Subscription

Saturday, September 28, 2024

Courting Trump

 



Friends, many conservatives were disappointed with the performance of Donald Trump as president in his first term.  Specifically, he seemed unable to master the Deep State or to reverse the political fortunes of Democrats.  Quite the contrary, the Deep State and the Democratic Party are stronger now than when Trump took office.  Be all this as it may, few conservatives would argue that Trump did a poor job of selecting federal judges and Supreme Court Justices.  The leftist campaign to discredit the courts, and especially SCOTUS, is a testament to Trump's success in this regard.  This article, however, points out that not all Trump appointees have been in agreement on critical issues, and Trump might, in his second term, take over the selection process himself rather than farming it out to the Federalist Society.  Purely from a "progressive" standpoint, this prospect is more than a little terrifying, because it could yield a judicial branch that doesn't just lean right, but leans Trumpy!


https://www.vox.com/scotus/373084/supreme-court-trump-judges-federalist-society


Meanwhile, note that, anytime Trump supporters break the law or use violence, the media has a collective freakout, and they don't stop harping on the issue for years.  Note also that when leftists or Trump haters violate the law or start shooting up the neighborhood, the Left and the Democrats mouth the standard platitudes and then quickly memory-hole the incident.  Hey, nobody ever said life was fair!


https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/threats-against-conservative-justices-dont-hold-the-medias-attention/

5 comments:

  1. Dr. Waddy from Jack: The Vox article is intriguing and provocative:

    At first, because of the author's obvious leftist bias, I dismissed the article. How important is moral authority? Can perceived lack of it, in itself,discredit a stated position?The left is deliciously bereft of moral authority to fault a vindictive GOP President for dismantling the rubber stamp Federal judiciary which had been the left's prime means of forcing radical leftist social change which could not survive the legislative process. In doing so DJT has employed many of the "elections have consequences " justifications so very dear to the left. Ah well. . . "What goes around comes around ya know!" How sweet it is to behold the agonized thrashing about of the radicals as they are hoisted on their own petards.Oh they never thought we could do it!

    Also, the use of the term" nihilistic" is rich coming from a left which embraces the Critical Legal Studies school of thought and action which holds that the evolution of English and American jurisprudence, which manifests a painfully bought cumulative historical progress toward justice , is as, well . . . NUTHIN . . . dross, dust !. Pretty presumptuously nihilistic I'd say and again, it denies the left any moral authority in bruiting the term about with typically haughty left wing conviction!


    Yet. . . the article, despite its pained leftist hyperbole, contained much objective observation of what DJT did in his first term to fulfill his strongly implied promise to deliver us from the incipient totalitarianism of the left. I was much informed and encouraged by it. Go to it DJT, more "nihilistic"justices, please. There is still much, much leftist judicial muck to drain. His first term appointments are not "extremists" by any responsible definition of the word. They are LAWFUL and to the antiamerican left, that is, pitifully, "extreme" to the poor dears.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dr. Waddy from Jack: In dealing with personal travail we often seek encouragement from age old proven shibboleths: eg. "take it one day at a time" or "time changes everything".

    In dealing with the antiamerican left it is simple common sense to presume that their actions are characteristically and consistently motivated and defined by their maxim of "by any means necessary". Why waste time in analysing their action beyond objective comprehension of their tactics? We know what they are about.

    If they see benefit for them in ascending the Supreme Court building steps and calling down Nemesis, with stentorian and Antonian "righteousness", on insolently "eccentric " Scotus justices, why, of course they WILL do it , without misgiving! To presume this is not "prejudice", which would be their automatic accusation, which they would consider to be condemning upon accusation. Prejudice is prejudgement; when long experience informs a conviction, it is common sense and is ignored only at foolish and wasteful disadvantage. That the antiamerican hate filled left is thoroughly amoral and expeditious in its ever campaign to reduce America to totalitarian servitude must always be assumed of them without regret.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr. Waddy from Jack: For the antiamerican left , hypocrisy has two contradictory faces. Their hypocrisy cannot be gainsaid because it advances their unimpeachable righteousness. But if they perceive it in the common sense world , then it reeks of bad faith and despised injustice.

    Their violence (eg the 2020 riots) is to be excused because it served the cause of justice. Jan.6 is summarily and comprehensively condemned and its perpetrator especially and its participants are due only society's most serious sanctions. And there is no "statute of limitations" on their guilt and consequent liability.

    See, its easy to understand. Heads they win, tails the rest of humanity loses.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr. Waddy from Jack: And always informing their positions and actions is the reflexive preemption of which Slick Willy is the prime exemplar. "Oh the George Floyd riots were justified reactions to a gross injustice and any criticism of them is motivated solely by hate." "The anarchic violence worked on Jan. 6 must never be forgotten or forgiven. A civilization can never abide such flouting of our laws".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jack, true -- many of Trump's judicial appointments were "lawful", perhaps to a fault, insofar as they bit the hand that fed them when it counted (2020). They may yet be his undoing in 2024. In any case, I'm not sure the word "lawful" has much objective meaning. Even if you and I agree on the majesty of common law, there is much within the tradition that lends itself to caviling and double-dealing. If the Justices want to find a reason to empower Trump, they probably will. If they want to be rid of him, well...

    I quite agree, Jack, that the only consistent "principle" advanced by the Left is that leftists are right and right-wingers are wrong. Their attitude to violence is entirely situational.

    ReplyDelete