Open Letter to GOP Candidates

This is an open letter to all candidates hoping to become the GOP's candidate for President. If you want to improve your odds in a very crowded field of contenders, I suggest you offer a method for reforming the US Supreme Court. This method will not require a Constitutional amendment or any new legislation. This method can be implemented solely by means of your own authority as follows:


QUOTE:

* FOURTEEN: My Supreme Court Nominations: I will demand the resignations of all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, but will renominate them for five year terms under the conditions stated below. Failure of these justices to submit their resignations will be defined as a violation of “good behavior” and will therefore be grounds for impeachment.

I will not nominate any person to the Court who will not sign the following contract:

• I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court for a period of five years, after which I will resign from that office. Failure to resign, I here and now freely stipulate, will constitute a violation of the "good behavior" rule mandated by Article III, section 1 of the Constitution. Such a violation would and should subject me to a well-deserved impeachment and removal from office.

:UNQUOTE.

* FOURTEEN: Some background

The "FOURTEEN" I'm referring to is, promise #14 of 31 listed in "The Electoral Contract of Steven Searle for US President," posted here:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-electoral-contract-of-steven-searle.html

I had run for the presidency in 2012 under the terms of this contract. I am proud to boast that I was the only candidate in this nation's history to have offered a written contract in exchange for votes. Violating this contract would have forced me out of office. I suggest you consider offering your own contract listing at least the SCOTUS reform quoted above.

A lot of people in your party have been grumbling for decades about activist judges. So here's your chance to introduce some accountability in the High Court. And voters - at least those in your party's base - will applaud your courage in trying to rein in the excesses of that Court. These two links provide details concerning the legality of my proposed reform:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/10/questions-concerning-supreme-court.html

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-creative-way-to-reform-us-court-system.html


Two hot button issues

The Supreme Court most recently angered social conservatives by ruling in favor of same-sex marriage and Obama Care's current method of determining eligibility for subsidies.

Same-Sex Marriage

QUOTE [Footnote 1]:

The Supreme Court said that the right to marry is fundamental — and Kennedy wrote that under the 14th Amendment's protections, "couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty."

:UNQUOTE.

When the 14th amendment was ratified, there wasn't any intention that it would allow same-sex marriages. If a gay couple had tried to invoke such an argument at that time, they would have been laughed out of town. What Kennedy seems to be saying is, "We will interpret the Constitution by determining what opinion polls show what the public will favor - in this day and age."

The proper way to have proceeded would have been to insist, "If gays are to be allowed to get married, we refuse to rule that the 14th amendment was meant to allow this. If you support same-sex marriage, then amend the Constitution to specifically allow this." This is too important a change in our fundamental and long-standing culture to allow simply because the High Court decided to bow to public opinion polls.

What next? Will polygamous couples claim the right to marry by invoking the 14th? Why not? Don't they have the same fundamental right to marry as couples do?

This link connects you to an essay I'd written on gay marriage that provides some useful perspective:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2014/07/reflections-on-gay-marriage.html


Saving Obama Care

I now offer two quotes concerning the High Court deciding it had to save Obama Care:

QUOTE [Footnote 2]:

The question in the case, King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, was what to make of a phrase in the law that seems to say the subsidies are available only to people buying insurance on “an exchange established by the state.”

:UNQUOTE.

I yellowed the words "seems to say." The text of the law doesn't "seem" to say anything about these subsidies being "available only to people buying insurance on [state established exchanges]." The text clearly states that only people of low income buying insurance on state run exchanges are entitled to subsidies.

QUOTE [Footnote 2]:

Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that the plaintiffs had strong arguments about the plain meaning of the contested words. But he wrote that the words must be understood as part of a larger statutory plan. “In this instance,” he wrote, “the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

:UNQUOTE.

I emphatically disagree with Roberts here. When it became obvious that most of the states were not going to establish exchanges, then it was up to Congress to amend the law to allow all low-income citizens to obtain subsidies regardless of whether their state had established an exchange. Of course, Congress would not have agreed to such a change, due to the increased number of Republicans in the House.

However, it is not the job of the Court to worry about how many Pubbers are in the House. It is the Court's job to interpret the law, and not to weave any fantasies about Congress not meaning what it had written in plain English when Obama Care was passed.


Final Note to GOP Presidential Contenders

My suggestion on how to reform the Supreme Court is long overdue. And it will resonate with commonsense Americans. I hope you don't decide against it simply because it was my idea. If an idea has merit, its source should be irrelevant. You decide.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, Just another member of
the Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and
Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnotes:

Footnote 1:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/26/417717613/supreme-court-rules-all-states-must-allow-same-sex-marriages

Footnote 2:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/26/us/obamacare-supreme-court.html?_r=0

My atonement

Introduction

I am asking for your help as I'd indicated in my post at this link:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2015/05/a-bat-kitten-and-my-guilt.html

There is a section (the third of three) at the above link called "My Atonement," which starts to explain what I have in mind. The two sections below complete that explanation:

• How you can help

• Background

How you can help

Obtain a Cashier's Check or a Money Order for as much as you'd care to contribute, payable to:

Dr. Kyle Adkins
[He's affiliated with the Country Doc Veterinary Clinic in Minnesota.]

Send this to:

Laura Iancu
124 1st St, SW
Crosby, MN 56441

Laura will give Dr. Adkins the MOs/ Cashiers Checks as the need for his services arises, for the animals under her care. Contributions cannot be made "pay to the order of" Laura Iancu since her past credit history might subject such funds to seizure by creditors. This is why she does not use banking services such as checking and savings accounts.

I've used MoneyGram to send money to Laura. However, I do this because I know her and trust that she'll use these funds to help her animals. Since you don't know her, I came up with the method in the preceding paragraph.

To help in her mission to save her cats, Laura has sent up the "Rescue Me Now Foundation," with the EIN 47-3846698.

Background

As my unfolding karma would have it, in 2007 I invited Laura Iancu, homeless at that time, to move in with me. About six months earlier, our paths crossed for the first time in front of the Starbucks on Wilson and Lincoln in Chicago. She was selling Streetwise magazines at that location, which meant we'd see each other quite often since I lived in the neighborhood. Laura was chatty and so was I, so we were a good match.

Laura had gone to homeless shelters outside of the city up to 40 miles away because they were safer. She had lost her family and hope, not knowing if she was coming or going at times. But she knew she had to take it one day at a time.  As I listened to the details of her life, I felt sympathetic. So I invited her to move into my apartment, since I lived alone and had way more space than I needed. Long story, short: We ended up living together for four and a half years, only as roommates - nothing physical.

Laura ended up moving to Minnesota in May of 2012 - eventually living with 30 cats but no human roommates. That's right - thirty.  Most of them were rescues she'd found abandoned or injured. She gave each of them a name and would give me updates on the health issues of those who had fallen ill or died. Many she brought in had Leukemia and FIV/FIP. She has survivors who were born with it and today are over 2 years of age, including kittens born on Thanksgiving Day.

Over the years, I'd sent her money - over $12,000 in all. Which was a lot for me, since I'm not a rich man by any means. We stay in touch via e-mails and occasional phone calls. Turns out, much of the money I'd sent was used to feed and care for her cats, which included meds and veterinary care. I had no problem helping her out with her fur babies (as she calls them), since I felt a need to atone for the kitten I had tried to suffocate decades earlier. I wish she would have spent more of the money on herself, but she was more than satisfied shopping at dollar stores and going to charity food pantries to support her own needs.

Laura lives on disability, doing as much as she can with her limited resources to support herself and her cats. But life for her is still rough, even though I and a couple of other friends try to help out.

Now, some people might think, "Big deal, they're cats. So what?" My most prominent reason? They're important to Laura, so they're important to me. She even got angry when someone suggested that animals don't have souls. My 27 years of Buddhist practice put me in agreement with her on this issue.

So, I will continue to help Laura as much as I can. And I hope I can enlist your support as well.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of

The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Caitlyn Jenner

So now it's "Caitlyn" instead of Bruce. Out of idle curiosity, I looked up the meaning of the name "Caitlyn," and found it means "pure." I can only hope that CJ's motives are indeed pure and not inspired by a desire to bask in a blazing international spotlight. Her whole life, it seems, has been one continuous struggle to snag the public's attention. Could she really want that badly to appear, as Caitlyn, on a Wheaties box - just as Bruce Jenner did those decades ago? That would surely be an interesting way to recapture one's long lost youth.

How many interviews will CJ do? How many TV specials will generate how many millions of dollars? CJ says, for all intents and purposes, "I'm a woman." And yet, she considers herself asexual and has never been attracted to men. Those claims surely must be her attempt to redefine what a woman is - or at least what CJ's version of womanhood is.

I could have respected Bruce's decision to convert to Caitlyn had he done so anonymously. Or at least, had done so with a minimum of fanfare. But, no, Caitlyn decided to appear on the cover of Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair, eh? I guess that name speaks volumes as to the purity of Caitlyn's motives.

We live in a society which places a heavy value on personal choice. But I'm at a loss to figure out why a 65-year-old man wants to feminize himself. At that age, he's past his prime as far as the dating pool is concerned. So why'd he wait so long? By the way, I don't believe Bruce was never attracted to men, nor do I believe he'll hang onto his penis too much longer. Maybe she's being less than honest about these two issues - you know, the public can take only so much drama at once. Besides, why reveal any more now than you have to - future revelations will bring fresh waves of fame once her current intensity of fame peters out (pun intended)?

The Caitlyn revelations will make it harder to be a good parent. I mean, how do you explain to your twelve-year-old what this means? I had the same question after I read an article in the Chicago Reader about how to go about properly engaging in anal sex. This detailed article provoked my reaction: "No, this is not OK. Children have access to this magazine."

This whole sex and gender identification thing mystifies me as a practicing Buddhist. As I explained once to a hospital orderly who was interested in my views on Buddhism, "At a certain point in a Buddhist's practice, he doesn't have friends, he doesn't have lovers, he doesn't have significant others. What he does have are fellow compassionate seekers of enlightenment with whom he can practice and try to convert others."

Some will point out, "The Buddha had a wife and had sex which produced a child." Yes, he did have a wife, but he didn't necessarily need to have sex to produce a child. There is such a thing, in the Buddhist canon, of being born by means of transformation (that is, sexual contact not being necessary). It is widely assumed that the Buddha was male. However, that's mere assumption, or an image the Buddha wished to convey, since "he" was a shapeshifter. I'll bet that if one of the Buddha's disciples had managed to sneak up behind him and pull up his robe, he wouldn't have seen any genitalia at all.

As a closing note, I noticed Caitlyn's fabulous hair on that Vanity Fair cover. I could never understand the fixation that women the world over have with long, luxuriant hair. I'd like to know the karmic significance of this, for hair surely can't be that important, can it? For what it's worth, my preference is for bald women or those who have only a bare amount. Such women are either Buddhist nuns or suffering from cancer. I say a prayer in either case and lust after neither.

I also say a prayer for Caitlyn, hoping she indeed is purely motivated.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, just another member of

The Virtual Samgha of the Lotus and

Former Candidate for USA President (in 2008 & 2012)

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com