Global Warming and the World Series

The pseudo-scientists of the climatistas say that the rain delay between the 9th and 10th innings of last Wednesday’s Game 7 was caused by global warming.

Seriously, the science wizards behind the party’s Twitter account asserted that it “should” be snowing in Cleveland on November 3. It’s November, it’s Cleveland…it’s called science, people.

It’s November. It should be snowing in Cleveland, not raining! Blame global warming for the delay. #WorldSeries

    — Green Party US (@GreenPartyUS) November 3, 2016

Science, indeed.  Here’s a table of temperatures in the latter two-thirds of November 1908, the last year the Cubs won a Series, via the same Watts Up With That link above [highlight in the original]:worldseriesglobalwarmingIt would be funny, if this weren’t so serious.  As it is, it’s risible.

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.

Great Britain’s Supreme Court likely will hear an appeal of the ruling.  Upholding the High Court’s opinion likely will spell the end of Brexit for the near future and possibly permanently and the end of May’s government.  The former is because a majority of MPs want to stay in the EU and so can be expected to vote against invoking the Article.  The latter is because May (who opposed Brexit, also, but said she’d abide by the people’s vote) would be forced, if she’s a lady of her word, to seek a new set of MPs by dissolving her government and forcing early elections in an effort to get a collection of MPs more favorably disposed.

Likely, the High Court is right on the law.  The EU is a collection of treaties which Great Britain’s Parliament has ratified, and only the Parliament, not a popular referendum, can abrogate the treaties.  But the High Court is not right on law, and it’s not right on justice.

The people have spoken.  The courts may be bound by the letter of the law (though not as tightly so as American courts are, in theory at least), but the Parliament, if it must vote, would do well to remember that they work for the people, and so the MPs should vote accordingly rather than on the basis of their own petty opinions.

Democrats’ View of Rules

Here, the Senate’s rules, and Democratic Party Vice Presidential candidate Senator Tim Kaine (VA) is exposing Democrat disdain for them.

Here’s the relevant part of  Senate’s rule for changing a Senate Rule, from Rules of the Senate XXII, para 2, regarding a cloture vote to end debate on a motion, including a motion to change a Senate rule [emphasis added]:

…that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn—except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting….

Here’s how Senator Harry Reid (D, NV) was able to railroad through the nuclear option that ended filibusters on Presidential nominee confirmation votess for all offices other than Supreme Court Justices, from a Congressional Research Office paper.  In essence, it relies on the fact that an appeal of the Senate’s presiding chair on a point of order ruling is non-debatable, and the appeal is decided by a simple majority vote of the Senators present.

[I]f the chair rules…against the point of order embodying the new interpretation [here, to eliminate (most of) the filibuster of appointee confirmations], it is supporters of change who would have to appeal the decision. There is little likelihood that they could be prevented from doing so, for the right of appeal is understood to be an essential element of the power of the Senate to determine its own rules. The Senate could then potentially overturn the old precedent, and establish the new interpretation, by a simple majority vote on the appeal.

All strictly legal, and all wholly outside the spirit of the rules for changing a rule.  This is the cynicism with which Reid implemented the nuclear option.

And this is the cynicism with which Kaine intends to abolish the filibuster of Supreme Court Justice confirmation votes, too, so as to allow a Democrat-majority Senate to stack the Court with Justices having no respect for the Constitution, but only loyalty to the Democratic Party.

I am a US Senator. I have a prediction—this is not a guarantee—and I’m not revealing inside intel.  I was in the Senate when the Republicans’ stonewalling around appointments caused the Senate Democratic majority to switch the vote threshold on appointments from 60 to 51. And we did it on everything but a Supreme Court Justice.

If these guys think they’re going to stonewall the filling of that vacancy or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate majority will say, “We’re not going to let you thwart the law.” And so we will change the Senate rules to uphold the law that the court will be nine members.

Notice one thing: the Senate Democratic majority changed the Senate’s filibuster rule—a wholly partisan attack, with no semblance of the Rule’s original two-thirds majority requirement, which would have been too bipartisan to suit the Democrats.  And Kaine is proud of that.

Notice one other thing.  Kaine—proudly—will impose a simple majority action to destroy the ability of a minority party to protect the interests of its minority constituents.  Those folks, who disagree with the majority, simply don’t matter.

Notice one last thing.  Blocking a particular Supreme Court Justice confirmation is in no way a thwarting of the law.  The President has the obligation to offer nominees that satisfy the Senate’s (not the majority party’s) advice and consent—here, it is the President who has the legal obligation to offer nominees to fill the Court’s vacancy.  The Senate has no obligation to rubber stamp any of those nominees, vacancy or no.  Kaine knows this full well.

This is the Democratic Party arrogance and the Democrats’ disdain for American citizens that’s at stake in the Senate elections next week.

Probably Not A Bad Idea, Then

The People’s Republic of China is…wary…of dealing with a President Trump, and they’re expressing that wariness in the milieu of the Paris climate accord.  Xie Zhenhua, the PRC’s climate negotiator, is being cited by The Guardian as saying, in response to Republican Party Presidential candidate Donald Trump’s commitment to walk away from the accord, that

The world is moving towards balancing environmental protection and economic growth….

And

I believe a wise political leader should take policy stances that conform with global trends.

And Trump should continue the meekness of President Barack Obama’s (D) following along leading from behind.  The PRC is much more comfortable that way.

That just supports the thesis that the Paris climate accord is worthless, and we should walk away from it.

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.

Republican Party Presidential candidate Donald Trump’s wants:

[Justices who would] interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted.

Notice that.  Justices who will do the opposite of what Clinton’s choices will do: rule on the basis of what the law and the Constitution actually say, rather than on what the Justices might wish had been said.

There’s just one more litmus test that I would add, one as general and carefully nonspecific as Trump’s: lose deference to the other branches of the Federal government.  The founders also wrote the Judicial branch as the equal of the Legislative and Executive branches.  No deference is owed, no deference is legitimate.  Deference subordinates what is intended to be a coequal branch of the government to the other two.  Besides, a law is Constitutional, or it is not; that does not depend in any way on who says it.   Further, a matter before the Court comports with the law and the Constitution on its merits, or it does not; that does not depend on who is bringing or defending the matter.

One of these two will be nominating Justices in the next term—at least one, likely three, and maybe four or five.  The next President will determine the tenor of the Court and the viability of our legal system for generations.

It’s clear which set of choices are better for the present and long term health of our nation.