Tag Archives: government

Rules Don’t Matter

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democrats want to toss inconvenient Senate rules so they can have anything they demand. And they’ve become very open about that.

A group of House Democrats, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY) penned a letter urging the Senate’s Democratic leadership to ignore the Senate Parliamentarian ruling that a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants cannot be included in a budget reconciliation bill.

And from the letter,

We do understand that the Senate Parliamentarian has issued a memorandum dismissing—despite evidence to the contrary—the budgetary impact of providing a pathway to citizenship. But the role of the Parliamentarian is an advisory one, and the Parliamentarian’s opinion is not binding.

Never mind the carefully unsubstantiated claim of budgetary impact. Consider the demand that the Parliamentarian’s ruling be blithely ignored. It is an advisory ruling, but under Senate reconciliation ruling it is binding, and the Senate is bound by it.

Sure, the ruling can be overridden, but that capability is irrelevant, as the Progressive-Democrats know full well. Statutes are binding, also, as are Federal agency regulations, and statutes and regulations also can be overridden: by subsequent statute or regulation, by the issuing agency rescinding its regulation, by the courts overruling or striking altogether the statute or regulation.

But overrule it the damned thing, Progressive-Democrats demand; it’s inconvenient to their purpose.

Nor will such disregard be limited to immigration. They’ll move to ignore any Senate rule, any regulation, any statute that gets in their way.

The Progressive-Democrats, in their drive to “fundamentally transform our nation,” now are saying out loud that a Critical Item in their desired transformation is that we should no longer be a nation ruled by law, but a nation ruled by men and women—their men and women in particular.

Remember this next fall, and keep it firmly in mind for 2024.

Government Control of the Means of Production

Posted on by
Reply

And it begins with Government control of the means of financing the means of production (among other things to be financed).

The acting head of the US’s top banking regulator called for banks to be screened for climate risk as part of their periodic stress tests and said the agency’s own regulatory approach was focused on maintaining the safety and soundness of the financial system.
“Banks face all sorts of risks everyday—credit risk, market risk, liquidity risk,” said Michael Hsu, acting comptroller of the currency. “What’s emerging now is that climate change is going to be impacting a number of those risks in different ways, and we need banks to prepare for that.”

This is nonsense. The risk that banks must be able to manage, in this venue, is the risk involved in Government reaction to the “climate change,” whether global warming is real or not.

Hsu’s attempt has nothing to do with the safety and soundness of our nation’s financial system; it has everything to do with an attempt to increase Government control of our nation’s financial system.

In Which VP Harris Has It Right

Posted on by
Reply

Just not in the way she means. Following the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse of all charges in the Kenosha riot shooting case, the Kamala Harris (D) half of the Biden-Harris Presidency said this:

The verdict really speaks for itself[.]
As many of you know, I’ve spent the majority of my career working to make the criminal justice system more equitable, and clearly there’s a lot more to do[.]

She’s right, of course. The shootings wanted, as a matter of course, a careful and thorough investigation. Either that was not done—a lot more to do in our justice system—or the prosecutors ignored the results of a careful and thorough investigation and brought the case to trial, anyway—a lot more work to do in our justice system.

As the evidence brought to trial clearly showed, Rittenhouse was there in the middle of the riot to render first aid to those injured by the rioters; to fight fires set by the rioters; and to protect a business, at the behest of the business’ operators, from rioters bent on its physical destruction. As the evidence just as clearly showed, Rittenhouse was hounded, stalked, threatened with murder, chased, attacked, and threatened with a firearm aimed at him by his attackers. Ultimately, he was forced to defend himself, and sadly, lethally so regarding two of his attackers.

Yet the prosecutors brought their charges to trial anyway. And in the course of their presentation, they attacked Rittenhouse for daring to not speak publicly before the trial, to not answer their charges before the trial. In the course of their presentation, those prosecutors attempted to enter evidence that had been barred from entry by the judge. In the course of their presentation, those prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense until after the evidence presentation portion of the trial was closed and closing arguments begun.

The verdict really does speak for itself.

There really is a lot more work to do to make our criminal justice system more equitable.

Not Government Overreach

Posted on by
Reply

Biden-Harris and zir’s Merrick Garland-led Department of Justice’s FBI executed a pre-dawn raid on Project Veritas‘ founder and boss James O’Keefe’s home, searched it, and seized his phones and began searching through the phones. This is separate from the FBI’s raid on the homes of reporters working for Project Veritas.

A federal judge ordered the Department of Justice to stop extracting data from the phones of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe days after his home was raided….
…
According to the order, the DOJ must confirm to the court by Friday that it has paused its review of O’Keefe’s phones.

Days after. The FBI has had those days to extract, copy, and paw through the data.

A special master has been appointed by the court to oversee this and to cull the data that the Privacy Protection Act, along with DoJ regulations, explicitly bar Government from seizing from reporters. However, on what basis do we believe the FBI has actually “paused” its review? Even were the phones physically transferred to the possession of this special master, on what basis do we believe that agents this government have stopped pawing through the data they’ve seized? On what basis do we believe those agents of this government have destroyed—or even sequestered—their copies?

Among those data are

confidential and privileged information…of our reporters, including legal, donor, and confidential source communications

And

reporters’ notes. A lot of…sources unrelated to this story and a lot of confidential donor information to our news organization.

This is not overreach. This is naked abuse of raw power and a deliberate, considered disregard for law, for the liberties and rights of American citizens.

It’s going to be a long three years.

(Aside: what was this stuff doing on a cell phone, anyway? This is taking convenience too far at the expense of security.)

Biden-Harris Diktat

Posted on by
Reply

The 5th Circuit has affirmed its stay of OSHA’s mandate that employers must require—be deputiz[ed] their participation in OSHA’s regulatory scheme as the court acknowledged—employee vaccines, testing, or termination, or face deliberately destructive fines for not doing so.

An array of petitioners seeks a stay barring OSHA from enforcing the Mandate during the pendency of judicial review. On November 6, 2021, we agreed to stay the Mandate pending briefing and expedited judicial review. Having conducted that expedited review, we reaffirm our initial stay.

The appellate court went on:

[T]he Mandate…exposes them [the covered businesses] to severe financial risk if they refuse or fail to comply, and threatens to decimate their workforces (and business prospects) by forcing unwilling employees to take their shots, take their tests, or hit the road.

And [citation omitted, emphasis added]:

Under the traditional stay standard, a court considers four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”
Each of these factors favors a stay here.

Regarding that first criterion, whether the stay applicant is likely to succeed on merit:

[T]he Mandate’s strained prescriptions combine to make it the rare government pronouncement that is both overinclusive (applying to employers and employees in virtually all industries and workplaces in America, with little attempt to account for the obvious differences between the risks facing, say, a security guard on a lonely night shift, and a meatpacker working shoulder to shoulder in a cramped warehouse) and underinclusive (purporting to save employees with 99 or more coworkers from a “grave danger” in the workplace, while making no attempt to shield employees with 98 or fewer coworkers from the very same threat).

And [emphasis in the original]:

The Mandate’s stated impetus—a purported “emergency” that the entire globe has now endured for nearly two years, and which OSHA itself spent nearly two months responding to—is unavailing as well.

And:

OSHA’s attempt to shoehorn an airborne virus that is both widely present in society (and thus not particular to any workplace) and non-life-threatening to a vast majority of employees into a neighboring phrase connoting toxicity and poisonousness is yet another transparent stretch.
…
Any argument OSHA may make that COVID-19 is a “new hazard[]” would directly contradict OSHA’s prior representation to the D.C. Circuit that “[t]here can be no dispute that COVID-19 is a recognized hazard.”

And [citation omitted, emphasis added]:

It is thus critical to note that the Mandate makes no serious attempt to explain why OSHA and the President himself were against vaccine mandates before they were for one here.
…
Because it is generally “arbitrary or capricious” to “depart from a prior policy sub silentio,” agencies must typically provide a “detailed explanation” for contradicting a prior policy, particularly when the “prior policy has engendered serious reliance interests.” OSHA’s reversal here strains credulity, as does its pretextual basis. Such shortcomings are all hallmarks of unlawful agency actions.

The ruling goes on in similar veins regarding the other three factors of consideration for issuing a stay.

Here is an example of the Progressive-Democrat administration’s penchant for ruling by diktat and its utter disregard for pesky laws, our Constitution, and We the People—our government’s employers—when any of them, or us, become inconvenient to any Progressive-Democrat wish.

Especially in this regard, as the court noted in its assessment of the degree of harm to us individual citizens were a stay of this OSHA rule not granted, is this [citation retained]:

For the individual petitioners, the loss of constitutional freedoms “for even minimal periods of time…unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”).

The court’s ruling can be read here.