GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA: FOR WHO THE BELL TOLLS NEXT.

Just five people shy of Sandy Hook elementary school mass shooting incident that claimed 26 lives, the Uvalde Texas Robb elementary school mass shooting at 21 victims, now ranks among the highest grossing gun carnage in America. It is sad that such frequent blood spilling has tragically become part of our culture as a society. May the souls of the killed now rest.

25th AMENDMENT: ITS NOW ALL CRICKET.

Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi once questioned former President Donald John Trump's fitness to remain in office due to what she claimed was his declining mental capacity. Does anyone know what Madam Speaker presently thinks about the incontrovertible case which America is now saddled with? Just curious!

WHO WILL REBUILD UKRAINE?

The West should convert frozen Russian assets, both state's and oligarchs' owned, into a full seizure and set them aside for the future rebuilding of Ukraine. Like the Marshal Plan, call it the Putin Plan.

A HERO IS BORN.

I am staying put. I will not run away and abandon my people. The fight is here in Ukraine. What I need are weapons and ammunitions, not a ride out of town like former Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani - President Volodymyr Zelensky.

IT IS WHAT IT IS.

"There is too much hate in America because there is too much anger in America." - Trevor Noah.

WORD!

A life without challenges is not a life lived at all. A life lived is a life that has problems, confronts problems, solves problems and then learns from problems. - Tunde Fashola.

NOW, YOU KNOW.

When fishing for love, bait with your heart and not your brain, because you cannot rationalize love. - Mark Twain.

JUST THE FACT.

In our country, you can shoot and kill a nigger, but you better not hurt a gay person’s feelings - Dave Chappelle

DO YOU?.

“What you believe in can only be defined by what you’re willing to risk for it." - Stuart Scheller.

HEDGE YOUR CRISIS.

Never get in bed with a woman whose problems are worse than yours. - Chicago PD.

PROBLEM SOLVED.

'The best way to keep peace is to be ready to destroy evil. If you Pearl Harbor me, I Nagasaki you.' - Ted Nugent.

OUR SHARED HUMANITY.

Empathy is at the heart of who we are as human beings. - Cardinal Matthew Kukah.

WORDS ON MARBLE.

"Birth is agony. Life is hard. Death is cruel." - Japanese pithy.

REPENT OR PERISH - POPE.

Homosexuality is a sin. It is not ordained by God, therefore same sex marriage cannot be blessed by the church - Pope Francis.

CANCEL CULTURE IS CORROSIVE.


FOR SAKE OF COUNTRY.


MAGA LIVES ON: NO RETREAT, NO SURRENDER!

TWITTER IS BORING WITHOUT HIS TWEETS. #RestorePresidentTrump'sTwitterHandle.


WORD.

"If you cannot speak the truth when it matters, then nothing else you says matters.” - Tucker Carlson.

#MeToo MOVEMENT: A BAD NEWS GONE CRAZY.

"To all the women who testified, we may have different truth, but I have a great remorse for all of you. I have great remorse for all of the men and women going through this crisis right now in our country. You know, the movement started basically with me, and I think what happened, you know, I was the first example, and now there are thousands of men who are being accused and a regeneration of things that I think none of us understood. I’m not going to say these aren’t great people. I had wonderful times with these people. I’m just genuinely confused. Men are confused about this issue. We are going through this #MeToo movement crisis right now in this country." - Harvey Weinstein.


RON DELLUMS: UNAPOLOGETICALLY RADICAL.

"If it’s radical to oppose the insanity and cruelty of the Vietnam War, if it’s radical to oppose racism and sexism and all other forms of oppression, if it’s radical to want to alleviate poverty, hunger, disease, homelessness, and other forms of human misery, then I’m proud to be called a radical.” - Ron Vernie Dellums.


WHAT REALLY MATTERS IN LIFE - STEVE JOBS

“I reached the pinnacle of success in the business world. In others’ eyes, my life is an epitome of success. However, aside from work, I have little joy. Non-stop pursuing of wealth will only turn a person into a twisted being, just like me. God gave us the senses to let us feel the love in everyone’s heart, not the illusions brought about by wealth. Memories precipitated by love is the only true riches which will follow you, accompany you, giving you strength and light to go on. The most expensive bed in the world is the sick bed. You can employ someone to drive the car for you, make money for you but you cannot have someone to bear sickness for you. Material things lost can be found. But there is one thing that can never be found when it is lost – Life. Treasure Love for your family, love for your spouse, love for your friends. Treat yourself well. Cherish others.” - SJ

EVIL CANNOT BE TRULY DESTROYED.

"The threat of evil is ever present. We can contain it as long as we stay vigilant, but it can never truly be destroyed. - Lorraine Warren (Annabelle, the movie)


ONLY THE POOR WISH THEY HAD STUFF?

“I’m not that interested in material things. As long as I find a good bed that I can sleep in, that’s enough.” - Nicolas Berggruem, the homeless billionaire.

Wednesday, June 24, 2020

THE FIGHT FOR CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES: WHAT'S THE POINT ANYWAY?

ICHEOKU says presidents always nominate and fight to have confirmed, associates Justices of the Supreme Court who share their ideological viewpoint on the direction of the country. They do this primarily just in case an issue in which they are interested make it to the Supreme Court, believing that their confirmed Justices will understand the imperativeness to rule in favor of their position. 

This is why severe battles are usually fought in the process of anchoring Justices in the apex court of the land and why only Judges who share the president's policy thinking and objective directions are always the preferred nominees. They are chosen with an implicit but unspoken understanding that they will always stand by the president in their decisions. It is believed that by their appointment, an unbreakable bond of shared policy objectives have been established between them and the president. But when some of these supposedly conservative Justices continuously rule against the policy direction and objectives of a president, who nominated them and fought so hard to get them confirmed, it triggers the question whether the war for their confirmation was even worth fighting for. 

Why would such Justices become a thorn on the flesh of the president or did they not accept the nomination with a  basic understanding that their appointment came with a condition, a string, that they will always reciprocate the gesture of their appointment by ruling in favor of the president's policy initiative and direction. Is it possible that they lied during their interview process that they share the same policy views as the president, only for them to, after confirmation, reassume their old true self and left the president wondering if he was duped by them. 

This reasoning is poignant because there were so many other dye in the wool candidates who could have been nominated for the position had the president known that those he was nominating then were not deeply vested in his line of thinking on the policy direction of the country. Why did they accept a job with a condition subsequent when they know that they are not going to keep their own side of the bargained benefit. Such makes the persistent complaint by the president of an existing Deep State cabal in Washington DC ever more plausible. Watching these seemingly concerted effort to always diminish and embarrass the president by everyone in Washington DC, including those in silky black robes somewhat gives the existence of the Deep State some credibility, otherwise why the concert of anti Trump tendencies. 

It is always conservative Justices who often engage in this shifting of loyalty and are always aligning forces with the political left, instead of deferring to the political right that got them into the Supreme Court. They seem to unduly seek the approval of the left and to show their objectivity on issues, unlike their liberal democratic counterparts who always go for the broke, all or nothing decisions in favor of their leftist agenda. Similar deference to leftist causes also happens in the Congress as Republicans members of Congress sometimes see merit in their Democratic opponent's argument; but their opponents never reciprocate the gesture of "understanding an opposing viewpoint" but rigidly follows their own party's policy position unapologetically. 

So, why does Congressional Republicans and their conservative Supreme Court Justices often cross the aisle of "understanding the issues of the other side", but which favor is never returned by their Democratic and liberal Justices counterparts. The later are always opposed to the Republicans and their conservative ideals, regardless of the merit or persuasion. The liberals are usually not persuadable and they see conservatism as being parallel opposed to what they believe and stand for. But the frequency of the  Republicans  bending over to cede a position to the Democrats is such that it would be better just blending them into the Democrats and forget about them, instead of the pretentiousness of having two ideologically opposed two parties. 

Why is the president the only one who seem to be indeed concerned about conservative causes and is often left alone at the business end of the liberals long swords, while other supposed conservatives look on, askance and seem to cheer and enjoy the public spectacle being made of the president by forces bent on remaking America in their own warped utopian image. Several times have the Justices made rulings and decisions which support the opponents of the president's position and you wonder whose side are they really on anyway. They seem to be oblivious that they were put in the Supreme Court as Generals to cover that flank on the cultural/social reengineering war going on in America. But cases after cases, instead of being loyal team players for conservative causes, they continued to overrule the president and you wonder how frustrated it must be for a president who went into the battle of repositioning America only to discover that his Generals were not as committed to the cause as he is and had expected. 

ICHEOKU is not questioning the wisdom behind these rulings which always went against the grain of the primary reason they were put in the Supreme Court, but wonders why it is only the supposed conservative Justices that are prone to delivering this anti conservatism rulings. Why doesn't the liberal Justices similarly rule against liberal causes and as frequently often as their conservative Justices rule against conservative causes. As most people knows, most cases that make it to the Supreme Court are usually political in nature, seeking a pronouncement to back an ideologically driven political position. They are competing positions, usually on a highly contested cultural/social issue of great importance to both the right and the left of the political divide, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of what goes and what stays, The proverbial last bus stop, yet they rule as if the conservatives have another layer of authority they can appeal to. 

Why don't the Justices understand what is at stake, an ideological battle between two polarities, and then align forces accordingly as expected of them. It should not be a question of choice between conservatism and liberalism, as the Justices should have automatically queued up behind the right causes as members of Team Conservatism. This was the main reason they were nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court, to always rule in favor of the party's position and not aspire to earn the admiration of the Democratic liberals. Election has consequences, the Democrats will readily tell anyone who questioned their stringent positions on things when they are in power. So, why can't the same ideological imperativeness guide the conservative Justices in their rulings. If President Trump had not won the election based on his conservative promises, the Justices would not be seating in the Supreme Court today. 

But it appears that the Democrats ate their cake and still kept it. The same liberals who  viciously attacked and opposed the nomination and confirmation of the Justices are now the ones benefitting from their rulings. They are the ones winning and gaining all advantages by the presence of this Justice in the Supreme Court. Is it a case of caveat emptor, buyer beware; otherwise what is the point then of fighting to have certain philosophically and ideologically minded Justice in the Supreme Court. What do the Justices expect Congressional conservative Republicans and the President, who fought to put them in the Supreme Court, to do in the face of such several disappointed decisions and rulings against their policies. This forces the question, whether it was worth the effort put in the fight to nominate and confirm them; was it worthy of the trouble. 

It does not make sense ruling against the president and by their agreeing with the liberals, they are telegraphing a message that the conservative ideology is stale, no longer tenable and should be discarded. They are asking everyone to yield and agree with the liberals viewpoint and position on things, to queue up behind liberal's take no prisoner approach to issues, to allow liberals to remake America as they see fit and finally to shut their traps in supreme obedience to liberal take over of America. If the president will not get his Muslim travel ban upheld, his immigration order upheld, his repeal Obamacare order certified; his Census citizenship question requirement upheld; his gay civil rights order upheld and his DACA order signed off on by the Justices, what then is the benefit of having them appointed to the court or overall utility of their conservative credentials. 

To the knowledge of the Justices, these promises were the cardinal issues upon which the president ran for election and was elected into office in 2016 to fulfill. They were appointed to the court by the victorious president and suddenly they now have issues with the same policy objectives that got the president elected and which, peradventure, also got them appointed to the Supreme Court. They literary owe their associate membership of the Supreme Court to these policies, because without them the president would not have been elected into office, without which he could not have appointed them to the court. So, why then make rulings against the president's implementing the same policies which got him elected and also got them appointed to the Supreme Court. 

It is simply not easy to comprehend, although they could be trying to balance various competing interests with their liberal rulings which is reflective of the broad spectrum of American people. But why is it always conservative Justices and not their liberal counterparts that always do this, trying to make the other sides happy by ruling in a particular way. If it were their liberal counterpart, they always rule with a predetermined mindset that "elections have consequences" and that in reaping the fruits of a hard won election, they will rule as their Democratic constituents, supporters and donors want. 

Like former Secretary of State Tillerson once said that he plays for the team, ICHEOKU asks why can't these Justices play for the team which put them in the Supreme Court; or at least enter a quid pro quo bargain with their liberal counterparts where for every decision they make in favor of a liberal cause, the liberal Justices will also return the favor through a reciprocal ruling for a conservative cause. This way, their often 'one-sided please I crave your approval' rulings which they make for liberal causes and which goes against conservative causes will not be so glaring disadvantageous. Anyway, those Justices do not contest for elections and they also have a life term in office, so what do they care if a president's campaign promises were not kept. But it is disappointingly very sad watching these conservative Justices always ruling against the president and conservative positions and causes. Was the fight for their confirmation worth the trouble?

No comments:

Post a Comment