Very important… not so important… all depends…

 

Yesterday on this site, there was quite the kerfuffle regarding how important precedent is in American politics.  Our disagreement arose in light of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colonel Mark A. Milley’s, “unusual actions” in the final days of the Trump presidency.  It was, indeed, an unusual time.

Several people, including Milley, Pelosi, and other power-players saw Trump as in an obviously (blatantly) declining and very unstable state-of-mind.  We all know, desperation cuts through everything, and Trump seemed quite desperate to stay in power, by hook or crook.  Many saw Trump as the proverbial “loose cannon” and were afraid he might try to start a nuclear WWIII, so he could then pretend to come back in and “fix it” (since he alone knows how to fix things).  Many suspect that Trump would have seen military action as a way of garnering enough patriotic political support to stay in power, in spite of the newly elected president, Joe Biden.  

Precedents, standards, protocols, chain of command, and in general the way stuff is normally done, seems to be falling by the wayside, in these strange political and tribal days.  So here are some questions to ponder:

-How important is political/legal precedent to you? 

-Where does old precedent end and new (some would say) “enlightened ways” begin?  How do you personally draw that fine line of when "what trumps what?"  What are the pivotal factors to consider?

-Should a society’s legal precedents be sensitive to the populace-at-large’s ever-changing values?  In other words, should precedents change as society changes, making instruments like The Constitution a “living document?”

Give us your thoughts on the concept of precedent.

Thanks for posting and recommending.