Tag Archives: ethics

“They Don’t Have Our Backs”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the whine of some judges who are criticizing—carefully anonymously, mind you—the Supreme Court for the Court’s emergency rulings overturning lower court rulings as the Justices agree with the Trump administration arguments.

A group of anonymous federal judges is criticizing the Supreme Court for overturning lower court rulings and siding with President Donald Trump’s administration with little to no explanation, NBC News reported Thursday.

And

…judges argued the Supreme Court should offer more explanation when overturning such decisions, saying emergency rulings in such cases imply poor work on the part of lower court judges.

It implies no such thing, of course. This is just an example of the pseudo-logic of these judges, judges who misapply the statutes before them, choosing to rule based on what they wished the statutes said rather than what they actually say. Overturning decisions without explanation in an emergency ruling plainly means nothing more or less than that the Court chose not to explain within the time constraints of an emergency ruling. It certainly applies, or even implies, nothing regarding any motive for the ruling,nor does it even come close to siding with President Donald Trump’s administration, just that the Court agreed with the administration’s arguments. These judges also are carefully ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court’s emergency rulings are merely temporary, overruling lower court temporary restraining orders and temporary injunctions as the underlying cases make their way through the courts.

“It is inexcusable,” one judge said of the Supreme Court. “They don’t have our backs.”

This is a judge who doesn’t even understand his oath of office. It’s not the Supreme Court’s job to backstop lower court judges. It’s the Supreme Court’s job—it’s the job of all of those lower court judges, also—to apply the law as it is written. It’s the job of appellate court judges, especially of Supreme Court Justices, to correct lower court mistakes in the application of the law—statute and Constitution—at least as much as it is to uphold a lower court’s ruling when that ruling applies the law as written.

Separately, “carefully anonymous:” these judges don’t even have the courage of their convictions. They just want to yap from the safety of their respective private porches.

A Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

This one, a Wall Street Journal editorial centered on a coerced unionization of ride share companies Uber and Lyft. The editors got their misunderstanding in early, via their lede:

California Governor Gavin Newsom on Friday announced a “deal” with ride-share companies Uber and Lyft that they couldn’t refuse. Democrats in Sacramento will reduce auto insurance coverage mandates that are driving runaway litigation in return for the companies letting drivers collectively bargain.

Yes, they could have refused the deal. The California government foisted onto them a supremely ugly choice, but it was no less a freely taken choice for all its ugliness. The companies’ managers were just too timid to resist, too timid to leave the State altogether, as their own powerful alternative to Sacramento’s demand.

There’s no reason for any business, not just Uber and Lyft, to suffer the politically imposed costs of operating in California. Nothing is stopping businesses from leaving other than the timidity of their managers.

I alluded to it just above: the cost of doing business in California isn’t just fiscal. It’s political, too, reducing as that cost does, a company’s ability to manage its own business affairs in accordance with its own free market imperatives.

Regulation vs Regulation

Posted on by
Reply

In an article centered on a so-called balancing act by Big Oil in an environment in which the Trump Administration is rolling back a broad swath of climate regulations, the news writers had this:

The industry’s biggest trade groups have said they support effective and reasonable regulations. Nixing the programs, the lobbyists said, would create an impossible choice for the industry—ask the administration to reinstate some rules, or walk back its previous support for some regulations.

This is timidity writ large. If the trade groups and the managers of the groups’ constituent companies really think this, that, or those rules are good ideas, then they should self-regulate along those lines. There’s nothing to stop them; there’s nothing forcing them to render themselves dependent on government diktats.

Lobbyists have signaled to the EPA that creating a regulatory vacuum could invite new lawsuits.

The proper response to those lawsuits is to stop being so desperate to settle and to stop hiding behind Government apron strings. With the climate regulation roll back, there are fewer grounds on which to base a lawsuit, and the proper response to those remaining that are brought is to refuse to settle, push the pace on the trials, and burn the suers to the ground in open court. That’ll be expensive in the early stages, especially as they’re forced by activist district judges to go through the appeals process, but it will reduce long-term legal costs far more by obviating a large number of lawsuits in the aftermath of those early ones.

It’s past time for business managers, especially including those running energy producing businesses, to recall the nature of their management roles.

The central imperative of a management position in the United States is to manage a company in a way that satisfies the company’s owners. There is nothing in that imperative that requires a manager to manage his company in a way that satisfies the demands of Government beyond simply following law. Those managers who are that timid that they need to be told what to do by Government need to be replaced; they’re unfit for their management positions.

This is America. Business managers are free to act on their own initiative; they are not required to wait on Government.

A Random Question

Posted on by
Reply

I have one, triggered by a settlement between the Federal DoJ and Kentucky regarding the latter’s granting of in-state college/university tuition rates to illegal aliens living in the State. The settlement has Kentucky rescinding that grant.

Thus:

The first clause of the first article of the 14th Amendment says this:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The second sentence of that clause says this in pertinent part:

No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What does this suggest about a State’s colleges’ and universities’ use of resident—citizen of the State and of these United States—vs non-resident—but still citizen of these United States—tuition?

Correct Move

Posted on by
Reply

A DoJ paralegal flipped off a National Guard soldier while the paralegal was enroute to her office work. Then she bragged about it to a DoJ security guard on her way into the building. When word got to Attorney General Pam Bondi, her response was prompt and direct. Bondi’s memo to the paralegal said, in part:

Based on your inappropriate conduct towards National Guard service members, your employment with the Department of Justice is hereby terminated, and you are removed from federal service effective immediately[.]

This has two correct moves in the same sentence. The first is the prompt termination of the misbehaving paralegal. The second is especially important: the paralegal is not going to be reassigned somewhere else in the Federal government; she’s barred from Federal employment altogether.

The woman might have gotten away with her reprehensible behavior, even though she would have deserved to be fired, had she not bragged about it. The lack of judgment she showed by bragging about her misbehavior, though, conclusively demonstrates she’s unfit for Federal employment regardless of any specific act of misbehavior.

Bondi’s memo can be read here.