New blog

I've been posting at Substack (https://davidheisenberg.substack.com) recently and will continue there. I will also occasionally post here. Mostly, my posts on Substack will be political, because that is mostly what I write about nowadays. It is really not what I like best to write about, but I feel like it is a duty, even if I can persuade one person a year or two to open their eyes and ears, and perhaps console some who are with me, but further along the path of despair. From now on, blogger will become a (at least mostly) non-political forum for me.

The End of American Justice

I mean this to be an emotional response to the indictment of Donald Trump, not a legal analysis. As such, you will have to forgive me if I say some things I've said before, because they are best way I know to express my thoughts.

When Trump first stuck his head into the spotlight during the Obama era. I immediately thought he'd be the death of the Republican Party. Who but Trump could make Obama look a victim? When Trump ran I was amazed at his success, but was still not a supporter and though I did not vote in 2016, disgusted that it was the best I could do, I was overjoyed at his unexpected victory as a slap in the face to the pathetic remains of our poor excuses for journalists, now reduced to partisan witch hunters, no more dispassionate, realistic or fair than medieval spectators at a heretic burning.

As he took office, I watched like everyone, trying to be as objective as possible, and could rarely find anything I disagreed with. Not surprisingly, he turned out to be a moderate, but one who faced the greatest resistance to his administration of any president since Lincoln not only from a disloyal opposition, but also a rabid and frantic media, big tech and never-Trumpers in his own party. And there is no convincing them otherwise but for a few epiphanies. Trump and all his relations and associates, are the "Jews" now, guilty as if by blood.

From before he took office, the resistance tore into him with ever growing ferocity. I often refer to one comment I read in the NYTs (for a half century my favorite media source and now, politically, buffoons) which perhaps few people saw, but I think typifies the mental state of those suffering with Trump Derangement Syndrome (“TDS”) – “No credit for Trump ever.” It wasn't a policy prescription. It was a cry of despair by what at least seems to me like a Zombie.

For a long time, just as their fervor helped him to win the 2016 election, I wrongly believed it would help him win again. I was unaware of what power the nonstop drive to destroy or even kill him was when combined with the docility and cravenness of so many in the R party who I often describe as cowards. Perhaps that's being unfair and their political beliefs just differ from mine, but Rs struck me then as naive beyond measure in believing that if they keep turning the other cheek and showing their dedication to great restraint from attacking Ds, the D party and there even further left compatriots, perhaps I should say in some cases comrades, will stop punching them in the face, or, in believing that by losing with dignity and affection for American values, their adversaries will stop lying, exaggerating, falsifying, and acting in general like fascists.

None of this is easy to say. Some people afflicted with TDS are among my favorite people in the world. They are my family and friends and I trust, like, love, respect all of them - except when they try and talk about Trump and sound to me like zombies repeating the anti-Trump mantras while they at least symbolically put their head through brick walls and glass windows seeking to devour him. To quote one friend of mine I have always thought of as kind, intelligent and level-headed, “I don’t care what happens to me or America so long as Trump is defeated.” I’m sure that many a German said something similar in supporting Hitler. They were so frightened by communism, they embraced one of, if not the worst dictators in modern history, and even looked at him with respect and awe. 

Perhaps the virus has so far spread as to infect everyone, so that even most of those who support him cannot truly like him. I know that describes me. Virtually every R or conservative I know on Long Island almost reflexively says before they praise him, something like “I don't really like him, but. . . .“

Often there are two valid arguments, sometimes more. That is so in many court decisions of which I have a difficult time coming to a conclusion. But, quite some time ago, in the 00s, I know I stopped feeling that way. As I have written endlessly here (I say it so you won't), the left is heading down a path the Nazis headed down before them and though it happens differently each time, it always ends up the same - with coercion, violence and many deaths. They do not care about logic, shame or decency. They are just determined to win.

But, that doesn't mean I think there are just fascists (like Pelosi, Schumer, Antifa and many others) and good guys. Many Biden supporters are not fascists. My friends and family are not fascists. I believe (and they would vehemently disagree) that they are hypnotized by their media or unable to see past the left-wing rhetoric they were raised on (as I was for many years) and are not motivated to self-educate, which took me years. I've long been fascinated by why so many decent people went along with horrid ideologies like Nazism and Bolshevism. No doubt they thought they were the good guys too. 

There are many answers as to why that happened, and I am not getting that deep here, but I will say that it seems it is not hard to accomplish for groups that are energetic and relentless enough. A little read book these days is the 1955 book by American journalist Milton Mayer, who moved himself and his wife into post-war Germany to investigate why ordinary people became Nazis.  Those he interviewed in the town he settled in knew he was an American journalist, but not that he was Jewish. To his surprise, at some point, he realized that the former Nazis had become his friends. No doubt, because they - like him, all of us - were just people.

I have no doubt that any of my friends or family considering that they are following fascists would be, if not outraged, amused at what they would take as my delusions and alarmist beliefs. They should read Yeonmi Park, the North Korean refugee who went to Columbia University and has written on what she saw there and how we are following the same pathways the North Koreans did. They should talk to people who were raised in Communist countries.

I am not advocating conservatism at all. I have no more use for stubborn resistance to change than I do for its leftist opposite. I love the G. K. Chesterton (who wrote many things, including the Father Brown stories) chestnut: "The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected." Frankly, if you believe you are a moderate, but you aren't against the people I think are fascist, I likely wouldn't consider you moderate (for which there is no penalty, and I'm sure they think the same of me). Moderate doesn't just mean in the middle. Not to me, anyway. I used to write long posts on these types of issues, but I haven't in a while. I've already expressed myself and it takes a long, sustained effort to convince anyone of anything, and that's only if they are open to being convinced that they could be wrong about something. They usually start out with negative emotions. I did.

Indeed, socially, times are difficult. Since his election we have become fragmented to a far greater degree than we have been since the Civil War. I lived through the sixties and though I was young then and not politically motivated or knowledgeable, I did not miss the riots, political assassinations and extremism. This is different. It has stifled conversation to an unprecedented degree. Polls show how great it has become. Dinner table conversation at holidays has changed, people do not feel free to speak their minds out of fear of cancellation, rousing the anger of friends or family or even losing their livelihoods. The mere mention of Trump can send people into rages, unable to have a conversation or see any argument as rational that doesn't have their chosen result, not able even to see civil conservation as anything but provocation and an attempt to deceive. Though this has always been true of people in large on any side, it has become a core emotional component of many anti-Trump warriors. 

I make no mistake about it. NY's fascist AG and NYC's fascist DA take political prisoners. The State failed to figure out a crime against him, because there were none. The DOJ and even the FEC tried and stopped because it wasn't close. This isn't a case of . . . Well, let's hear the facts. We already know most of the allegations. It is simply about revenge, anger and trying to prevent him from running again. Like with Obi-wan Kenobi, I hope striking him down makes him stronger. He now has my full support, without few reservations, even though I feel DeSantis has a better chance against the Empire, even though I fear he has come off the wheels as a result of the relentless attacks.

I could go off here on a tangent as how the anti-Trump feelings are aligned with western culture destroying social justice/woke/cancel culture, but I decline. I'll just end with a few quotes I saw online that resonated:

John Turley, a widely respected attorney and professor, a decent man who is somehow, despite all he has written about modern Democrats, still one:

"This indictment, if it is reportedly following the theory that we've been talking about, is political. It's a raw political prosecution."

*

"First of all, it's a federal crime the Department of Justice chose not to prosecute. Bragg's own predecessor declined to prosecute it, but he is attempting to bootstrap that federal crime into a state case. And if that is the basis for the indictment, I think it's rather outrageous. I think it's legally pathetic." 

Joe Tacopina, one of Trump's attorneys.

“In my opinion—and I don’t say this with pride or pleasure—in my 32 years as a lawyer, both as a prosecutor and a defense attorney, I feel like the rule of law died yesterday in this country.”

Tulsi Gabbard, former D, who has run for the hills when she realized what her party had become.

"The politicized indictment of Trump is just the latest example of the Dem establishment putting their own person & partisan political interest ahead of the interests of the American people & our country. It's a despicable, extremely dangerous turning point for our country.

Alan Dershowitz, another D (somehow) pointing out that the ostracism of any NY juror by NYers who felt he/she was in some way responsible for an acquittal would be worse than the ostracism he had faced on Martha's Vinyard:

“Nobody would ever speak to them again. There’s no possibility he could get a fair trial in Manhattan.”

Bill Barr, former AG (twice), who has made many unflattering and damaging remarks about Trump:

"It’s the archetypal abuse of the prosecutorial function to engage in a political hit job, and it’s a disgrace. If it turns out to be what we think it is politically, it’s going to be damaging to the Republican Party simply because I think it’s a no-lose situation for the Democrats."

*

“From what I understand, it’s a pathetically weak case."

*

Mike Pence, who has no reason to be Trump's friend:

“The indictment of a former president of the United States on a campaign finance issue [would send] a terrible message to the wider world about American justice. There are dictators and authoritarians around the world that will point to that to justify their own abuse of their own so-called justice system.”

Nancy Pelosi, once again trying to make her fascism even more obvious:

"No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence."

What is woke?

So, I see that the interview of an anti-woke commentator went viral because she froze and couldn't define "woke." I saw the headline but didn't bother watching it, because - does it matter? If someone is anti-fascist, and yet can't define it (I'm sure many people would have difficulty), does that mean there is no such thing as fascism or being against it. Many people would disagree with one another on what and who are fascist. It's only used in a positive way by those who almost everyone deplores. E.g., to me, there are few groups more fascist in our country than Antifa, despite its name. 

In any event, though it is very hard to define ideologies - I've even realized my own definition of fascism probably wasn't good enough - I'd like to jump in with a suggestion, the same way I make top ten sports lists, even though there are usually more than ten people who deserve to be on it.

Lincoln wrote about different views on the same word: 

“The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name, liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names, liberty and tyranny. The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty.”

So, what is woke? It is actually similar to fascism, which I remind you is different every time it arises but ends up pretty much the same way. Now, a dictionary, the modern makers of which are often (it seems) left-wing, would define it differently than I do. For example, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, whose editors are probably woke themselves, defines it as: "1: aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)."

That's nonsense, of course, because it describes everyone from followers of Martin Luther King, Jr. to Nazis. The two just would just have different versions of what social justice (which, in reality, is the opposite of justice). The woke are left-wing in our society, and they do not agree with Nazis or MLK, Jr., whose philosophy they treat with contempt, despite giving lip service to his celebration.

Here's my first attempt. I may refine it later on:

Woke is: "A fascist religious and political movement in which proponents seek to replace positive achievements like success through merit and character with superficial characteristics such as race and gender, often rely on falsehoods to support their cause and use coercion, intimidation and violence to obtain their goals."

Of course, some will argue, but fascism is only an antiquated Italian movement (which, it was, but we still use the word today to mean other things that are similar to that movement. And, some will define it as right-wing and others as left, but it can be either. 

There are many other things I could say about being woke. It's anti-democratic, anti-capitalistic, anti-humanitarian, etc. There have been books on it. The above covers the definition nut and for once I will end my post quickly. 

The Seven Pillars of Fascism IV

We covered the first factor on October 14, 2021 and are now up to IV.  If you don't know what I mean, go read the first few paragraphs of that post and come back.

The fascist uses force or intimidation to coerce people to accept their political will.

The fascist claim that they are victims and that their opponents are oppressors.

The fascist creates a false scapegoat.

The fascist seeks to divide and often uses race, ethnicity and and/or religion to do it.

The fascist gains control of critical social institutions, like the media, the police and the education system.

The fascist is dishonest and often uses fake crises or exaggerates them in order to more easily take or maintain power.

The fascist takes complete control of the law and all facets of society within his or her reach – not just the reins of government.

      The divisions in our sick society have grown greatly. These have been implemented almost exclusively, in recent times, by left wing politicians, businesses, radicals, media figures or bureaucrats. The easiest to recognize is the efforts to divide by race. This isn't hard, especially in the most diverse country in the world and where some historic race or ethnic groups have been oppressed (if anything, though not educated as a result of left-wing policies, they are not oppressed now. If anything, they are privileged in terms of laws and even legal case outcomes in certain areas, like NYC and Washington, DC.) The major teacher's unions and many school districts controlled by the left have instituted Critical Race Theory programs aimed at the lie that blacks (although often governed by black mayors and police commissioners) are somehow oppressed and worse, that whites, including little children, are privileged (quite the opposite now) and even oppressors.

      Another way this is being actively promulgated now is by the Equity Diversity and Inclusion boondoggle which Biden is foisting upon federal employees and the military. But, it is not him alone. All of the Fortune 500 companies and many others have forced it on employees, one way or another, and some of them are heinous programs. When it becomes part of government, you lose the rule of law.

      But, Biden is the leader in the cultural insurrection, and his remarks seeking to make racial division ubiquitous and unending are many. Some that come right to mind are frequent comments of claiming systemic racism (despite the two term Obama presidency), saying of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan (who are two of Democrats' favorite Republicans when they weren't running for office) "They’re gonna put you all back in chains,” multiple attempts to make relief programs race-based (and, you got it, not including poor whites) which were blocked by courts, his claim that only whites can be racist, repeatedly calling Trump a racist (for things like stopping Chinese flights to America at the inception of Covid-19, which probably saved untold lives), and so on. I've gone on before about Biden lies, but this is the same guy who opposed busing (he now says only federally mandated busing, but, of course, lies), who was the force behind the 1994 crime bill so hated by the black communitycalled by Joe "the Biden crime bill," who called Obama "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." 

     Biden has also divided us with the Covid-19 mandate onslaught and even his hate speech against those who did not wish to vaccinate, and also against anyone who doesn't want his daughter sharing restrooms with biological males or wants them to have the chance to compete against other women and not men. He would brag about these attempts, and if you aren't aware of them, you don't want to be.

      I don't think I need to spend any time talking about how Hitler and his cronies used race and religion to divide Germany and demonize its citizens. 

      As I've said more than once here - fascism happens differently every time. But it always ends up the same, with oppression and violence and a despotic government. We've already started down that path, and though not yet on the level of a Hitler or Mussolini, we are heading in that direction, and quickly.

Mikaela Shiffrin is the greatest athlete in the world right now.

Part of me was thinking, why not wait another short while until she ties or breaks Ingemar Stenmark's record. But, really, why? Absent some catastrophic event, she will smash his record and keep going.

Do you even know who she is? Even the U.S. media mostly ignores her. I'm a World Cup ski racing fan for a while, but never so much as since she has been racing. To use an adjective for her like marvelous or incredible is just not enough. My title is that she's the greatest athlete in the world right now, probably has for some years, and sticking with it.

Leave aside that if she skis a few more years, she may put the record out of reach for generations. No one who is skiing these days is even remotely close to her. Laura Gut-Behrami has 36 golds lifetime. Petra Vhlova, Mikaela's other biggest competitor, has 27. 85-36-27.  Mikaela had 11 golds in World Cup skiing this year, so far, with a couple of months to go. Petra Vhlova, an awesome skiier herself, is number two overall this year but behind by an insurmountable margin. She has one gold this year. Just one. The skier closest in golds this year to Mikaela has 4. 11 to 4. In the men's division, Mikaela's boyfriend, Aleksander Aamodt Kilde and Marco Odermatt both have 7. But, that's normal for most top skiers of the year. Mikaela has a number of times gone over 10 wins. One year Mikaela had 17 victories, something no one else male or female has ever approached. She is next in line herself with 14 (tied with Vreni Schneider).

Mostly ski fans just pay attention to who has the most wins. But, consider this. Mikaela's win record is 35.42%. She wins more than one third of all the races she is in. In skiing, where even the best of them can ski off course in a fraction of a second and where she has awesome competition every race, including races that are not in her specialty (which is slalom), that is incredible. To compare, Lindsay Vonn, easily the second greatest women skier ever had a 20.8% win record. By analogy, it's like what Babe Ruth did when he started shattering home run records. I pulled these off of: The ski world, and beyond, reacts to Mikaela Shiffrin’s record-breaking accomplishments (teamusa.org). 

Mikaela is the only skier, male or female to have won all six alpine disciplines: Slalom, parallel slalom (where you run multiple races against opponents), Giant Slalom, Super Giant Slalom, Downhill and Combined (Downhill and Slalom). 

She has many other records (e.g., most ever in one discipline) and was the youngest to win any number of events and records, too many for me to want to track down. I'm just celebrating her.

Ironically, though she had a bad Olympics in 2022 and for some people, who don't watch World Cup racing, that is what is most important (it's not so much by the racers or fans), she is actually tied for the winningest American Olympic Skier of all time with 2 golds (and she has a silver) and is the youngest ever slalom Olympic champion amongst everyone. She has not had a great Olympic record only for her because expectations were insane - anyone else would be overjoyed. Lindsay Vonn had only one gold and one bronze. Marcel Hirsher of Austria, who retired a couple of years ago much younger than people expected but was also the best male skier of his generation, had the same three Olympic medals as Mikaela and Ingemar Stenmark, had slightly less, 2 golds and one bronze. Though there are skiers with better Olympic records, and they are great skiers themselves, no one puts them in the same class as the four just named. My point is, she did great in the Olympics, but it is not really what counts in the ski world any more than it is in many sports, like basketball or boxing.

There are other records to be broken and she may end up with many of them. But, skiing is a very difficult sport and she may injure herself or lose her drive, as some others have done. We will see. Right now, I'd say she is the greatest athlete living still competing (I would put Simone Biles in her class before she retired) and probably the greatest alpine skier, male or female, ever.

Okay, I'm done. Happy if you just know her name now.

Am I heartless for my take on the Damar Hamlin Situation?

First, because I am really not heartless, I am as happy as everyone else that Damar was immediately seen to, the game was paused (obviously), that he was rushed to a hospital and he has recovered so much.

What I don't agree with was that they didn't finish the game, or at the very least, continue the next day right where they left off. Football is a brutal game. I rarely watch anymore, but even before I stopped watching (because I hate the NFL, not because I stopped loving the game), I was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the injuries. But, that is up to the players, not me.

Stopping a game and not replaying it in the NFL is fairly new. Has it ever happened before? I don't know. But if it did, it is rare. When Dennis Byrd was paralyzed, they finished the game. When Chuck Hughes had a heart attack on the field in 1971, they also finished. 

Just because they used to do that, doesn't make it right (or wrong), of course. The questions for me are, does not finishing the game harm the stricken athlete and does it hurt anyone else?

My answers are it doesn't hurt the player at all - he's being taken care of. It does hurt the little people, the ones who are selling the jerseys, hats, food, etc. Yes, it's an economic reason, but not one for the NFL (they already get paid by the networks, which is the big money). For the average guy or gal whose livelihood is connected to that game. You may not care because you have enough money. I'm sure some of them cared because they don't. If the NFL pays them, I'll feel better about that. I wouldn't count on it. With that reason, I add a second. It hurts the integrity and competitiveness of the sport. Teams play 17 games now. But two, the Bengals and the Bills will play one less game. Because it is such a physical game, wear and tear in football is all too real. The Bills and Bengals players will have played, essentially, one game less (it was early in the first quarter when he got hurt). One less game for someone else to get hurt.

You may think my reasons are not good enough, but tell me how it would have hurt Damar for it to go on in comparison. .I bet if he wasn't afraid of the outcry, so would Damar. The NFL is delighted at the exchange between him and his doctor when he came to. Apparently, right away he wanted to know if his team won. He asked because he presumed they would have continue playing. Why wouldn't he? He cared who won, because it was that's a big part of the reason he sacrifices his body so much (though what happened to him seems like a rare accident). I realize I can't prove it, but I really don't need to do so. I think the circumstantial evidence is strong.

Once they decided not to continue that day or the next, there was no way they could fit the game in later before the Playoffs without making some players play twice within three days. So, they have aMaybe. 

If I knew they couldn't fit the game in later, so did the NFL. As always, my belief is that they love to show their virtue, something Goodell and the league excel at, even if they are screwing people at the same time. As long as they have the media on their side, they do it. And, boy, do they have the media on their side. I would not be surprised that if some sportscasters without a lot of clout offered my opinion, they'd be fired.

What precedent does this set for the future? It will happen again, hopefully not so often, and I guess they have to always do it when a player is seriously hurt. What counts? Concussion? I seriously doubt it. Knocked unconscious? Maybe, maybe not if they can't bring him to on the field. Severely fractured arm or leg, possibly when bone is showing? I don't know. And if they don't and someone thinks they should have, doesn't that put the league in a bad light. Shouldn't the players revolt?

It probably won't happen so much it will make a difference. But, this was a bad precedent.

The Courts' policy-making problem.

Do I find the recent public statements of Sonia Sotomayor disturbing? Oh, yes. She and some of her colleagues have a deep bias against democracy and look at the court of as a policy-making branch of government.

She spoke very recently at an association of law schools, being interviewed by the dean of the very, very, very left-wing Berkely University Law School. She expressed “shell-shock,” was left “deeply sad” and felt “despair” over the direction the country was going after the last term. A lot of us do, but not for the same reasons she does. Why does she feel this way? She was smart enough not to mention any particular case, but we all know why (tell me I’m wrong, but tell me the other cases). Because the Supreme Court ruled what even Ruth Ginsberg knew was logical, that Roe v. Wade was overturned and the power to determine the laws about abortion were left to the states and strengthened the 2^nd Amendment. Maybe Dobbs was enough and that’s what I will discuss.

Roe had been a compromise by the Court in 1973 to stop the policy turmoil over abortion, possibly the most controversial and emotional political subject there is. It succeeded to some degree to take the issue out of presidential campaigns (not the court’s job), but it became the focus of almost every Supreme Court confirmation hearing (and therefore, in presidential campaigns, who will he/she appoint to the Court) and that power really was the remaining impact on presidential races. At hearings, they were always asked, especially by Democrats things like - Would the justice overturn Roe v. Wade? Does the Justice consider Roe super-precedent, whatever that means?

The Court only exists – at least in theory – to determine what the law is on actual controversies that come before it and make a judgment applying the law to the case. They are also supposed to be dispassionate and not make policy. But, that is exactly what it seems Sotomayor wants to do (often some of the conservative judges, but it’s almost always a turn left). It’s wrong. It’s anti-constitutional, it’s anti-democratic. Elected legislators and executives are supposed to make laws, and only if challenged, the courts to make sure they are not unconstitutional.

Dobbs did not outlaw abortion. Not even a little. It just gave it back to the states. The left has routinely exaggerated its effect, possibly because of media driven ignorance, probably more so for political purposes.  Biden has said that officials at the University of Idaho have been told they can get in trouble for even talking about or counseling on abortion. Biden Exploits Dobbs Ruling That Overturned Roe v. Wade | CNSNews. Like many things he says, it was just a complete falsehood (the State of Idaho prohibits the schools from using state money to promote abortion, the same thing our federal government does – but do not prohibit talking or counseling about it).  NY Governor Hochul said that the Supreme Court took away the right to abortion for millions of people. Statement from Governor Hochul on Supreme Court’s Ruling in Dobbs V. Jackson | Governor Kathy Hochul (ny.gov). Governor Newsome said that the US was rolling back rights and controlling women.  Newsom on pending Supreme Court abortion decision: It’s about controlling women | KTLA. These statements aren’t true because the Supreme Court did not rule on whether women could get an abortion, but that the States need to decide, and if you follow the fallout, many states have increased the potential for more abortions, even some red states. Some might argue that that’s what Hochul and Newsome meant, but, if so, why didn’t they say it? Because it’s always about the narrative and politics. Kamala has compared pro-lifers to slave owners. Kamala Harris Compares End of ‘Roe’ to Slavery | National Review even though killing a fetus at least 5 weeks old is literally taking a women’s life, half of the time. AOC, Pelosi and Waters have all called one way or another for what sure sounds like insurrection to me. Pelosi Wants Dobbs Uprising: 'Normal Response Won’t Suffice’ – PJ Media.

Sotomayor also said in her interview that she will continue to tilt at windmills, and to “fight.” But, she’s not a litigator. She’s a justice. She means fight against other justices, which sure sounds like there are Obama judges and Trump judges, regardless of what Justice Roberts wants to believe. She swore to uphold the Constitution, not the Democrat Party, not liberal politics. Even in the Dobbs dissent by the three liberal justices, appointed by Clinton and Obama (one Justice has been replaced by another liberal Justice), there was no argument that a right to abortion is actually found in the constitution, though they argue it is intertwined with “rights” that have been found. Read the dissent. They mostly argued policy.

I don’t really want to go into abortion policy here. Raised pro-choice, never hearing anyone I knew have a different position, I had to do a lot of soul searching and acknowledge that what I had learned and adopted was wrong for so long. For a long while I am mostly pro-life, at least starting when there is a detectable heartbeat, and admit that I may be wrong in not being against even earlier abortion. And I know many fiercely disagree. That’s not the question. The question is of the function of the Courts and the future of democracy (which, I also have pointed out here, the left, whatever they pretend, have striven to undermine - court action is one way).

One Justice, hated by the left, Clarence Thomas, had the courage to say that some other cases where rights were found similarly also wrongly decided them on policy grounds and should be reversed, the decisions left to the states. Though I don’t agree on all of them, his point was that we are a democracy and if our state has laws we cannot tolerate, we have a political process that can theoretically change it, or, we can leave the state (obviously, everyone can’t just leave). Part of the political process includes review of the law by courts, if a case is brought, to see if the constitution prohibits it, not to see if the judges like the policies. Personally, I hate some of the policies and especially some of the politicians in New York State. I still have to abide by the laws, like them or not.

Judicial activism and partisanship, like Roe, is not a new problem. It has always existed. But, it got worse after Roe and it’s very much open political warfare now. As I said, it is not always the left, as conservative Justices sometimes veer left too for whatever reasons they have, but it is more so a problem on the left wing. Rarely it is Justice Alito, who wrote Dobbs, or Justice Thomas, although I can't say never. Dobbs though was an easy decision. There's no question the Court usurped the power of the States.

Of course, Sotomayor is likely on the Court for life and she will continue to fight for left wing policies. It’s not her job, but there is nothing we can do about it. Because we have a Constitution. And that is a small part of what is left of it.