On September 18, 2020, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. Justice Ginsberg was 87 years old and had been in ill health for some time, including no less than five bouts with cancer. Rather than retire to concentrate on her health, she remained on the court because of her commitment to gender equality; in particular, women’s rights. Before her death she dictated this statement to her granddaughter: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” 

On September 26, 2020, President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to succeed to Ginsberg’s seat on the Supreme Court. 

There are a lot of things that are unsettling about the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, not the least among them the fact that Barrett’s perceived conservatism and a concern of her ability to separate her personal religious views from her duty as a judge is a slap in the face to Ginsburg’s unwavering stance for equality. To be accurate, that concern is an old bugaboo being raised from the dead: there are still people around who remember it’s being expressed about John F. Kennedy and possible conflict between his personal faith and his duty as President. Whether or not this is a valid concern, though, is not what this post is about. 

On March 16, 2016, seven months before the end of his second term in office, then-President Barak Obama nominated Merrick Garland to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia, who died the preceding month on February 13, 2016. Within the hour of Scalia’s death, the Senate Majority Leader declared his opinion that “(t)he American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” and for 293 days the Senate refused to take action on the nomination, which expired January 3, 2017 with the end of the 114^th Congress. 

So, what I want to know is: where is the fairness for “(t)he American people” in this? Amy Coney Barrett should not be attacked because of her ideology, and certainly not because of her personal faith, but where is the fairness in announcing that confirmation of a justice will or will not be acted upon because of the president who made the nomination? Take a look at that timeline. The conservative, Republican party wastes no time in speaking up for what it wants, because, like always, they cling to that idea that they know best, that everyone wants the same thing they do. Well, thankfully, that’s not always the case now, and the rest of us have a chance to prove that in November. 

Resist. Dissent. Vote. 

I’m proud of the Democratic party. I was happy when Joe Biden was chosen as the Democratic candidate: I like Joe Biden, because he’s a likable guy. That was almost his “role” in the Obama administration – if you don’t believe it, check out all the memes on facebook where Joe makes a joke, and Obama put his head into his hands (probably to hide his laughter). There are a lot of reasons I like Joe Biden, but that’s not what this is about. I was happy he was selected as the candidate precisely because of what makes him less than perfect for some other Democrats – he’s more of a moderate than a true left-wing liberal. 

The modern conservative Republican party looks, to many not belonging to that group, (I resisted the urge to say “gang”; there are many who are unruly, but at the heart the party is too organized to be called a gang) to be a party of fear. They appear fearful (mostly that someone is going to come and take away their “stuff”; also that there won’t be enough “stuff” to go around), and one of the things they fear MOST is the dreaded “LIBERAL.” (See Sean Hannity’s book Live Free or Die where he says in the introduction: “Progressivism…is intrinsically radical. Left to their own devices, they would move the country wholesale into socialism AND AUTHORITARIANISM. Americans cannot afford to let our guard down for one moment if we hope to pass on the blessings of liberty to our children.” If that’s not fearmongering, what is?) And I know some people who scorn the moderate path, who want to lean more to the left. Opponents of moderation have been very vocal in the past few years, chanting their belief that the problem with the Democratic party is that it’s not liberal enough. However, I respectfully disagree. 

I believe that most people I know, whether they be Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal, are, in reality, moderates. I have friends “on both sides of the aisle,” so to speak, and I’ve found that most of them are, like me, moderate. The more conservative are usually one-issue-voters, and whatever that issue is, it’s probably on the Republican side, but in other areas it’s surprising how moderate (and even progressive, sometimes) their views are. The Republican party is full of rhetoric like Hannity’s, making “liberals” and “Democrats” seem like some sort of political vampires, but my experience with my more like-minded friends tells me that’s not true, either. Again, they’re more like me: moderate. Even in the various politically-inclined groups I have joined on facebook (not very many, since politics is such a downer these days, but enough, and insulated enough to provide me with a modicum of hope), most of the people who post are…well, moderate. So I’m proud of the Democratic party’s putting forward a moderate candidate. This election will turn on the number of cross-party voters that can be swung toward that moderation. However, we must be very careful. 

I already have friends who are stating publicly that they will vote Democratic, despite that one issue that has held them back for so long. This is not only heartening; it is a major coup. Perhaps if we can hold on to those moderate voters, we can take our country back from the fringes of the insanity and fear it’s gripped in, and put it back on the path to that brave new world that the founders of the United States expressed: where ALL men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. BUT, we must be very careful. As party, and as people of that party, we MUST be careful to be welcoming and respectful to EVERYONE, otherwise, we’re no better than those we struggle against. I have heard a friend say that, even though she will vote Democratic, she still feels there’s no place in the Democratic party for her – because she’s pro-life. I have heard someone in one of those political facebook groups dismiss the concerns of a trans member, when that member pointed out a concern over non-inclusive language. I have heard many people disparage the new Supreme Court judge (let’s face it, she’s not just a nominee now, she’s going to be confirmed) because of her family. We can’t afford to let this continue. Not just because of the chance of losing this election (which is still a very real possibility, no matter what you think you see or what polls may tell you), but because it makes us no better than those sowing fear and division. As Michelle Obama so famously said, “When they go low, we go high.” Go high, my friends, and be strong. 

So, what do you think? 

(*Respectful discussion is encouraged; be prepared to support your position.) 

Today I watched the #LaunchAmerica NASA/SpaceX launch, the first launch from the U.S. since 2011. It was amazing, to say the least. The launch, which was scrubbed on Wednesday because of weather, proceeded smoothly, the craft was beautiful, the video, both from inside and OUTSIDE the capsule was incredible. I really felt that a new era had begun. One of the "co-hosts" on the "panel of experts calling pre-game," er, launch, was one of my very favorite astronauts, Leland Melvin. (If you don't know anything about this guy, you just need to look him up, he's awesome.) Some of the things that were included in the "show" gave me pause: but then, I'm old, and I remember NASA at the outset: all pretty and shiny, and in it for the good of the people of Earth, right? Well, Ok, not really, probably, but that's the way we felt when the Mercury and Gemini and Apollo spacecrafts launched and when John Glenn orbited the Earth and spacewalks were performed and when we landed on the moon. "We" being not just the good ol' USA, but the people of Earth. Today's launch coverage was somewhat uncomfortably like a football game, with expert commentators, and pre-game, and play-by-play commentary. Shortly after the launch I had to turn it off, because for some reason the reporters and the NASA officials started to sound like they were dissing Apollo and the start of space exploration, which, of course, got my hackles up. But I started to think about WHY they would do that, or why it would sound like that to me, and as it turns out, it's pretty complicated, so...hold on to your hats.

First, there are a lot of very disturbing things going on in the world right now, protests (very rightly so) in many cities: in fact, one going on in my city as I was watching the launch, so I had to ask myself, "Why am I sitting here rather than sitting out there with a sign?" My "friend" Leland Melvin answered that question for me after the launch, when he said something profound (paraphrase) "This is what we can do when we all come together." It's that phrase: "...when we all come together" that means so much. Bear with me for a minute while I explain: I don't remember if I caught space fever from science fiction or from NASA and the real space program, but I do remember that by the time of Star Trek and the Apollo missions, I had it bad, and for me, the real space program was just a means to an end that was shown in that SF show, Star Trek. The multi-cultural, even multi-planetary crew, exploring space together and relying on one another. Everyone has heard the story of how Nichelle Nichols was going to quit and Dr. Martin Luther King reminded her that she was part of something that had never been seen on TV before, and that she could be an inspiration. And you know what, she was. When you think about it, those were some dark times....one of the things that the commentators mentioned several times during the course of the broadcast today was that the Apollo program ended, but they never mentioned WHY it ended. The space program of the 60's and early 70's ended because it was a time of radical upheaval with racial tension rampant, and the PEOPLE of the nation couldn't justify spending money in space while there were so many problems here in their cities and their own backyards so they "scrubbed" the whole program. A couple of Apollo missions were jettisoned, and we started over with the Mir, Skylab, and the ISS, all of which were a huge leap forward. Once again, we were all coming together - in space. Sci fi has a long history of uniting the world, often because we've all got a new enemy: some alien, outer-space demons trying to take over. Is that what it's going to take? Are we doomed to try to kill each other until we're finally forced to unite because something comes from "out there" to kill us? I realized that I much prefer Gene Roddenberry's view of space: the world coming together, not to fight off some new threat, but in peace to explore and make new friends in the Universe. Maybe that's why I watched the launch today - because that view of peace and the future is all that is holding me together right now.

What do you think? #WhatDoYouThink?

...to be continued...