I am a 61-year-old, cisgender gay man, and I have to say I have zero patience with gay men who express sentiments such as those expressed by LW#3!

Look, I don't fully "understand" (whatever that even means in this context) the experience of a transgender person, because I am not transgender myself. I have never had any inner conflict concerning my own gender identity as a man. That said, the simple reality is that I don't _need_ to understand it in order treat a transgender person, be they friend, acquaintance or foe, with the dignity and respect of addressing and identifying them as they have chosen to be addressed and identified! And I don't have to live their lives -- only they do.

And to any of the men in LW#3's group who feel similarly to LW#3, I would question whether you all are, or ever were, really friends. Sounds to me as if you are all more of a (rather shallow) affinity group.

And to any gay man who thinks the transgender members of the LGBTQ+ community have nothing whatever to do with gay people, I would respectfully submit that you really need to reacquaint yourself with the history of the LGBTQ+ struggle for civil rights and equality before the law!

Inside the War Between Trump and His Generals

How Mark Milley and others in the Pentagon handled the national-security threat posed by their own Commander-in-Chief.

By Susan B. Glasser and Peter Baker

In the summer of 2017, after just half a year in the White House, Donald Trump flew to Paris for Bastille Day celebrations thrown by Emmanuel Macron, the new French President. Macron staged a spectacular martial display to commemorate the hundredth anniversary of the American entrance into the First World War. Vintage tanks rolled down the Champs-Élysées as fighter jets roared overhead. The event seemed to be calculated to appeal to Trump—his sense of showmanship and grandiosity—and he was visibly delighted. The French general in charge of the parade turned to one of his American counterparts and said, “You are going to be doing this next year.”

Sure enough, Trump returned to Washington determined to have his generals throw him the biggest, grandest military parade ever for the Fourth of July. The generals, to his bewilderment, reacted with disgust. “I’d rather swallow acid,” his Defense Secretary, James Mattis, said. Struggling to dissuade Trump, officials pointed out that the parade would cost millions of dollars and tear up the streets of the capital.

But the gulf between Trump and the generals was not really about money or practicalities, just as their endless policy battles were not only about clashing views on whether to withdraw from Afghanistan or how to combat the nuclear threat posed by North Korea and Iran. The divide was also a matter of values, of how they viewed the United States itself. That was never clearer than when Trump told his new chief of staff, John Kelly—like Mattis, a retired Marine Corps general—about his vision for Independence Day. “Look, I don’t want any wounded guys in the parade,” Trump said. “This doesn’t look good for me.” He explained with distaste that at the Bastille Day parade there had been several formations of injured veterans, including wheelchair-bound soldiers who had lost limbs in battle.

Kelly could not believe what he was hearing. “Those are the heroes,” he told Trump. “In our society, there’s only one group of people who are more heroic than they are—and they are buried over in Arlington.” Kelly did not mention that his own son Robert, a lieutenant killed in action in Afghanistan, was among the dead interred there.

“I don’t want them,” Trump repeated. “It doesn’t look good for me.”

[ . . . .]

"At the heart of my concern with this bill is the requirement that at least six days before the Electoral College meets, each governor must submit a “certificate of ascertainment” identifying their state’s presidential electors. According to the new bill, that document is “conclusive with respect to the determination of electors appointed by the state.”

Conclusive is a very strong word. Typically, in legal construction, a fact or piece of evidence is conclusive when it is settled and cannot be contradicted by other facts or evidence. For decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has reasoned that if something is conclusive, it is “incapable of being overcome by proof of the most positive character.”

Under such an interpretation, the declaration by a governor that a Republican presidential candidate received more lawful votes than the Democratic presidential candidate could not be challenged even if there was strong evidence to the contrary. If elected this November, a future Gov. Kari Lake (R-Ariz.) or Gov. Doug Mastriano (R-Pa.) could certify the “Big Lie” presidential candidate as the winner even if the best evidence showed that he or she had lost the presidential election. That “conclusive” determination would be the end of the analysis."

"If you live in NY and test positive, call the NYC Covid hotline--1-(844) 692-4692--and they will take care of you. In under ten minutes, I was interviewed by a literate and compassionate fellow who took my health history, asked me how I knew I'd been exposed, and explained how Paxlovid works. It interferes with the virus's replication which is why it's very important to take it early.
My Paxlovid is being delivered in an hour or two--they promise to get it to you within 24 hours. Must admit I was stunned by the city's bureaucratic efficiency in getting this program going. Every state should adopt this model. It's also gratis."
Via a friend with thanks.

18 U.S. Code § 1507 - Picketing or parading

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

So ... I read the damned draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health and these are my initial thoughts:
1. Alito asserts that the language of the Constitution itself “offers a ‘fixed standard’ for ascertaining what our founding document means.” (p 9) This is nonsense! If this is so, if the Constitution is self-explanatory then there's been no need for 240 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence. It clearly is not a self-interpreting document (no document is) and it's application to differing and changing times and circumstances requires (and there has always been) a flexible standard: meaning varies as context varies.

2. “[W]e must ask what the *Fourteenth Amendment* means by the term ‘liberty.’” (p 14) The 14th Amendment in and of itself doesn't "mean" anything; it is an object, an "it." Meaning only arises in the interactions between subjects, between "I's" and "thou's" -- the amendment does not determine what it itself means; it is the people who live with and under it, through their political and judicial institutions, that determine what it means.

3. Alito just summarily dismisses the amicus brief of American Historical Association and Organization of American Historians and its discussion of anti-Catholic bias motivating abortion laws (p 28), basically saying that societal context is irrelevant. And then turns around and goes into great detail summarizing the historical and societal attitude to abortion in the mid-19th Century. Either societal context is irrelevant or its relevant. You can't have it both ways.

4. Then there's his notion of “ordered liberty” which he defends saying, “In some States, voters may believe that the abortion right should be more even more [sic] extensive than the right that Roe and Casey recognized. Voters in other States may wish to impose tight restrictions based on their belief that abortion destroys n ‘unborn human being.’” (p 31) — in other words, “ordered liberty” is not ordered at all; it differs from place to to place. "Ordered liberty" is chaos!

5. The “critique” (more in the nature of a ranting put-down) of the “quality of the reasoning” of both Roe Casey and is scurrilous. He basically insults the authors of those opinions! This is not the way SCOTUS should be writing! (p 41 et seq)

6. The notion that “the most important historical fact” relevant to the decision is “how the States regulated abortion when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted” is premised on the “fixed meaning” notion, above. (p 43) And it contradicts his dismissal of "quickening" rules and his dismissal of the historians' brief: again, either historical social context is relevant or it's not. Which is it?

7. I'm very concerned that this opinion would seem to create a hierarchy of the personal choices and judgments included (or not included) in “the right to make and implement important personal decisions without governmental interference.” (p 45) The reasoning through which Alito dismisses and overrules precedent can be used to cancel any of the rights found to be within the penumbra of Constitution. Anything not specifically named in the document is at risk.

8. He dismisses out of hand Roe’s acknowledgment of “the demands of the profound problems of the present day” as “the sort of explanation that might be expected from a legislative body” as if Courts should not consider the current societal context, which is willful judicial blindness. This is the sort of mindset that will give (has given) the court the "stench" about which Justice Sotomayor was concerned.

9. “On what ground could the constitutional status of a fetus depend on the pregnant woman’s location?” (p 48) This statement is made with regard to the quality of hospital care in cities vs rural areas, but isn’t this exactly what “returning” regulation to the States accomplishes? Isn't this what Alito's "ordered liberty" accomplishes.

10. Criticizing Casey, Alito says, “[D]etermining whether a burden is ‘due’ or ‘undue’ is ‘inherently standardless.” (p 53) This is nonsense! What about the Fourteenth Amendment's “due process” clause? The same issue of determining “due” or “undue” is present there And courts do that all the time!

11. The rules of Casey, says Alito, “call on courts to examine a law’s effect on women, but a regulation may have a very different impact on different women for a variety of reasons …. a court needs to know which set of women it should have in mind and how many women in this set must find that an obstacle is ‘substantial.’” (p 54) This is BULLSHIT! If a regulation has an effect on the rights of ANY woman, it's suspect!

12. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” (p 62).This, too, is bullshit. The **reasoning** (if it can be called that) of this decision betrays they “originalist” bias which casts doubt on any of the “privacy right” cases decided within the penumbra of the 14th and other amendments.

13. “This Court cannot bring about the permanent resolution of a rancorous national controversy simply by dictating a settlement and telling the people to move on.” (p 64) This is incorrect in that this precisely the Court’s role, but I predict that this sort of reasoning will be the basis on which it will overturn Obergefell….

14. The appendices are rather dishonest. They purport to tabulate the state of State laws on abortion in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was adopted, but seven of the State laws and seven of the Territory laws listed post-date that amendment.

The state of SCOTUS jurisprudence has certainly bottomed out at a new low.

It's not just about the women. It's about their husbands, their boyfriends, their parents: everyone who supports them in any way. It's about the other children in the family, it's about the jobs that the women will struggle to keep. And of course it's about the women who because of extreme youth/age or health reasons should absolutely not be risking pregnancy and childbirth.

Biden ‘not prepared’ to support ending Senate filibuster to pass abortion rights law

[ . . . . ]

Overriding the procedural filibuster rule, seen as a nuclear option by congressional watchers, would reduce the requirement to 50 - but Biden says he’s not on board. At least not yet.

“I’m not prepared to make those judgments now,” Biden replied to a reporter’s question asking him directly if the senate should do away with the filibuster to codify the Roe v Wade ruling that gives a constitutional right to abortion.


He did say, however, that such a law “makes a lot of sense”:

[ . . . . ]