Friday roundup: Supreme Court fix, Trump's riots, guns in school and Gramnesty carrying the Dope's water

Fixing the Supreme Court
Plagued with another eye problem that has again placed me on light duty for a week. I’m being forced into unwanted TV viewing.  TURN IT OFF!!  I can hear the collective shout.  Then what  - picking up where I left off in Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time?  Trying for the 10,000^th time to master the opening guitar riff in Van Morrison’s Brown Eyed Girl?  Dust?  Vacuum?  What? 

So the news is on in the background and there are two female talking - nay screeching – heads going back and forth on The Empty Suit’s Supreme Court nomination.  The lefty Libs are riding their constitutional high horses demanding that the Senate do its job with regard to TES’s nomination.  Okay the president “shall nominate and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint” Supreme Court Justices.  So, McConnell simply advises TES that they do not consent to his nominee.  There.  Both branches’ constitutional obligations have been fulfilled.

 I do not know why the Republican leadership feels obligated to telegraph their strategy to the opposition party.  They inform Tes that have no intention of shutting down the government to curb TES’s lawlessness and impeachment of the halfwit in the Rainbow House was off the table from day one for this spineless bunch of Trump spawning weaklings.

Why not get behind closed doors and say, “Look unless he nominates, Ted Cruz, we are not going to consent to the nomination.  We interview him.  No make that, we will endlessly interview him.  We’ll study his record in the same manner the FBI is studying Shrillda the Hutt’s e-mails.  We’ll ask more and more questions.  We’ll deliver product at the same pace the State Dep. has used to produce the Hutt’s e-mails.  Got it?  Now go forth with a face and tone of cooperation.” 

Besides what if the Supreme Court sits with 8 or even 7 justices?  The number of Supreme Court Justices has bounced around between 6 and 10 since the founding.  You could get by with three justices if they limited themselves to interpreting the law instead of making it and confined themselves to faithfully defending the US Constitution.

We are not exactly in uncharted waters here.  As a cost cutting measure the Republicans should wait Ruth Bader Ginsberg out and leave the court at 7.  Balance restored. Problem solved.  No heated confirmation battles.  No insufferable Chuckles Schumer grandstanding.  That would be worth it in and of itself.

Trump’s riots
I think he's speaking metaphorically when he refers to riots at the Republican convention.  Given the media over reaction to the word “riot” you’d think we were talking about Ferguson, MO instead of the Republican convention.  If people are going to get so bent out shape over that wow, what if Trump had said there will be an “earthquake”?  Would the media be, “Oh goodness Donald Trump is calling for an earthquake, probably in CA because it’s a blue state.  What kind of man wants to see death and destruction to an entire state to win an election?”

Now consider that Trump is issuing a very real warning - weather in literal or figurative terms - and the RNC should consider the warning very seriously.  

Is someone in CO reading Lex?
The three regular readers of this page know that Lex has long advocated for programs that teach kids about gun safety in the school system.  Someone in Colorado City, CO mush have run across one of the posts.  Instead of an insane “zero tolerance” policy that only serves to stoke an irrational fear and at the same time curiosity about firearms, bring guns into the classroom and teach safety.  There should be zero tolerance for idiot administrators with a zero tolerance policy.

Gramnesty uses CJCS as political pawn; Dunford cooperates
Chairman Joint Chief Staff Marine General Joe Dunford was used as a pawn by Lindsey Gramnesty during his latest testimony before the US Senate Armed Services Committee.  Without mentioning Trump by name, Gramnesty asked Dunford about Trump’s controversial positions on waterboardeing, and targeting enemy combatants’ families. 

Now first off, you’ll notice where Gramnesty’s loyalties lie.  He didn’t ask General Dunford a hypothetical about a SecState that violated every tenant of operational security by using unsecured communications devises for years putting our troops at risk.  He asked a hypothetical question to embarrass “his” own party's frontrunner.

As far as General Dunford’s answer, I suppose he had to play along.  Saying “Look senator, I know what you are trying to pull.  Fight your own political battles.  Don’t use me for that purpose.”  If pushed he could respond, “We fight battles and wars within the Law of Land warfare.  We are permitted to target enemy combatants.  To the extent that their families associate with them, they become legitimate targets.  Are you familiar with the allies firebombing of Tokyo during WWII?  Do you consider that operation a war crime?  With regard to “torture” or waterboarding, I’ll remind you that a Republican administration sought a legal opinion on the procedure before engaging in it.  It was only after the fact and under political and media pressure that the procedure was considered torture.  When the CIA – not the military – engaged in that practice it was legal.   Now are you of the opinion that it is immoral not to adopt the strategy and weapons that will bring the conflict to its quickest possible end with the minimum of human suffering?   That’s my job, sir.  We’ve been bogged in the Middle East for 15 years for no other reason than we refuse to win.  Do you want to win, sir?”