Tag Archives: ethics

“Fair Enough”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what The Wall Street Journal‘s editorial board thinks of Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s rationalization of his refusal to publish his list (assuming it exists) of judges from which he’d pick nominations to the Supreme Court.

Mr Biden has resisted naming individuals he’d consider for the Supreme Court, saying it would subject them to undue criticism. Fair enough—Mr Trump’s practice of making his short-list public is not required of other candidates.

Fair enough? No. Ridiculous and cynical. Trump’s lists of judges from which he’d select nominees for judge and Justice have been long publicized. The lists themselves have been criticized for not being definitive enough or lacking this or that candidate—the stuff of all lists. Judges on the lists have been criticized, too, with commentary on their writings and opinions suggesting too much conservatism or not enough.

But the only time—the only judge—on all of those lists “undue criticism” (a cynical euphemism if ever there was one in the present case) has occurred has been the present all-out assault on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s religion, integrity, and character being perpetrated by Biden’s Party cronies and Party supporters in the NLMSM.

Biden’s rationalization is wholly cynical if it isn’t merely projection.

Then there’s Biden’s primary criteria for anyone he’d nominate for the Supreme Court. Like Party’s pick for his Vice President candidate, Biden’s judicial criteria are, first and foremost, gender and race.

[H]e would appoint the first African-American woman to the Supreme Court.

His nominee’s understandings of our Constitution, of judicial oaths of office, of law don’t enter into it until far down his list of qualifying criteria.

The intrinsic sexist and racist bigotry in Biden’s selection criteria is just disgusting. It’s no wonder he doesn’t want to talk overmuch about his potential nominees.

Another Activist Judge

Posted on by
Reply

…stacking the vote and demonstrating the need for judges at all levels who will be true to their oaths of office and rule based on what the law says and not on what the judge wants the law to say.

[L]ast week a [Michigan] state judge ordered officials to keep tallying ballots that arrive up to 14 days late, provided they bear a postmark of November 2 or earlier.

Never mind what Michigan State law actually says on the matter. The judge knows better than the people’s representatives, and she considers herself eminently qualified and obligated to stray from her judicial constraints and intrude into a political matter.

This also illustrates the need to get a Justice confirmed for the Supreme Court seat previously held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—so Court ties can be settled by nine Justices, and not by a capricious Chief Justice.

Judicial Nominees

Posted on by
Reply

Bobby Jindal, in his Wall Street Journal op-ed, is on the right track, but wide of the mark. He opened with

President Trump’s determination to fill the Supreme Court vacancy has enraged Democrats. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ominously warns that if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is replaced and Democrats gain a Senate majority, “nothing is off the table.” It’s not clear what was off the table before: Democrats had already threatened to end the filibuster, ignore pay-as-you-go rules, make the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico states and pack the court.

So far, so good, but then he strays into irrelevancies. “The Biden Rule,” “Ginsburg’s dying wish,” “Democratic distortion,” and on and on.

It’s foolish to talk about this Senator’s rule or that one’s, or Justices’ desires, or Democrat threats. The only “rules” that matter are those in our Constitution that require the President to nominate candidates for a variety of offices—here a Supreme Court Justice—and for the Senate to advise and consent/withhold consent for those nominees.

The practice, too, has been—nearly 30 times—for Presidents to nominate Justices in election years and for the Senate to confirm or choose not to confirm those nominees. Indeed, on three occasions, the losing incumbent President has nominated Justices after the election, and on those occasions, the Senate confirmed/withheld confirmation of those nominees before the newly elected President was inaugurated.

Bait and Switch

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the trillions of American taxpayer dollars already committed to dealing with the Wuhan Virus situation, including $139 billion sent to State and local governments explicitly for that situation.  It turns out

blue states and Democratic mayors are also using the money for their pet causes.
Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) is spending millions on free college for more than 600,000 essential workers.
Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell (D) agreed to spend $629,000 to hire 15 community relations specialists.
Democratic St Paul Mayor Melvin Carter recently announced a guaranteed income program for low-income families using $300,000 in CARES Act money….

This is another demonstration that State and local governments don’t need any more Federal American taxpayer money. Progressive-Democrat-run jurisdictions can’t be trusted with the money.

Remember this in November.

Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

It’s active, biased, and deliberate in social media. And Facebook, Twitter, and Alphabet intend on stepping it up during the remainder of this election season.

Twitter, for instance, says on its website that it will “require people to remove Tweets” that include “statements which are intended to influence others to violate recommended COVID-19 related guidance from global or local health authorities to decrease someone’s likelihood of exposure to COVID-19.” Among the problematic statements the company lists under that category is “social distancing is not effective.”

But Twitter won’t say how its censors will reconcile the myriad local health authorities who disagree among each other on the proper steps to take.

Facebook on its website outlines a similar policy using similar language, with the company stating that it will “remove content with false claims or conspiracy theories that have been flagged by leading global health organizations and local health authorities,” including “claims that are designed to discourage treatment or taking appropriate precautions.”

Facebook also declines to say how its censor will reconcile the recommendations and instructions of those local health authorities.

Alphabet makes its bias unembarrassedly obvious:

YouTube has adopted a virtually identical policy, stating that it “does not allow content that spreads medical misinformation that contradicts the World Health Organization (WHO) or local health authorities’ medical information about COVID-19.”

Never mind that WHO, as an apologist for the People’s Republic of China has no credibility whatsoever.

That’s just the social media’s bias regarding the Wuhan Virus. Their behavior is even more dangerous in the political arena.

Last month, Facebook was reportedly developing a “contingency plan,” intended to address scenarios in which Trump or his campaign attempted to dispute or delegitimize the results of the 2020 election.

But nothing planned to respond to the Progressive-Democrats’ openly stated intention to dispute the results of the 2020 election.

Zuckerberg went on:

the company will “attach an informational label to content that seeks to delegitimize the outcome of the election or discuss the legitimacy of voting methods, for example, by claiming that lawful methods of voting will lead to fraud.”
“This label will provide basic authoritative information about the integrity of the election and voting methods[.]”

All while he refuses to identify his “authorities,” much less to demonstrate their authoritativeness.

Be careful out there.

And vote, despite these Leftists’ efforts to delegitimize your vote.