Monthly Archives: September 2020

Appropriateness of Thuggery

Posted on by
Reply

Here is the core BLM position according to Hawk Newsome, chairman of Black Lives Matter of Greater New York:

If this country doesn’t give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it.

He went on:

I don’t condone nor do I condemn rioting[.]

BLM is indifferent to rioting, at best. Supposedly. Never mind that BLM actively participates in the rioting going on in so many Progressive-Democrat-run cities.

Now we have Progressive-Democratic Party Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris saying

We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protesters. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter who was arrested for murder. Make no mistake, we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice.

Yet she actively supports violent gangs like BLM.

I actually believe that “Black Lives Matter” has been the most significant agent for change within the criminal justice system[.]

This is what we can expect, even more widely spread, under a Progressive-Democrat, a Biden-Harris, administration that so bluntly supports “peaceful protesters.”

A Supreme Court Selection

Posted on by
Reply

Leslie Marshall thinks Judge Amy Coney Barrett ought not be confirmed—ought not even be considered—as a Supreme Court Justice.

She’s wrong.

Barrett could also cast a key vote on cases involving the upcoming presidential election….

That’s part of the point of getting a ninth Justice quickly confirmed—to avoid the possibility of tie votes on such important decisions.

…she has little in common with Ginsburg.

Nor is she required to have; she’d be her own Justice, just like the other eight each are their own Justice. Contrary to Marshall’s apparent belief, the vacant seat isn’t Ginsburg’s seat, nor is it a liberal’s seat. It’s the people’s seat on We the People’s Supreme Court.

Replacing a white Jewish woman with a white Catholic woman on the Supreme Court does not bring more diversity to the court.

This is wholly irrelevant. The role of Supreme Court Justices—of all judges in the American legal system—is to rule on what our Constitution and the statute before them say, not on what the Justices think those items should say. Diversity for diversity’s sake has no place on a court—especially on a court, where consistency in the application of law is a Critical Item.

Senate Republicans now suddenly have no problem with the idea of a rushed confirmation of a justice….

What rush? Prompt isn’t the same as rushed. And unprecedented, as she also suggested? This is plain nonsense. The precedent is the Constitution with its stated obligation for the President to nominate to fill a vacancy and for the Senate to advise and consent or withhold consent. Full stop.

A big fear is that she will vote to overturn Roe v Wade….

What Marshall is carefully ignoring in her worry that Barrett adheres too closely with Scalia is the latter’s respect for and adherence to precedent and his belief that once a precedent has been accepted by the people, it’s a legitimate law whatever anyone might think of that precedent.

Barrett is unlikely to overrule Roe unless there’s clear reason.

Her rulings as a judge have been very pro-gun rights and she has made decisions unfavorable to undocumented immigrants nearly 100% of the time.

A judge and a potential Justice obeying her oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution and ruling on the basis of what the text of our Constitution and the text of a statute actually say instead of what she might wish either to say—imagine that.

Threaten the rights of millions of Americans? On the contrary: a Justice who applies our Constitution and the statute before her as they are written would preserve the rights of all Americans, the rights acknowledged in our founding principles statement as being endowed in all men by our Creator and as laid out in our blueprint that tightly circumscribes our government in order to keep the men–of any generation–who populate that government from altering them, weakening them, eroding them into oblivion.

Marshall’s piece is just another hysteria-mongering article of nonsense.

Lynching and Hate Crimes Generally

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump, in his Platinum Plan for revitalizing black communities and freeing them from the Progressive-Democrats’ welfare cage, says he wants to make lynching a national-level hate crime.

That’s on the right track, but it is IMNSHO wide of the mark.

I don’t think there should be any hate crime definitions at all. The crime is the crime, and the victim is just as robbed, just as beaten, just as dead, his property just as destroyed regardless of motive or depravity of motive.

The hate aspect of a crime cannot be ignored, though: the appropriate time to consider this aspect is during the sentencing phase, given conviction.

Science Agency and “Diversity”

Posted on by
Reply

Heather Mac Donald wrote about “woke science” in a number of Federal agencies in her Thursday op-ed.

Her thesis centered on the…foolishness…of allegedly science-supporting agencies like NIH, NSF, and CDC diverting taxpayer monies toward efforts at agency diversity for diversity’s sake. For instance,

Earlier this year the NIH announced a new round of “Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research.” Academic science labs could get additional federal money if they hire “diverse” researchers; no mention was made of relevant scientific qualifications.

Mac Donald closed her piece with this:

Mr Trump should order that federal science initiatives return to a color- and sex-blind basis.

Indeed. If NIH, NSF, CDC (et al.) were serious about improving “diversity” (whatever that is), they would devote their diversity efforts and funding to improving the pre-K and K-12 education opportunities for our children, with particular emphasis on those stuck in “underserved communities.”

Absent that, those agencies, diverting themselves from their missions like they are, are wastes of taxpayer money, and they should be disbanded (not merely defunded) and replaced with other, newly constituted agencies whose personnel will be serious about their actual missions.

Irrationality

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Progressive-Democrats are growing increasingly hysterical over the thought of President Donald Trump nominating someone—anyone—to fill the empty seat on the Supreme Court and the majority Republican Senate confirming the nominee (never minding that confirmation is far from a done deal). It’s especially overt with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY):

All the rights enshrined in our Constitution that are supposed to be protected by the Supreme Court of the United States. All the rights that could be undone or unwound by a conservative majority on the court.

Never mind that preserving and strengthening these rights are the explicit goals of those 18th Century Liberals who wrote and ratified our Constitution and of today’s Conservatives and conservative Republicans. Never mind that it’s the liberal, living Constitution bloc on the Court and Progressive-Democrats generally who demand to be able to alter that conservative document or to disregard it altogether.

Schumer went on.

By every modicum of decency and honor, Leader McConnell and the Republican majority have no right to fill [the empty seat].

Of course. Because there is no modicum of decency and honor in satisfying a Constitution-originated obligation to fill a Supreme Court seat—or any other vacancy—promptly so the Court—or any other agency—can function at maximum efficiency.

All Schumer—all the Progressive-Democratic Party—have to offer is this sort of wholly illogical, irrational “argument.”

Be very wary of the Supreme Court Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden would construct were he elected and Progressive-Democrats seize the Senate.