“Be Wary of Judicial Umpires”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the headline on Nate Silver’s Sunday letter to The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section.

He’s right, but I have that skepticism from a different angle.

Judges’ and Justices’ sole role—made explicit in our Constitution’s Article I, Section 1, and Article III and by their oaths of office—is to apply the clauses of our Constitution and the statutes before them in any particular case as they are written. These are much more precisely defined than any umpire’s visual sighting of penumbral limits from his skewed perspective, which is all the perspective umpires have. The laws (and regulations) that come before judges and Justices are ambiguous, similarly metaphorically skewed? Then they are unconstitutionally vague and should be struck. Umpires don’t get to dismiss pitches that they only hazily see; they must make their guesses. Judges and Justices have that ability; they have no excuse for acting like umpires and not like judges and Justices.

Full stop.

There’s a Hint There

Posted on by
Reply

John Bolton has a Wall Street Journal op-ed in which he claims to be worried about the fate of the President’s National Security Council. I’ll leave aside the fact that his source is either a dishonest leaker or a voice in his head. This is what he buried toward the end of his piece:

Scowcroft’s model [of an NSC structure] bestowed a key advantage on the president: creating interagency staff who reached into bureaucratic depths gave him [the President] greater insight into potential agency agendas and disagreements before they rose to higher levels, thereby reducing the risks of confrontation and delay. A dramatically constrained NSC staff wouldn’t have such abilities.

Maybe—just maybe—it would be better to clean out the bureaucracies at those other agencies, eliminating agency agendas and the bureaucrats who push them, at the expense of the agenda of the White House for which they work.

Maybe—just maybe—it would be better to thin those agencies’ payrolls to shallow out those bureaucratic depths.

Maybe—just maybe—it would be better to install agency chiefs and deputies/assistants who would work with each other to resolve more of the disagreements, then consciously bring the remaining disagreements to the President for him to resolve—which is part of a President’s job.

No maybe, this time—it most assuredly would be better to fire those bureaucrats who would rather be confrontational than work as part of the team they were hired to be part of.

The Biden Coverup

Posted on by
Reply

What’s to be done about those who participated in the coverup? How do we hold them accountable—and by accountable, I mean how do we see them suitably and publicly punished?

The press’ complicity in the coverup is well known by all of us not already in thrall to their writings and television natterings. Most of us have learned to take their words skeptically, and we’ve moved on to other news and commentary sources, newer and perhaps no more trustworthy, but that’s yet to be demonstrated.

The Progressive-Democratic Party’s politicians, though—they’re another matter. As The Wall Street Journal pointed out, the only Party member willing to expose the emperor was the back bencher Minnesota Congressman Dean Phillips, who openly campaigned for President late in Party’s primary Potemkin contest on the premise that Biden wasn’t up to another four years either physically or mentally. Party castigated him as a traitor to his party, an opportunist, and a Republican cat’s paw. Then, in a remarkable—and instructive—demonstration of Party’s dedication to democratic elections and to democracy of any form, Party canceled altogether their sham primary and pronounced by fiat Kamala Harris its candidate.

Party politicians other than Phillips contributed to the coverup of Biden’s growing mental incompetence either directly through their pronouncements of his fitness or indirectly through their studied silence on Biden’s capacities.

In sum, Party politicians openly lied to us citizens, and as the WSJ also put it, they denied the American people a better presidential choice, or at least in the eyes of some 77 million of us, a better alternative candidate for the office. They denied even their own voters the opportunity to choose a better alternative.

Party and Party politicians lied to all of us about so foundational a matter as who will lead our nation in its time of peril, who will exercise American influence around the world on matters central to our economic and political national security.

If Party politicians are willing to lie to us—have lied to us—about such a basic matter, what else will they lie to us about if reelected to their existing offices, or worse, if reelected to majorities in the House and Senate and in the White House?

No, It Isn’t

Posted on by
Reply

Clean Energy Is Under Attack Even Where It’s Booming goes the Wall Street Journal headline. There’s a hint regarding that buried in the middle of the article:

The hit to the power sector could prove significant. More than three-fourths of the proposed solar projects and more than one-third of the wind farms in long queues to connect to the power grid needed tax incentives to be economically viable as of January, said Corianna Mah, analyst at Enverus Intelligence Research.

No, clean energy is not under attack. Market-distorting, vote-buying subsidies and tax credits are under attack—as they should be. Clean energy will do fine when the market—us consumers—want it. If clean energy projects cannot succeed without those handouts, they aren’t economically—or technologically—viable.

See, for instance, natural gas. Oil, even cleaned-up coal, too, once the costs of regulatory impediments designed as actual attacks on hydrocarbon energy are subtracted off. But wait—oil subsidies…. Those are a tiny fraction of all those clean energy subsidies and tax credits. But yes, oil subsidies need to go away, also.

A Quick Summary

Posted on by
Reply

The Institute for Justice each week summarizes several appellate court cases and publishes the summaries in its newsletter. (Subscribe to the newsletter here.) This one in particular caught my eye.

At George Floyd protest in Grand Rapids, MI, protester who approached police line is met with burst of pepper spray. As he turns away, another officer fires a special munition that’s meant for crowd control at long distance, striking him in the shoulder. Excessive force? Sixth Circuit: No QI for the special munition. It’s deadly force at that range. Dissent: There’s no case on point.

My dissent dissent: Now there is.

Appellate courts most assuredly are allowed to set precedents/issue precedential rulings. In the present case, too, the officer firing his special munition at what amounted to point blank range had constructive knowledge of the gross dangers of his action. It’s part of his crowd control special munition training.