Can The Supreme Court Be Fixed?

fairness-g97d3c2274_640

The U.S. Supreme Court is a failed institution. According to Alternet.org*, it is …

A nakedly partisan majority installed by a losing presidential candidate in the Oval Office simply because he could, using only its authority, and not the law, as justification.

A captured body serving a powerful, very small political minority (the very rich, the pathologically “moral”) to the exclusion of the whole of the rest of the country and its needs.

Over the years, suggestions have been bandied about to increase the number of Supreme Court judges as a solution to the partisanship (most recently evidenced in the Roe vs. Wade debacle). However, past efforts to this end have not been successful. Further, it has been noted that doing so could “unleash a spiral of retaliatory moves by whichever party is in power.”

Nevertheless, the idea has once again surfaced. Most recently the talk centers around increasing the number of judges by four. If done under the current administration, this would obviously give the Dems a majority (7-6), but who’s to say that down the road the same imbalance wouldn’t happen again? If vacancies continue to be filled by the POTUS in power, it’s inevitable the tide will shift.

Several other ideas have been put forth in the referenced article, but IMO, each one tends to have its drawbacks.  Except one. It’s referred to as a Supreme Court lottery:

All federal appellate court judges, roughly 180 in total, would become associate justices on the Supreme Court. Panels of nine justices would be randomly selected from this pool. Importantly, decisions on whether to grant certiorari on a given case would be made by panel members who would not know the ideological makeup of the panel that would hear the case. Thus, this plan would frustrate partisan maneuvering.

IMO, the key words in this proposal are “randomly selected” and “frustrate partisan maneuvering.” In other words, as the article notes, this approach would tip the scales of justice toward justice and away from partisan manipulation.

There is little doubt that the makeup of the Supreme Court needs to be reworked. While Democrats are extremely unhappy with the current slate, there have been times in the past when the opposite was true.

Bottom line: Discussion concerning the structure of the U.S. Supreme Court needs to be moved to the active agenda (including, IMO, changes in the age limit).

What do you think? Is the above a workable solution? Do you have other ideas? Is a change even possible in the current political climate?

*(Full Disclosure: Alternet.org is described by MediaBiasFactCheck.com as Left Bias.)
*********************************************
Image by Venita Oberholster from Pixabay

36 thoughts on “Can The Supreme Court Be Fixed?

  1. Nan, the short answer is no. Now that we have hyper-politicized the court appointment process and have moved to a 51 vote approval, we are destined to get justices that are more strident than they should be. We ended up with some interesting choices with a 60 vote count, I grant you, but it will be harder now.

    What folks need to know is the issue of conservative judges being appointed has more to do with siding with companies on liability claims cases. Just before the Roe unwind, the court passed another judgment that makes it easier for companies to escape liability.

    Plus, we have Senator Mitch McConnell not follow procedures to deny a very good justice to get audience in Merrick Garland. Garland had received significant bipartisan approval on his earlier seat. In essence, McConnell cheated, but he does not care. Instead we ended up with Neil Gorsuch.

    As an independent, I do not want a politically biased court. I also want them fully vetted before they get to the approval process. Right now, we have two justices who have been legitimately accused of sexual misconduct. Neither got a full vetting. In Clarence Thomas’ approval process, we only heard from one alleged victim, while the other one waited across the street. She was never called. Thomas also testified in prime time, while his first alleged victim testified during the day.

    As for Brett Kavanaugh, the FBI was instructed not to do a completed job of vetting, as what I understand. I want the best of the best on SCOTUS. I do not feel we have that in each case.

    Keith

    Liked by 6 people

        • Yes. Once again my fears are confirmed. So, on the assumption that any given judge is likely to bring his own personal agenda, or that of a generous beneficiary, I don’t see that any selection process is likely to work.
          But how about this? Each party gets to nominate ALL the sitting judges at the beginning of their term after winning the election. They are then free to change any laws they feel inclined to, BUT with the understanding that no changes are enacted until after their term. Then the next government’s appointed judges could set about undoing all the changes …. and so on, to and fro. That way nothing would actually get changed at all. I admit that it’s not a great step forward, but it might prevent things getting any worse. You never know, sometimes somebody might come up with a sensible idea that everyone can agree upon.
          The technical issue is that this would have to all be backdated prior to the election of Trump, and it may be difficult to induce the current crop of judges to do that. Although, assuming they all have a price …..

          Liked by 3 people

        • The Republicans would only agree to it when they were not in power, and once they returned to power they would ignore and/or reject anything they agreed to while in the minority. You’re not allowed out of your corner yrt.

          Liked by 4 people

        • But the corner is a good place to think. Richmond Road’s approach has the feel of 300 executive orders revoking the previous seat holder’s orders every 4 or 8 years. Once in a while, an order is left in place. Sometimes surprising ones, too. Over time, though, the ones left in place would accumulate, and take on the appearance of this thing they call “settled law” that was never law. Alternative legislation. Like “case law” settled law No legislation required. If the exec writes a bad order, the court can throw it out, and it becomes precedent, i.e., law. The court is integral with the exec and the houses. Things done to one affect all. They are all playing a version of the Richmond Road method, in competition. Why? Thinking may not be such a good idea after all. How did Elton John put it? “Burn down the mission. Burn it down to stay alive.”

          Liked by 3 people

  2. The lottery is just as dangerous as any other method unless the randomness of the choices can be guaranteed and safeguarded. In today’s technological world, with all the hackers ahead of the security people, I do not think this is possible. Also, as long as justices can disregard their oaths of impartiality, nothing is safe.
    I do have my own idea on how to seat the justices, but so far no one I have shown it to has seemed interested. My idea is to stop choosing justices that do not represent the racial make-up of American citizenry. My idea is to assign seats by two conditions, gender and racial status.
    1) 10 justices
    2) 5 seats for men, 5 seats for women (equal representation by gender. Generally speaking there are equal numbers of men and women in the population at any given time.)
    3) 2 seats each for whites, blacks, reds, browns, and yellows, where each race is represented by a male and a female (Equal representation for each race so that every race has equal representation. I think it is important that any and every person who appears before the court sees a person similar to him or her on the bench, but also sees they are not facing a court that is coloured against them. As in a black person facing 7 white justices!)
    4) With 10 justices, a case cannot be decided until at least 7 justices agree on a decision. A simple majority is not good enough. A definite majority much be reached to prevent the appearance of collusion.
    5. There must be a recall option so that any justice who is seen to be unhealthy, or otherwise unfit, including by making non-impartial rulings, for his or her office is removed.

    I have no problem with lengthy terms of office, especially when a justice fulfills their obligations with honour.
    Seats must be filled only by a person representing that seat. For instance, only a black female can replace a black female.
    No membership in a political party should be allowed, and, where possible, justices should suspend their right to vote while sitting on the Court, to preserve the appearance of impartiality.

    I am approaching the Court from a completely different direction, taking no notice of party affilliation if there is one. In this way the governing bodies are almost totally removed from the process. I have not concerned myself with the selection process itself yet. But it should not be a prize for a President or other politician to be handed out to a person as often ambassadorships are handed out at present.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Rawgod, I’m not sure how well it would work but requiring equal representation of each ethnic group living in the country is an interesting idea and certainly would be worth looking at. I can see some difficulties. For example I know people who are Hmong, Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, etc. All of them consider themselves to be separate groups, not just Asian. But overall, personally, I would probably support something like that.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Yes, there is racism everywhere,, and hatred, sometimes even within the indigenous nations, but as we learn, if we learn, better to be frenemies than to get walked upon, and over, as individual gtoups. There can be strength in numbers, as long as the 1s don’t fight with the 2s, or the 147s. Or, conversely, want to make everybody become 1s. (But that seems to be the wsys of 1s, thinking they are primary!)

        Liked by 3 people

    • I’m not sure throwing more cats in the sack will end the fighting. Otherwise, you are pretty close to what the constitution calls for. Political and religious neutrality. But the court has never been neutral. If they were they could have long ago ended slavery, racial, gender, pigmentation, political, and religious bias. Not in the hearts of men but in the intention of the constitution.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Maybe it is time for intent to be made reality. Not easy I know. Asking the whites to give up the powers they assumed a long time ago is part of the preocess of ending systemic racism. Unfortunately the power brokers in America are mostly, if not all, lily white. Systemic racism is their stock-in-trade.

        Liked by 2 people

  3. Fix, no. Replace, yes.

    Trouble is, Constitutional Conventions or major amendments are hard to come by without a revolution or a Second Coming. Court packing sounds a lot more do-able.

    The lottery idea is cool. Maybe it could be worked out without a Constitutional amendment.

    Yes, @rawgod, IT security is crucial, but can be done (was my thing in a former life). The big hurdles are strong legislation and appropriate funding to support the right way. The technology is available.

    In the @rawgod demographic approach, I wonder if there would have to be representatives of other classes, like LGBTQ+, veteran/non-veteran, big state/little state? (It drives me nuts that North Dakota has less than a million people and California has 40 million, but they both get 2 senators. And nine politicians in robes rules the world.)

    The demographic representation approach makes sense to me, rings fair, but my gut says we should be moving toward reducing some social classification barriers. Could this approach reinforce them? I say put it on the committee meeting agenda for discussion. When is it?

    I’ll run out and resurrect Banjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, Gandhi, Churchill, Buddha, Lao Tsu, the usual team for these big jobs.

    A revolution might be more workable.

    Um … no Autocracy Party members or sympathizers allowed on the committee. That’s a dealbreaker for me.

    Sing along with Paul and John:

    You say you got a real solution
    Well, you know
    We’d all love to see the plan
    You ask me for a contribution
    Well, you know
    We’re all doing what we can***
    But if you want money for people with minds that hate
    All I can tell you is, brother, you have to wait

    ***Am I doing what I can? Am I doing what I can? Yeah, but, I mean, am I really doing what I can? What can I do? How do I start? Do I have a clue? (I feel a song coming on. Sucks that I’m not a poet or musician.)

    Liked by 2 people

    • Make a great sign.
      Get out and march.
      Don’t take your time.
      Let’s meet at the Arch.
      I’ll march for choice,
      You march against hate.
      Use our best voice.
      Demand a change date.
      And when we win?
      Don’t sit down quite yet.
      The yang to our yin
      Is reducing the debt.
      Do what you can.
      Not what you cant.
      If you can’t march
      At lea you can chant.
      Down with the pigs!
      Raise up the frumps!
      Zag when they zig.
      Lock up the Trumps!!!

      Liked by 1 person

  4. How would it look like if it was fixed? Don’t you think it represents the heartbeat of the nation?
    Its members are religious just the way most of the nation are. And these religious and loud people now feel for once, they have god back in the Republic.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Therein lies the problem, someone quipped.

      Religion. We are a secular nation, no matter how loud or often we are told otherwise by the sacerdotal miscreants.

      Our rights come from the constitution, not some god as impotent as the weakest believer.

      Liked by 2 people

    • This Supreme Court, or at least that is what they call themselves, is certainly NOT the heartbeat of the nation, Makagutu. The nation, for one thing, does not beat with just one heart, but with 330 million hearts (give or take), and those hearts express themselves in many ways, not just one way.
      This so-called Court is trying tomate America express itself with one heartbeat, as you say, but that heartbeat does not describe what the majority of Americans want, because there is no majority. I don’t want to go into survey results, numbers can be and are man8pulated by the people who are conducting the surveys. Just look at how questions are written, they are written to solicit a certain range of answers, totally ignoring anything that is outside that range.
      When I take a survey, more than half the questions go unanswered, if I am allowed to answer truthfully. My truths are often outside the range of available answers. But so many surveys demand answers, you cannot go on till each question is answered. They are trying to manipulate me, and everyone else they are giving their survey to. So I manipulate them back. I answer their questions from all sorts of different standpoints so that one answer contradicts the last answer, and the next answer contradicts that answer from an even different v8ewpoint.
      Then, when I finally reach the end of the survey, where they ask what I thought of their survey, I blast them, every time. They don’t listen to me, of course, because they do not want the truth. The next survey makes all the same mistakes as the previous one, because the surveyors do not want OUR TRUTHS, they want us to tell them their truths as they are willing to listen to them.
      This Supreme Court isn’t even that generous, they are trying to force all people to live by the truth of some people. And not some random group of people, but a particular group of people. They are not making decisions based on law, as a real court should be doing, but rather they are making decisions based on the religious beliefs of one group of people. That group is not representative of a majority of Americans’s beliefs, but is based on a minority of beliefs. It does not represent law, but rather tries to make law. That is not what the judicial branch of government is allowed to do. Their job is to uphold the laws made by the legislators. And they are doing a piss-poor job of that!

      Liked by 1 person

  5. I think we’re avoiding the basic issue here, and that is how corrupt politics in general is. We aren’t going to be able to fix the supreme court until we can fix the corruption in our political system as a whole.

    Liked by 5 people

    • In the last few weeks, I have heard a lot from the people in office that we citizens must make our voices heard. It is as though they don’t realize we sent them there to be our voice. Every time some GOP member says or does some ridiculous or criminal thing, they shoot off a batch of emails reminding me that I am failing in my duty.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Yes, exactly. Where our politicians enter middles class or lower, Armand leave multi-millionaires! what a country. We are now worse than any Banana Republic(ans) cold ever DREAM of being!

      Liked by 2 people

      • Make that “and leave” millionaires!

        Consider Trumps PAC to provide “legal funds” for his defense of The Big Lie. He hasn’t spent one cent on this farce yet he donated $1 Million to Mark Meadows favorite charity; paid off some of his own personal/business debt and eventually will tuck the rest of it in his pockets for future use. Those people made their donations to effect a political cause NOT further enrich Trump!! This is the same with every America politician; they keep their war chests for themselves as personal case. That is just plain nonsense.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Hello Nan. I dislike the idea that we should do nothing because the other side may do something also. To use the expanding court issue if the Democrats expand the court so what if the Republicans try to do it also? If the situation was reversed the Republicans would have done it already. So if they undo what we did we simply add more or try something else, but it gives us time to undo the damage of this court.. But as been proposed here in the comments there are many good ideas, and there have been others I have read elsewhere. But the real issue is we have far too many older people in charge in this country in all branches of government. People in their middle 70’s to late 80s run the Executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The country they knew is not the country we live in today. Why do they all want to return to the past? It was when they felt the best and happiest while in their prime. Biden has refused to attack Republicans because he still thinks they will have an epiphany and start acting like the 1980s again. Biden refuses to expand the court even when his own commission recommended it because he is remembering the courts of his younger days that were legitimate. Anyway I agree the court is illegitimate for many reasons and needs to be fixed, but I don’t feel I understand enough how to do it best. Maybe several solutions are needed. Hugs

    Liked by 2 people

    • Scottie, I agree with you, and especially the smothering of progressive, young, talented people who our “middle-of-the-muddy-road” Democrats push aside and refuse them the party financial and moral support they deserve.

      I don’t think age is necessarily an issue. (I’m 81, damn it. Well, true I’m not in office, but …) /s/. I tend to think that many of these people have grown old in office, and have found ways to grow even older while there, often without a clue as to who they serve. Or should serve. Failure to act on our behalf is more self-preservation than senility.

      Another thing to bear in mind, Steve Bannon and Trump promised to take down the administrative state. It is still in process. Every time we hear a legislator spouting their hatred for some part of society, it is part of Bannon’s Leninism. Trump promised to turn the SC into a political weapon. and he did, while those old white heads and the young heads did little to even slow it down.

      Well, we kicked King George’s ass, so we know we can do it again. It’s that battle than lays between here and now, and there and then that we need to focus on. No doubt, it will be less than civil.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. I think we primarily need a few more amendments to the Constitution.

    – full equal rights for women and people of all sexual persuasions including transgender
    – full rights to control your own body – abortion, euthanasia, drugs
    – right to healthcare and decent standard of living
    – abolish the 2nd amendment
    – abolish corporate personhood except for abilities to engage in legitimate commerce – make contracts, borrow, or other necessities of business – for corporations no religious freedoms or rights to engage in political process

    Liked by 3 people

    • All that is set out in the constitution. Our problem is we allow religion and special interests to set the narrative. When we read the constitution we should always begin with the preamble. Democracy has never been implemented fully, except for a slice of Americana who demand we revisit the constitution and make it necessary to pass legislation for each part of society that is not straight white male Christian Evangelicals. “We the people” does not leave room to argue a new case for every ethnicity, color, gender, religion, political, or sexual preference. “Liberty and justice for all” will never happen under the present course where anyone is allowed to question another person’s humanity.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. Inspired made the call; A good post and some good comments.

    But Tildeb has the answer. Sadly. The Court reflects our Legislature and our society. The will of the people is of no importance. Remaining in office is everything.

    We need some means of holding the court accountable. We need a more efficient way to recall justices. We need to do away with lifetime appointments. Justices can be removed for overly zealous religious or political activity on the bench. It has happened. But with our present Congress, not very likely.

    I’ve read Stephen Beschloss, Heather C. Richardson, and heard from Linda Greenhouse. Lots of insight but no real answers to controlling the SC.

    “When today’s jurists talk about sending civil rights back to the states, they are echoing Stephen Douglas, “citizens trying to convince one another and then voting,” is indeed precisely how democracy is supposed to work. But choosing your voters to make sure the results will be what you want is a different kettle of fish altogether.” HCR

    “I have little confidence that impeaching and removing Supreme Court Justices will be a path forward., even if they’ve lied under oath. That means it’s up to you and me to do what we can to ensure that the shock and dismay the majority of us felt when the Court struck down Roe v. Wade on June 24 genuinely translates into expanded, impassioned voter turnout. This may be the last chance to save democracy and a modern America from heading back to 1868 and forward toward increasing violence and even civil war.” SB

    Damn. We can’t catch a break. No matter who we send to represent us, we get the stinky end of the stick.

    The Supreme Court is now a branch of the criminal cabal who are out to end democracy and our best hope is to vote in a system we already recognize as being incapable of serving society. Our trusted servants have placed themselves above reproach.

    So there you have it, Nan. The GOP states have made sure that they can force the election to go their way in their states by controlling the polling place and procedures, as well as gerrymandered districts. And all this is in pursuit of religious dominion in our nation.

    It is no wonder Christians are blood-thirsty crazy. They try to live in two psychogenic worlds at once. The utopian and the dystopian. Those of us who refuse to join them in their misadventures draw their unfettered wrath. Please excuse me from your madness, Jesus people. I went there. It gave me an excuse for my evil and a way to satisfy my mind that all my sins, past, and present, and future could be excused without accounting. I came to understand that truth, fact, and reality could never be part of those worlds.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. The Gestapo Court? Our illegitimate, unconstitutional and contrary to The Founders’ Intent ideologically stacked unelected lifelong panel of Opus Dei ~ Catholic Illuminati ~ vigilantes handing down partisan edicts ~ religious fatwas ~ in the dark? No. Not until we abandon ~ outgrow ~ these irrational dependencies on adolescent fairytales and attendant adolescent squabbles over whose imaginary dog has the bigger dick. Not until we they evolve.

    The good news is! … We’re on cusp, moving on to the next iteration, all downhill from here …

    Liked by 3 people

  10. Nan, the short answer is “yes” but it is going to take more than just “some work.” First the “Supreme” court was created specifically to act the way it does; not for the “constitutional interpretation” of our laws but to control the masses while catering to the wealthy who, apparently, founded this country as theirs and no one else’s. (A relevant line on the movie “The Good Shepard“ between Matt Damon & Joe Pesci regarding the various lower-income and minority groups when Pesci says “What about the rest of us, what are we?, and Damon responds “You’re all just visitors.” That’s about right.). But do not fool yourself into thinking this isn’t done by design. As I have said before, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samual Alito, etc, aren’t “judges”, they are political operatives, plain and simple. They aren’t there to interpret law; they are there to see to the implementation of the conservative, white, WASP, agenda period and they’re doing a “cracker” jack job, pun fully intended, especially as it relates to Thomas, the cracker-wanna-be. Remember John Roberts was counting votes in 2000 or more accurately throwing bags of black and other minority into the Bay of Biscayne with Ted Cruz. How do you think he got his job on the bench, his superior intellect? Uh, NOT!

    Nothing will change however as long as such a large percentage of Americans are so obtuse, so misinformed, so out-of-the-know as to allow this to continue by believing they are being “served” by the government. It would be easier and better to break this mess into two separate countries than to save what’s left. All must come down before all can go up again, rightly.

    Liked by 4 people

  11. Historically, there has been a relationship between the number of circuit courts and the number of supreme court justices. Early in the country, when travel was difficult, the number was set to 6 to cover 3 circuits. After the Civil War, the number of circuit courts and the number of Supreme Court justices was set to 9. There are 13 circuit courts now.

    Appointments could continue as they are now … provided the Senate had a consistent rule relating to the time of appointment, the hearings, and the Senate vote for or against confirmation. Merrick Garland’s appoint almost 8 months before the 2016 election was deemed to be too close. Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment 38 days before the 2020 election was deemed OK.

    Perhaps we need to elect senators who can distinguish between months and days before an election rather than just using absolute numbers

    Liked by 2 people

  12. If we were dealing with a normal SCOTUS, I wouldn’t suggest adding more justices to the bench. Since we’re dealing with an unhinged Republican party, along with an unhinged SCOTUS, that is bringing the US to the brink of authoritarianism and fascism, the easiest and most effective way to deal with this to just add more justices.

    Will Republicans retaliate if they regain power? Yes, they almost certainly will. But we can’t just stand idle as the Republic crumbles. Recreating a fair and balanced court is the best chance we have. If we don’t we’re looking at at least 20 years before we even have a chance to see the court swing back towards sanity.

    The idea that you propose about using appellate court justices as SCOTUS justices may be workable, but is almost certainly going to be a more complicate route that is destined to get push-back from the more right leaning Democrats, and possibly from SCOTUS itself (which may even rule it unconstitutional.) I suspect you’ll find more willingness to just add more justices and there’s plenty of historical precedent for this move that you won’t find with the other.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. For @rawgod: Very cool. Well, we have our poet laureate for the Judiciary Reform Movement. You have a score to go with that? Or any percussion will do in a call-and-response chant? Which Arch? Or am I missing a metaphor?

    https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/14/democrats-supreme-court-481640
    There is nothing profound in this article, but one line caught my attention:

    “Justice Stephen Breyer, who outside groups are urging to retire before the 2022 midterms, recently cautioned against court packing for fear that doing so would only undermine public confidence in the institution.”

    First, yes, he should retire. Talk about “confidence.” I have no confidence that the next White House will be any more sane than Trump’s, unless Uncle Joe completes the Tour de France, and then sneaks into the Kremlin to physically beat the crap out of Putin. Left landslide in that.

    Whether Trump is elected or not, it will be an Orange house, occupied by an intellectual cartoon character (no offense, Elmer Fudd, Wiley Coyote), and we’ll be extra-super-screwed with an 8-2 court for the Dark Side until the planet burns up. If I were one of the 2 I might throw in the towel.

    (We will more quickly fry after the current court gets done with the planetary super-horror SCOTUS West Virginia v EPA case coming up, which could virtually outlaw climate change regulation by the EPA — and the right to regulate overall by federal agencies. …
    https://www.eenews.net/articles/supreme-court-climate-case-might-end-regulation/
    Take an extra dose of anti-depressant before you read it.)

    How nice that Judge Breyer advocates for his political organization’s possession of public confidence. How sad he would think he needs to, to the extent of making a point of peddling it. He often gives me that impression.

    I have nothing particular against Breyer on grounds of his record, but when I hear him talk about the court, he seems to work too hard to find some virtually schmaltzy way to say the court is safely impartial and nonpartisan, in a tone like one might use talking to fifth grade kids.

    Then again, he is.

    The nature of the system is a reflection of the nature of the population, which is embarassingly unqualified to vote other than by virtue of legal citizenship.

    It’s partly the natural outcome of half a century of diminishing investment in education, a drug in the Republican Party’s mastery of the Ignorant Vote. I suspect that it may be also partly due to genetic psychiatric disorder pandemic caused by generations of chemicals in the air, water and food chain. (Not yet completely explained by science, but not irrational, sez me.)

    Birds use the magnetic field of the earth. Dolphins have better sonar than the Navy. Mosquitos can sense your presence hundreds of feet away. Dogs can smell a rat scurrying around on Mars. We can’t see past the ends of our noses or smell bullshit. Half of us can’t sense that Trump is actually a lunatic devil. That’s not a disease?

    I understand those who say voting is nonsense. I’m not convinced of it, but I get it. The SCOTUS in DC is the SCOTUS in the American soul.

    On the bright side, “we” are getting strong science on the psychological benefits of nature immersion. People already knew it, but now it’s science that can become school curriculum.

    But hurry. Drag a MAGAT to the forest for mindful walking and deep breathing before we all go insane. (Nah. Just tie them to a tree out there.)

    If nothing else, it will help you cope with SCOTUS.

    I mean it. Nature immersion is hope. We can be assimilated into Mother Nature’s scheme. We were made for it. SCOTUS should sit in Yellowstone, not DC.

    And my mother says, “When Dennis says he knows something, don’t argue with him!” My favorite comic line of her 90 years.

    – Dennis

    Liked by 1 person

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.