Catch-23 The Democracy Catch
Also - The Attack on the Supreme Court - and - The Next NYC Protest
Catch-23
Yes, we found another one
There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. If he flew them, he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed. – Joseph Heller 1961
It seems like we are living in a political spinoff of Joseph Heller’s classic novel, Catch-22. Democrat pundits are touting their fight to save democracy itself from the fascist, insurrectionist, racist, elitist, warmonger, white-nationalist, antisemitic, egomaniacal, narcissistic, traitorous, Russian puppet, madman, and all-around-mean-guy, Donald Trump. As if the election of Donald Trump would erase the concept of democracy from the collective mind of mankind.
There are certainly things not to like about Donald Trump. He has an ego that takes up half the oxygen on Earth. His handling of the office of President was certainly outside the norms.
But it seems like there are some who are willing to destroy democracy in order to save it. First Colorado Judges removed Trump from the primary ballot in that state; then this week, Trump was removed from the primary ballot in Maine. This time by the duly elected Maine Secretary of State (and ironically former head of the ACLU Maine), Shenna Bellows.
Bellows could barely conceal her delight in an interview on CNN as she explained that she was just doing her duty and “had no choice.” She determined on her own that Trump is an insurrectionist despite no legal decision or evidentiary due process. Of course, she didn’t answer the softball questions from the equally delighted CNN interviewer, particularly when asked about the right of voters to have their voices heard.
When Trump goes on one of his rants about the election being stolen, his point becomes a little more believable with every similar news story. Partisans like Bellows seem to be able to justify destroying democracy in order to “save” it.
This is just one more obstacle confronting Trump in his bid for another term. His multiple civil suits (including the economically devastating case from New York’s AG Leticia James), his 91 individual charges from 4 different prosecutors (that all seemed to materialize one after the other), the unprecedented prosecutions of several of his personal attorneys – all seem to scream that you, as an American, will not be given the right to vote for Donald Trump in November of 2024.
Trump is no angel -- but beat him at the ballot box (fairly). This is the behavior of a banana republic dictatorship, not a democracy. When we see this type of behavior in other countries we shake our heads, but here it is in the birthplace of modern democracy.
It seems like all the attempts to end Trump will not work, but progressives only need one to come through. The biggest question, however, is what will happen when Trump is gone. Will they put the pieces of our democracy back together like none of this ever happened? Was Trump just an aberration that needed extreme measures? Or is this the end of our democracy as we know it?
Is the endpoint of a modern constitutional republic that you can vote for anyone the party approves of, but anyone else will be destroyed by the bureaucracy?
"You haven't got a chance, kid," he told him glumly. "They hate Jews."
"But I'm not Jewish," answered Clevinger.
"It will make no difference," Yossarian promised, and Yossarian was right. "They're after everybody." – Joseph Heller 1961
Attack on the Constitution
We don’t need no stinkin judges
In watching YouTube this week (mostly old Dead shows and fire buff videos) I was of course inundated with ads. A remarkable number of these were from the Brennan Center of Justice at NYU. They had a very serious, dangerous, and infuriating message.
The Brennan Center wants to install term limits on United States Supreme Court Justices. This proposal, which I would describe as radical, apparently enjoys “broad bi-partisan support” according to the Brennan Center’s website. Lifetime appointments are “undemocratic” according to these luminaries (I’m sure they were cheering the removal of Trump from ballots) (which I’m sure is “bi-partisan,” too, because the Lincoln Project agrees).
You would think that this would require a Constitutional Amendment, but the patriots at the Brennan Center would disagree. They note that, despite the clear intent of the founding fathers and 230 years of tradition, the Constitution has some wiggle room in this area. The verbiage states that justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”, implying, but not specifically stating, that the appointment is for life, barring misconduct.
The Brennanites argue that even if this lack of lifetime appointment does not pass muster, Supreme Court Justices could simply be moved to a lower federal court after their term is completed. A mere act of Congress could accomplish this. No Amendment required.
Of course, what’s really going on is that the left is trying to eliminate the one obstacle left in their way, a Supreme Court free of political interference. The one their media partners can’t influence. The one that censorship, election interference, and partisan criminal prosecutions can’t sway. They will continue to attack Clarence Thomas and others with everything they can muster to accomplish this goal.
The irony in all this lies with the Center itself. The “Brennan Center for Justice at New York University” is named for Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan. Justice Brennan served on the Court from 1950 until a stroke forced him from the bench in 1990. He is the 7th longest serving Justice in Court history. The center that “honors” him would have had him removed from the bench.
Mayor Adams Hits The Nail On The Head
NYPD rendered ineffective
The Mayor is certainly not perfect, but he has been saddled with a lot of baggage -- liberal courts, the incompetent former Mayor DeBlasio, and district attorneys who don’t do their jobs.
Evidence of this is on display with every out-of-control “protest” that we see daily. The NYPD looks inept and nothing short of buffoonish at these rallies, scrambling after one individual after another as these instigators melt back into the obstructionist crowds. It is not the cops’ fault – but it’s still not a pretty picture.
Mayor Adams spoke on this subject earlier this week when he commented on the BLM settlement that cost taxpayers billions and took tools away from the NYPD. He acknowledged that, “The Police Department … [has] to be extremely more hesitant in actions that they would have carried out in the past to keep the peace.” “I did not agree with the concept of those changes,” he continued. “I pushed back hard … I thought it put us on a very troubling direction.” Not exactly a speech worthy of Cicero, but you get the point.
The cops are no longer allowed to corral protesters illegally blocking traffic and protesting without a permit. They also can’t enforce against sound reproduction devices (i.e, bullhorns, microphones, etc.) and signage violations in order to effect mass arrests.
Instead, the NYPD has been forced into following a byzantine four-tiered system for handling protests which essentially require police to be fighting from behind, ending any hope of keeping a protest from growing out of control.
Even if they were to arrest them for legitimate violations, most of the district attorneys in this town would immediately drop the charges like they did in 2020. This would leave the city, the department, and individual cops open to lawsuits, CCRB complaints, and departmental repercussions.
Arrestees cannot even be brought to court. Governor Cuomo’s criminal justice reforms of 2020 require that these rabblerousers immediately be given “desk appearance tickets” and released back into the crowd.
This will be on display for the world to see in a few days when all eyes are on the Times Square New Year’s celebration. There is no doubt that the protestors will be disrupting the party and causing problems. Cops will get hurt, revelers will be harassed or assaulted, and gatherings will be disrupted as cops try to pick off a few of the most egregious violators in a sea of thousands. It will not be the cops’ fault, and at least the mayor is bringing attention to their plight.
Below is the actual verbiage of the ineffective four-tiered system that the NYPD must follow (note: this is not a parody):
· Tier 1 is used for a peaceful protest. Under Tier 1, the NYPD will temporarily accommodate peaceful protests passing through the streets or sidewalks. Community affairs officers can liaise with the protesters while the NYPD retains the ability to use patrol officers to enforce traffic laws and direct crowds.
· Tier 2 is used when the NYPD believes that illegal activity may be about to occur or that the protest is going to block critical infrastructure. The NYPD can station additional officers, including the SRG, in the vicinity of the protest in anticipation of the need for law enforcement intervention.
· Tier 3 takes effect once there is probable cause that an individual has committed a crime. The NYPD will deploy enough officers to address the individuals breaking the law. Specialized units, such as the SRG, may be deployed as necessary in this tier.
· Tier 4 commences when the protest must end. It is activated when either (1) protesters are trying to enter or blocking entry to sensitive locations or (2) crimes are so widespread that de-escalation and/or targeted enforcement has not worked or cannot work. In this tier, the only viable option is to end the protest. Before ending the protest, the NYPD must issue dispersal orders to warn the crowd, point out exit points, and identify a location where a protest could continue if feasible.
The most important police personnel at a protest are now the team of lawyers needed to implement police action. It seems like the safest bet is to sit back and hope for the best. And as a wise man said, “hope is not a plan”.
Thanks for reading The Ops Desk. Stay Safe!
 | A guest post by
|