What will it take to find a Democratic politician or leader who can see outside the box? Nothing could be more important than restoring Congressional powers of oversight and investigation. Yet, suing the Trump Administration in the thoroughly GOP-suborned courts is futile. Traditional and Constitutional Congressional oversight prerogatives that go back two centuries are now flouted in repeated White House moonings of every check or balance.
But what’s fascinating — opening a gaping window of opportunity — is how the courts have rationalized all this. This may get a little dry. But it is of paramount importance.
But what’s fascinating — opening a gaping window of opportunity — is how the courts have rationalized all this. This may get a little dry. But it is of paramount importance.
In order to evade going on record re: the merits of any case, or openly declaring void 250 years of Congressional oversight power, John Roberts and his comrades have abetted this executive putsch by narrowly ruling against plaintiffs (like House Democrats) on the basis of “standing.” Or else they declare these issues “non-justiciable” — matters that courts inherently cannot act upon because that would infringe upon “the prerogatives of another independent branch.”
Now think about that… as not a single Democratic politician, or independent scholar, consultant or pundit seems to have done. Roberts and his co-conspirators have in fact painted themselves into a corner! One that could be exploited in a spectacular judo-move, leading to demolition of their entire attempted putsch.
Both here and in Polemical Judo I have made clear there is a way for Congressional Democrats to SIDESTEP the courts! This method is bold, but totally justified under the Roberts Doctrine, a judo flip that would totally work. There is no conceivable way it would not work! And if any of you know anyone who might know someone… I could explain it it two minutes.
== What's that secret sauce solution, Brin? ==
Yeah, I know, I'm being mysterious. One of you wrote in that I must be talking about how Congress has always had - though seldom used - the right to send Capitol Police or US Marshals or the Sergeant at Arms to demand documents and appearance at hearings. They can even arrest and jail those who refuse Congressional subpoenas. And yes, that is the answer offered in almost every discussion...
... immediately eliciting images of William Barr's appointed Praetorians pulling pistolas, with gun battles subsequently raging across Washington DC, to the tune of Vladmiric laughter echoing across the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans.
So let's be clear. That absurdly garish scenario is NOT what I am talking about! Not at all. Not even remotely.
Reiterating: there is no guarantee that sending out armed marshals will work... and that's certainly why Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler have not tried it, yet. But I guarantee my method will work. It's relatively risk free and - again, I repeat - It ... will... work. Because it cannot not work.
So why don't I lay it out, right now?
Well, although secrecy isn't essential, the method would benefit - first time - from some element of surprise. So I'll not detail it here... though it's right there in POLEMICAL JUDO, nested among a hundred other potentially useful suggestions. And hence I am confident that no one on the other side will ever read closely enough to find it.
== Abandon clichés and embrace the officers defending us ==
Military leaders believe climate change seriously threatens U.S. national security. They contend it is stirring up chaos and conflict abroad, endangering coastal bases and stressing soldiers and equipment, which undermines military readiness. But rather than debating the causes of climate change or assigning blame, they focus on how warming undermines security, and on practical steps to slow its advance and minimize damage. The Navy is concerned about twelve(!) new Russian bases ringing the Arctic… as well as the generally anti-scientific and delusional attitudes that propel denialism.
All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon's Perspective on Climate Change, by Michael T. Klare explores in depth this added reason why the maligned “deep state” US military Officer Corps is fast realizing that one of our parties has been suborned.
== Bern-ing bridges? ==
Two additional opinions on Bernie, both sympathetic but from opposite perspectives. In The New York Times, David Leonhardt writes: Faced with the potential of either large gains or historic losses, progressives would be wise to stop believing only what they want to believe. Don’t cherry-pick polls to claim that most Americans actually favor a ban on private insurance. Don’t imagine that millions of heretofore silent progressive supporters will materialize on Election Day. In the 2018 midterms, Sanders-style candidates lost swing districts, while candidates demonstrating respect to swing voters won again and again….Beating Trump in November will be even harder. And uncomfortable compromises will make it more likely.
And again and again, confront your splitter friends with these challenges!
From The Atlantic: The Billion-Dollar Disinformation Campaign to Reelect the President.
Now we know why Lisa Murkowski voted to acquit Donald Trump – and it’s not pretty.
Remember my suggestion to call the Donald "Two Scoops?" Well, the Trumpsters may already have owned it. Unless, of course, that is actually satire. But would the Trumpsters actually know it was?
== My recommended method... used effectively 70 years ago ==
This brief, formally-polite letter from a State Department functionary to the raving-maniac Senator Joe McCarthy is stunningly pertinent glance into the past reveals how to nail liars with demands for specific evidence. This is what I call demand-a-wager. It doesn’t have to be about money, per se. But it must shame the liar publicly, for refusing to step up.
Washington, February 11, 1950—2 p.m.
“In view of your statement carried by the press that there are “57 card-carrying Communists” in the State Department,2 I respectfully request that you make these names public or submit them to the Department of State. It would seem to me that if you have this information, as a loyal American you owe it to your country to inform the officials responsible for any such characters existing in the government. As you know our employees have been checked and are being checked by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the President’s loyalty program and if you have proof that there are card-carrying members of the Communist Party in this Department I assure you that they will not remain in this agency. I assume that you have given your information to the FBI. Therefore we will communicate with that agency immediately. Needless [Page 1380]to say, the thousands of loyal employees of this Department must not be placed under a cloud of suspicion and I should appreciate it if you will promptly publish the names of the departmental employees whom you say are members of the Communist Party.”
What? His 4th Chief of Staff? Fifth?
Luke 17.6 And the Lord answered: "If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you."
Funny how the "Chosen One" of Heaven can't even get a staff of competent people to obey him. So much for his faith.
0 comments:
Post a Comment