Part of an ongoing discussion.
Rudolph Harrier remarks:
The left views the default state of affairs as being that dems will never be prosecuted for anything. There doesn’t need to be a decision to keep Hillary or Biden from being prosecuted for misuse of classified information, or to keep Biden from being impeached for his blatantly corrupt political dealings. They are on the left, so the law of the universe is that they will not be prosecuted. Therefore any decision that keeps someone from being punished can only benefit the Republicans, since laws are only meant to punish Republicans.
My Comment:
The single most disorienting and disturbing interview I ever witnessed was one where Michael Knowles of DailyWire and Sen Ted Cruz interviewed podcaster Eric Weinstein.
I am not familiar with the man, but judging from the comments left in the comments box, Weinstein has impressive credentials, and a reputation for genius level intellect among Leftists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CCde6TAKdw&ab_channel=VerdictwithTedCruz
See at about 27.10
During the discussion, genius Weinstein expressed the opinion that the Left could afford to allow democracy to operate, and let the right gain control over the congress and White House for short periods, as long as the Left retained control over the courts.
He described this as a “balance of power” and a “Mexican stand off.” The courts were to be an “upper class, cerebral thing, counter to our populist instincts.”
He then said the nasty personal attacks — to this day still called Borking — against conservative candidate for Justice were the Left’s reaction to this, and, from his tone, a rightful reaction.
I do not recall if he said so directly, but the gist of his comments was this, or, at least, this is what I took away from his comments:
There is an unwritten social contract between the enlightened elite and the unwashed masses in our democracy. The unwashed masses were allowed to vote for representatives and leaders, using their mob powers to seek out their own self interest, and maintain a social order that they were too unwise to see benefitted the rich.
The enlightened elite were to control the court system, especially the High Court, and use its constitutional authority to overrule representatives and leaders whenever the unwise mob ventured into areas that were self destructive or destructive of the rights of minorities.
He did not say so directly, but I assume here he means, for example, outlawing Jim Crow laws, enacting forced bussing, outlawing contraception, outlawing abortion, or outlawing traditional marriage (which does not allow sodomites to wed each other), all were said to be against Constitutional principles which the unwashed mob was not trustworthy to protect.
The genius further implied (or so I interpreted him) that the appointment of conservative justices by the GOP violated the unspoken agreement ruling the nation since FDR’s administration.
The compromise was broken: Trump, by carrying out the will of the people who elected him (some of which voted GOP solely and only in hope of having a conservative majority on the bench) had betrayed the agreement between Dem and GOP, and undid the harmony between elite and unwashed.
The genius explained the most smug and unfair idea imaginable: that the Supreme Court belonged to the Left as their exclusive and rightful possession and property, and the Trump was a trespasser and thief for daring to rob the Left of the justices to which the social contract entitled them.
Got that? The legal and constitutional process to which all parties were avowed to uphold and obey, and which the GOP follows religiously, the Left regards as not applying to them, not even remotely, not even as a hypothetical.
It literally would never occur to the Left that the laws which require the Right to treat Leftist candidates with respect, not to commit fraud and perjury to unseat them, do not apply to the Left.
When Knowles and Cruz ignored and dismissed this absurd argument, the man’s face grew haughty and sullen like a spoiled child. It was pathetic to see. He was not willing to admit that Borking only ever occurred on the Left. The GOP denial of hearings to confirm Garland, for example, involved no personal attacks.
I was truly aghast at the sullen pride sinking into the man’s pudgy features. It was the face of a slaveowner offended and an uppity slave.
He thought he owned us, owned our laws, and that we had no right to vote for leaders who would appoint justices to uphold the Constitution. He thought we have no right to rule ourselves. The elite are meant to rule us.
It was a sick thing to see, and I felt beslimed and disgusted to have seen it.
If you saw the same video, no doubt this man would not look any worse to you than Peter Strzok, Peter Strzok, or Nancy Pelosi. They clearly have demons behind their eyes.
But to me, he looked worse than they. They do not say aloud they thing they own us.
Weinstein did.
