The Court always rules in favor of the Court. When Chief Justice Roberts dissented against the other eight, he ruled against the court to preserve order in the Court. In this case, the students suing over free speech censorship probably don’t want to allow a private settlement to enable it to happen again. The concern at stake was whether the court can decide a real lawsuit after the basis is settled, but the injured party files suit for $1 anyway. Thomas thinks that $1 makes it real. Roberts doesn’t want judges giving opinions on problems that don’t exist—a judicial practice called “advisory opinion” that expired over 200 years ago. The problem is that this case is real, but it was privately resolved, thus the basis disappeared before the court had opportunity to rule.
The result is that anyone can sue anyone for $1 and SCOTUS could hear the case. That certainly favors the Court’s expanded abilities. The Court always rules in favor of the Court.
Europe isn’t happy about COVID-19 vaccines or the predicted third wave. Americans aren’t happy about how Democratic Governors Whitmer and Cuomo handled the pandemic. If nothing else, someone could sue them each for $1 and a Republican-appointed SCOTUS would get to decide their fates.
Republican leaders continue to lecture a public which no longer trusts them. They want the American people to “move on”, apparently without knowing that would mean moving on “from them”. But, people can’t move on when they are convinced of election fraud anymore than we can move on with unaddressed police killing.
The solution is to restore confidence in what has well-earned doubt. Government doesn’t want to do that, but only “solve” problems by making more problems that will gain more distrust. The public has a breaking point. We are getting very close to that point. And, both parties are both stepping on the gas when they should both be stepping on the breaks.
Trump plans to present more election fraud in defense at his Senate trial. Chief Justice Roberts has made it clear he doesn’t want to hear any evidence of election fraud—he shares that view with several other judges. Remember, the Court always votes in favor of the Court. It is not impossible for Roberts to walk into the Senate, sit down, declare, “The plaintiff is not the incumbent; dismissed,” swing his gavel, and walk out. With Trump’s intended defense, Robert’s only other option would be to shut down presentation of evidence while the nation watches. That is, unless he has changed his mind on hearing evidence.
No less than 45 Republican Senators voted that the trial itself is unconstitutional. If any of them vote to remove Trump from an office he no longer holds, they would have declared themselves unconstitutional in their own opinions and thus hasten the growing distrust of the RNC. So you see, Roberts and the Republicans are in a tight spot.
In the Supreme Court ruling on Congress’ subpoena of the president, everyone claims the ruling was in their favor. Democratic members of Congress point out the court’s statement that one branch is not above the law. Trump points out the court’s decision to return the pro-subpoena decision of a lower court decision as unfinished homework. The subpoena will not go into effect before the end of the session of Congress that ordered it. Trump is accused by the media of a meltdown for saying so and Democrats call their defunct subpoena a victory.
What in the Hill is going on? In the court’s decision to return the incomplete ruling, Chief Justice Roberts briefly quoted Hamilton from Federalist No. 71. Consider a fuller quote:
The representatives of the people, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the people themselves, and betray strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any other quarter; as if the exercise of its rights, by either the executive or judiciary, were a breach of their privilege and an outrage to their dignity. They often appear disposed to exert an imperious control over the other departments; and as they commonly have the people on their side, they always act with such momentum as to make it very difficult for the other members of the government to maintain the balance of the Constitution.
This is a problem as ancient as legislatures themselves. Congress can’t skip process when giving a subpoena, even to a president, anymore than one can be immune from a subpoena, even the president. Both tried, both failed, but only Congress lost something of substance. This Congress will end before a decision is reached and there will be no tax records shown before the election. Still, Congressional Democrats delusionally declared victory. What Hamilton described in Congress may be called “narcissistic rage” by psychologists today.
As seen in response to the pneumoniavirus, Democrats think that crippling the economy and forcing dependace on the State will boost their popularity. But, such measures wouldn’t be needed if Democrats were as popular—and Trump were as unpopular—as the media touts them to be. Given their apparent view of the world, this makes perfect sense.
Neither party in Congress speaks for the worldview of any large portion of the people. Republicans in Congress are largely elitist; the vast majority of their voters are not. Democrats in Congress speak for a small segment of their own votership as well—those few who are anti-life, who fear everything, whose action unchecked would kill everything, who nonetheless fear that anything could kill them, and who believe that everyone else thinks the same.
This is interesting because the psychological behavior of “projecting” one’s own view onto others is a trait of Narcissistic Disorder. Thankfully, they are not the majority they think themselves to be, not even within their own party. It is ironic timing that psychology journals are reporting a condition being called “PTBO”, where people who are easily offended are clinically proven less effective in the workplace. We don’t need to say which political ideology the affected group of that study would likely fall into. Week by week, an ever greater majority of America wakes up to the insanity of Capitol Hill.
The Left is desperate and the Right is getting even moreso. With Chief Justice Roberts casting the deciding vote with Liberal justices, kicking back Trump’s move against DACA, Trumpists will lean in more than ever to fill upcoming Clinton-appointed vacancies with Conservatives.
Why would a million people reserve seats for a rally, then not show? Tump’s Tulsa rally seemed small, but there was more going on. Democrat-voting “influencers” are reported to have mocked the event—an act of desperation. How did they know? One doesn’t need to chide a president who is losing on his own. The social media platform TikTok was also reported involved—another act of desperation, and they are owned by the Chinese.
Surprisingly low turnouts are rare for Trump events. Mischief from the Left is suspect, squatter reservations and virus lock down policies among them. Low-turnout Tulsa won’t be overlooked in the Trump chronicles. And, it will rouse Republican voters while setting Democratic voters at ease to think the election is stacked in Biden’s favor.
While state and city police deal with protests, Trump steps back to allow local governments to work, yet he introduced some of the most sweeping police reform policy ever. Congress also is pushing for police reform.
As the looming election casts its normal shadow of question and concern, we are finally forced to deal with old problems which never should have been, just as much as no one found a way to escape them, let alone end them—until now.
Justice Roberts doesn’t believe that the citizenship question in the upcoming census is about voting rights. He’s right, it probably isn’t. A more believable reason might have been to confirm the accuracy of immigrant statistics from other Federal reports. A better census question would have been multiple choice: citizen, green card, other visa, and entry not requiring visa—nothing incriminating about that. Putting the question on a separate form from the rest of the census form would skew the data to protect privacy. But, SCOTUS wouldn’t allow the question as presented for the reason as defended.
We have two big issues with this ruling. First, if census questions are too invasive, people won’t answer them, then the data is less accurate. Second, remember: The Supreme Court always votes in favor of the Court, more than Right or Left politics, more than constitutionalism or idealism. And, as we should expect from hard-working law school grads, supreme justices love to penalize sloppy homework.
If we wanted to know Roberts’s politics, the defense should have provided a better defense. Trump shouldn’t have let his lawyers give lame reasons for relevant questions because the true reasons are good enough: The government wants to know the accuracy of other reports. Now, those other reports will be collected, collaborated, and cross-referenced instead, which might have been a better rout in the first place.
The Democrats enjoyed the younger generation of voters accusing anything and everything of being about racism, even when it wasn’t. It came in handy as a wild carded, one-shot-for-all silver bullet for rebutting opposition to Obama. It helped them get elected under the auspices of fighting a never-ending battle that had to continue. But, when one such young person got elected, it messed with the non-democratic rank-and-file culture of the so-called Democratic party. Now, Pelosi and AOC are in a cat fight. The problem is that people care. It’s not news, it’s just politics as usual. Maybe it’s a nice wake-up call to what is usual in Washington.
Just as usual is the scandalous underbelly of Washington, including Epstein. When he was caught up in scandals with Democrats, he didn’t matter. Now that they can’t keep their underage pimp afloat, the salvage operation in the Washington spin-control department wants to tie Epstein to Trump to at least get some return for their great loss. They’ll have to find someone to replace him now. And, they’d at least like to say the same for Trump, but they can’t.
The US faces politics within and without. President Trump refers to judges appointed by a president; Chief Justice Roberts rebuts, effectively, that judges aren’t owned by presidents. Trump never said they were, he was referring to who appointed them. Who makes an appointment is relevant, even in a court trial. Unless the question, “Who appointed you?” has never been answered by a plaintiff or witness in court, Roberts misunderstood. It would be best that the chief justice accurately understand the commander-in-chief’s “original intent”. As for Roberts’s claim that courts are impartial, that certainly is what we all hope for. Trump’s predication is that perfection is a humanly unreachable destination, which is why we need courts in the first place.
At the border, Mexico allowed the so-named “caravan”, now reported at over 8k people, to march through its country seeking immediate help, instant protection, urgent safety, emergency respite from political persecution—or some other timely need that is required to receive “asylum”. Asylum is not a fun thing to receive and often means never being allowed to leave the country once inside. Edward Snowden wasn’t allowed to walk from Hong Kong to Moscow, picking and choosing which country he could seek asylum from; he had to get it right where he was, before leaving the international terminal. If anyone in that caravan can prove that the kinds of protection an asylum specifically grants could not be provided by the many countries they marched through for many weeks, then they should be granted an asylum. They would also need to prove that they would never return to their home country to visit family, no matter what. That’s a tall order. But, if they can do it, they deserve it, but only if.
The Russianewsgategate scandal scandal is still barking and honking, predicting drama and awe, while quietly reminding audiences that there will probably be no indictment. ‘Tis no more than theater at this point, but an act that needs to be kept up so that the cast won’t be accused of having been pretending the whole time. After Kavanaugh’s unfair trial dubbed a “hearing”, avoiding the appearance of fakery in DC theater is important these days.
Whatever is going on in the US is a lot better than what’s going on in Europe. We are witnessing ancient, Biblical prophecy fulfilled in our day: The winged lion of Daniel 7:4 had the eagle’s wings removed and has now been given the sane mind of a human. While eagle’s wings internationally represent America’s mascot, the lion represents Britain’s. While Prime Minister May gave her speech about the Brexit status, she stood behind the crest of Britain’s lion. It is clear from her speech—by leaving the EU, Britain is no longer part of the madness festering in Europe.
