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 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 1 of 5: Conscience)

Start here.

I'll admit it. Three months is really too long of a break between blog posts. 

Or has it been only two?

It feels like a lot more than a trimester has passed since we last ventured into these post-Muskian Twitter Senior Citizen Cyber-rants.

And another thing, why "a trimester?" It just seems so random. 

Nothing is random.

Hello Boomers and friends of boomers. (Technically, I am NOT a boomer, but that is another issue for another time.)

It's A Mestery

Do you remember when trimesters were only a quarter? (Shutup, Dad).

On this day in 1973, legal use of the term "trimester" began costing us innocent lives, silenced hearts, and tiny ripped limbs. Until last summer's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Center for Reproductive Health 597 U.S. ___(2022), the number of human embryos aborted surpassed 63 million.  

63,000,000 is a lot of dead babies.  : ( sad face

They coined that word -- trimester -- to serve as the skeleton upon which to dress from whole cloth, a legal decision that said Federal courts may usurp the power of -- actual written words -- contained in our Constitution.

It was NOT WOMEN who were empowered, though we long labored under that falsehood. It was Federal judges who were empowered by Roe v. Wade -- to say what they thought the law should be, apparently with little regard for what the Constitution actully said.

"Trimesters" were but a stage. A platform upon which activists could strut and fret, full of sound and fury, signifying their virtue, employing deception on demand to reason from non-constitutional penumbras -- penumbras leading to nothingness. Millions of brief candles have been put out since 1973, until a leaky court clerk, a sneaky Politico reporter, and a little footnote (48), helped cut loose the gossamer threads of Roe v. Wade. One small step.

Perhaps the massive ship of state is turning. Truth may be marching on.

So sue me for lack of creativity. Writer's block happens. The better part of valor whispered in my ear over the Christmas holidays, and told me in a clear cool, feminine voice: "Hey Dummy, don't talk about restorative Supreme Court cases in mixed company."  

I listened to H.E.R.. 

She wore blindfolds. And it was a great decision -- to dare to listen.

***

Welcome to the Year of the Rabbit. 2023. Or in Rome, MMXXIII. Or 6773 (Assyrian), 2567 (Buddhist), 7531-32 (Byzantine), 4719 (Chinese), Reiwa 5 (Japanese), or 4356 (Korean). 

Jesus, time waits for no one.

If you are of Vietnamese persuasion, or a fan of Al Stewart, it is the Year of the Cat. In my way of thinking, there is no equivalence between cats and rabbits. For one thing, cleaning up their shit requires totally different protocols. Plus, rabbits are dumbasses. No, seriously, rabbits are the worst. I'm glad the Vietnamese shook off the shackles of the Chinese Jade Emperor and choose their own astrological animal. I prefer the theory which asserts that Vietnam changed their zodiac for precisely this reason. Cats are cool. Rabbits are buttholes. 

Don't bother asking for explanations

She'll just tell you that she came in the Year of the Cat

(credit: Al Stewart)

***

 So about that Dobbs ruling. You really don't need to hear my commentary.  I've been on the case for over 50 years. Ever since I was chastised by law school peers (especially some of the women) for publicly advocating as a Pro-life constitutionalist in our school newspaper.  

Today, as far as I'm concerned, it is : CASE CLOSED.

***

Before you click away, I want you to know this -- I've done my homework.  

Homework Sample - Dobbs case

As my freshman English professor kept drilling at his students (he really was English, like Harry Potter English, not Larry the Cable Guy English), he kept telling us THE NAME OF THE GAME IS EXPLAIN. He said the writer's job is TO EXPLAIN. 

So, I'm not doing this to convert, persuade, convince, prod, entice, allure, and especially to win a legal arguments. No. Are you not entertained?

The point of this here series of essays is to explain what happened in our legal system.  

What really happened?

However you "feel" is irrelevant to what really happened.  Your "activist" card doesn't matter anymore. Case Closed.

In short, Dobbs is to Roe as Brown is to Plessy.

Frankly, my dears, and I believe I write for some of us who cannot speak, we do not blame you. You are innocent souls, fighting the good fight. But we all need to refrain from the blame game. I am here to explain. It's not anyone's fault that they/we were born when they/we were born. And again, technically, I am not a boomer, but you know what I mean, despite "the latest thing" that makes obstacles of pronouns.

Every generation blames the one before. 

And all of their frustrations come beating on your door.  

You say you just don't see it. You just can't get agreement in this present tense. 

We all talk a different language. Talking in defense. 

So we open up a quarrel between the Present and the Past.

Don't yield to the fortunes you sometimes see as fate. 

It may have a new perspective on a different day. 

And if you don't give up, and don't give in, you may just be okay.

(Credit: Mike Rutherford + Mechanics)

***

You will hear from pundits and politicians who say that achieving a Supreme Court victory is simply a matter of counting to five, i.e., getting the majority of votes.  A pithy sentiment, but nonetheless valid.  The Dobbs ruling was supported by a 6-3 vote, the majority opinion, 5-3.

What that means, I'll leave to more highly paid experts in taller buildings. What is clear is the simple math which suggests that at the apex of today's American legal system, from a jurisprudential standpoint, Dobbs was really not a close call. It was the politics that was a close call, because as it turns out, for readers familiar with my textualist philosophy: Economics - is upstream from Culture - is upstream from Politics.

Our Constitution was underwritten, I think, with a recognition of that transitive property, one that subsumes human societies, and informs the foundation of free states. Economics and Culture are superior considerations that help define limits we have chosen to place on the power of national government where, too often, the passions of rough and tumble politics tend to become unhinged.

In other words, when it comes to Natural Law of the Land, screw Politics. Higher values, among those Economics and Culture, play the prevalent unseen role in the proper application of Constitutional Law.

Justice, divine or otherwise, has a greater chance of SURVIVAL when our personal goals are higher than those of greedy politicians winning (rigged) elections, or of silly TickTok and You Tubers getting more clicks or subs. The most compelling idea behind the Dobbs majority is that once we stop sacrificing children, society has a chance to get back onto a better, more harmonic path. From a place above politics, people may catch a glimpse of Hope, not merely by the flickering flame of Liberty promised in our Constitution, but also from the spark of Redemption offered in true, tangible, Reality.

That is --  new life.

If you are at all interested in following up with this explanation (for Dummies!) of a case that has already been ruled upon, I appreciate the audience you graciously grant. If you are easily threatened by ideas, regardless of their merit, or the merits of reasonably crafted argument, I suggest you stop.

Plus, I don't want to become paranoid of assassination.

Plus, I don't want you marching with signs in my front yard, or resorting to the violent, culturally abhorrent, tactics that we as a nation witnessed last summer. Dobbs is only the beginning, the "conception," if you will, of a struggle for Justice that started with a dumb decision (choice) to speak out in school with a sincerely held legal opinion. It was 40 years ago, in a galaxy far away.

Thanks for not killing me.

It's 2023 now, and there has been a restoration. 

Kindly look upon this sincere srivening as a way to bring peace to a turbulent issue in a way that any intelligent middle-school student, well, at least an earnest college freshman, can read and understand, as to why things have happened as they have happened. 

This is an effort to add clarity for others to reflect upon, test, and digest, the validity of the Dobbs holding, to help us to see how it is essentially remedial and restorative, and how it expresses something we humans, at the end of the day, are seeking. And this will be an effort to explain why our Representative Republic is built as it is built, namely -- 

OF, BY, AND FOR, . . . THE PEOPLE.

First Caveat: I am of an ethnic minority, heterosexual, male born in Generation Jones.

Second Caveat: I am a feminist who loves women as women, and men as brothers.

Third Caveat: I especially LOVE and TREASURE my wife and my dear baby girl.

Welcome to 1985. (See Page 3 of the link.)

© 2023 by Roy Santonil

No Mercy

Start here.

Hello again, Boomers, Jonesers, and Non-Boomers alike.

Nothing to talk about lately?

What do we Americans do when the temperature starts climbing above 80, and the lawn needs mowing? 

Well, for the last couple of centuries, there was this thing called Our National Pastime. Notice the word  "pastime" suggests an activity unabashedly and unequivocally meant to be an acceptable and civil way to pass time. I would even go so far to say, pre-Internet distraction, there was a tapestry. a weaving of the fabric of your cultural character in sport, a mythos, conjured and nurtured for the benefit of inter-generational respect and  civility. Heck, even affection. Love you, dad.

Alas, locusts and honey will have to suffice anymore

"Oh, there you go again 15, being literal, and trying to find out what words mean."

I suppose so. Unfortunately, in my blogging experience, if you are a fan of scholarly etymology and  reasonable contextual usage, with a dash of tropism, you are now generally considered to be A REAL ASSHOLE in cyberspace.

I humbly accept your unjustified aspersions, if it means I can "pass time" peacefully, and scribble away this "old man rant" verbiage in a constructive manner, and fully exploit the legal training for which I so sadly (perhaps foolishly) overpaid.

Well, it is indeed the middle of beisból season, and my team is awesome. 

No not the Padres.

I respectfully disagree.

Having relocated to the capital of the third world, Los Angeles, in 1987, I eventually became a Dodger fan. It was like Saul on the Road to Damascus. Do as the Romans do.  I suddenly recalled my Little League team was called the "Dodgers." The circle was complete.  I had left (one of) my childhood homes (San Diego, inter alia), to live under the bright lights of Hollywood, and presto!

Assimilation happens.

Back to baseball. In lower level and recreational leagues, you may know there is a rule called "the Mercy Rule." If a team was leading by more than ten runs after three (or 4?) innings, the game is over. The team leading the game wins, even though you have not played every inning of a regulation game. Simple concept, designed more than likely to save the kids from embarrassment, as well as save the parents' time.

You may ask yourself, as I do, is there a real world equivalent of the Mercy Rule?

Have you ever seen a contest, or conflict, that reached the point where everyone thinks:

 "OMG, this is just not a fair fight. It's almost laughable to continue. We really should \just end it here. We know who will win this thing."

Oh, by the way, 

• Someone in the halls of the Supreme Court of the United States is in BIG trouble. Unless they abort the prosecution.
  

• Congress has indicted itself by sending taxpayer money to their Ukrainian subsidiaries. That should resonate well in minority communities.
  

• John Durham has obtained voluminous discovery documents pointing to a conviction of a top Democrat lawyer, who did NOT act on behalf of the Clinton campaign. Right.
  

• Trump-endorsed candidates are 58-1 (as of this post) in their primary contests. But Biden got 81 million votes.
  

• Middle Eastern governments are reportedly refusing to take calls from the POTUS. But at least we are energy indepen -- never mind.
  

• The stock market has tanked, along with everyone's (hello, Boomers) 401k retirement assets. Capitalism sucks, except when you need a cup of coffee.
  

• Inflation is approaching double digits, eating into retiree savings plans. What COVID hasn't killed, the Federal Reserve can.
  

• Interest rates are projected to rise +/- 50 basis points in 2022. But I repeat myself.
  

• Our Southern Border is worse than a sieve. It is a port of entry for scofflaws. I'm being nice here.

• The newest SCOTUS nominee cannot even attempt to define a "woman." Sheee-iiit.
  

• Parents who disagree with sexual indoctrination in public schools were labeled FBI "terrorists." Poking mama bear, eh?
  

• No one seriously believes anymore the information broadcast from mainstream sources. QED.
  

• What happened to the "pandemic?" I guess we are all sick of the lies.
  

• There is no mercy rule in real life. Only zombies and zombie companies.

• I'll stop here for brevity's sake.

If you don't know by now, the REPUBLIC of the United States was ATTACKED on Nov. 3, 2020. 

From where I sit, we are now in counter-attack mode.

See you in November.

 

 © 2022 by Roy Santonil

One Thing Leads to Another

Start here.

For you lawyers, do you recall this classic case study from Torts class? 

Palsgraf vs. Long Island Railroad Co. 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928) is legendary because Judge Cardozo's analysis of proximate cause reinforced one of the basic elements required in order to plead a valid cause of action for liability on the grounds of negligence. But back to my point, since I refuse to walk back into those weeds planted in my brain during those hellish indoctrination rituals called "law school" and "bar exam." 

Let it suffice to say that chasing Truth down rabbit holes is a journey full of surprises, and you never know where gritty, honest research will lead you. The Newtonian paradigm is gone. Quantum Mechanics and the Butterfly Effect are real things. Dark Matter and String Theory rule science. 

For now.

I simply wanted to discuss the problem of Factions in a large republic (link here!). 

But, in a momentary lapse of reason, during the course of my study, I had a flashback -- yes, another 80's song (no, not "Take On Me"). This one is by The Fixx, called "One Thing Leads to Another." 

Good tune. May be worth your time (3:12 duration). Press "Play," and pay attention to the lyrics.

Or not.

So back to the problem of dealing with Factions, what they are, and how Madison thought we could handle the problem of factionalism within a large republic such as ours. A Faction is a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

In Federalist 9, Hamilton needed to address the ideas of Charles Montesquieu, a French Philosopher whose prinicipal work, L'Esprit Des Lois, is one of the greatest works in the history of political theory and in the history of jurisprudence. Madison's Federalist 10 was a sequel to Hamilton's Federalist 9.

See? One thing leads to another. 

It started with Federalist 10, a proper study of which necessitated that we retrace the origins of the debate back to Federalist 9, which led to a recognition that Montesquieu's work set the foundational precepts. This sequence of connected historical sources led me to thinking about how so many apparent effects have unacknowledged causes. That led me to realize the legal importance, and occasional futility, of finding proximate causes, which was the key issue in the Palsgraf case. For me, the whole discussion of proximate cause reconciled musically, to The Fixx.

Simple Minds Need Complex Stimuli

Boomers, I've said it before and I'll say it again -- gettin' old ain't for sissies. 

Brief history lesson: The Federalist Papers were published under the pseudonym "Publius," and were written to persuade American Revolutionaries that a "federation" of sovereign States was, for many reasons, the best course of action to form a government in the late 1700's. 

After we defeated the British, a world without kings became possible. The ideal of human Liberty now superceded the "divine right" of inbred dilettantes. Uncharted aspirations and claims that were made, written, and signed by our nation's wisest elders on July 4, 1776, could now become manifest without monarchic suppression.

"Equal Rights Under The Law!"

Now to the problem of forming that government. Montesquieu advocated Separation of Powers doctrine as a way to address the problem of factions, however, he also contended that the theory would fail in large republics. He thought large republics, such as that proposed on the North American continent were prone to fall into despotism due to their sheer size, and therefore, the cannibalistic nature of factionalism would not be contained. As a sidenote, he was also an early adopter of the notion that climate (!) has a substantial influence on the human society.

Beginning with the formal title, Madison responded:

"THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED

THE UNION AS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST DOMESTIC FACTION AND INSURRECTION"

Now that title appears to be written in English, and because I am a natural, native, English-speaking American citizen, I am empowered to understand (as you should) what the author is saying. 

Literally. Today. Year 2022.

I mean, WTF did we go to school for? To learn to drink? Was it to learn how to woo a spouse. And by "spouse," I mean that person you married who has a different chromosomal composition than yours. 

But I digress.

Look, writers are accountable for the words they utilize. But conversely, a reader is NOT entitled to ascribe to a writer thoughts and ideas not at all supportable in the words expressed in writing. Some may call this form of constitutional/statutory interpretation a curse. I disagree. It would be more precise and correct to say that holding words to the users meaning is a "spell." Deviate from the word, you deviate from the spell. The constitution is a covenant, a spell structured to maximize Liberty (for ALL), by recognizing natural democratic processes, but limiting their reach, in order to counteract and suppress tyrannical leaders, who desire to implement their factional, numerically justified aims, regardless of their adverse effects. Unchecked factions lead to injustice and they are the fatal flaw of direct democracy. Thus, our Founders, through the words "We The People," called for and eventually ratified A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.

Why? Because words cage thoughts.

Publius creates the argument. Whether you think it valid and logical, or misleading and fallacious, the contention is that the Union of States are a SAFEGUARD, a protection, a precaution, an answer, a bulwark, if you will, literally against domestic factions and insurrection.  

Please note the correct usage of "literally."

Whether from the loony left or stenchly conservative right, it is literally indisputable that the Founders saw the creation of our Union (as constituted and ratified among the several States) to be the ideal answer to the problem of political factions, which are the early formative stages of mass psychosis. (Hello, Mr. Hitler)

Despite our large geography, and the cacophony of Tweets, the melting, snowflake tears claiming that THEIR particular untethered rights should prevail over others more wisely and virtuously considered, Federalist 10 shows how we avoid the mistakes of past civilizations and transcend the fate of past governments that descended into centralized, totalitarian, madness, like the current one, surrendered to the whims of senile, insane, child-molesting, sock puppet, power-hungry, criminal creeps of a certain faction. You can guess what THEIR letters stand for.

"I'll circle back you on that."

I'll drink to that. 🍺

 © 2022 by Roy Santonil

Fascism, False Flags, and Freedom

Do you hear Sopranos?

Start here.

Do you see part of the image above circled in red? 

What the heck are those?

Why are they hovering above the chamber of the House? 

Apparently, they live.

As you and I keep calm and cope with corporate media dialectics, staying the Babylonian money magic stream of lies pitting:

• left against right,
• conservatives versus liberals 
• male versus female
• black versus white 
• and of course, the currently popular diametric Russia versus Ukraine,

that old imperial strategy seems destined for failure. It is time for the causes of our national malaise to fail, and to fail in catastrophic ways. 

"Choose a side," they implored us.

"Don't worry," they assured us. "We can fix this. Yes, we can." 

Well, sorry, Your Highnesses, but that divide and conquer strategy is old and worn. It is dead. It started to die at Runnymeade. It got worse for you in Trenton. Your destiny was sealed in the fields of Normandy and the streets of Moscow. The kids watched you from the living room TV, as you lied and killed your way through the jungles of Vietnam and Nicaragua, sacrificing youth and energy in the deserts and mountains of Iraq and Afghanistan. But you are done. We have devolved, and our constitution is being restored.

Sure, you have made futile attempts, temporarily derailing humanity's quest. Your litany of falsehoods includeds last-gasp efforts over the millennia -- sinking the Lusitania, followed by the Titanic and more.

But we have long since connected the dots . . . between FDR's foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor ... JFK's monetary agenda ... the fake news from the Gulf of Tonkin ... the dark history of Bush family ... 9-11 truthers ... and now ... the plandemic Covid-19 (better known as the Biden election strategy.)  

Many youthful researchers doubt the seriousness of your Georgia "Guidestones," dismissing them as an obscure art project by some wealthy nut job. The kids may be right, but try asking the people of Hiroshima or Nagasaki whether there exists a certain faction of world powers and principalities having an express, and very clear, depopulation agenda. 

With eyes wide open, to them it's no joke.

But it just won't work. They are destined to fail.

Sure, ordo ab chao was a nice, catchy motto back in the days of Manifest Destiny, when you could opiate the masses and conjure hellscape visions with technological spell-casting, hypnotic images of horror broadcast to make us afraid. You have harvested natural Caution to exploit irrational Fear. Your lust for the blood of innocence inflamed your hatred for Truth and the Beauty.

Little Lambs became Terrible Tigers, burning bright in the forests of flyover America. And our people perish for lack of knowledge. But now, we know. We know your methods, we know your goals and we have learned your ways. Your time has come, you pinkie-sucking, narcissistic, silk-tie wearing monsters. Your days are numbered.

Don't dream. It's over.

This week I commend to you an article from The City Journal, a literary organ of the Manhattan Institute. 

The piece was written in 2014 by Eugene Kontorovich. At the time, Kontorovich was Professor of International Law and Constitutional Law at Northwestern University Law School.

I had no idea that this symbol, used by Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy, is now plastered all over the architecture of many Federal office buildings in Washington, D.C. 

Fascinating.

The fasces symbol may be less notorious than the swastika, but I find it no less detestable. It's meaning and symbolism elicit, in my view, the precise opposite of American ideals, especially the Emersonian ideal of self-reliance, not to mention the concepts of inalienable rights and natural law.

Let me explain. As Professor Kontorovich put it: 

"In republican Rome, the chief magistrates were protected in public by lictors: bodyguards who each carried a fasces, a bundle of 12 rods tied together and surrounding outward-facing axes. The lictors used this unwieldy-looking scepter to chastise wrongdoers, and it came to symbolize the coercive power of the consul."

The symbol of the fasces represented magisterial and priestly authority  in ancient Rome, symbolizing "strength in unity," the way a bundle of sticks is harder to break than one single stick. The strong implication is that the state power is a derivative from corporal power, the power of physical punishment, and the authority is based in a collective, bound together to (unthinkingly) enforce the will of the ruling class, its media, and entertainment outlets. Essentially, the fasces is a weapon, in Latin, a "bundle," that represents the imposition of authority . . . just because . . . well . . . uh, let's see . . . because a large mob of people say so?

That coercive aspect offends me. Coercion, done by goons, hired by effete elitists. It is what makes fascism so repellant to American sensibilities, yet it is so similar to current events, namely, greater central bank control through militarization of local police.

And yes, the Founding Fathers did have admiration for the ancient Roman Republic. One of the first official acts of Congress was to adopt the fasces as the emblem of the Sergeant at Arms.

The Professor again:

"Fasces were part of the standard visual vocabulary of classicism. Like the lamp and the scales, they represented a particular attribute of the classical view of justice: physical power or the ability to impose order."

"When he came to power in Italy in 1922, Mussolini resurrected the symbol and employed it to represent the strength and unity of the Italian state. Political fascism made physical power and the ability to impose order central to its ideology, and so the term “fascism” quickly became synonymous with authoritarian regimes. Mussolini made the fasces symbol almost as common in Italy as the Nazi swastika became in Hitler’s Germany. If people associate the fasces with fascism less than they associate the swastika with Nazism, it may simply be because Il Duce’s historical infamy pales beside Hitler’s [and our WWII ally, Stalin]. 

Kontorovich's piece is titled "When Fasces Aren't Fascist. The Strange History of  America's Federal Buildings." As I read it, he is rationalizing the existence of fasces in the halls of the U.S. Congress.

Kontorovich is attempting to render palatable the disturbing prevalence of that symbol as merely a cultural speed bump, an almost quirky artistic preference. He says the fasces symbol "had no nefarious connotation before Mussolini." 

I beg to differ. The swastika had no nefarious connotation before Hitler either, but we don't see it emblazoned anywhere except those flags hanging on basement walls of shaven headed kook jobs. 

Or Buddhist tombstones.

Symbols are powerful. Symbols will be their downfall.

Indeed, the Founding Fathers adopted elements of a republican form of government when they formed the United States of America. However, the idea that governmental power should be dispersed between three branches, and that man's utter depravity and corruptible greed necessitated a de-centralized form of government is a basic American precept that FLIES ON THE FACE of opposing ideals expressed by the symbolism of the fasces. The Sergeant at Arm's actual job is to enforce the rules of the House, so in a small way, the image of the fasces was an appropriate emblem in 1789. 

However, the Office of the Sergeant at Arms is NOT the government of, by, or for the People. 

The use of the fasces as a symbol in American public architecture did not become prevalent until Mussolini made it so in the 1920's. Fascism was seen as something "cool" in the period of time between the so-called World Wars. Mussolini was admired for getting Italy back on its feet, just as Hitler was admired and promoted by financial interests which included the Bush family, The New York Times, and yes, the Vatican. The fasces symbol, and the philosophy it represented, became so trendy during that period of history that architect Cass Gilbert, and his disciples, imported the "gospel of fasces" into American public life. 

It is sad to see how far we have strayed from our Founders vision. That symbol of collective authoritarianism (OK, dictatorship through corporal punishment), expresses ideals antithetical to our foundational precepts. Do I need to repeat the first three words of the preamble again? 

OK, Boomer. Let's leave it at that. 

I have a medical appointment to deal with some knee pain.

Stay tuned. Same Bat-Time. Same Bat-Channel.

 

 © 2022 by Roy Santonil

The Play's the Thing

Start here.  

How many of us dozed off in the middle of high school English class whenever we had to read Shakespeare, or Milton, or especially, Dante?

 

Not me.

 

I knew that the Adam West Batman accessed the Batcave through Shakespeare.

This week I'm focused on a particular line from the play Hamlet, where the protagonist Prince plots to avenge his Father's death at the hands of  Claudius, the terrible uncle who then married Hamlet's mother -- after killing Hamlet's dad! 

 

Jerry Springer must have studied classical literature, ha ha. Interestingly, Hamlet's father's name is also Hamlet, but in the play, whenever he speaks he is called "Ghost."

 

Here's the full quote in context: 

"Out of my weakness and melancholy, as he is very potent with such spirits, abuses me to damn me. I'll have grounds more relative than this. The play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King [referring to Claudius]."

What the heck is he talking about?

"Ain't it just like a friend of mine ..."

I'm going to assume you have a passing knowledge of the plot, since it is at its essence a story of revenge sought by a character whose mind is conflicted, indecisive, and therefore, paralyzed. He asks for all of us, the legendary question, whether "to be or not to be?" 

 

As he goes about proving his uncle's guilt, Hamlet arranges to perform a drama before the king's court. The play is written in a way that portrays the actual killing of his father, and Hamlet believes that in examining the king's reaction, he will prove his case. 

 

Hamlet's father was poisoned while sleeping in his garden. Likewise, the play was written to portray just that event. It (the play) is high art, to me, in that it presents an artist's reality, and serves no purpose other than to obtain knowledge from its audience. 

Unsponsored art is inherently subversive.

Sponsorship, OTOH, requires the artist to encode his message, because I believe, the ultimate aim of the artist is less the object, less the painting, the sculpture, the movie, or the novel, he/she creates.

What is being overtly created is a REACTION. For the artist, what happens on stage is secondary to how the audience reacts. Such is the "theatre" of war, but more about the Ukaranian money-laundering, drug-running, and child trafficking, anti-Nazi clean-up operation later.

This is oversimplification. Hamlet's use of a stage play as subterfuge for detective work is a topic covered by shelves and shelves of volumes of scholarly studies regarding Shakespeare's work, and the deeply humanistic questions posed by the characters and events in not only Hamlet, but WS's entire body of work. The play has been studied and interpreted over an over again, yet it remains rich with material profitable for reproof, study, conjecture, and revelation about our human condition. What a piece of work.

If you caught the reference, then you truly belong here, because some things are just True and they stay True. So I will keep stirring the swill here at Boomers Anonymous -- in English. 

 

Let me paraphrase:

 

This goodly frame, the earth, is more than some sterile promontory, and this most excellent canopy, the air, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire will appear to you -- and be more than just a foul and pestilent congregation of vapors.

 

Enjoy the show.

Welcome back

https://twitter.com/MyHeadcovers/stahttps://twitter.com/MyHeadcovers/status/1496507001236566020?s=20&t=kfM-h8-rDpaE6i-Nie1yFAtus/1496507001236566020?s=20&t=kfM-h8-rDpaE6i-Nie1yFA

 

 © 2022 by Roy Santonil