I attended an Andrew Gillum event last night, and recorded most of Gillum’s inspirational speech (I didn’t record the extensive thank-yous that prefaced the talk.)
I know you are no fan of Desantes, since he’s literally Hitler and all, but are you really a supporter of Gillum for Governor? Do you REALLY think that someone whose current Government, including himself, is under FBI investigation, would make a great Florida Governor?
This is the problem with Politics in a nutshell. You don’t like Desantes, fine. But is the answer to just vote for the not-Desantes? Maybe you can justify it in your head by thinking that Rick Scott was a crook too. Well, that’s fine, but it DOESN’T FIX THE PROBLEM HERE!
The problem, which is obvious to a lot of people, and apparently a complete mystery to others, is that Government attracts criminals, right along with decent people, just like banks attract criminals right along with decent people. Why? Because we have Government which has become so rich and powerful of itself that it has become a destination for one-stop corruption. And it has become so seedy, so corrupt, so corrupting, that decent people no longer want to have anything to do with getting there, thus raising the ratio of criminals.
Let me ask you a question, which is seemingly unrelated, but which actually IS related if you think about it a bit:
Do you think it’s a good thing (whatever your thoughts on the current make-up) that SCOTUS decisions are largely known quantities? That in a given case, we can say pretty much with certainty that Ginsberg will vote X and Gorsuch will vote Y, with only one or two Justices ever being in question. Do you think, because of this fact, that it is, and SHOULD BE, and important question as to who gets to appoint new Justices? (I know you would prefer a different balance than now, but I am speaking theoretically, is this how it SHOULD work?) Do you think it would be better or worse if SCOTUS has so little actual power to change things in a sweeping fashion? Would Justice partisanship matter as much? Would the United States burn to the ground?
Start thinking about that and you MIGHT start understanding why you are headed for more Trump, because of your efforts, and why electing criminals locally might come back to bite you in the end.
I agree with Gillum on the issues – especially on things like expanding medicare. So I am very happy to vote for him.
I’ve read lots of articles on the supposed scandal, and as best I can tell the facts in evidence are: 1) some other folks in Tallahassee, including at least one buddy, are under investigation; 2) the worst Gillum himself has been accused of is taking a Hamilton ticket that he claims he thought came from his brother, but maybe he knew or should have known did not; 3) no one has shown any action that Gillum is supposed to have taken to benefit the guy who it turns out paid for the ticket. Indeed, no one has identified any allegedly corrupt actions by him whatever (no quo for the claimed quid). So, yes, I’m not bothered by that.
The politicization of the court is bad, maybe very bad, but it’s not especially new. Remember the Four Horsemen? I’d like us to amend the constitution to give Justices 17 year terms, so that every President got to nominate at least one, rather than have the court be able to control its own replacements.
Well, I’m not sure you’ve really been keeping up with the revelations of the investigation into Gillum. Perhaps you should look into that.
Normally, I’m all FOR term limits, on EVERYONE, including Federal Judges. However, the Leviathan has to Leviathan, and my fear is that it will simply cause more and more unelected people to have more power, under the reasonably stated guise of smoothing over transitions.
A better solution would be to look for ways to take the power of political bias OUT of Courts. The current “method” (the honor system) is obviously just for show, as we ALL know who will vote what on virtually every issue in Scotus, and depending how close you follow a lower Court, there as well.
One method is to remove the influence the Courts have taken on themselves. End countrywide injunctions on a judges say-so. End the ability of a Federal Court to excise or re-state/clarify parts of statutes to make things make sense to them. (Force the Legislature to do its Constitutional job for a while) And stop the over-Federalization of absolutely everything. There is absolutely no need at all for a Federal murder trial just because the accused violated some Federal crime created just so that the Feds could try people for murder. Courts are politicized not because of the lifetime appointment, but because of the power – largely taken from the other branches of Government, unopposed. Less powerful Courts means that the individual biases of the Judges will matter less.
Every President getting to nominate is not a bad idea, but it just feeds the problem. You will STILL get liberal judges able to do bad liberal things from liberal Presidents, and bad conservative judges able to do bad conservative things from conservative Presidents. The solution is to eliminate some of the “things,” not control who decides them.
Vic said, “This is the problem with Politics in a nutshell. You don’t like Desantes, fine. But is the answer to just vote for the not-Desantes?”
Actually, yes, that is a reasonable answer in the current context. DeSantis is running as a Trump clone. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1YP_zZJFXs. Trump represents me very poorly. If, after 4 years, Gillum represents me poorly as well, I will vote for the next challenger. Its a simple matter really. Fire people who don’t represent you well, and give a chance to the next guy.
In this case, DeSantis has made abundantly clear that he is not “the next guy” and that he is just more of Trump. I would rather give a chance to the next guy (Gillum).
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.