Category Archives: politics

The Equal Rights Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board noted in their Valentine’s Day editorial that the time limit for ratifying the ERA has long passed its expiration date and that Virginia’s lately “ratification” of the Amendment, which might have put the thing over the top for national ratification, came much too late to have effect.

On the whole, I agree with the Editors.

However, on this, I strongly disagree:

The ERA also isn’t necessary today. America in 2020 is a very different place for women than it was when the ERA was written. Laws bar discrimination against women in all walks of life, and women are CEOs, Senators, and the Speaker of the House.

Laws are nearly as easily undone or allowed to go fallow as they are enacted. Our Constitution is much harder to ignore or change–as it must be. Principles that are enacted as statute aren’t, at bottom, principles; they’re merely today’s view of things. On the other hand, principles need to be written into the Constitution if they’re to have lasting effect.

Back to the ERA: it was unnecessary when it was proposed in 1972; that it’s unnecessary today is irrelevant. Article I of the 14th Amendment does the job just fine, especially in the hands of textualist judges and Justices.

Happy Valentine’s Day, a few days after the fact.

Stakeholder Capitalism

Posted on by
Reply

Vivek Ramaswamy, writing in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, offered a brief definition:

“Stakeholder capitalism” is…the fashionable notion that companies should serve not only their shareholders, but also other interests and society at large.

Ramaswamy is right. What the virtue-signaling social justice warriorlettes (of which Ramaswamy is not one) miss, though, is that companies serve “other interests” and society at large by doing well, making money for their owners, and creating jobs for “other interests” and members of society at large—us citizens.

It ripples. Business owners, whether direct owners or shareholder owners, whose businesses prosper have more money with which to start new businesses; or invest in new, or existing businesses; or grow existing businesses; or expand R&D spending; or…pursue their own other interests and their own views of what society at large needs rather than those things the VSSJws demand they pursue.

Employees of those prospering businesses, new employees of those new and expanded businesses, all have more money with which to pursue their own other interests and their own views of what society at large needs, even start their own new businesses or invest in new or existing businesses, rather than doing what the VSSJws demand they pursue.

Telecommunications and Backdoors

Posted on by
Reply

It turns out that Huawei has been able to use legislatively mandated backdoors into telecommunications software—backdoors ostensibly for the sole benefit of law enforcement, and then only usable within judicially allowed limits, search warrants duly sworn, in the US, for instance—for years.

But we would never do that, says Huawei in its wide-eyed innocence.

“The use of the lawful interception interface is strictly regulated and can only be accessed by certified personnel of the network operators. No Huawei employee is allowed to access the network without an explicit approval from the network operator,” the [senior Huawei] official said.

The existence of the interface is the access pathway. The bar to its use is wholly a matter of the integrity of the humans involved. This is not a hard concept to understand; Huawei’s management is being disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

Further, PRC law requires PRC companies to cooperate with the government on the government’s demand.

Huawei “has never and will never do anything that would compromise or endanger the security of networks and data of its clients,” the company said.

Huawei’s CEO Ren has also made that preposterous claim. He and his management team insult our intelligence, assuming as they do that we would believe that Huawei would actually defy the PRC government.

Progressive-Democrats and Litmus Tests

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democratic Party and its Presidential candidates continue to be…upset…over judicial confirmations that are going on with the Trump administration and the McConnell Senate. And they have issue-based litmus tests for what they consider acceptable (progressively so) judges and Justices. The test is in addition to their wish to change the structure of the Supreme Court to favor their ideology.

Their tests are these: the nominees must overtly favor abortion, be activists regarding the environment, and positively consider labor union matters.

Never mind that judges cannot legitimately consider these things except from within the confines of the text of our Constitution and the statute before them in any particular case. Otherwise, those matters are political items that must be determined by the political branches of our government and by Government’s employer and boss, We the People.

More: the candidates refuse to provide the lists from which they’d nominate their favored judges and Justices. They seem to lack the integrity and moral courage to do so.

In contrast, then-Presidential candidate Donald Trump published his list of judges and lawyers from which he’d draw his Justice nominees, and President Trump has drawn his Justice—and appellate court—nominees from that list.

Just to saucer and blow the matter, here’s my litmus test for judge and Justice nominees; it’s both simple and general:

  • Will you rule strictly on the basis of the text of our Constitution and of the statute before you, or will you rule on your current interpretation of what it should say?
  • Do you believe our Constitution lives through judicial rulings or that it lives through Article V and We the People?

It’s clear that Progressive-Democrats’ nominees—named or secret—would fail that litmus test.

Too Early to Say

Posted on by
Reply

…but I’m gonna say, anyway.

Much is being made of Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I, VT) so-called victory in the just concluded New Hampshire primary and the momentum he’s supposedly gained with that, coming as it does on the heels of his “near victory” in what the Iowa Democratic Party has been pleased to call a caucus earlier in the month.

[T]he campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) goes from strength to strength, drawing massive crowds and recording top-two finishes in the early-state contests.

I don’t agree. Sanders has gone from maybe-strength to should-have-had-strength, from a narrow “loss” in the Iowa fiasco (quotes of substitution because the Iowa thing almost doesn’t count) to very badly underperforming in New Hampshire, where he should have won by an order of magnitude larger margin than his narrow, nominal plurality victory.

Sanders is far from a loser, but if Buttigieg and Klobuchar can maintain, and especially if Warren, Biden, and/or Steyer can hang in, and/or if Michael Bloomberg’s buying strategy shows strength, the Progressive-Democrats may well go to a brokered convention.

There’s more.

If Sanders doesn’t come out of that convention with a first-ballot nomination, the hue and cry will be louder than it was in 2016, and many of his supporters may well sit out the general election again. If he doesn’t get the nomination after the first ballot, when Party elites get to vote—the brokering part having begun—the cries of foul will be deafening, likely justified, and Sanders’ supporters can be expected to sit out the general election en masse.

The uproar will be especially loud and Party internecine warfare will ensue in the unlikely, but far from not gonna happen, event Michael Bloomberg gets the brokered nomination. His economic views are virtually diametrically opposed to Sanders’, and Bloomberg will be unable to escape the charge—accurate or not—that he simply bought the brokerage.

It won’t only be Sanders’ supporters who sit out. Or defect.

And the move, from that civil war, to split away from Party and to form a third party will gain strength.