JK22

I'm a journalist, not a foreign policy analyst or political expert, but here’s my quick take on Orbán’s visit to Moscow: from his perspective, it’s a huge success. Orbán garnered all the attention he wanted, scored points with Putin and Trumpworld alike, and reaffirmed his position as the EU’s leading pro-Kremlin and anti-Ukrainian voice. This may also benefit him in the European Parliament, where he’s currently enticing MEPs and parties from other groups to join his Patriots for Europe faction. Above all, Orbán has once again demonstrated that he can do whatever he wants. He got away with it again, just like when he held up Sweden’s NATO accession. Of course, there are many angry tweets from furious EU leaders and heads of member state governments – but why would he care? It’s all talk, no action, as it always has been, and Orbán knows this very well. The news cycle moves on, and since Hungary is still relatively "okay" compared to other troublemakers around the world, there will be no consequences. When I talk to Hungarian government sources, this is usually their exact argument – besides the usual claim that “in secret, many countries actually support us; they’re just not allowed to say it out loud.” With all due respect to the decent EU leaders who publicly speak out against Orbán’s visit: they have actually enabled the Hungarian government's behavior since 2010. As a journalist, one of my favorite topics is investigating how Orbán successfully maneuvers in international politics, making backroom deals even with those who sometimes speak out against him. Whenever Orbán’s vote in the Council or NATO is needed, unimportant issues such as deteriorating rule of law and press freedom in Hungary are always swept aside. There’s an EU infringement procedure here and there, with a final binding decision somewhere in the distant future – does Orbán care? Of course not. I’ve been covering Russian influence in Hungary for almost a decade, and I can only recall one instance where Viktor Orbán and his government gave up their pro-Russian stance. It was in April 2023, when the United States sanctioned the Russian-led International Investment Bank, dubbed the “Russian spy bank,” which Orbán had invited to be headquartered in Budapest and provided with diplomatic immunity. Almost immediately after the US sanctions, the Hungarian government withdrew from the Russian “spy bank” as one of its shareholders and essentially expelled them from the country. No surprise there: Orbán doesn’t care about bad reputation, angry tweets, or diplomatic dressing-downs – he only cares about and fears real power. Orbán understands well that Putin is not afraid to use power, while Western players – such as the EU Commission or the US – only do so occasionally, like once in a decade. I'm pretty sure he thinks that now nobody will bother him until the early 2030s – especially if he can sit out this US administration and Trump returns to power in 2025 as he expects. Orban vist - ettersom han ikke vil miste formannskapet i EU - at EU-politikerne av den liberaldemokratiske sorten er tannløst og redd for å sette hardt mot hardt. Det er som med demokratene i USA; man klarer ikke å bruke makt og sette hardt mot hardt, det blir meningsløse snakk og atter snakk uten å komme noe vei. Hva **** skal man gjøre med Orban?!! Det hjelpe ikke å komme med trusler og trusler, og Stoltenbergs strategi om å snakke og snakke for å få motytelser har vist seg meget ineffektiv og sårbar. Hungary Cancels Baerbock Meeting: Orbán Forms New Right-Wing Bloc in EU Det har kommet ut at han vil starte en høyreekstrem blokk i EU-parlamentet sammen med Geert Wilders (som måtte si fra seg statsministerposten) i Nederland og Vox-partiet i Spania (som er sterk fiendtlig mot ikke-kastiljansk kultur), og for dette må han ha minst 23 representanter fra minst syv land. Østerrike, Portugal og Tsjekkia har sluttet seg til Ungarn, som nå få tilslutning av Nederland og Spania. Det forhandles med Le Pen i Frankrike. Orban har også kommet med anti-NATO erklæringer i det siste. Han mener Ungarn vil ikke være med i NATOs planer for å styrke fellesforsvaret i Øst-Europa. Det gjør at man ikke har tillit mot det ungarske militæret innad i NATOs kommandostruktur, hvor Tyrkia er dels satt ut i gangen fra før pga. Erdogan som vil knuse syriskkurderne som er under amerikansk beskyttelse - som kan opphøre når Trump overtar. EU-lederne må innse i slutten; det hjelper ikke å snakke med vrangvillige maktpersoner som bare forstår makt og vold. De bare gjentar tabben med Putin på nytt.

Ukrainerne holdt stand i Donetskfronten hvor de så langt har klart å redusere den russiske fremrykkingen til et minimum, men ikke mer - det er fordi russerne har flyttet fokuset fra vest til nord. De ser ut til å ha gitt opp den opprinnelige planen om separate fremstøt i håp om å skape en knipetangsmanøver i dybden, og istedenfor konsentrert seg om å rulle opp ukrainernes forsvar nordøst for Donetsk. De rykket nordvest- og nordover mot Krasnoarmijsk-Kotsjantynivka vegen samtidig som de avansere mot Tsjasiv Jar hvor de lot til å bite seg fast langs kanalen øst for byen, fra øst. Og i midten fikk de et helt uventet gjennombrudd som kom overraskende på ukrainerne. Fra Troitske i sør og Horlivka i øst har russerne helt uventet rykket rett gjennom - og i de siste 72 timer klart å avansere så raskt, at vegen til New York plutselig hadde blitt åpent. De har nådd Yurivka, og dermed er ukrainernes posisjoner i vest og sørvest sterkt truet. Russerne bruker samme taktikk som i Donetskfronten; utnytte de topografiske forholder med maksimal dekning sammen med sterk konsentrering av artilleri (og FPV droner) - for de vet at åpen lend betyr den visse døden. Bare atomvåpen, giftgass og flertonns bomber kan drepe all liv i ruinhauger. Og dette utnytter russerne som lager veger av sine døde, for å avansere. For ved å rykke nordvest for Avdijivka og deretter øst for Tsjasiv Jar har de utvidet operasjonsrommet for sine flyene samtidig som det ukrainske blir sterkt redusert; Kotsjantynivka er i ferd med å havne i et fremspring akkurat som Avdijivka, og vil dermed bli sårbar for glidebomber. Det blir bare flere og flere, 600 stykker i en uke - og angrep på Su-34 flybaser stort sett utebli, man ser en strategisk konsentrering mot sør på ukrainsk hold. I verste fall kan ukrainerne miste Donbass mot Krim-halvøya; de har mistet brohodet på Krynky som har blitt et meningsløst eventyr for ukrainske spesialsoldater som "bare" miste få tusener, men disse var fåtallig allerede i begynnelsen - selv om de påførte russerne mange ganger større tap, var det i slutten forgjeves. Nå ryktes det at ukrainerne vil prøve seg på nytt. Det eneste godt med konsentrering i Khersonfronten er at dette tvinge russerne til å fordele betydelige styrker dit, men de er blitt så mange, at det snart ikke har virkninger annetsteds. Dette kan vitner om at ukrainerne har en altfor ambisiøs strategi som burde skrinlegges. For Kharkivfronten har vist seg kostbart for ukrainerne. De klart å holde stand, men har mistet den tredje forsvarslinjen (de nordre) i Donetskfronten og nesten mistet alle vinninger fra det forrige året i sør, de slites i fillebiter i Nordvestfronten hvor ukrainsk tapperhet er ubeskrivelig, og er nå under fare om en gjentagelse av Severodonetsk-fremspringkampene fra sommeren 2022 omkring New York, Tsjasiv Jar og Kotsjantynivka - med det samme målet som før; Slovjansk-Kramatorsk som russerne nå i hele to år har ønsket å underlegge seg. Ett skal man si om Putin, han er ganske innpåsliten med en ukuelig vilje. Det påstås på ukrainsk hold om at det er 14 brigader uten våpen, men det er sannsynlig ikke korrekt, dette kan tolkes som reservebrigader som oppstilles med nylige rekrutterte menn (og kvinner). Her må det sies at det er en ganske god forklaring - som er hele to år gammelt - for at verken ukrainerne eller russerne kan ha større konsentrering av sine styrker utover kompaninivå på felten; det er ikke engangs mulig for rotter å unngå oppdagelse. FPV-droner finner nå russiske soldater som prøvd å bli ett med trær og busker uten suksess. Det er hundrevis av droner overalt, begge sider bruker nå satellittbilder, og nettet betyr i praksis at det er helt umulig å unngå uønskede avsløringer helt ned i menignivå. Russerne forsto det, og har derfor satset på kontinuerlig angrep uten stans med fåtallige soldater - de kunne gjøre det fordi det russiske folket har en fatalisme som gjør denne taktikken effektiv og uproblematisk. Hver dag er det minst et par hundre angrep med alt fra et dusin soldater til et par hundre soldater. Den russiske fatalismen gjør det umulig for russiske soldater å bryte sammen, disse valgt å slåss og slåss, og gjør alt for å holde ut lengst mulig. Det er umulig å tvinge ut en enslig fatalist fra en ruin uten å drepe all liv i ruinen. Det blir bare flere og flere russiske soldater. Men; selv hvis Donbass falt - selv hvis ukrainerne måtte rømme halvparten av landet i verste fall - er dette ganske enkelt ikke bærekraftig for det russiske militæret som materielt sett er i seriøs trøbbel, og for det russiske folket som kommer en dag til å innse at Putin drepe dem. Opptil 600,000 soldater har forsvunnet. Intet militærvesen helt siden Koreakrigens "slutt" i sommeren 1953 har hatt så enorm tap i så "liten" tid. Dette kan dobles i løpet av dette året. Det russiske folket vil oppleve en marerittaktig katastrofe når 1 million-tallet er nådd. For da vil nedgangen bli meget brått. Ukraina i slutten betaler nå en høyere og høyere pris, som er i ferd med bli altfor kostbart for det ukrainske folket, som kan ha mistet en tredjedel av alle stridsdyktige militærpersonell og halvparten av kraftproduksjonen som må gjenreises, deres strategi om å gjøre krigen upopulært for Russland har mislykket fordi ukrainerne i slutten forsto ikke sine "brødre", og da gjensto det bare en strategi tilbake; å holde ut lengst mulig, men selv det er ved å bli vanskelig. Forsøk på opprustning har blitt dels stanset fordi de har ikke nok strøm. De klarer ikke å hindre angrep på flybasene og andre kritiske våpensystemer. Krigen har blitt en total katastrofe for to folk som er låst inn i en selvdestruktiv kamp som bare en enslig mann presser på; det gale monsteret Putin som trolig er den forutsagte Djevelens Sønn. Fra Frankrike røper forræderen Le Pen at hun aktet å forlate Ukraina, franskmennene flest dessverre nok tar ikke note av dette - og fra USA vet man at Trump også tenker likedan. Mangel på strategi fortsetter og fortsetter, de vestlige politikerne som støtter Ukraina, sliter meget kraftig. Bidens atferd i det siste hadde rystet dem.

Dette er en korrekt beskrivning av situasjonen omkring det republikanske partiet som har blitt skikkelig uthult og tappet for kjerneinnholdet til fordel for ekstremistiske krefter som hadde kunne utnytte den blotte mangel på partipolitiske struktur i det politiske systemet. Et amerikansk parti er lederløst. Knapt mer enn et mobiliseringsparti. Den europeiske partiorganisasjonen - som 90 % av verden adoptert - er mer strukturert sterk, mer rigid organisert med innbygd hierarki, partipisk i praksis og bedre politisk orientert enn det amerikanske motstykket. Aktuelt; det republikanske partiet i dag er blitt så ekstremt uamerikansk at mange amerikanerne klarer ikke å forstå det, mens resten av verden vil umiddelbart gjenkjente det - det har sluttet med å bli et amerikansk parti ved å gå over til den europeiske modellen. Men mens et europeisk parti har et hierarki som gjør at fraksjonsdanning og deretter maktfordeling kunne skje under ordnede fatning, utebli dette helt i republikanerpartiet slik at det forbli lederløst og sterkt sårbar for fraksjonsstrid som bare bli mer og mer uforsonlig. Trumps parti har blitt et fascistisk parti med to ideologisk orienteringslinje, den kristenfascistiske orientering med vekt på et religiøsnasjonalistisk budskap og den ultraliberalistiske orientering med vekt på etablering av et sosialøkonomisk stendersamfunn, hvor staten skulle erstattes med et førerstyre på det føderalt nivå, hvor staten reduseres til det absolutte minimum, og styrkning av delstatene som kan underligges ettpartistyring med hardstyre som resultat. For dem er Trump torpedoen de trenger for å ødelegge grunnlovsfedrenes USA.

At the same time as Russia has had its biggest battlefield successes during the last 48 hours since the fall of Avdeevka, i've seen a lot of western media saying that Russia is failing to utilise its "temporary" advantage. The Kharkov offensive is a failure and resources are once again getting scarce. William Spaniel (YT-link) is by no way the worst western commentator. And to a certain degree he is right when he says that western perception and interest is more important for western politicians and public opinion, than reality on the battlefield. But he is totally wrong when saying that the Russian offensive in the Kharkov region was a failure, and its main purpose was to make a Russian conquest of Chasiv Yar possible. The last thing has also failed to happen according to him. Unfortunately for him, the eastern part of Chasiv Yar fell the day after he made his video. At the same time it was obvious that the alleged Ukrainian counteroffensive had stalled. Not only that, Russian forces had both crossed the Donets river west of Vuvchansk and taken the settlement Sotnytsky Kozachok in a third (northern) area in the Kharkov region. What about the vaunted, and much talked about in western media, Ukrainian air attacks with their own, small, glide bombs? Well, after the destruction of a large part of the remaining Ukrainian Su-27s two days ago, this capacity will be greatly reduced. Has Russia failed to utilise the opportunity, the removal of many of the most battle hardened Ukrainian units from the eastern and southern fronts, gave the RuAF? Not at all, especially during the last two days. In general RuAF has been pushing back Ukrainian units all along the front. On the Kherson front the last remaining Ukrainian gains, on the east bank or on the islands in the Dniepr, have been eliminated. On the Southern front RuAF is slowly but surely retaking the remaining Ukrainian gains from last summer, both around Robotyne and Staromaiors'ke. Further east RuAF is closing in on the main supply road to Vuhledar from the east. On the Donetsk front Krasnohorivka will probably fall within a week. Soon Donetsk city will be out of reach for ordinary Ukrainian artillery. Village after village is falling West of Avdeevka and Russian forces are now passing through the third Ukrainian defence line and threatening the main supply road to Kostiantynivka. On the New York front (I know, Niu York, but New York is much funnier) RuAF has made very large and unexpected advances the last two weeks. In the south Russian troops advanced four kilometres and are now 2 km south of the city centre of New York (Map 1). In the east they also made up to 5 km advance on a 10 km broad front and broke through one of the most fortified regions on the Ukrainian side. This Ukrainian ineptitude must be the result of a lack of resources. If one of the strongest Ukrainian defence lines is this weak, the future for UkrAF looks bleak. Around Chasiv Yar (map 2), Russian advances hasn't been as large as on other fronts, but after long and hard fighting RuAF has finally taken the eastern microdistrict. During the coming weeks, the RuAF will probably concentrate to take all remaining territory east of the Canal. On the Siversk front russian forces have, after a year of fighting, taken Rozdolivka and the very well defended Bilohorivka. The only Ukrainian successes since the Kharkov offensive started two months ago, are on the Kreminna front. UkrAF has driven back Russian forces a couple of km both within and north of the Serebryansky Forrest. On the Kupyiansk front Russian forces clear the eastern part of the front and prepare for future operations towards the Oskil river. All over the front RuAF are slowly, but steadily, advancing. UkrAF clearly lacks resources and even with a clear superiority, with veteran troops, fails to advance, due to Russian air and artillery superiority. Ukrainerne retirere overalt, også fra sterke forsvarsposisjoner, fordi de har ikke nok menn, har store problemer med å bringe fram logistikk og er uten av stand til å desimere de angripende russiske styrker i tilstrekkelig størrelse; de drepe og drepe, skade og skade, men aldri nok. Det er bare ikke nok, 1,000 døde og skadde er altfor lite når man trenger å doble og fordoble det for å ha en strategisk effekt. Flybasene er under angrep hver eneste dag fordi ingen - selv ikke NATO - skjønner hvordan russiske speiderdroner kunne operere så uoppdaget dypt inn i Ukraina, og dette forhindrer ukrainerne fra å bruke egne fly. Samtidig ser man at ukrainerne helt ubegripelig ignorerte Su-34 baser, har de ikke nok droner? Det er disse basene som gir russerne seier på felten. Det som hendt i New York-frontavsnittet hadde gått under radaren, og er meget urovekkende fordi noe av de sterkeste forsvarsverkene ukrainerne hadde reist, lå der. Russernes strategiske målsetning med Kharkivoffensiven var å trekke ut ukrainske styrker og utmatte dem, og i dag kunne man si at dette har så langt vært en begrenset suksess - de har lidd mye større tap enn ønskelig og blitt sterkt preget av angrep inn i Russland, men de har klarte å presse på i øst. Og disse mystiske speiderdronene er i ferd med å vinne krigen for Russland. Snart er det ikke lenge mulig for ukrainerne å bruke sine fly, SAM og artilleri om ikke noe meget drastisk blir gjort med disse dronene. Og da dukker det opp et kritisk viktig spørsmål; hvordan kunne ukrainerne - og NATO - ikke stanse disse speiderdronene? Hvordan?!!

Dette er i virkeligheten så falsk som mulig, fordi Khamenei hadde manipulerte valgresultatet. Det er påstått at 40 % av stemmegiverne deltok - når det samtidige er opplysninger om at valgdeltagelsen i virkeligheten er lavere, og av dette skulle over 54 % ha avlagt deres stemmer på Pezeshkian, mens 45 % gikk til Jalil. Det hadde kommet ut at Khamenei støtter Pezehkian fordi han vil fortsette utsettelsestaktikken mot USA uten å oppgi hans ambisjoner, og fordi han som en døende mann hadde blitt oppriktig bekymret for hans familie. Denne manipuleringen kan ha gjort fatale skader på Iran fordi Khamenei har skapt en minoritet vers majoritet konfrontasjon, for Pezeshkian stort sett bare fikk støtte av minoritetsfolk mens Jalil fikk støtte av perserne, det største folket i Iran. Og; Khamenei kan ha kommet i frykt om at en hel generasjon vil forkaste Islam i fremtiden. Det er flere og flere tegn på at de yngre ønsker ikke lenge å være muslimer, og eldre har smått, men sent, begynte med å slutte seg til tendensen. Kanskje han håper på at Pezeshkian kan snu utviklingen, men IRGC har fått altfor mye makt, og det er bare presidenten, ikke regjeringen, som byttes ut. Alt tyder da på at Iran vil fortsette med å støtte Russland mot Ukraina og fortsetter den farefulle konfrontasjonslinjen mot Israel som Khamenei hadde startet etter Suleimanis død i 2020.

Jeg bare forstår ikke! Flybaser blir nå utsatt for angrep hele tiden, et halvt dusin fly er ødelagt/skadet og flere luftvernvåpen tatt ut inkludert dette S-300PS. Hvordan i all verden er ikke ukrainerne (og NATO) i stand til å stanse disse speiderdroner etter et halvt år?!! Det vil bli helt umulig å bruke F-16, Patriot og HIMARS i et slike scenario!

Dette er bare de samme kravene russerne har gjentatt gang på gang helt siden begynnelsen. Og dette bare signalisere at Putin slett ikke har til hensikt å respektere fremtidige fredsslutninger fordi hvis Ukraina må redusere sin militærmakt og stå alene, samtidig som vitale territorier skulle oppgis, er det bare en logisk slutning å trekke; at videre ekspandering inntil hele Ukraina er erobret, er målet. Igjen avslører dette at Putin har et meget voldsomt HAT mot den ukrainske statens eksistens og det ukrainske folkets krav på likeverdighet. Det som gjør at Putin hadde kunne stå med makten i dag skyldes den ufattelige fatalistiske ånden i det russiske folket som åpenbart kan sammenlignes med en selvmordskandidat som må settes under overvåkning, og ikke-Vestens total mangel på prinsippfasthet, spesielt av Modi i India og Xi i Kina. Mange ikke-vestlige lot til å mislike vestlige inntil punktet av åpen rasisme og ekkel skadefryd. Det første gjør at russerne må fratas atomvåpen snarest mulig. Det andre betyr at Vesten må gjenreises, og da må nyliberalismen forkastes. Så mye som 600,000 russiske soldater har blitt drept og skadet, av dette kanskje 200,000 døde og savnede - dette er monstrøse tall som selv ikke Xi i Kina kunne tolerere tross den mye større befolkningen, og tapene i dette året, 2024, har blitt så gigantisk at dette aktuelt kan sammenlignes med de rolige perioder av Østfronten under 2.vk. Det er en meget sterk redsel i Kreml, Moskva og overalt i Russland for Vladimir Putin som gjør makteliten helt maktløst og motløst - det merkes at folk stives til eller bli vaktsomt i nærheten av Putin. Denne redselen gjør at russerne flest ikke våget å gjøre noe, de feirer som hvis deres siste time er i ferd med å komme. Derfor er det meget rart at ingen fikk Putin drept, han har blitt en seriøs trussel mot det russiske folkets eksistens. Nå håper Putin på at Trump vil forråde Ukraina (og Europa), kaoset i Frankrike hvor Macron har ødelagt hans ettermæle med hans ufattelige dumhet, er til hans fordel og tyskerne har et alvorlig høyreekstremistisk problem samtidig som Orban lager sinne og kvalm for tiden. Samtidig aktet han å sende immigranter inn i Europa for å skape mer kaos. Bidens arroganse har gjort amerikanerne veldig sint, mangel på partiledelse gjort at ingen kunne sette ham under press. Samtidig ser man at store deler av opinionen ikke bare er krigstrett, men også blitt irrasjonelt av krigsfrykt da det gikk opp for dem at de ikke er så sterk som de trodde de var, og at Putin er rablende gal, i stand til å ødelegge dem med atomvåpen. Tiden er ikke på Vestens side. Man risikere total nederlag. Og forresten; "finlandisering" oppsto langt senere etter 1945. Stalin hadde aktuelt prøvd å iverksette et kommunistisk statskupp i Finland, men dette var stanset av en sterk forsoningspolitikk som gjort at mange venstrevridde gikk over i den demokratiske fløyen og sterk folkelige reaksjoner. Finland var tvunget til å bygge ned militærvesenet, men kunne beholde mobiliseringsvesenet og dermed i realiteten var ikke militært svekket i 1953, da Stalin døde, enn i året 1939. Etter Stalins død var sovjeterne interessant i balansegang med Finland. Det var da begrepet "finlandisering" ble allment kjent. Putin kunne ha "finlandisere" Ukraina helt siden han fikk makten. Men det var ingenting fra hans side; helt siden begynnelsen hadde han behandlet ukrainerne meget nedlatende, oppvist forakt og endog rasistiske oppførsel selv mot hans allierte, og hadde stadig ført en destruktiv politikk for å tvinge fram underkastelse fremfor alt annet. Han vil ikke ha allierte. Han vil ikke ha vennskap. Han vil ikke ha likeverdighet. Han hater Ukraina.

Dette er et veldig gammelt kristent fenomen hvor man håper på Dommedag for gjenoppstandelse og etablering av Guds Rike, som noen ganger fikk meget tragiske følger som da den russisk-ortodokse kirken innbilte sine troende om at lidelsene vil snart være overstått ved år 1492, når det sjuende årtusenet ankom - og hadde derfor unnlatt å gi åndelig pleie i tråd med kirkelæren til sitt folk etter tartarveldet tok slutt. Da dommedagen uteble, kom kirken ut i en så seriøs legitimitetskrise at det fulgt til den uhellige alliansen mellom det sekulære fyrstehuset i Moskva og den profane russisk-ortodokse kirken. Dette kan oppfattes som kilden bak den ufattelige fatalismen som hjemsøker det russiske folket som oppriktig tror det ikke finnes lykke eller befrielse i livet. I vestlig kultur har det derimot fulgt til voksende og sterk kritikk i mange århundrer, slik at "dommedagstilhengere" ofte var ledd ut, generelt foraktet og utstøtet. De amerikanske koloniene var fram til 1783 fristeder for forskjellige kristne retninger som var opptatt av undergangen og livet etter døden. Det er derfor ikke uventet at kristenekstremistiske miljø hadde kunne overleve og trives i USA den dag i dag. Det er en ny bok av stor interesse som burde være verdt lesning for alle her; "Det amerikanske paradokset" av Hilmar Restad som utvilsomt sitter i dag i sjokktilstand etter den vanvittige 1. juli-avgjørelsen av den føderale høyesteretten som begikk det groveste konstitusjonsbruddet i USAs historie, som har meget mye om det politiske systemet og politikken, ikke minst hvorfor USA er altfor forskjellig fra resten av Vesten. Restad mener USA er i virkeligheten - et land i en evig eksistensiell krise. Majoriteten av disse som stemte republikansk, rett og slett tenker ikke på samme måte som andre stemmegiverne i demokratiske land, først og fremst på grunn av topartisystemet, men også fordi grunnlovsfedrene hadde etterlatt seg en meget feilslått konstitusjon hvor et meget enormt gap på størrelse med Antarktis eksisterer; total mangel på regulering/bestemmelser omkring partipolitiske føringer og identitetssak som politisk orientering. Selv 1814-Grunnloven i Norge tar for seg partipolitiske anføringer. Disse kunne ikke fritt velge parti, for de må stemme på representanter som ofte er valgt på forhold, alle undersøkelser tyder nemlig på at velgermassen IKKE hadde slått følge med partiene på det ideologiske feltet. Disse tvinges inn i et system med ytterst lite frihetsvalg. Og dessverre er republikanerne og demokratene altfor tett på hverandre ved å være utelukkende høyreorientert og hadde vært det i mange generasjoner, slik at identitetsmarkører får mye sterkere og mer irrasjonell virkning enn normalt, "megaidentiteter" blir skapt. En emosjonelt-sosialt tilhørighetsmentalitet - som visse observatører sammenligner med klan/stamme-identitetsmentalitet - oppstå, og den blir sterkere og sterkere oppladet jo mer polarisert politikken bli. "Republikaner" og "demokrater" som tilhørighetsidentitet på en partipolitisk basis er nemlig tabu i europeiske land som et resultat av den høyre-venstre ekstremistkonfrontasjonen fra 1918-1945 mellom fascismen/nazismen og kommunismen, men dette tabuet utebli i USA. Den amerikanske nasjonalidentiteten egentlig er svakt oppbygd og basert på mytologi som samfunnsverdier i et meget vekslende og variert land delt inn i minst fem "kultursfærer", klarte ikke å motstå presset som oppsto i de siste tretti år. Partitilhørighet bli viktigere enn nasjonaltilhørighet, spesielt på et emosjonelt grunnlag - og dette vet kyniske republikanerne som med viten og vilje presset fram kulturkrig, aggresjon og kompromissløshet. De hadde kunne gjøre det straffritt pga. topartisystemet og valgordningene. Mange stemmer derfor i uforstand og uviten, de daglige bekymringer og konkurransebesettelse "for å slå de andre" blir fremherskende - og det åpnet for ekstrem uansvarlighet. Det som hendt i Storbritannia er et typisk eksempel på demokratisk atferd og stemmegiverens makt. Det blir de meget upopulære toriene straffet for disses vanstyre og inkompetanse gjennom en kollektiv maktdemonstrasjon. "Topartisystemet" i Storbritannia har for lengst opphørt selv om valgordningen forbli gammeldaglig. Dette har vist seg helt umulig i USA. Det er ikke mulig å straffe et parti ved å stemme på et annet. Det er ikke mulig å stemme fram disse man vil ha. Kollektiviteten i demokratiske valg rett og slett eksisterer ikke i et amerikansk valg. Og det skyldes grunnlovsfedrenes motvilje mot partipolitikk. Restad avslørt at dette kan ha imperialistiske motiver; det er gammelt nytt at grunnlovsfedrene som valgt å bruke Romerriket som modell, ønsket seg et meget stort rike - og de mente makten skulle deles mellom føderalmakten og delstatene. De ville at bare lokaldemokrati skulle råde grunnen og at det vil bli så mange delstater/territorier, så et partiløst representasjonssystem kan oppstå. Allerede den gang kunne kjennere, spesielt de europeiske, si at dette var bare sprøyt. Parti er et moderne ord for fraksjon - og det har vært politiske fraksjoner gjennom menneskehetens historie kanskje i hundretusener av år. Selv i en sjimpanseflokk kunne man se fraksjonsdanning, alliansearbeid og politikk omkring flokklederen og hans potensielle utfordrere. Denne mangelen på erkjenningen har dyttet USA ut i vedvarende eksistenskrise helt siden begynnelsen. En mulig viktig årsak bak det politiske systemets overlevelse kan være fordi det egentlig var ikke bare en oligarkirepublikk, men også forkledt parlamentarisme som en fortsettelse av det engelske parlamentssystemet. Grunnlovsfedrene ment bestemt at høyesteretten og regjeringsmakten skulle være underordnet kongressen, og det er forklaringen bak de mange ordninger - som dessverre har fulgt til dagens situasjon, da partiproblemet ignoreres. Kongressen var dominerende fram til det tjuende århundret. Dette kom dels på glid da integritetsfulle presidenter startet "den progressive æren" ved år 1900 - og presidenten fikk mer makt, ikke minst gjennom utenrikspolitikk som var lite prioritert i de første 120 år siden 1783. Tre sentrale menn - Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt (1901-09), Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) og Franklin Roosevelt (1933-1945) - var disse som formet fram den aktivistiske presidentmodellen. Grunnlovsfedrene hadde rett og slett ikke sett for det. De hadde sett for seg en ekspansiv utbredelse av de tidlige kolonier i møte med andre kolonimakter og de innfødte for å underligge seg et stort kontinent, De hadde ønsket å ta HELE Nord-Amerika, og det var endog krefter som ville også ta Mellom-Amerika. Utenrikspolitisk samspill med resten av verden som mindreverdig og deretter likeverdig makt var dyttet helt bakerst. Den franske okkupasjonen av Mexico og imperalismens ære fulgt til større fokus på det som foregikk utenfor egne grenser. Den spansk-amerikanske krigen i 1898 var en viktig milepæl, det var første gang USA tre ut i verden. Den utøvende makten med eneansvar for utenrikspolitikk måtte også føre USA inn i tette relasjoner med andre makter over spørsmål om innflytelse, ansvarsdeling og økonomi. Norge i sammenligning er en olding ved at man alltid vektlagt de internasjonale relasjoner fra meget gammelt av. USA kom inn som et ferskt pust i begynnelsen på det tjuende århundret. USA var i virkeligheten ikke en presidentrepublikk på et rent teknisk grunnlag før Roosevelts død og slutten på den andre verdenskrigen i 1945. Så presidentrepublikken fram til 1. juli 2024 egentlig er av ny dato, kongressestyret forsvant til fordel for presidentstyret, istedenfor som en representant for kongressen ble president en representant for hans parti. Dessverre hadde utviklingen, som grunnlovsfedrene ikke forutså, fulgt til at maktdelingen mellom presidentembetet og kongressen er for svakt formulert, slik at det er et stort rom for uformell makt og maktmotsetninger. En mann, Richard Neustadt, utgav boken "Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents" i 1960. Hvis Neustadt hadde sett hva som skjer i dag, er det helt sikkert at han ville ha begått selvmord. Han mente egentlig ikke at presidenten skulle bryte med folkets tillitt eller grunnleggende teser knyttet til det politiske systemet. Og plutselig ble enmannsregjeringen som grunnlovsfedrene hadde valgt, et monark på valg, for sterk. Med meget få unntak utsprang makten for presidenten ut av kongressen, for presidenten må dele makten med disse, og dermed må være tett tilknyttet disse. Det oppstår en konkurranse siden 1968 mellom presidenten og kongressen - som fortsetter i dag. Dette er ikke bra for USAs fremtid. Definitivt ikke bra.

Dette kommer til å få meget alvorlige konsekvenser for Ungarn i forholdet til EU, ettersom Orban selv påsto han kom som formann for EU-rådet, selv om formannskapet som varer et halvt år om gang i virkeligheten er ubetydelig - og Putin vektlagt dette, ved å antyde at møtet med Orban er et møte med en EU-leder. Dette har EU og NATO samt mange statsoverhoder reagert meget sterkt på. Orban hadde lovet å ikke blokkere NATO-hjelp mot ikke-innblanding, men det har blitt latt merke til at han hadde prøvd å ta fordel av utfallet av EU-valget selv om han egentlig var blitt svekket, og ved å oppsøke Putin under falsk flagg blir det for mye å tape. Hans hjembase i Ungarn er i ferd med å gå tapt. Hans allierte annetsteds splittes opp eller motarbeides. Det kan slutte med at Ungarn vil miste formannskapet fordi falsk mandat er svært alvorlig. " – Med et sånt møte slutter Ungarns formannskap før det egentlig har begynt. Ungarn ser ikke ut til å ha skjønt sin rolle, - " Det kan slutte meget fatalt for Orban, som risikere å miste altfor mye. Han har regelrett gjort narr av de europeiske politikerne som nå er blitt veldig sint. Vet ikke hva det er denne ungareren tenker på, men når han returnere fra Moskva vil han finne det ut.

Marine Le Pen er en forræder. Det har hun alltid vært. Så Macrons ufattelige stupiditeten med å lyse ut nyvalg har mer eller mindre blitt skandaløst som et av de største selvmålene i Frankrikes nyere tid (siden 1938). I det minst ser det ut at det vil hersker kaos i fremtidens Frankrike - og kanskje Le Pen og hennes russerlojale krets burde fjernes for godt fra politikken, men det samme kan sies om Macron som helt alene skapt dagens situasjon!

"Nearly nine months into a war that Israel did not plan for, its army is short of spare parts, munitions, motivation and even troops." There's a specific mention of tanks operating below full capacity: "At least some tanks in Gaza are not loaded with the full capacity of the shells that they usually carry, as the military tries to conserve its stocks in case a bigger war with Hezbollah does break out." The article emphasizes the shortage of artillery shells: "Five officials and officers confirmed that the army was running low on shells." Beyond ammunition, there's also a shortage of equipment maintenance resources: "The army also lacks spare parts for its tanks, military bulldozers and armored vehicles, according to several of those officials." It also mentions issues with troop motivation and a "crisis of confidence in the military leadership." While the military claims significant progress against Hamas, with an estimated 14,000 fighters killed, they acknowledge that "several thousand Hamas fighters remain at large, hidden in tunnels dug deep underneath the surface of Gaza." Israeli Generals, Low on Munitions, Want a Truce in Gaza - The New York Times (nytimes.com) Israel's top generals want ceasefire - NYT (bignewsnetwork.com) The IDF doesn't have enough troops or ammo to fight in Gaza and Lebanon simultaneously, officials have told the New York Times Dozens of senior Israeli generals want Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to strike a truce deal with Hamas so they can prepare for a potential war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, the New York Times reported on Tuesday. With Israel's war on Hamas about to enter its ninth month, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has lost at least 674 troops, supplies of artillery shells are low, and around 120 Israelis - dead and alive - remain held as hostages in Gaza. Hamas fighters have popped up in areas of the enclave previously cleared by the IDF, and Netanyahu has still refused to publicly state whether Israel intends to occupy post-war Gaza or turn the territory over to a Palestinian government. Against this background, the 30 senior generals who make up Israel's General Staff Forum want Netanyahu to reach a ceasefire with Hamas, even if this means leaving the militants in power in Gaza, the New York Times reported. According to six current and former security officials, five of whom requested anonymity, the generals want time to rest their troops and stockpile ammunition in case a land war with Hezbollah breaks out. Additionally, the generals also view a truce as the best means of freeing the remaining hostages, contradicting Netanyahu's insistence that only "total victory" over Hamas would bring the captives home. "The military is in full support of a hostage deal and a ceasefire," former Israeli National Security Adviser Eyal Hulata told the newspaper. "They believe that they can always go back and engage Hamas militarily in the future," he continued. "They understand that a pause in Gaza makes de-escalation more likely in Lebanon. And they have less munitions, less spare parts, less energy than they did before - so they also think a pause in Gaza gives us more time to prepare in case a bigger war does break out with Hezbollah." Hezbollah, a powerful Iranian-backed political movement and paramilitary force, entered the Israel-Hamas conflict last October. However, the group waged a limited campaign of tit-for-tat drone and missile strikes on northern Israel, which leader Hassan Nasrallah said in November was aimed at tying up Israeli forces near the border to prevent their deployment to Gaza. Netanyahu announced last month that he would pull some IDF units out of Gaza and move them to the Lebanese border, stoking fears of an imminent invasion of Lebanon. Tension was further heightened last week when Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant warned that the IDF was "preparing for every scenario" and could take "Lebanon back to the Stone Age." The US has reportedly warned against starting even a "limited war" in Lebanon, while Iran has declared that it would "support Hezbollah by all means" in such a conflict. The Israeli military has not publicly endorsed a ceasefire in Gaza. In a statement to the New York Times, the IDF said it was still working toward the destruction of "Hamas' military and governing capabilities, the return of the hostages, and the return of Israeli civilians from the south and the north safely to their homes." Netanyahu's office declined to comment on the report. Så IDF har problemer. Under en krig mot Hizbollah må de nemlig underlegge seg så mye land som mulig for å hindre total ødeleggelse av sitt hjemland, og da trenger de uthvilte tropper, nok ammunisjon, nok delvarer og all utstyr i topp tilstand for krevende oppgaver.

Babak ser ikke på på dette med samme optimisme som deg, og han er aktuelt mannen som hadde størst bredde i dybdestudier av det ukrainske flyvåpenet som han til og med har produsert en bok om, disse inaktive flyene var nemlig ikke plukket fra hverandre eller utsatt for omfattende inngrep som mente at disse var en reservestyrke i seg selv. Som kilde for delvarer eller som fremtidige stridsfly.

Supreme Court Gives Joe Biden The Legal OK To Assassinate Donald Trump (msn.com) The Supreme Court’s decision that Donald Trump has full immunity for “official acts” he took as president is so sweeping and vague that it opens the door for sitting presidents to do whatever they want without any accountability, including assassinating a political rival. Legal experts said Monday that yes, as horrific and authoritarian as that sounds, the 6-3 decision by the court’s conservative supermajority means that President Joe Biden could theoretically order that Trump be killed and be immune from criminal prosecution. “Presumptively, he has the power to assassinate a rival,” John Dean, who was White House counsel to former President Richard Nixon, told HuffPost on a call with the Defend Democracy Project, a group that advocates for free and fair elections. Making matters worse, said Dean, is that the court ruled that “official acts” by a president can’t be used as evidence of criminal conduct for “unofficial acts.” So in a hypothetical scenario involving Biden ordering aides to kill Trump, his actual giving of the order would be potentially unavailable for evidence, he said. The former White House counsel, who called the Supreme Court’s decision “radical,” said the conservative majority also just raised questions about immunity for people who carry out a president’s “official” but criminal activities. “When Nixon warned that, ‘When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,’ he went on to say, ‘How could staff operate if they didn’t have a president who was totally immune?’” said Dean. “Presidents are good at giving orders…. They don’t execute those orders themselves. So you have a whole lot of people who have criminal exposure, and this opinion in my quick reading doesn’t cover that.” Norm Eisen, who served as former President Barack Obama’s ethics czar and as special counsel for Democrats during Trump’s 2019 impeachment trial, said the dissenting opinion by the three Democrat-appointed justices is an unprecedented and dire warning. Led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the dissent says the immunity created by the ruling now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any president to use however they want, for their own financial interests or political gain, knowing they are insulated from criminal prosecution. “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 wrote. “When dissenting justices warn that the majority may have just legalized murder by one individual in our country, that warning is to be taken very seriously,” Eisen said. “No more are the consequences of the majority opinion able to be read in isolation…. One of the majority party candidates has repeatedly, not in isolation, made a variety of autocratic promises, including to be a dictator on day one.” During Supreme Court oral arguments in this case in April, Trump’s lawyers argued that it “might well be an official act” if a president ordered the assassination of a political rival, or ordered the military to carry out a coup to keep him in office, and therefore a president would be immune from criminal prosecution for breaking these laws. Trump, of course, hailed the court’s decision on Monday. “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!” he wrote on social media in all caps. Biden, meanwhile, slammed the court’s decision as “a dangerous new precedent” and vowed he wouldn’t be the one to break the law in office. Eisen, who also co-founded States United Democracy Center, a nonpartisan group advancing fair and secure elections, said Trump has been laying out extreme plans for a second term and that people should be horrified by his autocratic tendencies. He cited an online tracker he’s helped put together that spells out all the things that he wants to do. “This opinion, as the dissents warn and other voices are now being heard to say, opens a dangerous tear in the American constitutional fabric, in the checks and balances that have helped us to survive this country for two and a half centuries,” said Eisen. “The opinion and the permissions it grants, for the first time in our history, must be read in that context.” Matthew Seligman, a fellow at the Center for Constitutional Law at Stanford Law School and a partner at the law firm Stris & Maher, suggested the court’s decision reflects something much larger about the country’s political and legal culture ― namely that we’re at a point where we have to even talk how much immunity from criminal behavior should be granted to whoever wins the next presidential election. “Whether it’s actually not illegal anymore, or it is illegal but you just can’t be prosecuted for it, we used to live in a country where there was more respect for the law than contemplating realistic hypotheticals of the president assassinating his political opponents,” he said. As to whether he thinks the court just gave Biden the OK to assassinate Trump, Seligman said, “I don’t think Joe Biden would ever do something like that.” Allegra Lawrence-Hardy, a co-founder and partner at Lawrence & Bundy LLC in Atlanta, Georgia, said people should not overlook that Sotomayor specifically warned that the door is now open to presidents beyond the next election potentially killing their political opponents. “It’s important to note this clarion call from these dissenting justices,” said Lawrence-Hardy. “Because as preposterous as some of these possibilities seem to us right now, that we would be having this conversation right now seemed completely unthinkable a decade ago.” Mer kunne ikke sies. Nå er det bare et lite håp tilbake; at amerikanerne flest vil bli så forarget, at de vil endelig innse sannheten om det republikanske partiet og kutte dem ut for godt - som de skulle ha gjort gjentatte ganger siden 1996! USA er et land som hadde hentet sin stolthet i det legalistiske budskapet om at alle er lik i lovens øyne og at ingen står over loven; nå er dette krenket på det groveste av seks høyesterettsdommerne med John Roberts i spissen. MEN; hvis de ikke reagere - og hvis demokratene (som er meget sinna for tiden) ikke kan få bort Biden som nå kan bare arbeide for halv styrke i løpet av dagen - vil Trump da vinne, og selv etter han skulle dø eller tre av i slutten, vil de høster verdifulle erfaringer som de burde ha unngått, om hvordan dumhet, egoisme og ignoranse leder til den totale ruinen. Biden kan i dag få Trump drept uten å bli straffet. Dette er noe som er helt uakseptert, og et grov overgrep på den amerikanske nasjonalbevisstheten, som det amerikanske folket må realisere.

Authoritarianism Expert Gives Trump Immunity Ruling An Alarming Label (msn.com) Authoritarianism expert Ruth Ben-Ghiat suggested the Supreme Court’s decision in Donald Trump’s favor to grant presidents total immunity for official acts is effectively the “autocrat’s fantasy.” “Authoritarianism, at root, is about taking rights away from the many — that’s Dobbs, and there’s also voting rights that come into play — and allowing the few, the cronies, the oligarchs, the leader, most of all, to have no checks or fewer regulations on their lawlessness,” she said on MSNBC’s “Deadline: White House” on Monday. “So it’s about transforming the rule of law into ‘rule by the lawless,’” she continued. “And so removing immunity from the head of state is the autocrat’s fantasy. It’s why Trump admires Xi Jinping and [Vladimir] Putin and all those autocrats, because that’s his fantasy, because he is so corrupt.” Ben-Ghiat called Monday’s 6-3 decision “unspeakable.” “It’s the product of these far-right activists who are using the court to, you know, destroy democracy from within,” she said. The court’s six conservative justices agreed, in the ruling, that Trump is immune from prosecution for official acts undertaken during his presidency. The question of what constitutes an official act will now need to be parsed by lower courts, effectively ending chances of Trump’s federal election conspiracy case going to trial before the November election. Should Trump win, he could order the Justice Department to drop the case and another federal case against him. MSNBC Legal Analyst Claims Supreme Court’s Trump Immunity Ruling ‘Blueprint for How to End the Rule of Law’ MSNBC legal analyst Neal Katyal called the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling on Monday “constitutionally unfathomable” and a “blueprint for how to end the rule of law.” The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that presidents have “absolute immunity” for “official acts” taken as president. The ruling has led to a number of questions about the parameters of this immunity, especially as Donald Trump has been arguing he should not be prosecuted for any act taken while he was in office. Katyal raised alarms about the decision and argued the “official acts” wording provides a “presumption in favor” of the president. “Here’s what practically this means. A president, like Donald Trump next year or whoever the next president is, can take a blatantly illegal act, slap the label, ‘Hey, this is an official act!’ and write that in the preface to whatever the heck he’s doing and now we’re going to have to have hearings and so on before district judges and then appeals to determine whether it’s truly an official act or not,” he said. Katyal argued President Joe Biden and other Democrats now need to “run against the Supreme Court,” though he cautioned he was not arguing in favor of packing the court or impeaching any judges. “If you’re Joe Biden, if you’re a Democrat who is running for president, your path right now is clear, you have to run against the Supreme Court, you have to run against this decision. This is not America. If you want to make America great again, you’ve got to return to the rule of law. This decision today unfortunately is a blueprint on how to end the rule of law,” he said. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor claimed the majority made the president a “king above the law” and argued a president could even assassinate a political rival. MSNBC contributor Chuck Rosenberg had earlier shut this theory down in a panel discussion with Katyal, arguing the immunity only covers “core constitutional responsibilities.” Katyal said his colleague was “absolutely right” that cases would need to be ruled on individually, but he argued this does not provide reasonable “protection.” “We’ve never needed those case-by-case hearings before. We’ve always just assumed that a president is not above the law and in these hearings, these case by case hearings, as Lisa [Rubin] points out, you can’t even introduce any evidence of a president’s motive,” he said. Det er mye sinne på gang. Hos demokratene diskuteres det på høyeste nivå om å reise riksrett mot Roberts og de fem andre konservative dommerne - som 1789-konstitusjonen åpner for, som selv den føderale høyesteretten ikke kan gjøre noe med, når kongressen må reagere. Og det er i sannheten skjellig grunnlag for å ha riksrett mot disse dommerne som har tre ganger begått handlinger som kan tolkes som konstitusjonsbrudd og hadde dessuten lagt fram en systematisk innsats som underminere den konstitusjonelle ordningen. Men fordi for**** tufser og idioter valgt å stemme på republikanerne, har de et lite flertall i Huset og et lite fåtall i Senatet. På republikansk hold kom den ene støtteerklæring etter den andre til Roberts og Trump. McConnell er eneansvarlig for at den føderale høyesteretten "kom på avspor" og for å ha gjort kongressen handlingslammet. Mange har demonstrert at de er villig til å tillate ødeleggelsen av USA for maktens skyld. De har rett og slett mistet all forstand, slik at det blir helt uhørt når de reagere mot disse som raste fra seg. Mange forstår ikke at ordet "immunitet" er ikke total; det er forskjellige definisjoner knyttet til dette ordet utenfra alvorgrad, alle statsansatte har begrensede immunitet mot saksøkning for eksempel. Alle folkevalgte og delegater har parlamentarisk/konstitusjonell immunitet som statens representanter og som del av et politisk system ansvarlig for styre og stell. Absolutt immunitet er dermed noe som egentlig er helt uhørt, for det betyr at man står over loven, i kontrast til de andre som har lovbestemte immunitet, som betyr at de er underlagt loven. Bare konger har absolutt immunitet, som er fullstendig uakseptert i et demokratisk system basert på sentrale prinsipper hvor ingen står over andre. 'Absolutely frightening': MSNBC's Mika's jaw drops as expert lays out Trump's plans Donald Trump has made clear he intends to test the boundaries of the presidency immediately if he's re-elected to a second term, and MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski reacted in horror upon hearing his plans. The presumptive Republican nominee and his allies have stated his authoritarian intentions for another presidency, and Axios co-founder Jim Vande Hei told "Morning Joe" that the former president would step back into the White House with a stronger grasp of the office and a firm grasp on the Republican Party. "He already has a Republican Party, a Congress in waiting, that is extremely pro-Trump," Vande Hei said. "All of the restraints, all of the people in positions of power who are his critics, his adversaries, his handcuffs — they're gone. This is a Trump Congress in the House, it's a Trump Congress in the Senate, and you look at what he said he's going to do with that Republican coalition, what he's going to now do with greater immunity. He's been very clear." "Listen, he is going to use potentially the National Guard and the military to round up millions of people and remove them from the United States," Vande Hei added. "He's going to consider using the military to protect the southern border. He's been very clear that he is going to get rid of people that he deems disloyal, that are civil servants in the United States government. "He is going to use a unique interpretation of law that he believes he would win in a challenge to get rid of them. They've pre-vetted thousands, potentially tens of thousands of people that they want to bring into the government to do his will, to do his wishes, so that he can move much more effectively and much faster, and imagine that he does win. "If he wins, the two oldest Supreme Court justices, [Clarence] Thomas and [Samuel] Alito, 76 and 74, the possibility that they could retire in the next term is real. Then you'd have Trump being able to put in two Supreme Court justices, probably in their 50s or 40s, people who would be there for a long time. The end result would be you'd have five justices over the course of his two terms who were appointed by Trump." Axios laid out the ex-president's plans for another term in a new article that quotes potential vice presidential pick J.D. Vance, a GOP senator from Ohio, saying that few Republicans would stand in the way of his agenda. "The point of the column is that, love it or hate it, he'd come in as one of the most powerful figures, and he would stress test it immediately," Vance Hei said. "They have very specific plans. This is not the haphazard Trump we covered in 2017. This is a much more organized operation, at least the people in the institutions around him." Brzezinski agreed that Trump posed a greater threat to democracy than he did the first time around because he didn't even expect to win his 2016 election. "I think this is devastating and absolutely frightening and absolutely could happen," she said. "As you said, he came in haphazardly. Donald Trump didn't even know he was going to win. It was one day out of an entire year where everything fell into place, and he won the presidency. "They were, at the last minute, writing a victory speech, you know, scrambling. That's not the case this time. That means every single person that is going to be around him, they're going to plan for that person to make sure that they take the oath." Det er nærmest GARANTERT at det kommer til å bryte ut borgerkrig eller politiske uroligheter hvis Trump vinne og begynte med å regjere helt uhemmet uten noe som helst restriksjoner.

“This is a death squad ruling": Maddow says SCOTUS immunity ruling goes further than Trump asked for (msn.com) MSNBC's Rachel Maddow on Monday underscored the gravity of a recent Supreme Court decision that is expected to allow Donald Trump to receive broad immunity from criminal charges for "official acts" taken while in office. The ruling, a 6-3 split along ideological lines, saw Chief Justice John Roberts deliver the majority opinion. “I really did not expect that they would do this,” said Maddow, a staunch critic of the former president. "Donald Trump and his counsel asked for this 100 percent absolute immunity thing, which was insane. I would say they got 105 percent of what they were asking for.” "The practical impact of what they have done is to give Trump immunity that even he and his counsel did not ask for," the host added. Maddow also noted the hypothetical questions posed by Trump's attorney ahead of the ruling, who floated the idea that presidential immunity should cover situations as extreme as a president assassinating a political opponent. “This is a death squad ruling,” Maddow argued. “This is a ruling that says that as long as you can construe it as an official or quasi-official act, you can do absolutely anything ― absolutely anything ― and never be held accountable, not only while you are president, but forever.” “This explicitly immunizes anything the president wants to do through the Justice Department but all but explicitly justifies anything the president wants to do, full stop, to anyone,” Maddow continued. “And that is as serious as it gets.” The Supreme Court just set a timer on an immunity time bomb (msn.com) It’s hard to see how the Supreme Court’s ruling on whether former President Donald Trump enjoys immunity from prosecution could be much worse. It’s true that the opinion in Trump v. United States doesn’t grant him the absolute immunity that he’d claimed. Instead, Chief Justice John Roberts authored a majority opinion as close as possible to finding that absolute immunity without making a complete mockery of the findings of the lower courts. In the end, the chief justice and his GOP-appointed colleagues determined that presidents are immune for “official acts” but may still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts” once they’ve left office. With this decision, the six conservative justices left up in the air exactly what parts of the federal indictment against Trump are still constitutional. The opinion accordingly pats itself on the back for not making the determination straight away, leaving that to the lower courts to determine based on a test of the Supreme Court’s devising. But the caveats and examples that the court provides in its opinion makes it obvious that anything determined to be outside the shield it has erected around Trump will be at best a temporary setback for the former president. In this brave new world, a president’s actions can be divided into three categories. The first are those official acts that are “conclusive and preclusive” — authorized through a power granted solely to the president under the Constitution. Such acts are now totally protected from prosecution. All other official acts, including presidential communications, are granted “presumptive immunity.” In those cases, prosecutors can still argue that executive privilege doesn’t apply but it’s up to a judge to make that call. Finally, “unofficial acts,” or those taken beyond the scope of office, don’t fall under the aegis of this newfound immunity — but exactly what counts is left undefined. In setting this new precedent, Roberts draws heavily on the 1982 decision in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which determined that the president enjoys immunity from civil cases even for acts that extend to the “outer perimeter” of their role. The same presumed immunity for those acts now applies to criminal cases, “so long as they are ‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.’” With that very unhelpful guidance, Roberts has ordered the lower courts to do the work now of figuring out what exactly that entails, including whether the Trump-led pressure campaign against former Vice President Mike Pence fits the bill. Accordingly, this ruling has wiped away entirely the assertion in special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment that Trump leaned on the Justice Department to pursue false election fraud cases to bolster his efforts to overturn the election. More damaging, Smith is now blocked from even using those supposedly “official acts” as evidence to prove criminality for unofficial acts, whichever those wind up being. The overall effect is to tie prosecutors’ hands, cutting them off from one of the key factors in determining whether to bring charges against a person. Importantly, Roberts also writes that “in dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.” This new dictum applies even in instances of clear motive to act in their own personal interest, rather the national interest, putting such motivations beyond the reach of prosecutors. This determination also all but bars lower court judges from applying common sense to charges involving a president, as Monday’s ruling also blocks judges from deeming a president’s action unofficial “merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.” To top it all off, Roberts sanctimoniously forgoes driving the dagger into the heart of this case. After determining that criminal immunity exists for official presidential actions, he then writes that “the current stage of the proceedings in this case does not require us to decide whether this immunity is presumptive or absolute” for each of those given actions. No, those issues must be left for the future because, he writes, a single case “in more than ‘two centuries does not afford enough experience’ to definitively and comprehensively determine the President’s scope of immunity from criminal prosecution.” U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the federal case in question, is now tasked with adjudicating which of Trump’s actions are still subject to prosecution. What is left only implicit in the opinion, though, is that those decisions are subject to appeal by Trump or the prosecutors (though much more likely the former). So, too, are the decisions that the appeals court eventually makes, putting the final call right back where it started: in the hands of Roberts and his fellow conservatives. In sum, this decision is a Roberts special, projecting neutral impartiality while thoroughly skewed toward a predetermined outcome. The supposed tests that are meant to give the veneer of wide applicability beyond Trump should instead be seen in the same light as the decision to allow him onto the ballot despite the 14th Amendment’s language preventing it: a fig leaf over a standard that applies to only one man. It frankly would have been better if Roberts had adopted Justice Samuel Alito’s disdain for subtlety. It would be more honest for Roberts to not bother pretending that the court’s conservative wing won't eventually consider Trump’s attempts to steal the 2020 election entirely within the bounds of this newly created immunity. Instead, we are forced to watch as Trump, newly armed with the confidence that nothing can stop him, continues throwing rocks into the gears of justice, grinding proceedings against him to a halt once more. Denne artikkelen avslører Roberts ikke bare som en forbryter som forbrøt seg mot hans ed som høyesterettsdommer, men også som en pro-Trump som nekte å treffe en avgjørelse og gir absolutt immunitet til fremtidige presidenter på meget uklar grunnlag, selv når veldokumenterte lovbrudd hendt, ved å gjøre hele saken om "uoffisiell akt" til et åpent spørsmål som domstolene ikke er i stand til å avgjøre fordi motparten kan etterprøve, sabotere og sinke uten større problemer - slik at et brudd kan trekkes ut i tiden. I praksis; Maddow har rett; Trump får ikke "medhold", i virkeligheten får han full seier med henblikk på presidentembetet som han aktet å gjenvinne, og uhemmet evne for å motarbeide rettsinstanser omkring både oppståtte og fremtidige lovbrudd - det betyr at dommerne må famle seg fram for å finne korrekte prosedyrer, riktige tiltalepunkter og deretter være i stand til å etablere at disse var "uoffisiell akt". Istedenfor et standpunkt kastes man ut i kaos. Som gjør at Trump og fremtidige presidenter kan fritt gjøre som de vil uten at domstolene kan stoppe dem. Dette er "105 %" som Maddox hadde sagt. Biden kan arresteres, settes i fengsel og henrettes uten lov og dom under ganske suspekte omstendigheter som sett med Putin og Navalnyj, som dør - uten at domstolene eller kongressen er i stand til å gripe inn tidsnok. Trump trengte ikke engangs å utsette Biden for åpen rettsforfølgelse, selv Putin har ikke juridisk absolutt immunitet etter russisk grunnlov slik at han alltid tok snarveier for å komme utenom hindringer. I USA vil ikke Trump eller andre presidenter ha noe som helst hindring. Alt som trenges er å gjøre det som "offisiell akt", og deretter trenerte dommerne som ville ha umiddelbart reagert, når Roberts hadde hindret dem fra å forby dette. Kongressen kan ikke hindre Trump eller fremtidige tyranner pga. de partipolitiske realitetene gjennom "vinner ta alt"-regel, topartisystem og utstrakt maktbegjær som mer eller mindre er kommet utenfor kontroll, spesielt i det republikanske partiet hvor makt og ideologi nå står foran patriotisme og folkeidentitet. Som da Roberts annullerte kanselleringsbestemmelsen i 14. grunnlovstillegget som kansellere en offisiell ansatt som delegat fra å inneha statsembeter, har han rett og slett ødelagt alle eventuelle kontrollmekanismer omkring straffeforfølgelse av en president (og andre embeter, som Roberts antyder). 1. juli-avgjørelsen må stanses og sensureres. Dessuten må Roberts og hans kumpaner under massiv angrep. For de har gjort det amerikanske demokratiet til en ikke-sak og satt den amerikanske Uavhengighetserklæringen som 1789-konstitusjonen under legitim tvil. Det blir ikke mye å feire den 4. juli, som er uavhengighetsdagen for det amerikanske folket, som hadde i 1775 gjort seg uavhengig fra et monarkstyre.

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!