of view? The focus of the various branches of government is not really the same, but all together, they are thought to roughly balance each other out. 

While the terms "fair" and "impartial" are often used interchangeably, they have distinct focuses. Impartial means not taking sides or having a personal bias. Fair means acting in a just, equitable way that balances conflicting interests. Both words point to treating people properly, but impartiality focuses on who you are (neutral), while fairness focuses on what you do (equitable). 

Of course, political parties are expected to express a viewpoint, to support particular policies and certain government actions, so they are simply not at all impartial, perhaps even biased. However, the courts ideally are neutral, not favoring one side or another, just following the letter of the law.  But of course, like any human institution, the courts, justices, and juries all represent a point of view--though not always the same point of view--in a democracy. Views may change, individual voters' opinions can and do evolve, people often disagree. But the courts are supposed to follow the law and not represent personal opinions. If you have ever served on a jury, as I have, you know how hard that is to achieve. How many juries end being "hung juries"? How many judges overturn decisons made by other judges? There is often no consensus, especially in a democracy.                                

Supreme Court justices have lifetime tenure. Does this make them more impartial or actually less so? 

Supporters argue that lifetime tenure makes justices more impartial. Removing the need for re-election or reappointment means that justices are shielded from political pressure as well as public opinion, or so the thinking goes. This independence then allows them to make unpopular but legally sound decisions without fear of losing their jobs

But is that true? We've asked this question before. Is justice really blind? Many American voters don't actually think so. 

. 

More than half of Americans now disapprove of how the Supreme Court is doing its job, while 46 percent believe that the court is ruling on President Donald Trump's policies based on ideology rather than the law, according to a Washington Post-Ipsos poll

Justices often decide cases closely reflecting the views of the political party of those who have nominated and still support them. Is it even possible to have politically neutral members of the Supreme Court? Probably not.  

Justice Amy Coney Barrett has aroused Donald Trump's continuing ire by not always upholding his very own stance. although he had appointed her to her lifetime position. Doesn't she owe him that basic loaylty? Too late now! She went agaisnt him by upholding birthright citizenshp, which he really wants to abolish. Bravo for Barrett! 

The issue on which she has been most controversial is Roe vs, Wade. Again, I side with Barrett. Although a registered Democrat myself, I have never supported Roe, as I believe that even an unborn human has a right to go on living, as we all do. Being an incovenience or possible burden to others is not a sufficient rationale for halting their incipient life, in fact for actually killing them, in my opinion. There are many ways to prevent pregnancy while still engaging in sex nor is having a child out of wedlock particularly disapproved of now. Some forty percent of American babies are now born to single mothers. 

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has described Roe v. Wade as a "free-floating" decision that judges improperly "read into" the Constitution. In both her memoir Listening to the Law and an interview with Bishop Robert Barron, she has argued that interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment's "liberty" clause to include abortion rights allowed judges to arbitrarily invent rights rather than relying on established text and history.

There seems to be no way to avoid political bias in government and certainly Donald Trump and other elected officials represent a particular point of view, a governing philosphy that is blatantly partisan, aimed at helping the president's or an offical's voters and followers while possibly disadvantaging others. That is what politics is all about. Yet, the person elected is also the president or representative of all the people of a nation or of a jurisdiction, not just of those who may have voteed for him or her, while still expressing a particular point of view. Isn't that a contradiction? 

Included in that question, should a president, or other elected representative, be allowed to enrich themself and their family while possibly short-changing other citizens? How much self-dealing is a president or other elected representaive actually allowed to get away with? A president is supposed to care about and seek the well-being of all, but that is rarely just the case. Here is a case in point.

A very vain and legacy-hungry Donald J. Trump has arbitrarly renamed the Palm Beach airport near his own Mar-a-Lago properties. 

There is still more.

Yahoo News, a CNN investigation found that Trump has used his Truth Social account to promote more than 20 companies, just days after buying stock in those same companies. He sometimes even announced government action that would benefit the companies.

Do most American voters still really care? They seem to have become rather numb regarding Trump and his family's frequent financial manipulations and constant misdeeds, just waiting for the happy day when he is no longer in office.

Apart from these financial matters, can even we trust Donald Trump's own words about anything at all? Does he always tell the truth? Shouldn't citizens be able to rely on their president to provide proven facts and reliable guidance?  Well, now let's see.

What does fingers crossed mean? It can mean "good luck," but also is often used by someone telling a lie, as a form of exoneration. Does Donald Trump often cross his fingers when telling a falsehood. which is something he seems to do pretty often? What about when he said about raping E. Jean Carroll that "I didn't  do it"? Apparently judges and juries did not actually believe him, whether or not his fimgers were crossed. So he still had to pay up, but he was not very happy about it. He was actually lucky to have escaped prison. Even a president is not above the law. 

Wash. Post, Trump says 278,000 noncitizens are on voting rolls. Experts say that’s wrong.

Do some people still think that whatever Donald Trump says is actually true? He has lost so much credibility with all his many falsehoods and exaggerations that whenever he might say that something is true. no one actually still believes him. Many Americans have just tuned him out completely. Others consider him a joke. Some voters are inclined to believe the exact opposite of whatever he actually claims.  

======================================================

US data center protests go national as backlash grows 

Americans increasingly are using computers and they want fast, smooth, and reliable access. But as far as the data centers that support that access, it's strictly NIMBY (not in my back yard).  

========================================================

Have Ameicans now saved enough for retirement? Probably not, and if they are female, they will need even more. Many discussions of this issue are accompanied by photos of older couples shown just hanging out together, though, in fact, retirement increasingly means a woman is actually living alone. Women typically outlive male partners, so that by age 100, 85% of Americans are women.  

​​Over 100 House Democrats vote to block billions of dollars in military aid to Israel, reflecting growing schism in the party

The US should not be giving any more money to Israel, allowing that nation to kill even more unarmed civilians, thus keeping an unnecessary war still going on, as I've said before. Donald Trump actually started this war by attacking Iran for no reason. This is the holocaust in reverse, though Palestinians were never at fault for that.  

Israel is actually engaging in war crimes and Netanyahu is now a blatant war criminal! And Donald Trump is complicit, even a war criminal himself for his current support of Israel and of warmonger Bibi Netanyahu just trying to save his own skin. 

Donald Trump can do a lot of damage during the next 18 months still left in his term. American voters, you made a really, really BIG mistake! 

New York Times raises eyebrows by referring to AIPAC as 'hard-right' pro-Israel group

That seems like actually a pretty accurate characterization. 

=============================================================

Here below is part of a message I just sent to a friend. Some readers already are aware of the details. 

When Tom Joe, my late ex-husband of 24 years, won the MacArthur Genius Award, as I learned from the press, he had already moved then to keep any money from me--from us--though he was not even providing child support. The fact that he was blind was irrelevant at that point. He had only gotten where he was then with my constant assistance over the years, though he was certainly a very smart and creative thinker, as well. When we had first gotten married, he had never held a job. But 24 years later, he and his new sweetheart had emptied out all our bank accounts, leaving me and the children with zero money, though we were at least still living in the DC house. He had gone to Las Vegas where he had divorced me and married his younger girlfriend all on the same day, something I found out only days later. When he died of an aortic aneurysm in 1999 (similar to that experienced by Sen. Lindsey Graham), I wasn't even mentioned in his obituary nor invited to his funeral, but showed up anyway to his widow's apparent shock and surprise.

 

Maybe you've already heard that story.

================================================================

Now here's another final story. History has so much to teach us.

The 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche had said "what doesn't kill me, makes me stronger." In a sense that is true for us all, because if we have survived and are still living despite all the slings and arrows of misfortune that have kept on assaulting us, that shows clear evidence of our strength and resiliance.