The Obama administration’s EEOC has loosed its reins.
Wearing a cap to work that has a “Don’t Tread On Me” slogan on it is a racist and EEOC-actionable thing to do.
Because Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech means whatever this Democratic administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says it means.
…from the best damn change-maker [Bill Clinton has] met in my entire life. Indeed,
Mrs Clinton has been clear. She wants to serve as Mr. Obama’s political and policy heir, as she and he now admit. This won’t mean “change” unless the Clintons have an unusual personal definition of that word, as they do for “classified material.” A de facto third Obama term will mean the status quo, only more of it.
Here’s what Obama has accomplished with his policies, and Clinton has made no bones about wanting to do even more of it.
The slowest recovery from a recession since WWII—a period that encompasses a dozen recessions, culminating in the Panic of 2008.
Rapid retreat from the world
Here’s how Clinton wants to extend the domestic same old-same old, acceding to the demands of Independent Socialist Senator Sanders (I—he walked away from the D as soon as that no longer was convenient—VT). We can’t afford four more years of no change, especially from a change-maker who’s promising unchanged-making.
With all of this paid for by even higher taxes, including a nearly doubling of the top tax rate on long-term capital gains to 43.4% from 23.8%, which is about as anti-investment and job-killing as it’s possible to get.
The Federal trial judge got this one right, even though the Arkansas law had been on the books for 35 years. The question concerned whether the State could restrict political speech by robocall with the mechanism of banning political robocalls. The same statute did not ban other political calls, only robocalls, and the judge called them on that logical conflict.
The statute is underinclusive. Banning calls made through an automated telephone system in connection with a political campaign cannot be justified by saying that the ban is needed to residential privacy and public safety when no limit is placed on other types of political calls that also may intrude on residential privacy or seize telephone lines.
There’s a larger question here, too, though. Once we begin limiting political speech, where does it stop? What’s the limiting principle? What naturally limits the thing, without relying on government forbearance? One such limit mentioned in the ruling concerns signs containing political speech. The signs cannot be banned, but their placement can be restricted based on safety concerns (for instance, visually blocking views of crossing traffic at intersections). Robocalls, irritating as they are, don’t present themselves as usefully limitable, given the importance of free political speech and (incumbent) government attempts to restrict it, other than an Arkansas averred
prevent[ion of] the seizure of phone lines, which could interfere with emergency calls being placed or received.
However, as the judge noted,
The Attorney General fails to explain why automated calls other than commercial calls and those made in connection with political campaigns—for example, calls encouraging individuals to contact a member of Congress regarding a bill or to attend a townhall meeting regarding a public issue—using automated dialing systems do not trample upon the state’s interests in residential privacy and public safety.
The State’s safety claim doesn’t hold water.
And so, again I ask, when it comes to government limiting speech, particularly political speech, where does it stop? What’s the limiting principle? Safety certainly can be one such limit, but Arkansas’ law doesn’t—didn’t—apply it.
The judge’s opinion can be seen here.
…that’s overcome with its own self-importance. I’ve written before about how the Securities and Exchange System abuses its own system of in-house judges for SEC purposes rather than for the public’s interest.
The Federal Trade Commission is another such agency that’s showing it’s outlived its usefulness and for the same reason. In 2008, LabMD was “found” to have inadvertently exposed a file containing personally identifiable patient information. I write “found” because the company that “found” the exposure then tried to use their discovery to peddle its data security services to LabMD. The FTC brought a case against LabMD over the exposure, but last year an FTC in-house judge ruled against the FTC and tossed the case.
That judge, D Michael Chapell, tossed the FTC’s case last year because the commission could not identify any consumers who’d been harmed by LabMD’s allegedly weak security practices. Because no one had been harmed in the seven years since the patient file was exposed, it was unlikely that anyone would be harmed in the future, Judge Chappell concluded.
Wrong answer, Judge.
The FTC, which has the authority to review the rulings issued by its administrative court, said Friday the judge used an incorrect legal standard that was too stringent.
The ruling, being inconvenient to the FTC’s narrative, was rejected out of hand.
Here is the usefulness of an in-house system of judges.
This one is the National Labor Relations Board, a Democrat/union-dominated entity that is nearly the last word on what employers are allowed and required to do.
It’s the NLRB that threatened Boeing with labor unrest expensive lawsuits for its effrontery in wanting to build an aircraft manufacturing plant in the right-to-work state of South Carolina and forced Boeing to keep primary manufacturing in the union state of Washington.
It’s the NLRB that decided that franchise employees actually are jointly employed by the franchise—a McDonald’s burger joint, for instance—and the franchisor—McDonald’s corporate headquarters, for instance—a complete rewrite of the prior NLRB view of franchise employment.
It’s the NLRB that keeps pushing for card-checks at union elections whose purpose is to have the employees decide whether they want a union to represent them, a move designed solely to eliminate heretofore secret ballots in those elections.
It’s the NLRB that has pushed through, regarding those elections, the right of unions to demand an election within 30 days of the start of their public efforts to “organize” a company but without the company’s opportunity to respond in those 30 days—or even to begin to respond to the unions’ non-public efforts to organize.
It’s the NLRB that pushed through its “Persuader” Rule which requires employers to identify publicly all sources of consultation or advice the employer might have contacted—however peripherally—for thoughts on how to deal with unions.
The list goes on. And on.
The NLRB already is dominated by a Democrat/union majority, and it will only get worse with a Democratic Party President and a Democratic Party-owned Senate making the appointments to the five-member board.