So where do we go from here?

So former President Trump has been found guilty of falsifying records.  This is not the end as there will be appeals and future court cases.  Based on the type of charges, jail time is probably out of the question, although a possibility.

So were do we go from here?  Before the election of 2016, I said there was no direct collusion with the Russians.  But it was obvious that the Trump team used every dirty trick to affect the election.  He claimed the other side fixed the election while he was doing it.  While he wanted the other candidate locked up, he was guilty of many of the crimes he accused the other of, or was due to commit those during his term.

Trump the business man was guilty of many things.  Using bankruptcies to cover bad business decisions, shorting contractors and other suppliers, and cheating on taxes by using manipulated paperwork.  Almost all of his associates, Cohen, Manafort, Weisselberg, and others have spent time in jail.  His three marriages and philandering were well known before the election.  Yet he was elected.

So where do we go from here?  In a perfect world the Republicans would look for a new candidate and nominate them at their convention.  This person would have a better chance of beating Biden.  Ironically, this might just force the Democrats to do the same. But I am not holding my breath.

I am reminded of the song by The Who, "won't get fooled again", however.......

So where do we go from here?

Say that again?

 Court rules for South Carolina Republicans in dispute over congressional map

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/05/court-rules-for-south-carolina-republicans-in-dispute-over-congressional-map/

"The Supreme Court on Thursday threw out a ruling by a federal district court holding that a congressional district on the South Carolina coast was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander – that is, it sorted voters based primarily on their race. In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the justices cleared the way for the state to use the map going forward. The 6-3 decision, with the justices divided on ideological lines, means that the disputed district will remain a safe seat for Republicans, who hold a 6-1 advantage in the state’s congressional delegation. More broadly, Thursday’s decision creates a high bar for plaintiffs in future racial gerrymandering cases to meet."

"Defending the plan, the state argued that the legislature’s goal in enacting the map was to ensure that the district remained a safe seat for Republicans: Although the district had historically elected Republicans since 1980, in 2018 a Democrat, Joe Cunningham, won in an upset. Mace defeated him in 2020 by less than 1%. "

What!  If it is done along racial lines it is not acceptable, but if it is done to ensure a perpetual office to one or the other party it is acceptable?

"I am sorry your Honor - I was charged with robbing a bank, but that was just a coincidence, I really just wanted to shoot a guard...."

"Thus, Alito continued, plaintiffs in racial gerrymandering cases must first “disentangle race and politics” – that is, to show that race was the primary factor behind the legislature’s decision to move voters into or out of a district. They can do so using direct evidence, Alito wrote, or circumstantial evidence, although relying solely on circumstantial evidence makes their task “much more difficult.” This is particularly true, Alito added, when the state counters that the moves were made for partisan reasons, rather than on the basis of race."

People on the conservative side are clamoring for term limits.  South Carolina has admitted int he Supreme Court that they do it to ensure votes for the Republicans.  Is everyone up there deaf?