US senators sanctioned the dismantling of the American Republic

At the end of last week, US citizens were riveted to the TV screens, watching perhaps the most unusual and emotional Senate hearings on the candidature of a judge of the Supreme Court.

This political show with elements of a soap opera can, perhaps, be compared only with what was happening at the time at the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, which was followed by the whole country.

Any comparison is undoubtedly lame. Different countries, different times, different socio-cultural context. But then, in the Soviet Union and now in the United States, the fate of the country was decided in the eyes of astonished spectators.

The fact that American society is politically and culturally divided is known to everyone who is even slightly interested in what is happening in the overseas superpower.

Conservatives and liberals fought each other fiercely before, and their positions seemed irreconcilable. But during the presidential race of 2016, the struggle acquired the character of ultimate confrontation. And in this struggle is no longer up to the rules and not to sentiment. All funds have become good.

One side realized that if they did not achieve decisive success in the near future, the enemy could negate all previous achievements achieved in the offensive, and the other realized that there was simply no place to retreat.

It is easy to guess that all the last decades the offensive led the liberals. But the conservatives constantly defended themselves and moved backwards. This allowed the attackers to identify themselves with the “implacable gait of progress,” and the defenders portrayed as “retrogrades” that cling to “a dark past.”

Everything changed when voters realized that their country, their way of life, and even a set of laws that they could rely on earlier, like a stone wall, were being taken away from under their noses.

“Voters” is the key word. Because the United States is not a monarchy and not a totalitarian state (although there will definitely be people who will argue the opposite), but a constitutional republic.

In such a republic, the will of the majority must be carried out. And so that such a will not lead to unjustified oppression of a minority, it is limited by law.

The Fathers - the Founders of the United States wrote a constitution that provided for a strict separation of powers - executive, legislative, and judicial - precisely so that the system of checks and balances always operated in the state.

They will tell me that the separation of powers is characteristic of all Western democracies. However, this is not quite true. For example, in Britain, executive functions are assigned to parliamentarians - members of the House of Commons - who make up the ruling coalition. Up until 2009, the House of Lords played the role of the highest judicial body. And only then was the Supreme Court established.

In France, the government is also formed by parliament, so the executive branch is blurred between the president and the legislators.

In the US, the presidential administration is the government. The ministers (in Washington they are called secretaries) are administration officials. A significant part of them are approved by the Senate, but they are subordinate to the head of state, so that there can be no prime minister.

It is clear that there can be contradictions between the legislative and executive branches of power (and, according to the idea of ​​the Founding Fathers, for the benefit of the case). The arbitrator is called upon to act as the judiciary, the supreme body of which is the Supreme Court. It is he who is the guarantor of the constitution, and therefore he has the exclusive right to interpret the fundamental law of the country.

In any case, it was originally supposed to - the US military interprets the constitution and checks the laws and presidential decrees for compliance with it, rather than rewriting the current legislation.

But under this structure was originally laid time bomb. Over time, the Supreme Court became the most important law maker of America. Its nine life-long members, in passing a decision on any socially important matter, essentially introduced a new law having the same force as the constitution.

Practically all decisions that liberal progressists call “epochal” — from legalizing abortions and same-sex marriages to changing electoral legislation and recognizing civil rights for illegal migrants (the latter did not reach the Supreme Court, but was already considered in the Court of Appeal). US Supreme Court.

American liberals demand that judges be guided not by the dry letter of the basic law and the precepts of the Founding Fathers, but by the “progressive understanding of justice” and “principles of humanism”. Conservatives, on the contrary, demand “not to touch” the constitution and make decisions based on its text, and not on the “demands for progress”.

Therefore, every presidential election (namely, he nominates candidates for judges of the Supreme Court to replace those who retired) and every election for the Senate (which approves them) becomes the indirect election of judges of the highest judicial instance.

The Supreme Court has a truly dictatorial power. The constitution does not spell out the mechanisms for restraining his “creativity”. If the sun decides tomorrow that any illegal immigrant has the right to vote in elections, then it will become law. If he decides that marriage monogamy (and possibly a heterosexual family - who knows the limits of liberal fantasies!) Is canceled, then so be it.

And I hardly exaggerate.

That is why the Conservatives, including the so-called religious right, voted for the “impossible Trump,” a billionaire playboy from New York - he promised them to nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court. And it still fulfills its promise.

The appointment of Judge Neal Gorsach on the proposal of the US President 45 was extremely difficult in the Senate, but still it took place and shifted the balance of power in the Supreme Court. Now the time has come for the next new judge, whose approval in office can stop the “progress of progress” for decades.

And then against candidate Brett Cavanaugh was applied#MeToo technology. Professor Christine Ford said that Caveno harassed her in high school and nearly raped at a drunken party 35-year-old.

In any local court the case would fall apart on the first day. Moreover, no sane prosecutor would have taken the charge against the events that took place three decades ago.

But such is the current political situation in the United States. The Senate not only took up the case for consideration, but also refused, in fact, the fundamental principle of justice - a person is innocent until proven otherwise.

Emotionally speaking to the Senate, Professor Ford. She cried and assured that it was Caveno who attacked her (although she cannot remember where and when). Do not hold back tears and Judge Cavénau, denying his guilt and complaining about the suffering of his family.

Initially, the Republicans were going to vote on the party principle and in accordance with the established procedure. But in the Capitol there were victims of sexual harassment from #MeToo (the Democrats led them to the building). They caught Senator Jeff Flake in an elevator and stabbed all his anger under the watchful lenses of the cameras.

And Flake reversed his decision calling for an additional FBI investigation into the charges against Judge Cavaino.

It is clear that this investigation will not solve anything. It will be said that it was too short and not thorough enough. There will be more women who blame the candidate for inappropriate behavior (or crime). Activists will stand to death at the steps of the Capitol and in the building itself. And the media will continue to inflate hysteria.

Sex offender should be in prison. And we all know that in places not so remote do with such criminals in almost all countries of the world.

But Judge Cavanaugh is not a criminal. For the simple reason that no court in the United States will convict him on the charges that the Senate has heard live. But his career and life will be ruined.

The pretty successful life of Kristin Ford will be destroyed, with which, apparently, something really terrible happened in high school.

But the main thing - the authority of the Congress will be destroyed. And next - and the Supreme Court, regardless of whether Kavano is approved in office or not.

#MeToo flash mob does not protect victims of some of the most heinous crimes, does not fight for the rights of women. It destroys families, communities and labor groups.

And last week, he forced US senators to sacrifice party, procedural, and legal principles. And the senators have no one to blame, except for themselves, for sanctioning the beginning of the dismantling of the American Republic.

Since the flash mob managed to influence one decision of the Congress, tomorrow it will try to influence others - the adoption of laws and the same impeachment. Crowds of activists, accompanied by media representatives, will keep the White House, the Supreme Court building and the Capitol under siege until the legitimate authorities leave a stone unturned.

It is precisely because of this - and not because of the “fascist Trump” - that democracy may well give way to a dictatorship, whether it will be represented by a president who declares a state of emergency, or by a liberal Supreme Court, which will only enforce “politically expedient” decisions .

What is happening in the overseas superpower convincingly shows us that the constitutional republic - even if imperfect and “inhuman” - should be protected more than the zenith of the eye from adherents of “social progress” and “humanism”.

For these adherents, democracy and the rule of law is an empty sound, although they sometimes pronounce these words more often than others. They-know-better-as-right, and therefore the truth is on their side. Always.

And this, generally speaking, is the definition of dictatorship.

Source

Vespa.SMI

Vespa on social networks

Materials that you will not find on the site