Gordon L. Weil
Racism
President Trump is responsible for posts from the White
House on his Truth Social.
He has lowered communications on his site to the level of
the street. The presidency has been
stripped of the respect it needs and deserves.
A racist post from the White House about former President
Obama and his wife Michelle was uploaded to Truth Social. Trump has refused any responsibility for it and
would not apologize to the Obamas and the American public.
He allowed his in-house propagandist to excuse the post,
then supported her obvious lie. He
insults our intelligence.
Both the post and his reaction are evidence that Trump is a
racist.
No rational person, much less a national leader, would allow
such a post and refuse to apologize for it.
That raises the question of whether Trump can be considered a rational
person.
BTW, scientific theory, based on DNA, suggests that we may all
descend from an African female, known as “mitochondrial
eve.”
Impeachment vote
Impeaching federal officials requires a majority of the
House of Representatives. If the Democrats
take control of the House after this November’s elections, they might impeach Trump
for a third time. That goes a long way
to explaining his efforts to maintain GOP House control.
If he were impeached, the Senate would almost certainly be
unable to muster the two-thirds needed to convict him. That would not deter Democrats who could seek
to embarrass him, while forcing him to focus attention on his trial rather than
on new initiatives.
For a person so clearly concerned about how others see him,
a third impeachment would assure him a negative verdict in presidential history. That could appeal to frustrated Democrats.
The outcome would also further devalue impeachment, which is
fast becoming nothing more than a symbolic vote of no confidence in the
president. While impeachment may become
part of the political woodwork, it will end up changing little. With almost no possibility of the conviction
of any president, perhaps politicizing impeachment is its best use.
Court delays
The Supreme Court has moved quickly to issue procedural orders
allowing Trump to pursue many of his disputed actions until it renders final
decisions. The president gets months of leeway
to act before there’s any risk that the Court will halt some of his policies. Meanwhile, the district courts keep issuing adverse
decisions for later Supreme Court review.
Trump’s use of emergency powers to justify raising tariffs
has already been rejected in two courts’ detailed rulings. During a hearing, Supreme
Court justices questioned his use of the law.
But the Court has not issued its decision, allowing the tariffs
to apply. While there’s a broad expectation that the
Court will rule against the president, its delay defies explanation. It is undoubtedly giving Trump more time to
prepare fallback measures if he loses.
The Court’s excuse might be that it has so many major cases
that its decision-making must obviously slow down. If so, that makes the case for enlarging the
Court.
Years ago, the Court made 200 decisions a year. Now, it barely reaches 70 rulings. With more justices it could dole out the work
to more hands. It should then be
possible to work somewhat faster.
Enlargement does not require court packing. Instead, as I have previously proposed, Congress
could create temporary slots. Justices
would be added to the usual nine and could move from a temporary seat to a
permanent place as older justices left the Court. This would be a temporary solution that could
be made permanent after its effect was tested.
Temporary slots have been used for the Supreme Court and courts
of appeal. Right now, they are being
used for federal district courts.
Clintons decide to testify
Bill and Hilary Clinton declined to testify before the House
committee looking at the Epstein revelations.
As a result, the Republican-dominated committee geared up to find them
in contempt of Congress.
Congress has no prosecutorial powers, so its contempt
finding would go to the Justice Department for action. Congress might score political points,
believing that the Justice Department would not proceed to prosecution.
But with Trump allies controlling Congress and Trump himself
directing the Justice Department, the Clintons could envisage being formally
charged with contempt, leading to a trial.
So, they decided to head for cover by withdrawing their refusal to
testify.
Their decision reflected the political reality of dealing
with a system dominated by your political opponent. Trump is dedicated to partisanship,
retribution and the destruction of his presidential predecessors. His loyal, if unprincipled, appointees cater
to his wishes.
In the end, as many others in the Epstein files may be
finding, it may be better to accept a short-term hit to your political reputation
than to face conviction of guilt by association – or worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment