Saturday, July 29, 2023

Bits & thoughts: Rancid GOP calls for decorum; The origin of COVID and the value of truth; Etc.

From the Things Have Gotten Real Ugly Files: After recently flouting decorum by showing pornographic pictures of Hunter Biden in a House committee meeting, MTG called for decorum while a democrat was making remarks in a different committee she was also a member of. The Hill writes:

Democrat mocks Greene after call for decorum: 
‘She showed us a d‑‑‑ pic last week’

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) mocked Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s (R-Ga.) call for decorum at a House subcommittee hearing Thursday, pointing to the congresswoman’s presentation of sexually explicit posters on a separate panel last week.

“Marjorie needs to remember she showed us a d‑‑‑ pic last week,” Garcia tweeted Thursday after Greene interrupted his remarks at a hearing on COVID-19 vaccine mandates to call for decorum.

The California Democrat displayed a tweet from Greene at the hearing, in which she compared vaccine and mask mandates to the yellow Star of David that Jews were required to wear by the Nazis in the lead-up to the Holocaust.

Garcia showing MTG's Tweet claiming that 
vaccines are equal to the Star of David gambit
before the Nazi mass slaughter 
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

Morality: Thoughts about the origin of COVID and the value of truth
Two recent posts here about the origin of the COVIN virus has led to serious personal introspection. I've always harped on holding respect for facts, true truths and sound reasoning as high moral values for politics. I'm starting to question that in the case of COVID.

(a) Although COVID probably was man-made and accidentally leaked from a probably poorly regulated, unsafe lab in Wuhan, and (b) although it probably was made with some funding and support from the US, and (c) although the Chinese government had some murky but unhelpful role in all of it, should the American people have been told that the origin of the virus is uncertain and it might have come from either (i) a human made virus that escaped, presumably by accident, or (ii) arose naturally in nature. 

The US government and apparently also the US mainstream media agreed to say that the virus arose naturally in nature, not by any human lab research and accident. My reaction has always been to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they would.

In some conversations, I got very heavy pushback on the truth option. The reasons for supporting the natural origin lie were:
1. Truth would lead some people to refuse vaccination because the virus had been weaponized and that would raise psychological barriers to vaccination --- even though that is blatantly irrational, some crackpot conspiracies have an undeniable, irresistible appeal to millions of American adults; and  
2. If the American people had been told the truth, Trump probably would have been re-elected, because one of the factors that led to him (barely) losing the 2020 election was his gross incompetence in dealing with COVID --- he would deflect blame to Chinese involvement and the Democrats for funding the research in the first place. 

Both of those arguments against truth carry weight, especially the 2nd one. If Trump had been re-elected, the US would very likely (~97% chance?) be a full-blown dictatorship by now. Of course that is only hypothetical, but it rings true. If there was a way for Trump to deflect significant blame from his incompetence in dealing with COVID, he probably would have been re-elected.

Was the natural origin lie justified morally or otherwise? I'm not sure now. Maybe it was justifiable.
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________

Tyranny from the Christian nationalist Supreme Court: The Hill writes: 
Justice Samuel Alito said Congress has “no authority” to regulate the Supreme Court in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published Friday, pushing back against Democrats’ attempt to mandate stronger ethics rules.

“I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it,” Alito told the Journal. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”
This is how radical right partisan pro-tyranny politicians pretending to be judges think. Congress cannot impose any ethics or transparency rules, allowing judges to be as corrupt, bribed and sleazy as they want. They are above the ethics, morality and the law itself.

What Alito fails to acknowledge, or more likely actually believes, is that Congress does have the power to regulate the federal courts. It can expand or contract the number of judges. The court's budget can be cut. And, there is this at Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1 of the US Constitution:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

So, congress could write a bill congress that (1) defines "good behavior" for Supreme Court judges, requiring them to be removed for ethics violations, and (2) removes appellate jurisdiction so that the judges aren't hearing their own appeals. Congress could even create a new Article 3 administrative court that only has jurisdiction over ethics reviews, which is a great idea. And, there's this regarding removing federal judges from office at Article 3, Section 1:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

That says judge's terms in office don't expire. It does not say that they can commit crimes or murder someone and still serve on the bench. The problem here is that even if a judge is convicted by a jury in a criminal court, they still get to hear their own appeal if Congress can't get 2/3rds of the Senate to agree on impeachment. Right now, Republicans in the Senate are hell-bent to justifying (on 1st Amendment free speech grounds), protecting and expanding corruption in government, not reigning it in. The constitution does not define "good behavior", but Congress could define it to exclude being found guilty of ethics violations. Of course, Republicans in congress will not allow that.

Again, we see clear, direct evidence of the authoritarianism that has completely engulfed and rotted radical right Republican elites. They hate democracy, transparency, ethics and the rule of law itself, except when it applies to other people and enemies.

No comments:

Post a Comment