Hypocrisy

Senator Mark Warner (D, VA) claims he now regrets his Progressive-Democratic Party’s push to change the rules governing the Senate’s filibuster.

I would wish we wouldn’t even have started this a decade ago. When the Democratic leaders actually changed the rules, I don’t think we would have the Supreme Court we did if we still had a 60-vote margin on the filibuster, but we are where we are[.]

Maybe never mind, though, since he has his fingers crossed behind his back on that.

But I do believe when it comes to voting rights…if we have to do a small carve out on filibuster for voting rights—that is the only area where I’d allow that kind of reform.

This is the Progressive-Democrat, unwilling to change the filibuster except when a change would be convenient for his personal pet projects.

Migrant Voters

And no, I don’t mean illegal aliens as potential voters.

Last spring, before Texas’ cowards, no, flee-baggers, no, Progressive-Democrats ran away from Texas explicitly to block voting on new voting laws (!), the State’s legislature succeeded in passing a voting law that, among other things, prevented folks from renting a post office box, claiming residency from that in that PO’s district, and voting away. Instead, the law requires folks to have an actual street address at an actual residence—house, apartment, what-have-you—and actually live there.

Leftists object to that and have filed suit.

They don’t care (or maybe they do care; it’s the sort of thing Progressive-Democrats last fall openly contemplated during the runoff election campaigns for Georgia’s Senator seats) that establishing residency by getting a post office box—which shrinks the concept of mobile tiny houses to new levels of mobility and tininess—is simply an open invitation to setting up waves of migrant voters to be sent to key jurisdictions in order to swing elections.

Cowards Flee

Texas’ Progressive-Democrats have done it again. Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) called a special session of the Texas legislature because Texas’ Progressive-Democrats cravenly ran away from the last days of the legislature’s regular session explicitly to deny a quorum and prevent debate and votes to pass or reject a number of critical bills, including a couple of voting bills that would increase ballot security while facilitating voter access to ballots.

These wonders of Progressivism were too cowardly and too arrogant (with all the overlap between the two) to debate and vote—even to allow debate and voting. So much for their pious pretense of favoring voting.

Now, those same Progressive-Democrats have blown up the special session, wasting all the Texas taxpayer money spent on that special session, and run away again.

And they bragged about their cowardice. James Talarico (D, 52nd District), among the Progressive-Democrats who jetted out of the state on a chartered jet:

Just landed in Memphis on our way to DC. Thank y’all for your well wishes.

They showed their privilege again, too: they chartered private jets in which to flee to DC; they couldn’t even be bothered to fly commercial, or to take the train, or (gasp!) drive themselves.

Rich cowards fleeing.

Some did jump on a bus, though.

Others were reportedly pictured on a DC-bound bus with packs of Miller Lite.

Not even a Texas beer, even if it is a Dallas Cowboys sponsor; that just shows the Precious Ones’ virtue signaling. Miller is sold by Chicago, IL, headquartered Molson Coors. These wonders couldn’t even be bothered to bring packs of Shiner Bock or Texas Red.

Party down, guys. In every sense of that phrase.

Oh, and one more thing. The Progressive-Democratic Party’s leadership has already termed the filibuster a relic of Jim Crow. Here is that party–the Party that invented Jim Crow–by running away, reviving this relic. And they’re proud of it.

Today’s Attorney General

The Progressive-Democrat appointee to Attorney General, Merrick Garland, is showing his overtly political bent as our nation’s chief prosecutor. One characterization of The Wall Street Journal‘s editors especially stands out, a characterization of Garland’s suit against Georgia and its new, more expansive voter law.

…a fair guess is that Mr Garland succumbed to White House and progressive pressure to make a political statement to support Democratic efforts in Congress to federalize state election laws in HR1.

Garland—especially with his willingness to surrender to White House political pressure—is demonstrating the wisdom of not confirming him to the Supreme Court. Imagine the destruction he’d have wreaked from the Court as the tool of a President that he’s demonstrating himself to be, given the damage he’s attempting to wreak as AG.

I Dissent

…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.