[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: Only one Supreme Court justice protected Trump's executive privilege from Biden's clutches I won't say this opinion is the worst to come down the pike since Dred Scott. It just offers a variation on Peter Finley Dunne's "Mr. Dooley," in that the Supreme Court follows the editorial pages (along with the election returns). It is not with difficulty that one imagines Chief Justice Roberts's anticipation of thunderous criticism from The New York Times had the Court ruled in favor of the former president. Seems to me the Court (save for Justice Thomas) has now given power of rejecting executive privilege to a successor president who unconditionally loathes his predecessor. Political decisions are hardly conducive to consistency in governmental transitions. It is alarming that a Court that relies on precedent should be blind to the havoc it has now wrought in governmental stability as we careen from one administration to another. Perhaps the craven conservatives, joining the rabid leftists on the United States Supreme Court, are pleased to have contributed some small measure to the current campaign to keep the White House Trumprein from January 20, 2025 to January 20, 2029. This likelihood, certainly, must mean that the Judicial Branch, playing politics, not jurisprudence, has likely acted to bring about a Republican landslide in November 2024, far greater than with Donald J. Trump the GOP standard-bearer, particularly if Mr. Trump appreciates the effect of his departure from presidential politics on the Democrats. What, pray tell, will the Democrat base do if they no longer have Donald J. Trump to demonize? Will they come out in droves (or massive ballot box drops) to oppose, say, the gravitas-laden, newly svelte Michael Pompeo, former member of Congress, former CIA director, former successful secretary of state, as Republican nominee for president in 2024? Of course not; they will stay home, leaving the bastions of Trump-haters and NeverTrump malcontents fuming as their sailing vessels remain in port due to the absence of political winds. One imagines the mindsets of voters from New York City to L.A.: "Mike Pompeo, a lying, white nationalist threat to U.S. democracy? Give me a break." Top Articles By American Thinker Two brilliant doctors explain what’s really going on with COVID This horribilus political statement from the United Supreme Court may well be signal that the Deep State will not tolerate Mr. Trump's return to the presidency — as it would not tolerate his re-election in 2020. The Deep State will have shown itself too clever by half in maintaining its focus on Mr. Trump. It just might be about to learn, starting with the midterms next November, that winning a battle does not determine the outcome of the war — and this war has always been a matter of the aggrandizing class against conservative populists, not against the solitary figure of Donald J. Trump. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Clarence Thomas voted in Tromp's favor and his banal appointees didn't? Gee, do you think PDT learned anything useful there? I don't either. _____________________________________________________________ USA! USA! USA! Bringing you democracy, or else! there were strains of VD that were incurable, and they were first found in the Philippines and then transmitted to the Korean working girls via US military. The 'incurables' we were told were first taken back to a military hospital in the Philippines to quietly die. – 4um
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||