Morning New, July 3: Thoughts from all over

The big debate now is over the debate and its aftermath. Should Biden step down, who should take his place, what should the party do. I am no Democrat but they are in a pickle if they want to win. I am also no supporter of Trump so I sort of see it from the outside. In both cases the real problem is two old egotistical men, neither capable of wise leadership. Reports say Biden is pretty active from 10-4 everyday. Good grief. So who's running the show?

And then the Supreme Court decision on immunity. I read the decision. All these people telling us what it says should just say, "read it for yourself." It's written pretty plainly, overall. They basically just bought Trump some time before the election by sending the consideration of the real charges back to the District Court. They did not say he was immune from everything. So that's the first point: widespread misinformation. However....it did seem like a broad interpretation of presidential powers. This is an old argument, though, going back to Wilson's and Teddy Roosevelt's time. Since the early 1900s the presidency has been gaining what I would call an imbalance of power, and Congress has been a willing participant. Separation of powers does not mean equal in all ways. The President now has far more power than the Founders intended, and all three branches seemed to have colluded in that trend. 

I should say that the Chevron decision mitigates against that trend as far as the Executive Branch goes.  

I share this quote from the a source I read most mornings, The Dispatch:

How should we think about prosecuting former presidents in a republic? Andy Smarick shared his thoughts in a piece for Fusion. “In any nation, such potential prosecutions invite two competing arguments, both credible,” he argued. “But in a republic, like the United States, each argument carries even greater weight. The first argument is that pursuing such charges will set off a never-ending cycle of retribution. … The counterargument is that if we don’t prosecute officials who behave criminally, officials will learn that they are permitted to behave criminally. … We must never forget that republicanism is built on principles unusual in the history of governing. It holds that citizens are equal, that justice is blind, that leaders are temporary, that law is sovereign, that the common good trumps private gain, and that state power is limited. If we don’t guard these principles jealously, we risk reverting to history’s much more common principles of governing—that justice is the will of the stronger, that individuals are subjects not citizens, and that state power is to be used to help friends and hurt enemies.”

 Well, that's all the politics. My podcast continues; yesterday I spoke with our pastor, Curtis Hill, and a wonderful discussion of distractions and creativity, or that is how I'm framing it. It was really about Proverbs and media. I am delighted to speak with him and other great folks on the podcast, even if the listeners aren't flocking there! Coming up is a nature writer, two filmmakers, and the director of a city's creative arts organization.