THE SUPREME COURT'S CONSERVATIVE BRANCH

by Ruth A. Sheets

Since Neal Gorsuch entered the ranks of Supreme Court justices, I have been thinking about his role and the expectations his people have of him.  I say "his people" because all Americans are not his people.  Nor are the majority of Americans the people of any of the conservative justices.

It is rare to see any of the conservative 4 take a position on any case that does not help their constituents:  business, White males, the wealthy (particularly the very wealthy), Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians.  They also do their best to support Republicans in any way they can.

The Senate will be helping them out too.  When Mitch McConnell refused to even hold hearings for President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland last year, he ignored proper protocol and respect for a sitting president.  He bet on Mr. Trump becoming president, knowing the most conservative person available could be nominated and pretty easily approved by his Senate.  Republicans seldom stand up to Mr. McConnell or, as it turns out, Mr. Trump.  Their vindictiveness against those who try independence is legendary.

So, we have Mr. Gorsuch, a rubber stamp of Justices Thomas and the late Justice Scalia.  These men are supposed to be "brilliant jurists," but in reality, it doesn't matter how brilliant they are.  They know what is expected of them and they dutifully do it, no matter the human cost.  There is no personal cost to any of them.  There is no intellectual stretch except in the way they justify the often destructive rulings handed down.  For example, they ruled that corporations are persons (Citizens United).  These conservative justices don't have to be elected or approved of in any way, so the amount of money spend in political campaigns by persons and organizations that don't even need to be identified never touches them.

Courage on their part is rarely visible and certainly not necessary.  Justice Roberts allowed a critical part of the Affordable Care Act pass on taxation grounds, but not because it was the right thing to do to help citizens get health care.  So, perhaps, a bit of courage was on display, but really, just a bit.

I keep wondering what conservatives are trying to conserve.  Is it some kind of way of life that was so wonderful it must be brought back?  Is it a sense that America is a Christian country even though it never was that?  Is it to keep White rich people in power?  Is it to blame poor people for their poverty by making it harder for them to be heard?  Is it to pretend that LGBTQ people don't exist, so giving them the same rights as everyone else is not necessary because they don't exist, so don't need any extra protections? 

I also often wonder why conservatives are so obsessed with women's reproductive organs.  They don't seem as worried about male reproductive parts.  If they cared at all about women and women's rights, they would once and for all strike down all the state laws that get between a woman and her doctor in her reproductive decisions.  Why don't they do this -- because their constituents don't like letting women act as full adults.  Men might have to share some power.

And, what is it with the conservatives and guns?  Of course, when the conservatives on the Court say states and communities can't make certain laws to restrict guns, they really mean guns owned by White people, particularly White men.  They can't state it that way in their decisions, but we see the results when a Black driver is murdered after he tells police officers he has a permit to carry.  Those officers, of course are not convicted of anything. 

What can we expect this coming year from the conservative 4, perhaps 5 if Justice Kennedy is in his conservative mood?  I suspect if they can get to it, they will end or severely damage Roe v. Wade, strengthen Citizens United, end the right to marry for LGBTQ couples, allow disenfranchisement of more and more citizens who just don't fit what conservatives see as "real Americans."  They may allow Mr. Trump's travel and refugee bans as everyone who is not Northern European is a terrorist.  The one guarantee, their 4 basic constituencies will be well served and everyone else will be left to pick up the pieces and go on the best they can.  One would think we could do better.

Brains! (Liberal vs. Conservative)

by muon

I read an article a few months ago, the gist of which is just now hatching into share-able graphics on social media. The article told of 13 different scientific studies that show how people calling themselves liberals and people calling themselves conservatives have pathological difference in the brain. (You can read about the studies on the ABC News website.)

Liberals tend to have larger anterior cingulate cortexes, associated with tolerance to uncertainty. Conservatives have larger right amygdalas, the area that governs sensitivity to fear. Conservatives avoid self-harm. Liberals are usually more concerned with harm to their group. Liberals focus on progress and are more likely to take risks to find better ways of doing things. Conservatives will stick to the status quo if it's comfortable for them and poses no immediate danger.

What none of the studies showed was how these two different kinds of brains evolved (yes, I mean evolution. If your sensitivity to fear makes you tremble at that word, better stop reading now). My theory is that families who never had to find creative solutions for their problems probably developed conservative brains.

Say your family has had wealth for generation after generation. Your ancestors could always rely on money to feed, shelter and clothe. They could pay someone to fight enemies. They could buy immediate solutions to problems as they came along. Your family never had to figure a different way of doing anything, and they, of course, never wanted their way of dealing with life to change. But they became very fearful of having their wealth taken from them, because it was their only means of survival.

My family were always great jury-riggers. When you can't afford to buy the means of survival, you have to creatively adapt or die. Duct tape was invented for families like mine. And while our stop-gap measure was buying us more time, we could be planning how to fix the problem for the long-term, in the most cost-efficient way. We have less fear of uncertainty, because we've dealt with it on some level each day, for generations.

Now, I'm not saying that all rich people are conservative. I think that families who have taught creative thinking to their progeny, and passed the teaching down through the generations, are the ones who have developed liberal brains. But I believe ultra-conservatives, either now or at sometime in their families' past, have probably been the "haves" of society, in some way. If not by money, then by strength or charisma or whatever. They never needed to learn adaptation, and so became fearful of it, and fearful of losing their special "have" at any moment.

Then again, if you don't believe in evolution, I guess God simply created conservatives and liberals physically different. So get over it, and quit trying to inflict your fear-mongering right amygdala on society. Or some liberal is apt to get out his duct tape.

WHY DO CONSERVATIVES HATE “OBAMACARE?”

by Ruth A. Sheets

The Supreme Court will be hearing the case against “Obamacare” next week.  Representatives from 26 states want the whole program to be repealed.  It makes no sense, but the truth is that most of what Conservatives are proposing these days makes no sense.

The health care reform passed two years ago has so many positives that Conservatives should like. 

 - it requires a continuation of private health insurance

 - it provides relief for small business owners who will be able to obtain reasonable coverage for their workers, as well as the self-employed,  through insurance plan exchanges

 - it allows young people who are not yet employed to remain on their parents’ plans so they can receive health care while they are looking for work

 - it relieves hospitals so that they are not primary care for a huge number of uninsured Americans, costs they have to “eat.”

 - seniors can receive preventive care which can maintain a greater quality of life

 - every citizen will have the opportunity to take responsibility for their own health care and share costs across the whole population

 - people cannot be denied care due to pre-existing conditions or conditions that cost too much

Where is the down side?  It seems to me that everyone benefits.  Maybe that’s the problem.  In our form of “free market,” only the wealthiest are supposed to benefit.  It is hard for me to believe that all Conservatives are wealthy or even truly imagine that they will be.  Why would they want to vote against a program that would directly benefit most of them?  I suspect it is because their leaders have christened the program “Obamacare” and the first half of that title is what they are really against, no matter what the cost to themselves and their neighbors.