A Good Heart
or a Hard Heart?
I have often heard people describe others with “He or she has a good heart.” or “He made a mistake, but he has a good heart.” or “He did what he had to do, but his heart was in the right place.”
When we say someone has a “good heart” we are issuing a verdict on his or her character. It is a statement of ultimate approval. It is often a forgiveness. It is a description that redeems an imperfect person.
Would you vote for a leader who doesn’t have a “good heart”?
Last week was infuriating and encouraging. Yup, I am writing about mixed emotions again. But how can you feel otherwise after a week like this?
The Supreme Court decided to legislate from the bench by actually hearing a case about “presidential immunity” - a concept that doesn’t exist in the U.S. Constitution - for a very good reason. The lawyers for “45” argue that a president can do anything he wants while in office and be immune from accountability - even order the killing of a political opponent. Doesn’t it sound like the court wants a monarchy? There was absolutely no reason to hear this case. It should have been dismissed as nonsense - validating the decision by the appeals court. And very oddly, there was no reference to Trump or his alleged deeds by any of the justices. They just babbled about philosophical concepts and worried about issues that had nothing to do with the case they had accepted! Argh!!!
But on the bright side of life, we were treated to Trump being forced to sit quietly as he is tried in a criminal court. He was forced to sit and listen as a judge looked down at him. A judge who had the ability to tell him to shut up. Trump was sitting, falling asleep and farting. Remember, every minute the wannabe dictator is in a courtroom, he is not playing golf or campaigning. There are only so many hours in a day.
And also remember that Al Capone was imprisoned not for murder (and there were plenty) but for tax evasion. Pundits poo poo the Election Interference (Hush Money) trial, but it may be the one where justice is actually served. A jail cell is still a jail cell - no matter how you get there.
By the way, I believe Judge Merchan will hold a hearing on Thursday about Trump’s continuous violations of the gag order. What do you think the punishment should be or will be?
For a really complete and professional recap and assessment of anything Trump trial related, I refer you to Joyce Vance and her substack analysis. Joyce is a former U.S. Attorney and is currently a Distinguished Visiting Lecturer at the University of Alabama. If you are a TV news watcher, you may recognize her as a “legal contributor”.
And most of you who read Bill’s Focus, know Robert Hubbell. But in the odd chance that one of you doesn’t, it is worth posting this referral. Last week in particular, Robert helped me with my emotional swings from extreme anger to thoughtful appreciation. I highly recommend this edition of “Today’s Edition Newsletter”.
And now for my mental health and maintaining a balanced life, some notes on growing food and enjoying canine companionship. Here is what our organic vegetable garden is looking like at the end of April. The beginning!
Maeve’s DNA results:
83% Australian Cattle Dog (aka Heeler)
6% Border Collie
4% Australian Shepherd
3% German Shepherd
2% Miniature American Shepherd
2% Chow Chow
The family is preparing to be herded. Affectionately, of course.
I tore this off the latest Today's Edition by Robert Hubbell:
"Today, I recommend Lucian K. Truscott IV’s article on Substack, This Supreme Court has broken my heart. Truscott writes, in part:
Which raises the obvious question: why did they agree to take the Trump appeal in the first place?
The answer to that question is the reason my heart is broken. This Supreme Court has shown itself again and again to be disinterested in the facts and the law and has reached the point that it now bluntly says so.
The idea that the Constitution not only established a democracy but provided protections for it in the clear language of its text is less important to Roberts and his court than what outcomes they can fashion for the anti-democratic masters that put them there.
I also recommend this excellent article in Rolling Stone, Team Trump Is Celebrating the Supreme Court Immunity Case, Win or Lose. Rolling Stone discusses the fact that Trump's defense team did not expect the Supreme Court to grant review of the case but were overjoyed when it did:
But the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority, which Trump built as president, came through for him in a way that many Trump advisers didn’t believe was probable. When news broke in late February that the court would take up Trump’s claims of vast immunity, Trumpland was so elated that a lawyer close to Trump told Rolling Stone they were “literally popping champagne.”
From Trump's perspective, it does not matter whether he wins big or small. The deed is done—thanks to the reactionary majority’s willingness to entertain review of a preposterous claim. Rolling Stone quotes one Trump adviser as follows:
“We already pulled off the heist,” says a source close to Trump, noting it doesn’t matter to them what the Supreme Court decides now.
Good one Bill. The common herding technique is nipping at the heels of those who stray. My Aussie practiced on my daughter as she was learning to walk but was also fiercely protective of her and never actually touched skin.
If Judge Merchan wants to keep the failed insurrectionist in line, maximum fines of $1000 per occurrence and 30 days in jail, all suspended pending completion of the trial might work. We know that fear is a motivator for the former president, no reason not to use it.
I retain some small hope that a majority of the Court will make the patently correct decision that there is no immunity under the Constitution or the law and allow Judge Chutkan to proceed. That might also light a fire under Judge Cannon and get that case moving.