Tag: rights

USA 250

Vote for Democracy #58

(Photo by Lucas Sankey on Unsplash)

When the United States celebrated our Bicentennial in 1976, I was a teenager. There were many local activities in my small, rural New England town, spread out over the year. There were also many events in Washington and other major cities that were on television and covered in print publications. The country was recovering from the Vietnam War and Watergate. There was progress being made on civil rights for women and minorities. Things felt hopeful and celebratory. Granted, this was a small-town girl viewpoint at the time, but it was my experience of the country’s 200th birthday.

Today, on the 250th anniversary, the Semiquincentennial (or half-500 for those of you not into Latin), I find that celebrating is not a thing I can do. The level of public government corruption is staggering. Large corporations and their founders/CEOs are exploiting their workers and the public to amass unimaginable wealth while barely paying any taxes to help civil society function. Immigrants, women, people of color, members of the LGBTQIA+ community, and those who follow any religion or philosophy other than a particular subset of evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity are losing legal protection, their civil rights, and, sometimes, even life and liberty, due to the egregious failures of the Trump administration and their sycophants in Congress, the courts, and state and local governments.

There are, however, two things that give me some hope.

The first is recognition that the United States has weathered major assaults on our democratic republic before, with the Civil War being the most prominent example. There have also been other times when fascism threatened, such as during the 1930s-40s. I can only imagine what it must have been like for people in the US in those times, living with those dangers and unsure how things would resolve. I wonder if they felt similarly to the way I and millions of others feel now. Knowing the country has made it through other crises gives me some hope that we can do it again.

The other source of hope is the millions upon millions of people who are rallying, calling out corruption, advocating for change, and helping their neighbors in these fraught times. I’m grateful for the prominent public figures, journalists, and writers who are speaking out, reporting on what is happening to the country, and sirring others to action. Addressing the damage Trump and his minions have caused will be a long, difficult slog in the coming years but smart and principled people are laying the groundwork for needed changes to shore up our democracy. Many things that prior administrations observed as ethical norms will need to be codified into law with means to compel compliance. Legislative procdures will need reform so that one party or faction can’t block or steamroll bills. Voting rights need to be strengthened and districts drawn to give voice to cohesive, local communities. Civil rights need to be universally upheld. The Supreme Court must be reformed and recent, unconstitutional decisions overturned. The tax system must be overhauled so that weathy individuals and corporations pay their fair share. The social safety net must be strengthened so that no one lacks basic necessities, educational access, medical care, and a dignified life. The United States must act responsibly with other countries, abide by our treaties and trade agreements, assist our allies, aid those in need, work to reduce pollution and protect global climate, and use our military to promote peace. Realistic, humane, and comprehensive immigration reform, including a path of citizenship, must be enacted and implemented. There needs to be some mechanism for accountability for those who acted illegally or unethically, whether that becomes a truth and reconciliation commission or can be accomplished through federal or state courts. The federal courts may be constrained by unethical Trump pardons – and, by the way, there need to be limits put on presidential pardons so that they return to their traditional use as being a means to show mercy to people who had been convicted of crimes who expressed remorse and, usually, had completed their sentence or who had been given harsh sentences for non-violent crimes.

All that and more…

A lot of work but still a belief in the promise of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” from the Declaration of Independence and the “more perfect union” that “promote[s] the general welfare” from the Preamble to the Constitution.

In honor of the 250th anniversary, we need to speak out, vote, and act for democracy so that the world’s oldest democracy continues to be one. I can’t guarantee another 250 years, although I can hope for it.

If you are in the US, please join in. If you are in another place, please remember that there are many here who oppose Donald Trump’s destruction and corruption. We will do all we can to re-join you as a nation of values, generosity, and good will soon.

One-Liner Wednesday: We

The single most powerful word in our democracy is the word ‘We.’ ‘We The People.’ ‘We Shall Overcome.’ ‘Yes We Can.’ That word is owned by no one. It belongs to everyone. Oh, what a glorious task we are given to continually try to improve this great nation of ours.

US President Barack Obama, excerpted from a 2015 speech on the 50th anniversary of the Selma to Montgomery, Alabama voting rights march and now part of the quote on the outside of the main building of the Obama Presidential Center on the South Side of Chicago, Illinois
*****
This somewhat-longer-than-one-liner is brought to you as part of Linda’s One-Liner Wednesday series. Join us! Find out more here: https://lindaghill.com/2026/06/24/one-liner-wednesday-if/

hearing differently

Those of us who attend Christian churches that follow the common lectionary are hearing 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 and Matthew 5:1-12a (the Beatitudes) this Sunday.

These passages struck me differently this year because of what we are seeing in Minnesota and across the country where people are standing up to the powerful for the sake of justice and mercy.

In I Corinithians, we hear “God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong.”

In Matthew, we hear:
“Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.”
“Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

I know it will be a long haul and take a lot of work and witness, but these passages give me hope that the millions of us – of all faith traditions or none at all – who are not powerful individually will be able to re-establish a society that respects human dignity and rights for all the people.

Freedom of Speech

Vote for Democracy #46

(Photo by Lucas Sankey on Unsplash)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That is the text of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The Attorney General, the Vice President, the President, the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and everyone else in the government would do well to re-read it and observe it.

The court system has ruled over and over that “hate speech” and flag burning are protected by the First Amendment and that press report are not subject to government censorship.

Yes, here we are with the Attorney General saying the administration would target hate speech. The Justice Department tried to re-characerize the remark as meaning they would target speech that incited violence, which can be illegal, but that was not what she had said or appeared to mean.

In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder, the administration wants to investigate anyone critical of Kirk or his views, even though they have no legal grounds to do so because people’s right to free speech is guaranteed against government interference by the First Amendment. For those of you not familiar with the structure of the US government, Congress makes the law, the executive branch executes the law, and the judicial branch judges if the laws are in accordance with the Constitution and other statutes.

Note that the freedom of speech right is in regard to government interference. Private entities aren’t bound to allow free speech. For example, if someone makes an uncivil or inflammatory comment on my blog which I then delete, I am not violating the First Amendment because I am not the government and have the right to control what happens on my platform. (For the record, while I encourage respectful debate here at Top of JC’s Mind, I have on a rare occasion removed comments for using foul language or for spreading disinformation.) There was an instance of a copy shop employee refusing to print a flyer regarding Kirk. While the business owner could choose to sanction or fire the employee, the government has no right to investigate on free speech grounds.

The administration upped the ante a few days ago when the FCC Chair publicly pressured ABC affiliates to stop airing comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show because of a comment he had made regarding the right’s actions after Kirk’s murder, implying that not doing so would harm them in getting approvals and licenses from the FCC. This caused a couple of large media ownership groups to say they would suspend airing the show and ABC/Disney then suspending production. It’s unclear if the show will return or not. This situation does appear to violate the First Amendment because a government entity intervened to inhibit Kimmel’s free speech rights.

To make matters worse, President Trump is again threatening freedom of the press, as well as free speech, by saying that entire broadcast networks should be disbanded because they run stories that are critical of him. There is a real fear that media companies will continue to cave to pressure from Trump and his administration and stop broadcasting facts and opinions that run counter to Trump’s viewpoint.

While most Republicans have been either backing Trump or staying silent, a few were shaken enough about the concept of hate speech – or opposition speech – not being protected by free speech provisions that they are speaking out. I’m not sure if they are standing on principle or if they fear what might happen to them when Republicans are no longer in power, but it’s good to see some of them willing to oppose the Trump administration when it is acting against our Constitution.

I also appreciate that having some Republicans speaking out will reach people who only consume ultra-concservative media. Everyone needs to realize that there are threats to free speech and free press so that we can make moves to protect our First Amendment rights. Some people are boycotting companies like Disney that are curtailing free speech by bowing to pressure from the administration. Many are supporting independent journalism sources, such as PBS/NPR.

It’s important for all of us to speak up for our rights. I plan to continue doing that here and wherever I find myself. I also plan to be on the lookout for further attempts to erode our rights and silence dissenting voices. We have to be careful that the United States doesn’t have its media coopted in the way it was in Hungary.

We also need to be sure that we don’t fall into the administration’s trap of calling any opposing viewpoints “hate speech.” If I say that I think it’s wrong to deport people who are in the process of getting green cards or who have refugee or other protected status, that is protected free speech. It is not hate speech.

I do try to heed the call in my faith to love everyone.

I refuse to engage in hateful speech or behavior.

I wish everyone felt that way.

from bad to worse

Vote for Democracy #40

(Photo by Lucas Sankey on Unsplash)

Conditions in the United States are deteriorating in terms of the legal rights of individuals and the rule of law.

The most obvious examples right now are in the state of California. As the Trump administration escalates its deportation campaign, it is arresting people as they appear for scheduled meetings regarding their immigration status, at workplaces, and, sometimes, grabbing them out of cars or on the street. The agents doing these things are often masked and not wearing identifying badges, making it look as though they are criminal kidnappers. It’s terrifying for the immigrant community and for mixed-status families where some members are US citizens and others are not. It’s also heart-breaking that Trump has rescinded the legal status of hundreds of thousands of people who are refugees or who had been on temporary protected status.

While these things are happening throughout the country, there had been a concentration of workplace raids in Los Angeles, resulting in demonstrations at a facility where it seems that arrested migrants were being held without the ability to contact their families. A small number of protesters clashed with police, resulting in some arrests. Even though, the protests were confined to a small area of the city and were being handled by the Los Angeles police, Trump signed an order saying he could take over control of the National Guard, even though governors are in charge of National Guard deployments in their states, and could use federal troops within the United States, which is forbidden except in circumstances such as armed insurrection.

Trump ordered 2,000 California National Guard troops and 700 US Marines to Los Angeles, adding almost 3,000 National Guard troops a few days later. Governor Gavin Newsom sued to return the National Guard to his control, and, last night, Senior District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that Trump’s move was illegal. Unfortunately, the Trump Justice Department immediately appealed and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has put a stay on the order until they can hear the case on Tuesday.

This is scary for several reasons. While the Trump administration is using this first in California, the executive order applies everywhere in the country, so Trump could call out the military anywhere in the US in the meantime. While these federalized National Guard or other troops are supposed to only act in a support role to protect federal property and personnel, they have already been shown to detain people while waiting for police to arrive to make arrests. On Saturday, Trump has scheduled a large military parade in Washington, DC, ostensibly to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the formation of the Army although June 14th is also his 79th birthday (and Flag Day). In reaction to this show of force by the President, there are about 2,000 protests being organized throughout the country – and even in a few international locations – as No Kings Day, also termed as No Tyrants Day in places that do have a monarch. The flagship protest is in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; there is no event planned for Washington, DC in order to steer clear of Trump’s military parade. The No Kings Day events are peaceful marches and rallies, but I am afraid that Trump will send troops or federalized National Guard after protesters, especially in big, majority-Democratic cities.

Tensions are ratcheted even higher because, yesterday, California Senator Alex Padilla was detained while trying to ask a question at a press conference that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was giving at a federal building in Los Angeles. Sen. Padilla was forced from the room onto the floor and handcuffed, even though he announced that he was a senator and was accompanied by an FBI agent and security guard. If that can happen to a United States senator, what could happen to someone who is an immigrant or vulnerable or a member of a minority group?

While my health prevents me from attending in person, I offer my support to all those who will be at the No Kings protests tomorrow. I’m praying for their safety and hoping that police and other authorities have the good sense to honor the attendees as they exercise their First Amendment rights of free speech, freedom to peaceably assemble, and freedom to petition the government.

I hope that the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court will uphold Judge Breyer’s ruling in the coming days and that the Trump administration will abide by it. We must not militarize the country and disregard our Constitutional rights. The Republicans in Congress need to wake up and honor their oaths and demand resignations or impeach any officials who are breaking the law and undermining our democracy.

In less than a month, we will observe the 249th anniversary of the United States. We must do it as a free people with our full rights intact.

One-Liner Wednesday: Cory Booker

In gratitude for the witness, intelligence, fortitude, and patriotism of Senator Cory Booker (Democrat of New Jersey), who set a record for longest floor speech in the United States Senate yesterday evening at 25 hours, 4 minutes, during which he spoke against the immoral, damaging budget that the Republicans plan to ram through the Congress; the previous record had been held by Strom Thurmond, who in 1957 spoke against the Civil Rights Act, making it all the more fitting that Sen. Booker, a Black man who Thurmond would have wanted to keep segregated and poorly educated, was the one to so eloquently speak out on behalf of the American people, especially those most vulnerable.

Join us for Linda’s One-Liner Wednesdays! Find out more here: https://lindaghill.com/2025/04/02/one-liner-wednesday-what-the-heck/

Vote for Democracy #22

how being a Catholic woman serves as preparation for the incoming administration

(Photo by Lucas Sankey on Unsplash)

I’ve written before about the intersection of how the conservatives in the Catholic Church treat women and issues such as abortion. I’ve also posted more specifically how Leonard Leo and Opus Dei have impacted the Supreme Court and broader governance issues.

While many in the contemporary Catholic church have come to embrace the radical inclusiveness of Jesus, especially for those who are oppressed, others cling to the misogyny, racism, and bigotry that held for centuries when the Church engaged in empire and building of worldly rather than spiritual power. Even into modern times, this has resulted in women not being treated as equals in the Church and in society, along with discrimination against people due to their race, religion, sexual identity, place of origin, and economic status.

While I am blessed to know many in the Catholic church who do recognize my dignity and gifts, there are a number of powerful bishops and laity who do not. These, including an out-sized number of Supreme Court justices, governors such as Texas’s Abbott and Florida’s DeSantis, and the incoming vice-president, JD Vance, are loudly proclaiming and taking action that restrict the rights and freedoms of women and girls. Besides restrictions on abortion that have resulted in permanent injury or death to women, there are also moves to restrict contraception and recognize any fertilized egg as a person, all the while denying personhood rights to any pregnant person.

We are even hearing calls for women, especially mothers, to give up paid employment in order to be at home full-time. Shockingly, some are even calling for the repeal of the 19h Amendment of 1920 which recognized women’s right to vote everywhere in the United States.

While I am sadly accustomed to being recognized as less than a full and equal person in the Catholic church, it is frightening to see these same calls in the context of the United States’ government.

I commit to continuing to fight for equal rights for women and girls, as well as for those of all faith traditions or none, those of all races, ethnicities, and places of origin, all genders and sexual orientations, and all ages and health circumstances, to be treated with equal dignity and protection in the United States. This is also in keeping with Catholic social justice doctrine.

I know millions of others are already at work and will never back down on these human right issues. That we will have to fight for these rights that had been considered settled is disconcerting but I know we will prevail in the long run.

I mourn, though, for those who have been harmed and who will be harmed in the meantime.

Vote for Democracy ’24 #9

On the second anniversary of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade

(Photo by Lucas Sankey on Unsplash)

I’ve written several posts dealing with abortion – after the leak of the Dobbs decision, about the aftermath of the first month after it was handed down, and about a year later in a post about the out-sized influence of the Catholic Church with conservative members of the Supreme Court and some governors.

Today is the second anniversary of the Dobbs decision, which overturned the national right to abortion recognized by the decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973.

Some of the worst fears of the public have already occurred. With many states imposing total or near-total bans, people with a problem pregnancy have been forced to flee to distant states to receive care. This has even happened when the mother’s life, health, and/or future fertility are under threat or when the fetus has a problem that is so severe it is “incompatible with life.” Women have even been refused treatment when they are clearly in the process of suffering a miscarriage, the commonly used term to describe a spontaneous abortion. Unfortunately, some of these women will go on to develop sepsis or life-threatening hemorrhage which could have been avoided by performing a timely D&C.

Remember also that abortion is safer than pregnancy and childbirth. This is especially true for girls and for women of color, who face higher risks of life-altering complications and death. Mifepristone, one of the most-used drugs for medication abortions, has a lower rate of complications than acetaminophen (Tylenol).

It has become clear that some state and national level elected officials want to make all or nearly all abortions illegal in the United States. Additionally, there are threats against the legality of contraceptives. Fertility clinics that offer IVF face uncertainty in states that want to recognize that life begins at conception, bestowing personhood rights on fertilized eggs.

I find this argument particularly unconvincing, given that, in the course of a woman’s life, a substantial number of fertilized eggs don’t even implant and cause a pregnancy. Conception seems to be much too early a marker of life. A common rejoinder if one is unconvinced of personhood beginning at conception is to ask when does life begin. I think that life begins when one can breathe, which is already part of our legal definition. If a baby is born but never takes a breath, it is recorded as a stillbirth, not a birth and a death. People die after they take their last breath. Interestingly, the legal framework for abortion under Roe v. Wade relied on viability; given that the lungs are the last major organ to develop fully, the ability to breathe is inherent in the definition of viability.

The person who is definitely breathing and alive and a person through all this is the person who is pregnant. Their life and their rights should be clearly recognized and respected. No government official should be able to dictate their medical care. Period.

In the upcoming state and federal elections, when looking at candidates’ positions on issues, evaluate their stance on abortion and contraception. Do they allow each person to make medical choices regarding these issues, relying on their own judgement after consulting medical practitioners, family members, faith leaders, etc., or do they favor laws that substitute their preferences and beliefs over yours?

On the presidential side, it is clear that the Biden/Harris ticket advocates for the right of the individual to make personal medical decisions unencumbered by government. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has been bragging about his Supreme Court appointees overturning Roe. Project 2025, a blueprint for a second Trump administration, reveals ways it would impose abortion restrictions throughout the US.

Also consider how candidates regard women’s rights. For some candidates, attacking abortion and reproductive rights goes along with the idea that women should go back to “traditional” roles where they didn’t work outside the home. A few have even suggested that women should not be allowed to vote!

So, vote like your rights – and the rights of your family, friends, and neighbors – depend on it.

That may very well be literally true.

One-Liner Wednesday: Speak up for democracy!

As Heather Cox Richardson explains, now is the time for people in the United States and other democracies to speak up against illiberal democracy, Christian Nationalism, Project 2025, authoritarianism, plutocracy, and all other assaults on human dignity, rights, and freedoms.

This sobering message is part of One-Liner Wednesdays. Join us! (For the record, most of the one-liners are fun, pretty, or inspirational. I’m just a serious sort.) Find out more here: https://lindaghill.com/2023/07/19/one-liner-wednesday-new-book-next-week/

Supreme Court reform?

Back in October 2020, I posted some ideas about possible changes to procedures for the Supreme Court and other federal courts.

There has been much more public debate about this these past few years, particularly since the Supreme Court majority has been tossing precedents and inventing new doctrine on a regular basis of late.

One idea that makes sense to me is to raise the number of Supreme Court justices to thirteen to match the number of federal appellate courts. When the number of justices was changed to nine, there were nine appellate courts, so it makes sense to update the number to match because a Supreme Court justice is assigned for each appellate court. As it is now, some justices are responsible for more than one circuit. Doing this now would also help to redress some of the shenanigans that Mitch McConnell pulled in not allowing consideration of President Obama’s nominee while rushing through one of President Trump’s.

As I wrote in my October 2020 post, I think there should be rules for voting on judicial nominees in a timely manner, committee votes within sixty days and floor votes within ninety. The exception would be a Supreme Court vacancy that occurs after July first in a presidential election year which would be kept open for appointment by the winner of the election.

Because lifetime appointments are not stipulated in the Constitution, there has been a lot of discussion of making the term of Supreme Court justices eighteen years, after which they would serve on an appellate court if they were not ready to retire. I don’t know what that would mean for people who have already served longer than that or that were appointed expecting to serve for a lifetime. There is nothing in the Constitution that says Supreme Court nominations are for life, so no amendment is necessary to effect this change.

There have been a number of issues that have come to the fore more recently. One of them is the urgent need for ethics reform for the Supreme Court. Unlike other levels of the courts, there is no written code of conduct with guidance for recusals, conflicts of interest, etc. In other courts, judges are supposed to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. Given that both Justices Thomas and Alito are known to have accepted lavish gifts from prominent, rich Republicans, it would be helpful to have explicit rules to follow. It also upsets me that two members of the Court have been credibly accused of sexual harassment. There are serious questions about the spouses of two members of the Court earning money from work for/with people who might be seeking to influence the Court. I think there should be ethics reform and ways to enforce violations. As it is now, the Supreme Court justices are accountable to no one, which leaves them outside the usual system of checks and balances. (While it is true that provisions for impeachment and trial through Congress are in place, political forces are so prominent there that votes tend to be on partisan concerns rather than the evidence presented, so the threat of that doesn’t function as a deterrent to judicial misconduct.)

The Republican-appointed justices of the majority have undertaken what seems to be a concerted effort to overturn long-standing precedents. The most obvious is the Heller decision overturning national abortion rights but there are other instances, such as the recent decision against using race as a factor in college admissions which had been upheld numerous times since the 1978 Bakke decision, most recently in 2016. It’s not that precedents should never be overturned, for example, the Dred Scott decision, but those decisions usually advanced people’s rights; this Court seems to be taking away rights that had been previously recognized by the Court and the public. During their confirmation hearings in the Senate, these justices had all proclaimed their intent to respect precedent and “settled law” but they seem to have abandoned this principle.

The Republican-appointed majority are also inventing or embracing new legal constructs, such as the “major questions” doctrine, insisting that Congress must explicitly state the actions that they intend the executive branch department to implement. The Court used this to prevent rules regarding carbon pollution from the power industry. However, the justices overlooked explicit language from Congress giving authority to the Secretary of Education to waive student loans in time of national emergency in the recent case against the Biden administration’s targeted student loan forgiveness program. So, these justices appear to want Congress to be specific about things they don’t favor while ignoring the legislative language when they are specific. That’s not how our legal system is supposed to work.

There have also been major problems with the Court accepting cases without standing. In order to bring a case in federal court, a plaintiff has to show that they were harmed. The most obvious example of this is the 303 Creative case, in which a prospective web designer did not want to design sites for gay marriages but was afraid she would be violating a Colorado law barring discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. She said that a man had approached her to create such a site, giving the man’s name and contact information as part of her case. There are a number of problems, though. She had not started the business and so hadn’t had any legal challenges that caused harm. When a reporter contacted the man that had been named as the prospective gay client, they found out that he had no idea he was named in the suit, had never contacted the web designer for wedding services, is not gay, has been married for fifteen years, and is a web designer himself who wouldn’t need her services. The case should have been thrown out of court but the Republican-appointed justices still ruled in her favor on free speech grounds, saying that she shouldn’t be forced to use her words to support gay marriage, which she opposes on religious grounds. [As a creative who uses words as her medium, I have trouble thinking of a web designer for wedding sites as using “her words” when it’s usually the clients’ words/content/story that goes into a wedding website. It seems more like being a reporter. Whether or not you agree with what is being said, it is your job to report it accurately.]

All of this has led to a lack of public confidence in Supreme Court. Many of their recent decisions are opposed by a majority of citizens. What bothers me more, though, is that the courts are supposed to uphold our rights and freedoms, whether those are popular or not. If a person has the right to make their own medical decisions in conjunction with their health care provider, it should not matter what state the person is in, what their gender is, whether or not they follow a religious practice, or what their skin color is. A parent has a right to object to a book being taught in their child’s school and request an alternate assignment; that parent does not have the right to make that decision for anyone else’s child.

In the United States, every citizen is supposed to enjoy “equal protection of the laws” under the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s an ideal we should be working toward continually but sometimes it seems we are in the Orwellian situation of some being “more equal than others.” We need to get back on track and court reform can help to do that.