image courtesy of wikipedia.org
A conversation on my Facebook page focused on whether or not liberals should make a greater effort to listen to MAGA concerns. Most of the contributors felt that listening is always good, and so do I. But I also feel that listening should be reciprocal.
Senator Chuck Schummer (D) listened to Republicans and accepted their draconian budget even though they refused to make compromises. They praised him when he capitulated, but he ran into a buzzsaw with Democrats.
Joe Biden was equally slow to rattle his saber while in office. For example, he knew that Conservatives would dominate the Supreme Court for decades, yet he made no effort to increase the number of jurists to achieve better balance. Nor did he demand that the sitting judges set ethical standards for themselves.
Unchecked, the High Court chose to bless the notion of presidential immunity–an idea unheard of in American legal history. Experts complained the decision created more questions than answers. Even so, Donald Trump filled the vacuum by anointing himself with powers his predecessors never envisioned.
In reality, what the court said about presidential power was threefold. 1) The Chief Executive is immune from prosecution when he or she is exercising core Constitutional powers. 2) The meaning of core acts should extend to their “outer perimeter.” 3) The President has no immunity for unofficial acts.
With no more guidance than this, the jurists returned a criminal case against Trump to the District Court from which it came and instructed Judge Tanya Chutkan to review the charges against the former president through the lens of his core duties.
Before she could undertake that review, Trump became our 47 President, and, as no holder of that high office has ever been prosecuted while performing official duties, the case became moot. Richard Nixon, like Trump, was also a man charged with a crime while in office. He avoided impeachment by resigning and accepting Gerald Ford’s pardon.
Presidential immunity is a concept that changes the legal landscape. Largely undefined, it appears to leave Trump unaccountable for actions he has taken in the past, present, or future. As White House spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, explained, the president is no longer answerable to the courts because any ruling contrary to his would usurp the President’s will.
Nonetheless, Trump is vulnerable to impeachment, which is why Elon Musk’s role in his administration is so important. With the stroke of a pen, the president obtained two objectives. First, he created a lightning rod to deflect public anger away from him and his policies to Musk–a man with no official role in government. Second, as a private citizen who wields presidential authority yet cannot be impeached, Musk enjoys the freedom of a king.
Because Musk is credited with buying Trump the 2024 election, his presence in government poses other questions. How long can Trump control his Frankenstein? Will our Constitution survive in the hands of an unelected oligarch?
The struggle underway in this country isn’t about whether conservative or liberal views best serve the rule of law. It’s about preserving our freedoms or destroying them. It’s about whether or not all people are created equal or they aren’t. No attempts at Kumbaya will resolve these questions. Decisions have to be made and people must choose a side.
BOYCOTT TESLA
