An angry President Donald Trump has come out swinging against Dr. Anthony Fauci, the press and polls that show him trailing Democrat Joe Biden in key battleground states in a disjointed closing message two weeks before Election Day.
“People are tired of hearing Fauci and all these idiots,” Trump said of the government’s top infectious disease expert. “Every time he goes on television, there’s always a bomb. But there’s a bigger bomb if you fire him. But Fauci’s a disaster."
If you take a look at the polling on Fauci, he polls 20-25% higher than Trump. Attacking Fauci may make his base of rabid Trumpanzees happy, but Trump can't win without more support from people that he has been alienating. So, is he really trying to lose, or is it that Trump only has one tool in his toolbox and that's what he's using?
On another note:
The Supreme Court will allow Pennsylvania to count mailed-in ballots received up to three days after the Nov. 3 election, rejecting a Republican plea in the presidential battleground state.
The justices divided 4-4 on Monday, an outcome that upholds a state Supreme Court ruling that required county election officials to receive and count mailed-in ballots that arrive up until Nov. 6, even if they don’t have a clear postmark, as long as there is not proof it was mailed after the polls closed.
It has seemed, at least somewhat, that the Supremes have largely been seeing things Trump's way during this election season. This one was a loss for Trump. One might suspect that there is at least one justice who believes that if the Supremes become seen as a subsidiary of GOP, Inc., they could end up with a few more people sitting next to them.
The Supreme Court's ruling operate by persuasion, not by a use of force. This country operates, in large measure, by rule of law. Even so, it took decdes for the ruling against school segregation to be fully implemented.[1] If the nation largely decides to ignore a ruling, there is little that the Court can do about it. Oh, if the district court judges can nail a few people for contempt charges, they might, but it's pretty hard to hold the country in contempt. A few of the justices probably keep this in mind, that they are not all-powerful gods, and in a way, like the gods themselves, they only have power and influence if people believe in them.
If the Court starts issuing rulings that are far out of step with the sentiment of the nation, it will not be good for the Court itself. Over a century ago, it was observed that while the Supreme Court may follow the Constitution, they also follow the elecion returns. That observation is probably still true.
_________________________________________
[1] It is arguable that the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education has never been truly implemented. Between private schools, charter schools and "white flight" (segregation by town boundaries), schools in many areas are still, effectively, segregated.
5 comments:
As I noted before, that was likely one Roberts Jr., John Grove. If the Handmaid does make the Court, oh to be a fly on the wall for his welcome meeting.0
If all the Supremes needed to do was "follow the law" and call "balls and strikes" we wouldn't need a court. The problem is that the law is not always crystal clear in every situation, 18th Century "original intent" cannot apply to situations and technologies that didn't even exist in the 18th Century, and it's hard to call a ball or a strike against the flight of of sparrows. You say it's a strike? I say it's a swoop of chirping birds and that they are not playing baseball and have no concept of the game.
Consequently, the political viewpoints of the Supreme Court's justices is a matter of valid public concern. Or outrage. When we get the kind of shenanigans that Mitch McConnell has pulled to have a far right ideologue like Barrett making life-and-death decision for the rest of us, we have the right to call it what it is— foul.
Yours very crankily,
The New York Crank
Yep, confirmed it was Johnny. The reality is an active far right Court would potentially ensconce a left leaning Legislative Branch for a while, and while the SCOTUS can easily overwhelm Legislative actions for a short period, there would be serious blowback, and they know it. Alito is 70 and Thomas is 72, so on average they would live to 85 or 86. Add in the youngish Handmaid, and they have 3 Conservative votes plus a Conservative* Chief Justice (who is more than a little concerned that the SCOTUS does not appear overly political and destroy its position, something that is already threatened). If Biden wins and the Senate goes blue, expect Breyer to step down promptly, and Kagan has a fair chance of matching or outlasting Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Sotomayor likely will carefully consider stepping down, depending on her overall health.
I said it just the other day: Roberts needs the Opus Dei - Catholic Illuminatti - Handmaiden on the court to give him cover as an "impartial chief justice". See more of this.
He wasn't supposed to win it in the first place. I'm not going to go into detail my observations as to the shared culpability of the parties in the circumstances we - including We Of No Particular Party - find ourselves in, suffice it to say it didn't have to be this way. He was supposed to lose, start a tv station so he could birther or whatever Clinton for eight years and fleece the rubes for billions dollars, just like those tv christians. I would venture that is the plan now: just be as obnoxious as can be, doing everything he can to not get re-elected, then start that tv station and fleece the rubes birthering Kamala Harris and otherwise hectoring Joe Biden as "president-in-exile", no doubt pod/broadcast out of Israel (you don't really think Putin's going to give them asylum, do you?). He wasn't supposed to win in the first place.
I'm still waiting for the bat shit insane meltdown. Donnie Two Scoops has only one horse to flog: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/20/opinion/sunday/trump-steve-bannon-fraud.html
But what about the interregnum and the constitution? Start with Safe Harbor.
Post a Comment