1:00PM
I really did not want to pull away from the TV to come type this. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing opening arguments for a case called Trump v Mazars or Trump v Vance, talking about whether a president should have immunity from investigations by state governments and if so, what level of immunity he should get (if I summarized it correctly).
I believe this may be one of the most important cases not only in Trump’s presidency, but in the history of the U.S. I believe it will set a precedent for whether the president can hide more and more information or whether s/he is subjected to more scrutiny. More than anything, I believe it is whether the courts can be trusted to balance the system, whether their opinions can be trusted to remove unnecessary political harassment and restore fair judgment.
So far, I must admit, I feel refreshed listening to the case. For the first time in the history of the Supreme Court, they are airing the oral arguments live to the public through an audio conference call. I was a bit wary before, as I was afraid of it turning into a platform where the justices will grandstand and beat their political chests. So far, I’ve simply appreciated their candor, their exploration of the rules, and their seeming impartiality.
I’ve grown weary of watching the grandstanding. Yesterday, while watching the famous TV show 60 Minutes, I heard that a researcher of viruses including COVID-19 had lost $3 million in funding from the National Institute of Health (NIH) because of a conspiracy spread by a former US Representative, a TV show host, a journalist from another TV network, and then the president himself. Millions of people are getting infected, billions of people are sheltered at home, and the people who are trying to resolve this pandemic and future ones are losing their funding over a conspiracy theory? It angers me to no end.
The next thought that I had was that nowadays, few people engage in dialogue, especially the popular people in media. There seems to be two main forms of interaction: 1) monologue broadcasting and 2) short-form question and answer. In the monologue broadcasting (like Twitter, email newsletters, websites, talk shows, radio shows, books, blogs, and others), the person says what they want to say with very little feedback or confrontation. They push something out and I think it often leads to people beating their chest. In the second, people are either the question asker or answerer and there is no deep dialogue or confrontation.
I want to see real conversations. Real, raw, intense, challenging interaction. I’m seeing a glimpse of it here and believe we need to see more of it, for the sake of our humanity.
1:10PM
