Tag Archives: ethics

Maybe It’s Time

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written before about the…suboptimality…of the SEC using its own “court” system (in quotes because it’s more of a kangaroo court system, with the SEC serving as accuser, prosecutor, judge (no jury), punisher, and appellate “court”). The SEC has even pretended to be changing its ways.

Now, this.

After five years, four judges, three rulings, two appeals and the loss of their careers, John Flannery and James Hopkins this month won their legal battle against the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The former State Street Corp executives’ long legal fight took place almost entirely in the SEC’s in-house court system, which agency officials have lauded as offering a fast-track alternative to federal court.

Their problem is all too typical of this SEC.

Since Mary Jo White became SEC chairman in April 2013, the median time for the agency to decide appeals of its in-house judges’ decisions has increased to 19 months….

Then there’s the excuse.

A key part of the agency’s argument has been that the internal tribunal is more efficient.

You bet it is. The conviction and upholding rate is through the roof compared with the rates from those cases that make it out of the SEC and into an actual Federal court.

Since the bureaucrats at the SEC place their own imperatives ahead of their job, maybe it’s time to disband the SEC and replace it with a securities industry overseer that will place its job ahead of the imperatives of the new, fresh personnel who will populate it.

Alternatively, maybe it’d be sufficient to replace the head bureaucrat with someone who understands for whom she works.

Sources

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama is well known for not knowing what’s going on in the world unless he reads about it in the NLMSM.

According to The New York Times (as reported by the New York Post because the NYT censored itself between the time it put its piece on line and the time it reprinted the piece in hard copy), this extends to television.

In the aftermath of the terrorist attack in San Bernardino Obama explained his failure to respond in any serious manner by telling the NYT that

he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino….

At least the Progressive/Democrat is consistent….

Another Foolish Argument

Posted on by
Reply

Nebraska and Oklahoma have asked the Supreme Court to strike Colorado’s 2012 marijuana initiative on the grounds that the Colorado constitutional amendment has sparked crime increases in their own states. To the extent that can be shown, it’s an argument worth having.

Enter President Barack Obama through his Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, in Verrilli’s brief to the Supreme Court, in which Obama urged the Court to reject the case:

Entertaining the type of dispute at issue here—essentially that one State’s laws make it more likely that third parties will violate federal and state law in another State—would represent a substantial and unwarranted expansion of this Court’s original jurisdiction.

Here’s what our Constitution says about the Supreme Court’s role in disputes between States, which Verilli’s brief also cites:

In all Cases…in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

Verrilli’s brief also cited the First Judiciary Act, a hoary old law passed by the First Congress’ first session in 1789 averring, among other things, that the Supreme Court in particular has

original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

Notice those two cites: there is nowhere contained within either any caveat or limit. There is nothing that says, “Except when it’s inconvenient to Government,” or “Except when there’s something else,” or….

Despite that, the Solicitor General, in his brief (undoubtedly written for him by that better lawyer than his lawyers—it certainly contains Obama’s depth and style of legal thinking [/snark]), made the claim that taking the case would represent a substantial and unwarranted expansion of the Court’s role in settling a dispute between States.

Nonsense. This is a textbook example of a dispute between States, and it’s directly within the Court’s constitutionally mandated function, especially as fleshed out by Congress and a President who signed the fleshing-out into law. The Court may decide it’s a bogus beef, and that would be a useful precedent to set.

But it’s entirely a Supreme Court decision. Verrilli and his boss know this full well.

How Convenient

Posted on by
Reply

The State Department has told Senate investigators it cannot find backup copies of emails sent by Bryan Pagliano, the top Hillary Clinton IT staffer who maintained her email server but has asserted his Fifth Amendment right and refused to answer questions on the matter.

And

State officials told the Senate Judiciary Committee in a recent closed-door meeting that they could not locate what’s known as a “.pst file” for Pagliano’s work during Clinton’s tenure, which would have included copies of the tech expert’s emails[.]

That’s interesting for another reason. A PST file is what Microsoft’s Outlook emailer uses to aggregate and store sent and received emails that are handled by Outlook; it’s not any sort of industry standard. Thunderbird, which I use, uses EML or MSF or…, depending on the vintage Thunderbird being used. Other emailers use other storage means. Why is State carefully looking only for PST files? Outlook is the State-mandated emailer, but State knows full well that other emailers also are used by State personnel and “consultants.”

The second supports my suspicion of the first: how hard is State looking, really?

The Coercive Power of the State

Posted on by
Reply

This is the Progressive Democratic Party of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as articulated by California Governor Jerry Brown (D). At the just concluded Paris “Climate” Summit.

Tom, you used the phrase “policy.” Good policy. But I want to unpack that term a little bit. Inside the policy, you need a law. You need a rule. You need the coercive power of government to say, “Do this.” Now, you have to be wise and don’t say something stupid or order something stupid but the fact is, the regulations supported by the laws drive innovation.

And

You do have to have, at the end of the day, a regulation, a law. Progress comes from well-designed regulatory objectives that business then follows.

You can be sure California is going to keep innovating, keep regulating. And, shall I say, keep taxing.

All for the very best of causes. This complements the Left’s drive to take our weapons.  All for the very best of causes.  All for political power.  And, we mustn’t neglect Mao Tse-tung’s position:

Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.