Daily Archives: 5 May 2020

Biden is Tough on the PRC

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden says so. And he’s actually going to run on that thesis.

However.

Leaving aside Hunter’s profiteering on Daddy’s coattails in the People’s Republic of China—that’s just the scummy topping on the gruel—Biden’s track record in dealing with the PRC as Senator and as Vice President is one of failure after failure to get, even to try to get, balanced trade deals and even-handed treatment of American companies wanting to do business inside the PRC.

It was, for instance, during the time frames about which Biden brags that the PRC successfully began demanding US companies to take on PRC company partners as a prerequisite to doing business there, to “share” company and American technologies and company proprietary materials and intellectual properties with those partners, and to allow PRC government backdoor access to US companies’ critical software.

All of this was done without Biden objecting, which he could have done, forcefully, whether or not he could have brought those administrations along with him.

Biden chose to be silent on all of these. Every single one of them.

Another Clue

Posted on by
Reply

…into the machinations of the “liberal” wing of the Supreme Court.

The Court is going to hear oral arguments on 10 cases that the Wuhan Virus situation had previously forced the Court to postpone. The arguments will be done by teleconference. The structure of the oral arguments will be…structured…during the teleconferances.

The court is also jettisoning its unstructured process for questioning the lawyers before them. Instead of jumping in at will, the justices will speak in order by seniority, beginning with Chief Justice John Roberts, moving on to Justice Clarence Thomas—a moment that may hold some suspense, as he can go years without speaking at oral argument—and so on to the newest justice, Brett Kavanaugh.

Here’s the kicker from that more formalized structure:

The format could pose challenges for Justice Elena Kagan and other junior members who sometimes seek to shape the debate by posing questions early.

Shape the debate.  Because Kagan and her fellows aren’t interested in dispassionately hearing argument on the case before them and then, with equal dispassion, ruling on the matter before them. No, they’re at war with one or the other side and must shape the battlefield in order to achieve their…victory.

What a shameful thing for a Justice, who’s supposed to be objective and unbiased—sworn, in fact, to faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent—to do.