In Words, Lies, and Crimes
The law is defined by words understood by means of their contemporary usage, context, and historical evolution. In “The Supreme Court: A Bulwark of Liberty, or Not” (July 4, 2022), I stated that “Justice Alito not only finds Roe v. Wade an egregious error, but the long held legal doctrine of stare decisis no longer relevant.” Precedent, therefore, he can selectively ignore in his judicial opinion. In overturning the Supreme Court precedent of Roe and disregarding Casey, the Justice reclaimed the 19th century condemnation of abortion rather than the 20th and 21st century medical practice that can save lives and future pregnancies. In current usage, “abortion” is defined as a medical practice that empowers women to abort an unwanted—and still unviable fetus—or end an imperiled pregnancy. Most abortions, in fact, are the result of medical decisions involving the unviability of the fetus and the well-being or even survival of the mother. Justice Alito seems unaware of this current context. The definition of the word “abortion,” as a result, can be viewed through different lenses, as either a family planning method and life-saving measure made possible by contemporary science or, in Alito’s view, an infanticidal abomination condemned by long-standing religious beliefs. Our words fail to characterize the magnitude of “abortion’s” historical evolution from a mortal sin into a family planning tool and lifesaving medical practice. Alito ignores this evolution and views abortion of a fetus as the murder of a “potential human being,” rather than “the expulsion of a nonviable fetus,” as currently defined in the dictionary. He made the kind of error that only a textualist could, that is, one rooted in original meaning. A fetus is no more a potential human being than a man’s sperm or a woman’s egg. The building plans and materials required to construct a building are not the finished product we know at 3rd and Main Street. Likewise, Doctors now know when a fetus becomes viable, meaning capable of living outside of the womb as a functioning human being. Alito is just a time-warped revisionist whose words reek with deceit. Harsh? Perhaps so, but he is intelligent enough to know the difference between how abortion was defined in the nineteenth century versus the twenty-first.
Some so-called “conservatives” on the Supreme Court prefer textualism to define the legal meaning of the words that define our laws and their Constitutional derivatives. I agree with them to the extent that root meanings and initial usage allow us to understand the basis from which the meaning of contemporary words evolve, and laws are derived. But word derivative evolution also reflects society’s evolution—which explains why 20th and 21st century jurisprudence had superseded laws chastising women and their doctors over the abortions of problematic pregnancies. The progress of our science can now define “viability,” that is, when a fetus has become a human and able to live as such outside of the womb. Roe v. Wade affirmed this progress whereby women’s fertility and pregnancies were preserved and made safer. Premature childbirths were facilitated, and many women’s lives were saved. But, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, women’s prenatal care must now exclude the abortion of an unviable fetus. And the incidences of pregnant women’s deaths have since increased. The word “abortion” no longer refers to a safe 20th and 21st century medical practice to save a woman’s life or prevent an unsecured—even precarious—future of an unwanted and still unviable fetus being taken to term. In Justice Alito’s opinion, the fetus is “a potential human being,” wherein he effectively misconstrues “potential” as “real.” Therefore, he concludes that abortion is not feticide but infanticide. And this misuse of language equates “abortion” with murder. But its real purpose is to preserve the life of a pregnant woman or secure her plans for family and motherhood. Is an unviable fetus more important than the life of the mother or her ability to care for a newborn? In the words of Benjamin Cardozo, “(t)he difference from age to age is not so much in the recognition of the need that law shall conform itself to an end. It is rather in the nature of the end to which there has been need to conform.”¹ So, is abortion prolife or murder? Therein lurks a word deceit that becomes a lie—that can falsely morph into a crime, a phenomenon that now pervades America’s public discourse and politics, including our Supreme Court.
There are further examples of this phenomenon. For example, an election, properly conducted, reviewed, and validated is termed “rigged,” which is a preposterous lie. “Stop the steal,” “only I can,” “lock her up,” and “make America great again,” are phrases that hide purposeful deceits, that is, persuasive lies. Some politicians, like Trump’s sycophants, employ this ruse to gain campaign funds and win governing power. If successful, their lies can and will serve their own interests rather than the general welfare. But liars cannot be trusted, for their deceit hides self-serving motives. Given the powers of office, any politician can be induced to serve his/her interests rather than those of his/her constituents. Unfortunately, any liar can be more easily induced to cover up his/her malfeasance . . . even to the extent of committing a crime. Confronted with the woman he abused, for example, Donald Trump claimed “I never met that woman” —a lie that would be a felony if spoken under oath. Unfortunately for Trump, a picture of them together had readily evidenced his lie. In like manner, pro-life advocacy claims to save lives while maternal deaths rise across the county. There is no evidence, however, that an unviable fetus can survive a live birth. To believe otherwise is a lie. And Roe never forced women to have an abortion, whereas Dobbs denies women the choice—based upon a religious belief. But not all religions agree with this belief—which is their right as guaranteed in our Constitution. How does Alito’s opinion survive a First Amendment argument that he violates its guarantee of “freedom of religion”? Are the words and lies enumerated here not equivalent to crimes that debase our politics and diminish the freedoms we Americans expect and demand of our democracy?
At the Federal level, America has several politicians currently indicted for crimes. Two from the Democratic Party are now awaiting trial, as is Donald Trump, the former Republican President who still awaits more trials after recent convictions. He has been accused of 36 felony counts in two Federal indictments involving the handling of top-secret documents and inciting an insurrection to overturn a legal election. He also faces similar election interference charges in the State of Georgia. While awaiting trial for these alleged crimes, he has since been convicted on 34 felony counts because he “repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.”² In addition, he has been held liable for sexual abuse, as referenced above, and for extensive fraud in the conduct of his New York business. These latter convictions carry financial penalties of over half a trillion dollars. In a few days, this former President will once again be nominated to be the Republican candidate for President. How is it possible that Americans would consider voting for a convicted felon who has been held liable for sexual abuse and outlandish business and tax fraud? Even before his rise to the Presidency, he was found liable for fraud in his management of Trump University and the Trump Foundation—which was run as Trump’s “personal checking account,” according to the Court’s judgement. These liable judgements were just the tip of more than 3,000 legal cases the Trump organization had previously entertained. But Trump was elected based upon his unique “charisma” despite his habit of skirting the law.
Donald Trump once claimed he used “the best words” and had a “great brain.” Recently, before a crowd of his supporters, he explained how he would solve the conundrum of dying by electrocution or by a shark bite. His solution, he argued, would impress “MIT,” that is, he would satisfy the shark with his leg. Then he added, “I want your vote. I don’t care about you. I just want your vote.” These non-sequiturs are just words pouring from his stream of consciousness. They are not relevant to the moment and lack any reference either to his campaign or reality. The words he more carefully uses—such as “revenge,” “fake news,” “deep state,” “Trump haters,” and so on—amplify his warped worldview and provide false justification for all the grievances he suffers, allegedly, for the sake of others. He uses words that paint him as a martyr, which some of his followers now liken to be “Christ-like.” But Trump’s “best words” are not intended to reflect reality. Rather, their purpose is to either entertain or rile up passion for his cause. Often, they do both while condemning, ridiculing, or demeaning his alleged “haters.” They are all lies, except for the fact that he does want your vote and more. Specifically, he says he wants a “bloodbath” if he loses the next election. Moreover, he wants his sycophants to rig the next election, as they tried to do so in his last campaign. He has already committed his “followers” to this end by appointing them to key positions within the Republican Party. He now has a small army to rig his election and effect the intent of all his lies. Should he win, he promises to take no prisoners. His words, then, run the gamut from a stream of consciousness rabble to lies, hateful provocations, and then to more crimes.
This American deceit is a culmination of misused words, lies, and crimes committed against the electorate in service of political power. In a democracy, “people rule,” but not necessarily in their best interest if ill-informed, told lies, and are victimized by crooks. When Donald Trump became President in 2017, he appointed his White House contingent with the sole purpose of deconstructing American Institutions. In “Competency and the American Presidency” (2/9/2017), I listed his cabinet appointments and summarized their contempt for the institutions they were appointed to manage (to save time, you might start reading from the third paragraph). While Trump was promising to make America great, he was planning its demise. What partially saved America was the utter incompetency of these appointments. Some of them even ran afoul of the law. He also had “advisors” who shared his views and served his interest. Twelve of his Presidential staff were later convicted of crimes while in office. On his last days in office, he pardoned many of these sycophants. But now they are ready to return to the task of subverting American institutions to serve a wannabe dictator. After Trump’s failed coup in 2020, he is now better prepared to reinstate his fellow criminals and take a second attempt at deconstructing America’s Constitutional system of government.
For Trump and his stooges, “democracy” is just a facade that will hide their rule over a government that serves their craven interests instead of the general welfare of the American people. As President he will sell his great lie that America can progress under his deconstruction of its institutions of government. But, instead, he will introduce into American politics an unprecedented era of criminality and self-enrichment. How is it possible that so many Americans seem ready to bury our democracy under the foot of this craven dictator?
I may not be a psychologist, but I have encountered two recent studies that may explain how many of us are willing to follow this madman, like the wild buffaloes crafty Indians would herd over a cliff. The first study refers to the “halo effect,”³ namely, “if we like a certain quality in a person, we’re more likely to perceive their unrelated traits positively as well.” Thereby Trump’s clownish behavior, as referenced above, is found entertaining. (In fact, I witnessed people nodding their heads in approval of his unfinished tale about sharks and electrocution.) And his grievances against the “deep state” may well mirror those of his audience. For instance, the border crisis has bedeviled decades of Administrations; and economic instability has routinely destabilized markets and individual family budgets since the founding of America (reference American Exceptionalism Revisited, 9/27/2021). The second study, “affinity bias,”³ depicts how we are attracted to people with similar background or characteristics. Most of us are not college graduates and even fewer of us were educated in the liberal arts. Although Trump is a college graduate, his speech patterns and topics are often undisciplined and/or mundane. His historical references– “the likes of which have never been seen before” –are often vague and unsupported. Although we have had Presidents who were scholars, like Woodrow Wilson or Barack Obama, we all identify with Presidents whose personal traits and character we can admire like FDR and Reagan.
My fellow Americans, we cannot afford to be deceived by a liar who wants our confirmation that he should not only be our President, but above the law, as well. His record in office is replete with misleading aphorisms, lies, statutory crimes, and political appointees to the Supreme Court. As a fellow senior, I recognize the limitations of both candidates for the Presidency. But only one of these men speaks the language of a patriot and has the wisdom and experience to lead this country. Recently, a consortium of Presidential historians rated the contributions of all our Presidents since America’s founding. Donald Trump was rated dead last, behind Harding, and those who died prematurely in office. Until the Federal Reserve reduces interest rates, inflation will continue to haunt the many achievements of our current President. Nevertheless, the same Presidential historians rate Joe Biden the 14th best President in American history. Our country needs his experience and wisdom at the helm during these challenging times.
Postscript: His previous running mate was rated the 10th best.
_________________________________________________________________________________
1 Stephen Breyer, “Reading the Constitution, Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism,” p. 109.
2 The Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York, “The People of the State of New York against Donald Trump, Defendant,” as quoted in “The Trump Indictments,” p. 320.
3 “Learning Favoritism: The way we’re built to learn may divide us,” Scientific American,” June 20, 2024. p.15.