JK22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Det er veldig mistenksomt. Selv den meste lojale Biden-tilhenger vil ante ugler i mosen.

All verdens hjernevasking og sosiale medier - ja selv de beste løgnere og svindlere - vil aldri være i stand til å holde ned gemyttene i et skakkjørt land når flesteparten av befolkningen opplever forverrede levekostnader, tap av grunnleggende rettigheter og ekstrem utnyttelse samt utstrakt fattigdom fratatt selv anstendighet. Da vil Marxs revolusjonstese skjer av seg selv, når verdens meste kapitalistiske land endt opp med å skape så destabiliserende tilstand at det vil bryte ut opprør. Det går mot borgerkrig. Og selv hvis den utebli og Trump overta, så det amerikanske demokratiet ligges ned til fordel for et konservativfascistisk ettpartiregime, vil den ekstreme skjeve fordelingen i samfunnet til slutt lede til revolusjon en gang i de neste tjue årene eller mer, når de rike hadde beriket seg mens de fattige tvinges i slavearbeid, dør av sult og sykdommer og hundses til underkastelse og en tidlig død. Det er hva de ultraliberalistiske gærninger med for mange penger ønsket seg; de vil ha et darwainistisk stendersamfunn akkurat som for mange århundrer siden, under en falsk tro om at sosial mobilitet skulle være regelen. Dette medfører ikke riktighet. Kommunistene vil skape Den Kommunistiske Amerika i dette århundret.

Det er nå en voksende mulighet. Høyesterettsavgjørelsen kan tolkes som et konstitusjonelt brudd fordi høyesteretten har ikke lov til å forby kongressen uten mandat i eksisterende konstitusjonelle bestemmelser, og det er akkurat der Chevron-saken kan bli kritisk. Som artikkelen under forklare, har de konservative høyesterettsdommerne gjort seg upopulært - og de hadde hittil kunne slippe unna det verste fordi institusjonen og det amerikanske folkets uvitenhet beskyttet dem. Most Americans have no idea how anti-worker the US supreme court has become (msn.com) Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the supreme court has been supremely pro-corporate – one study even called the Roberts court “the most pro-business court in history”. Not only have many justices been groomed and vetted by the business-backed Federalist Society, but Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have taken lavish favors from billionaire corporate titans. Thomas has even spoken at two Koch network fundraising “donor summits”, gatherings of rightwing, ultra-wealthy business barons. While the court is decidedly pro-corporate, most Americans probably don’t know just how anti-worker and anti-union it really is. The justices have often shown a stunning callousness toward workers, and that means a callousness toward average Americans. One of the most egregious examples was a 2014 ruling – with an opinion written by Thomas – that held that Amazon, which holds workers up to 25 minutes after the ends of their shifts waiting to be screened to ensure they didn’t steal anything, doesn’t have to pay them for that time. Or take this month’s decision in which the court ruled in favor of Starbucks by making it harder for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to win rapid reinstatement of workers who are illegally fired for supporting a union. In that case, Starbucks fired five of the six baristas who were heading an effort to unionize a Memphis Starbucks. After NLRB officials found that the workers had been fired unlawfully for backing a union, a federal judge agreed to the NLRB’s request to issue an injunction to quickly reinstate them. Many labor relations experts say it’s important for the NLRB to be able to win quick reinstatement after companies fire workers who lead unionization drives, as Starbucks has repeatedly done, because those firings often terrify co-workers and cause union drives to collapse. They seem to view workers and unions as unwelcome nuisances that are seeking to make life difficult for corporations Writing the court’s majority opinion, Thomas ignored all that, oblivious to the injustices and suffering that many workers face when they exercise their right to form a union. Thomas said that federal judges, when issuing such injunctions, should follow a more exacting four-part test, rather than the worker-friendly two-part test the NLRB favored. Thomas’s opinion also ignored some glaring facts: the union has accused Starbucks of firing 150 pro-union baristas, and the NLRB has accused Starbucks of an astoundingly high number of violations of the law – 436 – in its efforts to block unionization. In contrast to Thomas, Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a partial concurrence and partial dissent, acknowledged the injustices and delays that pro-union workers often face. She wrote that “Congress, in enacting the National Labor Relations Act, recognized that delay in vindicating labor rights ‘during the “notoriously glacial” course of NLRB proceedings’ can lead to their defeat”. Jackson noted that the litigation over reinstating the Memphis baristas had dragged on for two years. (It was dismaying that Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor signed Thomas’s soulless, unsympathetic majority opinion rather than Jackson’s.) A 2022 study found that of the 57 justices who have sat on the court over the past century, the six justices with the most pro-business voting records are the six members of today’s 6-3, rightwing super-majority, all appointed by Republican presidents: Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The study found that Donald Trump’s three appointees – Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett – were the three most pro-business justices of the 57 evaluated. (That study also found that the court’s Democratic appointees at the time – Kagan, Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer – were among the top 20 pro-business justices.) All this is a far cry from when some justices were true champions of workers. Arthur Goldberg had been the general counsel of the United Steelworkers and served as secretary of labor under John F Kennedy. Justice William J Brennan Jr, whose father was a union official, was famous for going to bat for workers. As a lawyer, Louis Brandeis filed famous, detailed supreme court briefs in cases that sought to uphold pro-worker laws. In sharp contrast, today’s conservative judges seem to almost reflexively rule against workers and unions. They seem to view workers and unions as unwelcome nuisances that are seeking to make life difficult for corporations as they pursue their noble mission of maximizing their profits and share prices. Take the court’s 5-4 Epic Systems ruling of 2018. Gorsuch’s majority opinion blessed corporations’ efforts to prohibit workers from filing class-action lawsuits. It instead let employers require employees to pursue their grievances through individual, closed-door arbitrations, which greatly favor employers, according to various studies. Because lawyers are far less willing to take individual worker cases than class actions, Epic Systems gutted workers’ ability to vindicate their rights against sexual harassment, racial discrimination and wage theft. In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the majority opinion “egregiously wrong”. She also said the ruling would result in “huge under-enforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the wellbeing of vulnerable workers”. Ginsburg added that it’s difficult and potentially perilous to pursue small claims individually. “By joining hands in litigation,” she wrote, “workers can spread the costs of litigation and reduce the risk of employer retaliation.” Another case that showed shocking insensitivity toward workers’ concerns was the 2007 Lilly Ledbetter case. Ledbetter was a supervisor at a Goodyear tire plant in Alabama, where for years she earned substantially less than the 16 men at the same management level. That pay discrimination was hidden from her, and she learned of it only after more than 15 years on the job. Alito wrote the court’s inflexible, unsympathetic 5-4 majority opinion, ruling that her case should be thrown out because she had failed to file her complaint within 180 days after her pay was set, as the law called for. Ginsburg angrily dissented, writing that the ruling “is totally at odds with the robust protection against workplace discrimination Congress intended Title VII to secure”. Ginsburg added that Alito’s majority opinion “does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination”. There have been some recent anti-union cases. Last year, in Glacier Northwest, the court made it easier for corporations to sue unions for any financial damage they suffer when workers go on strike – a ruling that could discourage workers from using their most powerful form of leverage. In 2021, in the Cedar Point Nursery case, the court put property rights far above worker rights and union rights when it overturned part of a California law, inspired by Cesar Chavez, that granted union organizers a right to go on farm owners’ property to speak with farm workers. By far the most important anti-union decision in recent years was Janus v. AFSCME, a 5-4 ruling, written by Alito, in which the court held that requiring government employees to pay fees to their union violated their first amendment rights. That ruling allowed any federal, state or local government employees to opt out of paying union fees – and was immediately seen as a blow that would weaken unions and their treasuries. Ten minutes after the court issued that decision, then president Trump tweeted: “Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!” The Janus case was underwritten by rightwing foundations and billionaire corporate powerhouses, including Richard Uihlein and the Koch Brothers. (Remember, Clarence Thomas attended their “donor summits”.) The supreme court’s approval ratings have fallen to a record low. Many Americans think the court is corrupt and has lost its way – its justices take all-expenses-paid vacations with billionaires, fail to disclose gifts, ignore blatant conflicts of interest, and one justice’s home hung an upside-down flag apparently showing sympathy for Trump’s “Stop the Steal” movement. One easy step the court can take to begin an effort to regain respect and popularity would be to be stop ruling so often in favor of multibillion corporations and instead side with workers, eg typical Americans – and with labor unions, institutions that fight to improve the lives of average Americans. It just might help, and would further the cause of justice, if the court were to show that it cares more about embattled workers than about billionaires and faceless corporations. Ikke denne gangen. Nå er det harnisk over hele USA, hele reguleringssystemet har blitt kullkastet av en mann som ikke fattet konsekvenser, i spissen for en gruppe menn som mer eller mindre kan anklages for korrupte sinnelag. For kongressen er dette i virkeligheten et angrep på egne institusjons autoritet og dermed noe som ikke kan ignoreres, spesielt ikke når republikanske folkevalgte vil innse at det vil gjør deres arbeid uoverkommelig. The Supreme Court unspools Washington’s big business — and puts new strain on Congress (msn.com) "Chevron is overruled. Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. Her avsløres det at de folkevalgte lovgiverne er blitt fratatt autoritetsretten til fordel for dommerne i domstolene som kommer til å oppleve en flom av saksøking uten sidestykke, og det kunne ikke forbli ubesvart. From now on, Congress will be expected to sort out the intricacies of issues like housing finance, greenhouse gas emissions and artificial intelligence, at a time when it’s already struggling to legislate on big issues. Det vil bli kaos. Roberts og hans kollegene er så forblendet at de ikke klarer å fatte at Chevron-saken risikere å sende USA ut i kaos og at disses synlige støtte til de rike med åpen bevis på korrupte sinnelag kan bli ekstremt provoserende på majoriteten av befolkningen som vil ganske snart realisere hva disse hadde gjort.

Det er massevis av dårlige nyheter fra USA. Den føderale høyesteretten nok en gang skuffet mange; Supreme Court latest decisions: Justices rule on Jan. 6 defendants, criminalization of homelessness and power of federal agencies The Supreme Court issued three more opinions on Friday, marking the first time the justices have weighed in on the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Chief Justice Roberts also announced that this coming Monday, July 1, will be the final day the court will issue opinions for this term — including the highly anticipated decision on former President Donald Trump’s claims of immunity from criminal prosecution. Supreme Court makes it harder to charge Jan. 6 defendants with obstruction Case: Fischer v. United States How the justices ruled and what it means: The Supreme Court has made it harder to charge Capitol riot defendants with obstruction — a charge that was also brought against former President Donald Trump following the events of Jan. 6, 2021. In a 6-3 vote, the court ruled because there was no proof the rioters tried to tamper with or destroy documents, they did not qualify for the obstruction charge. This is the first time the justices weighed in on the events associated with the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. More than 750 people have been sentenced for their involvement in the Jan 6. riots. Out of that number, around 50 were convicted with obstruction as the only felony count, which means they will likely be most affected by the ruling. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito declined to recuse himself from this case and former president Trump’s presidential immunity case tied to Jan. 6 after Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin called on him to do so following reports that flags were flown at his homes that symbolized support for Trump’s challenge to the 2020 election. Some background: A former Pennsylvania police officer, Joseph Fischer attended the rally outside of the Capitol building on Jan. 6 and was subsequently prosecuted for obstructing a Congress proceeding as well as assaulting a police officer. However, Fischer and several other defendants claimed they did not qualify for the charge under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the federal law that criminalizes efforts to obstruct any official proceeding. The Sarbanes-Oxley was initially intended for financial misdeeds, but the DOJ argued Jan. 6 rioters violated this law when they attempted to impede Congress’s certification of electoral votes on Jan. 6, which it considers an official proceeding. Hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants who have already been convicted and sentenced under the federal law challenged in the case — the Sarbanes-Oxley Act — will have to be resentenced. Every Jan. 6 defendant currently charged under the obstruction statute is also facing charges for other crimes, so the Justice Department’s cases won’t be completely upended for any individuals, according to the New York Times. Trump has also been charged with two counts of obstructing and conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding under this same federal law, which means Trump’s legal team can now dispute the charges against him in the federal Jan. 6 criminal case. Notable opinion quotes: Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson said in her concurring majority opinion that despite “the shocking circumstances involved in this case,” the “Court’s task is to determine what conduct is proscribed by the criminal statute that has been invoked as the basis for the obstruction charge at issue here.” Cities can punish homeless people for sleeping in public places Case: City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson How the justices ruled and what it means: In a 6-3 decision, the justices reversed a ruling from a San Francisco-based appeals court that found public sleeping bans were a form of cruel and unusual punishment. They found it is not a violation of the 8th Amendment for localities across the country to criminalize those who are involuntarily homeless from camping and sleeping in public, even when shelters are full or unavailable and there’s nowhere else for them to go. Some background: The case stems from ordinances in the city of Grants Pass, Ore., which has up to around 600 homeless people out of a population of about 38,000. The number of homeless people also exceeds the amount of shelter beds, forcing people to sleep in parks or on public property. The city ordinances prevent the homeless from using a pillow, blanket or cardboard box inside the city’s limits to protect them from the elements. Violations of these ordinances can lead to hundreds of dollars in fines. Multiple violations can ban individuals from city property and they may be criminally charged if found trespassing. The city of Grants Pass argues that other cities nationwide rely on such ordinances and camping laws to protect its public spaces. The challengers, who are three people homeless in Grants Pass, argue that those who are involuntarily homeless face criminal punishment based on their housing status. The Associated Press reported in December that the U.S. reached record-high numbers of homelessness, due to factors like soaring rents and the decline of pandemic financial assistance. Notable opinion quote: Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, “Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it. … A handful of federal judges cannot begin to ‘match’ the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding ‘how best to handle’ a pressing social question like homelessness.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of three dissenters, wrote, “It is possible to acknowledge and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people and our constitutional principles. Instead, the majority focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.” Court overturns 1984 ruling that weakens federal regulators Case: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raymond How the justices ruled and what it means: In a 6-3 vote, the justices overturned a 40-year-old ruling — colloquially known as the Chevron deference — that made it easier for federal agencies to regulate the environment, public health, workplace safety and consumer protections when laws are considered too ambiguous. Some background: In 1984, a unanimous 6-0 Supreme Court decision found that in the case of Chevron v. The Natural Resources Defense Council, when a statute is ambiguous, the courts should defer to reasonable federal agency interpretations of what it means. Congress would enact broader regulatory rules and those federal agencies would “fill in the gaps.” Chevron isn’t invoked often in the Supreme Court, the last time being in 2016. The case was brought on by a group of commercial fishermen in New Jersey and Rhode Island who challenged daily fees that could cost up to $700 a day to pay for government-mandated officers to track their fish intake. These officers would monitor the collections and data on board the fishermen’s boats which would ultimately help shape regulations. The fishermen argued in their case that Congress never told federal regulators to enact this extra fee to pay for third-party monitors on the boats. Environmental and health advocacy groups are among those that have urged the court to leave the decision in place. Gun, e-cigarette, farm and timber groups were among the businesses that supported overturning and will probably financially benefit from the court’s decision. Notable opinion quotes: Justice Elena Kagan, part of the dissent, wrote that the 1984 Chevron deference “has become part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds — to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe and financial markets honest." Kagan added: "In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law.” Utfallet av alle tre saker er dårlig nytt; for den første avslørte de konservative dommerne at 6. januar-opptøyene "ikke er så alvorlig", for det andre har man gjort hjemløse og fattige til fritt vilt for bymyndigheter som kan arrestere dem for å være hjemløse uten ly - og for det tredje er reguleringsmyndighetene i USA satt så sterkt tilbake, at det kan utløse kaos og sette USA sterkt tilbake. Alle disse tre saker kommer til å opprøre flere millioner amerikanerne, og i verste fall om økonomisk nedgang skulle lede til et stort antall hjemløse fratatt sine rettigheter, kan det sette høyesteretten i en PR-katastrofe. Og når reguleringene som er viktig for helse, miljø og samfunn ikke kan benyttes, til fordel for de rike som dermed kan ignorere enhver, kommer mange til å eksplodere under de kommende forurensningsulykker, helseskandaler etc. Roberts har satt USA meget sterkt tilbake. Og om flere år kommer han til å være død eller sittende i fengsel.

Mange av de beste hærførerne og politikerne i menneskehetens historie var homoseksuelt eller med avviklende seksuell orientering, uten at det hadde noe å si for disses preferanser eller referanser, så Buttigjeg er ikke enestående, men dessverre er homohets et stort problem i USA, det er mindre enn tretti år siden republikanerne var i bresjen for en anti-homo holdning som munnet ut i en rekke lover, lovforslag og annet som mindre enn ti år senere gav folk flest vond smak. Og selvsagt blir dette så passende "glemt" av det amerikanske folket. Dermed kan han ikke vinne en presidentkamp i den nære fremtid.

Unge meninger: Debatten mellom Trump og Biden var en komplett fadese (vg.no) Ordet fadese kan brukes - på den ene siden endeløs skam omkring en utilregnelig lystløgner, på den andre siden katastrofal måping omkring en arrogant olding uten selvrefleksevne. Debattoppvisningen er noe jeg hadde fryktet, fordi det er sett i flere måneder at Biden så ut til å ha fått alvorlige kognitive svekkelser knyttet til alderdom og stress mens Trump mer og mer bli utilregnelig og usammenhengende, uten at begge mennenes overbevisninger svekkes. De er begge markant nedover bakken på det kognitive feltet, det er med ganske gode grunner man ikke kan ha gamle mennesker i maktposisjoner fordi de kan uten varsel forverre seg til alles forvirring. Her ser "alle" at Biden ikke er i skikk for embetet som USAs president - mens Trump gjort det han kunne for å bevise at heller han er ikke egnet. Helt siden 2020-valget var jeg sterkt overbevist om at Biden skulle bare sitte i en presidentperiode og skulle forberede grunnen for en kommende demokratisk presidentkandidat som kan søke gjenvalg, men hadde ikke regnet med at Biden skulle ha en uhorvelig arroganse og et stort ego som ikke klarer å realisere egne begrensninger. Det var galskap! Etter kongressvalget skulle Biden ha signalisert om hans stilling, da det på forhold var forventet at han ikke vil stille til gjenvalg om valget skulle gå dårlig. Det blir blandet; 50/50 - og Biden løpet fra hans løfter mens den gamle partieliten pakket sammen og pensjonerte seg. For ett år siden skulle Biden ha signalisert at han vil gi seg, men han nekte. Han saboterte dessuten alle tilløp i partiets korridorer fram til det var for sent. De eldre som kunne ha holdt Biden under kontroll, var ikke lenge i vegen. Nå er det klart for alle at Biden, som demonstrert en stygg arrogant holdning da han ikke ville kritisere hans egne opptreden, har blitt sunket som presidentkandidat. Og da han senere gjort en 180 grad vri under en konferanse i andre lokaler, får det mange til å gruble på hva det er som foregår. Kan Trump ha et poeng ved å påstå at Biden hadde blitt "dopet" som det var sagt om Reagan i 1980-årene? Ødegård var i sjokktilstand i likhet med mange millioner; «Det startet ille for Biden. Stemmen var svak, nesten hviskende. Han hadde problemer med å fullføre et resonnement. Biden snakket hurtig, men usammenhengende» - «Trump vek unna vanskelige spørsmål. Han skrøt uhemmet av tilstanden i USA den gang han var president, mens han tegnet en grov karikatur av hvor elendig forholdene er i Bidens Amerika. Begge kalte hverandre gjentatte ganger for løgnere», Trump er en narsissistisk galning som aldri skulle ha stilt til valg på nytt, og republikanerne skulle aldri ha latt denne svindleren overta dem med hår og hud og fører dem mot en ekstrem farefull fremtid. Biden på hans side er en selvopptatt og egosentrisk olding som vil ikke vedkjenne seg sine skavanker selv når det er farefull for alle. Både på den røde og blå fløyen gikk flere ut og var flaue på sitt lands vegne, og så hverken på den ene eller andre kandidaten «fit for office.» Demokratene i dag er i katastrofetilstand. Og Trump enser ikke virkeligheten, slik han løy, overdrev og babler om USAs "storhet" uten å fatte at USA er en fallende supermakt. En supermakt som trenger kompetente og stø hender - og dette ser man ikke under debatten.

Det skjer ting og saker. Alle disse 8 Patriot-batterier er nemlig nedpakket og inoperativ, og kan ikke settes inn i strid med det første - retireringen er egentlig snakk om avløsning når avløsningssystemer tre i kraft. Samtidig har Biden begynte med å overføre ammunisjon til Israel for den kommende krigen mot Hizbollah, 1,700 Mk 82 og 1,800 Mk 84 bomber skal nå være underveis. Det klokeste Biden kan gjøre er å påskynde produksjon av komponenter for nyere luftvernsystemer i Israel.