Sept. 16, 2020

     Let me put something in while I am thinking of it.

There was full coverage of the White House supported signing of the so-called peace arrived at when Bahrain and United Arab Emirates signed agreements with Israel. It was trumpeted as an earth shaking first in the Middle East, which will bring peace to the region. /they are dreaming. As long as Palestine is not brought into the agreement,  there really is no peace.

    And if you look at past history, this agreement is purely practical. Those Arab nations hate Israel but this has nothing to do  with feelings. It is just economics, I repeat, as long as the Palestinians are kept out of the  agreements, Peace is a myth. My humble opinion. Nothing to crow about, but the average American has no clue about the history of these countries.

     Also,  talking about peace, Trump is happy to make money by supplying all kinds of war machinery to UAE and Saudi Arabia, which they are using to bomb the hell out of Yemen, e.g. using American war machines to kill Yemenise. Can you call that peace, (T his is not to mention pro life---as abortion----but prepared to wipe out any other life that gets in our way…not exactly pro-life.)

 

By the way, according to the Catholic Calendar, yesterday was the feast of Mother of Sorrows, Mary’s suffering as the mother of Jesus, her Son. It just so happens that the name of our home her is Mater Dolorosa, Sorrowful Mother. I thought that Mary would probably be leading the mothers who are marching with the slogan, Black Lives Matter, if she was here on earth now since her Son experiences the same fate as the sons of the mothers marching. She is definitely in solidarity with these mothers.

 

An article just read:

Wildfires: Almost every continent has experienced its worst wildfires in decades this year. The common factor? Hotter, drier seasons, driven by the burning of fossil fuels.

This could keep Trump busy for years advising all the continents on how to manage their forests, not just California or those forests the democrats were accused of not managing properly. Ha.

 

Sept. 19, 2020

 

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg less than two months from the presidential election has forced a reexamination of Republicans' 11-month blockade of Merrick Garland in 2016.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a Friday night statement that President Donald Trump's nominee to replace Ginsburg will get a vote in the Senate. Doing so would be a complete reversal of his position in 2016, when the GOP-led Senate refused to hold a hearing or vote on then-President Barack Obama's nominee, saying it was too close to the election.

McConnell digs in

Justice Antonin Scalia, who had been a conservative stalwart on the Supreme Court since being nominated by then-President Ronald Reagan in 1986, died on February 13, 2016.

Within hours -- as other senators were offering condolences to Scalia's family -- McConnell issued a stunning, categorical rejection of Obama's authority more than 11 months before the Democrat's replacement would be sworn into office.

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president," McConnell said.

The 'Biden rule'

Other leading Republicans followed McConnell's lead. A reason they frequently cited: What they called the "Biden rule." Joe Biden had said in a 1992 Senate floor speech -- when there were no high court vacancies to fill -- that "once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

Isn’t This interesting. The Republicans want to have it both ways. Rotten politics.

(This is a little bit of history for those of you who are unfamiliar with what happened in 2016 as  related to what is happening now after the death of Justice Ruth Ginsburg)

Obama picks Garland

In the ensuing weeks, Obama forged ahead, ignoring Republicans' insistence that no nominee would receive a hearing or a vote and chose Garland on March 16. His calculation was that a long-time jurist -- Garland, then 63, was the chief judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit -- who was respected by both parties and had been previously confirmed by the Senate would be difficult to turn away.

"I hope they're fair," Obama said of Senate Republicans in the Rose Garden as he announced Garland was his choice. "That's all. I hope they're fair."

Republicans don't budge as Garland clock ticks

But Republicans did not budge, making clear on the day Garland was nominated that their position had not changed and he would not receive a vote.

"I think well of Merrick Garland. I think he is a fine person. But his nomination does not in any way change current circumstances," then-Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch said at the time.

Through the summer and fall, Senate Republicans continued to act as if no Supreme Court vacancy existed and no nomination had been made. On July 20, Garland broke the 100-year-old record of 125 days for the longest gap between a Supreme Court nomination and confirmation.

Supreme Court activity slowed drastically. The court -- mindful of potential 4-4 splits -- was reluctant to take on new cases.

Court turns into election flashpoint

The GOP's refusal to act on Obama's nominee turned the Supreme Court into a key political issue in November's general election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Trump on May 19, 2016, released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees -- a list shaped by conservative allies and aimed at soothe Republican voters' concerns over whether he would nominate right-leaning judges. The promise of anti-abortion, pro-gun rights and anti-LGBTQ rights judges motivated religious conservatives who might have had misgivings about Trump's character.

Less than two weeks after taking office, on January 31, 2017, Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to fill Scalia's former seat on the Supreme Court. The Senate, where Republicans maintained a majority after the 2016 election, confirmed Gorsuch less than three months later, on April 7, 2017.

Talk about hypocricy!

Sept. 20, 2020

It looks like the Republicans are trying to politicize the Supreme Court, and of course, the Democrats will try to counteract it by doing something the same. It is a shame because the Supreme Court, of all institutions must, I say must, be totally independent, meaning non-political, if it is going to have any credibility.

Thanks goodness, here in South Africa, the Supreme Court has been non-political and has taken some crucial decisions that went against the government, which made them angry, but, till now, it seems that all people respect the Supreme ‘Court.

I want to get this off now while it is still fresh. It is a very important time, I think, in the history of the US.

Somehow, we have got to get beyond the political parties impasse. It will never happen with Trump who is a divider not a unifier. There is hope with Biden but he doesn’t have the charisma of Trump or Obama. I think that people have to look at the substance of what he has to say, and downplay his style.

I am happy that I voted back in July by absentee ballot.

Take care. This is a time of serious prayer and reflection. Lots of love to you all, and pray for wisdom and guidance and tolerance of differing opinions.