*Day 115: Florida Freedom Summer of 2024: *How do you tell folks who  have
just been given medication providing positive daily relief from a lifetime
of aches and pains that they have an inoperable tumor?

Now as most of you know, I am no physician, or psychologist,  and I have
never had any training in either field.  But I pride myself on being an
attorney who some regard as the father of the concept of the right to
refuse treatment  That concept was upheld in two landmark decisions in
Michigan in 1973-74, by a three judge state court, barring use of human
subjects for a research project which would subject them to experimental
surgery, and separately by a three-judge federal court, declaring numerous
violations of constitutional rights in the state’s Mental Health Code.

We continue to live in an era in which doctors think they know best and
more about our individual health than we ourselves can learn on the
internet, and adapt to fit our own bodies.

As for knowledge about our minds or hormonal effects, and attempts to cure
everything from hysteria to homosexuality, well, by now we know how silly
those attempts were, don’t we?

Don’t get me wrong.  I am certainly appreciative that the field of medicine
has been receptive to marvelous breakthroughs in my lifetime which I am
sure have contributed to my still being here in my 80’s.

But I am acutely aware of the field’s limits and the unfortunate frequent
habit of misleading us when in fact the physicians don’t have the answers
or they perceive us as children who aren't really able to understand bad
news.

One reason I believe the extreme political right surfaced during the
pandemic, which may or may not be over, is that there was, and is, a
reluctance to truly admit how much doctors really don’t know, e.g., how bad
the flu season really will be or how to distinguish between symptoms of
colds, influenza, COVID-19, or some new viruses, or the need to maintain
social isolation.

That said, I certainly would trust the recommendations of physicians more
than those of lawyers, judges, or justices who think they know more about
health care than their medical counterparts. Seemingly forgotten in this
post *Roe v. Wade* era is the fact that the original judicial decision
specifically left the issues related to pregnancies up to doctors. Indeed,
some women were known to gripe that the decision which lasted nearly 50
years didn’t give them full control over their own bodies.  Physicians had
to agree with the requests of the women, before anything could be done.

Personally, I don’t handle myself well with doctors.  This year, I am not
going through the annual check-up the VA provides for me, because my
primary care physician has been changed, and I am not willing to expose my
87-year-old body and its levels of oxygen,  cholesterol,  sugar, and the
limits of my constricted blood circulation,  to interpretation by someone I
have no reason to trust.   Indeed, knowing me I could get very angry.

I do have a shrink to talk to me about anger management, and I certainly
rely on both VA audiology and ophthalmology clinics, because both my ears
and my eyes do not function properly, and the hearing aids and glasses I am
prescribed seem to have shortcomings from time to time.

If you haven’t realized by now, I am procrastinating, because I find myself
with professional knowledge of a longtime destructive force in our
political system which has surfaced in the middle of a wonderful unexpected
outcome in the mid-term election.  This stream of consciousness was
triggered by a headline in the *Washington Post* which suggested that the
U.S. Supreme Court had traded its rejection of *Roe v. Wade* for U.,S,
House seats.

The writer probably is right that the Republicans would have done much
better, and perhaps even benefited  from the wrongly predicted GOP tsunami
but for that horrendous decision. Young people particularly have counted on
the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies during the modern era and
apparently voted overwhelmingly for Democrats who regarded the right to
abortions as a primary topic in the mid-term elections.

The Republican party rightly took the hit, but know that they have
prevailed in the long run on that issue, because of the opinion of six
conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who disregarded precedent.

Now we’re coming to it.  Don’t rush me.  Okay.  I will say it.

People in this nation, directly or indirectly, no longer have a  judiciary,
on the federal level, to balance the executive and legislative branches..
What few outside the legal profession recognize is that since the popular
presidency of Ronald Reagan, in the 1980s, Republican presidents and state
GOP politicians have been appointing judges whose beliefs agree with the
party’s white supremacist pseudo-Christian ideology.

We’re not just writing about the selection of U.S. Supreme Court Justices,
but lower court trial and appeal judges as well.  The legal tumor is called
the Federalist Society, which is causing this Republic headache to
democracy.  The group was started by law students at Yale and the
University of Chicago Law Schools in 1982, and their conservative ideas
were spread rapidly throughout the nation, especially after the U.S. Senate
rejected the proposed appointment of reactionary Yale Law Professor Robert
Bork to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987.

Republicans in the U.S. Senate have made it their business not only to
nominate and appoint justices and judges recommended by the Society but
they have worked to prevent Democratic presidents Bill Clinton and
especially Barack Obama from getting their proposed judges or justice on
the benches during their terms in office.

The politicizing of the judiciary became evident in the legal wrangling in
both the federal and state judiciaries in Florida during the G. W. Bush/Al
Gore election controversy in 2000.

U.S. constitution and legal precedent suggested that the Florida Supreme
Court would be the final arbiter of the vote count.  But five justices
ruled that the Republican secretary of state’s prior endorsement of the
vote count in favor of George W. Bush should stand, rather than allow the
predominantly Democratic state high court to have the final say.  And so
Bush was chosen.

Justice John Paul Stevens with agreement of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg
and Steven Breyer, wrote that he believed the court’s holding displayed “an
unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state
judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to
proceed.”

He continued, “The endorsement of that position by the majority of this
Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of
judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who
administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of
law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be
inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we
may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this
year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear.
It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the
rule of law.”

Bush in his presidency openly rejected the input and evaluations of
judicial candidates by the American Bar Association.  By the time Donald
Trump was elected in 2016, the Federalists Society was the organization
vetting prospective candidates for the president.

This week, reactionary Chief Judge William Pryor of the reactionary U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit (Florida, Georgia, Alabama) spoke to
the organization and called the growth of the conservative Federalist
Society an "example of the American dream" and mocked criticism by a U.S.
senator and others who say the influential legal group has captured the
judiciary.

Three decisions published in the popular press this week  reveal the slant
of conservative federal and states judges. The releases are attached with
the report on the Judge Pryor’s speech, but you don’t have to read beyond
the headlines about them to get their Republican drift:

*Judge strikes down Biden’s loan-forgiveness plan*


*Judge halts pot dispensary licenses in parts of New York*




*U.S. judge rejects Biden administration's LGBT health protections*




*Gabriel Hillel, for Florida Freedom Summer of 2024*

########################################################################

Access the RAEMI-EAGLE-GLENN Home Page and Archives:
http://listserv.alachuacounty.us/scripts/wa.exe?A0=RAEMI-EAGLE-GLENN

Unsubscribe from the RAEMI-EAGLE-GLENN List:
http://listserv.alachuacounty.us/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=RAEMI-EAGLE-GLENN

########################################################################