Republicans in robes

If I recall my American history correctly, one of its founding concepts – if not the founding concept – was that the United States would not be a monarchy.

Seeking independence from Great Britain and her king was the whole point.

In our republican democracy, the concept was that no man is king. No man is above the law. 

Really?

It's been that way for 235 years, when the U.S. Constitution began operating under ratification in 1789.

So imagine how stunning it was for us believers in the Constitution to see the Supreme Court of the United States listening to arguments from former president Donald Trump that he has sweeping presidential immunity from criminal prosecution. Trump, seeking a second term as president, is the guy currently out on bail for charges of fraud, election interference and a number of other alleged crimes.

There are 88 felony charges in all. No wonder he is seeking immunity.

Shockingly, the Supreme Court heard Trump's arguments for presidential immunity on Thursday, even though the concept of presidential immunity does not exist in the Constitution. It's shocking that the court even heard these arguments in the first place. Worse than shocking, actually. It's disgusting.

Six members  of the court – justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett "I like beer" Kavanaugh – form an ultra conservative bloc that has already repealed Roe v. Wade (even though the Constitution does not mention abortion. Yet, Alito said Roe should be revoked expressly because it was not mentioned in the Constitution. The hypocrisy of these Republicans in robes is overwhelming. There is nothing impartial about them).

On Thursday, instead of actually hearing arguments about whether presidential immunity exists, the debates devolved into abstract potentialities and possibilities for the actions of future presidents.

In other words, the court seems to be leaning towards giving Trump a pair of golden skates. I have no idea why this court is so intent on protecting a guy who separates children from their parents at the border; from a guy who calls members of the military "suckers" for their service and sacrifice, from a guy who said he would be a dictator only on the first day of a second term in office (Yeah, right. Name a dictator who abdicated after just one day), from a guy who suggested that the Constitution be suspended.

The moment the court grants Trump even partial immunity (when no president has ever needed it before) is when we lose the value and the promise of the Constitution itself. It's the moment when we elevate one man above the law. 

It's the moment when we all lose.

 

GOP's war on women

Just when you thought Republicans couldn't reach any deeper in their quest to control the rights of women through anti-abortion laws, up pops Arizona.

Last Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court (seven justices appointed by a Republican governor) approved a long dormant pre-Civil War law (1864) that bans abortions with few exceptions.

It seemed bad enough when the conservative United States Supreme Court sent the country back nearly 50 years by reversing Roe v. Wade a year ago, which legalized abortions in 1973. Now we have a state supreme court sending us back even further – 160 years to be exact.

The law predates Arizona's statehood (1912) by nearly 50 years, which means Arizona was simply a territory back then. Also, the law makes no provisions for rape or incest, allowing abortions only if the mother's life is in danger.

The state court also hinted that doctors who perform abortions can be prosecuted under the 1864 law. If that happens, resurrecting the 1964 law throws out a lower court decision that said doctors couldn't be prosecuted for performing abortions in the first 15 weeks. Doctors might now serve terms between two to five years if convicted.

The 1864 law, designed by men, also occurred before women were given the right to vote under the 19th amendment in 1920. You can see where this is going.

If immoral and incompetent decisions like this continue, the next thing you know, women will be required to remain barefoot and pregnant because that's a way for men to keep control over them.

Why is this thing even given new life after lying dormant for so long? The implications are enormous. How many obstetricians do you expect will remain in Arizona if there's a threat of a jail term hanging over their heads for virtually any treatment of a pregnant woman? How many industries will reject Arizona as a state with its head in the 19th century? How many women will die for the lack of proper health care?

All of this is pending, of course. The court gave the parties involved two weeks to file objections, so there's that. 

But for now, we're living in a world created by the rapist/ex-president/presidential candidate Donald Trump (You did this), who just so happens will be in court this week in Manhattan to begin a criminal trial, allegedly for paying two women (one of them a porn star) six-figure sums to keep quiet about their affairs with him prior to the 2016 election.

In technical terms, Trump is being charged with falsifying New York business records.

It was under Trump that Roe v. Wade was overturned by a court where he appointed three Supreme Court injustices for a 6-3 conservative majority and which ultimately set in motion the fevered time machine that is now engaged in reversing women's right to choose. 

Ironically, and sadly, a reversal for all of us...

Bombs away

I suspect there was a time when the Sunday between the Final Four on Saturday and the NCAA Championship game on Monday was pretty much considered dead time.

At least it was in my house.

But I'm guessing elsewhere, too.

I was a men's basketball snob. As a sports writer for The Dispatch, I covered men's basketball in the Atlantic Coast Conference for years, and then watched the men almost exclusively on television when I wasn't watching the ACC. 

In my defense, I don't think my snobbishness wasn't all my fault. I mean, when did ESPN start covering women's basketball on a regular basis? I rest my case.

Iowa's Caitlin Clark in practice.

Anyway, one March a few decades ago, looking for something to watch on that dead Sunday afternoon, I tuned into the women's NCAA final. I'm pretty sure it was Tennessee against somebody, and the scales fell from my eyes.

Pat Summitt was an intelligent coach. These women could run plays. They could knock each other over in the paint. And most impressively, they could hit consistently from the perimeter. Maybe even better than the men.

I figure it was pretty much Summitt and her Volunteers that brought women's basketball into national prominence. She posted a career record of 1,098-208 (.841) and won eight national titles.

At about the same time, the University of Connecticut was flexing its muscles under coach Geno Auriemma, further enhancing the women's game. Auriemma, still an active coach at age 70, has a career record of 1,213-162 record (.882) and 11 national titles. 

All of which brings me to today's championship game between Iowa and South Carolina. Interest in women's college basketball has never been higher than it is now, and a large part of that is due to Iowa's Caitlin Clark, who's swishing bombs from the logos on the court. Clark recently became the overall career Division I scoring leader – men or women – and she comes into today's game with 3,921 points. Whoa.

More than 14 million viewers watched Iowa defeat UConn 71-69 on Friday and I'm guessing that number could be even higher today. 

I have a feeling that South Carolina, undefeated this year under coach Dawn Staley (37-0), might have the better overall team. That's why I think the Gamecocks will win the title. But Clark will put on a show, and that's why the game might be the most watched women's game ever.

I'll be watching, too.