Daily Archives: 11 December 2025

So Much for Liberty

Posted on by
1

Contempt for ordinary citizens is the order of the day in the United Kingdom, which has fallen and can’t seem to get up.

[T]he [British] government is moving to allow jury trials for “indictable only” offenses such as murder and “either way” offenses with likely sentences of more than three years in prison. Judge-only “swift” courts will hear cases ranging from burglary and theft to sexual assault and stalking. Judges will also sit without a jury in fraud and financial cases deemed too complex for jurors.

This is…disappointing. It’s also a revival of the 350-year-old Bushell’s Case but with the addendum of eliminating the case’s question altogether. Bushell’s Case was a trial of a couple of government-defined religious miscreants during which the presiding judge refused to accept the jury’s acquittal verdict and jailed the ringleader, Edward Bushell, until he voted for the judge-approved verdict. That case was resolved on appeal in favor of Bushell and British commoners generally, extending as the appeal finally ruled habeas corpus to those commoners as well as the nobility.

Now the British government is moving to go beyond that presiding judge’s position and eliminate juries altogether in a vast number of cases. No juries, no verdicts that run counter to the government’s position.

This revival also is a clear expression of the contempt with which British government men and women hold their subjects: commoners are just too grindingly stupid to understand many kinds of cases, and so they must be led away so their Betters can handle them without any pesky commoner interference.

Juries? We ain’t got no juries. We don’t need no juries! We don’t have to show you any stinkin’ juries!

Foolish Social Conservatives

Posted on by
Reply

Some are as foolish as the Republicans’ House Chaos Caucus in their all-or-nothing positions. A case in point is Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and its supporting cohorts. These entities are, quite properly, anti-abortion, but their tactics are, at best, suboptimal.

The activists’ warning was simple: extending subsidies without such limits [no funding for abortions] was a line Republicans must not cross to keep social conservative support in next year’s midterm elections.

Withholding support for Republican candidates in 2026 over their not being anti-abortion enough to suit them will guarantee a Progressive-Democratic Party majority in the House—and those politicians absolutely will not stay with the status quo; they will enthusiastically and loudly expand access to abortion and make all of us taxpayers—including members of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, et al.—pay for those abortions.

Better would be, for the near term, to push a concrete (not merely conceptual) plan for using the putative subsidy funding instead as vouchers for us citizens to use to fund our HSAs and FSAs, with limits on annual contributions to those eliminated. An additional improvement to HSAs in particular would be eliminating the requirement to have a particular kind of health coverage policy (so-called high-deductible policies) in order to have an HSA. Any citizen should be able to set up and fund an HSA regardless of the kind of policy or no policy at all that he has. Allowing unused FSA funds to be rolled over into subsequent years would be a useful step toward rolling FSA accounts into HSAs, eliminating the quasi-duplication.