Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #332.  

The original entry for this week was a diversion from politics, culture and the potential for a Revenge Revolution sometime after 2020. The topic was ideas about the Big Bang Theory and the formation of the universe. (I’ll publish the Big Bang entry sometime in the next few weeks.)

Maybe discussing the idea of the Big Bang was fortuitous. A big bang seemed to be the thinking of the Supreme Court this past week. The decision regarding legality of extremely partisan gerrymandering — Rucho vs. Common Cause — may go down as one of the most illogical SCOTUS decisions of the last 100-150 years. Use Plessy vs Ferguson as a reference point for being illogical.

The majority opinion, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, claimed SCOTUS was not entitled to second-guess state legislatures’ decisions re gerrymandering, even if the result was extreme disproportionate representation. Really? The majority of SCOTUS’ justices claimed the Constitution did not provide authority for the Supreme Court to address such state issues as gerrymandering, and besides, the framers envisioned that politics would influence the drawing of legislative districts.

Duh, Roberts, put aside the legal mumbo-jumbo and try to figure out what’s right and wrong for the country. The case, which involved extreme gerrymandering in North Carolina, demonstrated clearly that Republican legislators intended to discriminate against certain voters, i.e., Democrats, the Party which happens to include most black and Hispanic voters.

The consultant, hired by the Republican-controlled NC legislature, publicly stated disappointment that he could ensure Republicans only 10, not 11, of 13 the seats in the US Hose of Representative despite the percentage of voters in North Carolina being split about evenly between Democrats and Republicans, and slightly favoring Democrats.

Gee, Roberts, using your logic, it’s OK if Democratic votes in North Carolina count less than 1/2 of what Republicans votes count. (Of the 13 districts, based on the number of Republicans and Democrats, at least six (6) should be represented by Democrats. With the gerrymandered districts, Democrats hold only three (3), or less than 50%.) If the SCOTUS justices keep referencing the Constitution as the basis for the gerrymandering decision, at least have Democratic votes count 3/5 of a Republican vote, which is what the Constitution noted that slaves counted.

When citing laws and legal precedent, ever think about considering the 14th Amendment? What about considering the Voting Rights Act? What about Brown vs. Board of Education? Okay, I understand your logic. None of these decisions had been made when the Constitution was written and, therefore, should not be considered.

But wait. What about the Citizen’s United case?  In Citizens United the majority, of which you were a member, claimed that when it came to campaign financing a corporation was really a person and should be treated as such. I’ve looked at my copy of the Constitution and I can’t find where corporations are mentioned, let alone being considered “people.” Your logic must be to reference the Constitution when convenient but to disregard the Constitution when you want a different outcome.

A second Supreme Court ruling this past week was well-publicized, but frankly a bunch of meaningless noise. The second decision prohibited the Bureau of Census from including a question about citizenship during the 2020 census. Roberts, in an apparent Fox-News attempt to be “fair and balanced,” sided with the Democrats on prohibiting the citizenship question.

But Roberts’s position is a ruse. The SCOTUS decision does not prevent future census from including a citizenship question. Moreover, with all the publicity around the case, Roberts and Republicans already have convinced many immigrants, even legals, not to respond to the census. And who can blame them? As long as Trump is in office, immigrants will be targets for deportation, regardless of status, and the Trump administration has demonstrated repeatedly a willingness to ignore restrictions on misusing and/or sharing confidential information.

How should the Supreme Court decisions be interpreted? In the months and years ahead, the US will experience more partisanship, and as hard as it might be to believe, even more extreme positions by politicians. With the gerrymandering decision in place, politicians must now consider all members of the other party as the enemy if a politician is to survive in the primaries in the gerrymandered districts. Compromise and civility will be surefire paths to losing a primary, which has become the defacto general election.

The gerrymandering decision piled on top of the Citizens United case, should be viewed as the Supreme Court putting another arrow in the Revenge Revolution’s quiver. Given the stupid-is-as-stupid does approach of the Supreme Court combined with the abdication by the McConnell-led Senate Republicans to thwart any illicit and illegal actions by Trump, the only solution to steer this country back to the middle where a government can work for all people seems to be a revolution.

Comments, welcome, as always.  Any, yes, have a happy 4th of July.  Wasn’t there a revolution sometime around then?

Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1.  Most entries are formatted as conversations. Characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous conversations.

Occasionally I break from the normal formatting and do a “sense check.”  Auditing one’s own work is problematic but I try to be objective.  Entries #300 and #301 are the most recent “sense checks.”  Your thoughts are welcomed and appreciated.  Thanks for your time and interest…and comments, please.

Scene: Jordan’s office, Washington, DC.  Jordan having coffee with Walt, a friend from college days.  Conversation begins entry #302.

Jordan:  “So, Walt, how’s the coffee?”

Walt:  “Great!  Where’d you get it?  Don’t tell me.  It’s from that liberal bastion, Starbucks.”

Jordan:  “Yes, Starbucks.  But why does everything in your world have to fall into a bucket?  Why do institutions have to be labeled liberal or conservative?  Starbucks is a coffee shop, not a political party.”

Walt:  “You don’t get it do you?  Or maybe you don’t want to understand.”

Jordan:  “You’ve lost me.  Understand what?”

Walt:  “Many of these institutions are part of a conspiracy.  A Few years ago that conspiracy was focused on getting rid of Trump…and was the primary cause of the Revenge Revolution.”

Jordan:  “C’mon.  Stop me from banging my head against the wall.  I admit I find your logic fascinating, even humorous at times…but your logic is also incredibly frustrating.”

Walt:  “Why so frustrating?  Seems pretty straightforward to me.”

Jordan:  “Start with the conspiracy assumption.  A conspiracy requires a group of people.  But the group is usually fairly small since it’s hard to keep a secret, even within a small group.  And now you’re talking about some conspiracy with hundreds, if not thousands, even tens of thousands of participants.  That logic does fly.”

Walt:  “But it’s true.”

Jordan:  “Just think about.  How could one possibly coordinate the activities of all these organizations, let alone people within the organizations?  As I said, Starbucks is just a coffee shop.”

Walt:  “Here’s an example.  Before the break you said we were going to discuss my thoughts on the Mueller Witch Hunt.  I know, you think it was an investigation but it was really a witch hunt.  The FBI’s behavior was a perfect example of one group that conspired to stop Trump from getting elected.  Then the FBI tried to get him out after the election.”

Jordan:  “Statements claiming the FBI conspired to elect Hillary make no sense to me.  The facts suggest the opposite.  Actions of the FBI likely helped Trump get elected.”

Walt:  “See, there you go spouting off the liberal fake news.  You need to watch Fox News and start getting the truth.”

Jordan:  “If the FBI was trying to get Hillary elected, then why did Comey hold a press conference a few days before the election effectively reopening an investigation about Clinton that found no laws were broken?”

Walt:  “I think laws were broken.  She should have been punished and locked up.  But Comey’s real purpose in criticizing Clinton just before the election was to gain more sympathy for her…and encourage the Democrats to vote for her.”

Jordan:  “Huh?”

Walt:  “Same thing with Obama.  He knew the Russians had hacked the Democratic National Committee HQ and were releasing emails to the public.  But he didn’t do anything about it.  Why not?”

Jordan:  “You tell me since the Russians were helping Trump?”

Walt:  “The Russians weren’t helping Trump.  Why didn’t Obama make any public announcement?  Because he didn’t want the make the DNC and Clinton look like they were not on top of things.  I’m telling you, Mueller should have investigated Obama and not Trump.”

Jordan:  “Just for fun, please tell me, in Trump world, does the sun come up in the east or west?”

Walt:  “Whadda mean?”

Jordan:  “Never mind.  Back to the FBI.  Let’s turn the situation around.  Suppose the FBI had strong evidence that the RNC had been hacked and the Russians might be working with the DNC to get the Democratic candidate elected.  What would you want from the FBI?”

Walt:  “A thorough investigation.  Why should the FBI allow a foreign country, especially a known enemy of the US, try to influence the outcome of a presidential election?  If the FBI didn’t investigate, it would be dereliction of duty.  All of them should be fired…and some tried for treason.”

Jordan:  “Let me see if I understand your position correctly.  If the FBI had credible evidence a foreign country, and especially an enemy like the Russian, had infiltrated a campaign and was trying to influence the election, you’d want the FBI to pursue the investigation vigorously, right?”

Walt:  “Yep.”

Jordan:  “And it would be unpatriotic, possibly treasonous if those who had credible information didn’t pursue an investigation and prosecution.”

Walt:  “Yep, again.”

Jordan:  “Yet, when the FBI had very credible evidence that the Russians had infiltrated the Trump campaign and the campaign was likely conspiring with the Russians, you supported the Republicans in Congress who objected.  Those same Republicans thought the investigation should be stopped.  Why did you support them when you just said there should be an investigation?”

Walt:  “You don’t listen very well do you?  I told you, the FBI favored Clinton and therefore the FBI evidence and Mueller investigation were a ploy to get Trump out of office.”

Jordan:  “How did you know there was no evidence if you wanted to stop the investigation before it was completed?”

Walt:  “Because Mueller never disclosed publicly any evidence…until issuing that phony report.”

Jordan:  “Even though releasing some of the evidence might have compromised the investigation and might have violated some national security laws, you thought it should be released anyway.  And because Mueller didn’t release the evidence, you think it was likely fake.”

Walt:  “Not likely fake, it was fake.  At least now you’re starting to understand.”

Jordan:  “Walt, have you ever studied how people think after they’ve been brainwashed?”