"Old Man" by Neil Young - Harvest (1972)

If you know, you know. 

"Aspen + These Days" (Full Solo Cover)

So I did it.

Here's the full cover version of the song, with both parts.

[These Days] includes me trying to sing, as well as the lyrics

Also, the YouTube channel will be under a pseudonym >>> Clarence Quemuel -- long story.

Don't be cruel.

 

YouTube is hassling me about copyrights and whatnot.

We'll see how long this lasts.

 © 2025 by Roy Santonil

"Aspen" by Dan Fogelberg - Captured Angel (1975)

The subject is angels.

This is one you can approach from different --- angles.

I do not want to be obtuse, so let me say: "It's Time."

My musical journey has arrived at 2025 with a 50-year backlog of lyrical stress relief, and finally, I'm happy to share it with you, reader, in this stream of consciousness social medium. 

I picked this as a first foray into YouTubery because, well, it's fairly simple to play, and more importantly there are no words! It may get worse if I start to sing, but it also might get better.

It took a couple dozen takes, and there's still a minor flaw at the end of the piece, but that's not important. Basically, I needed to learn how to properly edit videos. I used OpenShot software, and recorded on my Samsung Note 23 Phone. It's only a first effort and we'll see how this journey evolves.

Thanks in advance for (ahem) Liking, Sharing, and Subscribing. 

Oh, and also, NEVER GIVE UP. Happy Birthday and Happy Valentines Day to the love of my life.

© 2025 by Roy Santonil

 

Tails from the Crypto

I like words.

But words don't like me.

The more I try and use them, the more they stick around, and the more they haunt me for using them. Using the wrong words can get you in trouble.

Sometimes, words make ME laugh.

Sometimes, words make OTHER PEOPLE laugh.

And sometimes, words make other people BIG MAD.

The internet is a big place.

It is bigger than I imagined when I first connected to it with an IBM clone, running MS-DOS on a x286 CPU through a 14.4K baud dail-up modem in 1994. Back then, we lived out of a two-bedroom apartment, and I worked graveyard shifts to help raise our newborn baby girl.

My my, hey hey.

It is the best of times.

It is the wierdest of times.

It is time to communicate on another level because words to not do justice to explain reality.

Justice seeks 

--- its own resolution.

Justice pays 

--- no heed to the foibles of human desire. 

What is the point? 

I haven't posted since before what's-his-name was inaugurated to preside over the dissolution of the bankrupt corporation of 1871 (look it up) because we ALL needed a brief pause.  Well, that pause is DONE, and it looks like the 60,000 soldiers of the digital army (look it up) are in full operational mode, and the restoration of the American Republic is underway.

I have put 5K into $BTC $ETH $ETC $XRP and $SOL. 

Crypto currency comes from the crypt.

Look, all you young geniuses, I have been advocating in the Spirit of my Father's oath, and now, I can't quit.  I care about our constitution. You will have to kill me if you think I'm giving up on you.

It's time to start makiing videos. Stay tuned. 

The hunters are now the hunted. 

A LAKE OF FIRE awaits you murdering monsters. Notice given.  It is TIME for the musical part of this jurist to break the false and evil curse that you placed on my Father's legacy.

 In the words of Kanye West, "FUCK YOU."

 

 

 

 

 

 

© 2025 by Roy Santonil

House Philosophy

OPENING SCENE: A patient is lying unconscious in a hospital ICU. The camera pans down to follow the plastic tubing from his catheter, flowing and bubbling bodiliy fluids into a plastic tank.

DR.HOUSE: "The drug addict . . . is peeing blood."

CUT SCENE: A med school class where Dr. House is lecturing. He looks at a handful of yellow crayons, chooses one and begins coloring in a coloring book.

DR.HOUSE: "How do they teach you to tell someone that they're dying?"

(Blank looks from students wearing white coats.)

 DR.HOUSE: "It's kinda like teaching architects how to explain why their building fell down."

(Continues coloring book)

"Do you role play at stuff?"

STUDENT: "Yeah. One of us gives the bad news, and one of us gets the bad news."

DR.HOUSE: "What do you have to do to get an A in - You're Dying 101? Do they grade you on gentleness and supportiveness? Is there a scale for measuring compassion?"

(Changes crayons)

" This buddy of mine . . . I gotta give him ten bucks every time someone says thank you. Imagine that. This guy's so good, people thank him for telling them they're dying. 

(Looks at crayon, exchanges it for another)

"It's brown . . . I don't get thanked that often."

CUT SCENE: House is standing at the patient's bedside.

DR.HOUSE: "You're dying."

(Patient shows concerned look)

DR.HOUSE: "In a few hours. There's nothing we can do except deal with the pain."

PATIENT: "Well, I need to go home."

DR.HOUSE: "You're not going home."

PATIENT: "But my dog . . . what will happen to my dog?"

CUT SCENE: Two Drs. Wilson and Cameron are doing an MRI.

DR.CAMERON: "Her neck looks clean . . . no adenoma."

CUT SCENE: Back to the classroom.

STUDENT: "Wait, wait, wait . . . the guy's dying and all he cares about is his dog?"

DR.HOUSE: "Any of you guys go the dog route in your . . . improv sessions?"

(Another student gives a quizzical look)

DR.HOUSE: "It's a basic truth of the human condition . . . that everybody lies. The only variable is about what. The hard thing about telling someone they're dying is that . . . it tends to focus their prioritites. You find out what matters to them. What they're willing to die for. WHAT THEY'RE WILLING TO LIE FOR. 

 

Three years of law school, five years of government work, five years of corporate work, twenty years of self-employment, and the good doctor summarized it all in a YT video. You do know the character is based on detective Sherlock Holmes, don't you?

YOU'RE WELCOME.

I'd love to elaborate, but I have a lot of catching up to do, and a BIG trip to take this November. We're out of the golf headcovers game, so it's an economic reboot.

Also, I have a new handle on X : @Musical_Jurist ... 

Stay tuned, fellow boomers, millenials, and genners X-Y-Z.

No joke. We've only just begun.

DOBBS for Dummies (Part 5 of 5: Respect)

Start here.

OK, this is a tough one.

Looks like we made it. 

5 of 5, or should I joke? 

6 - 3. No joke.

In this Series Finale of Dobbs for Dummies, we talk about "RESPECT FOR THE COURT," and the impact that this decision has had and will have on American governmental institutions, law, and civil discourse. Not to mention millions of lives in utero.

As an officer of the court, I am essentially ogligated to be honest, transparent, and fair to everyone involved in this legal debate. It is settled for now, and I say that presuming we maintain a constitutional republic and not surrender to barbarism.

Perhaps we should just end it here, and going forward each of us can just figure shit out on our own.

Thanks, Dad.

© 2024 by Roy Santonil 

THE INTERNET NEVER FORGETS (But It Could Die)

"The internet never forgets."

 

But, it could die.

 

 

Just in case, herein below (stupid lawyers) is what I could scrape from the interwebs, the remains of my written, posted work from blog posts over the last, oh, say, 15 years.  I will always contend that much deep thought went into these rants, some were even fully captured. These thoughts, framed by bits of time, have been fueled by one American citizen's concern -- for both ourselves and our posterity.

 

With my mother-in-law's funeral service coming next week, what I can honestly say is that I have done and what I have done here to express, despite the degrees of separation the internet creates, what I know to be true, good, and consistent. 

 

In the words of Nathaniel Benchley, "Only Earth and Sky Last Forever."

 

I'm not trying to top "mean Tweets," because it is the Divine Comedy that keeps me laughing.

With all our years of accumulated experience, and purported wisdom, boomers like us may need to re-consider that in the eyes of our children, we are simply fools, who care too much to simply quit. 

 

Consider this body of work --- 

 

and remember --- 

 

whether at age 65, or any age, we are always a work in progress.

 

/initialize Time Warp  

[some links may be missing--- if so, they didn't die . . . they just faded away . . . ]

FROM THE ARCHIVES

"Wit, Gun, and Stein" (2009 - 2011) and
"English Swill" (2012 - 2019)

*HUMOR*

¤ "That's Not Funny, That's Sick ..." - When Sincerity Becomes Absurdity

by Roy Santonil (May 5, 2009)

¤ "Defining Success in a Global Economy" - Congratulations

by Roy Santonil (May 20, 2010)

  

*CULTURE*

 

¤ "Fool Me Twice" - Sorry, Not Sorry

by Roy Santonil (September 12, 2009) 

 

¤ "The Pursuit of Wisdom In the Age Of The Internet" - I Used To Be Pretty Smart

by James Bowman (October 25, 2009) 

 

¤ "J.D. Salinger: A Tribute" - Catch This

by Roy Santonil (January 30, 2010) 

 

¤ "The New Paradigm: You're Welcome" - Last Refuge or Last Resort?

by Roy Santonil (April 19, 2010)

 

¤ "A Tribute to Snail Mail" - Literally, An Internet Post

by Roy Santonil (June 9, 2010) 

 

¤ Word Wars - Care for Some Tea?

by Roy Santonil (November 2, 2010)

 

¤ "Creepy Misfits and Multiple Losers" - Let Me Keep My Precious Self-Loathing

by Roy Santonil (November 22, 2010) 

 

¤  "The End Of The Trail James Earl Fraser (1915)" - I'm Done (3 Final Essays)

by Roy Santonil (December 26, 2010)

 

¤ "LCDR Rosendo "Ross" T. Santonil (1931 - 2011)" - DAD'S EULOGY

(March 12, 2011)  

*LAW*

 

 

¤ "The Final Amnesty: Some Thoughts on Immigration Law"- Don't Insult Me

by Roy Santonil.(January 23, 2018)

¤ "The High Road" - Remember Prohibition?

by Roy Santonil (September 3, 2009) 

 

*GOLF*

¤ "On Respect" - Why the FedEx Cup Sucks

Golf Press Association Article (published August 22, 2007)

¤ "On Golf" - A Must Read For Every Golfer 

by John Updike, author of the Everyman's Library, The Witches of Eastwick, Marry Me, Brazil, The Coup, and Terrorist (originally published in The New York Times, June 10, 1973)

¤ "Tiger's Moral Hazard" - A Game of Sorrows

A New York Times Essay by Robert Wright (Posted March 31, 2010)

 

¤ "Putters of Distinction" - Bulls Eye!

by Roy Santonil (April 18, 2010) 

 

¤ "Pinetuck Golf Course: Old School" - Golf Course Review

by Roy Santonil (May 11, 2010)

 

 ¤ "The Divide Golf Course: Cart Golf" - Golf Course Review

by Roy Santonil (June 2, 2010)

 

¤ "Eagle Chase Golf Course: Going On Tour" - Golf Course Review

by Roy Santonil (June 5, 2010) 

 

¤ "Olde Sycamore Golf Plantation: Par For The Course" - Golf Course Review

by Roy Santonil (June 14, 2010) 

 

¤ "Charlotte National Golf Club: Dad's Dream" - Golf Course Review

by Roy Santonil (June 22, 2010)

¤ "The Tradition: Demons vs. Aces" - Golf Course Review

by Roy Santonil (June 26, 2010)

¤ "The Art of Distraction" - No excuses.

by Roy Santonil (July 24, 2010) 

 

¤ "Stonebridge Golf Club: A Game Of Sorrows" - Golf Course Review

by Roy Santonil (August 10, 2010) 

 

¤ "TPC Piper Glen: Show Me The Money" - Golf Course Review

by Roy Santonil (August 18, 2010)

 

 ¤ "A New Low" - 72

by Roy Santonil (October 13, 2010)

¤ "An Even Newer Low" - 70

by Roy Santonil (October 23, 2010)

*MUSIC *

 

¤ "Deacon Blues" - Steely Dan (1977) - I Cried When I Wrote This Song

by Roy Santonil (February 10, 2010) 

 

¤ "Hey Nineteen" - Steely Dan (1980)  - She Thinks I'm Crazy

by Roy Santonil (November 5, 2010)

LUKE 10:2

 

You Don't Have to LIKE it.

 

SHARE it so you get an objective thought.

 

SUBSCRIBE if you want more.

 

© 2024 by Roy Santonil

 

DOBBS V. JACKSON for Dummies (Part 4 of 5: "Stare Decisis")

Hello friends, and welcome back. 

I pretty much stopped writing since January. When your precious, charming, lovely, smart, witty daughter gets married and buys a house, you had better be there to help them make transition, or you have no purpose in life. I also got a part-time job at my true habitat, a local municipal golf course, so 2023 has been a bad year for my blogging.

Still, in the past year, I have managed to cross off a couple of items on my musical bucket list, and learned the guitar solos to Hotel California and Kid Charlemagne.  Maybe it's time to start posting videos?

Our legal journey can be summarized, so far, as follows: the Dobbs decision is a resultant of two primary vectors. These vectors are moral force and social experience. 

Applied through Reason during the course of Time, our common law system arrived in 2022 at a place where logic could lead, where apolitical imperatives could survive, a place where -- after 50 years in the jurisprudential wilderness -- our nation highest court signalled the merit of reading and following the U.S. Government User's Manual that begins "We the People."

Conscience (Part 1) and Culture (Part 2), refracted through Lessons of History (Part 3), brought the Supreme Court of the United States to this milestone opinion on June 24, 2022.

***

In Part 4, we discuss the legal doctrine upon which I think the Dobbs case truly turns. That doctine is neither Privacy, nor Federalism, nor is it States's Rights, as some would have you believe, Nikki Haley.

Rather, it is a pet doctrine of Chief Justice John Roberts, whose legal instinct is to seek to preserve the  institutional integrity of the court with strong deference to a principle called "Stare Decisis" (STAH-ray Deh-CY-sis), or, as I like to call it -- "Poking the Bear."

The 50+ year legal debate over the existence or non-existence of abortion "rights" has culminated with the recognition in Dobbs that, as with the numerous instances listed in footnote 48, SCOTUS is a HUMAN institution. 

Not being perfect, we seek the more perfect.

Because we acknowledge imperfection as an intrinsic human quality, legal writer Eric Segall asserts that the Court's past errors, albeit corrected through footnote 48 types of subsequent rulings, nevertheless render SCOTUS opinions as "non-legal." Segall further asserts that SCOTUS is not a Court and its Justices are not Judges. 

In other words, though we are imperfect, Seagall takes the position that making wrong legal decisions, invalidates all future and other decisions, legally speaking. Hmm.

Sorry, Eric, you missed the point. Several logical fallacies arise from dismissing the Court's legitimacy, discounting their opinions because they historically, though rarely, reverse an opinion. Ad hominem, False Cause, Genetic Fallacy, Straw Man, Non Sequitur, and Hypothesis Contrary to Fact are the most obvious fallacies of Mr. Segall's opinion. That's just for starters.

If anything, lawyers (the good ones) should take solace in the fact that, SCOTUS can and occationaly does, reverse itself.

“Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.” 

-- MLK

OK. King might not be the best person you would want to quote, but the principle is one that I believe, which is that reversing a Supreme Court decision, like it or not, indeed, bends the arc of the moral universe.

Alarmists could call it bad karma. Others, divine retribution. Petty political operatives, revenge. 

How about calling it a course correction?

As "A Nation of Laws, and Not of Men," seeking Justice, however idealistic, is the preferrable and most sane way to fix things, to right wrongs, and to teach us how best to coexists as human beings.  The members of the Supreme Court aren't called "judges." And to whatever extent my tin foil hat, conspiracy theory espousing, anti-colonial, libertarian tendencies are suppressed, all we have is our fellow citizens doing the best they can to survive, and perhaps, thrive.

They are called "Justices." There is Reason for that.

***

Stare decisis is the legal doctrine that preserves the status quo, or rather, the proper status quo. It is a heavy legal presumption that rests on respect, to promote integrity in an institutional setting. Yes, it also rests on an element of faith, a reliance on the correctness of past decisions and their social impact. It is a colloquial acceptance of the general idea that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Real life tells us, of course, that our past is chock full of bad, or at least flawed, decisions.

Dobbs is a remarkable legal opinion precisely because it overcomes the institutional inertia, as well as the mass effect of the political barriers imposed by stare decisis. At the same tiime, the opinion provides future guidelines for jurists, showing us how to proceed when faced with demonstrably erroneous and poorly reasoned legal opinions such as Roe v. Wade.

HERE IS WHAT THE COURT ACTUALLY SAID, verbatim [jargon and citations edited]:

"We next consider whether the doctrine of stare decisis counsels continued acceptance of Roe and Casey. Stare decisis plays an important role in our case law, and we have explained that it serves many valuable ends. It protects the interests of those who have taken action in reliance on a past decision. [Citations omitted]. It “reduces incentives for challenging settled precedents, saving parties and courts the expense of endless relitigation.”[Kimble] It fosters “evenhanded” decision making by requiring that like cases be decided in a like manner. [Payne] It “contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” [Ibid.] And it restrains judicial hubris and reminds us to respect the judgment of those who have grappled with important questions in the past. “Precedent is a way of accumulating and passing down the learning of past generations, a font of established wisdom richer than what can be found in any single judge or panel of judges.” [emphasis added, citing Gorsuch article].

We have long recognized, however, that stare decisis is “not an inexorable command,” [Pearson] and it “is at its weakest when  we interpret the Constitution,” [Agostini]. It has been said that it is sometimes more important that an issue“ ‘be settled than that it be settled right.’ ” [quoting Brandeis 1932 dissent]. But when it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution — the “great charter of our liberties,” which was meant “to endure through a long lapse of ages,” [Hunter’s Lessee] — we place a high value on having the matter “settled right.” In addition, when one of our constitutional decisions goes astray, the country is usually stuck with the bad decision unless we correct our own mistake. An erroneous constitutional decision can be fixed by amending the Constitution, but our Constitution is notoriously hard to amend. [Article V]. Therefore, in appropriate circumstances we must be willing to reconsider and, if necessary, overrule constitutional decisions.

Some of our most important constitutional decisions have overruled prior precedents. We mention three. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court repudiated the “separate but equal” doctrine, which had allowed States to maintain racially segregated schools and other facilities. In so doing, the Court overruled the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, along with six other Supreme Court precedents that had applied the separate-but-equal rule. In [1937], the Court overruled Adkins v. Children’s Hospital of D. C., which had held that a law setting minimum wages for women violated the “liberty” protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. West Coast Hotel [v. Parrish] signaled the demise of an entire line of important precedents that had protected an individual liberty right against state and federal health and welfare legislation. [citing Lochner (holding invalid a law setting maximum working hours); Coppage (holding invalid a law banning contracts forbidding employees to join a union); and Burns Baking (holding invalid laws fixing the weight of loaves of bread)].

Finally, in West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, after the lapse of only three years, the Court overruled Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis, and held that public school students could not be compelled to salute the flag in violation of their sincere beliefs. Barnette stands out because nothing had changed during the intervening period other than the Court’s belated recognition that its earlier decision had been seriously wrong.

On many other occasions, this Court has overruled important constitutional decisions. (We include a partial list in the footnote that follows.⁴⁸) Without these decisions, American constitutional law as we know it would be unrecognizable, and this would be a different country. No Justice of this Court has ever argued that the Court should never overrule a constitutional decision, but overruling a precedent is a serious matter. It is not a step that should be taken lightly. Our cases have attempted to pro-
vide a framework for deciding when a precedent should be overruled, and they have identified factors that should be considered in making such a decision.

In this case, five factors weigh strongly in favor of overruling Roe and Casey: the nature of their error, the qualityof their reasoning, the “workability” of the rules they imposed on the country, their disruptive effect on other areas of the law, and the absence of concrete reliance." 

***

I have nothing to add. We can either put on our thinking caps and figure it all out, or . . . OK, just pout.

Agree with it or not, our highest legal authority had to decide whether to poke the bear and disturb a well-established line of cases because multi-generational Justice demanded so. They risked the wrath of those wishing to preserve, protect, and defend mistakes of the past.

Why, after 50 years, did the Supreme Court reverse itself?  

Because the ruling in Roe was, in legal terms of art, "clearly erroneous."  

Clearly - without logically valid counter-argument. 

Erroneous - wrongly decided.

In other words, the Roe decision was so fucked up that -- despite the weight of stare decisis, despite majoritarian mass media pro-choice proscriptions, and despite physical threats of violence -- Conscience, Culture, Reason, Logic, and above all, the Constitution itself compelled the Court to restore balance and to repair the damage done to untold generations of American lives.

Analytically, the Dobbs opinion uses a five-factor test to help determine whether a Supreme Court case is "clearly erroneous", and therefore subject to being overruled:

• The Nature of the Courts Error
• The Quality of the Reaoning
• The Workability of the Decision
• The Effect on Other Areas of the Law
• The Reliance on the Court's Decision
  

I will not further elucidate. 

The majority opinion is thorough and complete, insofar as it details each of these factors, demonstrating (6-3) how false historical narratives were invented by the Roe opinion, how those narratives disregarded fundamental differences between an abortion "right" and a privacy "right." 

The only rational conclusion is that the nature of the error in Roe was so morally and culturally significant (as in Plessy, West Coast Hotels, and Barrett) that we had to reverse course. 

The concurring opinions suggest there is more work to be done.

Dobbs decimates the untethered reasoning in Roe -- its arbitrary tests, and its concocted rules regarding "viability" and "trimesters." The inconsistent line-drawing of Roe worsened in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, which wrongly applied stare decisis to affirm Roe, further diluting the "viability" question and jettisoning the "trimester" test for another unworkable standard -- the cost/benefit analysis of "undue burdens." 

In the future, my hope is that constitutional jurisprudence which drifts away, unmoored from cultural values, historical roots, and written foundations, will be met with greater resistance, resistance to the deceptions and injustices foisted by unprincipled or unethical lawyers who devalue themselves and cheapen their profession by acting as mere political operatives, with bad intent, harming families, and destroying psyches.

Yes. A long and winding road lies ahead. 

It has been a painful course correction, America.

The way things are looking, we had better hold on to our hats.

Happy New Year!

 

© 2024 by Roy Santonil

DOBBS V. JACKSON for Dummies (Part 3 of 5 : "Rights")

Play it safe.

A brief review -- 

Part 1. Conscience is annoying. 

Jiminy Cricket represented that part of an incomplete persona, the part that relentlessly tweaks our moral compass. He irritates our inchoate spirits, urging us, never stopping until that moment you take a chance, opening your heart to being "real."

Conscience is self-knowledge. With it, you objectify yourself, and you recognize the possibility that, "Hey, maybe I can expend some energy thinking a thought, maybe two, maybe more - discerning whether certain propositions, certain thoughts, words, and actions are inherently right - or wrong."

Part 2. Culture, on the other hand, is one of the primary exogenous forces that shapes the thoughts, feelings, and to be sure, significant opinions affecting humanity. It lends credence to the rules under which we choose to live.  

To minimize the impact of art, music, literature, architecture, animation, language, sports, etc., on human experience, will lead inevitably to crass forms of mechanistic materialism. Without the reflectiveness and introspection that culture imposes on human relations, society gets stranded in a brutish, ugly, milieu, where Truth and Beauty are nullified. Without the synergy of human culture, your existence is limited to self-defense and the cinders that remain after your life is consumed. Culture transmits human essence, thereby counteracting loneliness -- and insanity.

"Complaints of violins become my only friends."

                                        --- Anberlin, "Paperthin Hymn"

***

DOBBS FOR DUMMIES: PART 3

The period of time between 1973 and 2022, during which Roe v. Wade was "deemed" valid constitutional law, is a classic "Lesson of the Past." Yet, saying so in 2023 seems so mundane. Routinely, we read that famous George Santayana meme/quote extolling the "lessons" which must be learned so as to avoid recurrence, so as to avoid repeating those many epic human failures, 

These historical failures always come after a period of hubris. That once profound and conscientious quote ("We must learn the lessons of History!") is, in the Internet Age, reduced to a bland platitude on Reddit message boards, shit posts by Twitter trolls or LinkedIn comments. 

And obscure lawyers' blogs.

That once thoughtful admonition, a great philosophical precept, has fallen victim to the Mandela Effect, and either we have forgotten what it means, or we no longer have the courage to explore what it really, truly means. We may express the platitude, but hell no, I ain't listening to some stupid "Boomer."

Don't you agree? 

Santayana's famous maxim is often quoted on the internet, but rarely applied in educational discourse, less so in political commentary, whose primary aims are mobilization and provocation, not persuasion from thoughtful historical perspectives. Which leads to my point:

What "lessons of the past" are part of the abortion rights debate?

I have some bad news for you.

The literal Latin for "religion" (re: "back" -- ligere: "to link") is about . . . .

THE LESSONS OF THE PAST!

Thus, to "link back" is to revisit those precious lessons.

"Whatever means possible."

                    -- Malcom X

Living in the U.S.A., it is easy to take "Rights" for granted.

Because I do not want to wander in the weeds of highly technical jurisprudence, let me try to put this thought in the most reductionist terms to start this discussion of abortion "rights."

In Part One, I emphasized THE NAME OF THE GAME IS TO EXPLAIN. So this is the simplest way I can explain the Dobbs case, which tackles the legal question of whether a "right to abortion" exists under the Constitution of the United States of America.

In American law, as I have grown to understand it, almost every legal relationship between parties, and the eventual formal resolution of their rights as to each other, can be analyzed in two-fundamental steps. Call it the "Legal Rights 2-Step." It is a dance as old as the first human dispute over dinosaur bone leftovers.

First, ask yourself who are the parties, and what are the facts regarding their actual interaction? Formal written agreement? Informal understanding? Customary past practices? For example: Spouses.  Mothers and Fathers. Siiters and Brothers. Aunts and Uncles. Landlords and Tenants? Employers and Employees? Citizens and States? Masters and Slaves? OK, some relationships are harder to define and account for than others. You get it. The nature of the relationship will define (and limit) the nature of the so-called "right."

Second, you must identify with as much specificity as possible, each parties "rights" AND DUTIES. This is the catch. To be validly enforceable, every legal right whether created, or inherent, requires a corresponding duty, or else that right is vitiated. 

The bilateral requirement between rights and duties is what propels the Law toward Justice. Rights and duties, together, are the elements supporting moral authority and encouraging societal acceptance of particular judicial decisions. 

Claimants always assert that a certain "right" exists, and has been violated, however, there is often little or no acknowledgement that the legitimacy of said right rests upon a corresponding duty. That failure to recognize, identify, and accept the "duty," or the "responsibility," which validates a claim of right is the reason those claims so often fail. Ultimately, I suspect the discussion of those required "duties" explains why the Court ruled that no "right" to abortion can be found in the Constitution. 

Proper Balance

 

An elementary legal principle becomes controversial and disputable in the context of abortion because the single most distinguishing fact is that another human life hangs in the balance. 

 

That is the life of the child.

 

It's probably best that I just shut up for now. A good nutshell version should leave you wanting to explore more, anyway.

 

Know this -- the single most irrational response in abortion rights conversation is to say that if you concur with the Dobbs holding, you are somehow "anti-woman." I happen to LOVE women. Ask anyone who has successfully fulfilled the role of  husband and/or father over multiple decades whether conjugal "rights" with his/her spouse requires any corresponding "duties."

 

Simply put, any discussion of "rights" means -- it works both ways. 

 

That is what we call "right."

***

 

Finally, we should examine, in a nutshell, the methodology employed by the Court to reach this conclusion, i.e., that there is no constitutional "right" to abort a child. I'm among those lawyers somewhat terrified at the prospect of having to defend my home from left-wing loonies storming my neighborhood, simply because I happen to study law, and hold deep respect our written Constitution.

 

So it's like this, like it or not, quick and dirty. Here is why there is NO Federal "right" to abortion:

1. THE ISSUE PRESENTED: 

 

    Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are constitutional or not?

    Holding:  Pre-viability prohibition of abortion is constitutional.

2. CASE LAW - SOURCES:

    Any ruling for or against the existence of an abortion right in the constitution must be based on     an examination of the reasoning and analysis used in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey v. Planned     Parenthood (1992).

3. ABORTION RIGHT - SOURCES

 

   All constitutional rights must necessarily derive from: 

    A. The actual language of the Constitution - abortion clearly does not.

 

    B. The fundamental interest in Liberty, substantiated by due process rights inferred from the               14th Amendment and the 1st through 8th Amendments - determined by the Glucksberg and Palko tests.

 

    C. Glucksberg: is the right "deeply rooted" in the history and traditions of the law?

 

    D. Palko: is the right implicit in the concept of "ordered Liberty?"

 4. THE LESSONS OF HISTORY - Application of the Glucksberg and Palko tests

 

    I read these tests to be intertwined, not severable components, but each is useful to define the other. In other words, the lessons of history, clearly examined, help answer the question of whether abortion is a "fundamental" constitutional right. 

 

    The presumption is that "ordered Liberty" is a desirable aim.

 

    If you are an anarchist, then, obviously, the history and traditions of the law implicit in the concept of ordered Liberty, are irrelevant to YOUR believe in the existence or non-existence of legal rights.  To ignore the lessons of history, pretty much renders social experience and the pursuit of Reason in human discourse as intrusions into your little hermeneutic shell. Duty be damned.

 

    As far as their appication, Justice Alito gives a truly intellectually fascinating examination of the law of "quickening," which was the historical legal occurence before the term "viability" came into common parlance.  In general, and overwhelmingly so, it was always a crime to kill a baby, whose life and "personhood" was all the more recognized with its "quickening" in the womb.  All you Moms and Dads who have ever felt a baby's kick know the "quickening."

 

    Regartding the history and traditions of the law, the Court's opinion is that the Roe and Casey rulings, upon which the abortion right has rested, made no serious effort to apply the lessons of history. 

 

    The fundamental flaw of Roe is that it completely disregards hundreds of years of legal history, and conjures up a legal right that had previously been seen a crime. This error would have been made even outside the bounds of American jurisprudence, as historically, nearly all legal regimes found abortion to be a crime.

 

    Casey made even less effort to examine the roots of abortion law, and even undermined the attempts made in Roe to judicially legislate the boundaries of permissible abortion.  It was admittedly a missed opportunity to overrule Roe in 1992, and in the Court's view, is now recitfied with Dobbs.

 

    Thus, after a serious, tedious, application of the lessons of history, through the tests established in prior cases (Glucksberg and Palko), the only conclusion the court could reasonably find was this: 

 

CONCLUSION: THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION IS NOT DEEPLY ROOTED IN THE HISTORY AND TRADITIONS OF THE LAW, AND IT IS NOT IMPLICIT IN THE CONCEPT OF ORDERED LIBERTY.

    

OK, time for a musical interlude.

 

Hit "PLAY" and see you next time.