Monthly Archives: February 2020

Progressive-Democrats and Litmus Tests

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democratic Party and its Presidential candidates continue to be…upset…over judicial confirmations that are going on with the Trump administration and the McConnell Senate. And they have issue-based litmus tests for what they consider acceptable (progressively so) judges and Justices. The test is in addition to their wish to change the structure of the Supreme Court to favor their ideology.

Their tests are these: the nominees must overtly favor abortion, be activists regarding the environment, and positively consider labor union matters.

Never mind that judges cannot legitimately consider these things except from within the confines of the text of our Constitution and the statute before them in any particular case. Otherwise, those matters are political items that must be determined by the political branches of our government and by Government’s employer and boss, We the People.

More: the candidates refuse to provide the lists from which they’d nominate their favored judges and Justices. They seem to lack the integrity and moral courage to do so.

In contrast, then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump published his list of judges and lawyers from which he’d draw his Justice nominees, and President Trump has drawn his Justice—and appellate court—nominees from that list.

Just to saucer and blow the matter, here’s my litmus test for judge and Justice nominees; it’s both simple and general:

  • Will you rule strictly on the basis of the text of our Constitution and of the statute before you, or will you rule on your current interpretation of what it should say?
  • Do you believe our Constitution lives through judicial rulings or that it lives through Article V and We the People?

It’s clear that Progressive-Democrats’ nominees—named or secret—would fail that litmus test.

Too Early to Say

Posted on by
Reply

…but I’m gonna say, anyway.

Much is being made of Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I, VT) so-called victory in the just concluded New Hampshire primary and the momentum he’s supposedly gained with that, coming as it does on the heels of his “near victory” in what the Iowa Democratic Party has been pleased to call a caucus earlier in the month.

[T]he campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) goes from strength to strength, drawing massive crowds and recording top-two finishes in the early-state contests.

I don’t agree. Sanders has gone from maybe-strength to should-have-had-strength, from a narrow “loss” in the Iowa fiasco (quotes of substitution because the Iowa thing almost doesn’t count) to very badly underperforming in New Hampshire, where he should have won by an order of magnitude larger margin than his narrow, nominal plurality victory.

Sanders is far from a loser, but if Buttigieg and Klobuchar can maintain, and especially if Warren, Biden, and/or Steyer can hang in, and/or if Michael Bloomberg’s buying strategy shows strength, the Progressive-Democrats may well go to a brokered convention.

There’s more.

If Sanders doesn’t come out of that convention with a first-ballot nomination, the hue and cry will be louder than it was in 2016, and many of his supporters may well sit out the general election again. If he doesn’t get the nomination after the first ballot, when Party elites get to vote—the brokering part having begun—the cries of foul will be deafening, likely justified, and Sanders’ supporters can be expected to sit out the general election en masse.

The uproar will be especially loud and Party internecine warfare will ensue in the unlikely, but far from not gonna happen, event Michael Bloomberg gets the brokered nomination. His economic views are virtually diametrically opposed to Sanders’, and Bloomberg will be unable to escape the charge—accurate or not—that he simply bought the brokerage.

It won’t only be Sanders’ supporters who sit out. Or defect.

And the move, from that civil war, to split away from Party and to form a third party will gain strength.

He Said He’s Sorry

Posted on by
Reply

…and that makes it all better.

Doug Hodge, ex-CEO of PIMCO, wrote an apologia­—I won’t call it an apology—for his participation in the Rick Singer-operated college admissions scandal in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal.

I have to wonder, though, just how sincere Hodge’s missive is, or whether he wrote it as part of his sentence—for how many hours of community service does this piece count? Or did he write it in return for the short jail term he got (nine whole months for a nearly one million of dollars fraud).

And: words of regret for the shame I have brought upon…my children, but not a syllable for the larger damage he’s done them: his statement, by his actions, that he had no confidence in their own abilities; his going-in assumption, demonstrated by those actions, that he considered them just not good enough to get into a good school without cheating.

No, it doesn’t make anything all better.

Disappointing

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Joe Manchin (D, WV) is defending his vote to convict President Donald Trump during the impeachment and trial fiasco of the last several weeks. In the course of that defense, Manchin says he wanted to see more information from Trump and his defenders. In the course of that, he tweeted [emphasis added]:

I’ve read the transcripts thoroughly & listened to the witnesses under oath. Where I come from a person accused defends themselves with witnesses and evidence. Where I come from a person accused defends themselves with witnesses and evidence.

No, Senator Manchin.  Where I come from—the United States of America—a person accused doesn’t have to do that; it’s on the accuser to prove his accusations.

Full stop.

Manchin should know better.

Markets in Internet Domains

Posted on by
Reply

ISOC, which owns the .org Internet domain, wants to sell the address to a company called Ethos, which wants to go into a for-profit business managing Internet domains or Internet addresses. ICANN has to approve the sale before it can go through.

The free market competition that would result from the sale and others like it is supposed to knell the end of the Internet. The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board likes the idea.

They’re both wrong, and they’re both being hysterical about it.

ICANN, and ISOC, come to that, have done a fine job of managing the domains within their purview. I’m not sure that’s a thing needing fixing, so I’m spring-loaded against the sale of any their domains to Ethos or any other organization.

Competition? Of course. Let Ethos generate its own domain or suite of domains to compete with the .org domain. Let Ethos and other private enterprises create their own domains or suites of them to compete with the existing ICANN-overseen domains like .com, .edu, .[whatevs].

Simply passing a domain from one manager to another does nothing for competition; that’s just a game of Two-Card Monte.