The Republicans who now hold the majority have used the House’s rules of decorum to impose what is essentially a gag order against talking about Mr. Trump’s hush-money payments to a porn actress or about the fact that he is a felon at all, notwithstanding that those assertions are no longer merely allegations but the basis of a jury’s guilty verdict. Doing so, they have declared, is a violation of House rules.“When they censor any mention of Donald Trump’s criminal convictions, they are essentially trying to ban a fact,” Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, said in an interview. “I am not aware of any precedent where factual statements have been banned in our lifetime.”
The American radical right authoritarian wealth & power movement simply does not tolerate inconvenient truth. This is an example of the intolerant, closed-minded, reality-detached threat.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
Yesterday, NPR broadcast a segment about the new law in Louisiana that forces all public education classrooms to post the 10 Commandments. A question was asked about why all other religions could not also demand that their iconography also be posted in view of the equal protection clause. The response was simple: Other religions would not pass the history and traditions (HAT) test. Non-Christian iconography could be excluded without violating the equal protection clause because those religions do not pas the HAT test.
That makes no sense at all. But the current USSC could easily find sense in it. The USSC used the HAT test to obliterate abortion rights and most gun safety laws. The reason the HAT test is so poisonous is that it makes no sense and can be easily used to arrive at nearly any decision a partisan judge wants to arrive at. Why is this the case? Several reasons.
- First, the application of the HAT test in abortion and gun safety law cases was clearly irrational. The judges cherry picked bit and pieces of history they liked and ignored what was inconvenient. They also could not define what a "tradition" was. That depended various subjective things, e.g., how the issue was framed. Framing was convenient, ignoring inconvenient traditions.
- Second, Judges lack historical training and expertise. The HAT test converts legal reasoning into historical analysis. Judges are trained in law, not history. With a bit of garden variety partisan human bias that leads to flawed or selective interpretations of historical evidence. Historians have already heavily criticized both the abortion-killer and the gun safety law killer cases as partisan historical bullshit.
- Third, the HAT test ignores changing societal norms and values over time. What was historically accepted may no longer align with modern understandings or acceptance of rights and acceptable behaviors. In essence, the HAT test was intentionally invented by radical right authoritarians to ignore evolving standards that are inconvenient to radical right kleptocratic, democratic, plutocratic and Christian theocratic dogmas, e.g., the establishment clause for religion. The HAT test gives the USSC enormous power to completely reshape most or nearly all of the law and society in the name of a single, deeply flawed, hyper-partisan "historical/traditional" analysis.
- The USSC has not laid out any clear methodology to apply the HAT test. There are no established guidelines for how to conduct proper historical analysis or what counts as sufficient historical evidence of a "tradition." The HAT test is well-suited to disguise subjective partisan "reasoning." The HAT test easily leads to covert, unguided, or ad hoc partisan analysis. For example, when there are no clear historical precedents or traditions, there is nothing to base an unbiased analysis on.
- Finally, the HAT test uses history to describe what ought to be. History has always been used to describe what happened in the past, not what should be. The test uses descriptive historical facts to find normative constitutional questions. That makes no sense because a lot of what happened in history is contested, ambiguous and/or now obsolete in view of social and technological change. Even worse, the test means that a controlling "tradition" is constitutional.
The point of the HAT test is clear. It is a fig leaf the authoritarian American radical right wealth and power movement plans to use to kill inconvenient aspects of democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties. Those inconvenient aspects include voting rights, transparency in government (a necessity for unlimited corruption), minority protections and church-state separation, especially in public education.
To drive home the point here, the NYT reports about the new Christian nationalist 10 Commandments law in Louisiana:
The crowd at Our Lady of Fatima Catholic School in Lafayette, La., applauded Gov. Jeff Landry as he signed bill after bill this week on public education in the state, making it clear he believed God was guiding his hand.
One new law requires that transgender students be addressed by the pronouns for the gender on their birth certificates (“God gives us our mark,” he said). Another allows public schools to employ chaplains (“a great step for expanding faith in public schools”).
Then he signed into law a mandate that the Ten Commandments be hung in every public classroom, demonstrating a new willingness for Louisiana to go where other states have not. Last month, Louisiana also became the first state to classify abortion pills as dangerous controlled substances.
Gov. Jeff Landry of Louisiana signed bills this week to expand the presence of religion in the state’s public schools, which will be allowed to hire chaplains and required to post Ten Commandments in classrooms
“We don’t quit,” Mr. Landry, a Republican, said at the signing ceremony.
Taken together, the measures have signaled the ambition of the governor and the Republican-led Legislature to be at the forefront of a growing national movement to create and interpret laws according to a particular conservative Christian worldview. And Mr. Landry, a Catholic who has been vocal about his faith’s influence in shaping his politics, wants to lead the charge.
“Christian conservatives in this state have been a force for a very long time,” said Robert Hogan, a political science professor at Louisiana State University. “They view him as a champion of their cause, and this consolidates that.”
Dodie Horton, the state representative who sponsored the Louisiana bill, said that having the commandments posted would allow students to “look up and see what God says is right and what he says is wrong.”
Ms. Horton, a Republican, is a member of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers, a group formed in 2020 to advance explicitly Christian values and legislation among elected officials. The group is working to adopt her bill as one of its pieces of model legislation, so that members in other states can push through similar laws.
The Christian political movement has been evident in debates across the country over transgender rights, school curriculums, in vitro fertilization and abortion. In Arizona, during the fight over an abortion ban from 1864, the speaker of the House, Ben Toma, told The New York Times in April that “all of our laws are actually based on, what, the Ten Commandments and the Book of Genesis, which are thousands of years ago.”
It is an argument that has been repeated by supporters of the Ten Commandments law in Louisiana, who contend that the commandments are a historical document as well as a religious text.
“This is all born of the leftist culture war tearing down the fabric of the country, and we are saying, ‘Enough,’” said Jason Rapert, founder of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers and a former state senator in Arkansas. “We are going to try to rebuild the foundation of this country.”
Like it or not, and believe it or not, we are in an all-out war against an aggressive, bigoted, corrupt Christian fundamentalist theocracy. It aims to kill democracy, civil liberties and the rule of law. These authoritarian radical bigots do not want to just turn the clock back to Jim Crow or even the 1800s. They want to go back in time over 2,000 years. They are dead serious about that and about controlling your lives as they see fit, whether you believe it or not.
Q: Is this is all born of the leftist culture war tearing down the fabric and foundation of the country, or is it significantly or mostly born of the bigoted, authoritarian Christian theocratic culture war tearing down the fabric and foundation of the country?
No comments:
Post a Comment