Monthly Archives: October 2018

The Supreme Court

Posted on by
1

As I write this (Saturday morning), Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh has not been confirmed; although, that seems more likely than I had thought Friday morning before the cloture vote.  Nevertheless, here’s why we need another textualist Justice on the Court—from the words of another Supreme Court Justice.

Associate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said Friday she fears the high court may lack a justice going forward who would serve as a swing-vote on cases….

And

Kagan said at a conference for women at Princeton University that over the past three decades…there was a figure on the bench “who found the center or people couldn’t predict in that sort of way.”

She made her view explicit:

It’s not so clear, that I think going forward, that sort of middle position—it’s not so clear whether we’ll have it[.]
…
It’s an incredibly important thing for the court to guard is this reputation of being impartial, being neutral and not being simply extension of a terribly polarizing process.

In one respect, it’s shocking that a Supreme Court Justice would have so little understanding of the role of American judges in our nation—in their role at the foundation of our freedom.

What’s polarizing and destructive of the Court’s credibility is its penchant for ruling on the basis of their individual views of what society needs or wants, even to the point of rewriting a law, as Chief Justice Roberts did in order to “save” Obamacare.  Determinations of what society needs and modifications of law are political decisions, that only We the People, through our elected representatives, can make.  That’s clear from our Constitution’s Article I, Section 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Short, sweet, to the point, and not at all susceptible to misunderstanding.

Nor can a judge rule for the sake of achieving what seems to be—to the judge—some sort of “middle ground.”

A judge can only rule on the basis of what a law, or our Constitution, says.

Full stop.

Doing Business with the PRC

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China is stepping up their corporate espionage.

Starting November 1, police officers will have the authority to physically inspect businesses and remotely access corporate networks to check for potential security loopholes, according to the regulations released Sunday by the Public Security Ministry. Police will also be authorized to copy information and inspect records that “may endanger national security, public safety, and social order,” the rules said.

And

The new regulations also reinforce requirements on censorship and surveillance laid out in the cybersecurity law.

And to steal company secrets and classified information, and to plant malware for future use.

This is just one more reason for businesses to stop doing business with PRC companies or inside the PRC.  Lose market share?  What’s the cost of having all your secrets stolen, PRC domestic companies set up in competition based on those secrets, and then you, having been milked dry, being tossed aside?

What’s the cost to the security of your home country?  Oh, wait—that’s that patriotism that companies like Alphabet so deprecate.

College?

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written before about whether college is for everyone.

Some empirical evidence appears in a Wall Street Journal piece about last week’s unemployment number.

Peerfit Inc is growing, adding 80 staffers to its original 20 in just the last year and increasing their wages 5%-10% in the same period.  CEO Ed Buckley has noted the difficulty in finding “good people.”  Then he added this kicker:

When we first started, everyone we were hiring had a four-year college degree.  Now the skill set [of vocational hires] is sometimes even sharper than their counterparts coming out with a four-year college degree.

Hmm….

Civility

Posted on by
Reply

Congressman Andy Harris (R, MD) had an op-ed in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal in which he decried the quality of current discourse and its lack of basic norms of decency. He closed his piece with a bit of naïve hope:

We must return to civility. We need to be able to agree to disagree, and express our disagreements through the democratic process.

That would be nice. However, notice that it was persons of the Left attacking Conservatives and people of the center right whom he described. The Progressive-Democratic Party has become the party of character assassination and destruction.  While they are not—yet—antifa dominated, the Party’s methods are those of the worst of the Left’s thugs.

It isn’t possible merely to agree to disagree with those who would destroy.

There’s a parable about a mouse and an owl. The mouse thinks the owl is mistaken. The owl thinks the mouse is lunch.

Austerity

Posted on by
Reply

Continuing the theme that other parts of the world still exist, this thought on Brazil’s upcoming presidential election.  In a Wall Street Journal piece about the Brazilian presidential candidates’—all 13 of them—big economic plans with no money to implement them, the item’s author offered this bit:

Mr. Bolsonaro has raised the most hopes in financial markets of tackling the endemic spending problem. …his top economic adviser, economist Paulo Guedes, has promised investors fiscal austerity….

It’s sad that “journalists,” whose interns surely know better, continue to insist that reducing government spending is somehow “austerity.” How is it austerity to leave more money in the hands of the people who earned it?  How is it austerity to leave the private economy free to spend its own money on its own imperatives instead of the Know Betters who populate government spending it for them on Know Betters’ “goals”?

Reduced government spending—and reduced tax rates, the two cannot work effectively in isolation from each other—far from being austere, allows an economy to grow.

The Brazilian government needs to get out of the way of the nation’s private economy.  Its high spending and high taxing are what constitute austerity.  Brazil’s citizens live austere lives because the government confiscates their money—to the tune of 40% of GDP—and it spends that confiscated money, not on those citizens’ wants or needs, but on government salaries and pensions, and on schools and hospitals that would be well supported and staffed in a free market economy.