Friends, no doubt Dems are crowing because the House GOP narrowly failed to impeach DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Four Republicans voted with all the Democrats to scuttle the two articles of impeachment. This is, in fact, an embarrassing defeat for Republicans, insofar as it's hard to understand why impeachment would even be on the table if the House GOP were not more or less certain that it would pass. Putting that aside, however, the failure to impeach Mayorkas will have no practical effect and precious little long-term political significance either. Mayorkas, even if impeached, was never going to be convicted and removed by the Senate, controlled as it is by Democrats. In fact, I doubt whether the Dems even would have bothered with a trial. Moreover, with Mayorkas left in place as head of the Department of Homeland Security, and with Joe "Open Borders" Biden left as president, no significant changes to border policy would have flowed from impeachment either. The only hope that a tougher stance will be taken against the current wave of migrants is this: the Dems may feel that it is in their narrow, short-term political interests to make it appear, temporarily, that they can control the border when they really, really try. That would make a potentially winning issue for the GOP in 2024 disappear -- or at least become less acute. I view the impeachment effort against Mayorkas as little more than political theater, therefore, and his mighty "vindication" today is equally hollow. He remains a terrible liability to the Biden Administration and the Democrats, but not because he's incompetent -- oh no, he's all too competent. He's been expertly administering a migration policy that was designed from the start to roll back Trump's tough measures, literally deconstruct "the Wall", and thus facilitate and encourage an upsurge in migration. Mission accomplished! And now the Dems will have to live with the political fallout.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68172247
Here's an interesting case of a journalist receiving a big payout because of a civil finding of "defamation", which bears some eerie similarity to the E. Jean Carroll case against Trump. Apparently, it's getting easier and easier to bring suits for defamation in the U.S. of A., and we may all ultimately lose out because of this development. That's because defamation cases can have a chilling effect on free speech, and let's not forget that the arbiters of these cases are not really jurors, but judges and lawyers. Do we really want to entrust the future of our constitutional rights to the legal elite? I say no thanks!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Marjorie Taylor Greene, bless her, said the dissenting GOP reps will hear from their constituents. Maybe; I hope so in case these four have other rino aspirations . But I think this effort was never paid much attention by Americans. Perhaps the House did its pro forma duty by trying; Mayorkas is lawless. I agree completely; this obviously intentional flouting of US law in order to accomplish an end considered indispensable by the antiamerican left can only be stopped by running the dems out of office in November. Failing this, we will see the relieved incipient totalitarians make a final drive to assure their imminent takeover.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Ehh, the term is "pyrrhic victory". Oh wait, you probably knew that.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Very good point about the increasing danger we face from the legal elite. Those many introduced to the law by adherents of the Critical Legal Studies school present the onerous prospect of advancing the establishment of a nation of whim rather than laws. This would make of the legal profession a cadre of "facilitators" only, of arbitrary and emotionally guided judgements; this is fitting for the transition to totalitarianism but would be displaced by dictatorial mandates from on high, touching all matters, public and "private".
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Re: the Mayorkas vote; we'll never politically break the antiamerican left until our legislators RESOLVE to close ranks, unless to vote our side is unbearably offensive and not just tactically objectionable. Those aspiring totalitarians who have so disgraced the dem party have nonetheless shown how decisive that cohesion can be and unless we set ourselves to play for keeps, as they do, no matter how icky some may find it, they will continue to degrade America beyond measure and redemption.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: We have already seen the fell effect of the ruthless enforcement of social and , increasingly , legal sanctions for expressed doubt of the "verities" mandated by the antiamerican left. Its obvious in the business world, education (including the putative setpiece for intellectual integrity - the university), sports, the arts , popular culture, the military and who can say where or when else. If left to it, it will work vindictive and comprehensive destruction on our free civilization. We must face the FACT, with foresquare sobriety, that our country manifests a perhaps decisive faction which believes that our fundamental national principles are unjust and condemned and must be forceably replaced on the catastrophically discredited marxist model.
ReplyDeleteAgreed -- the American people were never paying much attention to the impeachment sideshow anyway, just as they won't be paying attention to the "border bill" either. They will be paying attention if their communities continue to be inundated with the developing world's huddled masses, mind you.
ReplyDeleteJack, the scary thing is that increasingly our professionals, our business and financial elite, and the highly educated and well-heeled in general, cannot tell the difference between "justice" and vengeance against those they are taught to hate. They keep telling us that we're the ones with contempt for "evidence" and "facts" and "science", but they should take a good, hard look in the mirror sometime!
True, Jack -- if the GOP had true party discipline, DJT's attempts to overturn the election results in 2020 would have succeeded, after all. All it would have taken was one house of Congress throwing out a sufficient number of electoral votes, and the House would have reelected Trump. But no -- Republicans' sense of fair play (how "fair" was it?), and perhaps their fear of the media, precluded that possibility.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: The allegation of use of an epithet which can ruin a person whose job depends on a good reputation is a very serious matter and that paper should have been more careful. I think the tort of defamation must manifest malicious intent and apparently the paper did not do so in its story . But despite the paper's correction, substantial damage to the broadcaster's vital reputation may linger. I think the broadcaster certainly deserved some indemnification for the wrong he was done and the mental and emotional distress it had to have caused him. Casual politically charged misuse of defamation charges could hamstring a President who must have some special latitude in , for example, firing subordinates or engaging political opponents; for the lawless antiamerican left its arbitrary use offers limitless opportunity for intimidation.
ReplyDeleteJack, I personally take the view that, in cases where no pernicious intent can be identified, and in which the person hurling insults does so based on a misunderstanding, a suit for "defamation" is not an appropriate remedy.
ReplyDelete