Category Archives: rights

Disingenuosity in our “Elite” Universities

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that the Department of Energy has frozen or cut Federal funding to a number of our allegedly elite universities over their refusal to deal with the antisemitic bigots and terrorist supporters in their student bodies and professor work force, and recall the Department’s decision to cap at 15% what those universities skim off the top of the research grants the Department sends for what those universities are pleased to call indirect costs. Now, MIT, Brown University, Cornell University, and Princeton University among others, are suing DoE over the cuts.

Per their lawsuit:

The pace of scientific discoveries in the national interest will be slowed. Progress on a safe and effective nuclear deterrent, novel energy sources, and cures for debilitating and life-threatening illness will be obstructed. America’s rivals will celebrate, even as science and industry in the United States suffer.

This is disingenuous. The universities do not have an inherent right to those Federal—our tax-remitted—dollars, which is the only rational reason for that claim. To the extent the pace will be slowed, to the extent that progress will obstructed, that’s entirely on these universities, and their demand for continuing the Federal spigot flow. These universities each have large and burgeoning endowments that would support their programs for decades, which would be plenty of time into which to shoehorn in the weeks required for the required reforms.

To the extent our national rivals—the universities’ cynical lumping in of our enemies with our competitors—will celebrate, that’s also on these universities and their desperation to continue receiving the…donations…these enemy nations and competitors pay over.

Backwards

Posted on by
Reply

The headline and lede demonstrate the utter misunderstanding (to the point of cynically offered distortion?) of the press in the ongoing fight between the Left and the Trump administration’s efforts to streamline our bloated Federal government, bring its spending into line with necessarily lowered income tax rates, and revamp our failed immigration behaviors.

Trump Floods Supreme Court With Appeals to Push Through Agenda
A cascade of Trump administration cases is flooding the Supreme Court, putting the justices on the spot over the administration’s aggressive moves to eliminate federal programs, abolish independent agencies, and recast immigration law without congressional approval.

No. Without the Left weaponizing all of our courts with their lawsuits over every step the Trump administration takes, there would be nothing to appeal to the Supreme Court, emergency or otherwise. This Leftist obstructionism is borne solely of their disdain for, if not hatred of, all things Trump, Republican, or Conservative.

Nor is President Donald Trump (R) seeking to bypass Congress with any of his moves. He and his Cabinet Secretaries understand full well that his moves alone cannot be expected to last past the next election of a Progressive-Democrat President. He and his know full well that Congress needs to statutorily codify his moves in order for them to have any durability.

Trump also knows full well that continuing to wait through Congress’ stately political pace will mean nothing continues to get done in any of those milieus and that waiting through the court system’s drawn out judicial deliberation, suit, countersuit ad nauseum will mean not very much will get done.

The businessman simply is moving at the pace of business rather than at the dither pace of politics and judges. That’s to the good of our nation, no matter the gnashing of the Left and its Progressive-Democratic Party obstructors.

Yet Another Thought

Posted on by
2

President Donald Trump’s (R) moves against regulations regarding our showerheads, dishwashers, stoves and ranges, and other household appliances has triggered a thought in me regarding regulation and Congressional delegation.

As we all know, Congress has delegated rule-making to the Executive Branch agencies and Departments, and many of us think Congress has over-delegated. Congressmen have shown themselves loath to wholesale claw back that delegation and write their own regulations to give concrete effect to Congress’ statutes. Here’s an easier move Congress could make regarding that delegation and rule-making.

Let the agencies and Departments conduct their rule-making in the current way, with the requirement for a comment period, the regulators required to take seriously the public’s comments during that period, and the writing of the “final” rule. The added steps are these, and they are few:

1. The agency/Department is barred from implementing the rule at any time in draft form, including via “guidance” letter, before it takes formal, legal effect
2. When the agency/Department has finalized its rule, it must submit the rule to Congress for approval
3. Each house of Congress must approve the rule via floor debate and majority vote—this is the step that gives the rule legal effect, not agency/Department finalization
4. Each house of Congress must approve the rule within 10 calendar days of its submittal to Congress
5. If both houses do not approve the rule within 10 calendar days, the rule is deemed disapproved, and it cannot take effect
6. If the rule is disapproved, whether by overt disapproval or by failure to approve within 10 days, the rule and no rule similar to it can be brought up again for six years

That last rule is especially important: it allows for the possibility of a complete turnover of the House of Representatives three times, it allows for the possibility of a complete turnover of the Senate, and it allows for the possibility of a complete turnover of the White House and, by extension, of the leadership of those agencies and Departments.

NB: I posted the gist of this to DOGE’s Regulations.gov, which is DOGE’s call for, and Web site for receiving, suggestions for rule changes and rescission by us ordinary Americans.

Because when I got to the head of the line, they were all out of humility, so I made up for it with an extra helping of hubris.

Federal and State Funding for Abortion

Posted on by
Reply

There is a move afoot in Congress to remove from Medicare reimbursements for abortion, and there is a case before the Supreme Court that will impact States’ ability to remove funding for abortion from Medicaid reimbursements. The removal from Medicare, should it come to fruition, would be entirely consistent with the Court’s Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling, which rescinded Roe v Wade and put the abortion question entirely in the States’ hands. Now many States are attempting to act on their newly restored authority—hence the case before the Supreme Court.

It’s true enough that it’s a fraught decision for the mother to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term, but my concern here is for the life of the baby. From this, I see two boundary cases that are especially difficult.

One is where the health of the mother is at risk if the pregnancy continues. In this case, the mother’s health must be weighed extremely carefully against the life of the baby. This weighing may need to occur—must occur?—in open court, with competent, well-trained lawyers speaking for the baby.

The other is a mother’s pregnancy as a result of incest or rape. Carrying the baby to term here is an especially terrible choice for the mother—the pregnant child incest or rape victim may be too physically young to carry her baby to term, in which case, see above. Even where the victim mother can safely do so, it remains an especially terrible choice to carry inside her body a constant reminder of the monster who did this to her. Carrying the baby to term isn’t a matter of the mother’s inconvenience for nine months as some extremists on the right claim—the emotional damage to the mother from that is real, extreme, and often irrepairable.

Conventional wisdom is to permit abortion in the these narrowly defined, and not so often occurring compared to “ordinary” unwanted pregnancies, cases of incest or rape. Conventional wisdom here is not a completely bad bit of wisdom, but I remain concerned: why should the baby have to pay with its life for the crime of another? The baby needs competent, well-trained lawyers speaking for him or her in these cases, also.

It’s also true enough that, while Republicans are attempting to do more to provide fiscal support for those mothers during their pregnancies, in the period surrounding birth, and in the early years after birth (here including adoption options), they need to do better at specifically identifying those needs and then providing for them—and to do so publicly. That shortfall, though, shouldn’t be allowed to impact whether the baby is allowed to live at all.

Excellent but Insufficient

Posted on by
Reply

Kristin Shapiro, of the Independent Women’s Forum, has an excellent idea for checking up on colleges’ and universities’ admissions criteria and seeing whether they’re still using race and gender in their admissions decisions, even though those plainly racist and sexist criteria are illegal.

[R]equire colleges and universities to report the average standardized test scores and grade-point averages of admitted and enrolled students by race.

This can be improved on, however. In addition to publicly reporting those averages for admitted and enrolled students, the institutions should be required to post the averages’ standard deviations, which measure the degree of dispersal of those scores around their averages, and they should be required to post as well the median scores of those distributions. Medians tend to be less heavily influenced by extreme outliers. In addition, the institutions should be required to do that for the populations of students whose applications were rejected.

Better still, would be to require the institutions to make publicly available and searchable their databases of raw scores and GPAs, redacted only of student-identifying data while leaving in the identifications of the high schools and transferred-from colleges and universities of admitted students and of students whose applications the institutions rejected.

Let independent analysts conduct their own investigations rather than requiring the public to rely on the claims of institutions whose integrity already is questionable.