Trumpophobes for Plutocracy
Sen. King tried out a new songbook on his constituents when he gave Gorsuch credit for "independence," as a euphemism for judicial supremacy. He tried convincing Democrats at his town-hall meeting that judicial "independence" is a good thing, if used, in violation of the Chevron rule, to instruct the Trump administration how to govern in minor ways.
This provides a fresh example of how outrage against Trump is being exploited by Democrats to divert attention away from addressing, as the Sanders' campaign tried to do, the priority progressive issue of bi-partisan corruption of politics. The Democrat wing of the plutocratic duopoly is playing its usual game of expecting the flight of voters in disgust away from the plutocratic Republican wing will return those voters to their own plutocratic Democrat embrace.
Fear of Trump cannot justify supporting those liberals whose entrenchment in the same political corruption actually caused Trump's victory. The failure of Democrats to acknowledge Clinton's perceived weakness on the voters' priority concern of "swamp draining," a corrupted DNC process under undemocratic primary rules, and dishonesty about Sanders' known superior strength against Trump with Independent and Progressive voters, was responsible for the unpopular Trump's election. Why should those who deliberately took the risk of electing a clown as president in order to avoid a progressive president be rewarded without first performing a proper penance -- such as defeating Gorsuch?
By making the trial-balloon suggestion that Gorsuch's judicial-supremacist inclination to tell the executive branch what to do might justify his vote for cloture, King was overlooking, or deliberately distracting attention from, the one essential issue that Democrats hope swing voters will ignore. King would invite Democrats to discharge their anger against Trump with some possible relatively minor inconvenience that Gorsuch might cause Trump. But this would at the same time deliver Gorsuch's predictably fatal fifth vote for the exponentially more important issue of perpetuating the corrupt plutocracy in which both parties are mired due to the very judicial supremacy that King labels "independence." King offered this suggestion about relative priorities, paradoxically, to support Trump's own nominee.
King's strained logic demonstrated Chris Hedges' dictum: "The party elites know that if corporate money disappears, so do they." Their priority is keeping the system corrupt, which Gorsuch will do. There was no good reason for progressives not to vote against King and similar liberal "elites" if they had joined in placing Gorsuch on the Court by voting for cloture for such lame reasons as were offered by King, the Democratic traitors, and their supporting propagandists in the mass media.
Helping the extreme-right Roberts 5 run the executive branch in violation of Chevron would hardly be an improvement over Trump's running of it in any event. The Constitution's separation of powers requires that, like it or not, the elected executive should take political responsibility for running the executive branch just as the elected legislators should take responsibility for making the laws in the legislative branch. This leaves leverage in the hands of voters, where it belongs in a democracy, to kick out Trump and the politicians who support him who refuse to follow and enforce anti-corruption laws, and also kick out the legislators who refuse to enact those laws, including jurisdiction-stripping provisions designed to keep the Court out of politics. Allowing the Supreme Court to usurp such political power is a deceptive technique for politicians to avoid their responsibility for betraying the voters and serving plutocrats.
Under the separation of powers, unelected judges should, as recited in the fake Gorsuch vows, stick to judging and not concoct constitutional excuses and alchemical formulas to rewrite those laws or regulations for the benefit of plutocrats. This is why there have been developed since the earliest years of the republic elaborate separation-of-powers rules to prevent such judicial usurpation of political power, although those rules have been routinely ignored with impunity by supremacist judges like Gorsuch and his supremacist would-be colleagues.
As Jefferson rightly put it, the prospect of impeachment for such supremacist misconduct is "not even a scarecrow" to sitting justices who violate the separation of powers. Therefore ideological supremacists need to be identified and ferreted out prior to their appointment by "extreme vetting" and intelligent questioning in confirmation hearings. Any candidate who refuses to reject the most consequential judicial-supremacist ruling of this plutocratic era, Buckley, should simply be eliminated from consideration for the job as an absolute democratic litmus test required to give effect to the Article VI official oath to support the Constitution. If the politicians are unable to do it, then the people should do it by getting rid of those politicians, starting with Manchin, Heitkamp and Donnelly along with their Republican colleagues who support Gorsuch.
A "Biden rule" referendum for 2018
A successful filibuster of Gorsuch, coupled with a Republican failure to abolish the filibuster rule, would force Trump to resort to his depleting stash of political capital before trying to appoint another right-wing Federalist Society nominee. Since none could be worse than Gorsuch, who is top of their list, this should count as a victory.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
