When Vance says “you can’t litigate these things judicially, you have to litigate them politically," he means you have to tell the truth when you litigate, but you can lie ad nauseam politically. Vance is dangerous because he's smart.
When Vance says “you can’t litigate these things judicially, you have to litigate them politically," he means you have to tell the truth when you litigate, but you can lie ad nauseam politically. Vance is dangerous because he's smart.
Another fine example of the quality being pushed through the nation's 'best' law schools.
I see Harvard or Yale and I just assume trust fund baby or someone who got through on the low expectations needed in classes to keep the trust fund babies passing.
He's lying. It has nothing to do with what he learned in law school. His lust for power has taken over his understanding of the law and the rule of law. Same with Cruz, Hawley, and Stefanik. Authoritarians all. Their personal ambition trumps the rights of other Americans. They are morally corrupt. It's their individual characters, not their law school. David French is a Harvard Law grad. He is not morally corrupt.
They have no place in the institutions the Framers founded. As John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
"since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
The sentiment is surely older than the ancient Greeks, but this sums it up pretty well.
I love that quote. The words "power games" comes to me. If you know the premise of the book/movie Hunger Games, that's what the Hunger Games were.
The Framers knew this. That's why they gave us the checks and balances and co-equal branches. I'm sure I said this before, but what they didn't count on was one faction when it controls either chamber of Congress giving up their power to the President. I think this is unprecedented in our history.
Yeah, I don't think they could conceive of a nation as large as we are being as cohesive as we've been (even now). We have a system designed to keep NY and VA from dominating other slightly independent states. And it has mostly kept Texas and California from dominating either (works as designed). What they couldn't see was two world wars and a cold war drawing us closer together as Americans than they could really conceive of. That and our new fault lines being rural vs urban and educated vs. non-educated.
Couple that with the short-sightedness of having a system the forces two (and only two) parties and here we are, repeatedly getting minority rule.
It’s the first time in our history that an entire political party is willing to openly disavow the rule of law, ethics, and all things honorable just to stay in power. It’s a concession that they would rather have power under a ruthless and emotionally challenged dictator than have no power at all, which is how they read the demographics tea leaves.
Thanks for confirming that for me. What the Framers couldn't conceive of was a minority of the electorate fueling a faction in Congress to be more loyal to the President than to the Constitution.
They expected only white, male, property owners would constitute the electorate.
When Vance says “you can’t litigate these things judicially, you have to litigate them politically," he means you have to tell the truth when you litigate, but you can lie ad nauseam politically. Vance is dangerous because he's smart.
Well put.
When Vance says “you can’t litigate these things judicially”, he means he doesn’t believe in the rule of law.
Oh, God, yes, Linda.
Another fine example of the quality being pushed through the nation's 'best' law schools.
I see Harvard or Yale and I just assume trust fund baby or someone who got through on the low expectations needed in classes to keep the trust fund babies passing.
He's lying. It has nothing to do with what he learned in law school. His lust for power has taken over his understanding of the law and the rule of law. Same with Cruz, Hawley, and Stefanik. Authoritarians all. Their personal ambition trumps the rights of other Americans. They are morally corrupt. It's their individual characters, not their law school. David French is a Harvard Law grad. He is not morally corrupt.
They have no place in the institutions the Framers founded. As John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
Amen!
And I object to using the term “litigate” for argument and debate.
If voting is wrong, and litigating is wrong, what's left is strong-arm robbery.
As Bill Clinton put it, strong and wrong beats weak and right. Nearly half of Americans are obsessed with strength.
"since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
The sentiment is surely older than the ancient Greeks, but this sums it up pretty well.
I love that quote. The words "power games" comes to me. If you know the premise of the book/movie Hunger Games, that's what the Hunger Games were.
The Framers knew this. That's why they gave us the checks and balances and co-equal branches. I'm sure I said this before, but what they didn't count on was one faction when it controls either chamber of Congress giving up their power to the President. I think this is unprecedented in our history.
Yeah, I don't think they could conceive of a nation as large as we are being as cohesive as we've been (even now). We have a system designed to keep NY and VA from dominating other slightly independent states. And it has mostly kept Texas and California from dominating either (works as designed). What they couldn't see was two world wars and a cold war drawing us closer together as Americans than they could really conceive of. That and our new fault lines being rural vs urban and educated vs. non-educated.
Couple that with the short-sightedness of having a system the forces two (and only two) parties and here we are, repeatedly getting minority rule.
It’s the first time in our history that an entire political party is willing to openly disavow the rule of law, ethics, and all things honorable just to stay in power. It’s a concession that they would rather have power under a ruthless and emotionally challenged dictator than have no power at all, which is how they read the demographics tea leaves.
Thanks for confirming that for me. What the Framers couldn't conceive of was a minority of the electorate fueling a faction in Congress to be more loyal to the President than to the Constitution.
They expected only white, male, property owners would constitute the electorate.