Tag Archives: ethics

In a Contest of Tariffs

Posted on by
Reply

In a piece purporting to show Where the Trade Battle Hurts the Most, Julie Wernau and Ira Iosebashvili had this comment:

Renegotiations of the North American Free Trade Agreement are being closely watched in Canada, too. The Trump administration has used threats of auto tariffs to win concessions from Canada and Mexico, a strategy that hasn’t sat well with the two countries.

President Donald Trump also offered them, and the rest of the G-7, a regime of no tariffs at all. Their refusal even to discuss the offer doesn’t sit well with those of us outside the NLMSM.

Facebook Strikes Again

Posted on by
Reply

Facebook, for a while, decided that our Declaration of Independence was filled with hate speech.  In particular, Facebook decided that

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions[]

which closed the list of Facts our nascent nation submitted to a candid world

goes against our [Facebook’s] standards on hate speech.

Facebook then threatened The Washington Times, which had been posting to its Facebook account successive parts of our Declaration leading up to our Independence Day celebration—which was to have included that hateful passage—with the loss of its Facebook account.

Facebook’s algorithm did it.  That’s the company’s story, and apparently they’re sticking to it.

It’s true enough that Facebook later reposted the censored passage and…apologized…for the “error.”

That, though, does not alter the simple fact that Zuckerberg’s minions, hiding behind that algorithm—which Zuckerberg’s IT experts had carefully programmed—had committed this act of censorship of our Declaration of Independence.

Nor does it alter the simple fact that Zuckerberg and his minions waited to restore the censored passage until after they’d been publicly called on their misbehavior.  They did not proactively, on their own initiative, undo their misbehavior.

This is free speech, Left style.  Not even our founding documents can be posted without a struggle today.  Just like when they first were published.

The Sanctity of Precedent

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democrats have their panties in large, tight twists over the possibility of President Donald Trump getting another pick for the Supreme Court.  So much so that now they’re making stuff up in their hysteria.

“Abortion will be illegal in twenty states in 18 months,” tweeted Jeffrey Toobin, the legal pundit, in a classic of cool, even-handed CNN analysis soon after the resignation news.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY):

Whomever the president picks, it is all too likely they’re going to overturn health-care protections and Roe v Wade[.]

And so on.

What these guys are carefully ignoring, though, are some basic fundamentals (excuse the redundancy).

Conservatives are very reluctant to overturn precedent, as the Editorial Board points out. However, the Progressive-Democrats’ insistence on the absolute sanctity precedent—and of Republican Senator Collins’ identical insistence—means that now these worthies have to defend the sanctity of the Dred Scott precedent, and they have to defend Plessy‘s separate-but-equal and explain the inequity of Brown fixing that.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for their explanations. Don’t hold your breath, either, waiting for the NLMSM—CNN, for instance—to ask them for those explanations.

They Would, Indeed

Posted on by
Reply

Commenting on the upcoming nomination for Supreme Court Justice and the Progressive-Democrats’ hysteria over President Donald trump’s choice—long before he makes it—former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee said

If he put Moses up for the possibility of being Supreme Court Justice—the ultimate lawgiver, the Ten Commandments—they would still be against it[.]

He’s right.  Recall Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D, CA) objection to Judge Amy Coney Barrett during the latter’s 7th Appellate Court confirmation hearing:

When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you[.]

Never mind that at the outset of that hearing—preceding Feinstein’s slur (of course one’s religious beliefs (or atheism) should live loudly, but Feinstein meant it as a slur)—in response to a question from Senator Chuck Grassley (R, IA), Barrett had said

It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law.

Never mind, either, that Barrett and her then-law professor John Garvey had written in a 1998 paper that

in certain circumstances a Catholic judge (like many Quakers, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, and the member communions in the National Council of Churches) might be compelled to recuse herself or himself under 28 USC § 455, a federal statute that suggests a federal judge should step aside in the face of conscientious scruples.

The Left and their representative Party are very much anti-Christian, anti-Judaism, anti-religion or even the whiff of any.

Remember this in the fall, and don’t be a stay-at-home.

Playing Politics with the Constitution

Posted on by
Reply

What kind of judge do we want as a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy?

Folks are talking about a President Donald Trump nominee being a shoo-in because Republicans have a majority in the Senate, and there’s no filibustering of judicial nominations.  I’m not so sure.

The Left, of course, are crying the End of Times and the end of Roe v Wade, but that’s less a factor than a more pernicious conflict in the offing.

Late Thursday, the president met with a bipartisan group of six senators who will play a pivotal role in selecting Mr Kennedy’s successor because they have deviated from their party on key votes in the past. The lawmakers signaled they want an ideological centrist….

Those Senators included Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R, IA), Susan Collins (R, ME), Lisa Murkowski (R, AK), Joe Donnelly (D, IN), Heidi Heitkamp (D, ND), and Joe Manchin (D, WV).

Litmus tests and centrism.  Collins and Murkowski look like they’re going to hold out for someone who’ll explicitly protect Roe.  I’d like to see that ruling at least adjusted, but a single, narrow issue should not be a deal maker or breaker.  Litmus tests are out of place here.

Others of that crowd are holding out for a centrist, a middle of the roader, so as not to too badly upset the balance of ideologies on the Supreme Court.  The problem with centrism, though, is that it is committed to finding consensus on a case before the Court and doing so for the sake of consensus not because that would represent the best ruling.

Moreover, consensus-building gives too much opportunity to deviate from the text, to legislate by that deviation from the bench, even to amend the Constitution from the bench.  No.  There can be no compromise here.  The words of the Constitution and of any Constitutional law are fixed, and any alteration of them can only be a political decision, not a judicial one.

Nor is there any place for ideology on the Court or in any court.  The Constitution is written and amended by the People, laws are written and enacted by the political branches of our government.  Our judiciary’s task is to apply the Constitution and laws to particular cases before them.  Ideology has no place in the application; ideology, to the extent it has a role in government, is a political matter alone.

No.  We shouldn’t be playing politics with the Supreme Court picks, naïve as that seems.  The best pick for this Justice, and for all nine Justices in their turn, is someone who will uphold the Constitution and hold laws accountable to the Constitution.  That requires a textualist.  Full stop.

 

Unfortunately, any two of those six Senators are enough to kill a nomination.  Or any one of them, since Senator Jeff Flake (R, AZ) has said he’ll block all judicial nominations until he gets his way on wholly unrelated matters.  Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) have their work cut out for them.  This is not a slam-dunk matter.