{"id":7188,"date":"2024-07-02T08:56:31","date_gmt":"2024-07-02T12:56:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dahlman.online\/?p=7188"},"modified":"2024-07-02T08:56:33","modified_gmt":"2024-07-02T12:56:33","slug":"a-fool","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dahlman.online\/index.php\/2024\/07\/02\/a-fool\/","title":{"rendered":"A Fool"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Hard to Say<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

There is a\u00a0TV\u00a0\u00a0commercial\u00a0<\/a>that aired during the Olympic Trials (Gymnastics, Swimming, and Track and Field; a lot to watch).\u00a0\u00a0It has folks who speak English as a second language, first talk about the \u201chardest things to say in English\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0Several talk about linguistics, the difficulty of saying the word \u201csixth\u201d; and the words the sound the same, like \u201cscissors\u201d and \u201cCaesar\u201d,\u00a0\u00a0but mean two different things.\u00a0\u00a0But then the topic changes, to the hardest emotional messages to say in English. “Goodbye”, \u201cI was wrong\u201d, \u201cI am sorry\u201d, and \u201cI love you\u201d are some of the phrases so tough to say.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, I need to say something that is incredibly difficult to say; both to you, and to myself.\u00a0\u00a0I was a fool.\u00a0\u00a0I was a fool to expect anything different from the Supreme Court than what we got yesterday.\u00a0A fool, to believe that this Supreme Court would stick to what they believed.\u00a0\u00a0I thought that they believed in the Founding Fathers, and in the sanctity of what the authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights said.\u00a0\u00a0In fact, I thought that was the entire basis of \u201coriginalism\u201d. The law: their theory that the law is \u201cas written\u201d with the \u201coriginal intent\u201d of the authors. For the past fifty years, I believed that was their guiding principle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No Man Above the Law<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

And I had a further \u201cfoolish conceit\u201d.  I thought that there was a level of our national leadership who understood that MAGA-Trumpism was simply a \u201cstory\u201d to gain votes.  I anticipated that the Justices on the Supreme Court would pay lip service to Trump, but would stand with the Founding Fathers, their \u201coriginal\u201d legal foundation.  But again, I was a fool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court, a topic I\u2019ve spent a lot of time on for the past few weeks, ruled that the United States in NOT<\/strong> a Nation where everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.   The Supreme Court created a whole new status of American:  one who is literally immune from the law in his\/her official capacity; the President of the United States.  As noted conservative jurist Michael Luttig stated:  \u201cToday our country is changed.  We are no longer a Nation where no man is above the law\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Founding Fathers<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

There was no need for this.  The Nation managed to get through two-hundred and thirty-six years of Presidents, from Washington to Lincoln to the Roosevelts to Barack Obama, without criminal immunity.  And we even managed to get through \u201cbad\u201d Presidents;  Hoover, Filmore, Harding and Richard Nixon.  But now, all the rules are changed.  A President is even \u201cpresumed immune\u201d in their private conversations and public speeches, even if they are acting in \u201cbad faith\u201d.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And, looking back at the Founding Fathers themselves, there is no question.\u00a0\u00a0Their greatest fear was the unchecked Executive, the President who \u201cwould be king\u201d.\u00a0\u00a0There is absolutely no way that Madison, Washington, Franklin, or even Alexander Hamilton; would have wanted a President to have some form of blanket immunity from criminal responsibility.\u00a0\u00a0Today\u2019s \u201cOriginalists\u201d on the Supreme Court did the thing they argued most against.\u00a0\u00a0They \u201clegislated\u201d and created a Constitutional right out of \u201cwhole cloth\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Signs<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

So how did those six Justices, led by their Chief, John Roberts, author of the decision, find themselves as \u201cliving Constitutionalists\u201d, their own arch-enemy?  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the center of my own foolishness.  The signs were all there:  Justice Clarence Thomas\u2019s wife was a leader of the \u201cStop the Steal\u201d movement.  She organized, called, and donated to the attempt to stop the legal transfer of power after the 2020 election.  And Justice Samuel Alito literally flew the flag of \u201crebellion\u201d outside of his homes during January of 2021.   They are true believers in the fundamental \u201ccanons\u201d of MAGA lore:<\/p>\n\n\n\n