Tag Archives: ethics

Supreme Court Leaks

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal excerpted an article by Joan Biskupic for CNN regarding Supreme Court discussions among the Justices [emphasis added].

Chief Justice John Roberts privately lobbied fellow conservatives to save the constitutional right to abortion down to the bitter end, but May’s unprecedented leak of a draft opinion reversing Roe v Wade made the effort all but impossible, multiple sources familiar with negotiations told CNN.

Wow. Not only was a Supreme Court draft opinion leaked to the press, the Court’s private discussions about that opinion are leaked to the public.

Two things: one is that the Court has a serious problem with confidentiality, and the only way to fix it may be a complete removal and replacement of all of the Justices’ current clerks and of all of the Court’s current administrative personal. Even though the clerks are replaced annually as a matter of course, it’s clear that this crop needs to go now.

The other thing is that it’s instructive about press integrity that the press makes nearly as big a deal about the leak of the draft as it did about the draft, but it accepts this leak with utter equanimity.

Who Checks the Checkers?

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Rob Portman (R, OH), in his capacity as Ranking Member of the Senate’s Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, released a report detailing a decade-long effort by the People’s Republic of China to infiltrate the Federal Reserve system. The report concluded, in part, that

the Fed failed to mount an adequate response. The report’s findings show “a sustained effort by China, over more than a decade, to gain influence over the Federal Reserve and a failure by the Federal Reserve to combat this threat effectively.”

Of course, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell demurred from that report.

“Because we understand that some actors aim to exploit any vulnerabilities, our processes, controls, and technology are robust and updated regularly. We respectfully reject any suggestions to the contrary,” he wrote in a letter to Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, the committee’s top Republican.
Mr Powell detailed the central bank’s information security and background screening protocols, including reviews of foreign travel and personal contacts for staff who have access to restricted information. “We take seriously any violations of these robust information security policies[.]”

Of course. However, any procedure, no matter how robust or frequently updated, is only as good as the people executing the procedure. I have to ask: who does that vetting for the Fed? Who follows up on those travel reviews and contacts? What’s the Fed’s IG role in these procedures? How closely is the DoJ’s FBI involved?

That last, given the FBI’s demonstrated bias and too-often outright dishonesty, is especially important.

Our Secure Southern Border

Posted on by
Reply

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas insists that our southern border is secure. President Joe Biden (D) echoes him with his own silence on Mayorkas’ claim. Here’s some of what Texas’ police and National Guard are intercepting at that border under Governor Greg Abbott’s (R) Operation Lone Star, which has the Texas National Guard also working the border, according to Texas Department of Public Safety Sgt Marc Couch:

  • more than 225,000 migrant apprehensions
  • more than 13,000 criminal arrests,
  • more than 3,500 weapons seized
  • 289 million deadly fentanyl doses

That’s since Operation Lone Star began. Just since last October, there also have been 500,000+ known “gotaways,” illegal aliens who were spotted crossing our border illegally but who evaded capture.

This is what Biden and his DHS Secretary, neither of whom are willing actually to visit our southern border, are letting through with their version of “secure.” Since that’s what they’re calling it, I have to conclude they’re deliberately letting this sewage in.

Imagine the intercepts and the increased safety of our nation if the Federal government were really interested in security.

“Findings”

Posted on by
Reply

“Findings”

In a Wall Street Journal editorial centered on Adam Schiff’s (D, CA) campaign of smear against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the Editors concluded with this:

Ms Cheney keeps telling Republicans they ought to believe the committee’s findings, and much of that is compelling.

I have to ask.

What’s compelling about “findings” manufactured in the complete absence of cross-examination and of witnesses brought by the other side?

What’s compelling about “findings” wholly stripped of context?

What’s compelling about “findings” not determined objectively?

More Gun Control Distortion

Posted on by
Reply

Delaware, President Joe Biden’s (D) adopted home State, has a new gun law [emphasis added].

Under the bill, known as the Delaware Lethal Firearms Safety Act of 2022, the manufacturing, sales, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, receipt, possession, and transport of assault weapons, aside from those lawfully possessed or purchased before the bill became law, is prohibited.
The law classifies weapons that feature a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower used in a sports, or recreational, form is outweighed by “the danger that is can be used to kill and injure human beings” and are restricted on the possession and use of those weapons. However, the bill states that it is not the intent of the Legislature to place restrictions on those weapons designed for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activity.

This is Progressive-Democrats presuming to dictate to the good citizens of Delaware those Government-approved purposes for which they will be permitted to keep and bear Arms, even though no such authority exists in the 2nd Amendment or anywhere else in our Constitution.

There’s this, too, in that bill:

The law also provides that anyone currently owning, or possessing, those weapons are encouraged to receive a certificate of ownership from the state’s Department of Homeland Security[.]

Encouraged. Sure. There’s no reason for this, either, given the unconstitutionality of the law (which obviates any need to prove grandfathered ownership) other than so that Progressive-Democratic Party politicians, who continue to decline to identify their limiting principle, can know who has weapons for future confiscation.

This is yet another example of the lawlessness of the Progressive-Democratic Party.