Wowsers.
No denial and Trump Derangement here!
Jed Handelsman Shugerman is a renowned and respected law professor at Boston University. A credentialed legal scholar specializing in constitutional law and governance, he is a co-author of “Amicus briefs on the history of presidential power, the Emoluments Clauses, the Appointments Clause, the First Amendment rights of elected judges, and the due process problems of elected judges in death penalty cases,” among other publications. Yet the professor is apparently a Trump-Deranged, woke bigot no longer capable of rational and objective analysis.
Observations:
1. This guy blogged on Election Day that Harris would win easily. Such a declaraion was the result of inexplicable delusion for a government scholar, unless the explanation is that he is a fraud with no business teaching anyone. I regret my decision not to be more emphataic in my learned and informed conclusion that Trump would win the election and quite possibly in a landslide. I hinted at this belief in many comments, but never stated it in a post. I was discouraged from my previous failed predication that Mitt Romney would defeat Barack Obama. I shouldn’t have been: I was a weenie. I was much more certain that Trump would win than of my prediction in 2012. Romney was running against Obama, a skilled campaigner and incumbent President; Trump’s opponent was a terrible campaigner and a Vice-President. Romney was knee-capped by the biased news media, but its power and credibility was much stronger then. Romney never had enthusiastic support from conservatives, who rightly regarded him as technocrat with flexible principles. Not being willing to come out and predict that Trump would defeat Harris was wrong, but anyone stating from a position of authority that Harris would win is unforgivable. The polls that showed a dead heat made no sense, as many pointed out. Trump was running confidently, while Harris was running a desperation campaign, and running it badly, depending on voter amnesia and gullibility. By any objective observation and unbiased analysis of the issues around the election, the conclusion that Trump was a likely victor was unavoidable if one had to choose one result or another to predict. Predicting that Harris would prevail demonstrated an “It isn’t what it is” mindset and an abuse of authority by a presumed “expert.”
2. Blaming Harris or Walz for the most incompetent campaign in modern Presidential history is “missing the point”? It’s the only point anyone needs. The partisans who defend that campaign, with Walz being a walking, talking joke except that opposing free speech isn’t funny, and Harris resolutely refusing to answer direct questions directly while “protecting democracy” by using fascist tactics against her opponent can be fairly described as gaslighting.
3. Back to Romney in 2012: I predicted Mitt would win because, I wrote, Americans want strong Presidents. Obama was weak and feckless, but he played strong well. American still want strong leaders. Both Harris and Walz projected weakness. Indeed, the whole woke movement embraces weenyism. Strength is bad, toxic. Men tend to be more assertive, confrontational and agressive than women, so being a male is toxic. The United States was founded on risk-taking, defiance, strength, confrontation and willingness to fight for principles, so the United States itself is toxic.
Well…WRONG. These qualities have made the nation what it is, and what it is is brash, cocky, intolerant of weakness and anti-weenie. it’s a guy thing, but that doesn’t mean women can exhibit the same essential leadership qualities. There is a lot wrong with Hillary Clinton, but being a weenie isn’t one of them. “Toxic masculinity” is nothing better than a pejorative way to describe the unique character of the nation. I prefer American exceptionalism, and weenies need not apply. John Wayne lives, metaphorically of course. Good. Shugarman doesn’t understand or like his own country: why is he a professor anywhere?
4. Oh, fine, here it comes: “white supremacy.” Wouldn’t you think a scholar could come up with something more original (and true) than racism to explain Harris’s defeat? It’s insulting, but worse, it’s stupid. If Trump ran a campaign like Harris, ducking all substantive questions, basing his election on how bad Harris was rather than on what he wanted to do, he would have lost. If Harris hadn’t insulted young men, had she taken the interview with Joe Rogan, were she able to speak off scripts without sounding like Gabby Johnson, she would have won the election. If everything else were the same, but Trump were black and Harris was a white female weenie like, say, Amy Klobuchar, do you think the result would have been any different? I don’t.
5. This is a useful tweet, simultaneously indicting the competence and trustworthiness of academia, lawyers, law professors, law schools, Democrats and progressives.
Ethics Alarms 
To paraphrase a certain democrat operative:
It was the economy, stupid
It was the border & illegals, stupid
It was crime, stupid
It was men in girls’ locker rooms, stupid
It was mutilating confused children, stupid
It was the 1st amendment, stupid
It was the 2nd amendment, stupid
etc., etc., etc…
Don’t beat yourself up, Jack. You can’t predict the future. But you were right. You treated this election as if it had been contested in the ’50s or ’60s. And that, against all odds, it what it was. Praise Allah!
What kind of lawyers are America’s law schools turning out these days? Commies? More Marc Eliases? Where did all these Commie law professors come from? Law schools being run and staffed by Commies is even more upsetting than the current state of the American academy generally. You’d have thought law schools, being run by lawyers, would have held up better. But they seem to be leading the rush and leap over the cliff.
I went to a funeral this week. During the service, it was stated that the ‘hate and bigotry won’ in this week’s election. I don’t have the energy to go over all the ways these people are wrong, so I am just going to point out one remarkable thing.
This election was remarkable in one surprising way. Biden and Harris were so exceptional in their policies, that they encouraged a new demographic to vote. At no time in history can I remember the Amish taking part in ‘English’ politics. The Amish take care of themselves and we leave them alone, like they leave us alone. However, the new Democratic regime can’t leave it at that. The Amish didn’t comply with COVID protocols and continued on mostly as if COVID didn’t exist. To its credit, COVID continued on mostly as if the Amish didn’t exist, too. That wasn’t good enough for the new regime, however. The Amish had to be punished, had to be brought to heel, and had to be made to comply. This was so egregious, that the Amish decided they needed to register to vote and vote for Donald Trump. The Amish decided that a Harris administration was truly an existential threat to the Amish community and the Amish way of life. Think about that. For the first time that I can remember, the Amish decided that ‘English’ politics were so threatening to the Amish way of life that they needed to vote. Donald Trump is everything the Amish view as offensive and evil about ‘English’ society rolled into a person and they voted for him. They voted for him because no matter how much they dislike his personality, lifestyle, and opinions, he is not a threat to their society.
So, it was just me, it wasn’t racists, it wasn’t just, it wasn’t just 70 million ‘stupid’ people who thought a Harris administration as a threat to our society. It was so evident even the Amish could see it.
Great comment.
I don’t know what the context was for that inappropriate statement at the funeral, but I’d have a hard time not ostentatiously walking out of a one where the “hate and bigotry” canard was used. (I still remember my father getting up and leading my sister and I out of Greek Orthodox Easter service when the priest announced that the children of “mixed marriages” were not regarded as legitimate by that church.
Meanwhile, my alleged legal ethics lawyer listserv yesterday included an eminent member’s comment that “Plato thought that democracy was a bad form of government because the people were not wise enough not to fall under the persuasive sway of evil demagogues. I expect more evidence on this proposition later today.” I responded that he needed to stuff it, as that was not an appropriate comment for that forum.
Agreed. Michael, you have a real knack for highlighting detail that I simply overlook. Thanks!!
Basically, in the eulogy, it was stated that they were thankful the relative died just before the election because it would have broken their heart to know that hate and bigotry won.
yup. I’m out of there. And hoping the deceased is right behind me….
Kamala Harris deserves our thanks?
Ok…
I thank Kamala Harris for running. I thank her for being spectacularly incompetent as a candidate. I thank her for quoting Marx and (probably) lying about McDonalds and her “middle-class upbringing.” I thank her for talking tough on crime and talking about stopping illegal immigration, when it was patently obvious she would do neither. I thank her for skipping the hard answers and the hard interviews and even the simple conversations with people like Rogan in order to go on “The View” and provide the Trump campaign the single biggest piece of advertising in the campaign. I thank her for skipping over much more impressive VP options to select Tim Walz. I thank her for being so unappealing that 12% of the Democrats who voted for President Biden four years ago stayed home rather than pull the lever for his successor.
So yeah, I thank her. I Kamala Harris for doing everything possible to make a huge victory for Donald Trump possible.