Monday, December 13, 2021

Excuse Me... but Recuse Me

  Excuse Me... but Recuse Me



        Trump is headed to the SCOTUS for a last ditch attempt to keep his records from being turned over to the Congressional Committee.

In a case where all the lower courts have soundly rejected Trump's Executive Privilege claims, the SCOTUS is being asked to rule on a case in which no other court has found any merit. However,despite all the lower courts rejecting him, Trump is right where he always wanted to be. He will finally be in a court were he is among friends. Friends he expects to be loyal and grateful

Amy Coney Barrett, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Neil M. Gorsuch were all nominated by the guy pleading his absurd case. The guy that gave them their job. 

In a rare case the plaintiff is Donald Trump himself. The judges are being asked to decide a paper thin case involving the very President that gave then their place in history.

If that isn't a conflict of interest then I have been misinformed as to what is. It's a scenario with very powerful and frightening potential.

A decision either way could trigger claims of bias, partisanship and personal favoritism being levied against the highest court in the country. Perhaps even result in violent protest, the likes of which we have never seen in our nation..

Clearly there is only one of two ways the court can address this case without opening itself up to accusations of failing in its responsibilities. It could forever sully its reputation among the people..

I'm just saying that the best way for the SCOTUS to deal with the case the way is it has already been decided by the courts already. They should refuse to even hear it and let the decisions of multiple courts stand. Wash their hands of the stain Trump has cast on the legal system across the country

The other option, and I think the most neutral politically, would be for the three judges nominated by Trump to recuse themselves from the case.

They should just say excuse me, recuse me. 

If the three judges vote for Trump after all the previous court rulings against him it would destroy any credibility the the court has left. After so many splits along the lines of ideology (read, political) Americans already suspect the court of being politically biased. If the Trump emplo... ah, appointees support Trump, both sides will forever see the court as a partisan political tool. People will believe the judges obviously "owed" Trump for their greatest honor. It will convince half the country that they weren't appointed, they were bought.

If they vote against him they know that Trump himself will never forgive them and he will seek both political and personal retribution. He will brand them as traitors, disloyal and legal hacks. His considerable power over the GOP and his rabid base will suddenly come together and publicly accuse the court of being suddenly dubious in their impartiality. Every decision going forward will be the object of dispute and derision from his followers, the party and Trump. They will accuse the court of clearly plotting against Trump. They will declare the decision a fraud or conspiracy plan.

Yet if only the six remaining justices hear the case and rule against Trump, as the liberal majority most likely would, the Trump appointees will be seen as individuals who know where their loyalty lies. With their country.

Whether knowingly or by regrettable chance, by entering the unreal reality of Trumpworld they have become guest stars on this week's episode of the MAGA Show. And 75 million voters are watching.

Thursday, April 8, 2021

Control Owners, Not Guns

Control Owners Not Guns

        


I don’t own a gun, mostly because I have never felt the need to have one. And of course, my being someone who tends to do more damage to myself than anyone else ever has, I’m pretty sure that the greatest threat of my being shot would be me shooting myself.

However, I have no problem with any American’s right to own one. I am however a big supporter of gun controls. People who own guns always have a silly knee jerk reaction whenever the subject comes up. They start citing the 2nd amendment and start acting like the feds are about to kick in their door and take their guns away. Something that any sane person knows will never happen in America..

It would require that Congress repeal the 2nd amendment and that at least 75% of the states agree to ratify the measure. We can’t even get two people to agree it’s a sunny day anymore.

I think a person should be allowed to own as many guns as they please. No matter how many guns a person has they can only hold one in each hand. I don’t think people should have to explain or justify why they want a gun. Gun control begins with making a person prove they are competent enough to own one.

Before we allow all the urban cowboys to carry a gun on the bus, that person should be required to take a training and safety course, submit to a background check, and be required to carry a firearms ID and permit at all times. They should be required to register all their guns. In most places these rules and laws are already in place. Still, I would like to see some news rules.

Ban the private sales of firearms. Eliminate the gun shows. In order to sell a gun to a private individual a gun owner would have to turn over the gun to a licensed gun dealer or local police where the gun is registered who would then act as an agent. The agent would conduct proper checks and insure all legal requirements are satisfied before approving the sale.

Just as is required of car owners, gun owners should be required to purchase an insurance policy that would insure the owner against the theft, misuse and any sort of accidental shooting that involved their guns by someone other than the owner..

In my mind there are two types of guns that every person should be able to possess; Hand guns, for personal protection and long guns that serve as tools. Hunting rifles, shotguns, sports rifles used in competitions. Both types can be used in defense of person and property.

The downside is that both types can be used in offense as well. And no level of gun control will ever prevent someone from taking their legally owned and properly registered gun, driving down to the mall and just using it to kill random people. We’ve all seen it before. Yet, while we can’t prevent those types of gun owners, we can do something to limit the type of gun the shooter uses.

Society has to draw a line somewhere. We need to pass the sort of laws involving gun control that ensures the rights of people to possess guns and the rights of people to be protected from guns are balanced. "Red Flag" laws such as the one in Florida that has taken away or denied people the right to by one based on input from friends, family and others are a good start. I believe that almost all responsible gun owners support tougher laws when it come to gun ownership. Americans should strive to pass controls that can do as much as possible to prevent guns that a person should never be allowed to own from ending up in the hands of people that should never be allowed to own a gun.

Having the right to own all the guns you want doesn’t entitle you to own all the guns you want. Certain weapons, weapons of war, weapons designed kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible, modern weapons that help an individual to engage the type of attack that results in mass casualties of unarmed or under armed civilians should not be available at Walmart. There are some guns whose sole purpose is to slaughter as many people as the shooter can in the shortest time possible. The more bullets the magazine holds the more people he can kill before pausing to prepare to kill more.

While I am willing to defend the right of an individual to legally own guns, the problem I have is with the type of guns an individual can legally own. My problem is with allowing anyone outside of our military or law enforcement to own any sort of high capacity military style assault weapon.

Because someone wants any gun they can get, society isn’t obligated to allow them to get any gun they want. Civilians have no need to own weapons designed for war.

Unless a person believes they will have a foreseeable need to defend their home from an attack by a homicidal mob, I see no need for them to own an automatic assault weapon with a large capacity magazine. More than likely, a person that feels the need to own a dozen AR-15’s, thousands of rounds of ammunition and other assorted arms that only a soldier would need isn’t worried about war, they’re preparing for war.

And we the people are the enemy.