June 30

 Last day of June--oh, my. It is a slow morning. The European soccer championships continue: Slovakia vs. England. That will be followed by another game and we will finish up the day with the U.S. Olympic tryouts. I finished a crochet piece earlier and will probably start another later. Like I said--slow day.

Of course I will be reading various things. I am half way through several books so I will take another bite out of them. And I have various blogs in my  e-mail.

Richard Lowenthal posted this piece on Medium: Our American Cult of "Defiant Ignorance." Some of it reminds me of Richard Hofstadter's ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM IN AMERICAN LIFE. Stray thought: Lowenthal wonders at the focus people seem to have on their own (primarily) economic status and fears. I am not so surprised. Some time ago I read a piece on human perceptions of danger which can be summarized as "the closer the danger the sharper the focus."I am sure Lowenthal and his friends are fairly well off and secure in their economic lives and their focus is on more distant dangers, namely which politicians will be in power after the next election. Lowenthal makes several all good points.

Joyce Vance has some very good thoughts about the Supreme Court's decision erasing the "Chevron Deference" that was the basis for much of the power of Federal agencies to establish and enforce regulations. The justices decision rested on a belief that only the courts can resolve ambiguities in legislation. I am reading a book (FEAR OF A SETTING SUN) right now about the first 30 years or so of the American Republic during which many of the most influential Founders despaired of the future of the government they had built. The Constitution, as drafted, was deliberately vague and over the almost 200 years since some of the ambiguity has been resolved (at least temporarily) by new legislation and Supreme Court decisions. I say "temporarily" because none of the issues are ever absolutely settled. The initial disputes involved the power of the Federal government vs the rights of the states.

However, not all ambiguities involve law: how it is written and what the text says. Some disputes arise because different parties disagree on technical matters. The recent decision on "bump stocks" is a case in point.  Question 1) What exactly is a "machine gun?" And what if something mimics the action of a machine gun but doesn't exactly fit the definition? Question 2) Who has the expertise to decide? An expert in gun engineering? Or a justice whose expertise is law? Or a manufacturer of such a product whose profits depend on whether their definition is accepted or a different one? Justice Thomas, in his opinion deferred to the manufacturer and a very strict reading of the regulatory definition. Justice Elena Kagan went with a common sense approach: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck--it's a duck. We also need to remember some history. It wasn't all that long ago that the oil industry insisted that their gas formulas that incorporated methylethyl were harmless and their tame scientists produced a lot of papers supporting that position. That was false. They knew it was false and fought to continue selling the product to protect their profits. It wasn't all that long ago that the chemical industry insisted that DDT was harmless, had no adverse environmental effects, and one of their executives "proved" it by drinking a cupful in front of reporters. That was false also. So--WHO DO YOU TRUST?

And in a court system which is already clogged with cases how will the court adjust to being even more overburdened? How long will it take for the courts to decide cases? And this doesn't even deal with the problem of conflicts between states over a multitude of issues. The mantra of "states' rights" has been resurrected and is complicating everything.