It’s a lose/lose situation.
There is a striking difference between the protests on our campuses over the Vietnam War and the protests on our campuses now. During the Vietnam war nearly everyone on the campuses were supportive of the protesters. Very few people on campus felt threatened by the protestors. Those who didn’t agree with the protestors did not feel the protests were directed at them or would carry over to them.
Today’s protests are different. For every person protesting the attacks in Gaza, there is also a person on campus who supports Israel’s response, or they feel threatened by the protests against Israel.
University presidents and administrators are trained to reach consensus in decision making by gathering as much input as possible before making a decision. In today’s atmosphere the possibility of consensus is not there. Compromise is not there. When presidents take a strong stance against the protests, many of the faculty are critical of the president for not respecting the protesters’ first amendment rights. If they don’t take a strong stance against the protests, the presidents are viewed as weak and supporters of anti-Semitic views. The presidents are put in a position of being damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Look at what has happened at Columbia. The president not wanting to look weak (like her peers at Penn and Harvard) goes before congress and says she will not tolerate protests that make others on campus feel threatened. She then calls in local law enforcement to disburse those protesting the attacks on Gaza. She is then called on the carpet by faculty members for violating the protesters’ first amendment rights. At the same time, she is complemented by some members of congress and by students who felt threatened by the protestors. Yet, the protests only get worse. No matter what she does it will not be received well by a large population on campus. She is damned if she does, and she is damned if she doesn’t. She and many of her peers will be lucky to keep their jobs.
The first amendment has limits and it does not protect violent acts in the name of free speech.
There is no place in these protests for violence or hate. The first amendment allows for free speech, but there are limits. The first amendment allows protestors to be as loud as they want and carry signs that express their views. The first amendment does not allow the protestors to disrupt activities, to occupy buildings, and to prevent someone from entering their place of employment.
There are consequences when protestors step over the line of the first amendment. I hope the students who are protesting understand where the line is and what can happen when they cross it. The consequences for stepping over the line can be life altering.
Criminal indictments, sexual assault, two impeachments, and now contempt of court.
The former president continues to rack up firsts for a president. Yesterday’s contempt of court ruling against the former president is just one more to add to the list of firsts.
I cannot imagine how someone with his track record could get hired for a position in leadership at most corporations. I cannot imagine how his resume’ would make it out of the junk pile.
Many corporations have policies against hiring candidates with legal issues such as his. Yet, he remains the standard bearer for the Republican Party to be the next leader of the free world.
The thought keeps me up at night.
Don’t be fooled, democracy is on the ballot in November.
There is nothing the former president does that tells me he cares about the rule of law. His actions to date continue to express his disdain for any law he does not agree with or prevents him from doing what he wants to do. The contempt ruling is one more example. He has no moral compass.
If he is elected in November, there will be nothing to hold him back, especially if the Supreme Court rules in his favor on his immunity defense. He will do whatever it takes to “bury” those that have crossed him. The rule of law will mean nothing to him. Democracy will be the big loser.
If any of his staff breaks a federal law, he will pardon them. The White House under the former president will be the wild west. There will be nothing holding them back.
Justice Thomas and SCOTUS
In my 72 years, I do not recall any time in my life I have ever had less respect than I do now for the Supreme Court of the United States. How the other members of the court can allow Justice Thomas to be part of any decision regarding the former president’s role in the January 6, 2021, insurrection is beyond me. There is no rationale that can convince me that Justice Thomas should not have to recuse himself on the immunity decision. Justice Thomas and SCOTUS get my Onion of the Day.
Feel free to share my blog. To receive it in an email, please see the subscribe button below the Video of the Day.
Quote of the Day: “I’m not going to be in the position of looking at posts and determining in advance whether you should or should not post, I think if in doubt, steer clear. That’s all I’m going to say,” Judge Merchan told Trump’s lawyer during Tuesday’s contempt ruling.
Orchid of the Day: To Leah, who has a birthday on Saturday May 4. For the next 29 days well will be the same age.
Onion of the Day: Justice Thomas and SCOTUS. See above story.
Question of the Day: Should Justice Thomas recuse himself from the former president’s immunity ruling?
Video of the Day: The best protest song of the 60’s
NEW 📀 For What It’s Worth – Buffalo Springfield -4K- {Stereo} 1966 (youtube.com)
My apologies to Leah, but may the 4th be with her.