Why seek pardons?

Let’s call ’em the Six Musketeers. What do they have in common, other than being Republican members of Congress?

They asked their one-time cult leader/guru/top-shelf liar in chief for a blanket pardon before he left office.

This begs a serious question. Why would a member of Congress seek a presidential pardon if they were damn sure they were innocent of any crimes related to the 1/6 insurrection that occurred two weeks before Donald Trump vacated the White House?

Hmm. Well, you know their names. Here they are anyway.

Louis Gohmert, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Mo Brooks, Andy Biggs, Scott Perry. 

Their names surfaced during this past week’s televised hearing of the 1/6 House select committee that is examining the issues that led to the attack on our nation’s Capitol Building … when Congress was convened to count Electoral College votes and then certify the election of President Biden.

These six clowns — two of whom, Gohmert of Texas and Brooks of Alabama, are leaving Congress at the end of the year — all allegedly engaged in some of the law-breaking committed by The Donald in his quest to remain in power. Except they deny doing anything wrong. Really?

My favorite among them is Greene, who had just been elected to her Georgia congressional seat in November 2020. My goodness, she had just taken her oath of office three days before the insurrection. So it took her no time at all to sink herself up to her armpits in the sleaze being peddled by Trump and the rest of his Corps of Cultists … allegedly.

This is the clown show that the cult followers insist we return to power in Washington, D.C. It is instead an act that needs to be run out of town.

The House select committee is going to resume its hearings soon after doing some more sleuthing around for more evidence to deliver us in a final report. Maybe it can uncover some more crooks who sought pre-emptive pardons for crimes they say they didn’t commit.

What a load of crap!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

SCOTUS shows its consequence

There can be no greater example of electoral consequence than the decision delivered this week by the U.S. Supreme Court that overturns Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion in the United States.

Ponder this for a moment:

Justice Clarence Thomas is the court’s senior member, serving on the high court since 1991; the man who selected him, President George H.W. Bush, left office in 1993. Justice Samuel Alito joined the court in 2006; the president who nominated him, George W. Bush, left office in 2009. Chief Justice John Roberts took his post in 2005 after being nominated by President George W. Bush.

Those three conservative justices have stayed far beyond the terms of their political sponsors. The same likely will hold true for three more judicial conservatives, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, all of whom were nominated by Donald J. Trump.

Remember, too, that Trump declared while running for office in 2016 that he would find “two or three” justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. He did … and they did. They, too, are likely to remain in office many decades after Trump leaves the scene.

Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring and will be replaced by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Biden’s lone selection (so far!) to the nation’s highest court.

Yes, elections have consequences. I now shall assert that the next president election must be determined at least partly by how voters want their Supreme Court to function well into the future.

Do we really want a SCOTUS making far-reaching decisions based on justices’ own religious bias?

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

How does this law infringe on rights?

Ronny Jackson, the idiot who represents in Congress a region of the country I know well, put out a Twitter teaser that just makes me cringe.

The congressman who represents the Texas Panhandle wrote: Next on the Supreme Court docket, overturn the Democrat’s HORRIBLE gun control legislation! We ARE NOT done!!!

This moron’s idiotic message compels me to ask: How on God’s good Earth does the legislation signed into law by President Biden infringe on a law-abiding American’s access to owning a firearm?

I’ve already asked Jackson directly; I doubt he’ll respond.

The bill cobbled together by a bipartisan group of senators seeks to do a few things to stem gun violence of the type that killed those 19 precious children and two teachers in Uvalde a month ago. I have read the damn thing many times and I cannot for the life of me find a thing in it that prohibits a citizen in good standing from owning a firearm.

So, what the hell is Ronny Jackson suggesting? It ain’t “gun control legislation.” The new law nibbles around the edges. It isn’t perfect, but it’s a start — at least I hope it is — down the road toward curbing gun violence.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Political perversion at its worst

The political perversion that is underway within what passes for the Republican Party cannot be illustrated more plainly than what well might happen to one of the party’s stalwarts in an upcoming GOP primary election.

Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming stands front and center among Republicans in her opposition to the lawlessness demonstrated by Donald J. Trump — particularly during the final weeks of his administration as POTUS.

Because of her fealty to the Constitution and the oath she took to protect and defend it, Cheney is facing the wrath of the Trumpkins who populate her party in Wyoming. She is running for re-election this year and has drawn stiff opposition within her party; Trump has endorsed one of Cheney’s rivals. Why? Because she believes in the rule of law and believes that Trump has violated that tenet by his re-telling of The Big Lie about why he lost the 2020 presidential election.

Cheney is as stalwart a conservative Republican as anyone in the House of Representatives. None of that matters to the Trumpkins who have censured her and effectively declared her to be persona non grata within the Wyoming GOP.

That’s because she refuses to profess her loyalty to Donald Trump.

This is a shameful perversion of principle and of the oath all members of Congress take when they enter the People’s House.

I am not going to predict that Cheney will lose her primary fight when the balloting occurs in Wyoming. I’ve seen the various polls and will admit that it doesn’t look good for her future.

I also must stipulate once more that she is not my favorite Republican serving in Congress. She is too conservative for my taste, which illustrates why these attacks on her anger me so much.

I guess, therefore, the political perversion is complete when a member of Congress with whom I have fundamental philosophical disagreements can win my support on the basis of her rage at a president who embodies all that is wrong with today’s Republican Party.

Go figure.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Get a Plan B ready

Here’s a word of advice for you, President Biden: Get a Plan B ready in the apparently likely event that your fuel-tax holiday doesn’t make the grade in Congress.

I reluctantly endorsed your idea of suspending the fuel tax for 90 days, Mr. President, only because I want some immediate relief from these monstrous fuel prices. Hey, I just returned from an errand this morning, stopped to put some diesel fuel into my truck, stopped the pump at $35 … and then saw that I barely moved the fuel-gauge needle.

What would suspending the diesel fuel tax do for me? Not much, Mr. President. But it’s something!

Whatever you have on the back burner, sir, well … I am thinking you’d better dust it off and get it ready to present.

I am among those Americans who continues to seethe that Republicans continue to resist every single idea that comes from the White House, Mr. President.

I know that’s why we pay you the big dough, Mr. President. Still, just a little give from the “loyal opposition” would give me a glimmer of hope that good government is still possible.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

‘Representative democracy’ takes a hit

I need to stipulate something up front that shouldn’t need to be stated, which is that we all live in what we call a “representative democracy.”

What does that mean? To me it means that the men and women who serve in our nation’s public offices need to represent the will of the people they govern.

OK, are we clear on that? Good! Then consider this:

Every reputable public opinion poll taken reveals that a substantial majority of Americans favor maintaining abortion rights for women. Gallup, Harris, Quinnipiac, Roper, Ipsos — all of ’em — tell us that most Americans want women to have the right to govern their own bodies.

The U.S. Supreme Court, though, today said the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy. The ruling comes as the court has struck down the Roe v. Wade landmark ruling that stood as settled law since it was announced in January 1973. Women no longer are able to obtain an abortion.

Most Americans believe in providing abortion rights for women. A minority in Congress and in our legislatures believe something else.

Where I come from, when the minority rules supersede the beliefs of the majority, we call that “governing by tyrannical means.”

Is that what we are becoming?

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

SCOTUS might just be getting warmed up

The U.S. Supreme Court is feeling its Wheaties today after handing down a ruling that effectively ends legalized abortion in the United States of America.

It’s a dark day in American juris prudence, at least as I see it.

But … here’s some real bad news: The nation’s highest court now could be feeling so emboldened that it will take dead aim on such constitutional guarantees as the right to marry someone of the same gender as you.

Let’s ponder that for a brief moment.

Texas once had a law on the books that was called colloquially the “anti-sodomy law.” It banned same-sex marriage. I have no need to explain the origin of the “anti-sodomy law” description.

Then the Supreme Court, in a stunning decision just a few years ago, declared that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment applied to same-sex couples as well as straight couples, that everyone in this country is entitled to “equal protection under the law.” The ruling was hailed as huge step toward recognizing gay marriage as legal.

It has now been established as “settled law.”

Or … is it?

The court might believe it is ready to impose its own form of morality on a nation well could have an entirely different view. The gay marriage ruling has been essentially hailed as a victory for inclusion of all Americans under a constitutional clause that many had believed had excluded them from its protection.

Is the Supreme Court really prepared to walk down that path, just as it has decided that Roe v. Wade, the decision that had been settled law for 50 years, now no longer is valid?

Folks, we well might have a U.S. Supreme Court that is preparing to run amok.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

SCOTUS might spur political uprising

The U.S. Supreme Court’s stunning decision announced today that tosses aside a long-settled law enabling women to obtain legal abortions well could create a midterm campaign issue for the ages.

Or … it might fizzle out like warmed-over soda pop.

The court ruled 6-3 that the Constitution does not guarantee a woman’s right to an abortion, which was the basis for the1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized the procedure in the United States.

Conservatives are joyous at the ruling. The rest of us? Well … we’re not.

The midterm election now could hang on whether enough voters are concerned enough to elect members of Congress, governors and state legislators who believe that women have a right to terminate a pregnancy.

My hope is that it does energize the electorate. That it does stem the so-called “red wave” that threatens to sweep Democrats out of control in Congress. That it does elect state legislators and governors in states that already have dropped the hammer on hapless women who now no longer can obtain an abortion legally.

The consequences of this decision are far-reaching and frightening to many women across the land. It won’t end abortion. It only makes it more dangerous as desperate women seek them. What then? Who cares for women whose bodies are devastated by botched procedures?

We hear it said over and over: that “elections have consequences.” We now are paying for the travesty that occurred in 2016 when Donald J. Trump slithered his way into the White House and — with the help of a GOP majority in the Senate — managed to get three individuals confirmed to the SCOTUS.

The right-wing cabal on the high court has set the cause of women’s rights back for decades to come. It now falls on the rest of us to ensure that our ballots count in this year’s midterm election … and beyond.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

No ‘real conservatives’?

Wow, man. Nimrods exist in every nook and cranny, even among avid readers of blogs — such as mine. One of them showed himself by making the dumbest assertion I can imagine about the House select committee examining the 1/6 insurrection.

This particular nimrod, a fellow with whom I used to work in Amarillo, said that the panel contains “no real conservatives.”

Holy partisanship!

I will respond with this brief post. What in the world would you call Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, the two Republicans chosen to serve on the panel?

Both of them are as true-blue — or ruby-red — conservative as you can get. They both have opposed traditionally, for instance, efforts to control firearm ownership, massive spending on domestic programs, abortion rights, increasing the minimum wage … shall I go on?

I won’t. Suffice to say that Reps. Cheney and Kinzinger are conservative lawmakers, a point I and others have sought to make since their appointment by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to serve on the insurrection committee.

They also happen to believe — contrary to some faux conservatives — in the rule of law and in their fealty to the Constitution.

Does that make them Republicans In Name Only? No. It does not. It makes them true to their principles.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

SCOTUS strikes down Roe … let the fight commence

Whatever crap you might hear from this day forward about how conservatives will not tolerate “judicial activism” or “legislating from the bench,” think of this day when the Supreme Court did exactly that with its decision striking down a woman’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

The U.S. Constitution, said the court in a 6-3 ruling, does not guarantee a woman’s right to an abortion, and it now hands the issue over to the states to decide individually.

This is a dark day in American judicial history.

The SCOTUS has struck down the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that declared women had a right under the Constitution to terminate a pregnancy. Previous court rulings had upheld that right.

No longer. The Supreme Court, with its super-conservative majority, has acted in a fashion that used to be anathema to judicial and political conservatives. It has exercised extreme judicial activism in tossing aside what had been considered “settled law.”

Didn’t conservatives once frown on such activism? Didn’t they excoriate progressive judges for crossing that line?

Roughly half the states already have laws on the books that will now take effect. They will make abortion illegal. In Texas, for example, doctors can be charged with felony crimes and sentenced to decades in prison if they perform an abortion. Texas even allows its residents to reap bounties if they tattle on their neighbors who they know have obtained an abortion.

It might not stop with just criminalizing abortion. There well might efforts to overturn other SCOTUS decisions legalizing gay marriage, which the court has ruled is protected under the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment.

Does this hideous decision end abortion? Hardly. Women will continue to terminate their pregnancy, even if it puts them in serious — possibly mortal — danger.

The Supreme Court, moreover, has just furthered the cause of conservative judicial activism. Those on the right-wing fringe, therefore, can spare me the highly dubious argument that the court merely called “balls and strikes” from the bench.

Oh, no! It weighed in with a ruling that denies women a basic right that had been protected under settled law … and the U.S. Constitution.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience