JK22

Det er fremdeles et behov for delvarer for å holde de aktive flyene i gang.

Babak Taghvaee er en av de meste kjente eksperter på det ukrainske flyvåpenet og dermed er ganske pålitelig på akkurat dette feltet i kontrast til det normale annetsteds. Det var inaktive fly, ikke stridsaktive fly. Men det er et meget stort slag mot ukrainerne som har ikke mange fly tilbake. Trolig bare førti til femti fly av alle typer er tilbake.

What constitutes an 'official act' by a president? - ABC News (go.com) In a historic ruling on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court said former President Donald Trump is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for "official" acts taken as president, but not for any "unofficial" acts. The 6-3 decision could have major implications for the various criminal cases pending against Trump -- especially special counsel Jack Smith’s federal case, for which Trump faces four felony counts for alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election. What constitutes an "official" versus an "unofficial" act by the president is not precisely defined in the opinion, and Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged it could raise "difficult questions." "Certain allegations -- such as those involving Trump's discussions with the Acting Attorney General -- are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President's official relationship to the office held by that individual," Roberts wrote in the opinion. "Other allegations -- such as those involving Trump's interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public -- present more difficult questions." In addition to the core presidential duties laid out in the Constitution, conduct within the "outer perimeter" of official functions would be deemed immune as long as it is "not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority." It would be up to the lower courts to determine whether the conduct in question is considered official or unofficial. "[Official acts are] something that you would expect the president to do -- kind of a core presidential duty, like acting as Commander-in-Chief of the military," said Chris Timmons, a former prosecutor and ABC News legal contributor. "If the president of the United States sent troops to Lebanon, for example, he couldn't be prosecuted for murder." Though the ruling has been largely deemed a win for Trump, it’s far from a get-out-of-jail-free card, legal experts told ABC News -- particularly when it comes to prosecution for actions he took not as the president but as a candidate. When it comes to allegations that Trump enlisted "fake electors" to overturn the 2020 election in his favor, for example, it would likely be difficult to argue that was done in his official capacity as president. "The interaction with fake electors is not something a president does as part of his official duties -- it is something a candidate does as part of their campaign," Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina, told ABC News. "That allows the court to say, I think rightly in this case, that Trump's interaction with the fake electors is really on the unofficial side, rather than official." Even so, punting the decision to the lower courts is almost certain to throw obstacles in the way of the pending litigation against Trump, slowing them down even further ahead of the election. "The court basically said that as long as Trump or any president claims that what he was doing was acting officially, then his actions are presumptively constitutional, and it's up to the prosecutor to find evidence to overcome that presumption, and that is not going to be easy," Gerhardt said. Some legal experts expect Smith may reevaluate the federal case against Trump, possibly jettisoning some elements that could prove shakier due to the Supreme Court ruling. "One option is to try to streamline the case considerably to only those acts that either Trump conceded were unofficial, or those acts plus some that Jack Smith thinks he has the best chance of persuading the courts are unofficial, and then proceed on that basis in the interest of efficiency," Jessica Roth, a former federal prosecutor and Cardozo Law professor, told ABC News. "Or does he want to be more aggressive and try to keep more of the allegations in the case, which might be more risky for him in terms of ultimately prevailing?" " - actions he took not as the president but as a candidate - " Dette er egentlig bare på skjønn og på svak grunn. Det er dessuten latterlig, det om Libanon - som statsoverhode representere man staten, og da er det staten, ikke presidenten, som gjøres ansvarlig. På alle steder merker man stigende forvirring og voksende frustrasjon, på mange steder virker det som at man ikke fatte at det er en sterk forskjell før og etter 1. juli-avgjørelsen. Spesielt på republikansk hold. Supreme Court live updates: Biden says SCOTUS decision sets 'dangerous precedent' (msn.com) President Joe Biden addressed the Supreme Court's historic decision on presidential immunity Monday, saying the ruling "fundamentally changed" the limits to America's highest office. "This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America," Biden said. "Each of us is equal before the law," he continued. "No one is above the law, not even the president of the United States." "Today's decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do," Biden said. "This is a fundamentally new principle, and it's a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including Supreme Court of the United States," Biden continued, warning, "The only limits will be self-imposed posed by the president alone." Biden med rette er oppbrakt. Med rette. Roberts har valgt å forråde hans ed. Hvis han hadde truffet avgjørelsen om at presidenten bare har begrenset immunitet knyttet til hans mandat, ville dette ikke ha hendt; istedenfor dikter han opp noe helt uhørt, og redusert alle inngrepsmuligheter til lik null på en ren skjønnsdefinisjon som ingen kan finne noe fast form på. For det blir for vag, for utydelig og dermed for lett å miste. USA er ikke lenge en presidentrepublikk. Den er nå en diktaturrepublikk.

Roberts og andre prøver å slukke brannen, men skaden er hendt. De hadde valgt å begå konstitusjonsbrudd ved å gi presidenten absolutt immunitet og dermed brøt alle prinsipper knyttet til den amerikanske republikken. Da betyr det ingenting om disse skulle forklare at det baseres på ideen om "presumptive immunity" fordi definisjonsmakten ligger ikke hos den lovgivende makten eller høyesteretten, her hadde Roberts begått tjenesteforsømmelse. Roberts; “Under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts,” Roberts wrote. “That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.” Det blir helt feil; hva er "official acts" og hva er "unofficial acts"? Hvem skulle bestemme hva det er? Ordet "presumptive" har ingen innhold i det hele tatt, ved at det kamuflere i virkeligheten faktumet om at presidenten er hevet over loven. Og her ligger feilen; hvor ligger grensen, som gjør at presidenten kan bryte loven straffritt? Presidential immunity is a power that presidents claim under the Constitution, shielding them from civil and presumed criminal immunity for acts they commit in their official capacity as president. While it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, presidents have claimed it is inherent in the separation of powers clause, and courts have largely upheld the right. Konstitusjonen ganske enkelt gir ikke presidenten immunitet fordi som forklart er likemannsprinsippet essensielt, slik at det bare finnes begrensede immunitet knyttet til mandatet ved at disse ikke kan saksøkes eller forfølges for handlinger disse begikk i statens tjeneste. Det er dette de konservative dommerne grepet tak i, selv om dette ikke finnes juridisk sett som lite annet enn en sedvane som hadde blitt etablert i ettertiden. Så i basis, absolutt immunitet innføres på misbruk av en sedvane i fravær av konstitusjonell bestemmelse. While the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have “absolute” immunity with respect to their “core constitutional powers,” the ruling still leaves room for presidents to be prosecuted under a narrow set of circumstances, pertaining to responsibilities that fall “within the outer perimeter” of presidential duties, or to unofficial acts. Dette er et meget stort problem her. HVEM skal definere hva er "uoffisielt", HVORDAN skal det gjøres, og HVILKEN grunnlag kan dette ha? Det redusere domstolene til et reparasjonsverksted med alvorlige konsekvenser som tidlig sagt, og dommer Tanya Chutkan kan i teorien utarbeide en siktelse basert på overtredelsene Trump hadde begått, spesielt knyttet til valgprosessen i 2020-21 da han prøvd å sette seg over loven. Men dessverre tyder alt på at det er et spørsmål om motiv fremfor bevisbyrde. Det er en meget liten mulighet at Chutkan kan ta ut Trump for godt, men hun vil står på bar grunn uten noe som helst orienteringskart å gjøre bruk av, for hvor er grensene? Constitutional lawyer slams 'former student' John Roberts over paving way for 'get-out-of-jail' card (msn.com) Former Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe on Monday shared his thoughts on the Supreme Court's immunity ruling in favor of Donald Trump — slamming his "former student" in the process. Explaining to CNN's Erin Burnett that he agrees "entirely with Justice [Sonia] Sotomayor and Justice [Ketanji] Jackson in their dissents," Tribe notes, "I would give my former student, John Roberts, a B minus. His opinion doesn't rely on any intelligent dissection of a separation of powers. He makes it up as he goes along. He has nothing — absolutely nothing — to say about the important hypotheticals that the justices in dissent pointed out. And they weren't just hypothetical, they came up in the oral argument, the immunity that the majority granted was even greater than that, which the president's lawyer, John Saur, asked for." The former Harvard professor explained, "To begin with, the delay itself, gives the president de facto absolute immunity. More than that, the dissenters, especially Justice Jackson, pointed out that the court has it upside down, almost like the upside down flag that [Justice Samuel] Alito flew, has an upside down one, that says that if the president uses as a official powers to commit crimes — all crimes, apparently including murder — then he gets either absolute immunity, if the power is at the absolute core, or presumptive immunity, which is a vague notion, if the immunity is for official act." "But as Justice Jackson pointed out," Tribe continued, "it's all the worst if the president uses power is available only to him to commit crimes. The court never explains why it has turned things upside down that way. There is no precedent supporting with the court did. There has never before been any immunity from criminal prosecution suggested in any court decisions, state or federal, in the history of the United States of America." The legal expert emphasized, "This is a sad day, not just because of the license it gives to Donald Trump, should he ever become president again to get rid of this case all altogether and commit all manner of crimes without ever being held accountable. But because of what it does to the future of the country. Let's assume that we've somehow gotten past the MAGA plague, and that we don't have a Trump-ified government. There will be future presidents who will take it as very tempting to become president knowing that it's a get-out-of-jail-free card for everything except purely private behavior." "And even there, when many of us believed, and as a former professor of evidence as well as constitutional law, when I was confident that you could at least use evidence of official acts, even though you might not be able to prosecute for them, you could use that evidence to show a pattern, and a motive of the wrong doer," Tribe added. "Here, the court says you can't look at motive — it doesn't matter if the president is trying to benefit himself rather than the country. Only Justice Barrett disagreed with the men on the court when she said that at least the evidence should be used. So this is a disastrous decision." Tribe, som var læremester for Roberts, er rasende. Loss of Supreme Court legitimacy can lead to political violence (msn.com) Americans are gearing up to celebrate the Fourth of July, and their thoughts are most likely on how many hot dogs to buy for the cookout and whether a family member needs to go stake out a good spot to watch the parade and fireworks. While the holiday is focused on revelry, July Fourth actually commemorates a solemn moment in the country’s history, when it declared independence from the colonial power Great Britain. The institutions of government imagined by the founders and their successors over the following decades – among them the presidency, Congress, the departments of State and Treasury, the Supreme Court – have retained their authority and legitimacy for more than 200 years, weathering challenges from wars both internal and abroad and massive economic, political and social upheaval. But now, the Supreme Court, in the wake of a series of highly controversial rulings and ethical questions about some justices, is experiencing historically low public standing. And that has prompted a national conversation about the court’s legitimacy. It’s even drawn rare public comment from three sitting Supreme Court justices. What’s referred to by experts as the problem of “judicial legitimacy” may seem abstract, but the court’s faltering public support is about more than popularity. Eroding legitimacy means that government officials and ordinary people become increasingly unlikely to accept public policies with which they disagree. And Americans need only look to the relatively recent past to understand the stakes of the court’s growing legitimacy problem. The Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education shined a light on many white Americans’ tenuous loyalty to the authority of the federal judiciary. In Brown, the court unanimously held that racial segregation in public education violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The justices were abundantly aware that their decision would evoke strong emotions. So Chief Justice Earl Warren worked tirelessly to ensure that the court issued a unanimous, short and readable opinion designed to calm the anticipated popular opposition. Warren’s efforts were in vain. Rather than recognizing the court’s authoritative interpretation of the Constitution, many white Americans participated in an extended, violent campaign of resistance to the desegregation ruling. The integration of the University of Mississippi in 1962 provides a pointed example of this resistance. The Supreme Court had backed a lower federal court that ordered the university to admit James Meredith, a Black Air Force veteran. But Mississippi Gov. Ross Barnett led a wide-ranging effort to stop Meredith from enrolling at Ole Miss, including deploying state and local police to prevent Meredith from entering campus. On Sunday, Sept. 30, 1962, Meredith nevertheless arrived on the university’s campus, guarded by dozens of federal marshals, to register and begin classes the next day. A crowd of 2,000 to 3,000 people gathered on campus and broke into a riot. Meredith and the marshals were attacked with Molotov cocktails and gunfire. The marshals fired tear gas in return. In response, President John F. Kennedy invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807 and ordered the U.S. Army onto campus to restore order and protect Meredith. Overnight, thousands of troops arrived, battling rioters. The violence finally ended after 15 hours, leaving two civilians dead – both killed by rioters – and dozens of wounded marshals and soldiers in addition to hundreds of injuries among the insurgent mob. The next day, Oct. 1, Meredith enrolled in the university and attended his first class, but thousands of troops remained in Mississippi for months afterward to preserve order. What some call “the Battle of Oxford” was fueled by white racism and segregation, but it played out against the backdrop of weak judicial legitimacy. Federal courts did not command enough respect among state officials or ordinary white Mississippians to protect the constitutional rights of Black Mississippians. Neither Gov. Barnett nor the thousands of Oxford rioters were willing to follow the court order for Meredith to enroll at the university. In the end, the Constitution and the federal courts prevailed only because Kennedy backed them with the Army. But the cost of weak judicial legitimacy was paid in blood. Legitimacy leads to acceptance In contrast, when people believe in the legitimacy of their governing institutions, they are more likely to accept, respect and abide by the rules the government – including the courts – ask them to live under, even when the stakes are high and the consequences are far-reaching. For example, two decades ago, the Supreme Court resolved a disputed presidential election in Bush v. Gore, centered on the counting of ballots in Florida. This time, the court was deeply divided along ideological lines, and its long, complicated and fragmented opinion was based on questionable legal reasoning. But in 2000, the court enjoyed more robust legitimacy among the public than it does today. As a consequence, Florida officials ceased recounting disputed ballots. Vice President Al Gore conceded the election to Texas Gov. George W. Bush, specifically accepting the Supreme Court’s pivotal ruling. No Democratic senator challenged the validity of Florida’s disputed Electoral College votes for Bush. Congress certified the Electoral College’s vote, and Bush was inaugurated. Democrats were surely disappointed, and some protested. But the court was viewed as sufficiently legitimate to produce enough acceptance by enough people to ensure a peaceful transition of power. There was no violent riot; there was no open resistance. Indeed, on the very night that Gore conceded, the chants of his supporters gathered outside tacitly accepted the outcome: “Gore in four!” – as if to say, “We’ll get you next time, because we believe there will be a next time.” Risks ahead But what happens when institutions fail to retain citizens’ loyalty? The Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection showcased the consequences of broken legitimacy. The rioters who stormed the Capitol had lost faith in systems that undergird American democracy: counting presidential votes in the states, tallying Electoral College ballots and settling disputes over election law in the courts. The men and women who stormed the Capitol may have believed their country was being stolen, even if such beliefs were baseless. So, they rebelled in the face of a result they didn’t like. The threat of further unrest is real. Polls show the 2024 presidential election between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump will be a close call, and it is likely that election results in several states will be challenged in federal courts. Some of these claims may raise good-faith questions about the administration of elections, while others advance more spurious claims intended to undermine faith in the election’s outcome. In the end, Americans’ faith in the timely resolution of those cases and their peaceful acceptance of the presidential election’s result will hinge on whether the losing candidate’s supporters accept the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the judiciary more broadly. Nothing is certain in politics, but the specter of constitutional crisis looms over the United States. It’s dangerously unclear whether the Supreme Court retains enough legitimacy to ensure acceptance of decisions addressing the upcoming election among those who find themselves on the losing side. If it doesn’t, the court’s abstract legitimacy problem could once again lead to violence and insurrection. Aldri tidligere har den føderale høyesteretten vært så upopulært (siden 1863) - 28. juni-avgjørelsen og 1. juli-avgjørelsen kan bli for mye for det amerikanske folket. 'Never seen language like this': SCOTUS lawyer worried 'something really dangerous going on' (msn.com) US Supreme Court lawyer and legal analyst Neal Katyal, speaking with MSNBC's Katie Phang on Monday,expressed fear that he suspects "there's something really dangerous" happening to the rule of law in the United States. Phang noted how "stunned" legal experts were when Trump lawyer John Saul, during oral arguments in April, suggested that a president should be able to assassinate political opponents. "Now the majority's saying that if the president says it falls within the purview of his official acts, does he now legally and officially say, 'I can commit murder?'" Phang asked Katyal. "It's unfathomable that the Supreme Court which has been such an august body, Chief justice John Marshall, Justice Thurgood Marshall — people like that — are issuing a decision like this," the Supreme Court lawyer replied, "that allows for such things — as calling them official acts. And that's why I think you saw Justice Sotomayor [write], 'With fear for our democracy, I dissent.'" Katyal continued, "And I can tell you, I've never seen language like this in a Supreme Court opinion or dissent. There is something really dangerous going on here, and something that is really threatening the entire basis of our constitution and separation of powers." "My parents came to this country from another because of the principle that no one was above the law," the MSNBC legal analyst emphasized. "That's what we hold out as most dear. And now to have a Supreme Court opinion that blesses, to be sure, 100%, it blesses the president pressuring his justice department to falsely say that there were election irregularities. They say that's an official act." "Once you go down that road, the pressure on presidents to do all sorts of untoward things is immense," the legal expert emphasized. Fortunately, for 200 years, we've elected people — Republicans and Democrats alike — who've colored within those lines. But I fear that the next one may not be so solicitous of our constitutional values and norms." Donald unchained: SCOTUS decision would give Trump the immunity to run rampant just in time for a possible 2nd term, experts say (msn.com) SCOTUS immunity would've freed Richard Nixon to spy on opponents all he liked, experts said Monday. In a second term, Trump himself would enjoy immunity superpowers. SCOTUS immunized a range of "truly dangerous and nefarious actions by a president," one expert said. As president, Richard Nixon used the FBI, the CIA, and White House "advisors" — the now notorious "plumbers" — to spy on and sabotage his political opponents. Under Monday's Supreme Court decision — which confers the presumption of immunity on a president's "official" actions — Nixon could not have been charged for any of these abuses of power, one constitutional law expert told Business Insider. "Most, if not all, of that conduct would fall on the 'presumptively-official' side of the line," said Michel Paradis, an attorney who teaches national security and constitutional law at Columbia Law School. "And it is not obvious to me how you would show that it was not if you are forbidden from any inquiry into the president's motives," Paradis added. Under Monday's decision, "courts may not inquire into the President's motives" in deciding if a presidential act is official or unofficial. Trump is now free during a potential second administration to direct others to stretch or break the law in any of the ways he's already signaled he hopes to, Paradis said. He can dispatch the military to break up protests or deport migrants; he can fire civil servants who disagree with him; he can disband agencies he doesn't like — including the Department of Education or the Environmental Protection Agency — and he can then pardon anyone who gets in trouble for carrying out his orders, Paradis said. And by calling these acts "official," he can do all of the above without himself being prosecuted, Paradis said. "Or take the subject matter of Trump's first impeachment," the law professor added. With his new Supreme Court-protected immunity, "He could have much more explicitly directed Rudy Giuliani to convey a threat to the Ukrainians demanding that they come out with dirt on Biden or that he would withhold all aid," he said. "And he can direct subordinates to not simply 'skirt' the law, but affirmatively break it with the promise of a pardon if they do," Paradis added. "And he can do so, knowing that it is extremely unlikely under the court's rule today that he could be successfully prosecuted." It will give Trump even more license to push legal boundaries, agreed former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani, the president and co-founder of West Coast Trial Lawyers. "Trump will be more empowered to push the limits of the law and to go after his rivals if he thinks he can get away with it," Rahmani told Business Insider. "Trump has always pushed the limits of the law, and if he has at least some immunity now, he will be even more willing to do so," Rahmani added. "It's actually very striking that we're getting this opinion three days before the Fourth of July, where we recognized our Declaration of Independence from a king," said Cliff Sloan, Georgetown Law professor and constitutional law expert. "And this opinion, more than any other in the Supreme Court's history, gives the president king-like powers," Sloan added. "It's a sad day for the country," Sloan said. "It's a sad day for our constitutional democracy. It was a sad day for the Supreme Court." Sloan said it was particularly disturbing that the majority decision made zero mention of the now-notorious Seal Team Six hypothetical — which asked if a president enjoys official-act immunity if that official act is, as Commander in Chief, ordering Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival. "Everybody was horrified" when Trump's lawyer first raised immunity in that circumstance as a possible consequence, Sloan said. But although Justice Sonya Sotomayor, in Monday's dissent, complains anew that Trump and future presidents can now get away with ordering political assassinations — simply by arguing that doing so is an official act — "the majority does not dispute it, which is really remarkable," Sloan said. "It's actually incredible that we now have an opinion that seems to confer immunity for a wide range of truly dangerous and nefarious actions by a president," he added. Det gjør meget klart for alle at Roberts og hans medskyldige må konfronteres med full kraft. De har gjort alt helt feil. Selv hvis Trump skulle meget overraskende arresteres på ordre av Chutkan, eller hvis Trump sørget for at han fjernet alt etter å ha blitt gjenvalgt, har disse fordømte idiotene i dommerkapper begått forræderi og vist at de ikke er opptatt av USA og den amerikanske nasjonens tese om at alle er lik, dvs. at ingen er over loven.

Studere den amerikanske innenrikshistorien i dybden og du vil da realisere at USA ikke er mindre sårbar enn resten av verden, ikke glem at slavespørsmålet hadde fulgt til utbruddet av den amerikanske borgerkrigen fordi frontene var blitt for steil for videre kompromisspolitiske manøvrering, da Lincoln ikke ville kompromisse var det fordi det ikke lenge finnes marginer for videre forhandling. Man når før eller senere et punkt hvor den ene siden må gi etter, og vi ser mye av dette i den demokratisk-republikanske feiden som er i ferd med å sette på styr den amerikanske føderasjonen mot åpen ruin. Som sørstatene i 1860 er republikanerne den uforsonlige og kompromissløse parten som ikke vil ha noe løsning på konflikten. Du vet tydelig ikke at republikanerne har nemlig et konsept som jeg kaller "den falske konservatisme" basert på retten til å ekskludere disse som ikke "hører hjemme", man heller valgt å kansellere/annullere fremfor å dele når man tvinges til å måtte dele med "de urene" som "niggers", "degos" og "gooks" som de fargede, latinos og asiater var kalt i Trumps ungdomstid hvor Warren kjempet for et rettskaffen samfunn som skulle inkludere alle under lovens beskyttelse. Siden Nixon og deretter Reagan hadde republikanerne kjempet først for å reversere "den andre rekonstruksjonen", deretter den progressive USA - og nå, etter høyesterettsavgjørelsen 1. juli, den amerikanske eksistensberettigelsen som en nasjon for likemenn. Republikanerne er villig til å annullere selv det amerikanske demokratiet, i flere delstater som Texas er det kommet på bordet forslag som vil fjerne folkelig medbestemmelsesrett. Og de blir mer og mer freidig inntil punktet at de helt ignorere faresignalene fordi de oppriktig tror motparten ikke vil sette seg i motstand. Republikanerne vil gjøre sykehus og medisin utilgjengelig for de som ikke kan betale. Har du glemt at jeg skrev annetsteds om de ultraliberale kreftene som står bak republikanerne? Disse er ultraliberalistisk av en sort at de vil ha et sosialdarwinistisk stendersamfunn basert på sosialøkonomiske kriterier i en ekstrem tro på "the self-made man" uten å fatte de sosiale og humanitære konsekvenser dette vil utløse. De vil at de sterke skal seire på bekostning av de fattige, selv under den forgylte tiden hadde det ikke gått så langt, og de vil omgjøre sine arbeidere til slaver eller enslige arbeidere som må akseptere arbeidsgivernes absolutt makt. I 1950-tallet hadde de betalt ferie. Organisert arbeidsvern. Gratis skolegang, Fair tilgang på sykehus og medisin. Gratis samfunnstjenester. De hadde ENHVER vi har/hadde i det skandinaviske velferdssamfunnet. Og de valgt å kaste det bort for de neste tjue år. Fordi de vil ikke dele. Og de vil fremdeles ikke dele. Parallellene med 1860 er stående; de hvite i sørstatene vil ikke dele sitt land med sine slaver som skulle bli frislippet og gitt de samme rettigheter som seg selv. Dette ledet til USAs blodigste krig. Republikanerne vil ikke dele. Så enkelt er det.

Gode nyheter, det kan bare betyr at sanksjonsskjerpingene endelig virker. Og fra Jihad Julian dårlige nyheter; Russerne rykker fram på nytt. Til tross for voksende og enorme tap går det akkurat slik Putin vil, han er ikke i stand til å konsentrere hans styrker som må forbli spredt for å unngå drone- og artilleriangrep, men han kan sende dem mot de ukrainske stillinger uten opphør og det ser ut til å være generalideen i hans strategi om å utmatte det ukrainske forsvaret som er fremdeles i seriøs beite for tilstrekkelige nok menn. I selve Ukraina er det voksende sinne mellom kampaktive menn og menn som vil ikke tjenestegjør. I selve Russland er den fanatiske slavementaliteten Putins største fordel, når soldater er så redd for ham at de ikke våger å reise seg i opprør og deretter bare oppsøkt den første og beste dronen for å dø en rask død, sier det seg selv at noe er meget galt. Redselen for Putin stakk FOR DYPT. Så dypt, at man vet fra innerste kretser blant russiske oligarker at noen anså Putin som et monster, en djevel - eller selveste Satan. De lever i dyp redsel. Og på feltet ser man bare at tusener på tusener av menn (og kvinner) marsjere uten å stanses, og stadig gjør vinninger tross ukrainske motangrep og intenst motstand. " - Russian forces are advancing, almost along the entire front. In slow motion, but they are. Because Ukraine has no strategy to stop them. They have a strategy to kill more and more, which is working, but which is only slowing down their advance. With no end of newly arriving cheap “Russian” meat in sight. Ukraine has no infantry reserves to benefit from killing 90% of the advancing Russian troops - from southern Donetsk to northern Kharkiv. Ukrainian soldiers would need to go in where most Russians got killed by drones, smart bombs and artillery. But they are not. They are simply waiting for the next Russian company to arrive, kill most of them and lose more territory. I don’t see a single brigade or at least battalion size counter attack. Not even a company size one. Four to ten Ukrainian soldiers seem to be the maximum number used to regain lost land. I don’t see where this should be leading Ukraine in terms of stopping the Russian advance, not to speak of recapturing any of the lost villages. Where is the million Ukrainian men under arms? - " Ukrainerne kan ikke annet enn å retirere under ild, de er ikke i stand til å lansere større motangrep, og er ikke i stand til å gjøre annet enn å bare drepe og ødelegge. In my humble opinion, they are doing well. They need more time until mid 2025 when: 1) the Russian economy starts faltering big time 2) Russians burn through the soviet stocks of barrels, tanks and air defences 3)Ukraine has a functioning air force that can launch the vast NATO air munition stockpiles 4)Ukrainian Drone and Munition production has scaled. Until then, it makes sense the Ukrainians trade some little ground for thousands of Russians and most importantly, material attrition Dette kommenteres av en twitter/X-bruker som utvilsomt satt Ukrainas strategi på spissen. Men er dette en vinneroppskrift? Svaret må bli nei om Vesten skulle falle helt ut. Og den ukrainske krigsutmattelsen er blitt nærmest total, de har trolig mistet 300,000 døde og skadde, av disse trolig under 100,000 døde og savnede i verste fall, mot så mye som 500,000 til 600,000 døde og skadde, av disse sannsynlig 200.000 døde - og permanent tap på russisk hold ofte er langt større på russisk enn på ukrainsk. Det er mulig at russerne har mistet 1 million soldater. Av dette halvparten permanent tap, den andre halvparten er lette skadde, granatsjokkede, desertører og retirerte uten mulighet for retur. Ingen krig helt siden 1953 har vært så blodig over hele verden. Selv ikke Vietnamkrigen som egentlig pågikk i ganske mange år fra 1956 til 1975. Så mye som 800,000 til 1 mill. soldater og sivilister kan ha blitt drept og skadet. MILLION! Et ord som er helt ubegripelig!

Det er en ufattelig katastrofe. Flere fly har blitt slått ut fordi ukrainerne var ikke i stand til å finne og stanse de fordømte speiderdroner som er i stand til å trenge seg ganske dypt inn i Ukraina. Dette setter vestlige våpensystemer og fly som F-16 i meget stor fare fordi de kan lett tas ut med hjelp av disse speiderdroner som ingen har klart å sette et stopp på. 1 Su-27 er ødelagt. Heldigvis ser det ut at de andre er inaktive Su-27. Men det er ikke det materielle tapet som er emnet for katastrofen, det er faktumet om at flere speiderdroner kunne operere trøbbelfritt opptil 200 km fra feltet som gjør mange meget oppriktig skremt. Noe er meget definitivt galt med den ukrainske radardekningen. I det minst er det en mager trøst at ATACMS så ut til å ha tatt ut svære mål som ammunisjonsdepoter i Krim-halvøya hvor S-300/400/500 er på rømningen (bokstavelig talt! De flyttes rundt hele tiden og noen ganger lot være å besvare på ATACMS-angrep) og Belgorod oblast. Luftvernsstyrker som tidlig skulle forsvare land, har blitt fritt vilt bokstavelig talt. Bare i juni 2024 skal russerne ha mistet 35,050 døde, sårede, savnede og fanger. Hele 59 SAM-systemer er ødelagt/tatt ut (som ofte innbar langvarig reparasjon) i den samme måneden.

JA. Trump er ikke interessant i dagens samfunn, han vil egentlig ha samfunnet som fantes i hans ungdoms tid. Han er i blott mangel på konsekvensvurdering, og han har flere millioner tilhengere som er villig til å sette på styr det amerikanske demokratiet, som i virkeligheten er basert på en tolkning av en konstitusjon, som kan ha mistet mye av sin legitimiteten som et resultat av 1. juli-avgjørelsen. Han bryr seg ikke om penger, imperium eller makt - alt han bryr seg om er hans selvbilde og ærgjerrighet. Dessuten er han for gammel til å bry seg om fremtiden; borgerkrig kan skje, i likhet med et kapitalistisk kollaps som kan lede til verdenshistoriens første sanne kommunistregime en gang i dette århundret - i selveste USA. Det tok mye kortere tid enn 4 år å "skape" en "lovløs stat". For Trump og hans folk er det vi definerer som lovløshet, lovverk for dem.

Opinion: With Chevron overturned, Americans’ faith in government will sink even further (msn.com) On Friday, the Supreme Court overturned the 1984 decision Chevron v. NRDC, critical in American regulatory policy. Under Chevron, courts were to defer to federal agency interpretations of statutes, unless the statutes themselves spoke directly to policy questions and as long as the agency interpretations were reasonable. The Chevron decision originally allowed a regulation passed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Ronald Reagan to stay in place. While the decision originally cheered supporters of deregulation (the regulation in question in the lawsuit gave industry more flexibility in complying with EPA rules), over time it became a top target for opponents of regulation. Because Chevron recommended deference to agencies, courts regularly cited it in supporting the regulatory efforts of later administrations. In the 40 years since Chevron, regulation has continued its trajectory, begun in the 1970s, as an increasingly prominent policymaking tool. This has been particularly true in the implementation of progressive policy aims such as combating pollution and climate change, protecting workers from workplace hazards and safeguarding the financial system. But it also has been used to advance conservative priorities by restricting immigration and advancing homeland security. The result of the boom in regulation has been cleaner air and water and safer workplaces, among many other things. Regulations have also imposed significant costs on the economy, but most studies have shown that the benefits of regulation have significantly outweighed their costs. Over the same period, however, American trust in government has declined. It is tempting to argue that the growth in regulation has played a role in fueling this negative public perception of government. But digging underneath the data reveals that the relationship is far more complicated. Agency actions may be one of the few things about government that people do like. First of all, congressional approval, which has never been high — between 30 percent and 50 percent back when trust in government was much greater — is now at a disastrous 16 percent. The current and previous presidents have had historically low approval ratings. Conversely, Americans have favorable views of most federal agencies. (OK, not the Internal Revenue Service.) Much of the thinking behind the repeal of Chevron deference is that it will force Congress to pass more specific laws addressing public policy concerns by making it harder for agencies to regulate. There are two gaping holes in this logic. First, as shown in the data cited above, we would be moving policymaking from a part of government that people trust and approve of to the one that they have the least faith in. Second, there is no reason to believe that Congress will react to this by becoming more responsible. Dysfunction in Congress is obvious, particularly in the current session, highlighted by the battles over which a Republican will serve as Speaker of the House. The budgetary process — arguably Congress’s most important function — is, according to experts across the ideological spectrum, broken. And even if you believe that the congressional chaos of the past few years is irrelevant or temporary, there is also the problem of congressional capacity. Congress delegates decisionmaking to agencies in part because it doesn’t have the expertise to make the decisions on its own. The House itself has become too small, as population growth means that the number of citizens represented by each member has grown from 210,000 in the early 20th century to 762,000 today. Enlarging the House of Representatives and expanding the resources available to Congress are worthwhile endeavors, but they are unlikely to close the gap in expertise between the national legislature and executive branch agencies. And they do nothing either to reduce the likelihood of dysfunction in Congress or to change the incentive Congress has of delegating politically painful decisions to agencies (which they can then criticize for making those decisions). There may be a universe out there where restricting agencies’ abilities to make policy decisions will lead to a democratically responsive Congress assuming those responsibilities and producing public trust in the policymaking process. But in our universe, it is far more likely that the Supreme Court’s decision will mean that pressing public problems take longer to be solved — or never get solved at all — and thus faith in government takes yet another blow. Republikanerne hyllet ødeleggelsen av Chevronavgjørelsen fra 1984, men samtidig demonstrert disse at de bare ganske enkelt hadde ikke fulgt med på timen; vi har statsadministrasjon som innbar at man har et stort administrativt apparat som ikke bare består av byråkrater, men også statsansatte med den nødvendige ekspertise, hyrede ekspertpersonell, og så videre og videre, med et omfattende reguleringsverk som kunne ha flere millioner ulike bestemmelser delt opp i flere titusener ulike felter fordi staten bare blir mer og mer omfattende med tiden. Dette skyldes ikke at staten skulle overta, men at det er blitt langt mer å holde styr på. Det disse republikanske politikerne ikke forstår, er at det vil øke arbeidspresset på dem fordi det er 762,000 personer per kongressmedlem - gjennomsnittlig - og det kan aktuelt åpner for vanstell og korrupsjon. De er simpelt ikke kapabelt for å gjøre arbeidet som statsadministrasjonen er normalt satt på, og kan ikke gjennomføre deres vedtak raskt eller effektiv nok, eller gjøre det uten å skape alvorlige forviklinger - hele USA administratives gjennom Chevronprosedyren. Det de oppnå, er å skape ufattelige ødeleggelser som kan lede til omfattende folkelig misnøye, spesielt hvis de skulle oppleve kaos og rot samt urettferdighet som forverrelse av levetilstandene. Det vil bli mange flere skandaler, menneskeliv og naturliv vil går tapt som et resultat. The Supreme Court just limited federal power. Health care is feeling the shockwaves (msn.com) The Supreme Court just limited federal power. Health care is feeling the shockwaves A landmark Supreme Court decision that reins in federal agencies’ authority is expected to hold dramatic consequences for the nation’s healthcare system, calling into question government rules on anything from consumer protections for patients to drug safety to nursing home care. The June 28 decision overturns a 1984 precedent that said courts should give deference to federal agencies in legal challenges over their regulatory or scientific decisions. Instead of giving priority to agencies, courts will now exercise their own independent judgment about what Congress intended when drafting a particular law. The ruling will likely have seismic ramifications for health policy. A flood of litigation -- with plaintiffs like small businesses, drugmakers, and hospitals challenging regulations they say aren’t specified in the law -- could leave the country with a patchwork of disparate health regulations varying by location. Agencies such as the FDA are likely to be far more cautious in drafting regulations, Congress is expected to take more time fleshing out legislation to avoid legal challenges, and judges will be more apt to overrule current and future regulations. Health policy leaders say patients, providers, and health systems should brace for more uncertainty and less stability in the healthcare system. Even routine government functions such as deciding the rate to pay doctors for treating Medicare beneficiaries could become embroiled in long legal battles that disrupt patient care or strain providers to adapt. Groups that oppose a regulation could search for and secure partisan judges to roll back agency decision-making, said Andrew Twinamatsiko, director of the Health Policy and the Law Initiative at Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute. One example could be challenges to the FDA’s approval of a medication used in abortions, which survived a Supreme Court challenge this term on a technicality. “Judges will be more emboldened to second-guess agencies,” he said. “It’s going to open agencies up to attacks.” Regulations are effectively the technical instructions for laws written by Congress. Federal agency staffers with knowledge related to law -- say, in drugs that treat rare diseases or health care for seniors -- decide how to translate Congress’ words into action with input from industry, advocates, and the public. Up until now, when agencies issued a regulation, a single rule typically applied nationwide. Following the high court ruling, however, lawsuits filed in more than one jurisdiction could result in contradictory rulings and regulatory requirements -- meaning healthcare policies for patients, providers, or insurers could differ greatly from one area to another. One circuit may uphold a regulation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, while other circuits may take different views. “You could have eight or nine of 11 different views of the courts,” said William Buzbee, a professor at Georgetown Law. A court in one circuit could issue a nationwide injunction to enforce its interpretation while another circuit disagrees, said Maura Monaghan, a partner at Debevoise & Plimpton. Few cases are taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, which could leave clashing directives in place for many years. In the immediate future, health policy leaders say agencies should brace for more litigation over controversial initiatives. A requirement that most Affordable Care Act health plans cover preventive services, for example, is already being litigated. Multiple challenges to the mandate could mean different coverage requirements for preventive care depending on where a consumer lives. Drugmakers have sued to try to stop the Biden administration from implementing a federal law that forces makers of the most expensive drugs to negotiate prices with Medicare -- a key cog in President Joe Biden’s effort to lower drug prices and control healthcare costs. Parts of the healthcare industry may take on reimbursement rates for doctors that are set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services because those specific rates aren’t written into law. The agency issues rules updating payment rates in Medicare, a health insurance program for people 65 or older and younger people with disabilities. Groups representing doctors and hospitals regularly flock to Washington, D.C., to lobby against trims to their payment rates. And providers, including those backed by deep-pocketed investors, have sued to block federal surprise-billing legislation. The No Surprises Act, which passed in 2020 and took effect for most people in 2022, aims to protect patients from unexpected, out-of-network medical bills, especially in emergencies. The high court’s ruling is expected to spur more litigation over its implementation. “This really is going to create a tectonic change in the administrative regulatory landscape,” Twinamatsiko said. “The approach since 1984 has created stability. When the FDA or CDC adopt regulations, they know those regulations will be respected. That has been taken back.” Industry groups, including the American Hospital Association and AHIP, an insurers’ trade group, declined to comment. Agencies such as the FDA that take advantage of their regulatory authority to make specific decisions, such as the granting of exclusive marketing rights upon approval of a drug, will be vulnerable. The reason: Many of their decisions require discretion as opposed to being explicitly defined by federal law, said Joseph Ross, a professor of medicine and public health at Yale School of Medicine. “The legislation that guides much of the work in the health space, such as FDA and CMS, is not prescriptive,” he said. In fact, FDA Commissioner Robert Califf said in an episode of the “Healthcare Unfiltered” podcast last year that he was “very worried” about the disruption from judges overruling his agency’s scientific decisions. The high court’s ruling will be especially significant for the nation’s federal health agencies because their regulations are often complex, creating the opportunity for more pitched legal battles. Challenges that may not have succeeded in courts because of the deference to agencies could now find more favorable outcomes. “A whole host of existing regulations could be vulnerable,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF. Other consequences are possible. Congress may attempt to flesh out more details when drafting legislation to avoid challenges -- an approach that may increase partisan standoffs and slow down an already glacial pace in passing legislation, Levitt said. Agencies are expected to be far more cautious in writing regulations to be sure they don’t go beyond the contours of the law. The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision overturned Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which held that courts should generally back a federal agency’s statutory interpretation as long as it was reasonable. Republicans have largely praised the new ruling as necessary for ensuring agencies don’t overstep their authority, while Democrats said in the aftermath of the decision that it amounts to a judicial power grab. Hvilken er korrekt, 28. juni-avgjørelsen er det første konstitusjonsbruddet begått av Roberts fordi den tok bort autoriteten fra kongressen ved å sette reguleringene - som er utsendt av kongressen med basis i dens status som lovgivende makt - under den dømmende makten, som tillatt folk fra utenfor gå inn og overstyre/sabotere reguleringer. Kongressen vil bli seriøst overbelastet samtidig som statsadministrasjonen vil få meget seriøse problemer. Og flere tusen dommerne vil få gode grunner til å rase mot Roberts fordi han kan ha gjort disses arbeid uoverkommelig. I mellomtiden vil det amerikanske folket lider.

Ja. For det er hva absolutt immunitet innbar. Absolutt immunitet betyr restriksjonsfri maktbruk uten å respektere lov og rett - og ved å være en enmannsregjering med kontroll over justisdepartementet og rettsapparatet - og ved å skifte ut byråkrater og administrative som jurister med hans egne folk man vet vil være mer lojalt mot ham enn mot staten - er det mulig for Trump å sende en slik ordre, slik det har hendt mange ganger verden rundt. Hva tror du hadde hendt i Putins land? Når skaden er gjort, er det for sent. Da har maktbruken satt uutslettelig presedenser som ikke kan viskes bort uten meget alvorlige senvirkninger - og da er politisk vold og deretter organisert vold som kollaps av styre og stell uunngåelig. For den dømmende maktens rolle er å forhindre fremfor å reparere når det gjelder et politisk system. Dette maktet ikke Roberts å fatte, og han har tre dommerne som i åpen offentlighet avslørt at de holdt ham i dyp forakt - de har endog hentet fram ordet "treason", som kanskje det sterkeste ordet som noensinne er uttrykt i hele den amerikanske høyesterettshistorien. Thomas nylig hadde dessuten erklært at han vil avskaffe Robinson-dommen fra 1962, slik at vi kan ha moralpoliti, moralkontroll og gjenopplivede morallover som var fremherskende fram til den gang, Warren som sto for avgjørelsen den gang, etablere praksisen med statuslov som straffgrunnlag - slik at ingen kunne straffes for sin natur, sitt utseende, sin væremåte eller hva de gjør; vet du at latinamerikanerne var også forbudt fra å ha seksuell kontakt med hvite? Vet du at det var på mange steder drapstillatelse på minoritetsfolk inkludert de fargede den gang? Dette viser at Thomas kanskje dypest innerst hatet hans egne folk. Og det er slike folk man har i høyesteretten som ikke lenge bryr seg om å beskytte USA!

'Sophomoric and foolish': Harvard Law professor rips into Chief Justice's immunity logic Harvard University's Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe unleashed a ferocious attack on the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court after the ruling in Donald Trump's immunity case Monday. Tribe cited Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent, in which she called the decision a "five-alarm-fire for self-government under democracy. The reason is that the court was really flying the flag of the Constitution upside down." Chief Justice John Roberts and five other justices ruled that a president has immunity for core official actions carried out while in office, though was constituted official was for a lower court to decide. "It is worse to use the cloak of presidential authority to commit ordinary crimes for which the rest of us would go to jail than it is to do things that are purely personal," Tribe lamented on MSNBC. "So, the sliver that has been left to Jack Smith, that is taking the threads of this [Jan. 6] indictment, and in a hearing before Judge Chutkan, trying to show which ones, like contacts with Rudy Giuliani, or certain discussions with state officials. Which ones are truly private? That's really a fig leaf." The professor went on to say that, by stating immunity only relates to official actions, the ruling is meant to appear like the court tapping "itself on the shoulder and [saying] we're not granting absolute immunity. "I beg to differ. For all practical purposes, this is absolute immunity. It's dangerous, and it means we have to be even more careful. never to elect a president who would think, let alone say, he wants to be a dictator on day one." Tribe specifically pointed out that the president could take a bribe, for example, if he claims that it is an official act as a president. He pointed to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who "established a degree of independence" with her partial dissent on a piece of the ruling. "You can't even use evidence of the way the president's core powers have been used," Tribe said of the ideals. "So, if, for example, a bribe is offered for the president to exercise a core power like a pardon, you might be able to show that money passed hands, but you can't introduce evidence of that, of the pardon that ultimately resulted, because that is one of the president's core powers. "It makes no sense." He pointed to Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Jackson, who "really rip to shred the threadbare, I'm afraid to say, almost sophomoric and foolish arguments by the chief justice of the United States fantasizing that even though all presidents in our past have assumed that they would be subject to criminal prosecution even for misconduct that was a crime in interacting with their own justice department. "After all, that's what Nixon did and why he needed a pardon. Even though presidents have assumed that and it hasn't crippled the presidency, maybe presidents would be too cautious unless they were granted this new and unprecedented immunity." The danger, as cited by the justices, is that presidents will not be deterred by criminal law, he said. 'They’re just making it up': Claire McCaskill sounds off on ‘BS’ Supreme Court immunity ruling | Watch (msn.com) 'They’re just making it up': Claire McCaskill sounds off on ‘BS’ Supreme Court immunity ruling

Nei. Det vil ta tid. "Alle" vet at man kan ikke gi statsoverhodet en immunitet som tillatt øyeblikkelig maktbruk fordi en rettsprosess med en tidskrevende prosedyre vil bli ineffektiv - dette har vært sett altfor mange ganger. Det er ikke den dømmende kraften som setter presedenser når det er snakk om maktbruk, det er den utøvende kraften - som må på forhold rettet seg etter den dømmende kraftens besluttede kriterier. Roberts gjort ingenting av dette; han har ingen tydelig definisjon på hva som er "uoffisiell", og man kunne se at de andre dommerne som Thomas er noe forvirret av dette, når de prøver å forklare uten å overbevise. I slike saker må den utøvende makten ikke ha handlingsfrihet som tillatt ugjenopprettlige maktmisbruk og maktovergrep som kan sette den dømmende makten i sterk disfavør - dette var sett i flere land ganske nylig (tjue år) - et av disse er Russland, hvor domstolene endt opp med å bli helt maktløst. Trump kan dermed bare gjøre som han vil. Det tok nemlig tre år mellom 6. januar 2021 og 1. juli 2024. Da er Biden sannsynlig henrettet og hans familie fordrevet før høyesteretten kan gripe inn... Det er maktbruk som setter presedenser.

Tror du Trump kommer til å bry seg om dette? Ved å ha absolutt immunitet er man fritt til å forbryte seg mot gjeldende lov, også høyesterettsavgjørelsens påbud som kan lett ignoreres/tilbakevises på prinsippet om det er en "uoffisiell" eller "offisiell" handling, han kan nemlig arrestere og fengsle Biden uten å straffes når senatet ikke er i stand til å opptre samlet, eller kan avvises fordi han har immunitet. Dette har ikke Roberts forstått; hvis Trump kontrollere senatet, er han i praksis straffritt og hvis senatet skulle gjøre seg gjeldende, kan Trump henvise til hans absolutte immunitet. Det er hvorfor absolutt immunitet hadde vært helt utenkelig. Engelskmennene hadde lært bitre erfaringer av dette, først de kongelige-aristokratiske sammenstøtene, deretter de kongelige-parlamentariske sammenstøtene og slutten den ærefulle revolusjonen i 1688 da det opprinnelige monarkiet nedlegges og erstattes med et konstitusjonelt monarki med en blanding av valg og arv i arvefølgeprosess. I mange århundrer hadde det vært evig strid mellom kongen som forlagt forrang i møte med folk som derimot forlagt likeverdighet og rettsvern. Dette var de amerikanske grunnlovsfedrene helt innforstått med. Faktisk, de gjort jo opprør fordi de vil ha "engelskmennenes rettigheter".

'Disaster': Legal analyst cites 'big deal' buried on page 18 of Roberts' pro-Trump ruling (msn.com) Digging deeper into the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts' majority ruling that handed Donald Trump a get-out-of-jail-free card, MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin claimed the devil was in the details and the ruling is even worse than was initially reported. Speaking with MSNBC host Katy Tur, Rubin held up a copy of the ruling and bluntly stated, "I want to put my voice in with Andrew [Rosenberg's] choir here and say this is much more of a disaster than it might seem based on the rules that are being carved out here." "For two reasons: one, at oral argument John Sauer, for former president Donald Trump, acknowledged that the fraudulent election scheme was what he would describe as private conduct," she began. "Despite that concession, in the majority opinion they are saying that still lives for another day to determine whether or not that's private. That's conduct that Chief Justice Roberts expressly describes among the buckets of stuff that Judge [Tanya] Chutkan still has to weigh; whether it's private or official, indicating that they think it might be official." "The second thing, and Katy, this is a big deal, it's on page 18," she added. "There's a big paragraph in terms of the guidelines for Judge Chutkan in determining what's official and what's unofficial. And they say, the majority, 'In divining official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president's motives.' This was a huge issue at oral argument: Chief Justice Roberts asking John Sauer 'what about bribery?'" "Let's say former president Trump or a president appointing somebody to an ambassadorship gets a whole bunch of money for that, are you saying we can't consider the bribery but we can consider the acceptance of the money?" she elaborated. "That's nonsensical. Despite that, they're carving a rule that says the motive can't be considered. it If you appoint somebody, it doesn't matter whether you're doing that for your own private gain." "How can that be? How can they write an opinion that says that?" host Tur pressed. "I want to be clear with what we're seeing here," Rubin replied. "I want to go back to [former solicitor general] Neil Katyal's comments — this is not so much an opinion as it is a broad edict meant to serve a particular moment, even while they say they are writing a rule for the ages." 'Dripping with disdain': Witness says Sotomayor didn't try to hide her contempt in court - Raw Story Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's voice was "dripping with disdain" Monday as she read her dissent against Chief Justice John Roberts' decision granting immunity to former President Donald Trump for "official acts," legal analyst Joan Biskupic told CNN's Kaitlan Collins on Monday. Biskupic was in the Supreme Court when the justices issued the landmark decision making a federal trial for the former president all but impossible before the election and granting the executive unprecedented new powers, legal experts say. Biskupic said Monday this is highly revealing because it's a sharp departure from how the court normally handles cases like this. "Past chief justices had worked very hard our to get unanimity on these kinds of separation-of-powers cases," she said. "You know, in the Nixon case, in the Bill Clinton case, the Supreme Court had been able to do that." The legal analyst noted this appeared not to be the case in the Trump ruling. "But here it was so painful about how splintered they are and how divided they are, not just down ideology, but on politics," Biskupic said. "So the chief tried to make the best case possible that this was the only way out ... he stressed that the separation of powers protects the office of the presidency in a way that would certainly prohibit any kind of prosecution for official acts, and he said there has to be that presumption for official acts and you know, he stressed that that fear and that that idea that presidents should not have to hedge in any way." Despite his best attempt to unite the court, Biskupic added, "boy was he met by dissenters" — chief among them the most senior liberal justice. "When Justice Sotomayor began her dissent from the bench, her voice is really dripping with disdain, and she talked about how the majority was making a mockery of the notion that no man is above the law," said Biskupic. "And she, at several points, even addressed the audience and said, how hard could this be to resolve it with a way that really comports with history? Do you think it's hard?" Sotomayor's tone stunned Biskupic, she said. "She was just quite impassioned and, as I said, has this mocking tone in her voice in the end," Biskupic added. "She talked about what a law-free zone the majority had drawn around the president with this kind of a ruling. You know, as I said, just a very riveting set of back-and-forth between these two that pointed up what you see there on the printed page." Sotomayor var rasende og de to andre demokratiske dommerne var med henne på den samme siden. Det er åpenbart at Roberts hadde skapt så dyp kløft i retten, at den er blitt uakseptert - og hans ord som " - the separation of powers protects the office of the presidency in a way that would certainly prohibit any kind of prosecution for official acts, and he said there has to be that presumption for official acts - " er bare tåkesnakk ved at dette ignorere den partipolitiske dimensjonen fordi ved å være partisjef betyr det at presidenten kan unngå straff fordi kongressen ikke kan opptre samlet mot ham så lenge hans parti har en sterk fåtallstilling eller er i majoritet. Dette vet alle. ALLE VET DET. Dette valgt Roberts å ignorere helt. Og som Lisa Rubin oppdaget, er det rett og slett ikke mulig å ha skille på det som er "offisiell" og "uoffisiell" fordi det avhengiges av presidentens motivasjon fremfor bevisbyrde - slik at presidenten kan forbryte seg mot loven fordi domstolene vil ikke være i stand til å bevise om hans motiv var "forbrytersk". Det er i praksis fritak fra all straffeforfølgelse - som ingen, ikke selv enevoldskonger, hadde! Mange er nemlig IKKE KLART OVER at selv den mektigste enevoldskongen som Ludvig 14. av Frankrike ikke hadde kunne tre seg helt straffritt fordi kun Gud står over ham, og at han var ansvarlig for sine handlinger i Guds åsyn, dermed kunne han ikke forbryte seg mot Kirken, som han istedenfor knyttet seg meget nært med. Ludvig 14. tross hans totalitær makt hadde frykt for straff. Sann totalitær makt er noe som først oppstått med ideologienes ankomsten i slutten på 1700-tallet og de neste to århundrer. Til og med de beryktede romerske keisere står ikke over loven. Opinion: Will Supreme Court Give Trump More Immunity Than a Roman Emperor? I have been studying and writing about Roman emperors for more than 30 years. I never imagined I would live in a time and place where the judicial system might give more extensive legal immunity to an American president than any Roman emperor ever enjoyed. Until last month. Contemporary imagination often assumes that Roman emperors enjoyed absolute authority to do what they wanted with their empire’s resources, wealth, and military power. They did not. Rather, Roman emperors were magistrates who held office for life, managing the Roman state on behalf of its citizens. This position gave emperors vast powers to initiate wars, choose administrators, appoint generals, order criminal investigations, and take the property and lives of convicted criminals. But, like their fellow citizens, Roman emperors were subject to Roman law. Emperors themselves said so. In 429 C.E., the emperors Theodosius II and Valentinian III explained that “a reigning sovereign must be subject to the laws because our authority is dependent upon that of the law and it is the greatest attribute of imperial power for the sovereign to be subject to the laws.” It is only by accepting that laws apply to every Roman, the emperors continued, that we are able to “forbid others to do what we do not suffer ourselves to do.” In other words, an emperor claiming an exemption from Roman law had no right to expect his fellow citizens to obey those same laws. A few decades later, Priscus of Panium, a Roman official and rhetorician who served as an ambassador to the court of Attila the Hun, explained to an acquaintance he calls Graikos why Roman legal procedures must apply equally to everyone. Graikos had once lived in Roman territory but had chosen to live among the Huns. He told Priscus he preferred the Hunnic empire, where, unlike in Rome, Attila limited corruption, did not assess high taxes, and presided over a people who did not trouble one another. True, the brutal barbarian king could do what he wanted to anyone. But Graikos still believed this was better than Rome, where “lawsuits are much protracted, much money is spent on them,” and everyone is distracted from doing what they want by concerns of when or even whether a legal penalty will be enforced. Priscus corrected Graikos sharply. “Those who founded the Roman state,” he said, “ordained wise and good men to be guardians of the laws so that things should not be done haphazardly.” In Rome, “the laws apply to all, even the emperor obeys them,” and “the time taken in cases results from a concern for justice lest a judge err in his decisions.” Under Attila, by contrast, “one must give thanks to Fortune for freedom.” In a society without laws, Priscus asserted, your life and property are protected only by fate and the whims of Attila. Realizing his mistake, Graikos “wept and said that the laws were fair and the Roman state was good.” It is, then, astonishing to read the April 25 transcript of the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Donald J. Trump v. United States. The day began with Donald Trump’s lawyer, D. John Sauer, boldly asserting, “Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it.” As the proceedings continued, the exchanges became increasingly shocking. At one point, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked what would happen if the president “orders the military” to assassinate a political rival. In response, Sauer claimed that such an order “could well be an official act” and thus render the president immune from prosecution. Then, near the hearing’s conclusion, Justice Samuel Alito took on an incredulous tone as he asked the government’s lawyer, “If [the president] makes a mistake, he makes a mistake; he’s subject to the criminal laws just like everyone else?” Any serious Roman jurist would know how to answer Alito’s question. They would respond as the 10th century bishop Nicholas of Constantinople did to the emperor Leo VI when he tried to get married illegally: “It is evil, a most evil doctrine to say that, because one is an emperor he is permitted to do wrong in a way that no one would permit his subjects to do.” Romans knew that even the limited liberty permitted by their autocracy depended on every citizen, regardless of their station, being equally subject to the protections and restrictions of a common legal system. To assert otherwise would be to leave the Roman world of law and enter the unpredictable, anarchic kingdoms led by people like Attila the Hun. Alito is, without a doubt, a finer legal scholar than I am. But he is not a finer legal scholar than Tribonian or Papinian or many of the thousands of other jurists who taught and wrote about a tradition of Roman legal scholarship that stretched across nearly 2,000 years. These wise men refused to grant the powers to an emperor that Alito and Sauer seem to want to grant to an elected president. Maybe our Supreme Court could learn something from reading their work. For grunnlovsfedrene i 1787, som også hatt en sentral rolle under opprøret i 1775, var den romerske republikken inspirasjonskilde, basiskilde og forbildemakt for deres visjon av den fremtidige Amerika de hadde framskapt, de hadde ledet til et opprør mot et urettferdig politisk system som hadde fornektet dem de samme rettigheter som disse i hjemlandet, og motsatt seg den kongelige autoriteten ved å forfekte republikanske idealer. For dem var Romerriket og Amerika av den samme støpning, og de hadde utvilsomme meget sterke imperialistiske ambisjoner, da de ville herske "fra kyst til kyst" allerede den gang. For dem er den romerske republikken selveste mal for USA, og det er hvorfor de var meget opptatt av å vise at de var Romas arvefølger på alle måter, hvilken kan sees av hvordan det politiske systemet ordnes og hvordan den amerikanske nasjonalidentiteten i de første seksti år (1789-1859) var oppbygd. Og de var innforstått med romerretten. Hva er romerretten? romerrett – Store norske leksikon (snl.no) Romerretten egentlig eksistert ikke da Cæsar levd, for hans tid var i en brytningstid mellom den romerske bystaten og det romerske imperiet med et skarpt skille mellom det romersk-nasjonale byrettsprinsippet etter jus civile idealet (borgeridealet) fra republikkæren og det romersk-imperiale riksrettsprinsippet etter jus gentium, som i praksis betyr folkerett - og utgjør selve basisen for vestlig jus i dag. Da Cæsar levd, var lovløshet, oligarkityranni og ekstrem forskjellbehandling innenfor rettsprosesser meget store eksistensproblemer for det døende republikkstyret som gikk til grunn etter Augustus etablert et keiserstyre som egentlig var mer snakk om "bestyrermakt". Det første århundret med keiser gjennom arv (Julius-slekten) satt keiserstyret i vanry og overskygget resten av keiserveldet i alle århundrer fram til Romas fall (og Bysantinerrikets undergang i 1453), da man så den ene forskrudd keiser etter den andre i sanne totalitær skrekk. Men dette hendt ikke uten at viktige lærdommer var høstet, og det er det som gjort Romerretten mulig for hender på de beste jurister i keisertiden. Romerretten setter nemlig begrensninger på makthaverne i forholdet til samfunnet disse hersket over, for disses legitimitet hviler på lovens gyldighet, for disses makt må garanteres gjennom loven som likestille alle i øyne på samfunnet uansett hvilken status disse har, selv om det varieres meget sterkt på spørsmål om rettighetshevdering. Det kunne være meget fordelaktig for mektige organisasjoner som enkeltpersoner, men de må dermed kunne forsvare sine handlinger med basis i det gjeldende lovsystemet. Det er hvorfor mange statsoverhoder som vil unngå lovens kramme grep, tydd til guddommelighet i middelalderen og deretter tidlige moderne tid; enevoldsstyret hvilte på to prinsipper; folkets hyllest/aksept og guddommelig rett. Da enevoldsstyre kom til Norge, var det ganske enkelt ved å vri på faktumet om å gi kongen godseierrettigheter over hele landet... Men selv de enevoldelige konger kunne ikke helt fritt bryte egne lov uten konsekvenser, og kunne ikke tie i hjel eller straffe berettiget kritikk som med "annenhåndekteskaper" som de danske konger var beryktet for. I et samfunn hvor ekteskapsbrudd og hor var meget straffbart. Kort sagt; ingen statsoverhode kunne være helt fritatt fra straffmessige konsekvenser, og det er sett at disse som gjort, ofte endt opp med å dø eller etterlatt seg ustabile maktforhold på kanten av kollaps. Det er dette de amerikanske grunnlovsfedrene var i bevissthet om, og de vil derfor at romerrettens prinsipp skulle også bli gjeldende i fremtidens Amerika. De vil aldri ha akseptert høyesterettsavgjørelsen den 1. juli 2024. ALDRI.

Liberal justices warn of 'law-free zone' stemming from Trump immunity ruling (msn.com) In a blistering dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the Supreme Court's historic immunity ruling left her with "fear for our democracy." The 6-3 decision set a broad new definition of executive power as it stated former presidents are protected from criminal prosecution for "official acts" taken while in the White House, though they do not enjoy such immunity for "unofficial acts." The immediate effect is a delay in Donald Trump's 2020 election subversion case while the trial court determines what actions alleged by federal prosecutors are official, and therefore protected, and which are not. But the ruling has far-reaching implications for the future of the presidency, both sides agreed. In Sotomayor's view, the impact would be chilling. For the first time she said, in every use of official authority, the president "is now a king above the law." "Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today's decision are stark," she wrote. "The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding." Sotomayor went on to highlight some of the more severe examples debated during the immunity arguments, saying the majority's guidelines for immunity would give former presidents legal cover in even those circumstances. "The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution," she wrote. "Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune." Sotomayor was joined in her dissent by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. "As we enter this uncharted territory, the People, in their wisdom, will need to remain ever attentive, consistently fulfilling their established role in our constitutional democracy, and thus collectively serving as the ultimate safeguard against any chaos spawned by this Court's decision," Jackson wrote in her own dissent. Jackson described the majority's threshold for deciding immunity on a case-by-case basis as complicated and convoluted. The model they laid out, she said, could leave presidents feeling more emboldened to act unlawfully. "Having now cast the shadow of doubt over when -- if ever -- a former President will be subject to criminal liability for any criminal conduct he engages in while on duty, the majority incentivizes all future Presidents to cross the line of criminality while in office, knowing that unless they act 'manifestly or palpably beyond [their] authority, they will be presumed above prosecution and punishment alike," she wrote. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, while concurring with much of the majority opinion, said she disagreed with their finding that conduct that is protected from immunity can't be used as evidence to establish other charges -- a point Sotomayor took issue with as well. "I disagree with that holding; on this score I agree with the dissent," Barrett wrote. "The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable." "To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President's criminal liability," she said. Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back against the liberal dissents, saying they "strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today." "Like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity. But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties. Accounting for that reality—and ensuring that the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the Framers anticipated he would—does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution from which that law derives." Roberts went on to state the dissenting justices were overlooking the potential harms of a lack of protection for presidential actions. "Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute," Roberts wrote. "Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine. The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid. Ignoring those risks, the dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors." Det som Roberts skrev, er løgn og usannheter som alle konstitusjonseksperter og vitenskapsmenn vil umiddelbart reagert på, for konstitusjonens eksistensberettigelse er basert på likemannsprinsippet ved at likemenn skal kunne dømme hverandre, hvilken er presist hvorfor senatet var gitt stor vekt, ved at senatorene og presidenter i realiteten er likemenn i en føderal stat, for senatorene representere delstater i møte med det føderale statsoverhodet. Det var også klart i over to århundrer at presidenter ikke kunne stå over loven ikke bare ovenfor senatet, men også den føderale høyesteretten som hadde i lang tid holdt seg til likemannsprinsippet der presidentens immunitet kan utfordres og begrenses som utarbeides - noe som skjøt senk i Roberts idiotiske argumenter. Dette gjør det meget klart at Roberts hadde valgt å avgjøre på et politisk grunnlag for å hindre fremtidige utfordring av presidenthandlinger fremfor på et juridisk eller konstitusjonelt grunnlag; og dermed forbrøt seg mot mandatet som høyesterettsdommer - og sette sterk tvil på hans legitimitet. For det er essensielt at staten kan saksøkes - slik det har vært regel for i to århundrer; enkeltpersoner som organisasjoner kan gå til retten uten restriksjoner for å forlange oppreisning på prinsippet om at enkeltborgeren ifølge likemannsprinsippet er likestilt med staten, på basis av hans grunnleggende og ukrenkelige rettigheter. " - Ignoring those risks, the dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors - " Her har Roberts valgt å ignorere det meste sentrale amerikanske rettsprinsippet, for grunnlovsfedrene og disses etterfølgerne i 1800-tallet mente staten kan utfordres og etterprøves - og dette har sin bakgrunn i borgeridealene som er sterkt innbygd i konstitusjonen. Dette hadde republikanske og ekstreme krefter tatt fordel av i de siste tjue år for å tvinge gjennom endringer og omgjøre lovvedtak i strid med folkeviljen. Ved å gi presidenten absolutt immunitet og deretter mene det samme burde bli gjeldende med " - our system of separated powers - " har Roberts i sannheten forbrutt seg mot en grunnleggende rettighet som amerikanerne hadde dødd for i opprøret mot det britiske kongeriket. Og han vil ikke ha kritikk mot statsoverhoder, og dermed forbryte seg mot ytringsfrihetsprinsippet, for med ordene " - is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law - " mener han at kritikk mot presidenter burde ikke følges opp. Sotomayor er dypt forvitret over hele den absurde situasjonen. Det amerikanske liberaldemokratiet kan ha blitt ødelagt, 1789-konstitusjonen er brutt, sentrale rettsprinsipper satt til side, og selve basiseksistensen for den amerikanske nasjonen kan ha blitt satt i stor fare. Hun og de to andre dommere kunne ikke bare gå ut av høyesteretten, men nå er det klart at denne institusjonen må stenges ned. Hele den amerikanske dommerstanden burde gå sammen for å beordre Roberts og hans kumpaner avsatt og eventuelt arrestert for med dette er den amerikanske rettssystemet kommet i vanry, nærmeste alle domstoler hadde truffet det motsatte resultatet av det Roberts står for, og da kan dette ikke aksepteres.

Alle seks høyestedommerne må settes i umiddelbar husarrest og forby fra all dommervirksomhet. Det disse gjort, er UTILGIVELIG fordi ved å forbryte seg mot det amerikanske eksistensprinsippet som mange millioner hadde gitt enhver inkludert deres liv for, likhet der ingen skal stå over andre, har disse begått den ultimate forbrytelsen i USAs historie. Det kommer til å forfølge dem. Roberts kommer til å sitte i fengsel eller henrettes en gang i fremtiden.

Det er VELDIG ALVORLIG fordi her har seks dommerne begått konstitusjonsbrudd og dermed brøt deres ed og den konstitusjonelle hensikten som er basert på prinsippet om likemann og likhet slik at ingen skal stå over hverandre, og dermed opprettholde det som Benjamin Franklin hadde sagt i 1787 da møtet om hvilken styreform man skulle ha, var overstått; " det vil bli republikk - " ENHVER vet hva som ligger i definisjonen bak en republikk. Det betyr en stat hvor statsoverhode velges for et begrenset tidsrom innenfor et politisk system basert på et annet autoritet som kom ut av en flertallrepresentasjon - som deles i ulike modeller; oligarki, folkerepresentativ (som i Sveits med indirekte utvelging underlagt folkedelegatenes kontroll) og demokratisk (direkte valg som parlamentsvalg). Den amerikanske modellen fram til 1900-tallet var en oligarkirepublikk der oligarkiet inneha definisjonsretten, i de siste hundre år hadde man liberaldemokrati innsydd, slik at USA var en presidentrepublikk hvor presidentvervet oppfattes som representant for hans/hennes parti fram til 2001, siden har det på republikansk hold vært sett en stigende interesse for en enevoldelig president - som i realiteten betyr sivildiktator, og det er en modell som het diktatorrepublikk hvor presidenten inneha all makt gjennom absolutt immunitet som gjør at han ikke er en likemann, men en diktator som ikke kan straffeforfølges. USA har ALDRI NOENSINNE hatt diktatorrepublikk fordi konstitusjonen er utvetydelig på dette; likemannsprinsippet er så essensielt at det følges slavisk av presidenter, folkevalgte, kongressmedlemmer og høyesterettsdommerne om at absolutt immunitet har ingen gyldighet ved at det vil krenke republikkidealet om at "alle er lik". Alle presidenter og folkedelegater siden 1789 har nemlig begrensede immunitet knyttet til deres mandat, for disse kan utøve deres virke uten å saksøkes eller anklages for konsekvenser av disses handlinger i tråd med maktutøvelsen som del av staten. Og det innbar at man ikke kan begå kriminelle handlinger eller forbrutt seg mot lovverket, for begrenset immunitet knyttes til statens integritet - mens absolutt immunitet gjør det ikke. Så det John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh og Amy Coney Barrett har gjort ved å treffe avgjørelsen som er ikke basert på konstitusjonen fordi immunitet for president er verken nevnt eller nedskrevet hvor likemannsprinsippet er innlysende - om at Trump og alle presidenter i De Forente Statene av Amerika har absolutt immunitet i likhet med enevoldelige konger (og konstitusjonelle konger som George 3. som amerikanerne reist seg i opprør mot i 1775) - har de begått en kriminell handling ved å bryte 1789-konstitusjonen ved å vende den slik at den har mistet sin legitimitet som en konstitusjon for etablering av en representativ republikk underlagt sentrale prinsipper som i utgangspunktet er ment som mottrekk mot monarkiet. Det som kjennepreget monarkstyre er at absolutt immunitet utspring av kongens guddommelige mandat - med andre ord; ovenfor Gud var kongen ikke ansvarsfritt og av Gud var han gitt retten til å ha sterk immunitet. Men i England/Storbritannia helt siden Magna Carta var undertegnet den 12. juni 1215 for presist 810 år siden, har kongene vært nødt til å søke immunitetsrett hos aristokratiet, og da George 3. regjerte i 1775, det siste året han var konge over amerikanerne, hadde han nemlig ikke absolutt immunitet i alt annet navnet, da det aristokratiet Overhuset og ministerrådet inneha all kontroll. Den siste kongen som trosset parlamentet, mistet hodet i 1649. Det var arvet fra de engelske borgerkrigene og Stuart-kongehuset som utgjort det ideologiske grunnlaget for etableringen av de amerikanske utbryterstatenes legitimitet som en selvstendig politisk enhet, ved at det åpnet for republikkstyre og delegatstyre som deretter munnet ut i konstitusjonsutkastet i 1787, som aksepteres og deretter tre i kraft i herrens år 1789. Med det, hadde folkestyret - uansett hvor begrenset det var, uansett grunntanker hos grunnlovsfedrene som i utgangspunktet ville ikke ha rent demokratisk styre -etablert seg med full styrke basert på et prinsipp: Likhet. Det er dette som er essensen for sjelen i det amerikanske nasjonen. Og det avsluttes den 1. juli 2024, nøyaktige 235 år siden den 4. mars 1789 da den føderale konstitusjonen innføres. Og det kan også ha avsluttet den amerikanske frihetssakens legitimitet fra den 4. juli 1775, for uavhengighetserklæringen var ikke bare en politisk markering i åpen opprør, den var også teser for etablering av de gjeldende prinsipper som mange generasjoner hadde tatt til sitt hjerte; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Alt tyder på at de seks høyestedommerne rett og slett ikke forstå sitt mandat, og har med dette sannsynlig kastet USA ut i den største eksistenskrise helt siden 1775, for med deres avgjørelse på sviktende grunnlag kan de ha gjort Uavhengighetserklæringen fra 1775 og Konstitusjonen fra 1789 - basiseksistensen for den amerikanske nasjonen - ugyldig for fremtidig vurdering. For ved å gi president absolutt immunitet har man forbrutt seg mot hva USA hadde kjempet for, likemenn i møte med samfunn, Gud og enhver.

Det går galt hele tiden, det er ingen ende på dårlige nyheter. Macron tok et meget uansvarlig sjansespill da han uten forklaring og uten sine alliertes medviten valgt å lansere et nyvalg som har endt i verst mulig utfall (nesten) som et resultat av EU-valget som var "reddet" ved at de stående koalisjonene beholdt flertallsmakten. I Frankrike er det ikke mulig, selv hvis NL ikke få flertall er Macrons parti og maktgrunnlag utradert. I hans regjeringstid har det vært sett at Macron hadde en usviktelig evne for å gjøre dumme tabber. I Ukraina først ved å trekke ut forhandlingslinjen med Putin lengre og lengre ut enn alle andre, deretter ved å holdt tilbake for mye våpen, og så sist ved å levere våpen og gi garantier - som kan bli problematisk hvis en fiendtlig regjering skulle overta. Demokratene og intellektuelle i USA er i sjokktilstand etter debattmøtet mellom Biden og Trump, men lite tyder på at de kan fjerne Biden og det er skjellende grunnlag for medieundersøkelse omkring presidentens egentlige helsetilstand. Det er definitivt noe meget galt med Bidens oppførsel, og mange husket på historien om den demente Reagan som hadde fått mye medisin i hans siste presidentperioden. Selv Barack Obama nådd ikke fram i møte med Biden og hans tilhengere. I Tyskland er AfDs suksess blitt et stort forklaringsproblem, som i tillegg truer med å dele landet etter 1990-grensene. Levekostnadsutgiftene og ukontrollert immigrasjon er i ferd med å bli en suksessoppskrift for høyrepopulistiske og høyreekstremistiske partier i Vesten, hvor etablissementspartiene hadde spilt altfor høyt på markedsliberalisme og menneskeliberalisme i de siste tretti år. Det var for sterk motvilje mot å endre politikken, slik at når det hendt, har man mistet evnen til å være overbevisende for velgerne.

Mange som stemte, ikke nødvendigvis gjort det ansvarlig eller i tråd med sine interesser. Det blir aktuelt verre for mange konservative stemmegivere uten at det får dem til å ombestemme seg. Og dessverre hadde velgerne ingenting de skulle ha sagt; et rigidt topartisystem opprettholdt av to partier som kun vil beholde all makt selv, hadde gjort at mange stemmer "blankt" - dvs. på partifargen fremfor annet. Hvis det var fem til syv partier i dag, ville vi ha hatt en bredere og mer riktig fordeling av stemmene etter stemmegivernes preferanser. Men mange valgt å stemme i ignoranse fordi for dem er det blitt et spørsmål om å kjøpe og selge.

Det er ikke Trump som alene utgjør faren. Mange andre følger etter ham inn i maktens kretser.

Trust in US institutions has ‘never been lower’ – here’s why that matters | Well actually | The Guardian Bare trist lesning. Og det verste med dette er at flesteparten av amerikanerne fremdeles ikke innså hvems skyld for at dagens situasjon hadde kunne skje. Americans don’t have much faith in America right now. Or at least not in its institutions. In 2022, a Gallup poll found that Americans had experienced “significant declines” in trust in 11 of 16 major US institutions. The supreme court and the presidency saw the largest drops in public confidence – by 11% and 15%, respectively. Trust also fell in the medical system, banks, police, public schools and newspapers. Things didn’t improve in 2023: a follow-up poll found that levels of trust remained low, with none of the scores “worsening or improving meaningfully”. Public confidence waxes and wanes, but these numbers are notably bleak. Trust in institutions has “never been lower”, confirms Jeffrey Jones, a senior editor of the Gallup poll and the author of the 2022 report. “As individuals, we rely on institutions to sustain various aspects of our lives, whether we realize it or not,” says Keanu Jackson, a licensed social worker and therapist in New York City. Trust gets undermined when people feel like the institutions they rely on are not concerned with their wellbeing, he says, adding that when it happens, it can lead to “feelings of disillusionment, increased anxiety and stress, identity confusion, and a decreased sense of stability”. Constantly questioning the organizations that govern our lives is exhausting. “Having institutions that we trust is an easier lift for us cognitively,” says Dr Lynn Bufka, deputy chief of professional practice at the American Psychological Association. If someone feels that they have to double-check government guidance, news reports and medical directives, it wears on them and leads to a greater sense of uncertainty and anxiety. Low public confidence can also suggest “a lower collective sense of who we are”, Bufka notes. If Americans don’t have a shared understanding of how institutions represent them and what they can depend on, that may lead to greater splintering between groups. “That can potentially lead to anticipation of more general conflict, which at minimum would put you on edge,” she says. Consider the Covid crisis. “Government was responsible for carrying out whatever ideas scientists thought were best practices,” he says. But significant mistrust of both the government and the science made many Americans treat official health guidelines with suspicion, if not outright rejection. “The ramifications of that are pretty clear. Probably tens if not hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths happen in the US,”

Det er mulig at disse ubekreftede opplysninger kan være sant. "Alle" har sett at selv S-500 kunne gjøre lite i møte med ATACMS.

USA er for langt bakover i sammenligning med Europa, og dette hadde republikanerne tatt fordel av. Om Buttigieg hadde stilt som kandidat i dag, ville han ha vunnet langt overlegent.

Det VIL SKJE når ingenting kan stoppe republikanerne som ikke er lenge interessant i demokrati; de vil ha et ultraliberalt samfunn uten administrasjonstat, uten statlige tjenester utover militæret som i kongenes tid og teokratisk moralkontroll samt gjenopplivning av et oligarkidominert sosialøkonomisk hierarki. De vil 100 % utrydde den progressive USA og returnere til den forgylte tiden. Mange rikinger som støtter Trump eller republikanerne vil at folk skal ikke ha noe som helst hjelp eller assistanse under ideen om at de må være "self-made mans", uten å fatte de enorme sosiale lidelser dette vil utløse. De vil ha et sant sosialdarwinistiske samfunn basert på at den svake skal dø for den sterkes skyld. Sosialdarwinismen er nemlig uløselig knyttet til Adolf Hitler og Nazismen.

Da fortjener de ikke demokrati. De fortjener ikke å leve i de amerikanske grunnlovsfedrenes skapning uansett om den var en oligarkirepublikk eller et folkerepresentativt demokrati. Trump er villig til å forråde USAs venner, og hans tilhengerne er villig til å omgjøre deres land til et mareritt med Taliban-liknende tilstander, sosialøkonomiske lovløshet og ekstrem skjev fordeling av rikdommer - mange som stemt på republikanerne, har stort sett stemt mot sine interesser. Republikanerne vil ha total abortforbud. De vil ha forbud mot tvangsvaksinering. De vil ha ekstrem våpenholdsfrihet, til og med barbariske stammer var ikke så liberalt. De vil fjerne all velferdsordning. De vil ødelegge all arbeidsorganisering. De er fast besluttet på å ødelegge hva integritetsfulle presidenter som Roosevelt (det er to) og deretter sosialliberale krefter som progressiv-demokratiske interesser hadde arbeidet med å skaffe fram i 1900-1960. Det vil ikke være overraskende om de skulle en dag ta bort stemmerettigheter fra minoritetsfolk, innføre apartheidstilstand mot de som "ikke passe inn", og ha stram moralsk kontroll med moralpoliti. Samtidig vil reguleringsmangel, lovløse tilstander og undertrykkelse av de fattige og sårbare samt arbeidsfolk som kan en dag oppdage at de ikke lenge få stemme ut sine undertrykkere, følge til sosial nød med sult, sykdommer og massedød i et skakkjørt og utmatt samfunn som vil da begynner å briste fra innsiden. Mange millioner vil da gruble på hva som gikk galt; men de vil sannsynlig helt til det siste nekte å innse at det var deres egne skyld. De vil fornekte det inntil man endelige miste all håp og deretter innse at man ikke kunne fortsette. Da vil Amerika dø for godt. De vil gjøre revolusjon, begynner med å drepe alle bedrestilte, deretter jeger på rikinger med morderisk raseri og siden bryte opp sitt land for å gjenreise sine livene, eller flykte bort for å søke bedre levetilstander. Det er ikke dette amerikanske intellektuelle eller politikerne hadde sett for seg i begynnelsen. Klimaendringer vil gjør det uutholdelig for befolkningen i store deler av landet, mange kommer til å dø, og sanne kommunistiske samfunn hvor enhver måtte reguleres og begrenses tilpasset hver enkle for størst mulig overlevelse og samfunnsfunksjon vil dermed oppstå - for første gang i historien, i dette århundret. Kapitalistene vil få kulakkenes skjebne, utsatt for generell hat fra mange og mange som egentlig bare ønsket seg et godt liv. Så når det bedrer seg - vil ordet "republikaner" få samme klang som "nazist". Dette er det verste scenarioet. Som kan avverges tidsnok, men det blir mer og mer klart at dette kan ikke fortsette.