I guess I’m strange: relatively trivial things are tipping points with me when it comes to trusting politicians and elected officials. As I’ve mentioned here more than once, I realized Bill Clinton was a pathological liar—much, much , much worse than Trump—when he told a crowd that Thomas Jefferson would be shocked today if he could see that the U.S. had no national health care. Clinton’s named after Tom, and knows that Jefferson believed that the less governments did the better: that was a ridiculous, insulting lie, and for me, signature significance. Now comes the PR photo of Senator Chuck Schumer (estimated net worth: $75 million) proving he’s a regular guy by grilling hamburgers. Based on that shot, Chuck has never grilled a burger in his life. Who puts a slice of cheese on a raw burger? This is a visual lie, and a really dumb one.

Meanwhile…

1. Maybe THIS is the dumbest question anyone’s ever asked “The Ethicist”: Is it okay for her friend to secretly slip a drug into her “manic” husband’s drinks? Apparently the guy is a little too intense, so the friend spikes her spouse’s water bottles with melatonin. The query prompted the shortest answer I’ve ever seen Professor Appiah offer, and it was just what you’d think.

Continue reading →

“When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”

That, in a nutshell, is the holding in United States v. Rahimi, the SCOTUS decision handed down this morning.

I’m a hardliner regarding “pre-crime,” and I am unalterably opposed to measures removing citizens’ rights without a finding of guilt in a criminal prosecution. However, Justice Roberts’ majority opinion is well-reasoned and carefully limited, with “temporary” being the key word. I also think it is crafted in such a way that so-called “red flag” laws are not going to be able to use this case as precedent to survive constitutional challenges. I have not yet read all of the concurrences, of which there are many.

What is perhaps more significant than the decision itself was the vote: 8-1 in favor of the law in question. (Anyone who can’t guess who the lone dissenter was, as well as the basis for his dissent, has not been paying attention.) This, along with the less consequential decisions handed down yesterday, powerfully counters the false Democratic narrative that the current Supreme Court is an ideologically biased body unalterably allied with the far right, as three heroic and caring progressive women futilely battle for the soul of the nation.

This unethical framing has been concocted to justify an assault on the legitimacy on the Court and its decisions, all as part of the “Stop Trump or it will be the end of democracy!” campaign. In reality, the characterization is garbage, and has always been garbage. The lie is still effective because the percentage of the public that reads SCOTUS decisions, never mind understands them, can reliably be estimated to be in single digits.

None of yesterday’s decisions split along the supposedly frozen-in-granite 6-3 blocs, and today’s decision infuriating Second Amendment absolutists even had the hated Justice Alito voting with the majority.

Of course, I suppose he should be expected to favor red flag laws….