Category Archives: morality

Mao Lives

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China, the home of rule by law (not rule of law), has retroactively legalized its “internment” camps, which the government is using to jail reeducate recalcitrant Muslims in its western province of Xinjiang.

Chinese authorities in the far-northwestern region of Xinjiang on Wednesday revised legislation to permit the use of “education and training centers” to combat religious extremism.

So far—so far, mind you—a million Muslims are…housed…in those camps.

The camps are strongly reminiscent of those of President Xi Jinping’s early predecessor, Mao Tse-tung.  Mao sent 16-18 million children and millions more adults to his “reeducation” camps.

Xi is off to a good start.

Roberts’ Court

Posted on by
Reply

Aside from the misnomer of the title, which is implied by the thrust of a piece in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal centered on Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation and the hoo-raw surrounding that, Chief Justice John Roberts has a problem with the perception of the Supreme Court—according to Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin, the authors of the piece.

“We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans, and I think it’s a very unfortunate perception that the public might get from the confirmation process,” CJ Roberts…2016.

The Court can’t worry about perceptions, though.  It can—should—only rule on what the Constitution or law actually says.

“Every single one of us has an obligation to think about what it is that provides the court with its legitimacy, to think about how we can be not so politically divided as some of the other political institutions in the nation,” Justice Elena Kagan said[.]

No.  What provides the court with its legitimacy is its rulings based on the text of the Constitution or the law. A Justice’s empathy, or the particular wisdom of Latinas, or the concept that a judge should take account of…the climate of an era, have no place on the bench. Nor does an automatic reach for the middle.

The handling of any of those things—and they are important (as are the social climate generally; the wisdom of non-Latinas, also; empathy)—can only be done politically, not judicially.

The Party of…Something

Posted on by
Reply

The editors of the Wall Street Journal warned us last Sunday to be heads up: the Progressive-Democrats are not going to let this Kavanaugh thing go, even now that the confirmation is done.  Shamefully, neither are they going to let Dr Christine Blasey Ford go.

The Minority Leader made clear that Democrats are going to use accuser Christine Blasey Ford as a campaign prop from here to November and beyond.

Schumer, Feinstein, Hirono, Gillibrand, Durbin, Spartacus—all of these, and each of them, have abused Dr Ford nearly as badly as did her unknown assailant all those decades ago.  So has nearly every member of the Progressive-Democrat Party up for reelection this cycle.

And they intend to go on abusing her.

Dr Ford isn’t an abused woman in these Progressive-Democrats’ eyes; she isn’t even a human being. She’s just an inanimate gear for the Progressive-Democrat vote creation machine. She has expressed her desire to go back to her private life and her anonymity; these Progressive-Democrats won’t even let her do that.

The Party is utterly despicable.

A Response

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Senator Richard Blumenthal’s (D, CT) sly innuendo about Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh during last Thursday’s (has it been only a week?) Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to receive testimony from Dr Christine Blasey Ford and Judge Kavanaugh:

As a federal judge, you’re aware of the jury instruction falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus [false in one thing, false in everything], are you not? You’re aware of that jury instruction.

Where Blumenthal was being legally pedantic, Victor Davis Hanson has an idea of an entirely appropriate response by Judge Kavanaugh, a broader, literary one, from Horace:

Mutato nomine de te fabula narratur [change only the name, and the story is about you]

Indeed.

Commitments

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the deal brokered by Senators Jeff Flake (R, AZ) and his BFF Chris Coons (R, DE) wherein Flake would sell his vote for confirmation of Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh in return for a new, week-long FBI investigation specifically into Dr Christine Blasey Ford’s (and one other woman’s) accusation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh.  Recall further that, no sooner had the Senate Judiciary Committee completed its committee vote on the confirmation, Coons was talking to the press about how the FBI should not be limited; the agents should be free to investigate any further allegations that might be generated come up during that week.

But that deal which, as The Wall Street Journal put it in Sunday’s edition,

was intended to satisfy concerns that allegations against Judge Kavanaugh weren’t being fully vetted before the full Senate took up his nomination[,]

is subject to further welshing by Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA):

The FBI’s hands must not be tied in this investigation….

This just confirms how worthless commitments made by Progressive-Democrats are. Feinstein was a participant in the Flake-Coons negotiations; she knew the parameters of the agreement when she agreed to it. Now she’s busily reneging.

Remember the trustworthiness of Progressive-Democrats as you contemplate your vote next month.  And do go vote.