Mao-ist China Returns?

People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping has been consolidating his power and centralizing control of the PRC in his hands for a while.

Now he’s seizing more direct control of the nation’s economy.  Xi has removed Lou Jiwei, the PRC Minister of Finance from office.  Lou was “reform-minded” (read: more open and freely operating domestic markets with a more rational tax régime), but that conflicted with Xi’s demand for more government control over those same domestic markets.  Xi has reassigned Lou to run the nation’s pension fund.  The fund is in a disastrous condition; this is simply a move to set Lou up for failure and removal from government altogether.

Right on the Law

Great Britain’s High Court has ruled that Prime Minister Theresa May may not and can not trigger, on her own initiative, Article 50 and begin negotiations with the European Union about the mechanisms and details of Great Britain’s going out from the EU.  The Parliament must first vote in favor of invoking the Article.

A Couple of Litmus Tests

The two major party Presidential candidates have them.  All Presidents and candidates who wish to nominate Supreme Court Justices have them; some are more or less legitimate than others.

Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s wants:

The kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on behalf of our rights as Americans[.]

Read that again.  Clinton wants Justices who put social agendas ahead of the actual law before them, ahead of the text of the Constitution, ahead of the Justices’ own oaths of office, which swear them to uphold and defend the Constitution, not ignore it, or “reinterpret” it.

Emails

How do you get 650,000 State Department emails onto one laptop, even if accumulated over some years?  Especially when it’s a laptop that isn’t routinely used by a State Department employee or confidante of a State employee, but instead is owned by (or at best shared with) a State employee/confidante spouse and dependent?

Separately, might some of these be copies of the emails Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton deleted under the claim that they were personal, centered on wedding planning and yoga?

What’s the Chinese Term for Aппара́тчик?

Law firms in the People’s Republic of China are about to get them.  In addition to two new Rule by Law directives that prohibit PRC lawyers from criticizing the government on the one hand and that require PRC lawyers to overtly support the Chinese Communist Party on the other, these law firms are required to accept into their organizations

establishment[s] of Communist Party branches[.]

To ensure proper behavior.

Democrats and Security

First there was Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s unsecured, personal and private email server on which she conducted official State Department business and which she used for handling over 2,000 classified emails—some of which also were marked classified.

Then there was the breathtakingly easy hack of Democratic National Committee email servers.

Then there was the similarly breathtakingly easy hack of Democratic National Convention Committee email servers.

Now there’s this.

[I]n 2009, Hillary Clinton’s top aide mistakenly left potentially classified papers in the front seat of the car she was traveling in.

A Thought on Chevron Deference

Chevron Deference is a Supreme Court-created doctrine flowing from an appeal by Chevron Corporation to NRDC v Gorsuch, in which the Natural Resources Defense Council, during the Reagan administration, sued the EPA over a then-newly enacted regulation that allowed manufacturing plants to get pollution emission permits for new equipment that didn’t meet EPA emission requirements so long as the plant’s total emissions didn’t increase following the new equipment’s installation.

The Supreme Court found for the NRDC in Chevron’s appeal (Chevron USA v NRDC) and in the process created their Chevron Deference doctrine.  The heart of the doctrine, as articulated by Justice John Paul Stevens in writing for the majority, is this two-part test [citation and footnotes omitted]:

California’s Disdain

…for religion is made manifest by its SB 1146, Equity in Higher Education Act, currently under consideration before the California Senate.

As it currently stands, parochial schools—church schools, religious schools, schools run according to a clearly stated set of religious tenets—are exempt from discrimination laws where such discrimination is centered on religious beliefs.  Schools and their students are free to follow their conscience and to require employees, and students, to adhere to certain basic sets of behaviors.  As Archbishop Jose Gomez and Bishop Charles Blake put it in their piece,

The Beginning

…of another whitewash?  The IRS says it wants to look into claims of “pay to play” requirements perpetrated by the Clinton Foundation.

It’s an interestingly timed investigation.  Absolution of the Clinton Foundation could easily come this fall, in time to influence the election in November.

Commissioner John Koskinen wrote in a July 22 letter to Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R, TN] that the issue has been “forwarded” to the IRS “Exempt Organizations Examinations” program in Dallas.

Why now, I ask again.  The IRS has known about these allegations for a long time.  Even The New York Times has been talking about this matter for some time.

A Liberal Justice Talked out of Turn

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg now is in the business of publicly bashing politicians who don’t think like she does.

I can’t imagine what this place would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president.  For the country, it could be four years.  For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that.

We can also turn her remarks around.

I can’t imagine what this place would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Hillary Clinton as our president.  For the country, it could be four years—or a dozen, with her insistence on extending Obama even further, and even farther left.  For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that.