No, that’s not a redundancy—not in this case.
Via Shannon Davis, @shannondd76:
Yeah—this is one thing that Donald J Trump has been a miserable failure at.
A Dysfunctional Racist
2
Category Archives: politics
A Misbehaving Judge
PG&E is in a world of hurt, still, over the California fires that its shoddy power line maintenance contributed so heavily to starting. However, the Federal district judge overseeing a related court case has overstepped his own bounds.
William Alsup, a US district judge in Northern California, ordered PG&E to respond “on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis” to the Journal article published July 10.
This is just plain wrong. Leaving aside the fact that newspaper articles, no matter how seemingly well-documented, are not evidence of anything—they’re only allegations, and they were not brought to Alsup by any parties to that case; he went and got them all by himself.
Beyond that, the cited article didn’t even contain identifiable evidence. “Documents obtained by The Wall Street Journal” was the paper’s primary source, and not a single citation or link was provided to any of those…documents…so even their existence could not be independently verified, much less the newspaper’s interpretation of them checked.
Alsup is not a feudal-era English judge; he doesn’t get to do his own investigation into a case before him. Especially should he not bring newspaper articles, which don’t even remotely approach evidence, into the matter.
A Misunderstanding
In a house editorial concerning the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding President Donald Trump’s authority to reallocate some DoD funds toward building a border wall, The Wall Street Journal expressed the hope that the ruling—which lifted a nation-wide injunction issued by a Federal district [sic] judge—would send an appropriate signal to district judges regarding nation-wide injunctions. The editors also had this remark regarding such injunctions.
The proliferation of national injunctions has inserted judges into policy debates in ways they should avoid….
This is a misapprehension of the situation and a mischaracterization of what the judges are doing.
The proliferation has inserted no one; it is a result of judges choosing to insert themselves into policy debates.
Judges must avoid this, but they consciously have chosen to go outside their Constitutional authority and make policy—make law. These judges have ignored the simple Constitutional fact that policy discussions and debates are solely within the purview of the political branches of our government and that legislation is solely within the purview of Congress. Article I, Section 1, of our Constitution makes this abundantly clear even to an eighth-grade Civics student.
With their carefully considered decision to act extra-Constitutionally, these judges have equally carefully decided to violate their oath of office, which enjoins them to defend and to uphold our Constitution, not to depart from it.
A Brief Question
…briefly answered. Greg Ip, in his column on a putative currency war inflicted on us by the EU asked it. He opened his piece with this:
When Federal Reserve policy makers gather in Washington this week [a couple days ago] to weigh cutting interest rates, a big part of their decision will already have been made—in Frankfurt.
Then he asked
How should the US protect its economy against possible threats from European economies?
The answer renders his opener irrelevant. We best protect our economy—against far more than merely “possible threats from European economies”—with lower/no business taxes, minimal regulation, and better products freely traded. These are what underpin a long-term, fundamentally sound economy. Anything else is just glorified yield chasing and short-term machinations that no government, however loosely it is central-plan oriented, can hope to manage.
The Fed has no role in this; it needs only to set its benchmark rates to levels historically consistent with 2% inflation (its target inflation rate) and then sit down and be quiet.
Germany…Dithers
…on the matter of helping protect freedom of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and, presumably, up into the Arabian Gulf.
Great Britain, in an effort that parallels the US’ efforts, is proposing a European naval mission to the region to protect European oil tankers. Germany isn’t sure. On the one hand, Norbert Röttgen, Bundestag Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman, says
Our prosperity lives on free shipping. And we have to make clear that we stand alongside our British friends, partners and allies who are affected. There must be joint European action.
But the US might be involved, so he dithers:
Unfortunately, there are fundamental differences in Iran policy with the US, which is why we can’t cooperate with the US just like that.
No, can’t have that.
The Social Democrats are more open about their reluctance to participate. Karl-Heinz Brunner, SPD member of the Bundestag Committee on Defense:
A German participation is currently neither necessary nor opportune. Of course, securing free trade routes is extremely important, but I am convinced that this would also be possible by diplomatic means. In the current situation, military options could contribute to further destabilization.
Yeah, Iran is open to diplomacy—so long as everyone does exactly what Iran diplomatically says. Besides, if we took concrete action to defend German or European interests, we might angrify the pirates.
Can’t have that, either.
‘Course, Germany really doesn’t have a dog in this hunt, anyway—it gets most of its oil from Russia.
Update: Germany has decided not to join any coalition ensuring free sea navigation in the Strait of Hormuz or the Arabian Gulf. Foreign Minister Heiko Maas:
“Germany will not take part in the sea mission presented and planned by the United States,” Maas told reporters during a trip to Poland.
The German government said it remains in close consultation with France and the UK over a European approach to the freedom of navigation crisis in the Persian Gulf.
Close consultation. Chit chat. I’ve already pointed out whence German oil comes.