There is some hope for sanity.

4/27/24:

4:22 PM

The Political Left has all the info sources locked up. Look around the web, and you'd think that it's all on their side. But, what if the public doesn't see it that way? How would we know, if the elections aren't honest and fair?

It brings me back to the thoughts I once had, and am having again. The world is not ruled by virtue, but by vice. That is, within this context, the truth could settle things, but there's no interest in that. It is dishonesty that's the vice, and it is the dishonesty that rules the world. This is not to excuse it, mind you. It is merely an acknowledgement of the reality of existence.

If there was a honest account of the election of 2020, it might well be the case that Donald Trump lost. However, nothing that has happened that convinces me that this is what actually happened. Instead, there is a strong motive to lie about what happened, and to use force and fraud to keep the truth of the matter from being discovered.

There was no need for what happened. Those people who showed up at the US Capitol on January 6th weren't there to overthrow the government. A government that was run in good faith would have been able to sort it all out without all this. Therefore, as long as one side continues to be dishonest in their dealings, as the Democrats have certainly been, the suspicion about the truth of what happened is certainly justified.

If the Democrats were so sure of their righteousness, why do they need to be dishonest?

end update

This has gotten me a bit worried. There's a lot of pitfalls here, even in a victory for Trump. A government that was run in good faith would have been able to sort it all out without all this.

9:00 AM

Note: Something happened to what I wrote. The next paragraph has been discombobulated somewhat. I tried correcting it. It's just not exactly what I wrote. I cannot explain what happened.

Far from it to be the case that I'd say that [starts here...]there should be a doctrine of the "King can do no wrong". But we already have a remedy for that doctrine, as mentioned below. No, the President shouldn't be allowed to do whatever comes to mind. But isn't that concern ironic when no such concern exists when Democrat Presidents act badly? Or do they really believe that they ( meaning the Democrats) can do no wrong?

There is accountability for Republicans, but not for Democrats. What protects the weaker party against the strong? The strong can do whatever it likes, even now. Democrats seek this kind of power, but do not wish the GOP to have it. That'd be the case if the GOP even wanted it, which they don't. The GOP seems to run away from power, but the Democrats seek it at all costs.

We may be slipping into a Kobayashi Maru scenario. No matter which way you turn, you can't win. If Trump wins this, it can become precedent in that the Democrats could take advantage even more so than they do now. If Trump loses this, there's no real check on Biden anyway, because the GOP will never seek the same remedies that the Democrats do. For example, there will no GOP equivalent of Lawfare against an opposition Party President. There's none now, nor will there be anything likely to emerge from any such decision from this court.

If there's to be an additional check on Presidential powers, then it should be done by Constitutional Amendment. This is how you know that the Democrat arguments against presidential abuses are phony. There already exists a remedy, which they ignore when it is to their disadvantage. But if more checks are needed, they won't resort to more legal checks, but in more powers for themselves. They don't object to exercise of power, just the opposition's use of it. Not to mention, more and more powers to themselves.

end daily update:

7:16am

Maybe I was HASTY. It does indeed appear that the crazies are definitely getting butthurt that their insane views are not going to be upheld in the Supreme Court.

This isn't originalism, they shriek. While it is certainly true that there isn't any explicit immunity mentioned in the Constitution regarding the President, it can certainly be said that it is in a long tradition that the "King can do no wrong". An official act cannot be prosecuted, nor can a suit be filed against the President while in office. Do these wackos really want to change that? By the way, don't they LOVE STARE DECICIS? When has it ever been debated that official acts can be prosecuted?

Not to mention that all executive functions have immunity like this. You don't go around suing and/or prosecuting governors, cabinet officers, POLICE and the like for doing their JOBS. You would loose anarchy upon the nation. Somebody has to run the show. Sorry, you whackjobs. You cannot complain about it when sanity just might prevail.

The remedy for official misconduct is IMPEACHMENT. The whackjobs have no problem using that avenue against their opponents, but not when it comes their own. ( Mayorkas anyone????) So, it is NOT the principle of accountability to the law here. It is the accountability to the whackjobs that these whackjobs want. THEY are the law, and you'd better not ever forget it.

Lord save us from these madmen. They will be our undoing.



end update of 4/26/24 post:

Maybe it's real. Let's hope so.

"Trump doesn't need absolute immunity". Listen for that, as it comes up quickly.

There was an analysis of the arguments before the court, which gave me a quick sense of dread about some disastrous outcome that could occur. That outcome would be to allow the trial to go forward. Anyway, that analysis took Trump's defense team to task for its argument for absolute immunity. But this guy says absolute immunity isn't necessary for Trump to prevail.

Anyway, his take seems reassuring that this isn't likely. The Democrats should received a spanking, not more encouragement and support for really bad behavior. Ideally, the Democrats should have a lot of egg on their faces for all this. Anything less just won't do.