Merger? Should Have Been Done Yesterday. Bob Chase Saw That.

When I first ran for the NEA Executive Committee in 2002, I couldn't possibly anticipate all the questions that would be flung at me during all the interviews I'd have to endure. But I did know one of them: How do you feel about merger?

The issue was still pretty hot. In 1998, NEA President Bob Chase, a true visionary, thought he could hammer an NEA-AFT merger through the NEA Representative Assembly. It's evident that he believed that his personality and sheer will could perform a miracle and effect merger. AFT President Sandra Feldman pushed from her end to get her organization to merge, and that group approved.

Chase got past the then Executive Committee, the NEA Board of Directors, and a merger committee in a way that mirrored, if not directly reflected, the way in which Republicans find it nearly impossible to object to anything that ex- presently says; that is, you risked Chase's wrath if you stood in the way. But the difference was that the acquiescence of the leadership was not reflected in the knee-jerk support of the RA delegates. Teachers and support staff are an independent lot; if we sense power plays, we tend to push back with massive, passive resistance. As well as we can stampede like a herd of horses, we can also sit like mules.

So, even though the talk behind his back was that he'd have to learn the hard way, the proposal of merger was brought to the RA. And, as many expected, it got stuffed. It needed a 2/3 majority to make it a done deal, and it didn't even get half. As good an idea as it was, it just came on too fast for the RA.

Wisconsin favored merger overwhelmingly--and I unquestionably--but as a state affiliate, we were the cheeseheads that stood, if not alone, then with lots of empty seats. But that was because of our history. In 1976, after nearly a decade of fierce intra-labor competition and accusations of dirty tricks tossed at both sides, the NEA and AFT state affiliates declared peace and promised to respect each other's territories (with the NEA claiming the overwhelming number of locals). The armistice had worked, so we saw the greater good with trying to merge, one way or another. It took until 2014, though, for Wisconsin to try very, very hard to merge--but still failed. We still await that Great Pumpkin.

States like Illinois, Michigan, Alabama, Virginia and New Jersey, member-rich but fierce in identity, took a directly anti-merger stand. Those members couldn't imagine being merged with AFT folks anymore than, say, Ukraine can think of itself as Russian. They, too, had had ferocious disputes over territories; they, too, had had tumultuous histories. Nothing had been 'settled,' in any manner of the term. Their members overwhelmingly said no.

There were three states that had already merged, though: Minnesota, Montana, and Florida. Nothing disrupting their stances was done; they stayed merged. Other states were either in the pipeline or in discussions as to possible mergers, and we all knew it. But discussions are often no more than that, and the NEA is a confederation of affiliates, with the RA as the governing body. It might be influenced, but if there are strong opponents at the local and/or state level, whatever someone wants for the whole group is going nowhere. Democracy is sometimes like herding cats.

Chase had crossed a bridge too far, and led a parade with only 42 percent behind him. So a follow-up new business item and a compromise of sorts was passed, allowing Chase to save face after being drubbed. We decided to wait until the number of merged states reached six, and then the discussion would take place again. That was acceptable, so we moved on.

So when I was asked about that, the first time in Alaska, I knew there was a conflict between stances of what I and my home state had taken and that which what many other affiliates, which combined had many more votes at the RA, had done and had never budged. (Interestingly, neither has Wisconsin, though it has tried; despite its bold stance in 1998, it has never merged with AFT.) My answer was a political one: Merger would take place when the political situation demanded it. It was logical, it was safe, and it leaned toward merger without driving the idea around like it was on the Indy speedway. And, in 2002, the vote had been sufficiently recent so that nerves were still on edge because plenty of leaders involved in initial conversations were still around.

But now it's nearly 2022, going on two decades later. I'm not privy to discussions so I have no idea, absolutely none, where national merger sits or how close things are in any one state. To be sure, more states have merged, but in a way that reflected the path of least resistance, as in New York (pretty much a hostile takeover by AFT) and North Dakota (with a minuscule number of AFT members). Note that makes five; that magic sixth merger hasn't happened, and it's been going on a quarter-century now. Some large locals have also followed suit, as in Austin, Texas; Los Angeles; Topeka, Kansas; and San Francisco. But it's way, way, WAY past time when national merger should have happened. 

In the end, I was accurate: Merger should be dictated by external political situations. But that time has passed long ago. It should have been done yesterday: in fact, many yesterdays ago. One has to wonder what it will take, or whether it is already too late. But even obviously pervasive political challenges haven't tipped the scales.

The merging of the three million member NEA and 900,000, more or less, of the AFT might not cause a huge turnaround in how the country views and supports public education. But there is still power in numbers, and both organizations have had, and taken, opportunities to shoot themselves in the foot instead of uniting permanently and driving initiatives inside state legislatures and Congress.

Have they ever combined forces? Sure, especially during state and federal elections. NEA and AFT have always supported the Democratic presidential candidate, for instance; I can't recall when they haven't. But when the polls shut down, so do the united fronts. Both groups go back to their respective camps and preserve their identities.

There are structural barriers to merger, to be sure:

• Term limits--The NEA has a 6-year term limit for members of state and national leadership (usually two 3-year terms), the AFT has not. Randi Weingarten, for instance, has been president of the AFT since 2008.
• Running campaigns on a 'ticket'--the AFT runs presidents, vice-presidents, secretaries and treasurers on a 'ticket' basis, the NEA does not. That doesn't stop people from pairing up NEA candidates in.their minds, but their campaign signs or literature do not join people together.
• Minority guarantee--the NEA has a 'minority guarantee' policy that demands that if there are minorities willing to run for state positions and none are otherwise elected, a minority candidate must fill a position designed specifically to guarantee that minorities are represented in leadership. The AFT has no such requirement. In addition, the NEA's state affiliates have to promise that, if they cannot fill quotas of minority members to represent them at the NEA-RA, they must prove that they try very hard (which exposes the unending, unfulfilled need for minority people in the classroom). The AFT does not go to that trouble.

But there are other barriers as well:

• State or large local affiliates--especially those that had (and still have) issues with the other side, and those that have a lot of members to whom influential leaders can say that, after all this time, it's still a bad idea to merge. It still looks like too big a tradeoff--a gain in external power, but a clear loss in internal power.
• Identity--in states where one outnumbers the other but the other maintains a decent presence, true compromise, where no one gains an outward advantage, is difficult to gain. It comes down to a simple question: How come we lose influence? Because that means you have to give up what was once your identity.
• Elections--those of state or large local affiliates in which the other side has always been a thorn in their fannies. No one running for a significant leadership position can promise conciliation without seriously threatening their chances for election or re-election.
• Egos (or Pride, if you wish)--especially if merging would mean that one side's leader would stay the leader and the other one wouldn't. The only way to solve this is to make both promise that they won't run the next time. Having maneuvered and politicked for years to gain power, though, it's a lot to ask to give it up just to be nice.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody has made progress on any of these fronts. People can pretend that they've tried, but time and tide have proven otherwise. The enemies of public education keep chipping away at what it calls the "monopoly" of state union membership amidst teaching and support staffs, plotting legal and quasi-legal methods to undermine them. The latest is the absurd declaration that teachers have been dictating "critical race theory" in school classrooms for years, justifying the latest effort to introduce or re-introduce, advertise or re-advertise vouchers into school choice options.

A united front might go a long way to dismiss, challenge or disprove these claims. But it isn't there. Yes, both unions have concluded that this is ridiculous, but who knows if they'll be separately strong enough to turn it back?

It has long ago become necessary for these two significant education unions to put their differences aside and make the big move. It's become painfully clear that there's no other way to fuse the efforts of two labor organizations which have had their individual successes and at least try to create a powerhouse that will turn back the ever-rising forces that undermine and aim to destroy public education, replacing it with a vacuum of disconnected nothingness. 

We are not so far from that any longer, and certainly closer than at the advent of No Child Left Behind in 2002. Betsy DuVos certainly isn't the only Cruella who is aiming at the ultimate failure of education unionism by spreading the poison of school choice and its various components.

Merger must happen, and soon. Someone will pay a price, yes, but the price that all in public education are paying--the slow but steady costs of death by a thousand cuts and thousands of nonsensical claims--is being witnessed daily, in large communities and small, throughout our land. It is a growing disaster, and a desperate tragedy. In the end, Bob Chase's vision must triumph.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

May the Wind Be At Your Back, Tom

I never had a bad meeting or conversation with Tom Barrett. He'd find a way to turn something bad into something good or at least hopeful.

I and several other NEA Directors from Wisconsin lobbied Barrett when he represented the state's 5th Congressional District from 1993-2003. I do not recall having to talk with his staffers in his place, either. When it came time to meet, he was always there.

That's saying a lot. Congresspeople usually leave lobbying, especially lobbying the way we did it, which was something like four times a year at predictable intervals, to their staffs. They catch up on new information, if there is any to be shared--the major reason behind lobbying, by the way--later. To say they were too busy wasn't necessarily a brush-off, though it certainly could have been: Congresspeople run all over the place. Multi-tasking, in committees and subcommittees, might not be what they originally bargained for, but it's what they're saddled with.

I had no idea whether Tom was always glad to see us, but he always acted like it. He's a Democrat, so he fell into step with most of whatever the NEA was peddling at any one particular time. Or perhaps we were more or less in step with him.

But the meetings were, generally, fun and lighthearted, as he always tried to be. He could be serious, but knew he was amongst friends.

His political ambitions hit their limits when he sought the governor's mansion. He lost in the primary in 2008, then in two general elections when the state crossed over to the dark side and supported Mr. F. Gow (most recent former governor of Wisconsin) in 2010 and when he was recalled in 2012. I never thought he put together a package of positions that sufficiently defined his candidacies, though he probably would have made a decent governor. The timing of that loss was devastating to the Wisconsin teachers' unions, which have had to endure the knee-capping effects of the awful Act 10.

But he didn't step down from being mayor of Milwaukee during either campaign. It became a good fit, not a booby prize. Mild-mannered though he usually is, he also gained a stand-up-guy reputation in 2009 when he defended someone from being mugged at the State Fair and his hand was broken and a tooth chipped by a guy with a pipe (who should be getting out of jail about now). So much for the myth of the wimpy liberals.

This isn't an easy city to hold together. It still is one of the most segregated large cities in America. And, of course, the pandemic held its own challenges. But he didn't shrink from what needed to be done; he ordered, and justifiably maintained, a lockdown to lessen the spread of the virus. There is a certain toughness to him that he doesn't flaunt because he doesn't have to. With that understated competence, he was the longest-serving mayor of a large American city when he stepped down the other day.

I would think that his assignment as ambassador to Luxembourg is down the priority list for President Biden. It fits better into the 'just reward' category, for being a productive and loyal Democrat who will maintain the high standards of the State Department, challenged horribly by ex- and his thugs. It's got a nice, comfortable feel to it. Perhaps it fit both men's priorities.

When my life needed changing, I went out of my way to find a dwelling in what was then the 5th Congressional District, because I knew Tom Barrett would represent me. When I retired, I came back to Milwaukee because Tom was its mayor. Nobody should be surprised, then, if someday I go looking for real estate in Luxembourg.

You will be missed, Tom Barrett. As the Irish say, may the wind be at your back.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Abortion's Curtailment Will, in the Long Run, Backfire. Right As Rain.

I've known for a long time that I don't think in the mainstream about everything. But let's take a good look at the possible effects of abortion's probable upcoming curtailment in the United States.

Yes, there will be fewer abortions, but how much fewer won't be recorded because so many will now be done in secret. Prohibition didn't take away the need for a beer or two, right?

The reason we have such knowledge is that, as a medical procedure, records are kept by doctors, hospitals, clinics, credit card companies, and the like. Those will go away, either altogether or in the states in which abortion will, very quickly, be declared illegal. So we won't know anything, except the holy-holies, including the Federalist Society's Leonard Leo, the chair of punitive Catholicism (never mind the priest scandals) and manipulator of Supreme Court rulings on this matter, will declare that their god has, at last, saved America from moral depravity.

But that's where the benefit ends. Because in making it more difficult for people of color to terminate pregnancies, the excessively religiously afflicted have guaranteed that those same people of color will become the majority of people in this country all that much faster. And they don't want that.

It's simple logic: If you don't terminate the pregnancy, the fetus comes to term and becomes part of the polity. In 18 years--not too terribly long--it becomes a voter. If the abortion issue is, as well, racially charged, so will be the expanse of the population in that direction. If you haven't heard already, we're going to be a nation of a majority of minorities in about twenty years anyhow. 

Do the math. There will be an explosion, and all kinds of things will start happening, including the resentment of those peoples of color against white folks who have been suppressing their progress and success for about four hundred years now. That I might not be around to witness that won't stop it from happening.

And the anti-abortionists will usher that along. I hesitate to project just how much the country might change in those twenty years--maybe a lot, and not in a good way--but my guess is that white people will begin to reap the whirlwind of the inequities and prejudices that they laid upon others. They won't like it much. The difference is that they won't be able to firewall themselves against the effects: the coin of systemic racism may well flip, and with a deserved vengeance.

I want to stay healthy. If it's at all possible for me to be around to witness this, I want to do so. I want to remember what I wrote in late 2021 that predicted this. It'll be like a tsunami: With the obvious attempts of Republicans to mute the effects of people of color now, it'll seem like the shores have widened and expanded, as if white people could stop worrying. But then it'll cascade and overwhelm them, without any more places to hide.

Too far off for now. Way-way. But right as rain, it'll come.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster or a Pfizer pill. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Brian Williams' Concluding Comment

Sometimes, it's better to let yourself get out of the way and let others say what you might be able to, but not nearly as well.

That's what Brian Williams, former host of the MSNBC news show "The 11th Hour with Brian Williams" was very good at. It's what made the show one of the best of its kind, if not the best, on regular or cable TV, while ironically showing at a time many people go to bed.

Williams retired last night, but not before pulling over to the side of the road and, at long last (though you knew by the kinds of guests he had and the details he featured), telling us how he felt about the general state of things. I'm printing the cogent bulk of his comments here, so I and anyone else can look back and refer to them:

My biggest worry is for my country. I'm not a liberal or conservative. I'm an institutionalist. I believe in this place. And in my love for my country I yield to no one. But the darkness on the edge of town has spread to roads and highways and neighborhoods. It's now at the local bar and the bowling alley and the school board and in the grocery store.

Grown men and women, who swore an oath to our Constitution, elected by our constituents, possessing the kinds of college degrees I can only dream of, have decided to join the mob and become something they are not, hoping we somehow forget who they were. They've decided to burn it all down with us inside. That should scare you to no end as much as it scares an aging volunteer fireman.

I will wake up tomorrow in the America of the year 2021, a nation unrecognizable to those who came before us and fought to protect it--which is what you must do now.

I sit here writing a blog, mostly on politics, with a very small following. It isn't enough, I know, but it's a contribution. I would do something else if I knew what to do. I'm too old to run for office. I avoid the members of the 'mob' to which he refers, mostly because they infuriate me with their thuggish stupidity and bullying and their intentional ignorance of the truth that stares them in the face. Outside of confronting them and absorbing their insults, I'm not sure what else I can do.

Maybe I can work internally, convincing those of my general political positioning that first, being nice gets people nowhere; and second, speaking out is risky but has become far more necessary than ever. We dangle nearer the cliff of fascism than ever, and our combined voices are all we have. I think that''s what Brian Williams meant. If not, it's close enough.

In the meantime, I'll be here at my post, for as long as the First Amendment allows (not a sure thing anymore, especially if ex- returns to haunt). I will miss Brian Williams immensely at 10 p.m., and I hope he re-emerges somewhere else accessible. All the best to him.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

"Peril" and "Betrayal": Don't Choose. Read Them Both.

I've performed a challenging task: I've read both Peril and Betrayal. Both were difficult to finish, despite the simple language with which they were written, because first, I knew the ending, as do we all; and second, to relive ex-'s time in office is distressing, to say the least.

But I felt I had to. Both books have spent time atop the New York Times best-seller list; indeed, Betrayal is there now. They represent different styles of reporting.

Peril is as close to straight-up journalism as it can possibly be. Very little personal references are made to either of the authors, Bob Woodward and Robert Costa. Their personal feelings aren't recorded.

What they've done is managed to get, first of all, Mark Milley, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on record. If you consider what he clearly told them and no one else, Milley saved the republic. First, he dialed back his naive, in-uniform appearance at the George Floyd demonstrations just outside the White House in June, 2020, basically apologizing for it as a lack of realization of what ex- was trying to represent by striding outside the White House gates, through Lafayette Park and to the doorstep of St. John's Church, just across the street, posing with a bible in his hand. The first opportunity he had, Milley told the public that that was a mistake, that the military should have nothing to do with political affairs and was there to defend the Constitution, not support the political gain of any individual. That was, of course, the correct stance, whether any future chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff decides to follow such an example or not. And if ex- gets re-elected, you can bet Milley will be among the first he fires in a purge that will make heads spin.

But the second thing he did, the thing that Woodward and Costa reveal by their reporting, is that Milley convened those who could carry out a deranged president's orders to begin a war with someone in the declining days of a failed presidency. He made them look him square in the eye and tell him that if any aggressive orders came from the White House, they would be run past Milley first. They all promised to do so. That opportunity never came, but Milley, by his constitutional position, in fact flirted with violating that same Constitution by assuring the nation that a madman wouldn't unnecessarily put it at risk. After all, the president is the commander-in-chief and can utilize the nation's military resources at will. But that has always assumed relatively sound judgment--which that president never had and never will.

That is just one of a number of reportorial gems that Woodward and Costa reveal. But like Jonathan Karl, the author of Betrayal, they had to promise non-disclosure of many sources to bring forward their accounts. That jeopardizes the authenticity of their accounts, of course. But such is the amazing power of their subject--that enough people incredibly follow such a blatant liar and grifter that attribution of anything negative, explicitly or implicitly, can create such damage to mean political suicide. The emotional grip he has on millions cannot and should not be denied. It is a cult in full, shameful view.

No one who has contributed any relevant information revealing ex- to be incredibly unfit to be president, who hasn't already been condemned by him, gave his or her name to whatever interviewer caught up with them first. That many felt it necessary to contribute to the record means that, at least on paper, they still believe in our democracy and want it to succeed; Milley is but one unsung hero (many deluded extremists and frightened sycophants, too) we meet within the pages. Without various contributions, we'd be in even tougher shape than we're in now, dangling at the edge of legitimacy. But they miss the most important issue: accountability. Without specific attribution, the reliability of the information within both sets of pages can always be attacked--and will be, you can bet on it--despite the previously established reputations of the authors. In America, fear is always highly operational.

Both books, naturally, provide important details on the uprising and failed (for now) coup of January 6. Betrayal is demonstrably better because Karl managed to get more people to discuss just how scary it all was from different perspectives--and where Vice-President Pence was and how he acted during those hours (The browbeating he had to endure was truly amazing. I have a real problem with his politics, but the toughness of his spine cannot be questioned.).

Peril, while accurate, doesn't get to the level of Karl's on that topic. Woodward's prestige, in a sense, prevents him from the gumshoeing that Karl can still perform; he's a reporter's reporter, asking the questions that needed to be asked without worrying about reputation. Perhaps that's why Woodward had Costa accompany him; the mere mention of his name to perform interviews, especially after writing two previous accounts of ex-'s presidency, probably scared off some who might have provided other fascinating, vital facts. A big name gives you unique access, yes, but it also closes down some, too.

Since he's the ABC News White House correspondent, Karl's style surprises because we're used to seeing his productivity for two minutes at a time during the news at 5:30 rather than in print. He takes us aside every so often and expresses the outrage that so many of us feel and felt upon hearing ex-'s stupidity and lies. He's not afraid to express, and recognizes the importance of, his own contribution to the coverage of ex-'s exploits, but it doesn't feel an extension of his ego; he was there--for instance, inside the White House during the abovementioned demonstrations--and those were the questions he asked. And he managed to keep ex- on a relatively long reportorial string until it became clear that his power, though now unofficial, would be maintained after losing the election. 

He must be an excellent interviewer: The things that people told him, and no one else, show that his calming but persistent manner creates an atmosphere of trust while not sacrificing opportunities to ask vital questions. If he needed attrbution, however disguised by the skittish, he provides it right then and there: "Two sources who also heard that conversation...."

Of course, the two accounts overlap; they portray the same relative time. The danger of January 6 becomes quite evident in both. But Peril also moves into the first part of President Biden's term and the challenges that a small Congressional majority comprise, especially if the other side simply refuses to cooperate in any measurable way. Their writing loses its intensity, mainly because reporting on anything Congress does can easily get lost in the weeds. But that takes up little of the book's conclusion, and the rest is fascinating and vital to know.

Both books come to a sad, frightening conclusion: That the Republican Congressional leadership had a brief chance to dismiss this presidency as a tragic mistake, to do a reboot, so to speak, and bring the issues facing the nation back into proper focus. They could have shown real leadership, putting country before party; heaven knows, there's plenty more to distinguish the policy differences within Congress and without. But they didn't. 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, in particular, will stand guilty of wasting such an opportunity. His visit to Mar-A-Lago within days of the end of ex-'s presidency created the aura of legitimacy that allowed ex- to re-establish himself as the leader of a demented cult that masquerades as a political party. He, too, is revealed as desiring power for its own sake, based on nothing else than prestige. He will fail because ex- will sweep him aside whenever he feels like it. His visit gave ex- the gravitas to do so.

Mitch McConnell has done so, too, far more subtly, but with the same fear of being supplanted as anything more than titular Senate Minority Leader. But the sad matter is, that's already been done. McCarthy put McConnell in a corner with no way out. Republican Senators are locked in line on nearly all substantive issues not because of extraordinary discipline commandeered by McConnell, but because they, too, have their political lives in jeopardy if they but waver from ex-'s iron-fisted grip. Their votes are already chosen for them. Their states have been already compromised.

Individually, these are excellent books. Their thoroughness is a tribute to the skills of the authors in getting down to relevant facts and their ultimate meaning. Their styles are what their authors find to be comfortable. Betrayal is far more conversational, but Peril, threadbare of emotion, does not take a back seat.

If you're looking for a holiday present, or greater depth, for those you believe need to understand the impact of this odd and very dangerous time in our history, I cannot recommend one book over the other. Now that I've read them, I think you need to get both of them and immerse in the revelation of clear and obvious threats to our democratic system--threats that are ongoing and seem to be resisting legitimate efforts to head them off.

It's just another way of saying what many have found true: If you want to know something well, read about it. If you want to know more, read more.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Wisdom? No Longer at the Supreme Court. We Are All Likely to Pay.

One of the things you could count on at the Supreme Court, regardless of whether you agreed with it, was some legal wisdom about whatever was being argued. You know, something that revealed that the Court member had, indeed, been legally trained and was legally thoughtful in a way that the average person, even one with a college education, couldn't achieve because they simply not put in the time or purposeful thought.

They'd come forward with legal phraseology, the combination of words that the rest of us used but in ways that described ideas we hadn't thought of. That would raise the discussion above anything done on the street. Of course, that's what they were there for--to figure out decisions nobody else could.

In terms of the legal concepts, then, Supreme Court members were simply smarter than we were. And that's to be expected.

That's why I blanched when I heard Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by ex-, say very casually that if a woman became pregnant and didn't want the baby, all she needed to do was bring it to a legally arranged place within her state--police station, hospital, or the like--and drop it off. There. Done. Then the child would be adopted. That simple.

That sounds like any woman who's had seven kids without a thought of terminating any of them, restricted by her understanding of whatever her religion dictates. It also sounds like millions of conversations had by regular, average people like me for years now. That made me the equivalent to a Supreme Court justice, because I'd had such a discussion thirty years ago.

It makes you wonder: If someone like her, raised to the highest legal position possible in this land, simply narrowing the argument against abortion down to such a simple issue, first of all, what's this doing at the Supreme Court at all? And secondly, what's she doing sitting on the highest court, when we could have gotten someone with far more brains, or perhaps the desire to use them?

This is why she and Clarence Thomas, as biased as anyone who's ever served on the Court, went out not long ago and tried to convince the at-large public that they weren't being political. Yes, they were, and yes, they are. And saying so doesn't make it so. Their attempt at persuasion landed with a decided thump.

Don't believe what your eyes tell you, they're saying: Believe what we say. Someone else tried that not too terribly long ago. And he will do it again.

They were preparing the public for what they are surely going to do--revert us backwards fifty years to a moment when women will have to travel hundreds of miles or sneak around trying to find doctors willing to break laws to give them the right they've had to terminate pregnancies because, within limits previously stated, it's nobody's damn business what they do with their bodies.

I don't think they are intentionally being evil. I think, in the name of hyper-applied religion that will forever go unstated, they are submitting to what they believe to be God's law, instead of common law. That goes back way-way before the writing of the very Constitution that they will be shoehorning their ruling into, stipulating that since the word "privacy" isn't specifically mentioned in there, it doesn't and shouldn't apply.

That will create a police state here. Not only will authorities be able to destroy the very meaning of privacy with respect to control that women need to have over their bodies, it will also lead to searches and seizures that will smash the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to tiny bits, rendering it meaningless. For the meaning of "privacy" will not be restricted only to women trying to end pregnancies. Wait and see.

It will mean something else, too, in terms of the Supreme Court's legitimacy. Sonia Sotomayor had a point: Taking away fifty years of precedent, failing to rise above the politics of the matter, will make people's impressions of the Court and its meaning to be far different. Consensus will no longer be possible, even available. It'll just be a numbers game. The moral value of its ruling will be diluted, and people will be no longer paying much attention. That Amy Coney Barrett tried to plead the opposite will be lost in the weeds. 

I have said it here before and I'll say it again: If you restrict the meaning of the Constitution to what it merely states explicitly, you are by its very nature eliminating what John Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison: That the Supreme Court gets to interpret what the Constitution says and means. Why? Because he declared it to be so, not because the text of the Constitution dictated it. It seemed to make sense at the time, and has through the present day. That doesn't mean it will last forever, though.

Someone's going to come along and simply overrule whatever the Supreme Court says should be the law of the land, and say that long, long ago--1803, to be exact--John Marshall declared something he shouldn't have declared, and that the Supreme Court is there only to rule upon conflicts between states--which is the original intent of the document. They might even make it sound absolutely brilliant, as if nobody has thought of it before. But the purpose will merely be to dodge a ruling they don't like, and avoid enforceability and responsibility.

See? Such a widely meaningful concept as "originalism" can, too, be turned on its head and mean exactly what someone with too much power wants it to mean. I have no idea why nobody else has written about this, but I see it clearly. Words only mean what they do as applied to circumstances and have general acceptance, but when someone explodes it and has the force necessary to back it up, the applicability shifts dramatically.

Such a statement will far more officially make the Supreme Court meaningless. And if it is, then all courts beneath it will also be meaningless, for they will lack the necessity to appeal to higher courts. And when courts are meaningless, then the force of law belongs to the entity with the most physical force behind it. That may not become evident immediately, but test upon test, circumstance upon circumstance, will reveal it. That is the gateway to fascism.

The unintended consequences of this upcoming devastating ruling will be themselves devastating. I fear for the country and the deepening divisions that will result. Not only pregnant women will be affected; we are all very likely to pay. That Amy Coney Barrett doesn't get that, that she can't see the greater wisdom, reflects a diminished capability of the Supreme Court that's supposed to stabilize our world, but in fact will unravel it.

Be well. Be careful. Get a booster. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark