Monthly Archives: June 2025

I’d Go One Step Further

Posted on by
Reply

In a Friday letter to the WSJ‘s Letters section, Samuel Estreicher and Rudra Reddy, of the New York University School of Law, reminded us of a suggestion for curbing Federal district judge arrogance in issuing nationwide—universal—injunctions:

Aside from raising the legal standard for issuing such injunctions, the Supreme Court should also consider procedural steps that could be taken to challenge a nationwide injunction once issued, such as an expedited appeal to the regional circuit or to the high court itself.

My one further step is this: automatically stay each universal injunction until its final review by the relevant appellate court and Supreme Court, or by the Supreme Court directly. In conjunction with this, require the appellate court or Supreme Court to take up the case within an explicitly defined number of days (not many) of the injunction having been issued, with that takeup done either by appeal or by the appellate court on its own initiative, whichever is necessary to meet the deadline. Apply the same time-constraint to the Supreme Court in the event of a direct appeal.

I’d give serious consideration, given the serious nature and wide scope of a universal injunction issued at the district level, to having the injunction’s appeal go directly to the Supreme Court. That Court is, after all, the only one with universal jurisdiction, and it’s the only Constitutionally mandated Court in the US.

And an incentive step: in the event the universal injunction is struck down, even if it’s allowed to stand as it applies solely to the litigants, the appellate/Supreme Court should overtly chastise the issuing district court judge for his overreach.

It’s Not Only Airbases

Posted on by
Reply

Holman Jenkins is negatively excited, justifiably, by some implications of the Ukrainian Drone attack that has so severely damaged Russia’s LRA bombers, which comprise a major component of the barbarian’s strategic nuclear triad.

“Hoo boy” was my first reaction to the outpouring of commentary treating a Ukrainian drone attack on parked Russian aircraft as the greatest military revelation since the Trojan horse. The US had been warned, warned, warned, and warned by events on its own shores of this turn in military tactics. In February, I cadged assurances from the leadership of Barksdale Air Force Base, home to many of America’s irreplaceable B-52s, that it was employing countermeasures against the drone threat.

It’s not just exposed aircraft on airbases, either. Our missile siloes are at risk. And no, the missiles don’t need to be dug out of their siloes to be successfully attacked. Nor do the silo lids need to be blown and rain debris down onto the missiles–they just need to be jammed from opening. An attack on the operating mechanism—the hinges for those silo lids that swing up to open, the slides for the lids that slide away, etc. A sealed-in missile is just as functionally destroyed.

Certainly it would take horsier drones to deliver explosives big enough to jam the doors than the small quadcopters that were adequate to damage or destroy exposed, neatly parked aircraft. (Did the barbarian learn nothing from an Israeli raid on Egyptian airbases in an earlier war? Or did he really think distance was enough protection?) Horsier drones are as well developed on mature technology as the quadcopters, and they can be just as easily assembled in situ for their short, one-way missions.

Fear-Mongering Lies

Posted on by
Reply

The editors at The Wall Street Journal opined about the CBO joining the Left’s scaremongering regarding those disastrous cuts to Medicaid that the Evil Republicans are bent on inflicting. The dishonesty is much broader than that of the CBO, though. The lede image illustrates the magnitude and the breadth and depth of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s participation in the lie.

Here are some facts buried by the CBO in its report, but still there in its Black Letter Report. CBO isn’t the only crowd focusing on the top number, that some 10.9 million folks would lose Medicaid coverage under the House Republican reconciliation bill.

  • 2 million able-bodied adults on Medicaid would lose coverage owing to the bill’s work requirements
  • 700,000 would lose coverage through the bill’s more frequent Medicaid eligibility verification requirements
  • 4 million undocumented migrants would lose coverage
  • 1 million non-permanent immigrants and asylum seekers would lose Obamacare subsidies

That’s 8.3 million of those 10.9 million who would lose coverage. Those millions consist of folks who should be working rather than shirking and freeloading, others who are not entitled to coverage due to their status as illegal aliens, their status as non-citizens and so not entitled to subsidies, or their lack of eligibility because they’ve moved out of state, or their incomes have increased sufficiently.

Those remaining 2.6 million might or might not still be eligible for coverage, and if so, they’ll easily be covered by their States through the savings in Medicaid outlays no longer being sent to those 8.3 million.

Hospitals won’t close, unless a State chooses to cut them off from Medicaid outlays out of a politician snit, and the only folks who would die would be those dumped onto the street by a State’s decision to close those hospitals.

Of course House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D, NY) and his supporters know these things full well. As highly talented and thoroughly educated politicians, they are, of course, entirely literate and responsible politicians that they also are, they’ve read the entire CBO report.

Instead, they illustrate why our nation cannot have nice things were they to return to political power.

It’s Not Only That

Posted on by
Reply

A letter writer in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal Letters section wrote, regarding who or what is responsible for safeguarding our rights and liberties,

the security of our rights depends on ourselves. When one considers what we hold self-evident—that government doesn’t possess the power to grant or deny our inherent and unalienable natural rights—we find that all we got from Benjamin Franklin and his colleagues was a federal government that has rarely upheld the terms of our social contract and poses the greatest threat to our freedom and prosperity.

That’s not all we got from Franklin, though. The letter writer missed Franklin’s critical criterion, included in his 17 April 1787 letter to the Abbes Chalut and Arnaud, that defines “ourselves:”

Let me add, that only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.

Our pursuit of being virtuous, though—especially today—requires a complete revamp of our education system to emphasize performance, merit, Western Civilization values and history, along with STEM, all of that being done from pre-K through whatever degree level a student might pursue. And an elimination of professoriate opinion in the teaching of facts along with a strong demand for free and open debate on the meaning of those facts, a debate informed solely by logic and additional facts.

And at least as critically, the active participation of parents in the raising of our children and in their education. Schools cannot, profitably for the weal of our nation, be treated as babysitters, child care centers, or even ex loco parentis facilities.

“Reconsider”

Posted on by
Reply

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has rejected a Trump administration offer to let Iran enrich uranium for a short time, and then end its domestic enrichment altogether. As the WSJ put it in the lede of that article, this forc[es] the White House to reconsider its approach as tensions mount over Iran’s nuclear program. Iran already has been blocking inspector access to its nuclear development facilities almost since the signing of the Obama-Kerry travesty of an agreement

It continues to obfuscate and outright lie about those facilities, including denying the existence of some that the intel sources of a number of nations have detected. Meanwhile, enrichment toward weapons grade purity goes apace, and Iran is capable of producing enough weapons grade uranium for 10 bombs within a few weeks. Converting that purified metal into functioning bombs won’t take that much longer.

The goal of the Trump administration and that of many of our friends and allies is to deny Iran any access to nuclear weapons. If they’re serious about that goal, it’s time to stop wasting resources—including time—on debating the matter with Iran. That nation is never going to give up on developing and producing nuclear weapons; those are its path to achieving its sworn-to goal, the extermination of Israel and damage to, if not destruction of, us, along with selling nuclear weapons to its terrorist proxies in the Middle East and Europe.

Here’s a reconsideration: it’s time for a joint mission by the US and Israel to physically and cybernetically attack and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and other installations involved in the development and production of nuclear weapons.