Category Archives: rights

On an Ohio Early Voting Ruling

Posted on by
Reply

The 6th Circuit has ruled on Ohio’s Golden Week of voting, which allowed an extra week of early voting together with same-day voter registration.  Ohio had withdrawn that week in 2014 legislation, leaving 29 days before November’s formal voting day for voter registration and early voting.  The appellate court, in response to Democrats’ suit and win in trial court, overturned the trial court and allowed the removal of Golden Week to stand.  As a result, Ohioans will have those 29 days, instead of 36 days, in which to register to vote and then to vote.

Democrats had challenged the procedural changes, arguing they imposed disproportionate burdens on African-Americans, who made greater use of the golden-week voting….

How blatantly disingenuous of the Democrats.  That a particular group of Americans uses a week’s early privilege more than other groups of Americans in no way burdens the particular group when they lose that week, given the vast amount of time remaining in which all groups of Americans can exercise their right to register to vote and then to vote.

How insulting of the Democrats toward a particular group of Americans to assume that members of that group are too stupid or lazy to make use of the remaining amount of time to exercise their right to register to vote and then to vote.

How utterly racist of the Democrats to assume that blacks are simply too stupid to use the remaining amount of time to exercise their right to register to vote and then to vote and so need the protection of their Betters to take care of them.

California’s Disdain

Posted on by
Reply

…for religion is made manifest by its SB 1146, Equity in Higher Education Act, currently under consideration before the California Senate.

As it currently stands, parochial schools—church schools, religious schools, schools run according to a clearly stated set of religious tenets—are exempt from discrimination laws where such discrimination is centered on religious beliefs.  Schools and their students are free to follow their conscience and to require employees, and students, to adhere to certain basic sets of behaviors.  As Archbishop Jose Gomez and Bishop Charles Blake put it in their piece,

Current California law exempts religious schools from nondiscrimination laws in cases where applying these laws “would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.”
…
For years now, this policy has worked well, enabling church-run colleges and universities to hire personnel and establish policies and expectations regarding religious practice and personal conduct that reflect their beliefs and values.

California State Senator Ricardo Lara’s (D) bill seeks to destroy this (Gomez and Blake are more polite about Lara’s motive and his bill’s overall impact.  I don’t agree, though, that Lara doesn’t understand what he’s doing).  His bill would only exempt seminaries or other schools that train clergy and ministers; it would rescind that religious freedom protection everywhere else.

Any other faith-based school that receives state monies or enrolls students who depend on the Cal Grants financial aid program would be forced to change their policies to accommodate practices that in some cases would be contrary to their beliefs and teachings.

Detailed provisions in the legislation include rules for bathroom use and sleeping arrangements in dormitories. The bill even has the government setting guidelines for what “religious practices” and “rules for moral conduct” will be acceptable on these campuses.

All in the guise of “protecting” individual choice.  Never mind, though, that Lara knows full well that those who wish to work or study at these schools are making their choice at that point.  Never mind, either, that Lara knows full well that his bill allows those who disagree with the school’s religious tenets can attend, or get hired, and then force the school to violate its own tenets to accommodate these.

Never mind, either, that Lara knows full well the damage his bill will do to those he claims to be trying to help, low-income and minority families—including millions served by our respective faith communities here in Los Angeles.  As Gomez and Blake note—and as Lara surely knows—60% of these religious schools’ students are minorities and nearly 90% need financial aid.  Aid that Lara’s bill would cut off unless these schools kowtow to his demands.

It shouldn’t take elders of the religious community to point this out.  Any lay person—me, for instance—can see this plainly.  Which means, in particular, that Lara, whose bill this is, sees it plainly.  And doesn’t care.

Keep in mind one other thing, too.  Rights granted by Government, or presumed granted by Government, can be withdrawn by Government, too, and at that Government’s whim.  Lara’s bill is a clear demonstration of that.

A Judicial Error Regarding the 2nd Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

A Federal trial judge in Seattle has ruled that it’s OK for the Federal government, in the form of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to ban ammunition originally “designed” for AK-47 rifles.  The ammunition in question, Russian-manufacutered 7N6 armor-piercing rounds had been imported prior to BATF’s ban, to the tune of 100 million rounds, and as the importer, PW Arms Inc noted in its suit—the one in which the trial judge ruled for BATF—none of those rounds had been misused.  PW Arms noted in its suit

In fact, before ATF banned 7N6, this ammunition was used lawfully by sportsmen as rifle ammunition for target shooting.

In 2014, though, BATF decided it didn’t like this and instituted its ban.

The Seattle-based Federal judge screwed this one up badly.  As we all know, a ban on ammunition is a ban on the weapons that use them—which is a violation of our right to keep and bear those Arms.

This is another example, too, of the jeopardy in which our judiciary will be under a Clinton White House and Democratic Party Senate.

Cynical

Posted on by
Reply

The DC Circuit, in a mixed ruling, has said the trial court judge had erred in dismissing a collection of Tea Party suits he said had become “moot” because the IRS had apologized for its misbehavior and had said it had stopped such practices.

Of course, the IRS had said it had stopped—sort of—only conditionally.  DC Circuit Judge David Sentelle, writing for the majority (the ruling can be seen here), noted that the IRS only had suspended the screening “until further notice.”

A violation of right that is “suspended until further notice” has not become the subject of voluntary cessation, with no reasonable expectation of resumption, so as to moot litigation against the violation of rights. Rather, it has at most advised the victim of the violation—”you’re alright for now, but there may be another shoe falling.”

Sentelle took issue with “suspended,” understanding that suspension is not cessation.  He took separate issue with that “until further notice” bit, as noted above.

In fact, too, the IRS had not stopped at all.  As Sentelle noted,

…it is absurd to suggest that the effect of the IRS’s unlawful conduct, which delayed the processing of appellant-plaintiffs’ applications, has been eradicated when two of the appellant-plaintiffs’ applications remain pending.

After how many years are these applications still pending? It’s been two years since the trial court made its erroneous dismissal.

Of course, the trial judge knew these things. Based on his logic, too (even if he had been as ignorant as he seemed to be claiming he was), it would seem he would have dismissed charges against Willie Sutton had that worthy only apologized and averred he’s stopped. No consequence should ensue, this judge would seem to insist, for the banks Sutton had already robbed.

How cynical is that?

These are the trial courts and the IRS that will be heavily impacted by the Presidential elections.

Out of Control

Posted on by
Reply

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.