Tag Archives: freedom

An Excellent Response

Posted on by
Reply

Last Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for 303 Creative LLC v Elenis, a case centered on Web Page designer Lorie Smith and her First Amendment right to not put messages on her designs that conflict with her religious beliefs.

In the course of those arguments, there occurred this exchange (audio is at the first link above) between newly confirmed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Kristen Kellie Waggoner, CEO, President, and General Counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Smith in this case:

[Jackson] asked about a situation where a Christmas photo company was recreating old-time pictures and as a result they only allowed white children to participate because it accurately reflects the time period. As part of the hypothetical, the company served Black people for other types of photos and would refer them to other vendors if they desired. Jackson asked if this would be acceptable under Smith’s logic, because by forcing the photographer to take Black customers it would be changing their vision and forcing them to create something they do not want to create.
“…there are difficult lines to draw and that may be an edge case, but this is not. We have a creative—a creator of speech and a very clear message—”

It’s about time lawyers stopped being afraid to call out activist judges and Justices’ dumbass cynical quibbling over corner cases and kept them focused on the matter actually before them.

That Is Right-Wing Ideology

Posted on by
Reply

Last Friday, The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board wrote about so many former-President Donald Trump (R) judicial appointees ruling against Trump on a number of cases.

What really jumped out to me, though, was this brief bit, almost tossed off as an aside to the main thrust of the piece.

The chief distinction of Trump appointees, [The Alliance for Justice] said, is “absolute adherence to right-wing ideology.”
How about adherence to the law and respect for the separation of powers?

Imagine that—”right-wing ideology” is centered on actual adherence to law and respect for separation of powers in our Federal government.

What does that claim by an organization on the Left in American politics say about the Left’s view of law and separation of powers?

Maybe it says something akin to ex-Progressive-Democratic Party President Barack Obama’s and current Progressive-Democratic Party President Joe Biden’s bragging that if Congress doesn’t do what they personally want, they’ll act freely and independently with their “pen and phone.” What is the Left’s ideology, anyway?

Works for Me

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Chris Murphy (D, CT) has his gun control panties all knotted up because lots of county sheriffs have said they won’t enforce intrinsically unconstitutional gun control laws.

I think we have to have a conversation about whether we can continue to fund law enforcement in states where they are refusing to implement these gun laws[.]

I’ve addressed whether local and county jurisdictions should accept State funding for this or that purpose or whether they, instead, should decline the funds and free themselves from higher government’s controlling strings.

At the national level, Murphy’s terms are acceptable.

In Which a Judge Gets It (Mostly) Right

Posted on by
Reply

Judge Reed O’Connor of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled at the end of the summer that the Obamacare requirement that health coverage providers must provide coverage for particular aspects of health care—and do so at no cost to the individual being covered—was unconstitutional. He’s currently considering whether to make his ruling permanent and if so, whether to make his ruling applicable only to the litigants in the particular case or to make it nationwide. (As an aside, I have trouble seeing how a ruling of unconstitutionality can have any range less than national.)

Michael Cannon, Cato Institute’s Director of Health Policy Studies, testified as an expert witness in the case that

People have a right to choose whether and what kind of health insurance they need and want. The government shouldn’t be requiring people to buy coverage of any service, whether preventive or otherwise.

O’Connor’s ruling to that extent would be partially correct. However, Government also shouldn’t be dictating to private companies what they must or must not produce. That’s textbook fascism.

There’s also no authority in our Constitution for government to determine what private companies can and cannot produce.

A Deliberate Move by the Progressive-Democratic Party

Posted on by
Reply

…against American citizenship and American citizens.

The Progressive-Democratic Party-backed Washington, DC, city council voted 12-1 (!) to allow anyone resident in the city for at least 30 days to vote in city elections. DC Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) didn’t have the courage to take an open position, one way or the other, on the bill; she allowed it to become the law of the city by simply not signing it. The new city law is so broadly written that illegal aliens and foreign college students would be able to vote, and

There’s nothing in this measure to prevent employees at embassies of governments that are openly hostile to the United States from casting ballots.

Now, courtesy of Bowser and her city council, anyone in the Russian, or the PRC, or the Venezuelan, or the… embassies can vote to choose the city’s elected officials up to and including the Mayor. To hell with what American citizen voters resident in the city want or vote for (or against).

Now the matter goes to Congress—the city being a Federal enclave—and those worthies have 30 days to vote it down. It’ll be instructive to see whether there are enough Party politicians in each house of Congress with enough understanding of the meaning of patriotism, and especially of the meaning of “American citizen,” to strike down this bill. As The Wall Street Journal editors put it, Let’s see the roll call.