![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
A couple of the funnier cartoons I saw this morning:
^ so true!!!
^ the Republican party are turning against each other without the Democrats even lifting a finger.
In a scathing article published on April 26, The New Republic's Brynn Tannehill is vehemently critical of the way the Supreme Court has handled Trump's immunity claims.
The New Republic - The Court Just Sealed Everyone’s Fate, Including Its Own (free link)
At a minimum, it appears the court will send all of the federal cases back down to lower courts ... This delay all but guarantees that Trump will not stand trial for anything besides the current hush-money case before the 2024 election.
This is catastrophic in so many ways. The first is that it increases the already high chances that the United States ends up with a dictator who will attempt to rapidly disassemble democracy in pursuit of becoming President for Life. It simultaneously increases the chances that yes, he will go ahead and violate the civil and human rights of political opponents and classes of people he calls Communists, Marxists, and fascists. ...
The conservatives on the Supreme Court have also exposed their hubris, willful ignorance, and foolishness to the entire world in stark terms, and it will cost them and the nation dearly in the long run. They somehow presume that if Trump is elected and goes full dictator, that the power of the court, and their reputation, will save them.
The truth is, Trump’s relationships with everyone he meets are completely transactional. If the court ever stops being useful to him, he will terminate it with prejudice if he thinks he can get away with it, and this court is doing everything it can to make him think he can get away with it.
These justices’ foolishness lies in their lack of foresight as to what happens if Trump wins in 2024. In the justice’s efforts to ensure that they are the most powerful branch of government, they are about to make it the weakest.
They are creating a win-win situation for Trump, and a lose-lose for themselves.
When Trump is president again, he is likely to believe that he has the option of “removing” any member of the Supreme Court who defies him. As long as the court doesn’t rule against him, they’re fine. From the justices’ perspective, they either end up neutered lap dogs of a despot, who do whatever they’re told out of fear, or they defy him and end up somewhere unpleasant (at best).
In the end, the court appears to be doing everything to destroy itself, democracy, and the union, with its own arrogance and lack of foresight. It’s either castrated itself, and in the process doomed the country, or signed its own death warrant.
Sideface
Sideface:
When Trump is president again, he is likely to believe that he has the option of “removing” any member of the Supreme Court who defies him. As long as the court doesn’t rule against him, they’re fine. From the justices’ perspective, they either end up neutered lap dogs of a despot, who do whatever they’re told out of fear, or they defy him and end up somewhere unpleasant (at best).
In the end, the court appears to be doing everything to destroy itself, democracy, and the union, with its own arrogance and lack of foresight. It’s either castrated itself, and in the process doomed the country, or signed its own death warrant.
An extensive knowledge of the law doesn't necessarily bestow wisdom upon a person. In fact, such people are blinkered to only see and apply legal solutions rather than anything more applicable to complex human situations. Ergo, SCOTUS is qualified only to make rulings based on the letter of the law, and if such letters are obscure, its rulings will be no more than opinions.
IMHO, their collective attitude toward current elections issues can be summed up thus: "We can't be seen to be involved in any judgement that might influence a presidential election. The people must decide."
So, do these these jurists understand that they may have caused their own downfall by, basically, allowing Trump free reign? I doubt it would even cross their minds. "We're the Supreme Court of the USA. Our country is the strongest democracy in the world. (Oh, and by the way, we're more powerful than the President.)"
All of which is true. For now.
However, their decision to avoid a decision will have far-reaching implications for Trump. What do law-abiding citizens do when the law no longer abides by the citizens?
'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.' Voltaire
'A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.' Edward Abbey
The Washington Post - Opinion - Trump tempts the court to find him in contempt
On his first day in Justice Juan Merchan’s courtroom in New York, Donald Trump got a rude awakening: If he disrupted the court proceedings or failed to show up every day, he could lose the right to be in the courtroom, or even wind up behind bars. ...
While prosecutors stand a good chance of prevailing, given Trump’s outbursts against two critical witnesses, the court might soon be faced with the prospect of more social media outbursts.
The presumptive GOP nominee’s inability to contain himself might present Merchan with a dilemma: Jail Trump, allowing him to play the martyr, or permit him to bully witnesses and perhaps others associated with the trial?
Sideface
kingdragonfly: I don't think Pecker (real name), Michael Cohen, or Stormy Daniels can be bullied by Trump.
Indeed: https://newrepublic.com/post/181057/trump-advisers-stunned-details-hush-money-trial
So far, the court has heard testimony from David Pecker, the former CEO of American Media Inc. and ex-publisher of the National Enquirer, who has provided damaging information about Trump’s activities and even how many of Trump’s associates were involved. Trump has been hesitant to attack Pecker, leading some observers to suspect that he’s afraid of the tabloid magnate.
This is quite a turn - Trump actually being scared of someone, for once?
quickymart:
This is quite a turn - Trump actually being scared of someone, for once?
Trump is afraid of everyone he can't control. Classic bully behaviour.
Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos
Sideface:
In a scathing article published on April 26, The New Republic's Brynn Tannehill is vehemently critical of the way the Supreme Court has handled Trump's immunity claims.
The New Republic - The Court Just Sealed Everyone’s Fate, Including Its Own (free link)
At a minimum, it appears the court will send all of the federal cases back down to lower courts ... This delay all but guarantees that Trump will not stand trial for anything besides the current hush-money case before the 2024 election.
This is catastrophic in so many ways. The first is that it increases the already high chances that the United States ends up with a dictator who will attempt to rapidly disassemble democracy in pursuit of becoming President for Life. It simultaneously increases the chances that yes, he will go ahead and violate the civil and human rights of political opponents and classes of people he calls Communists, Marxists, and fascists. ...
The conservatives on the Supreme Court have also exposed their hubris, willful ignorance, and foolishness to the entire world in stark terms, and it will cost them and the nation dearly in the long run. They somehow presume that if Trump is elected and goes full dictator, that the power of the court, and their reputation, will save them.
The truth is, Trump’s relationships with everyone he meets are completely transactional. If the court ever stops being useful to him, he will terminate it with prejudice if he thinks he can get away with it, and this court is doing everything it can to make him think he can get away with it.
These justices’ foolishness lies in their lack of foresight as to what happens if Trump wins in 2024. In the justice’s efforts to ensure that they are the most powerful branch of government, they are about to make it the weakest.
They are creating a win-win situation for Trump, and a lose-lose for themselves.
When Trump is president again, he is likely to believe that he has the option of “removing” any member of the Supreme Court who defies him. As long as the court doesn’t rule against him, they’re fine. From the justices’ perspective, they either end up neutered lap dogs of a despot, who do whatever they’re told out of fear, or they defy him and end up somewhere unpleasant (at best).
In the end, the court appears to be doing everything to destroy itself, democracy, and the union, with its own arrogance and lack of foresight. It’s either castrated itself, and in the process doomed the country, or signed its own death warrant.
And impeaching corrupt SCOTUS judges requires a Senate super-majority. The former last happened in the 19th century, and the latter hasn't really been a thing since LBJ was in the White House. America's Founding Fathers planned for a Trump regime, but not a Speaker Gingrich, Senate Leader McConnell or Judge Clarence Thomas.
"I regret to say that we of the F.B.I. are powerless to act in cases of oral-genital intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate commerce." — J. Edgar Hoover
"Create a society that values material things above all else. Strip it of industry. Raise taxes for the poor and reduce them for the rich and for corporations. Prop up failed financial institutions with public money. Ask for more tax, while vastly reducing public services. Put adverts everywhere, regardless of people's ability to afford the things they advertise. Allow the cost of food and housing to eclipse people's ability to pay for them. Light blue touch paper." — Andrew Maxwell
The Washington Post - Opinion - Supreme Court wants clarification of official & personal acts
Sideface
kingdragonfly: “I feel like a young man...,” Trump said in April.
Quite understandable. He's had a lot trouble with women.
'Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.' Voltaire
'A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.' Edward Abbey
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |