Monthly Archives: November 2020

Some Editors Don’t Get It

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board, in its Friday edition, ran a piece strongly decrying the Left’s and their Progressive-Democratic Party’s shrill attacks on Justice Sam Alito for his effrontery in decrying their attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. In those personages’ eyes, Alito behaved despicably in two ways: defending those two freedoms, and any others, is far too political a thing for any mere Justice to do. And he did it in front of that dastardly bastion of individual liberty, the Federalist Society.

Then the editors deprecated their otherwise excellent piece with this, near the end of their editorial:

The American judiciary, in its best tradition, balances majoritarian demands with the constitutional rights of weaker and less politically powerful groups, whether they are socialist or conservative.

This is a very large misunderstanding. The American judiciary, in its best tradition—if only rarely honored—doesn’t balance anything. It acts on the text of the Constitution and the statute(s) before it in a case.

Any balancing is a political action legitimately carried out only by the political branches of our American government, the members of which are elected—and replaced—by our nation’s sovereign political aggregation, We the People.

Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

…why neither the People’s Republic of China nor the World Health Organization can be trusted.

Opposition from the Chinese government is preventing participants in a World Health Organization meeting on the Covid-19 pandemic from learning directly about one of the world’s biggest coronavirus success stories.
Taiwan hasn’t recorded a locally transmitted coronavirus infection in about seven months but has been blocked from participating in a virtual gathering this week [last week as this is posted] of the WHO’s 194-member World Health Assembly because of objections from Beijing, which considers the self-ruled island part of its territory.

WHO was carefully silent on the shunning, mindful of its master’s requirements.

Never mind that the Republic of China just might have some ideas on how to control the Wuhan Virus.

This is the WHO that Joe Biden wants us to cozy up to.

This is the PRC that Joe Biden wants us to trust so.

Americans Are Unimportant

Posted on by
Reply

And so is our nation of America unimportant. That’s the position of Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden, as espoused by his Wuhan Virus advisor, Zeke Emanuel.

The Biden/Emanuel model for distribution of a vaccine to deal with this virus

supports distributing the vaccine internationally, which means giving away or selling doses of the vaccine before it’s available to every citizen in that country….

Americans who are traditionally left behind—for any reason, good, bad, or indifferent—will continue to be left behind by this Progressive-Democrat position. For one more reason: some Americans just don’t matter as much as other nations’ citizens.

Associative ties only justify a government’s giving some priority to its own citizens, not absolute priority….

Associative ties. Because we’re not an actual nation whose citizens have binds of patriotism among each other and with that nation, a nation created by a mutually agreed social compact. We’re just a collection of folks who happen to be physically, geographically collocated.

But this is entirely consistent with a Party that views minority Americans not as actual people but merely as crops of votes to be harvested periodically. This is entirely consistent with a Party that disparages national sovereignty in favor of extra-national institutions.

Misunderstanding the Court’s Role

Posted on by
Reply

Here, the misunderstanding is of the role our court system, including our Supreme Court, plays in our elections.

Recall that President Donald Trump’s campaign lawyers have filed a number of lawsuits challenging various States’ vote counting procedures. In particular, the lawyers have filed, in Federal court, alleging that

some of the state’s [Pennsylvania’s] actions, and particularly the exclusion of Republican poll-watchers during the counting of hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots, violated federal constitutional requirements.

The complaint can be read here. (Aside: this is a separate complaint from one also filed that Pennsylvania’s Executive Branch officials altered the State’s vote handling procedures in violation of our Constitution’s Article I, Section 4, and, from that, in violation of established Pennsylvania election law (including an explicit decision last summer by Pennsylvania’s legislature to make no changes to the State’s election law).)

American Thinker‘s James DeLong, at the link, provided a sound analysis of the legal strategy underlying the lawyers’ move. But DeLong went off the rails at the end of his piece.

Everyone in the legal world assumes that the justices, bruised by the excoriation the Court has received over Bush v Gore (even though the result was right), would never put itself in the position of reversing the apparent results of a presidential election.  This assumption is the reason for the Democrats’ efforts to create an irresistible bandwagon effect, but the president’s lawyers may have out-maneuvered them.  The justices may have no choice except to decide the election, one way or the other, and to be put to the choice of reversing the media-claimed results or ratifying massive fraud.

No, the Bush Court most assuredly did not revers[e] the apparent results of the Bush-Gore election contest. That Court merely upheld the choice of the citizens of Florida, which citizens decided for themselves and joined with the decision of the aggregated citizens of the nation, who our President would be.

Similarly, our courts, including most likely our Supreme Court, will not be deciding the current election with their rulings on the Pennsylvania case or any other cases that come before them.

On the contrary, our courts—including our Supreme Court—will only be upholding and enforcing the decision of us American citizens.