Author Archives: eehines

In Which our Courts are Failing

Posted on by
Reply

The question here is what standard courts should apply in matters of reverse discrimination. The question is laid out in The Wall Street Journal article’s lede:

Amid a MAGA-led backlash to diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, the Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider an issue that has split judges around the country: what do white people and other members of a majority group have to prove to win a claim for reverse discrimination?

(Aside: the newswriters’—Jess Bravin and Erin Mulvaney—irrelevant reference to MAGA illustrates their own and their editor’s political bias.)

The question is expanded in the second paragraph [emphasis added]:

Marlean Ames claims the Ohio state agency where she works denied her a promotion and then demoted her because she is heterosexual, instead giving both her old job and the one she had sought to gay people. A federal appeals court in Cincinnati threw out Ames’s lawsuit, finding that she failed to show the “background circumstances” suggesting the employer was hostile to straight people—a threshold step that wouldn’t have been required had a gay employee claimed discrimination.

As the writers noted shortly after:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination because of an “individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin….”

Lauren Hartz, DC-located partner in Jenner & Block raised this bit:

We are in disagreement about what groups in American society today are advantaged or disadvantaged[.]

This is a wholly constructed and cynically dragged red herring. The only advantaged groups are those groups of Americans who get favorable treatment from our courts compared to other groups of Americans, and the only disadvantaged groups of Americans are those groups of Americans at whose expense that advantageous treatment comes.

Civil rights groups have raised another irrelevancy:

Many civil-rights groups say the occasional example of reverse discrimination doesn’t change history. Courts, according to a brief filed by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, should be able to consider the “realities of this country’s persisting legacy of discrimination.”

The supposedly “occasional” nature of reverse discrimination is no excuse for any amount of that form of discrimination. Neither does it excuse the creation of a new legacy of discrimination for our future.

Thus: how about using the same standard for all cases involving allegations of discrimination?

How about judges and Justices hew to the text of black letter law and to the foundational text of the 14th Amendment of our Constitution?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That’s it in black and white; it’s not that hard to understand and to apply. As a Chief Justice of our Supreme Court said not so long ago, The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

There is no excuse for our court system, nor any judge or Justice within it, applying different standards of adjudication to different groups of Americans. Judges and Justices are violating their oaths of office when they do.

“Racists Support other Racists”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the claim Texas’ Progressive-Democrat Congressman Jasmine Crockett says in her diatribe against Republicans and us average Americans who voted for President Donald Trump (R).

She’s right, of course. Given the intrinsically racist and sexist bigotry that is Progressive-Democrats’ identity politics, that support for other racists is exactly what Crockett is doing.

Some Thoughts on our Trade Imbalance

Posted on by
Reply

Phil Gramm and Donald Boudreaux had an extensive op-ed in last Thursday’s Wall Street Journal. I have a couple of thoughts on their piece.

Overall, they presented a typical argument regarding international trade balances, and it was sound as far as it goes. However, I’ve never seen an argument for or against US trade deficits/surpluses that take into account the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

For international trade, how much, really, are local currencies traded for dollars in order to purchase American goods and how much are local dollars traded for foreign currencies in order for Americans to buy foreign goods? How much of those currency exchanges are really just taps of the foreign nation’s dollars held as reserves and similarly replenished into those reserves through ordinary trade-of-goods-and-services exchanges? In other words, how much to buyers and sellers themselves do the currency exchanges and how much of those currency exchanges are actually done from government to government out of government reserve holdings?

Maybe a lot is government to government, maybe a little, but the question needs answers.

Also this:

Has the expansion of global trade “hollowed out” US manufacturing, as Joe Biden claimed in 2022? No. US industrial production today is more than double what it was in 1975, the last time we ran a trade surplus.

What is produced by today’s “industrial production” compared to that of 1975? Or immediately after WWII? That never gets specified. Nor does “industrial production” ever get normalized to account for changes in technology and manufacturing techniques.

A similar definition disconnect exists for services.

Until those specifications are made, claims of industrial production or services changes in either direction are meaningless.

Why Not?

Posted on by
Reply

The press’ “government officials” now say that President Donald Trump (R) is planning to eliminate the US Postal Service’s Board of Governors and fold the USPS into the Department of Commerce. On the other hand, a “White House official” says that’s not so.

For the hyperventilators in the audience, here is the sum and total of what our Constitution says about a postal service. It’s in Article I, Section 8:

[The Congress shall have Power…] To establish Post Offices and Post Roads

Nothing in there about establishing or maintaining a postal service, only the post offices, useful for dropping off and collecting mail and packages for transporting over those post roads—of latter which we have an enormous network of roads over which to carry that mail and those packages, along with extensive railroad and air shipping networks capable of the same. Those post offices are directly analogous, and no more useful than, FedEx and UPS drop-off and pickup offices.

A move to consolidate the USPS into Commerce has the potential of reducing duplicative governance. It also would give those with commerce expertise—to the extent such exists in the Federal government—control over what is, essentially, a commerce enterprise—the movement as shipper of First Class mail and packages as well as intermediary shipper of other shippers’ packages.

Of course, the better move would be to completely privatize the USPS and let it compete with existing shippers for the movement of all mail, including First Class, just as it does now with packages. USPS already has a serious advantage in such competition: a last mile network that reaches every household and business in the nation, which none of its potential competition (with the possible exception of Amazon, for its own exclusive use).

Still, consolidation would be a good start.

Speculative Lawsuits

Posted on by
Reply

A collection of Leftist State Attorneys General led by New York’s Letitia James has filed an amicus brief in an existing suit against the Federal government over President Donald Trump’s (R) move to defund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That might leave American banks without a government watchdog, they claim in their brief.

Furthermore, [t]he AGs didn’t accuse any banks of wrongdoing. These AGs further claim

The absence of a functioning CFPB…creates a regulatory vacuum even greater than what existed before the Great Recession. The very large financial institutions that compete with state-chartered banks will have carte blanche to loosen their regulatory compliance and profit accordingly.

Further, as cited by The Wall Street Journal,

The AGs argued that the administration is creating a regulatory gap that will encourage the largest banks to game the system by taking a more lax approach, while smaller state-chartered banks will still be subject to state supervision.

Might. Will have. And those two possibles in the latter: “will encourage” and “will still be.” These are purely speculative, with no harm being alleged. No actual wrong doing, in so many words, is being alleged. Basing a law suit, or even an amicus, on speculation about an unknown future—however likely plaintiffs might claim that future to be—is anathema in the American legal system. The requirement to allege—credibly—actual harm already done prevents a potful of frivolous, of politically motivated, of purely fee-seeking lawsuits where no harm exists, even where no harm is likely to exist in some nebulous future.

The Leftist AGs’ move is typical of the Left’s and their Progressive-Democratic Party politicians’ lawfare business.

This is yet another reason why it’s so difficult for us average Americans to have nice things in our nation. It’s time to start requiring plaintiffs to pay the defendants for the costs of lawsuits which plaintiffs bring and lose, and to require those providing amicus briefs on the side of plaintiffs to share in paying those costs.