Category Archives: politics

Law and Trump’s EO Regarding Travel Delays

Posted on by
Reply

The 4th Circuit Appellate Court is hearing the Trump administration’s appeal of Hawaii and Maryland Federal trial judges’ preliminary injunctions blocking implementation of the President Donald Trump’s second Executive Order imposing a temporary travel delay of its own on persons from six Middle East nations from entering the United States (with provisions for case-by-case exceptions).  Even though Hawaii is in the 9th Circuit and not the 4th, I’m using the Hawaii ruling as my example here since the Maryland ruling is substantially the same, the Hawaii ruling is more readily available, and I’m lazy.

Judge Derrick Watson’s Hawaii ruling can be read here, and from that ruling…[emphasis added]

Because a reasonable, objective observer—enlightened by the specific historical context, contemporaneous public statements, and specific sequence of events leading to its issuance—would conclude that the Executive Order was issued with a purpose to disfavor a particular religion, in spite of its stated, religiously-neutral purpose….

No truly reasonable, objective observer would read any of that into the EO’s stated, religiously-neutral purpose because no truly reasonable, objective observer would go beyond the plain meaning of the words to seek clearer understanding of them unless those words, as present, were unclear.  The word here are plainly clear; outside words are less than irrelevant; their importation here is inappropriate.  Judges must apply the law (here, the EO) as it is written and not in accordance with their personal moral precepts.  To do the latter is a blatant violation of their oaths of office.

To determine whether the Executive Order runs afoul of that command [the Establishment Clause], the Court is guided by the three-part test for Establishment Clause claims set forth in Lemon v Kurtzman….

The applicability of the Lemon test is nonexistent because the Establishment Clause is irrelevant to this case.  Aside from the fact that the EO, by design and declaration, has no religion-related purpose, the EO applies solely and strictly to foreign nationals who are outside the US.  That means they also are outside the United States’ jurisdiction.  That means the Constitution and its tenets and requirements do not apply to those foreign nationals.

For the court to assert that our Constitution reaches beyond our borders, for this court to claim our government has jurisdiction over persons (and by extension, to nations?) outside our borders runs contrary to our nation’s policies, contrary to international law, contrary to the very principles of what it means to be a citizen of a nation—especially for those persons who are citizens of a nation other than our own.

The 4th Circuit should overrule.

Is Satire

Posted on by
Reply

…a proper style for what’s claimed to be a serious, scholarly journal?  Here, via The Wall Street Journal, is the abstract of Teresa Lloro-Bidart’s When ‘Angelino’ squirrels don’t eat nuts: a feminist posthumanist politics of consumption across southern California [sic] in the journal Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography [also sic]:

Eastern fox squirrels (Sciurus niger), reddish-brown tree squirrels native to the eastern and southeastern United States, were introduced to and now thrive in suburban/urban California. As a result, many residents in the greater Los Angeles region are grappling with living amongst tree squirrels, particularly because the state’s native western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus) is less tolerant of human beings and, as a result, has historically been absent from most sections of the greater Los Angeles area. ‘Easties,’ as they are colloquially referred to in the popular press, are willing to feed on trash and have an ‘appetite for everything.’ Given that the shift in tree squirrel demographics is a relatively recent phenomenon, this case presents a unique opportunity to question and re-theorize the ontological given of ‘otherness’ that manifests, in part, through a politics whereby animal food choices ‘[come] to stand in for both compliance and resistance to the dominant forces in [human] culture’. I, therefore, juxtapose feminist posthumanist theories and feminist food studies scholarship to demonstrate how eastern fox squirrels are subjected to gendered, racialized, and speciesist thinking in the popular news media as a result of their feeding/eating practices, their unique and unfixed spatial arrangements in the greater Los Angeles region, and the western, modernist human frame through which humans interpret these actions. I conclude by drawing out the implications of this research for the fields of animal geography and feminist geography.

Unfortunately, the full article is behind a paywall, but the abstract is sufficient unto the day.  And it raises a question: how much of the…research…behind this piece was done with the proceeds of a Federal grant to California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, where Lloro-Bidart is an Assistant Professor in the Liberal Studies Department?  Is our tax money funding satire, now?  If so, Congress does need, indeed, need to revisit funding for the NSF and similar entities.

Do Big Things Quietly

Posted on by
Reply

Which is not the same as doing them secretively.  Just don’t bruit about any wonderfulness about you for doing them.  Let the little things you do do your talking for you.

Morally, do the little things quietly (but not secretively), also; let your efforts speak for themselves.  I’m writing here, though, about practical politics, and two examples illustrate the matter: Obamacare and efforts at managing climate change.

Recall that Obamacare was an effort to redo a sixth of our economy in Government’s name, for our own good: a big thing.  It also was highly controversial, the Democrats made a big deal out of how wonderful they were for doing this.  And it was, and is, universally hated.  Except for the Republicans’ efforts here.  Undoing Obamacare is as big a deal as doing it, and the Republicans are making a big deal out of how wonderful they are for working to undo it.  And their efforts are not at all popular, either.

Notice: both parties spent/are spending as much, if not more, energy on their virtue signaling as they did/are on the actual effort.  The outcomes were disasters for the Democrats in Congress, the White House, and in state and local governments.

Look, too, at climate change.  Dawn Wilson, a purchaser and customer relations manager (currently between jobs) in Roseville, MI, had some thoughts.

Of Clinton having a campaign office here—only to skip visiting the struggling working-class manufacturing town and send in Hollywood surrogates Ted Danson and his wife Mary Steenburgen, who scolded voters about climate change—she is sardonic:

Your message and your optics are everything when you are trying to persuade people to buy something from you or vote for you. Does this look like somewhere that needs to be schooled on climate change?

Never mind that what mattered to the folks in Rosemont, and everywhere else in the US throughout the failed Obama recovery, was the immediacy of their economic well-being, whether they would be able to keep their job—Wilson was fired after 17 years in her job—or having lost their job, whether they would be able to get another.  After all, at the time of the election campaigns throughout last year, the average time out of work, for those who hadn’t given up altogether, still was measured in severals of months, not the few weeks that’s typical of a normal recovery.

Yet the Democrats made lots of noise about their importance to preventing future climate problem of questionable likelihood and of no immediacy in the minds of voters, and made little noise at all—and so no effort at all, at least perceptually, about solving that today problem of voters.

As the Washington Examiner put it,

For the Clinton campaign to send Hollywood liberals here in the closing days of the race to preach about climate change was tone deaf on a Guinness record-level.

Like a shoe maker says: just do it.

The Durbin Amendment and Price Fixing

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Dick Durbin (D, IL) added to Dodd-Frank an amendment that mandated the maximum price large banks could charge merchants who process debit-card payments.  The House’s Financial Services Committee, in marking up Chairman Jeb Hensarling’s Financial Choice Act, included repeal of the Durbin Amendment.

Naturally, Durbin has demurred, and he did so, among other place, in a Letter to the Editor of The Wall Street Journal.

It’s no secret that Wall Street hates the swipe-fee law that I authored in 2010. This law finally reined in the debit swipe-fee price-fixing that Visa and MasterCard were doing on behalf of banks. The old rigged system permitted Visa and MasterCard to fix the same fees for all card-issuing banks, and without competition the fees always went up. It was a market failure and merchants and their customers ended up paying for it.

And

The 2010 reform law said that if the nation’s top 1% of biggest banks are going to let Visa and MasterCard price-fix their swipe fees, then the fees must be reasonable and proportional to the cost of conducting the transaction.

Wow.  Price fixing is OK as long as it’s Big Government doing to fixing, says the Progressive-Democrat from Illinois.  No.  There exist, already, laws against such collusion; all that’s necessary, were the banks actually colluding as Durbin claims, is to enforce existing law.  There is neither need nor excuse to expand Government by writing a new law to fix a failure from enforcing existing law.

Market failure?  Again, no.  Not every burble, bubble, or dislocation represents a market failure; indeed, they’re the normal volatility of a thriving free market.  Or they would be with less government interference so we actually had a free market.  Far from a market failure, this failure is another failure of Big Government’s central planning for our market.  It’s time—long past time—to dump the Durbin amendment.

It’s time—long past time—for competition to reenter the credit and debit card free market niche and to let the free market “fix” the prices.  It’s time—long past time—for Big Government to leave the market.

Puerto Rico’s Bankruptcy

Posted on by
Reply

Andrew Scurria and Heather Gillers have a piece in The Wall Street Journal that discusses various considerations now that the story of Puerto Rico’s bankruptcy is “just beginning for investors.”  One remark in particular caught my eye.

Complicating matters, Puerto Rico hasn’t yet decided which creditors have priority in a restructuring.

This lack of forethought, even of understanding, is illustrative of how Puerto Rico got into this mess in the first place.

The question shouldn’t center on creditors; the order of priority of debt type should be the primary criterion, with creditors within each type treated equally.  This prioritization should have been defined long ago, too.

Ideally, these failures will be redressed coming out of the present proceedings.