SCOTUS – Some Surprises

I was pleasantly surprised today when, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional. I tend toward pessimism in these things and, after yesterday’s ruling in the Voting Rights case, I was not expecting happy news.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, is interesting reading. It bases it’s rationale on federalism. The States have the right to define marriage. In the case before them, the State of New York recognized the Canadian marriage of two women as valid. The court found the effect of Section 3 of DOMA was to single out a subset of valid New York’s legal marriages for detrimental treatment under Federal law. Indeed. the opinion cites references from the Congressional Record confirming that the only purpose of the law to deny equal treatment under the law to members of a specific group.

“DOMA’s avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.”

They said it was a violation of the ‘Equal Protection’ clause in the Fifth Amendment to do this.

While great news, the opinion is not a mandate for marriage equality. The court did not strike down Section 2 of DOMA. Section 2 says that States are not required to recognize same-sex marriages from other States despite the “Full Faith & Credit” clause in Article IV of the Constitution.(Section 2 of DOMA was not challenged in this case.)

The court also expressed no opinion on the rights of individual States to prohibit same-sex marriage. The ruling only means the Federal government cannot treat some legal marriages differently from other legal marriages.

There were three dissenting opinions; also interesting reading. Chief Justice Roberts based his dissent on the confusion that will arise without a uniform federal standard. He also fears that the ruling will be used in future cases to challenge the definitions of marriage adopted by individual States. One can only hope he is right.

Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion is both interesting and, to my mind, somewhat bizarre. He rejects the majority opinion that SCOTUS had the right to hear the case at all because there was no dispute. The lower court had ordered the refund of estate taxes paid because of the application of the DOMA definition of marriage. He felt since the Executive Branch opted not to defend DOMA in the case, the matter was resolved and there was no dispute at issue on which the court could rule.

Justice Scalia went one to say the majority opinion was based entirely on their desire to weigh in on the underlying issue of same-sex marriage. He felt the rationale that the law was a violation of the Fifth Amendment because the express intent was to single out a specific group for negative treatment was invalid. He feared future Courts might choose to invalidate any law it felt was “mean-spirited”. One can only hope he is right. Like Chief Justice Roberts, he predicts the ruling will be used the challenge State marriage definitions by claiming that denying some people the right to marry is unequal treatment. Again, one can only hope. He reminds his colleagues that the Constitution is silent on the issue of same-sex marriage;

“…the Constitution neither requires nor forbids our society to approve of same-sex marriage, much as it neither requires nor forbids us to approve of no-fault divorce, polygamy, or the consumption of alcohol.”

He’s right, of course. Likewise, it neither requires nor forbids our society to approve of opposite-sex marriage. It does, however, offer the hope that all citizens will treated fairly and equally. I guess that is the part he objects to.

In a third dissenting opinion, Justice Alito poses the issue that by choosing not to defend DOMA, the Executive branch deprived the Legislative Branch their constitution right to legislate. I actually find some merit in this argument but I don’t see that it alters the fundamental issue that the law. as enacted, violates the right of some citizens to equal treatment.

I was not surprised that Justice Scalia would offer a full-throated defence of the right of a majority to be “mean-spirited”.  I was certainly not surprised to see Justice Thomas agreeing with all the dissenting opinions. It has been a good week for Justice Thomas. He came out firmly on the side of property developers over the public’s interest in preserving the environment. He offered his passionate support for the right of States to deny voting rights to minorities. And, with his support of all the DOMA dissenting opinions that the Federal government has every right to establish a second-class status for same-sex marriages, he lends his support for the concept of ‘separate but equal’.

Advertisements

Action Figures

On a shelf in his office, Harper’s Other Dad has a doll “action figure” which purports to be Karl Jung. Harper’s Other Dad is fan of Mr. Jung. One might say he is ‘Jung at heart’. One might choose not to say that too. Probably, in hindsight, that would have been the wiser choice.

When I saw his doll “action figure” the question in my mind is why he has a doll “action figure” of Harry Reasoner in his office?

To be clear, I, in no way, object to him having a Harry Reasoner doll “action figure”. I am trying to find a Barbara Walters action figure “doll” to go along with it.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have a few action figures on my desk as well.

And it would take an argument more convoluted than Scalia’s dissenting opinion in the DOMA case to justify calling this one anything other than a doll. Luckily I am secure enough to be OK with that.

And The Red States Gets Even Redder

I am always proud to be an American. Some days it is because of our government. Some days it is in spite of our government. As they sing on Broadway; “today is a ‘latter’ day”.

Last November, I blogged about the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) agreeing to hear a challenge to the Voting Rights Act. Today, in a 5-4 ruling, the Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. The ruling effectively invalidates Section 5 as well.

For those who might be a little farther from this issue, The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a law that provides for federal enforcement ensuring the rights of qualified citizens to participate in our democracy by voting. Section 4 of the Act listed States where the history of disenfranchisement and voting obstruction was so egregious that the Justice Department has been required to act as an outside observer to prevent continuing discrimination. Section 5 required that all election practices in the Section 4 States be approved in advance by the DOJ before implementation.  Because of Arizona’s long and, uh, ‘proud’ history of protecting the electoral process from the annoying intrusion of Hispanic and Native American citizens, we were one of the States covered by Section 4.

Like all SCOTUS rulings, this is good news for some people and bad news for others.

I am sure champaign corks are a-popping in Governor Jan’s office. Life will be so much easier for extreme right-wing groups, Tea Party groups, evangelical political groups and white supremacist groups in Arizona elections. These groups represent a large percentage of the Governor’s base of support.

Nationally, it is very good news for those who tried so hard in the last election to convince us that “voter turnout suppression” really isn’t the same thing as “racism”. It is the same thing, of course, but, you know, having a “Voter Turnout Suppression Strategy” sounds nicer than having a “We’ll-Lose-If-We-Let-Minorities-And-Poor-People-Vote Strategy”.

At the precinct level in AZ, the ruling will make the job of election workers easier. It will no longer be necessary to jump through all the bureaucratic hoops that had been implemented to create the appearance of fairness while still discouraging or disqualifying the maximum number of non-white voters. Maybe we can go back to the 1970’s (10 years after the, now gutted, Voting Rights Act made it illegal) when everyone with brown skin or an Hispanic surname was required to read the preamble to the Constitution in English to prove they were qualified to vote. That will make the lines move a lot faster on election day; I mean, you know. for white people with proper European names. I wonder if they’ll actually put up ‘Whites Only’ signs in the polling places to steer people to the correct line or if that will just be implied. Probably the latter since I am sure the bilingual signage and ballot instructions (not to mention the ballots themselves) will likely be included in the next round of good-government’ cost-cutting.

The ruling is bad news for any qualified voter in Arizona who isn’t white or who has a Z in their surname. It’s bad news for any Liberal, Populist, or Progressive candidate or issue on the National ballot. It’s very bad, indeed, for any American who believes in freedom, fairness or who values diversity in the marketplace of ideas. I guess there aren’t as many of those people as I thought. At least there aren’t 5 of them on the Court.

Thanks to Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan for their dissent. The give me hope.

‘Shout out’ to Justice Thomas who, apparently feeling his vote was not shameful enough, chose to write a concurring opinion to highlight his belief that Federalism trumps justice and decency. Absent the Voting Rights Act and other such Federal actions, Justice Thomas would not be allowed to vote; much less sit on the Court. I have no doubt he will show equal integrity in his votes on marriage equality; choosing to toe the Tea Party-line instead of remembering that his own marriage, to a caucasian women, was illegal not that long ago when the issue was ‘left to the States to decide’.

Coquette

Noun – a woman who flirts lightheartedly with men to win their admiration and affection; flirt.

Synonyms: tease, vamp

Of course, I suppose, it’s possible the provacative pose had more to do with the ceiling fan over the bed.

Monsoon

The monsoon has arrived! It hasn’t really, but the government says it is here so who am I to argue?

When I first arrived in Phoenix and heard people talking about “The Monsoon”, I thought they were joking. Monsoons drench the jungles of India and such places. This is the Sonoran Desert. I remember seeing Richard Burton & Lana Turner in “The Rains of Ranchipur” but, to my knowledge, no one ever filmed The Rains of Ahwatukee. I have since learned, however. that the term correctly describes our summer weather. Somehow, that knowledge is not really all that comforting.

As I’ve come to understand, the term monsoon applies to regular seasonal changes in wind patterns. Worldwide, this is usually associated with heavy rains but it is the wind and not the rain that is the defining characteristic.

For a Midwesterner, the monsoon presents a collection of odd and unfamiliar weather conditions. Every afternoon the valley becomes sounded by heavy clouds. It is often cloudless all day but by 4:00 PM the clouds will come over the hills and into the valley from every direction. As the evening progresses the heavier moist air in the clouds starts to sink. As the clouds collapse they generate wind. It will usually rain, somewhere, but it falls in small localized pockets. It may be completely dry at Casa de Harper when folks living 5 miles away will get an inch of rain. The rains give rise to flash floods. Interestingly, because of the topography, the flooding often occurs some distance from where the rain fell.

We rarely have tornadoes in this part of the country but we do have dust storms called Haboobs. They are actually less frightening than one might imagine, assuming one is not trying to travel. The wind can be damaging but mostly they just make everything very, very dirty. Unlike tornadoes, they are not quick events. The 2011 storm in this photo moved about 30 mph. I was driving on the expressway, away from it thank goodness, so I was able to get a good view of it in my rear-view mirror and still get home before it arrived.

Thunderstorms occur frequently in monsoon season. In many ways they are like the thunderstorms with which I was familiar growing up in the Midwest; thunder, lightning, high winds and the sky changing color. The remarkable difference, however, is that it often does not rain. Maybe it’s the unfamiliarity but I find thunderstorms without rain to be much more disturbing than the wetter variety.

Historically the monsoons in this part of the world; it affects Arizona, New Mexico and a large part of Mexico; have begun in early July and ended in September. The warmer summer temperatures heat up the desert. The warm air rises creating wind. The winds pull moister air from the Pacific. We get about one third of our 8-9 inch annual rainfall in the summer months. More often than rain, however, we just get the wind and thunderstorms.

Prior to 2008, the official beginning of the monsoon was the first date when the Dew Point rose above 55*F and stayed there for three consecutive days. It was a little confusing to track because the monsoon official begins on the FIRST of those three days but, of course, one doesn’t know until Day 3 that the Dew Point stayed high enough. With our average temperatures, the relative humidity needs to rise above 30% to result in a 55* Dew Point. Using the old definition, in the years I’ve lived in Arizona, the monsoon has begun as early as June 30th and as late as July 18th.

In 2008 the National Weather Service decided that, henceforth, the Southwest monsoon would officially begin on June 15th and end on September 30th. Their thinking was that people would take storm safety more seriously if the uncertainty about season were removed. I don’t understand that. Were there really that many people who stood by watching their roof tiles fly away as the Haboob enveloped their house thinking; “thank goodness the monsoon hasn’t arrived yet”. Maybe there were. In any case, thanks to the government’s clarification, the next gust of wind will be officially a monsoon wind. Well O.K. then.

Holes

We are in the midst of a baby boom. There has been an explosion in the population of chipmunks in Harper’s Valley. They are as cute as a bug’s ear but they have become a nuisance in the neighborhood.

The University of Arizona Extension Service advises that there are five species of chipmunks native to Arizona. All belong to the genus Eutamias for those that care about such things.

The UES further advises; ” A number of species of squirrels and chipmunks occasionally become pests in and around buildings. When ground squirrels or chipmunks are present in large numbers they can cause structural damage by burrowing under patios, stairs, retention walls, or foundations. They may also invade garages, walls and attics. They will also consume flower bulbs, seeds, or seedlings as well as bird seed, grass seed, and pet food that is not stored in rodent-proof storage containers.”

Harper’s food is not stored outside so the crafty minions of Satan would have to come into the house to find it. Of course, that’s what the burglar did to find my wallet so; who knows?

The UES continues; “The identification of ground squirrel or chipmunk damage is most often made by direct observation and the presence of burrow entrances.” I can personally acknowledge both.

I often see them when I am driving. They try to scurry across the street. Because they are small, and the same color as their surroundings, it is difficult to see them until they are quite close. All one can do it hit the brakes, swerve a little, and hope they didn’t change direction.

“The presence of burrow entrances” is an understatement. There are hundreds of them in the neighborhood. All these photos were taken last night while I was walking Harper without ever leaving the sidewalk.

Harper is fascinated by them. They are much quicker than rabbits so she often missed them but when she sees one disappear into a hole she sticks her muzzle down as far into the hole as possible. She doesn’t dig, but she can stand with her nose stuck in a hole for, what seems like, a long time waiting for something to happen.

I have not seen any on our property yet, we don’t have much exposed ground but I suspect we are living on borrowed time.

They are cuter when they are animated.

Ankle Deep In the Stream of Consciousness

About a week ago the Neighborhood Watch issued an alert warning that a mountain lion had been spotted in the arroyo about 2 blocks east of Casa de Harper. I have never seen a mountain lion in the wild, if one can call a residential neighborhood ‘the wild’. I am not particularly eager to remedy that.

Last night, at sunset, I took Harper for a walk. My favorite part of our usual route is the stone path. It is actually a sidewalk but it runs for a few blocks along a river of stones; no water. I like it because it is quiet and usually offers great views of the sunrise and sunset.

As we made the turn and started walking west I saw a mountain lion crossing the stones. (The picture above is not the cat I saw.) I could tell it was a cat by the way it moved. At first, I was concerned because I thought it was a house cat that had gotten loose. One never sees domestic cats outdoors here because of the coyotes. As I continued to walk toward it, however, I realized it was farther away than I first thought (Hooray!) and it was larger than any house cat I’d ever seen. It was about Harper’s size. Deciding that running-away-while-screaming-like-a-little-girl was the best part of valor, we reversed course and took the long way around to the park. To the best of my knowledge, Harper has never seen a cat, of any kind. I think we’ll choose a smaller one for her first introduction.

* * * * *

Probably everyone who cares has already seen it but I thought the opening of Sunday night’s Tony awards was the best production number I have ever seen; certainly head & shoulders above anything I’ve ever seen on an awards show. The staging was beyond lavish, the choreography was impressive, the lyrics were witty and  Neil Patrick Harris’ performance was nothing short of amazing.

An item reported in the Daily Mail in the U.K has manufactured some controversy suggesting that Harris used ‘the N-word’ in the section that included Mike Tyson.  How ridiculous! The word still sounds like “bigger” to me in hearing it again; a word he says repeatedly throughout the number. I cannot believe the writers would have scripted something so offensive in a nationally televised event. I can’t believe reporters at the Daily Mail is so stupid they think the 8-minute production number included improvisation by the singer though I may be wrong about that. Perhaps they are that stupid. I’d also like to think Mr. Tyson might have reacted in some way had he heard it said in rehearsals, or on stage in the performance. Neil Patrick Harris responded to the charge today tweeting; “Really, Daily Mail?!? The N-word? That’s your story?!? I would NEVER be so disrespectful and frankly, neither should you.”

Every link I have found of the broadcast has been pulled as soon as it is posted based on copyright complaints by CBS so I can’t include a link but, if you have not seen it, look for it. I am sure it will be available again shortly…somewhere.

* * * * *

Today would have been my mother’s 85th birthday.

Happy Birthday, mom.