I was swiping through Twitter late last night and saw where someone had tweeted about the confirmation hearing taking place and the topic was whether or not this new and proposed Justice was going to do her best to overturn all of the LGBTQ+ rulings previously made by the court. The fact that she appeared to give a bunch of non-answers was expected but also maybe a tiny bit bothersome because the LGBTQ+ community has fought a long and hard battle to wrest back their human rights and to put and end to the discrimination against anyone who isn’t straight.
Then I thought, “Yeah… like the Supreme Court can really stop anyone from being not so straight…” Sure, they could – and with this proposed Justice’s input – overturn it all and set sexuality issues back to the 1960s or thereabouts and once more paving the way for even more discrimination and hatred than is still remaining. I don’t know about y’all but I tend to see the hypocrisy involved given that the Constitution, supposedly, grants everyone the right to the pursuit of happiness and all that…
And we act and behave as if what is really being said that you do have the right to the pursuit of happiness… as long as you are pursuing happiness the way we say you’re supposed to… and that means being heterosexual. Then again, I suppose that since we had – maybe still have – laws against being anything but straight, it takes another law to make not being straight legal even though those who might discriminate still have the right to discriminate and would continue to do so no matter what the law – and the court’s ruling – said about it.
Even if the court – and with this woman’s input and alleged Trump fanaticism – were to repeal everything concerning LGBTQ+ stuff, all it’s going to do is wind up back in court again and maybe with greater overtones of human rights violations and right along with our right to the pursuit of happiness and as given by the same Constitution the Supreme Court is duty-bound to uphold. I’m kinda/sorta paying attention to all this riffing about her appointment and the allegations of “court packing” and it’s gotten me thinking – and not for the first time – whether any of the Justices are as… neutral as their remit says they should be and by that I mean that their personal thoughts on things brought before the court should not ever get involved; they should only and always be about the Constitution and the law and nothing but that.
It still amazes me that we’re still riffing about Roe v. Wade and the ongoing battle to overturn it or otherwise invalidate it; it’s like a lot women have been saying and asking: Don’t they have a right to decide what happens to their body? Um, apparently, there are still those who think they don’t and this is one of those things that I’d really and seriously like for you to think about and ask yourself why this is still being so hotly debated when there isn’t a reason to. If a woman doesn’t want to have a baby, she doesn’t want to have a baby but apparently we’re still stuck back in the past and with that mindset that it’s a woman’s job to have babies and a lot of them and whether it’s detrimental to them or not.
Again, you’d think that we’d be smarter and wiser than that by now, huh? On the issue of sexuality, is this insane or what? We know that not everyone is straight and that not everyone wants to be or, yeah, is going to remain straight if they don’t wanna be. You would think that all the court has to do is to say that even in this, it is a right that all Americans have and it is very damned illegal to discriminate in these things – and that’s the end of that.
Except, it isn’t. It serves no purpose to America to take a gigantic step backwards in this except to continue with a pattern of behavior that’s long since been proven to be wrong and contradicts our rights as citizens of this country and, really, we know to be morally wrong to discriminate against anyone because of race, creed, and now, sexuality. On paper, this is not who we are as a nation… but the truth has always been that we discriminate because we actually have the right to do this – that would be the First Amendment and the part that guarantees free speech.
Of course, there’s a lot of bitching about this confirmation hearing taking place at all when those idiots on Capitol Hill should be working at getting a new stimulus package put together and approved. What I understand, though, is the system is actually working the way it’s supposed to work… it’s just a thing that we kinda don’t need it to work at this moment and in the face of more important shit facing America at this time. The court has worked shorthanded before and I, for one, don’t really see it as a hinderance if we waited until the election has been settled to appoint a new Justice – and the court went back into session and as it always has: On the first Monday in October so they are open for business and as they should be.
I question whether a nominee’s political views should have anything to do with it; it shouldn’t matter what political party they belong to – and if they even belong to one – their sole focus is supposed to be only on constitutional law and without any weight given to the political party whatever president belonged to when they were appointed and confirmed. The laws currently in place are in place because those nine people who sit on the bench said it was constitutional for them to be in place… and now we’re getting our panties in a bunch because the insane clown posse that is Congress has some people who think that this one woman somehow has the power to change the minds of eight other people and convince them that what they know and have ruled to be constitutional really isn’t so much?
What you’d think would be of greater concern is whether or not she can be as impartial as she’s supposed to be and can uphold the law at this level. That some judges are judges because a political candidate owes them a favor is something that I always thought sucked dog ass but it also stands to reason – kind of – that if you don’t have the ability to be able to keep your personal feelings and other affiliations out of things, then you have no business sitting on any bench at any level.
I did, just the same, liked it when she said that she will not be used as a pawn; whether she really meant that or not remains to be seen but one does have to ask what it is about her that the president appointed her over all the other judges who could be elevated to the highest court in the land? Why her? Is it because she’s a woman and she’s to replace a woman who was very highly respected, not only here at home but around the world as well? Given who nominated her, well, yeah – I allow that it makes her instantly suspect but, as one of the people on the judiciary committee overseeing the confirmation asked, “Why are we doing this now and pushing it through when we have more important issues that have to be addressed and dealt with?”
I’ll admit that I wanna know the answer to that, too, and just like I wanna know what her stance on things LGBTQ+ has to do with this when the law does say what it does about this already. I somehow get the impression that Congress isn’t asking the right questions but they might get around to asking them and there’s no telling what the FBI is going to turn up as they dig into her background and take a very close look alongside the Justice Department at her cases and decisions; to that end, I gotta say that if you’ve never had the FBI checking you out, you probably don’t have an idea of how deep they dig and right down to some things you’d probably not want to be made public… or wanting the FBI to find out.
I guess we’ll see how her confirmation turns out and if she makes it past this part, we’ll see what happens when she takes her place on the bench…