Category Archives: ethics

Pre-Determined Outcome

Posted on by
Reply

New York’s Attorney-Elect Letitia James says she’s made her decision about the guilt of a man, a family, and a business, and now he’s going to collect the information needed to support her decision.

We will use every area of the law to investigate President Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well.
We want to investigate anyone in his orbit who has, in fact, violated the law[.]

She’s already determined, prior to any investigation whatsoever, that they’re guilty of having violated one or more [unnamed] laws.

An honest investigator, on suspicion of an illegal activity—not on suspicion of a person—would seek out all information surrounding the activity, both exculpatory and damaging, and then decide whether an illegal activity had occurred.  If an illegality had been done, then an honest investigator would seek out all information regarding who might have done the deed (and, yes, there would be considerable overlap with that prior phase), both exonerating and guilt-implying, and then decide whether to prosecute, or not.

But, hey—this is the age of We Can’t Handle the Truth of an Election.

Another Outcome of Supreme Court’s Abuse of the Takings Clause

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the Takings Clause of our 5th Amendment:

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now recall three critical Takings cases decided by the Supreme Court.  Berman v Parker was a 1954 case in which the Supremes explicitly rewrote that clause to say for public purpose, not use.  Hawaii Housing Authority v Midkiff was a 1984 case in which the Supremes ruled that it was perfectly fine for a State government to take private property away from a private enterprise and give it to private citizens who leased the property from the business.  Kelo v City of New London was a 2005 case in which the Supremes said it was jake for a State government to seize a private citizen’s property and give it to a private business for that business’ purposes.

That last shameful ruling led to a large number of States passing their own laws or State Constitutional amendments severely restricting the conditions under which eminent domain can be used.  The Federal government’s power as distorted by the Supremes in that trio of cases, however, remains the law.

This brings me to New York and New York City and amazon.com’s HQ2 move into the city.

In their bid for Amazon.com Inc’s second headquarters, New York City and state officials dangled prime real estate at the tech giant and offered to use eminent domain to scoop up any necessary properties for a campus, newly disclosed documents revealed Monday night.

These worthies planned the theft confiscation eminent domain seizures in four areas: Midtown West, lower Manhattan, along the Brooklyn waterfront, and Long Island City.

Such an offer wouldn’t have been possible except in the aftermath of Berman, Midkiff, and Kelo.  This is the extent of the destruction of private property the Supremes have wrought.

Google’s Boss Testified

Posted on by
Reply

Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai testified before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this week.  In the course of his testimony, he made some interesting claims.

“Even as we expand into new markets we never forget our American roots,” Mr Pichai said in his opening statement.

Not just roots, though. It’s important that Pichai and his team remember our American culture and values, too.  It’s not at all clear that he/they do.

As an American company, we cherish the values and freedoms that have allowed us to grow and serve so many users.  I am proud to say we do work, and we will continue to work, with the government to keep our country safe and secure.

Just how, exactly, does Pichai and his team propose to do that when they refuse to work with our defense establishment while enthusiastically working with our enemies—in particular, the People’s Republic of China and so with the PRC’s defense establishment?

Speedy Trial

Posted on by
Reply

As I write this on Tuesday, the question of bail for Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou remains unsettled.  The problem centers on a couple of things.  One is her husband’s offer to be responsible for Meng, guaranteeing her appearance at all court proceedings.  The presiding judge, Justice William Ehrcke, is having trouble believing that offer, even were it sincere.  Meng’s husband, Liu Xiaozong, is not a Canadian citizen, Meng’s lawyer had no information on any other immigration status for Liu, and Ehrcke expressed doubt over his ability to control Liu’s whereabouts—and so of Meng’s whereabouts.

Another concern is Meng’s health, of which she claims several problems and the impact being incarcerated in a jail cell would have on them.

A third is the People’s Republic of China’s naked threat of “severe consequences” for Canada if it doesn’t release Meng forthwith.

In reverse order: the People’s Republic of China’s threats a should make it impossible for Canada to do anything other than deny bail and promptly extradite Meng to the US.

While the extradition question is being decided, in satisfaction of Meng’s health concerns, hold her in a prison hospital where she can get the care and medications she says she needs rather than a cell.

Finally, speedily extradite Meng, and get her out of Canada’s hair and into US custody—it’s our laws she’s alleged to have violated.  Then let’s have a speedy trial and a prompt acquittal if her behavior turns out to have been legal, or a speedy conviction and sentence execution if not.

Unfortunately, Ehrcke has decided to grant bail to Meng.  It’ll be instructive to see how long Meng remains in Canada.

Brexit Botch

Posted on by
Reply

British Prime Minister Theresa May yesterday pulled today’s planned Parliament vote on her Brexit deal with Brussels when it became clear that not even her fellow Tories supported the deal in sufficient numbers to pass.  What’s more, she’s not suggested a new date for the vote, even though something is required to be presented to Parliament by 21 Jan 2019.

The deal as it stands is a terrible one, worse IMNSHO than a plain, unadorned breakout from the European Union.  It represented May’s meek submission to Brussels on nearly every one of their demands—including functional retention of EU immigration “rights” and EU court rulings within what used to be sovereign Great Britain for several years after the British nominal departure.

Nevertheless, May’s failure before Parliament represents further damage to Great Britain.

And this:

[May] will tour European capitals and then go back to Brussels to try to secure sweeteners that might buy off huge opposition to the package.
She insisted her blueprint was still the “best deal negotiable”, and said she still planned to put it to a vote once “reassurances” had been secured on the Irish border backstop.

Never mind that the Brussels “negotiators” have already said the present deal is a done deal and there will be no further negotiations on the matter.  There can be no sweeteners, as a result, nor can there be any reassurances: in particular, Brussels has already given all the assurances on the Irish border matter that they intend to putter around with.

Stand by for further May surrender to Brussels.