“The Leak” and Its Fall Impact

Posted on by
Reply

Short, and too the point. Assume the leaked Supreme Court Decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which seems to overturn Roe v Wade, is substantially the decision the Court will release in its June batch of opinion releases.

The hue and cry that’s occurring now from both sides of the question is the hue and cry that would have occurred in June following the Court’s release of its official opinion. That hue and cry will be very much watered down by this week’s leak reaction, to the point that I don’t see the reaction to the official opinion having much steam left for the summer and fall mid-term campaigns or for the fall elections.

That leads me to two possibilities for the leak. One is that the liberal Justice staff leaker, if that’s who it was, made a tactical blunder with his leak. He virtually eliminated the reaction the official release would have generated, a reaction much closer to the election and so much more likely to have an impact.

The other possibility is that the conservative Justice staff leaker, if that’s who it was, successfully defanged the reaction by stimulating it too early in the season to have much impact.

A clue regarding who the leaker is can be collected from the reactions to the leak. The Left, and especially the Progressive-Democratic Party politicians, all are focused strictly on the putative outcome of the Court’s decision; they wholly ignore the fact of the leak. Here’s a canonical example of that disdain from the head of the Progressive-Democratic Party, President Joe Biden (D):

Not a syllable—not a minim—of concern or comment regarding the illegality of the leak. Indeed, this President’s sole critical caveat, the only thing about which he cares, is whether the leak actually reflects the upcoming ruling.

On the other hand, Conservatives and the Conservative and Republican politicians, while not ignoring the putative decision, strongly emphasize the leak and its illegality.

One side ignores the illegality of the matter; the other side decries the leak for its law-breaking nature. That’s strongly indicative of who the leaker is.

CO2 Emissions

Posted on by
Reply

In Monday’s Wall Street Journal Letters section concerning net-zero and carbon emissions, a writer asks

When can we have an honest discussion of a plan to reduce carbon emissions?

We cannot until we have an honest discussion of the context of carbon emissions and why we should care about them. That context includes all the epochs of higher planetary temperatures and lush life, epochs of higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and lush life, and those separate sets of epochs’ lack of correlation with each other.

Parental Rights

Posted on by
Reply

Some court cases are being engaged in response to the number of Leftist school boards pushing child sex transition “discussions” onto children behind the kids’ parents backs, and occasionally in defiance of parents’ written instructions.

A handful of court cases are being debated to decide whether school officials should be required to tell parents if their child identifies as LGBT.

These Leftists actually think going behind the parents’ backs is justifiable.

[Lambda Legal lawyer Kell] Olson would like to see parents support school districts’ “reasonable policies” rather than resort reflexively to the courts to uphold parental rights.

This gives away the game. No school policy that denies parents knowledge of the child’s performance at school or of the school’s treatment of their child is reasonable. No school policy that in any way seeks to circumscribe parents’ rights can be reasonable. That especially applies to whose responsibility it is to have discussions with children regarding gender and sex and sexual behavior.

Contrary to Olson’s attempts to justify this abusive behavior, not just of the parents’ rights, but of the parents’ kids, also, here’s Rick Claybrook, representing parents in a lawsuit against the Montgomery County school district:

Kids have their parents to protect them because they’re not able to do so until they reach maturity….

Especially, apparently, to protect them from out of control school boards and school administrators and school teachers.

Kind of the Purpose

Posted on by
Reply

The European Union’s antitrust bureaucrats demur from Apple’s seeming dominance in the no-contact payment market, and they may or may not have a case. They don’t, though, have one based on this sham argument from EU Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager, who also serves at the EU’s Executive Vice President of the European Commission for A Europe Fit for the Digital Age (because if the title is long enough the incumbent can be made to feel important enough):

Apple has built a closed ecosystem around its devices and its operating system. Apple controls the gates to this ecosystem, setting the rules of the game for anyone who wants to reach consumers using Apple devices.

That’s kind of the purpose of copyrights and patents—allowing the inventor or developer of the product to control its use. In addition to which, no one is required to use Apple products to do contactless paying—or even to make telephone calls.

Neither does Apple control the ecosystem of contactless paying—it only controls its own devices, which have a, not the, contactless paying capability.

Prolonging the Crisis on Purpose?

Posted on by
Reply

First, we have Brett Velicovich, a former US Army intelligence and special operations soldier, warning us that

There is a political logistics jam somewhere for the flow of training devices like this [Javelin simulators] into Ukraine, and it’s making it so they are less effective in the field and in some cases even failing on the front lines when being fired.

That political holdup is within the Biden-Harris administration.

Then we get Samantha Power, United States Agency for International Development Administrator, saying openly in regard to the relationship between Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Left’s push to convert us to “green” energy no matter the cost,

Never let a crisis go to waste[,]

and that [as cited by Fox News]

fertilizer shortages would provide farmers the opportunity to “hasten” their “transition” from fertilizer to more “natural” resources.

And we get Jennifer Granholm, Biden-Harris’ Energy Secretary who, not so long ago, thought the idea of bringing down the price of gasoline and oil was laugh-out-loud hilarious, saying much the same thing, urging Congress to [again as cited by Fox News]

use this crisis to pass “clean energy” legislation and to “wean off” fossil fuels.

This along with Biden-Harris himself still slow-walking (albeit at a lessening obstructive pace) transferring arms to Ukraine so that nation can defeat Russia’s invasion—all while studiously continuing to refuse to say that Ukraine can, and must, win the war Russia has inflicted.

Is being green is more important than being free and sovereign?

Hmm….