Tag Archives: freedom

Right Answer, Wrong Dissent

Posted on by
Reply

The Washington State Supreme Court issued a ruling favorable to the State’s charter schools last Thursday.  The question before the court was whether those charter schools were violating the State’s constitution by receiving funding from the State’s lottery facilities.  Writing for the court, Justice Mary Yu wrote in plain words,

Charter schools are not rendered unconstitutional just because they do not operate identically to common school[.]

She expanded on that in addressing the plaintiffs’ argument that the charter schools lacked voter control, holding that, as The Seattle Times paraphrased her,

…”it makes sense” for charter schools not have local voter control because their funding source, unlike traditional schools, does not include local property tax levies.

Justice Barbara Madsen in dissent, wrote

They [charter schools] are not subject to local voter control and lack any direct accountability to the communities they purport to serve….

This is mistaken.  Charter schools are especially accountable to the communities “they purport to serve” because, unlike the case with public schools, those parents, those members of the served communities, those voters, easily can remove their children from a charter school and enroll them elsewhere.

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Posted on by
Reply

In the wake of a series of explosive devices being sent to or received by Progressive-Democrats and others of the Left like George Soros, ex-President Barack Obama (D), ex-Progressive-Democrat Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D, CA), Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D, FL), CNN offices, and others we get this:

Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a joint statement…”Time and time again, the President has condoned physical violence and divided Americans with his words and his actions….”

This comes against the backdrop of Obama’s ex-Attorney General Eric Holder encouraging Leftists to kick Republicans and Conservatives when “they go low,” Waters encouraging Leftists to harass Republicans wherever they might be, Senator Spartacus encouraging Leftists to “get up in the faces of some Congresspeople,” Progressive-Democrat supporters attacking two Republican candidates in Minnesota (one got a concussion), the Left sending allegedly ricin-laced letters and other death threats to Senator Susan Collins (R, ME), the Left’s Antifa attacking anyone in Portland, Clinton calling 63 million Americans irredeemably deplorable racists, and on and on and on.

And: lots of bombs, and all of them intercepted.  Does anyone really think that’s plausible?  Most of them being intercepted, certainly; our guys are that good.  But 100% success?  None of them went off, too.  Does anyone think the bomber or bombers really are that incompetent?  Most not detonating, perhaps.  But 100% failure?

Maybe Schumer and Pelosi have given the game away.  At the very least, they’re demonstrating breathtaking and despicable cynicism with their jumping on the chance to make personal political hay out of all of this.

The EU and National Sovereignty

Posted on by
Reply

Poland enacted a law at the start of the year that lowered the mandatory retirement age of all of its judges from 70 to 65.  This resulted, among other things, in the required retirement for 27 of the nation’s 72 Supreme Court judges (a too-big Court, anyway IMNSHO, and they ought not be replaced, but that’s a separate story).

The ruling Law and Justice (PiS [Prawo i Sprawiedliwość]) party says the changes are necessary to a justice system they say is controlled by an untouchable “caste” of judges steeped in communist-era mentality.

The European Union has demurred.

The Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice said Friday that Poland must delay implementation of a law that came into force earlier this year requiring early retirement for nearly 40% of the court’s judges. Poland could face fines if it doesn’t comply, but more significantly such a move would represent an unprecedented threat to the authority of the bloc’s top court.
The Polish judges sent into retirement must be allowed to return to work, the ruling said.

That supposed threat to the ECJ may, in fact, be the crux of the matter: the EU must reign supreme over the member nations.

Whether retiring the judges is a good idea or not is a good idea or not, it’s an internal, domestic affair for Poland to decide.

Joining the EU plainly requires the surrender of a potful of national sovereignty far beyond such outward looking matters as national borders, trade rules, and the like.

Mao Lives

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China, the home of rule by law (not rule of law), has retroactively legalized its “internment” camps, which the government is using to jail reeducate recalcitrant Muslims in its western province of Xinjiang.

Chinese authorities in the far-northwestern region of Xinjiang on Wednesday revised legislation to permit the use of “education and training centers” to combat religious extremism.

So far—so far, mind you—a million Muslims are…housed…in those camps.

The camps are strongly reminiscent of those of President Xi Jinping’s early predecessor, Mao Tse-tung.  Mao sent 16-18 million children and millions more adults to his “reeducation” camps.

Xi is off to a good start.

Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Posted on by
Reply

The tentacles reach far—even into the origin of Western concepts of individual liberty.  A British court has ordered

the wife of a jailed Azerbaijani banker to explain how she and her husband could afford their multimillion-pound London mansion or face having it seized.

Government does not have to prove the illegal origin of the money.  No, the holder of the money must prove her innocence.  Here is the outcome of the British government’s legislation ostensibly aimed at allegedly dirty money held by people with political connections or suspected of serious crime.

Think about that: someone with the wrong political connections in the eyes of someone in government, or someone whom somebody in government decides is behaving suspiciously, now must prove his lack of guilt.

Money laundering might seem a perfectly fine excuse for invading individual liberty in this way: truly laundered money does indeed have origins that are inimical to safety.

But so are individual liberties critical to the safety of each of us.  What is the government’s limiting principle here?  Where does the tradeoff between security and liberty naturally end?

Innocent until proven guilty is a concept that must protect even the unsavory, or apparently unsavory, among us because that protection is critical to our own safety.