As the ongoing impeachment process turns its wheel like a soap opera straight from the day time writers, one thing is evident, there is no neutrality. Both sides made arguments that could be seen as correct and both sides are holding to their respective arguments like security blankets. As I listened, I tried my best to be impartial and what I learned was that I was not even remotely qualified to make a decision on whether impeachment is the way to go. After it was all over, I was more confused about the legitimacy of the proceedings then before it started. This article is not, though, about impeachment but how could you fix a problem that seems to be over the common persons ability to decipher and obviously does not belong in the realm of partisan politics. The answer seemed extremely obvious, at least to me. You need an impartial and neutral arena.

The government, for better or for worse and as a flight attendant that I once dated would say, is what it is. The questions that were asked by lawmakers seemed to be both relevant and irrelevant at the same time. A perfect example is the question about donations to political parties to the legal scholars arguing whether impeachment was the proper avenue to take. It was a real relevant question as it seemed to hit a bias right on the nose, the problem is though that the person that was asking the question, for better or for worse, probably did not contribute to his opposing party either and he is being a staunch defender for his side, making the question almost irrelevant. These questions are a two way street and they seemed to bog down the testimony. As I was listening to the legal scholars, I would think they are right, then I would hear the opposing view and think he is also right. Both sides can’t be right unless both sides are also wrong, it is what it is, thanks Kimberly.

So how do you get past this impasse? You need a third and neutral referee that could make that decision and they would also have to be legal scholars so they can get into the minutia of the argument and decipher the elements of the case and come up with a just decision. Wait, we do have a third part of government, the judicial branch, who happened to be experts on the law. How lucky. Or is it? This is why in past silly blogs that I have written, I expressed my concern on how judges are chosen and why they aren’t chosen by the branch of government that they work for but chosen by the two other branches of government whose fate could be ultimately be decided by them.

This article is renewed effort in trying to fix a problem which can be seen as glaring in circumstances like these. It is my belief that the judicial branch should pick their own members (judges), have the executive branch choose from one on the list and then have the legislative body confirm them. This would almost erase any conflict of interest that could come up in cases like this. While I feel that the judicial branch is as neutral as it gets, some will still argue and have argued that some judges are or were bias due to who appointed them. The phrase Obama judges and Bush judges and Trump judges have taken a toll on the impartiality that once prior seemed unquestionable in the judicial branch.

The constitution is over 200 years old, if my computer was over two hundred years old, it would definitely need updates. Maybe the constitution, which I always held was a living document because its writing affects living lives, should be resuscitated and given some new life. Our forefathers did their best to think of every scenario possible and they were pretty smart people, but as times roll along, their might have been problems that they did not foresee and that should be addressed. I believe giving the judicial branch more autonomy should be on the top of that list, at least in who should be hired to represent them.

What I am ultimately saying is that impeachment, a extremely powerful decision, should fall to the people that have nothing to gain or lose by the verdict, which should be the judicial branch and that’s why they should be free of attachments, as much as possible, to the other branches.

The Supreme Court weighs in on LGBQT rights in a case that will define if Title VII represents the gay community. I’m not a legal scholar nor am I a lawyer nor do I play one on TV but I have represented myself in court and I lost horribly but I did learn a few things, number 1, hire a lawyer and number 2, the courts are not really about common sense but interpreting the laws that are already in place, some of which make no god damn sense at all. I’m going to try and see if I, as a failed pro se litigant, can make sense of what is going to happen. The nine justices are going to interpret whether or not sexual orientation under Title VII of the civil rights act pertains to the gay community. There are two ways to do that. The first is to figure out if congress meant to say that sexual orientation was originally written to cover gay people when implemented, the second is to read the law literally and ask does the words sexual orientation actually means who you are attracted to sexually, whether hetero or homo in sexuality, or what genitalia you were born with. The good news for the plaintiffs, the gay community, is that the law didn’t specifically say one way or the other what it meant. Orientation is a real fluid word that can be interpreted as to mean that whomever you are oriented to be attracted to, thus fitting the definition of sexual orientation. The other good news is that gender is represented under Title VII. In 2012, the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or transgender status is prohibited under Title VII. The decision held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity qualified as discrimination on the basis of sex whether the discrimination was due to sex stereotyping, discomfort with the fact of an individual’s transition, or discrimination due to a perceived change in the individual’s sex. The plaintiff’s have previous case law and enforcement on their side. This doesn’t guarantee them a win, as a matter of fact, the case is being brought forth because of those cases. The prevailing thought is to feel that discriminating against anyone for any reason that doesn’t harm you, just your sense of religious right and wrong, and even that’s questionable, isn’t a good reason to fire someone but that’s not the Supreme Court’s mandate in deciding this case, it’s to decide or decipher what congress meant when they wrote the provision for the Civil Rights Act. The court has some leeway here, since sex or sexual orientation is such a broad term and can include LGBQT, the justices could just conclude that it is part of the Civil Rights Act, they can also ask congress to clarify the provision without making a ruling (I think), or they could say that it was not the original intent and shoot the case down, which would be disastrous and set the country back some 30 or 40 years by forcing people to hide their true nature just to gain employment. The thought that a person that is gay can be fired just because he/she is gay is obviously flawed and their should be protections for such discriminatory behavior. The fact is that it would be taken up by congress if the plaintiffs failed in their bid (I would hope) and give protections to these people. The prudent and just thing, now this is my opinion, is to have the justices rule in favor of the plaintiffs and give them a much deserved and common sense win, since the law is so broad and open to interpretation, because it will eventually happen and why make these people wait for what we all know is the right thing to do. The ruling will be saying love who you want, it’s your choice not your bosses. Now that makes sense, doesn’t it?