Tag Archives: government

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Posted on by
Reply

The tentacles reach far—even into the origin of Western concepts of individual liberty.  A British court has ordered

the wife of a jailed Azerbaijani banker to explain how she and her husband could afford their multimillion-pound London mansion or face having it seized.

Government does not have to prove the illegal origin of the money.  No, the holder of the money must prove her innocence.  Here is the outcome of the British government’s legislation ostensibly aimed at allegedly dirty money held by people with political connections or suspected of serious crime.

Think about that: someone with the wrong political connections in the eyes of someone in government, or someone whom somebody in government decides is behaving suspiciously, now must prove his lack of guilt.

Money laundering might seem a perfectly fine excuse for invading individual liberty in this way: truly laundered money does indeed have origins that are inimical to safety.

But so are individual liberties critical to the safety of each of us.  What is the government’s limiting principle here?  Where does the tradeoff between security and liberty naturally end?

Innocent until proven guilty is a concept that must protect even the unsavory, or apparently unsavory, among us because that protection is critical to our own safety.

The New Left

Posted on by
Reply

There can be no reasoning, no rational debate anymore with the Progressive-Democratic Party and the Left in general.  This is made clear by the statements luminaries of that collection have made in recent days—confirming their behavior during the Kavanaugh confirmation process just concluded, during which they actively rejected a foundation of liberty: innocent until proven guilty.  Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY) was the loudest on this, saying outright that then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh had to personally authorize an investigation into himself or he would show himself guilty.

It began earlier.  Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D, CA) called for Republicans to be physically confronted wherever they are.  Senator Corey Spartacus Booker (D, NJ) called on the Left to get up in the face of congresspeople.

Now the Progressive-Democrats and their Left are expanding on the thesis that there can be no rationality in discourse—if, indeed, there can be discourse at all—with those of us to the right of center.  Here’s Hillary Clinton, in an interview with CNN:

You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about….  That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again.

That destruction is exactly what the Progressive-Democrats are attempting.  Yet, only when that Party is in control can there be any pretense of civility.  Only when the Party can require debate to be on their terms, within their parameters, can there be anything like peaceful disagreement.

The threats from the Left are palpable:

  • Senator Cory Gardner’s (R, CO) wife received a graphic text message with a video depicting a beheading
  • Progressive-Democrat intern Jackson Cosko has been arrested for posting the personal information, including home addresses, of Senators Lindsey Graham (R, SC), Mike Lee (R, UT), and Orrin Hatch (R, UT) on Wikipedia
  • Senator Jeff Flake (R, AZ) was trapped in an elevator with two screaming women “activists”

Senator Rand Paul (R, KY) worries about assassination attempts—a concern made concrete by last year’s mass assassination attempt of Republican Congressmen at a baseball practice.

Minnesota Special Education teacher, Samantha Ness, has actively called for the assassination of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

This is just a taste of what we can expect if the Progressive-Democrats are successful in this fall’s elections.  This is a taste of Progressive-Democrat “civility.”  It isn’t republican democracy that these folks want for our nation.  Not anymore.

Consider a Possibility

Posted on by
Reply

Our ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, will resign her position at the end of the year.  She told President Donald Trump her intention six months ago.

That raises a couple of thoughts in my pea brain.  One is to watch the utter vitriol, hatred, and character assassination with which the Progressive-Democrats will try to block any Trump replacement nominee from confirmation.

Beyond that: Nikki Haley for President in ’24.  Consider further: Lindsey Graham for VP (unless we still need the Republican numbers in the Senate to protect the Supreme Court).  (If Graham proves unavailable, how about Congresswoman Mia Love (R, UT)?  It’d be fun to watch the Party of Identity Politics campaign against that ticket.)

Partisanship

Posted on by
Reply

Chris Wallace interviewed Senator Ben Cardin (D, MD) on his Fox News Sunday program last Sunday.

Here are some of the claims Cardin made.

The change that Senator McConnell made to the rules on the Supreme Court really caused us to be much more partisan in this[.]

And

I don’t believe that Justice Kavanaugh’s in the mainstream of judicial thought.

And

Kavanaugh’s confirmation puts at risk “the progress we’ve made on health care issues, on women’s Constitutional rights, and on protecting the Mueller investigation.”

Not quite, although this is America, and Cardin is entitled [sic] to his spin.

However.

Filibustering confirmations is by design partisan. Absent overt filibustering—courtesy of Cardin’s erstwhile Leader Harry Reid; McConnell only completed Reid’s program—engaging in character assassination and smear as the preferred means of blocking a confirmation is especially, despicably partisan.

Not mainstream?  In Cardin’s fetid imagination and that of his fellow Progressive-Democrats, “mainstream” is judges with feelz and Latina wisdom. “Mainstream” also is the Constitution meaning whatever a judge thinks it should mean instead of what its text says.  No, Kavanaugh is in the heart of the envelope: the text of the Constitution and of a law is what should be adhered to.

Regarding what Cardin is pleased to call “progress,”—health care issues, women’s Constitutional rights, and protecting the Mueller investigation—these are political matters, not judicial ones.  Cardin and his fellow Progressive-Democrats need to make their case in the political branches and quit hiding behind judges’ robes.  If these politicians are unable to impose their political views on the rest of us, they need to accept that us unwashed masses disagree with them, and move on.

The Supreme Court

Posted on by
1

As I write this (Saturday morning), Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh has not been confirmed; although, that seems more likely than I had thought Friday morning before the cloture vote.  Nevertheless, here’s why we need another textualist Justice on the Court—from the words of another Supreme Court Justice.

Associate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said Friday she fears the high court may lack a justice going forward who would serve as a swing-vote on cases….

And

Kagan said at a conference for women at Princeton University that over the past three decades…there was a figure on the bench “who found the center or people couldn’t predict in that sort of way.”

She made her view explicit:

It’s not so clear, that I think going forward, that sort of middle position—it’s not so clear whether we’ll have it[.]
…
It’s an incredibly important thing for the court to guard is this reputation of being impartial, being neutral and not being simply extension of a terribly polarizing process.

In one respect, it’s shocking that a Supreme Court Justice would have so little understanding of the role of American judges in our nation—in their role at the foundation of our freedom.

What’s polarizing and destructive of the Court’s credibility is its penchant for ruling on the basis of their individual views of what society needs or wants, even to the point of rewriting a law, as Chief Justice Roberts did in order to “save” Obamacare.  Determinations of what society needs and modifications of law are political decisions, that only We the People, through our elected representatives, can make.  That’s clear from our Constitution’s Article I, Section 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Short, sweet, to the point, and not at all susceptible to misunderstanding.

Nor can a judge rule for the sake of achieving what seems to be—to the judge—some sort of “middle ground.”

A judge can only rule on the basis of what a law, or our Constitution, says.

Full stop.