Category Archives: law

Misunderstanding?

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors laid out their “misunderstanding” in the opening sentence of their lede of their Sunday editorial.

Does a biological boy who transitions to become a girl have a constitutional right to compete in girls’ sports?

No, this is no mere misunderstanding; even a journalist knows better than this. It’s a deliberate distortion, which these editors are dishonestly presenting as established fact.

The fact that these…persons…are trying to steer us away from is that gender is immutable, and it is established at the moment a sperm unites with an egg and the genetic combination of XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes are established.

No amount of surgery and/or hormonal treatments can transition a boy into a girl; those actions can only alter his appearance. His genetic makeup remains untouched: he’s still a boy, regardless of what he looks like.

Once Again, a State Court Fails

Posted on by
Reply

The Wyoming Supreme Court has struck down the State’s ban on abortion pills. Whether or not abortion pills are reasonable or safe or ought to be banned or not, the Court’s “reasoning” is deficient.

The court found that the state “failed to prove the 2023 laws were ‘reasonable and necessary restrictions’ on the right to make one’s own health care decisions.”

In so ruling, the court in the main relied on the Wyoming Constitution‘s Article 1, Section 38, which says,

a) Each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions. The parent, guardian or legal representative of any other natural person shall have the right to make health care decisions for that person.
(b) Any person may pay, and a health care provider may accept, direct payment for health care without imposition of penalties or fines for doing so.
(c) The legislature may determine reasonable and necessary restrictions on the rights granted under this section to protect the health and general welfare of the people or to accomplish the other purposes set forth in the Wyoming Constitution.
(d) The state of Wyoming shall act to preserve these rights from undue governmental infringement.

At that point, they stopped their thinking, though. They chose not to consider the baby’s intrinsic right to its own health—its own life. That the State’s constitution is silent on the baby’s right to life should not be allowed to free up judges, even State Supreme Court Justices, to rule as they wish. Where the law is silent on a matter, no court should be ruling on the matter since by entering that silence it is unavoidably making law in its own name, and that is the sole province of the political arms, the arms elected by the people, to do.

Justice Jo Gray implied as much when, in her dissent, she used to same Article and Section to argue the definition of “reasonable and necessary restrictions” is too vague and so the matter should have been returned to the legislature for clarification. Sadly, Gray also chose to elide any consideration of the baby’s welfare, also.

The court’s ruling can be read here.

Violations of International Law

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors rightly ask the question.

Has international law become a tyrant’s best friend? Democrats and foreign leaders are claiming that President Trump’s arrest of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro is illegal—at least as international law is interpreted by the reigning complex of professors, NGOs, and multilateral bureaucrats.

Never mind that none of these nay-sayers—not a single one—are willing to cite the “international law” that the US violated in the arrest of Maduro and his wife. The closest they come is the single UN law, which as no applicability to the current situation, as the editors explain in words so plain that even Leftists should be able to understand them.

I expect such cynicism and dishonest out of our enemies and our fair weather friends and acquaintances. But to get this drivel from American politicians—in the main, Progressive-Democratic Party politicians—is decidedly shameful. This sub rosa hatred of America by those who claim to be our own should be remembered at the ballot box this fall.

This Says It All

Posted on by
Reply

Minnesota’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Tim Walz has said he’ll not seek reelection as Minnesota’s governor. His rationale for that decision is both instructive of his priorities and illustrative of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s priorities.

As I reflected on this moment with my family and my team over the holidays, I came to the conclusion that I can’t give a political campaign my all.
Every minute I spend defending my own political interests would be a minute I can’t spend defending the people of Minnesota against the criminals who prey on our generosity and the cynics who prey on our differences.

“His own political interests.” Not the interests or weal of the good citizens of Minnesota. He puts his own political interests on a par with “defending the people of Minnesota,” when that should have been his first and only focus. No, it’s all about his political gain, and beyond that, the political gain of Party. Not the interests or weal of us average Americans in general, either.

And never mind the years of time he spent not defending the people of Minnesota against the criminals who prey on our generosity, as demonstrated by the breadth, depth, and duration of the multi-billion dollar (and growing) social services fraud that’s engulfed his State during his first two terms while he worried first and primarily about his own political interests.

Unfortunately, much more house cleaning is necessary in the Party-run Governor’s Mansion and State Senate than just the removal of Walz. This affaire is much too large for him to have been acting, or even merely derelict, alone.

A Simpler Solution

Posted on by
Reply

As Conservatives grow increasingly concerned over activist Federal district judges overstep their authorities, even seemingly overruling Supreme Court decisions regarding nation-wide injunctions, many are proposing corrective action.

One proposed solution lies within the judiciary itself. Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, the Judicial Conference of the United States may refer a judge to Congress if it determines that the judge’s conduct could warrant impeachment.

And

Another avenue for reform lies with Congress, which has clear constitutional authority to define the jurisdiction and powers of lower federal courts. Lawmakers could, for example, require cases with national implications to be heard by three-judge panels, or mandate expedited Supreme Court review of injunctions blocking federal laws or regulations.

I’m loathe to see JCUS get more active in referring to Congress for impeachment. That’s a slippery slope. What happens via an (over)active JCUS when the Progressives get activist Justices appointed to the Court?

The Supreme Court’s involvement here should begin as follows. If a district judge oversteps his bounds in the form of issuing a ruling not in conformance with a Supreme Court ruling a second time, the Court in overruling that judge’s second overstep should also rule that all future opinions which that judge issues are automatically stayed pending appellate court review.

The solution to judge-shopping is more straightforward than many think, as is the business of district judge issued national injunctions, if they might be politically difficult. Congress needs to pass and the President sign (or have his veto overridden) a law with two paragraphs. One paragraph would clarify and state explicitly that all cases, including civil, must be brought in the Federal district in which the first instance of the beef arose. If the other side of the litigation can demonstrate that the beef to which the plaintiff’s case refers actually had its first instance arise in a different district, then the plaintiff’s case would be dismissed.

The other paragraph would explicitly limit a district judge’s reach to the limits of his district boundary. District judges would be explicitly barred from issuing nationwide injunctions or any other injunction reaching beyond his district boundary. There’s no need for a three-judge panel here, nor is there any need for “expedited” review.