Tag Archives: freedom

A California Judge Has Spoken

Posted on by
Reply

Recall California Proposition 22, which exempted Uber Technologies Inc, Lyft Inc, and DoorDash Inc from a California state gig law that, in essence, requires businesses to reclassify their gig associates from independent contractors to employees. That proposition was passed overwhelmingly by the citizens of California.

A California state judge ruled last Friday that the proposition was unconstitutional and so unenforceable. His rationale:

Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch said in Friday’s ruling that Proposition 22 limits the state legislature’s authority and its ability to pass future legislation, which is unconstitutional.

The judge has ruled that the people are not allowed to limit the authority of their employee, of their government. Keep in mind that, although Roesch couched his ruling in terms of the State’s legislative branch, his own judiciary branch is a part of that government whose authority he’s protecting.

The California government (including Roesch, et al., mind you) is not subordinate to the citizens of California?

Here’s the preamble to the California State constitution, which according to Roesch has no meaning.

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

It used to be the People of California’s constitution, not the State judiciary’s.

Here’s Art II, Sect 1:

All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

Here’s Art II, Sect 10(a):

An initiative statute or referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed from going into effect.

Unless a member of the State’s government, here a judge, demurs. Then the people’s decision is set aside. Because the People are no longer sovereign in California.

Hmm….

Progressive-Democrat Controls over Individuals’ Lives

Posted on by
Reply

Here are some of those controls that are buried deep within the bowels of the so-called infrastructure bill just rammed through the senate.

mandate for vehicle manufactures to install “drunk and impaired driving prevention technology” as a standard feature inside of new vehicles

Because all of us are simply too grindingly stupid to make our own decisions about drinking and driving. This is amply proven by the one or two among us who are so stupid, so we all must pay the price.

create a vehicle miles traveled system for taxing drivers based on their annual vehicle mileage is hidden away in the bill’s section 13002, entitled “National motor vehicle per-mile user fee pilot”

This also will create an opening for tracking where we go and who/what we visit in addition to tracking how we travel to get there.

grants select cabinet secretaries the authority to fully fund select infrastructure projects with taxpayer dollars by waiving cost-sharing rules

Just gimme the damned dollars and quit asking pesky questions. We Know Better. Never mind that the need for any of these dollars has yet to be established beyond yelling “Infrastructure,” as though that settles the science.

If these controls really were any good, and if average Americans really did take them seriously, Progressive-Democrats would offer them in separate stand-alone bills for public debate and scrutiny.

More important to the Progressive-Democrats, though, is that these policies vastly increase their surveillance state. Even waiving cost-sharing expands surveillance, since the Secretaries designated The Precious Ones will need to identify whose costs are going to be “saved” and who will be called upon to pick up the cost slack.

The Left is On the Move

Posted on by
Reply

…especially their political arm, the Progressive-Democratic Party.

President Joe Biden (D) has signed an Executive Order requiring all vehicle sales in the US to be electrically powered. Biden will masquerade his EO as “nonbinding.”

Sure. If he and his cronies in Congress didn’t intend for it to be binding, Biden would use his bully pulpit as President to stump for electrification of our vehicles. Instead, he’s going the cudgel route, covered by his velvet.

If he and his cronies in Congress didn’t intend for the EO to be binding, those cronies wouldn’t be pushing—via reconciliation, yet—their “green” mandates into law. They would, instead, use their own bully pulpits to stump for their “green” ideas. Instead, they’re going their naked cudgel—reconciliation—route to ram through their diktats.

Biden’s EO also is supposedly supported by the likes of General Motors, Ford Motor, and Stellantis (nee Fiat Chrysler). Given the nature of our current Progressive-Democrat-controlled government, the idea that these companies’ support is voluntary is…risible.

This is the Progressive-Democrat-controlled government telling American private companies what they must produce.

This is fascism on the move.

One Price of Central Control

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China’s Cyberspace Administration of China is investigating the alleged wrong-doing of Didi Global’s ride-hailing arm, Didi Chuxing Technology Co; both entities are domiciled in the PRC.

By itself, that’s no big deal; governments are allowed to investigate businesses that regulators suspect of wrong-doing.

Here’s the problem:

No new user registration is allowed during the review….

That’s ostensibly to keep risks from any alleged misbehaviors from growing further.

However. Never mind that Didi Chuxing hasn’t been shown to have misbehaved in any way; it must be restricted.

Suppose that in the end, the regulator indeed finds no actual wrongs done. How would a Didi Chuxing be made whole after the investigation’s closure? How would such a company (re)gain all those missed new customers (for instance)?

Worse,

[t]he regulator didn’t say how long the review would last….

That damage is made worse the longer the investigation is allowed to go on.

Now, there’s this: how many governments would consider using a regulatory agency or a regulator’s enduring investigation to punish a disfavored business or person solely on political grounds?

I can think of at least three….

And now, just two days after that move, the PRC has ordered app-store operators to remove the app altogether–even though the “investigation” is only just begun.

Hmm….

I Dissent

Posted on by
Reply

…from the dissenter.

The Supreme Court ruled that Arizona’s voter law is entirely legitimate. That law, you’ll remember, among other things limited who is allowed to return early voting ballots for another person—banned ballot harvesting—and barred counting ballots cast in the wrong precinct.

Among the reasons for upholding Arizona’s law is this:

The court rejected the idea that showing that a state law disproportionately affects minority voters is enough to prove a violation of the law.

Writing in dissent (it was a 6-3 majority), Justice Elena Kagan claimed in part

What is tragic is that the Court has damaged a statute [the 56-yr-old Voting Rights Act] designed to bring about “the end of discrimination in voting.” I respectfully dissent[.]

The irony in Kagan’s dissent is breathtaking in its depth. She complains of damaging the “end of discrimination in voting” even as the Arizona law treats all voters equally rather than giving special treatment to some. Reducing special treatment somehow increases discrimination.

The rejection of the concept that disproportionality is by itself, regardless of whether it’s a mere side effect, discriminatory also represents a great reduction in special treatment for particular groups—but this, too, is somehow an increase in discrimination in Kagan’s world view.