U.S. National Interests Can Override the Mandates of the Law

 

What if the U.S. Supreme Court had invalidated the apparent results of the Presidential election?  Regardless of the Constitutional merit of the ruling, one-half of the country would have been outraged.  Talk about the feeling that the election had been stolen!  And might that decision, given the deep political divisions already present, have generated violence from the hot-heads on both sides?

The Supreme Court would be irresponsible not to take such factors into consideration before issuing its verdict on such a socially explosive subject.  Of course, the consequences of the Court’s ruling should not generally – or ever in a perfect world – enter into its deliberations.  But, as an eminent U.S. jurist once declared – the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.  The Court ignores the effects of its actions on issues of great national concern at the country’s peril.

Chief Justice Roger Taney’s Dred Scott decision of 1857 – whether sound or not – ignited already heated emotions on the slavery question and, in that respect, helped lead to the Civil War which erupted a few years later.  Taney (who had been a prominent Democratic Party politician for years) should have deferred to the national interest, not his judicial judgment.

Richard Nixon, in 1960, faced a situation superficially similar to Donald Trump’s but with considerably more merit.  There were credible claims that he was the victim of substantial voter fraud engineered by Democratic Party machines in Illinois and Texas.  In fact, evidence surfaced shortly after the election that hundreds of votes in Chicago were cast from city graveyards.  The final vote tallies nationally were close so there would have been reasonable justification if Nixon were to challenge John F. Kennedy’s “victory”.  He refused to do so, citing the widespread national turmoil that would ensue.

Nixon chose to dampen national division and discord, not exacerbate things, unlike our current president.  Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court chose to rely on a legal technicality (no “standing”) to, in reality, make an implicit statement in support of the national interest.

Enough already!

Hypocrisy Can Be More Than a Moral Failing

 

I’m sure we all remember the sarcastic reference to those we know - and those we only know about – who in effect lectured us to do what they preached… but whose practice did not follow their own prescription.  “What hypocrites,” we’d say.

But hypocrisy can be more dangerous than moral failure.

On the surface, Donald Trump is a hypocrite when it comes to following the recommendations of his COVID health advisors.  But not really.  He is “winking” when he is spouting the importance of taking precautions.  He obviously doesn’t believe what he’s preaching.  So his hypocrisy is feigned.  You know he doesn’t believe what he says.

But in recent weeks, many state and local leaders appeared sincerely to demand the virus prevention guidelines be followed… and then were discovered going to fancy restaurants, frequenting large gatherings or traveling out of state or country.

This is far more serious than a personal failing.  Their conduct indicated a lack of belief in an important policy directive which, by appearance, unlike the posture of Donald Trump, they sincerely believed in.  By their actions, they seriously undercut health professionals who were trying to protect the public.  These hypocritical politicians (a cynic would add that the adjective is inseparable from the noun) by their conduct told the public to ignore the guidance they echoed- and they themselves did so. 

Assuming – and I do – that the health advisors were giving sound advice, the blatant hypocrisy was dangerous to the health of their country.  The exposed hypocrites laid bare their conviction that the health emergency was phony and only to be observed by fools.  So, of course, their constituents will be more influenced by their dangerous examples than their insincere words.

The conduct – not mere words – was disgraceful.  The perpetrators violated the public’s trust and should resign.  (Fat chance.)

 

Donald Trump Can’t Leave Office Soon Enough!

 

My election-eve blog made clear my reluctance in voting for the re-election of the President.  He essentially was viewed by The Sensible Conservative as the lesser of two evils.

His post-election conduct makes clear, however, that perhaps Joe Biden should have received the “lesser” label.

His frequent and apparently baseless attacks on electoral irregularities  have weakened the faith of millions and millions of Americans in our democratic system.

He has relied on looney supporters (alas, Rudy Giuliani among them) to help him make his case.

He castigates the current and loyal Attorney General, Bill Barr, for announcing that no evidence of significant voting misconduct has been found – contrary to the President’s many damning claims.

Despite the recounts in Georgia, Trump still insists that he won the state. [So what?  Flipping its 16 electoral voting wouldn’t alter the national results.]  By continuing his attacks on Georgia – run by Republicans! – he is deflecting energy and resources for the run-off elections vital to maintaining GOP Senate control.

But maybe he simply doesn’t care.  Isn’t his life really all about himself?  Next to that focus, does his party’s – his country’s – fortune matter?

Please go!