The Meeting

                           The Meeting

To say that the meeting was contentious would be a gross understatement. Voices became raised, tempers simmered, opinions were expressed with gestures, raised eyebrows and stares. 

Many valid points were made on both sides, although not many minds were changed from one viewpoint to the other.

Despite the distance between the two sides, there was agreement on one critical issue. The situation was intolerable, out of hand, and something had to be done, some action employed.

As the hours turned to days, a number of proposals were put forth, but none of them garnered the requisite majority to be approved. As the impasse continued, it became clear that some form of compromise was necessary, as both sides knew that doing nothing was not an option.

On day four it was decided that a subset of negotiators would be chosen from each side, empowered with the blessing of the whole to reach an accommodation that would address the issue, but more than that, have a high percentage chance of succeeding. 

After two more days, a consensus began to emerge, followed surprisingly quickly by the capitulation of the last few dissenters. With elation mixed with caution, the final plan was presented to the group as a whole having gained a substantial majority of votes.

Now came the last and most important step. Presenting the plan to the ultimate arbiter who would allow it to proceed or send it back for further discussion.

As was the custom, an assembly was called. Without fanfare, the boss walked across the meeting room stage, nodded to the assemblage, then proceeded to read through the single page draft of the proposal.

She read it quickly, then seemed to hesitate, then read it again, a bit slower. She nodded twice which the group interpreted as a sign that their combined effort would be validated.

This conclusion was reinforced when she smiled.

And so it was that after seven days, a plan concocted by the angels assigned to Earth, was sanctioned by God. But with one minor yet significant change.

The original plan was to recruit as unlikely a person as possible to execute the scheme. While this person would pay with his life, such divine intervention would be rewarded with an eternal prize, for the recruit would not understand what drove him to commit such a crime, would not be cognizant of the source of the idea as it germinated in his mind and his heart. 

His past indifference to politics was precisely why he would be able to accumulate the weapons he would need, to access the secure area where he could accomplish the objective. His lifetime of avoiding the spotlight, of seeking not to be noticed, would also add to the ease in which he would be successful. 

Now, of course, there was some influence exerted by the angels, some confusion sowed among the security teams as they guarded the presidential candidate. But in didn't take much as this man, the target, was exceedingly vain, someone who boasted that nothing he did was wrong, that only he could save the nation. His pride drove him to hold rallies in open spaces difficult to secure. His belief that those with guns liked him best, convinced him that he was beyond injury. His over sized ego reinforced his faith that what was good for him was good for his country, and so nothing bad could happen to him.

As was thus decreed, on July 13th, a lone shooter clambered up a ladder onto a roof and shot the presidential candidate minutes into his speech. However, it was not a kill shot, the gun having been touched ever so slightly by the hand of God. 

For you see, the angels' plan was to kill this person but God, in her infinite wisdom, chose to spare the life of this man. As was consistent with her omniscience, she preferred free will over a heavy, celestial hand in the activities of her children on Earth. 

Ever hopeful, she was patient even in the face of our seeming intolerance of the bounties she bestowed on us, the diversity of her creations, the allowance for equity in opportunity, and the inclusion of all her children in the wonders of life, and the possibilities of peace and harmony.

 

Would violence beget violence or would a truce prevail?

Would common ground be sought or would vitriol and hatred continue to drive the debates?

Would humanity find that shining city upon the hill, or would a broken populace inspire a turn away from democracy and embrace of governments not based on laws, but force and violence?

God waits for our response, hopeful, patient. 

But with the knowledge and experience that experiments such as life and existence and time, fail far more than they succeed. Fortunately, there is no end to her capacity to inspire... and wait. 

Presidential Immunity

I though it wise to read the post I created back in December of last year in respect to the Supreme Court and presidential immunity. Here is a link.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/12/scotus-decision-on-trump-immunity.html

At the time, I innocently thought that there could be no way that SCOTUS would rule that a president has absolute immunity for any actions committed while in office, criminal or otherwise. I especially thought this considering this court's alleged deference to originalist interpretations of the constitution. 

It just seemed unfathomable that anyone with any sense of American history and law would imagine that the founders wanted an American King to replace the British King they were rejecting with their Declaration. 

I guess what I didn't count on was that the conservative judges on the Court would actually believe Trump's lies about his ongoing legal troubles being politically driven. How else can one account for their apparent decision to specifically rule that a president must not fear future prosecution for anything done while in office? That a president must not be chilled from making critical decisions. 

I'm sorry, but in the four years of Trump's term, did you ever once see him chilled to comment or make a decision?

No past president, other than Nixon, claimed that anything done by the president while in office was legal. While the Supreme Court of that time ruled against Nixon, forcing him to release the Watergate tapes which proved his complicity in the cover-up, it seems that had Nixon been president with this SCOTUS, he would have not been forced to release the tapes, and perhaps survived an impeachment vote. 

The question then is, why was I so oblivious to the hints that this Supreme Court would act so contrary to the one which ruled in 1974?

Remember, that decision was unanimous, 9-0 with four of the justices, including the Chief Justice, Warren Earl Burger having been appointed by Nixon, and three others by Republican presidents. At least for that decision, partisan politics did not come into play.

I guess in retrospect, the clues were there in plain sight. Trump often claimed how the three justices he appointed "owed" him some allegiance. While I would have thought that such a concept might have made any self respecting jurist bristle at such an idea, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Coney-Barrett must have thought differently. 

Obviously Thomas was compromised, his wife being active in the Stop the Steal movement, and we have recently been exposed to the politics of Alito's wife, but still, one would have thought that these "men" would have valued their oath to the Constitution above their love for their spouses.  More likely though, they share their wives' opinions of Trump, and see him as a victim in the machinations of political shenanigans. 

And Roberts? I just don't get him. One day he supports opinions which seem to benefit all the people, the next he concurs on decisions that demonstrate allegiance to one man.

I have said more times than I can count, that I fear that our democracy is already lost. Between the millions of Americans who actually believe that the 2020 election was stolen, that mail-in voting is ripe with fraud, that the constitution provides for the Vice President to thwart the certification of a presidential election he lost, and now the knee bending of the Supreme Court to suggest that presidents have vast immunity for their core duties and presumed immunity for other executive branch related duties, it seems a fait au complet. 

Sadly, I have heard a number of left leaning pundits state that perhaps Biden should use his new found powers to guarantee the existence of our democracy in November. I say sadly, because the suggestion seems to be that by using dictatorial powers, he can save democracy. 

Folks, it doesn't work that way, hence the saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely". 

By the way, if you are as curious as I was after typing that phrase, Lord Acton coined it in a letter to Bishop Creighton in 1887, his point being that the same moral standards should be applied to all men, political and religious leaders included. Sort of a direct contradiction to the "the ends justifies the means" theory of doing bad things for good reasons.

There is a small light still aglow, that being that presidential acts deemed private, or not part of the duties of the president, are not immune. But of course, SCOTUS didn't specify how to separate those acts. I would think that helping assemble fake electors in an attempt to provide the Vice President with enough confusion to delay certification of an election would be as far removed from official duties as one could get, but Trump's lawyers are already claiming that those actions fall within the scope of core duties.

If not for any other reason, I would hope to live in a universe where Trump loses in November and his federal trials (not to mention the Georgia one) go forward, and we see just how the Supreme Court will parse private from official acts when Trump appeals his convictions. Of course, Biden could choose to pardon him, which I would accept, assuming the pardon requires Trump to admit that the 2020 election was not stolen, that creating fake electors is not legal, and that he live out his life on Elba. 

Unfortunately, I am resigned in the knowledge that the election in November does not matter. Trump will claim victory regardless of the results. Mike Johnson will do everything in his power to not certify the election, as will various state legislatures and election commissioners who have already showed their intentions. 

I have read some opinions suggesting that because our democracy held once, it will survive a 2nd Trump term. Perhaps because Trump and his team will prove to be just as incompetent in their approach to governing as they were in his first term. Perhaps because our institutions will hold, and that enough true public servants will uphold their oaths to the Constitution. Perhaps because Trump will finally propose or do something that drives the GOP away from their allegiance to him. 

But perhaps is not enough to make me feel hopeful. It is too flimsy a possibility when discussing the future of the American experiment in democracy.