Monthly Archives: January 2023

A State Supreme Court Justice Didn’t Mince Words

Posted on by
Reply

In TWISM Enterprises v State Board of Registration, TWISM, an engineering company, sued Ohio’s Board of Registration over being denied a contract to provide engineering services to the State of Ohio. The Regulators had denied the contract on the grounds that Ohio’s engineers must be employees of the State. Never mind that the applicable Ohio law requires no such thing. Per The Wall Street Journal‘s editors,

The court ruled 7-0 that the regulatory board had essentially rewritten Ohio law by insisting that anyone providing engineering services must be an employee, and not an independent contractor. The statute says no such thing, and the court ruled for the company.

Justice Patrick DeWine expanded on that in the ruling, as he wrote and was joined by three more of the seven:

[He] swept away competing lines of previous Ohio deference cases to make clear that “the judicial branch is never required to defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law.” The agency’s view “is simply one consideration a court may sometimes take into account in rendering the court’s own independent judgment as to what the law is,” he writes.

Never required. Court’s own independent judgment. What he, and they, said.

Rules and Defense Spending Cuts

Posted on by
Reply

The House—in particular, the majority Republicans—along with too many so-called defense journalists are having trouble with a rule that potentially leads to defense spending cuts, a particular anathema in today’s environment of a Russia at war and a People’s Republic of China threatening war.

However, the fact is defense spending has always been vulnerable to cuts, particularly by the Progressive-Democratic Party and its predecessor Democratic Party. The proposed rule just makes the potential explicitly stated. But it does not mandate defense spending cuts; it mandates spending cuts in one (or more) places if there are to be spending increases in other places. Quoting from the proposed rules:

Initiatives to Reduce Spending and Improve Accountability. Subsection (a)(1) replaces current “pay-as-you-go” requirements with “cut-as-you- go” requirements. The provision prohibits consideration of a bill, joint resolution, conference report, or amendment that has the net effect of increasing mandatory spending within a five-year or ten-year budget window. This provision continues the current practice of counting multiple measures considered pursuant to a special order of business which directs the Clerk to engross the measures together after passage for purposes of compliance with the rule and provides a mechanism for addressing “emergency” designations.

And

Subsection (e)(2) establishes a point of order against consideration of a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations) or an amendment thereto, or a conference report thereon, which has the net effect of increasing direct spending in excess of $2,500,000,000 for any of the four consecutive 10 fiscal year periods beginning with the first fiscal year that is 10 fiscal years after the current fiscal year. The levels of net increases in direct spending shall be determined based on estimates provided by the chair of the Committee on the Budget.

And

Spending Reduction Amendments in Appropriations Bills. Subsection (f) provides for spending reduction account transfer amendments and requires a spending reduction account section to be included in all general appropriations bills.

There’s nothing in there that mandates cuts in defense spending. All spending, though, needs to be up for discussion in light of the current Progressive-Democratic Party-driven economic condition of our nation, as Freedom Caucus Founder, Congressman Jim Jordan (R, OH) has pointed out. That I—and lots of others—disagree with not continuing to increase defense spending in these parlous times simply means that we need to make our case instead of relying on inertia to carry it. And refreshing the case is entirely good.

In the event, the rules package was passed without significant change.

The rules as proposed can be read here.

What He Said

Posted on by
Reply

When President Joe Biden (D) pretended to visit our southern border by going to El Paso and no closer, Texas Governor Gregg Abbott (R) hand delivered a letter to him laying out the situation—both regarding his visit to El Paso and the conditions resulting from his border policies. (Right click|Open Link in New Tab for a larger image.)

The Letter speaks for itself. And for us Texans, and for all of us average Americans.

The Federal Judge is Right

Posted on by
Reply

Federal Judge Joseph Goodwin of the Southern District of West Virginia has upheld West Virginia’s law barring transgender student athletes from competing in girls’ and women’s sports, even from playing on girls’ and women’s teams. Goodwin

found that West Virginia’s definition of “biological sex” for school sports is “substantially related to its important interest in providing equal athletic opportunities for females.”

Goodwin further ruled that

the law was designed to “prevent transgender girls from playing on girl’s sports teams,” but said this was legally permissible if there was a substantial government interest in doing so.

The State’s government most assuredly has that interest. After all, as Goodwin also wrote,

While some females may be able to outperform some males, it is generally accepted that, on average, males outperform females athletically because of inherent physical differences between the sexes. This is not an overbroad generalization, but rather a general principle that realistically reflects the average physical differences between the sexes.
…there is much debate over whether and to what extent hormone therapies after puberty can reduce a transgender girl’s athletic advantage over cisgender girls. …
The fact is, however, that a transgender girl is biologically male and, barring medical intervention, would undergo male puberty like other biological males. And biological males generally outperform females athletically. The state is permitted to legislate sports rules on this basis because sex, and the physical characteristics that flow from it, are substantially related to athletic performance and fairness in sports[.]

Biological men—which is what they are, from the bottom of their DNA and XY chromosomes on up through their stronger muscles and larger bones (which actually began their development differing from women development in the womb)—regardless of how they might self-identify or how much hormone therapy or gender surgery they might have gone through, have no business competing against women in sports. That denies the women contestants their own opportunities for recognition and financial aid.

Sports, too, are the path out of poverty-ridden neighborhoods for girls and young women just as it is for lots of young men; this path would be denied them by transgendered men competing against them.

Biological men, however transgendered, by competing against women in sports erases women, their very womanhood, in sports.

There is a Title IX case, using the transgendereds’ logic that the law’s specification of sex is broader than biology, for sports programs to create Transgender Athletic Associations/Conferences/Leagues for transgender athletes to compete in. They should make that case. Better, though, would be for Congress to update Title IX to the current state of medical technology and mandate explicitly transgender athletic programs.

Goodwin’s ruling can be read here.

Functionally True

Posted on by
Reply

Former President Donald Trump (R) said Thursday that President Joe Biden (D) has sided with the Mexican drug cartels regarding Biden’s No Southern Border policy (my term).

Fentanyl, heroin, meth, and other lethal drugs are pouring across our wide open border, stealing hundreds of thousands of beautiful American lives, and it’s happening like never before in our history. Children are being left without parents. Families are being ripped apart. Communities are being decimated. Our neighbors and fellow citizens are having their entire worlds destroyed.

And

The drug cartels are waging war on Americans, and it’s now time for America to wage war on the cartels. In this war, Joe Biden has sided against the United States and with the cartels.

Regardless of his intent, though, Biden hasn’t just given a free path to the cartels. He’s also, functionally, given permission to the People’s Republic of China to supply the cartels with the raw materials for making fentanyl.