Thought for the day. On the other hand, rather than thinking we must be living in the worst of times (see last Wednesday’s post), perhaps we are merely experience regression toward the mean. I’ve mentioned this notion several times. The idea is that democracy, and science, are exceptional in world history. While progressives like to think humanity is on an upwards path toward a better, more egalitarian, future, a future better-informed about the nature of reality and overcoming tribal instincts of nationalism and religion that actively deny that reality (in science fiction, that was portrayed by the original Star Trek), perhaps that is not realistic. Perhaps that future will never be attained, except only temporarily, before returning to than mean, based ultimately on human nature, established over millions of years, and which cannot easily be swayed.
On the other hand, humanity *has* advanced, overall, in recent centuries. Our politics and our understanding of the world, and thus our ability to control it, are far better here in the 21st century than they were, say, 500 years ago. We no longer accede to the divine right of kings; we no longer believe in demons and spirits to explain the natural world.
Well, some of us don’t. Others still do. There is no consensus among the entire world, or national, population. Case in point.
The big news today was the Supreme Court granting Trump immunity from anything he might have done, like trying to overthrow an election, if it can be construed as part of his official duties. To critics, this makes him essentially a king. The result was not surprising, considering the political balance of the Supreme Court. (Yet again: I don’t trust the law at all. It is always subject to motivated reasoning, the conclusion identified first, the precedents selected to support that conclusion. Ideally, science is the complete opposite: it is answerable to reality.)
The Atlantic, Adam Serwer, 1 Jul 2024: The Supreme Court Puts Trump Above the Law, subtitled “And gives him permission for a despotic second term.”
Near the top of their sweeping, lawless opinion in Trump v. United States, Donald Trump’s defenders on the Supreme Court repeat one of the most basic principles of American constitutional government: “The president is not above the law.” They then proceed to obliterate it.
Although the pro-Trump justices attempt to nest the breadth of their opinion in legalese, their finding that the president cannot be prosecuted for “official acts,” and that much of Trump’s efforts to seize power fall under that rubric, means that the justices have essentially legalized a losing president refusing to step down, as Trump tried to do after the 2020 election.
The Court’s opinion presents an absurd paradox that defeats the purpose of a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law. It has little basis in the Constitution or in the words of the Founders. It is the outcome that most benefits the Court’s preferred presidential candidate, while allowing the justices to live with themselves for defacing beyond recognition the Constitution and the concept of democratic self-determination.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor puts it plainly. Regarding the question of “whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution,” Sotomayor writes, “The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law.” That is the long and the short of it.
That sums it up, from my perspective. I could supply any number of additional links with similar perspectives. Of course, conservatives celebrate the decision, as shielding presidential powers from the intrusive judicial system, which they see as politically motivated. (Which is not true. Biden does not tell the DOJ what to do; that’s the whole idea of separation of powers. But conservatives/Republicans are conspiracy-besotted.)
\\
Shorter links.
Vox, Zack Beauchamp, 1 Jul 2024: You’re a liberal and you don’t even know it, subtitled “A new book explains how liberalism shapes all of our lives — and lights a way toward a better political future.”
Haven’t read this piece yet, should do so in the next couple days. But I suspect the point might be: conservatives have supported so many things over the past few hundred years that we would now consider barbaric, that in the long perspective of history, we are all, relatively, liberals.
\
Similarly:
NY Times, David Brooks, 1 Jul 2024: My Unsettling Interview With Steve Bannon
I’ll revisit this one too.
\
The Atlantic, Gilad Edeman, 30 Jun 2024: Donald Trump’s Theory of Everything, subtitled “No matter the question, his answer is ‘illegal immigrants.'”
Because conservatives respond to simple solutions.
\
How does any rational person listen to this man, and support him?
Joe.My.God, 29 Jun 2024: Trump Warns Against Electric Planes: “What Happens If The Sun Isn’t Shining While You’re In The Air?”
\
Another piece of evidence about how the right-wing Project 2025 plan for America’s future denies science.
Media Matters, 28 Jun 2024: Project 2025 partners join right-wing media and climate deniers to celebrate SCOTUS decision overturning Chevron deference
And I haven’t yet mentioned this case, the Chevron defense. The issue is whether experts at various environmental agencies, rather than politicians, should make decisions about public policies. Of course the Court chose politicians. Just as they have with abortion issues. Expertise is always subordinate to political opinion, in conservatives’ minds. And political opinions generally are at odds with scientific positions. Ideology over reality.
