The Liberal, Living Constitution, wing of the Supreme Court is up in arms over losing a case with precedential implications. The proximate case concerned Franchise Tax Board v Hyatt, in which the Supreme Court overturned a 40-year-old precedent that held that States are not required to grant legal immunity to other States in interstate lawsuits. I won’t go into that because that’s not the crux of the matter.
Instead, that Liberal wing, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, objected to the precedent reversal not on its merits or on the merits of precedent overturning/preservation, but on the premise that overturning this precedent would lead to overturning the abortion ban restrictions in Roe v Wade.
Senator Cory “Spartacus” Booker (D, NJ) has one in spades. The article at the link was centered on Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Robert Francis O’Rourke’s mild disagreement with Booker’s position on gun control, but one of the false premises that inform Booker’s misunderstanding was exposed.
Booker argued that just as a driver’s license demonstrates a person’s eligibility and proficiency to drive a car, “a gun license demonstrates that a person is eligible and can meet certain safety and training standards necessary to own a gun.”
The Progressive-Democratic Party wants to disarm us. That’s made clear by Party Presidential candidate and Senator Cory “Spartacus” Booker’s (NJ) gun control plan. Senator Spartacus wants, among other requirements [emphasis added]:
prospective gun owners must prove to the FBI that they’ve completed a gun-safety course to obtain a federal gun license
that federal license would be required to purchase a firearm
a federal background check on virtually all sales
the federal license would be good for only five years
current firearm owners would have to get this federal license, also
That’s what Democratic Socialist and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders (I, VT) thinks ought to happen. He couches this as all citizens having a right to vote, “even terrible people.”
Unfortunately, though, Sanders has misunderstood the nature of the social compact, and the Lockean nature of our American social compact.
The Supreme Court has heard the oral arguments for Iancu v Brunetti, a case I wrote about a bit ago. Hadley Arkes’ op-ed in The Wall Street Journal shed additional light on the matter, which centers on whether Iancu’s business can trademark the name of his business, Friends U Can’t Trust, with its acronym stand-in.
Certain words are fixed in the language with the moral functions of “commending” and “condemning,” and some of them have a special edge….
That’s what Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Hamlet’s poor relation Joe Biden, said we’re in as he opened his campaign.
We are in the battle for the soul of this nation[.] If we give Donald Trump eight years in the White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter….
Indeed, we are in a battle for our nation’s soul. It’s a battle between one party that actively tries to improve the situations of our nation’s citizens—whether we agree with those policies or not—and a party that has no aim for our people’s benefit, but is focused solely on anti-Trumpism.
That’s what France and New Zealand want to do and want others to join them in doing, all in response to the terrorist murders in New Zealand. The two intend to host a conference involving G-7 members’ IT chiefs and a separate “technology summit” aimed at getting commitments
to end the use of social media to organize and promote terrorism and extremist violence.
But whose definition of violence? Whose definition of extremism? We’re already seeing, in our nation, the Progressive-Democratic Party and their violence-oriented arms, Antifa and BLM, and their university management team associates, defining conservative speech as triggering, dangerous to mental health, violent.
The FCC thinks it has a problem with the pending T-Mobile-Sprint merger, worrying that such a thing would anti-competitive and lead to rising prices for consumers. The WSJ‘s editorial board demurs from the FCC’s attitude.
But greater economies of scale in industries with high fixed costs can create efficiencies that benefit consumers. DOJ’s position should evolve as markets and technology have.
Indeed, and the FCC’s regulators presently are illustrating another problem with government intervention in the market, whether by Republican or Progressive-Democrat regulators. The FCC’s regulators’ worries are purely speculative, not realized fact.
The Supreme Court has taken up the case of Iancu v Brunetti and heard oral arguments Monday. Erik Brunetti wanted a copyright on the label for a clothing line of his that he’d named FUCT, an acronym for Friends U Can’t Trust. Iancu is Andrei Iancu, who is duel-hatted as Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Wearing that second hat, Iancu and his fellow USPTO bureaucrats said they were scandalized and morally offended, and they denied Brunetti’s copyright application. The Wall Street Journal, at the link, said