TRUTH AND CONSEQUENCES

There has been a rather unfortunate disintegration or rather fracturing of the system by which cabinet executives and judicial government personnel are appointed in the United States.   The Constitution lays the foundation from which the process is initiated. In brief, the current practice is as follows:
 

The nomination process for a new Supreme Court justice begins when one either retires from the court or passes away. Thereafter, the sitting U.S. President nominates a qualified replacement. After this occurs, the Senate Judiciary Committee takes over the next part of the appointment process. This committee then vets the nominee's background, history and credentials and holds a first hearing with him or her to question them on their qualifications. The committee then votes on the nominee and the nomination is then sent to the full senate to go forward or with the recommendation that the nominee be rejected. If the nominee is rejected then the president will have to pick a new nominee and the process will start over.

Once at the full Senate, a filibuster can take place if at least one senator decides to stall the nomination by refusing to yield their spot speaking on the floor. If this happens then a vote of cloture takes place, where a 60 vote super-majority would be needed to stop the filibuster. If the 60 vote tally is not reached then the nomination fails and a new nominee must be picked to start the whole process over. If there is no filibuster then the nomination proceeds as normal, with the senate needing only a simple 51 majority vote tally. If the senate reaches that number then the nomination is confirmed and if not then the nomination fails and the process must start with a new nominee from the beginning. One the nominee is confirmed then they usually go straight to the White House to be sworn in, usually buy the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

The heads of the executive departments and all other federal agency heads are nominated by the president and then presented to the Senate for confirmation or rejection by a simple majority (although before the use of the "nuclear option" during the 113^th United States Congress, they could have been blocked by filibuster, requiring cloture to be invoked by 3⁄5 supermajority to further consideration). If approved, they receive their commission scroll, are sworn in, and begin their duties. When the Senate is not in session, the president can appoint acting heads of the executive departments and so do at the beginning of his term.

An elected vice president does not require Senate confirmation, nor does the Whited House chief of staff, which is an appointed staff position of the Executive Office of the President.

It all seems to be straightforward, however, the make-up of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary is made up of 22 senators, 11 from each party. The Republican Party Senators include Ted Cruz (Texas), Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) and Josh Hawley (Missouri). There are subcommittees including The Sub Committee on The Constitution which has Ted Cruz as ranking member, and the Sub Committee on Human Rights and the Law which has Josh Hawley as Ranking Member.

The duplicity and hypocrisy of all three of these men can be researched on YouTube. Their concept of integrity and consistent rational thought has the attention span of a gnat.  Actually a gnat has probably more integrity than all three of them put together.  Their cumulative contradictory statements about Donald Trump before and after the 2016 election, the attempt by President Obama to appoint a Supreme Court Justice in the last period of his term of office, and about the January 6^th Invasion of the Capitol, are an unparalleled accumulation of lies and deceitful malicious misrepresentations ever uttered.

The fact that Ted Cruz is a ranking member of a subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States, something he has clearly no relationship with, and that Josh Hawley, a dissembler and acolyte of would be insurrectionists, is on a subcommittee involving human rights and law, something he has no connection with, makes no rational sense whatsoever. They are an embarrassment to the Committees, the Senate and the Republican Party. As to Lindsey Graham what can one say, he reeks with asininity.

I realise that my cumulation of insults is illiberal and intolerant, but that these three people in particular should sit in judgement of any kind and question the truthfulness, integrity, rational thought and impartiality of a prospective Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is an insult to any prospective nominee.

I find the performance, of this Judicial Committee, is a demonstration of the prejudice and divisions that are growing within the United States. The party political associations that form the basis on the membership of the committee (11 Republicans, 11 Democrats) is merely window dressing to give an image of equality and fairness.  The Republican Party members are giving voice only to the extreme right wing of the party. Their posture and behaviour are snide, aggressive, arrogant, demeaning, patronising and innately racist. The worst part of it is they are no longer aware of what they have become.

The idea of any bipartisan approach to congressional endeavour is no longer part of the spectrum. Our way or no way appears to be the current mantra. The sole purpose of the present republican leadership is to prevent any progress within the United States in order to regain what they see as power. The absence of any constructive legislation emanating from the Republican side of the aisle is clear evidence of entrenchment of points of view. The intolerance belies any real interest in public service. The concept of duty of care and the idea of a social contract, between legislators and electors, seems to have completely escaped them.

There are very real and very deep divisions within the United States, creating a very dangerous situation that could seriously affect the general state of world political and economic affairs; however, Mr Putin’s war has temporarily eased the tensions by diverting attention to his extraordinary stupidity and short sightedness. A gangster’s true colours do tend to emerge eventually. He has managed singlehandedly to restore some cohesion in NATO, unified the western alliance, as well as, for now, creating a unified foreign policy within the individual states aligned with NATO. The approval ratings of several western leaders have gone up in their own country. Boris Johnson in the UK may be saved from resignation, Macron will almost certainly win the coming French Presidential elections, and Joe Biden has also improved.

World concentration to stop the insanity in Ukraine is paramount, as is controlling Covid 19, but it must not detract from the problems that still need addressing at home. Multi-tasking is possible. The removal of Boris Johnson and his cabinet must be an imperative in the UK.  The drastic reform of the Republican Party, and extracting the poisonous virus that is Donald Trump from its body, is equally of importance.

There is a line written in the film, The Hunt for Red October, spoken by the character of Jeffrey Pelt – national security advisor – “Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open.”

Here’s a clip for the buffs:

So keeping one’s options open seems a reasonable perspective to maintain, so long as there are options. On the matters previously discussed, I am not sure there are any.

Dispensing with the likes of - in no particular order- Vladimir Putin, Boris Johnson, Alexander Lukashenko, Victor Orban, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley, Eric Zemmour, Marine Le Pen (and many other ‘leaders’, who see maintaining political and financial power over the citizen, through repressive legislation from an acquiescent legislature, along with compliant police and security forces who react to their bidding regardless) is not an easy proposition so long as the electorate remains uneducated and complaisant. In some countries, where any opposition is stymied by exile, imprisonment or death, it may take some considerable time to remove such people. What is inexplicable to me, is how such people get elected to office to begin with. A military coup or revolution is one matter, but for a person, who clearly shows signs of a disturbing arrogance and conceit, to be elected, is baffling.

Is it the appeal to the lowest common denominator, the populist moblike mentality of the ignorant and intolerant citizen? It does not seem to take much to bring out pent up racism, prejudice and bigotry. We have all seen ample evidence of mob behaviour in just about every part of the world, and what hurts most is to see it displayed in countries whose founding principles abhor such conduct, and claim adherence to the rule of law.

I know I come back to it time and again, but it is important. Without respect and duty of care our freedoms are in tatters. Being in a position of public service, of any kind, is a daunting privilege. It requires above all else absolute integrity and adherence to truth. It is what is expected. To be at variance with that proposition, in even the smallest way, has been the downfall or disgrace of many a politician who has graced the front pages of tabloid newspapers, usually over some affair or having been caught out in some deceit.

So why is it so different in the current climate. How is it that lies can be tolerated with a simple “Don’t bother me, I’m busy with a pandemic” and “Don’t annoy me with petty squabbles, I’m busy with Putin’s war and NATO”. The first priority of the leader is to be unimpeachable and trusted by every single citizen, whether they agree with her/his policies or not.  There should be no place for someone whose lies fall trippingly on the tongue. The ease with which falsehoods tumble out of the current prime minister's mouth is despicable and depressing.

There is nothing in the entire world going on that absolutely requires Boris Johnson to be involved.!! What is imperative, is that he be removed, just as much as the removal of Putin et al, as mentioned above. A leader who persistently lies to his citizens is no leader. The consequences of some lies may be more serious that others, but it is the lie that leads to the consequences, and the world clearly cannot afford the consequences of any lies.