Trump as Flux and the Supreme Court as Frame
I teach politics. And it is through teaching politics that I have happened across a metaphor – I think it is my own, but one never knows: I read so much, every day, that it is quite possible I read it, forgot it, then rediscovered it – that makes sense of much in politics, including the recent problem faced by the President of the United States, whose tariffs have been declared unlawful by the Supreme Court.
This metaphor is about power and law, that classic opposition of might and right: Macht und Recht, or, if one prefers, pouvoir et droit. Every serious thinker has thought about these things: Aristotle, Machiavelli etc. But we in the 21st century often do not think about these things, especially in universities, because we have balkanised everything, turned it into academic fragments, bits and bobs. You study that, Professor, and I’ll study this. Well, every thinking man and woman should think about everything. (And not ask a machine to think for them.)
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Law? What law? The Ronaplandemic destruction of all laws, Nuremburg code, my rights, my very existence?
Judges who are Libtards opening up borders, ignoring the Musulman rape of 1 mn white girls, setting up 5 levels of punishment, blacks, muzzies, non whites getting the soft glove treatment?
Judges in the US blocking Drumpf because they are comitted Demon party members, paid by the same, oiled by the same, selected by the same?
Judges who support Burn Loot Murder and Fascist Anti-fa but jail a Christian because she posted men have penises?
Judgocracy, Legocracy. As totalitarian as the Rona Medical Nazism or Scientocracy.
You have a point.
The idea that “Law” is some objective, independent, protective framework, put in place to curb the excesses of power, together with the naïve illusion that we have some unalienable rights flew out of the window within a few weeks of the China flu outbreak.
At that time those of us who still retained some critical thinking realized that our suspicions were well founded: our rights are very much alienable. We can be experimented on medically; the “Law” shows extreme leniency towards crimes committed by the approved set of people whilst maximum harshness towards the non-approved.
The law is necessary but it is also aa convenient means for the power to keep us proles in our place because by assuring us of our rights and protections they hope to keep us from getting uppity.
It is a convenience though which they have no hesitation in ignoring when not convenient, blair was an egregious offender, and starmer in his adenoidal thick and mendacious way is possibly worse.
They are now blatantly breaking the compact. We need therefore to get uppity.
True, though with specific regard to the USA and “Covid”, I don’t think any of the restrictions were unconstitutional. The founders probably didn’t foresee medical fascism founded on a fake pandemic.
Whatever you’ve had for Breakfast – give me some 🤩👍👏