Tag Archives: ethics

Thurgood Marshall’s Politics Deserve Respect?

Posted on by
Reply

Jason Riley certainly thought Justice Thurgood Marshall’s approach to it deserved respect.

One of the final scenes in “Marshall,” a new film about the early legal career of civil rights superstar Thurgood Marshall, shows the future Supreme Court justice in a train station in Mississippi. It’s 1941—peak Jim Crow —and a large “Whites Only” sign hangs above a water fountain beside him.

Marshall ignores the sign, takes a paper cup from the dispenser, and draws water from the fountain. An elderly black gentleman quietly watches him, in seeming awe of this defiant act. The two men exchange glances but no words as Marshall exits the station, yet his message to the older man is clear: don’t be afraid.

That much is to the good, most assuredly.

Unfortunately, the movie that Riley reviewed seems to have omitted another aspect of Marshall’s political behavior.  Marshall deliberately dragged politics into the courts.  Speaking at a traditional Supreme Court mid-term lunch for the Court’s clerks, for instance, Marshall said this, in all seriousness:

You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.

A judge ruling on any basis other than what the law says pulls what are solely political branch authorities into his court.  That’s utterly disrespectful.

Colin Kaepernick’s Lawfare “Protest”

Posted on by
Reply

After being unable to get a job with any team in the NFL this season, Colin Kaepernick has filed a formal grievance against the NFL, each of the 32 team owners, and President Donald Trump—who supposedly “influenced” league management and team owners into not hiring him—alleging that they colluded to not sign him at quarterback, or end-of-bench monitor, this season.

Coincidentally, his filing comes after a year in which he routinely attacked our flag and national anthem and insulted our veterans by taking a knee during the pre-game playing of our national anthem.  Also coincidentally, his filing comes after a year in which he led his last employer, the San Francisco 49ers, to a 1-10 record before the team tired of losing and benched him.

Let’s set aside Kaepernick’s beef against Trump.  Aside from being utterly laughable, it casually insults the team owners as being cowards unable to run their businesses in the face of a Presidential tweet parade.  That’s a minor point.

What illustrates the risible nature of Kaepernick’s grievance is its centering on his free speech rights and his claim that he’s been blackballed as a result of his so-called protests.

Carefully elided is everyone else’s free speech right to object to his behavior, just as vociferously, including with ticket dollars and TV viewing.  This particularly includes team owners, who don’t give up their free speech rights to respond in the same forum to Kaepernick’s, et al., free speech “protests.”

Also: a private company employee’s free speech rights, within very broad limits, are matters of employment contract parameters. The 1st Amendment limits Government, not private entities.

Beyond all of that, neither a broad functional consensus—paralleling the fans’ broad consensus—of owners disliking this particular misbehavior, nor a separate broad functional consensus that employees publicly disparaging our national symbols and insulting those who fought to defend them is bad for business, even remotely approach collusion.

There is no case in this lawfare assault.

The National Association of Realtors Objects

Posted on by
Reply

The NAR is objecting to the current tax reform plan’s essential doubling of the standard deduction to $12,000 for single filers and to $24,000 for married couples.

The Realtors are upset because they say this middle-class tax cut would make fewer taxpayers use the mortgage-interest deduction. The National Association of Realtors trashed the framework in a statement, saying it “would all but nullify the incentive to purchase a home for most, amounting to a de facto tax increase” and ensure “that only the top 5% of Americans have the opportunity to benefit from the mortgage interest deduction.”

This is beyond disingenuous; it’s dishonest.

Doubling the standard deduction to $24,000 leaves an extra $12,000 in that family’s take-home income. That means that that family can accumulate a 20% down payment on a $240,000 home (in well-off Plano, TX, real estate market, that works out to a roughly 2,300-2,600 sq ft, 4-bedroom home) in just four years, instead of forever. That’s a strong incentive to buy a home—and these folks, shorn of the mortgage interest deduction as the NAR bleats, are not in those 5%.  They wouldn’t need the “benefit from the mortgage interest deduction.”

Oh, wait—that family might choose to replace their beater with a new, or a newer used, car that would be cheaper to run instead of buying a house. The family could pay cash for that car, rather than borrow for it, in just two years.

NAR knows all of this.

Laziness

Posted on by
Reply

Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, and HSBC, banks allegedly involved in rigging the erstwhile international debt interest rate benchmark LIBOR, are going to pay $132 million in aggregate to “settle” a court case over that alleged involvement.

The proposed settlements…include no admission of wrongdoing.

The banks are paying the money for—as the plaintiffs plainly agree by their own acceptance of the settlement—not doing anything.

This is a bad deal. If the banks didn’t do anything wrong, for what are they paying? If they deserve fines, why aren’t they being kept in court for an on-the-record public recitation of their wrongdoing and punishment?

Sounds like indulgences, to me.

Must Be Dead Broke Again

Posted on by
Reply

The money’s already spent, and the Clinton Foundation has no other money to send back to Harvey Weinstein.

That’s the excuse that the Clinton Foundation is using (I’m deliberately eliding Hillary Clinton’s fatuous excuse for not returning Weinstein’s donations to her campaign—”there’s no one to return the money to”) for refusing to return Weinstein’s donation of somewhere between $100,000 to $250,000 to the Foundation.

The money’s gone.  And since money is eminently fungible, as all of the management of the Clinton Foundation—Chairman Bill Clinton, Vice Chairman Chelsea Clinton, Chief Communications and Marketing Officer Craig Minassian, et al.—all know full well, by implication the Foundation has no other money with which to make the returns.

Apparently, the Clintons, are dead broke again, and now their Foundation is, too.