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.