Friends, DJT's decision to encourage Republicans to join Democrats in an effort to release YET MORE "Epstein files" seems like genius: it diffuses (maybe?) the Democrats' charge that Trump is part of the Epstein coverup, and thus a presumptive pedophile himself. Of course, what's in those files may be obscure enough or varied enough that people can read into them what they like (quite possible), or they may simply claim that the absence of definitive proof in the files that people they hate are pedophiles proves that the files have been scrubbed (very likely). Long story short: I'm skeptical that we will succeed in removing the "Ep-stink" from America, and especially from the Dems, but it's worth a try. Of course, one could also ask, a la MTG, why did it take Trump so long to figure this out?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxr1r34ev9o
In other news, a federal court is ordering that Texas cease and desist from its efforts to create five new Republican-leaning districts, throwing a big wrench in the works of GOP plans to gerrymander their way to victory in 2026. Will SCOTUS save the day? We better hope so!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I think we can be certain about two things in this detestable Epstein hugger mugger: first, every word written by or about this low life will come to public attention; second, the increasingly desperate far left/Dem mob WILL find something in these voluminous "files" upon which to base a characteristic campaign of personal castigation against an hombre President who so often shows them up. for chumps. The obvious chance of their party being grievously damaged by these revelations (this, the party of rollicking Slick Willy) is indicative of a frantic quest for ANYTHING which can get this insolent heretic and his Maga off their oh so wearied backs! Given the failure of their past efforts(eg. uhh, his reelection?), of which they cannot , in their most private moments, be unaware, they are risking yet another catastrophic discreditation - and how many more can they take? Yeah, they think the election of a couple of DSA protototalitarians has propelled them free of the morass they were immersed in after the 2024 election. And we know, ad nauseum, how they overreach when they think they are winning. Well they are not winning. Their Epstein infatuation is going to bring them at best zero sum benefit and at worst a far deeper level in the bowl around which they have whirled since Donald Trump took them on.
ReplyDeleteMy, my! Seldom has any notorious pervert been as assiduous in self promotion as to have recorded or inspired such massive documentation, not even the Marquis de Sade. Can we be quite sure it is all creditable?
Dr. Waddy from Jack: The Texas redistricting battle ; another day in Civil War II.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: Well, Texas will get a fair and lawful hearing from Scotus and that is all we can ask. I'm waiting for a Federal judge to rule that some state's existing districting or redistricting plan manifests obvious "reverse racial discrimination" (or words to that effect)in that it draws unreasonable and clearly artfully manipulated lines. (eg. Illinois's disenfranchising lines, in places serpentine both in form and in the disingenuousness of which snakes are sometimes anthropomorphically accused).
ReplyDeleteMaybe it has happened already; if so, this precedent respecting Scotus will give it the regard the level of its precedence deserves.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Oh, and Town hall reports today that the 2-1 Federal Circuit Court decision contradicting Texas's elected representatives in the Congressional redistricting plan they passed and the Governor signed included a scathing 104 page dissent! No doubt this case will go to Scotus and that dissent may well find respectful consideration and even decisive purchase there.
ReplyDeleteGads; two persons have the power to abrogate a democratically established statute, a decision made by the elected representatives of the people of the state.
It is time for Federal legislation to establish this principle: for a Federal Court to overrule and thereby prevent the enforcement of statutorially and executively approved policies, there must be a ranking of courts with authority defined in part by levels approximate to the levels of government they rule upon. Eg. no longer could a Federal District Court (a subordinate Federal Court) block a Presidential Executive Order even within its geographical jurisdiction ,or a Federal Statute (requiring as it does passage by Congress and Presidential signing).
The Constitution may prevent any state authority from overruling a Federal Court but Scotus may well find in the state's majority empowered opposition compelling legal authority ( defined as mandatory- required by statute or case law - or persuasive - based in convincing public or private legal exposition)discrediting the the lower Federal Court's (in the Texas case , two individuals with no obligation to consider the interests of the nation as a whole, no matter the defacto effect on the entire U.S, of their reasoning in doing so) decision.
In sharp contrast to previous decades of the American political process, the far left can no longer count on an airy and detached Scotus to force its counterintuitive intents, couched in policy which would never be approved in legislatures, which reflect the will of the majority of voters. Federally protected convenient killing of unborn babies and gay "marriage" are prime examples of measures forced on an unwilling U.S, public. As is completely characteristic of the elite presumption of incipient totalitarians , the far left's frantic and desperate effort to yet use the courts to dictate to America continues in a rear guard action, fought in the subordinate Federal Courts,to buy them time to recover from the present remedial onslaught on them by common sense America.
Jack, I expect Epstein-gate to follow more or less the same course as Russia-gate: the Left won't land any convincing blows, but they won't let that stop them from riding this tired horse for, oh, several more years, and when they come up short, evidentially, they'll still cling to their delusions and assert Trump's manifest perversions. Helping them in this effort is the fact that it's always hard to prove a negative, and the public loves a good sex scandal, no matter how imaginary it is.
ReplyDeleteProbably the best that can be hoped for is that SCOTUS will end the special and extraordinary protection against gerrymandering that blacks -- and only blacks -- receive (in practice). This would be a huge win for Republicans. I fully expect it to happen.
If I understand correctly, the judges who ruled against Texas' redistricting were appeals court level judges, not district court judges, but you are certainly right that judges in general are proving a major hindrance to the enactment of the GOP agenda. SCOTUS has already tried to rein them in, but with modest success. The best case scenario, I think, is that SCOTUS will act expeditiously, as often as possible, to rebalance the scales of justice, and so far I've been impressed.
Dr. Waddy from Jack:I agree, most significant change we experience in this Constitutionally frameworked country is incremental and we should be glad it is. Its most preferable to the fits and starts even a civilized country like France goes through.
ReplyDelete