Features

The battle of the ‘Geezers’ in November:Biden – Trump rematch

Published

on

The Supreme Court delivers for Trump

byVijaya Chandrasoma

On Monday, March 4, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a Colorado Supreme Court ruling of December 23 that Donald Trump be disqualified from the ballot in Colorado in the November 2024 presidential election. The Colorado ruling was based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which states:No person shall…. hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or any other state, who previously having taken an oath…. to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress, may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. According to a strict interpretation of the Amendment, Trump, who, in plain eyes, incited the January 6 insurrection, and “provided aid and comfort” to the insurrectionists by delaying the summoning of federal troops to quell the violence unfolding before his eyes for 187 minutes, is clearly not eligible to run for the job of dog-catcher, much less the highest position in the land.The Supreme Court ruling was completely at odds with the US constitution.

The 6/3 pro-Republican Court took the path of least resistance by ruling in favor of Trump, for fear of violent political consequences that will inevitably follow if Trump was disenfranchised.The unanimous Supreme Court ruling stated: “States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 (of the 14th Amendment) with respect to federal offices, especially the presidency”. The unanimity ended there.Liberal Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Brown-Jackson, argued that “the ruling goes beyond the necessities of this case to limit how Section 3 can bar an oath breaking insurrectionist from becoming President.

We protest the majority’s effort to use this case to define the limits of federal enforcement of that provision”.In simple English, the liberal Justices object that the ruling sets a precedent that will allow an “oath breaking insurrectionist” – an obvious reference to Trump – to once again, violently attempt to prevent the constitutional transfer of power.Even more strangely, the Supreme Court issued the ruling on Monday, March 4, when the Supreme Court was closed. Rulings are invariably announced on days the Supreme Court is in session.

The reason for the choice of this date to issue the ruling was obviously political, to give Trump a public victory the day before Super Tuesday, March 5, when 15 states were scheduled to hold their primaries. As expected, both President Biden and Trump convincingly swept their primaries on Super Tuesday, and all but clinched the 2024 presidential nominations of their respective Parties.

Barring the hitherto unannounced challenge of a Third-Party candidate, the 2024 presidential election will feature the dreaded rematch between two octogenarians.Trump’s last challenger, Nikki Haley, decided to exit the race on Wednesday, after being trounced by Trump in the Republican primaries. In her speech announcing the suspension of her presidential run, Haley congratulated Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee and wished him well.

She did not endorse him, adding pointedly that she hopes that he will bring conservatives in the Party together instead of driving them away. However, she did not quite close the door to playing a role in a future Trump administration.The corruption and the Trump bias of this Supreme Court does not end with the Colorado case.On February 6, 2023, a panel of three justices of the Washington D.C. District Appeals Court ruled on the Presidential Immunity case.

Trump’s counsel had argued that an incumbent president enjoys absolute immunity, civil and criminal, from any legal action while in office. An argument which led Judge Florence Pan of the D.C. panel to pose the question: “Could a president order SEAL Team Six (the most highly trained and elite forces in the US military) to assassinate a political rival? That is an official act?” She went on to inquire if a US president would still be immune from prosecution if, hypothetically speaking, he sold military secrets to foreign adversaries or peddled pardons to criminals?Nothing hypothetical there.

Trump peddled pardons to criminals during his presidency, even after his defeat in November, 2020; and sales of military secrets were freely available, if the price was right, to foreign adversaries, from the toilets of Trump’s resort at Mar a Lago after he left the White House in January, 2021.Neither civil nor criminal immunity is explicitly granted to an incumbent or former president in the Constitution. As the Justices of the D.C. panel stated in their ruling:”It would be a striking paradox if the president, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity”.

The Supreme Court had three options for the disbursement of the appeal for Presidential Immunity submitted by Trump’s counsel. The most impartial option would have been to refuse to take the case, on grounds that the D. C. Appeals Court ruling had covered every aspect of the case with “constitutional text, judicial precedent, history and logic”, to such a decisive level that overturning it would be well-nigh judicially impossible

Such a decision would have ensured that the Washington District Court January 6 Insurrection (sedition) trial against Trump could start as early as April and a verdict reached before the end of June, well before the November 2024 election. An option that did not serve Trump’s delay tactics.The Court decided instead to accept the case for hearing. A delay in issuing the inevitable ruling, that no one is above the law, would postpone the progress of the four criminal trials against Trump, so preventing a possible conviction before the November election.

A despicable act of sycophantic bias, again favoring Trump’s political strategy, typical of the most corrupt Supreme Court in the nation’s history. Trump claimed a “huge victory” with these Supreme Court decisions. He is using these hollow victories to make himself look indomitable in the eyes of his cult. The eternal victim who exudes an orange glow of confidence and strength by overcoming all the injustices thrown at him by leftist fascists.

President Biden may be perceived as a weak candidate for re-election. He is undoubtedly chronologically too old to begin a second presidential term, but he is just three years older than Trump. At 81 and 78, Biden and Trump are both old geezers. Biden’s gait may be slow and measured, his speech sometimes marble-mouthed and unintelligible. But his presidential performance during the first three years of his presidency has been nothing short of outstanding.On the other hand, Trump’s interview at last Sunday’s Meet the Press showed the rapid unraveling of his mind. He made preposterous statements about the 2020 “rigged election”, the January 6 “peaceful political protest”, immigration and “the invasion of 15 million immigrants from foreign prisons and mental asylums before November”, “bacon being five times more expensive than it used to be”, cutting taxes for the super-rich during his first term that created “tremendous jobs” and a booming economy, “the greatest in history”.

His unhinged lies about abortion make it perfectly obvious that he is non compos mentis, Latin for batshit crazy:”Democrats say that after eight months, nine months, even after birth, you are allowed to terminate the baby…..after the baby is born, you will make a determination, and if you want, you will kill that baby”. This moron does not understand the difference between murder and abortion! The Republican Alabama Supreme Court ruled last Wednesday that frozen embryos are “children”, with a constitutional right to life.

Taking this concept to its logical conclusion, it won’t be long before Republicans will deem that conception begins at erection, and ban masturbation, thereby preventing the dissipation of millions of little swimmers, also potential “children”, with each fell swoop. A ban which would cause needless emotional frustration in teenagers and middle-aged married men.

You may think I am kidding, but when you consider the fact that many radical Republicans, including some Supreme Court Justices, seem to be gravitating towards the opinion that contraception is also anti-life and a form of abortion, it doesn’t sound that funny.

The Republicans could not possibly field a weaker candidate than a convicted fraud and rapist, a man who left his first term of presidency with criminal mismanagement of Covid, which cost at least 650,000 avoidable deaths, an economy in recession with an addition of $7.8 trillion to the national debt. A criminal terrified about facing four indictments and 91 felonies, who will be spending much of the next few months playing musical chairs in four federal and district courts.

A bankrupt facing the imminent payment of court-awarded damages, for fraud and sexual crimes, of at least $550 million, and has appealed for time to pay because he is broke. A self-confessed “billionaire” who has used campaign donations to pay his legal expenses at millions of dollars per case and sexual encounters with porn stars at $135,000 per minute. A man whose sole ambition to win the presidency in November is not to serve the country, but to stay out of prison. And to resume stealing the country blind as he did during his first term.

Amazingly, most current polls have Trump with a narrow (currently 48% to 46%) lead over President Biden, as the favorite to win the 2024 presidency. In spite of the fact that under his leadership, the Republicans have not won a single national election since he stole the presidency in 2016. Media obsession with Trump pose a great threat to American democracy because even the most prestigious newspapers and TV channels are no longer interested in providing a public service with responsible journalism. They are only interested in circulation figures and the bottom line, concentrating more on coverage of sensational news rather than dispensing important information on vital political and social issues for the benefit of their readers.

Even the prestigious New York Times has been guilty of such venal journalism in recent times. It covers Biden and Trump with disproportionate standards, placing false equivalence on issues surrounding Biden and his debilities, to Trump, who is himself on the cusp of senility, and also faces 91 criminal counts.

In a front-page article last Sunday headlined “Most Biden Voters of 2020 Fear He’s Too Old To Lead”, the Times dwelt on Biden’s age, with no mention of his presidential achievements, nor of a recent routine medical assessment which deemed Biden in perfect mental and physical health for a man his age, eminently capable of conducting the rigorous duties of the presidency for a second term.

The Times story about Biden’s age and unpopularity appeared the day after a Donald Trump rally rant in Richmond, Virginia, full of slurred lies, non-sequiturs and other absurdities, evidence of a fast-unraveling mind. A speech with his trademark brazen lies and vulgarities, largely ignored by the Times.

As a reader of the Times wrote, “Please drop the pretense that there is anything like equivalency in the choice between the candidates. The real story in this election cycle is the fact that the putative Republican nominee has serious, observable signs of mental decline. Nothing Biden says or does comes even close!”

In 2016, all polls conducted in every country except Russia predicted that Hillary would beat Trump by a landslide. In 2020, polls predicted that the race between Biden and Trump would be close when it was not. Many political commentators argue that “polling is irrevocably broken”, that the polling industry “is a wreck, and should be blown up”. Be that as it may, it is my fervent hope that I will survive long enough to gloat about my prediction, that “I told you so”, when Trump and his white supremacist cult members (sadly sprinkled with a few browns, even Sri Lankans) are driven back into the woodwork, come November.

Click to comment

Trending

Exit mobile version