This year's drama of the US presidential election has been in the news and on the lips of many people around the world. Personally speaking, I have never expected to see a main party of the strongest world economy be so uncomfortable with its own choice of representative for the presidency election.
I've already commented another time on Donald Trump's pronouncements - against Mexican and Muslim immigration, his base comments, those in favour of torture and the proliferation of nuclear arms, amongst others. Lately his misogynistic attitudes with regards to women are also coming to light.
However today I'd like to talk about somthing that really shocked me about what the Republican Party, and those who consider themselves conservative in the United States, considers to be the most crucial topic this election.
It regards none of the afore-mentioned subjects.
In other words, the Supreme Court today favours conservatives, so it's important (for conservatives) to elect a 'conservative' person, or at least someone not 'progressive', so that this state of affairs containues.
The the last debate with Clinton, Trump in fact declared very clearly, and brazenly, that he wants to appoint judges with a conservative bent.
And in this vein, for progressives, let's elect a conservative person, so that judges can be elected with the opposite slant.
Oh my goodness.
What on earth was I thinking, having the impression that courts should be presided by impartial and independent judges. What an idiot. How mistaken could I be? From where did I embrace this fallacy?
I do accept that imperfection exists. I do know the gulf between words, or intentions, and actions. I also accept that sometimes prejudice can cloud your vision, even inadverdently. I even accept that sometimes individuals covertly are not really impartial, if not corrupt. There are mechanisms that with time weed out those who do the wrong thing.
However I never expected to see members of a major, established party, a component of the country's fibre, imply that the federal Supreme Court is biased, say openly that this is a good thing (because rose-coloured decisions are being taken matching with their rose-tinted spectacles) and that all measures should be taken to retain this state of affairs, even at the cost of supporting someone they are uncomfortable with!
And what country is this? Some banana republic? Or one that preaches the separation of the three branches of government: the legislative, executive and judiciary?
-----------------
Id-drama ta' din is-sena tal-elezzjoni għal President tal-Istati Uniti ilha fl-aħbarijiet u fil-kummenti ta' ħafna nies madwar id-dinja. Ngħid għalija, qatt ma stennejt li partit ewlieni tal-iktar pajjiż b'saħħtu ekonomikament fid-dinja juri tant skumdità fl-għażla tar-rappreżentant tagħhom għall-elezzjoni tal-presidenza.
Diġà kkummentajt darb'oħra fuq l-istqarrijiet ta' Donald Trump - kontra immigranti Messikani u Musulmani, il-bassezzi tiegħu, kummenti favur it-tortura u favur il-proliferazzjoni tal-armamenti nukleari, fost l-oħrajn. Dan l-aħħar qed joħorġu fil-beraħ attitudnijiet misoġinisti tiegħu fil-konfront tan-nisa.
Imma llum xtaqt nitkellem fuq ħaġa li xxukkjatni dwar dak li l-Partit Repubblikan, u dawk li jqisu ruħhom konservattivi fl-Istati Uniti, jaħsbu li hu l-iktar suġġett kruċjali ta' din l-elezzjoni.
Mhi l-ebda waħda mis-suġġetti li semmejt iktar fuq.
Fi kliem ieħor, il-Qorti Suprema llum tiffavorixxi lill-konservattivi, allura importanti (għall-konservattivi) li jitla' bniedem 'konservattiv', jew inkella 'mhux progressiv', biex dan l-istat ta' fatt jitkompla.
Fl-aħħar dibattitu ma' Clinton, Trump fil-fatt iddikjara ċar u tond, u sfaċċatament, li jrid jaħtar ġudikanti ta' xejra konservattiva.
U b'din il-loġika, għall-progressivi, ejja ntellgħu lil xi ħadd progressiv, ħalli jaħtar imħallfin imxaqilbin lin-naħa l-oħra.
U ġieżu ġieżu.
Ara jien ukoll, li kelli l-impressjoni li l-qorti għandha tkun preseduta minn ġudikatura imparzjali u indipendenti. Kemm kont baħnan. Kemm kien jgħarrali. Din minn fejn ġietni din l-illużjoni?
Jien l-imperfezzjoni naċċettaha li teżisti. Naf li bejn kliem u fatti hemm baħar jikkumbatti. Naċċetta li kultant ikun hemm xi preġudizzju li jċajparlek il-viżjoni, anke mingħajr ma trid. Naċċetta wkoll li se jkun hemm individwi li fil-moħbi fil-fatt ma jkunu imparzjali xejn, sakemm ma jkunux korrotti wkoll. Hemm mekkaniżmi biex biż-żmien min jimxi ħażin jitwarrab.
Imma qatt ma stennejt li jkun hemm membri ta' partit maġġuri, stabbilit, parti mill-fibra tal-pajjiż, li jimplikaw li l-qorti suprema federali tal-pajjiż hija mxaqilba, jgħidu bil-miftuħ li din hija ħaġa tajba (għax qed tiffavorixxi lill-kulur tal-lenti tan-nuċċali tagħhom) u jridu jaraw x'se jagħmlu biex is-sitwazzjoni tkompli hekk, akkost li jappoġġjaw lil min huma skomdi għall-aħħar bih!
U x'pajjiż hu dan? Xi repubblika tal-banana? Jew pajjiż li jippriedka s-separazzjoni tat-tliet friegħi tal-gvern: il-leġislattiv, l-eżekuttiv u l-ġudikatura?
1http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/why-the-supreme-court-matters-more-to-republicans-than-trump/504038/, retrieved 17/10/2016
2http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/13/media/breitbart-stephen-bannon-donald-trump/, retrieved 17/10/2016
3http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/10/11/milo-vanderbilt-supreme-court-trump/, retrieved 17/10/2016
1http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/why-the-supreme-court-matters-more-to-republicans-than-trump/504038/, retrieved 17/10/2016
2http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/13/media/breitbart-stephen-bannon-donald-trump/, retrieved 17/10/2016
3http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/10/11/milo-vanderbilt-supreme-court-trump/, retrieved 17/10/2016
No comments:
Post a Comment