Skip to content

A prediction

Tuesday, October 29, 2024

Looking on the bright side, this post assumes a Kamala win in November and a Democratic Senate.

Now, for the not so bright side.

A week or so ago a friend who is also a lawyer wrote to ask if I had any idea what the constitutional basis would be for the creation of a federal right to abortion, one of the planks upon which Kamala is running. He suggested the only basis he could come up with would be the commerce clause, which is a thin reed indeed upon which to rely.

I replied that the same question had occurred to me. Having overturned Roe v. Wade, the court has essentially declared that abortion is not a federal issue. I suppose you might try to rely on this section of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The argument would be that Congress has declared the right of an abortion to be among the privileges of citizenship.

None of these arguments will make any headway in the present Supreme Court and it’s a given that one or more red state attorney general would challenge the law. There was a time when some talking heads thought that John Roberts would, in order to protect his own reputation, be a sort of moderating influence on the court, but it has now become clear that he agrees with Macbeth:

“I am in blood Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o’er”

Roberts is now fully committed to the right wing agenda as are the rest of the six, so there’s really no chance any federal law protecting abortion rights would pass muster. It would be harder for the court to overturn a law that protects the right to travel to obtain an abortion, since some states have criminalized even that, but I’m sure they could come up with a pretext for doing even that, though it would require ignoring precedent, but that hasn’t been a problem for them. On the other hand, should the fascists win, the Court would have no problem upholding a federal ban on abortion.

UPDATE: I don’t know how much coverage the mainstream will give this story, but it is now clear that the Supreme Court will do what it can to assist in stealing the election. Perhaps Biden should consider putting the six of them in jail until January 6th. After all, he is immune from any criminal law, isn’t he?

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Cautiously optimistic

Wednesday, October 9, 2024

Like a number of people I know, I’m cautiously optimistic about the upcoming election, but on the other hand I don’t really want to commit myself to that position because I’m afraid I might jinx it. Partly, I think, because my mind boggles at the thought that the result should even be open to question, considering that one candidate is a criminal, sexual predator, and insurrectionist who is currently and obviously afflicted with oncoming senility (if it hasn’t already fully arrived). The fact that the results are even open to question is enough to dampen anyone’s optimism.

But, looking on the bright side, one reason to maintain that cautious optimism is the fact that a certain very stable genius continues to be blatantly pessimistic, inasmuch as he finds it necessary to strike out at hosts of perceived enemies, each time doing so revealing more of his mental decline. The latest example is his absurd demand that 60 Minutes be investigated for… well, it’s pretty hard to understand the precise reason why he wants them investigated, but it’s safe to say that this is yet another outburst revealing his fear about the upcoming election.

So, yet another reason to be cautiously optimistic, but we must all bear in mind that election officials in many of the states and 6 Supreme Court justices stand ready to steal it.

Filed in Presidential Politics, The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

Debate reaction

Wednesday, October 2, 2024

If nothing else, I had a good time while I watched the VP debate. Groton Democrats gathered to watch at the NY Deli, which is right next door to our headquarters. Once again they remained open so we could watch the debate together. The food is good, by the way, so if you’re in the neighborhood…

Going in, my expectations were that the press would call it for Vance or call it a draw, regardless of actual performance. Vance isn’t in the grip of senility like Trump, so it was a sure thing that he’d lie far more effectively, and of course the fact that there was to be no fact checking (I don’t see why the Harris people agreed to that) would protect him from having his lies exposed in real time, though one of the moderators did screw up and fact checked him, which provoked his whiny response that there wasn’t supposed to be any fact checking, which translates into “Hey, the rules are that I can lie as much as I want”.

Getting back to the press, since they had no choice but to call the first debate for Harris, they simply couldn’t call this one for the Democrats too, because that would be unfair, don’t you see?

My impression is that they’ve pretty much settled on calling it a draw, while soft pedaling Vance’s lies, which of course were considerable. In a way that’s a victory for Walz, because he did well enough to give them no grounds to justify a Vance win, which is what they would have preferred.

Another guess: it will be the late night comedians who will do the best job at deconstructing the lies. The good thing about that is that they reach a broader audience than the multiple social media outlets that will be doing the same thing. There will be a lot of takedowns on social media, but they have audiences that tend to search them out because they agree with their basic take on things. A bit like preaching to the choir. The comedians have a somewhat broader audience.

Anyway, in the long run I don’t think the VP debate will make much difference either way.

Filed in Media, Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)

Nothing new here

Saturday, September 28, 2024

This article in the New London Day brought back memories. The Day reports that Old Lyme Democrats are using tracking technology to find the folks that are stealing their signs. There’s no indication that Republican signs are being stolen.

Back in 1980 I was actually planning on voting for Barry Commoner, but with a few days to go before the election I felt the shift going on in the electorate and became scared to death that Ronald Reagan would become president. So I dumped Commoner and went to work with the local Democrats to try to get Carter re-elected. Part of what I did was put up signs in partnership with another campaign worker. Those signs disappeared as fast as we could put them up. We would drive past locations where we had just put them up and they’d be gone. The Republicans obviously had workers whose job it was to take down signs.

I doubt it had much to do with the Reagan victory, a victory that started this nation on the Road to Fascism, to sort of borrow (part of) a phrase from one of the right’s favorite authors. I have always been irritated by the propensity of many Democrats (Obama comes to mind) to speak favorably of the guy who ushered in the Republican Party of today.

Anyway, back to the sign issue. It doesn’t surprise me at all that the Republicans are at it again, either as freelancers or as organized teams. Also, you are not supposed to put signs on the state’s or city’s rights of way along major roads, but they are often posted in such places, and 99% of them are for Republicans. The rules don’t apply to them, you see.

Speaking of signs, as treasurer of the Groton Democrats it is my lot to keep track of the donations coming in exchange for Kamala signs, which you can get at our headquarters, located at 768 Long Hill Road, if you so desire. The money is pouring in. People are enthusiastic about Kamala.

Also speaking of signs, I have done an unscientific survey, so to speak, as I ride by bike every day on various roads in the Groton/Ledyard/Stonington/North Stonington environs. Harris signs abound, usually accompanied by signs for other Democratic candidates. Trump signs are rare. Almost the only Republican signs you see are those for our incumbent State Senator, Heather Somers, she who speaks out of both sides of her mouth without actually saying anything, except when she takes credit for Democratic initiatives that she voted against. I have yet to see a Trump sign accompanying a Heather sign, and I’ve seen only one sign for Mike Franz, Joe Courtney’s opponent. It’s one of those signs that amounts to a confession that the person who put it up is a nutjob, and even that nutjob doesn’t have a Trump sign (yet).

Finally, and this has nothing to do with signs, if you’re a good Democrat, and care to watch Tim Walz trounce JD along with other Democrats, join us at the NY Deli, right next door to our headquarters. They are staying open late to host our debate watching. It’s not a fundraiser, except you have to buy food or drink from the very nice lady that runs the place.

Filed in Local issues, Republicans | | Comments (0)

A question answered

Saturday, September 21, 2024

A friend and fellow New London County attorney maintains an email list to whom he sends links of articles well worth reading, and in today’s email we get a link to an extremely interesting article in the Guardian entitled Is Donald Trump A Fascist?. Before answering that question I will digress for a moment.

It is interesting that it is unlikely such a question would be broached in an American newspaper of wide circulation. The term “fascism” is itself avoided, replaced by “Christian Nationalism”, which conveys a false impression to anyone not obsessed with politics. After all, Christians are supposed to be the good guys, and not all that many people understand that “nationalism” can be a pejorative. I’m not a Catholic anymore, but I retain my advanced degree in religion from Our Lady of Sorrows School. I’m fairly sure that were Jesus to return to this earth, the folks to whom this term is applied would, as Woody Guthrie sang “lay Jesus Christ in his grave”.

Now to answer the question. It doesn’t matter whether Donald Trump is a fascist. He has no fixed beliefs save one: that the only important thing in this world is Donald Trump. If he could have become president by running to the left, he would have done so, but he’s an accomplished grifter and he knows how the suckers in this country vote. He is primarily concerned with having his ego stroked, which is why he’s so sensitive about crowd sizes.

The fact is, however, that the people who will control him if he gets elected are, indeed, fascists. They even made the mistake of putting their plans in writing by way of Project 2025. Were he elected he will do what he is told so far as implementing those plans. Being totally uninterested in the details of the job, he will let others do it for him, and we know who those others will be. This was his modus operandi in his first term. Does anyone really believe, for example, that he gave a moments thought to the people he nominated to the Supreme Court or any other court. He was given names by his handlers and he signed off on them. So, it doesn’t matter whether he himself is a fascist, he is an enabler and a tool. If he wins, we will be subject to a government run by fascists, and with the help of the fascists on the Supreme Court that fascism will become permanent.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

Strategy or senility? You decide

Sunday, September 15, 2024

So, it’s been a few days since I, along with every other Democrat, had the pleasure of watching Kamala destroy the stable genius in the debate. In my case it was doubly fun because I was with a bunch of other Groton Democrats who got together at the New York Deli (right next door to our headquarters in Groton, not in New York) to watch the debate.

Since then I’ve become aware of two schools of thought about Trump’s craziness since the debate, e.g., his continued embrace of the “They’re eating the dogs and cats” lie and his recent “Truth” Social post that he hates Taylor Swift, a move that on its face seems to accomplish nothing other than putting Swift’s life in danger. It seems unlikely to move anyone into his camp, while it would seem likely to energize even more Swifties to go to the polls.

On to the two schools of thought.

One is the obvious. Trump is out of control mentally. His narcissism and creeping senility are combining, the result of which is outbursts that simply can’t help his campaign.

The other school of thought has it that these outbursts are strategic, a way of distracting the political conversation away from Trumps plan to usher in a fascist state.

There are good arguments for both sides of this particular debate. The media is easily distractible and, for the most part, will be glad to write about social media posts and Haitians eating cats and dogs. The fact that JD Vance has amplified these claims lends some support to the distraction theory, though a counter argument is that he doesn’t have a whole lot of choice. He can’t very well admit that Trump is mentally unfit. To the extent the focus is on this sort of stuff, Project 2025 can be pushed into the background.

As a counter argument, if this is a strategic thing, the fact is that Trump is incapable of thinking strategically, so it would have to have been thought up by his handlers, and that seems doubtful. They would have had to come to the conclusion that Trump could win by amplifying his mental incapacity, or that in any event he’d lose fewer persuadable voters (how can anyone still be persuadable?) by proving beyond doubt that he’s mentally incompetent than he would lose by being exposed as a fascist.

Looking on the bright side, it seems to me that whichever side is correct, the net result is that Trump is pursuing a course more likely to lose him voters than it is likely to gain them for him. That doesn’t mean there’s no danger of his election. Thanks to the sainted Founders, we are stuck with a system in which a candidate can get millions fewer votes than his or her opponent and still win the election. There’s no doubt in my mind that Kamala will get more votes than the genius, but that doesn’t mean she’ll be sworn in as president.

As an aside, I think I’m right in asserting that every time the Electoral College has elected a candidate who received fewer votes than his or her opponent, the winner was the worse of the two. Maybe there’s something to be said for majority rule.

Filed in The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

Trump calls on JD to do his duty

Monday, September 9, 2024

I got a kick out of this post at Hullabaloo. It seems that Trump has an idea about making sure that vice presidents always invoke the 25th Amendment in case the president is incapacitated:

Donald Trump on Saturday floated changing the 25th Amendment to allow Congress to impeach a vice president for covering up a president’s incapacity less than two months after President Joe Biden exited the 2024 contest amid concerns about his age and acuity.

In yet another example of projection you couldn’t make up, he’s implying that Joe Biden is senile, and that Kamala Harris should have, or should now, step in and have him removed. This, after accusing her of engaging in a coup by running for president after Biden stepped aside. I guess in the world of Trump you truly can have it both ways.

Were I Kamala I might bring this up in the debate, and suggest that Trump might think twice about encouraging JD to look carefully at Trump’s mental state if he were to be elected. After all, JD could argue that with such an amendment in place, he had no choice but to act in light of Trump’s obvious mental incapacity.

A few months ago I suggested that the lickspittles vying to be Trumps vice president might choose such a route to the presidency. It really does seem that Trump might not want to give JD any encouragement.

In any event, hopefully we needn’t worry about such a thing happening. I’m looking on the bright side and I do believe Kamala will win.

Filed in The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

Both sideism actually seems to favor one side!

Friday, September 6, 2024

I haven’t posted much recently. One of the reasons is that it seems like everything going down is so obvious that anyone with an ounce of intelligence can figure it out for themselves. I could also argue that my duties as the treasurer of the Groton Democrats during this most important election since 1860 take up too much of my time, but that would be stretching the truth almost as much as a certain stable genius stretches it.

It has been particularly frustrating to watch as the media covers up for Trump’s senility, stupidity and incoherence. The latest example is reported here (not in the mainstream, of course, but at Hullabaloo). Trump was in front of a crowd of rich people (the only constituency he actually serves) and was asked a direct question about how he intends to help people pay for day care. There’s a video at the link. He makes no sense, but in true New York Times fashion the paper of record avoids calling it what it is. The New York Times:

After his speech, Donald Trump was asked how he might address rising child care costs. In a jumbled answer, he said he would prioritize legislation on the issue but offered no specifics and insisted that his other economic policies would “take care” of child care. “As much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we’ll be taking in.”

Digby sums it up:

Does that accurately describe Trump’s incomprehensible babble? I don’t think so but it certainly was nice of the NY Times to “interpret” his comments to mean that he “insist[ed] that his other economic policies, including tariffs, would take care of child care.” It’s very generous of them to help him out that way otherwise people might think that Trump had absolutely no idea what he was talking about and clearly has no economic “policy” other than tariffs (which he doesn’t understand either) even after having spent four years in the White House. Why, they might even conclude that he doesn’t have the mental capacity to be president. I guess that would be rude.

He’s getting worse by the day. There’s a new term for what the media is doing when giving Trump’s mental impairments a pass: sanewashing. Even if he weren’t a fascist having him as president would be a clear and present danger. Nothing Biden ever did was this bad, but the Times couldn’t stop bringing up his cognitive functioning. But, in the interest of both sideism, it avoids doing that with Trump because both sideism consists of proving you are not the liberal media by attacking Democrats, and giving Republicans a pass.

So, nothing above is new, but I figure I have to post once in a while.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Time to attack

Monday, August 26, 2024

It’s not often that I disagree with digby over at Hullabaloo, but this is one of those times. She has a post recounting the many times the New York Times has committed journalistic malpractice when it comes to Donald Trump. I don’t argue with the main thrust of the post, which is quite good, but I don’t agree with this closing paragraph:

I guess the Democrats have no choice but to simply accept the asymmetry of the press coverage which is made many times worse by the fact that the right already has an extremely effective partisan media dedicated to pushing Trump’s lies. We’ll just have to maintain a critical eye through the campaign and beyond.

I would suggest that the Democrats take a page from the Republican playbook of some years back, when the Republicans constantly attacked the “liberal media”, a media that wasn’t all that liberal but was more likely to call things what they were. I really don’t think, for instance, that the media of twenty years ago would have failed to point out that Trump’s mental health, never very good as he suffered from serious mental impairments such as narcissism, is now declining into senility, enhanced by his other mental impairments. The “liberal media” attacks worked, in that the media generally, with the possible exception of MSNBC, does its best to ignore or soft pedal Republican lies, corruption and hypocrisy.

It’s time the Democrats went on the attack, specifically calling out the media for failing to call Trump’s mental impairments what they are, particularly since they constantly questioned Biden’s mental competency, which far exceeds that of the very stable genius.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

RFJ Jr. drops out

Friday, August 23, 2024

This is a bit of a follow up to my post from a week ago, in which I made the not terribly difficult prediction that RFK Jr. would drop out and Trump would promise him a role in his administration.

It’s not good news for the Harris campaign, but I’m going to look on the bright side and suggest it’s not the great news that the Trumpers will make of it.

Let’s reflect a bit. Who were the RFK voters? At the very first, when he was really an unknown quantity, some of his backers may have been Democrats or Democrat leaning voters who wanted Biden to step aside. He is, after all, Bobby Kennedy’s son. Once those folks learned that he was in fact a total nutcase, most of them deserted him, and as the polls have shown, he has drawn from Trump.

So think about this. Why were those people ready to vote for someone other than Trump? There’s a host of possible reasons. They may think it’s not a good idea to put a criminal in the White House. They may think it’s not a good thing to try to overthrow the government. I’ll stop the list there as there are almost an infinite number of reasons why one would not want to vote for Trump, even if one were inclined to vote for a “conservative”.

So, now these folks have to make a decision. Do they vote for Trump just because the guy they were going to vote for because they didn’t want to vote for Trump tells them to vote for Trump? A guy for whom they never really felt much enthusiasm, but he wasn’t Trump or Biden. Or do they either not vote or vote for some third party candidate, assuming there are any left on the ballot.

Of course they won’t all do the same thing, but my guess is that a substantial number simply won’t vote, will write someone in, or vote for any available third party candidate. They were prepared to throw their vote away before he dropped out, so there’s no reason to think they won’t be willing to throw their votes away now.

Filed in Presidential Politics | | Comments (0)