If the advance word leaks about President Donald Trump’s upcoming budget proposal can be believed, it would appear that his swamp-draining and Government downsizing are about to get start. And “news” outlets like CNN are getting their panties bunched over the prospect. This is from this outlet’s piece, tellingly headlined Trump’s plan to dismember government:
It would codify an assault on regulatory regimes over the environment, business and education bequeathed by former President Barack Obama, and attempt to halt decades of steadily growing government reach.
A jury can’t deliberate impartially and independently if its deliberations are going to be overseen by the presiding judge or any other government representative. Such government oversight smacks of Bushel. Yet that’s what the Supreme Court has decided must be in certain cases.
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled courts must review typically secret jury deliberations when a juror relies on racial or ethnic stereotypes to convict a defendant.
The 5-3 opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy found the Constitution’s call for a colorblind justice system outweighed traditional interests in promoting robust jury deliberations and protecting verdicts from challenge.
That’s the term currently in vogue for the permitless carrying of handguns, whether openly or concealed; it’s the concept that the 2nd Amendment is all the permit an American citizen needs to carry his handgun.
New Hampshire has become the 12th State eliminate the need for a State-issued permit for concealed carry; it already had permitless open carry. With the bill signed into law by Governor Chris Sununu, a New Hampshire citizen is allowed
the unlicensed transport or carry of a firearm in a vehicle, or on or about one’s person, whether openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded…if that individual is not otherwise prohibited by statute from possessing a firearm in the state of New Hampshire.
University of Chicago pupils (I can’t call them even students in the scale of pupil-student-scholar) are objecting to non-Left speakers being allowed on “their” campus.
The [pupils] objected to the school’s Institute of Politics’ invitation to former Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. They claim that allowing him to speak “normalizes bigotry” and provides a platform for fascism.
These precious ones are actively ducking away from a clear opportunity to “denormalize bigotry” by running away from him.
The coalition of students from U of C Resists, Graduate Students United, Students Working Against Prisons, and UChicago Socialists claim that the school’s “commitment to free expression doesn’t require the institution to host him….
Buried at the bottom of a Japan Times piece on the history of the Island of Taiwan that purports to recount the politics since 1947 of the island and then of the nation on the island was this bit:
On May 20, 2016, Tsai Ing-wen, the chair of the Democratic Progressive Party, was inaugurated as president of Taiwan. During her inauguration speech she said that the “goal of transitional justice is to pursue true social reconciliation, so that all Taiwanese can take to heart the mistakes of that era.”
This is a preview of
A Hidden Thought from the Republic of China
. Read the full post (328 words, estimated 1:19 mins reading time)
A Wall Street Journal article about Breitbart writer and speaker Milo Yiannopoulos and his impact on college campus views of free speech opened with a widespread misunderstanding.
The tour by Milo Yiannopoulos is sparking reaction from more groups than any recent speaker has on college campuses, heightening tensions between free speech and public safety.
There is no tension between free speech and public safety, though: there is no public safety without free speech. The relationship between free speech and public safety is not only—not even primarily—concerned with people whose feelings get hurt, or people legitimately insulted, and who then act out emotionally and dangerously. The relationship is centered on Government’s ability to control what will be spoken or done and the threat that those abilities represent to public safety.
That’s the headline on a recent Financial Times piece (sorry, the FT has a paywall) by Martin Wolf. It’s a silly headline, for a silly article.
How should we assess the economic success or failure of Barack Obama’s presidency?
This is a difficult question to answer.
The failure stems from an inability to define hate, but mostly it fails from the irrelevance of hate as anything other than a motivator for committing a crime. Motive, though, belongs solely in the jury box during the punishment phase given a conviction of a crime; it should not be foreordained by a Government’s attempt to define the hate or by Government’s more evident attempts to discriminate among groups of Americans and single some out for favorable treatment at the expense of other groups of Americans.
Dylann Roof has been convicted of the murders of nine good men and women, people he butchered in his rampage through a Baptist church.
Now he’s crying over the…unfairness…of the penalty phase of his trial. At the risk of repeating things known to those of you following along at home, Roof is defending himself during this phase, and he’s chosen to offer neither witnesses nor mitigating evidence during this phase.
The (eight Justice) Supreme Court is going to take up the question of gerrymandering and Congressional districts in Virginia and North Carolina. In fact, the case the Court is hearing is narrower than that:
drawing legislative districts based on race.
Never mind that the Democrats’ Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates race-based districting: the VRA
generally prohibits reducing minority-voting power through redistricting
which, of course, explicitly requires race-based districting in order to “protect” that “power.”