Tag Archives: freedom

A Newly Conservative Court?

Posted on by
Reply

Jess Bravin, writing in The Wall Street Journal, thought so.

When Justice Brett Kavanaugh takes the bench Tuesday, it will mark the culmination of the Republican Party’s 50-year drive to cement a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

At the least, he argued,

[A] five-justice majority more sensitive to regulatory and litigation costs on business should tip more outcomes toward industry and employers, imposing higher bars for workers, consumers and environmentalists, according to legal experts who have studied the court and Justice Kavanaugh’s jurisprudence. At the same time, the new majority is likely to show more sympathy for social conservatives resisting the encroachment of gay rights and access to contraceptives, as well as greater tolerance for state initiatives to curb the availability of abortion.

Not so much.

Bravin is either naive or excessively optimistic.  Kavanaugh’s confirmation has produced no five-justice majority.  The only Conservatives on the Court are Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.  Four others form a liberal bloc convinced that the Constitution needs updating in accordance with the climate of the era.

The ninth Justice, Chief Justice John Roberts, is too squishy, too enamored of “perceptions of Court legacy” to be reliably conservative. He’ll find middle ground for the sake of that perception instead of basing rulings on the text of the Constitution or the law in front of the Court.

The Supreme Court

Posted on by
1

As I write this (Saturday morning), Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh has not been confirmed; although, that seems more likely than I had thought Friday morning before the cloture vote.  Nevertheless, here’s why we need another textualist Justice on the Court—from the words of another Supreme Court Justice.

Associate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said Friday she fears the high court may lack a justice going forward who would serve as a swing-vote on cases….

And

Kagan said at a conference for women at Princeton University that over the past three decades…there was a figure on the bench “who found the center or people couldn’t predict in that sort of way.”

She made her view explicit:

It’s not so clear, that I think going forward, that sort of middle position—it’s not so clear whether we’ll have it[.]
…
It’s an incredibly important thing for the court to guard is this reputation of being impartial, being neutral and not being simply extension of a terribly polarizing process.

In one respect, it’s shocking that a Supreme Court Justice would have so little understanding of the role of American judges in our nation—in their role at the foundation of our freedom.

What’s polarizing and destructive of the Court’s credibility is its penchant for ruling on the basis of their individual views of what society needs or wants, even to the point of rewriting a law, as Chief Justice Roberts did in order to “save” Obamacare.  Determinations of what society needs and modifications of law are political decisions, that only We the People, through our elected representatives, can make.  That’s clear from our Constitution’s Article I, Section 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Short, sweet, to the point, and not at all susceptible to misunderstanding.

Nor can a judge rule for the sake of achieving what seems to be—to the judge—some sort of “middle ground.”

A judge can only rule on the basis of what a law, or our Constitution, says.

Full stop.

It’s a Start

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration has agreed to sell $330 million worth of spare parts to the Republic of China.  The spares will support the RoC’s F-16s, C-130s, and other of the island nation’s military aircraft.

It’s a start.  However, we need to do more.  We should be selling uprated F1-16s, F-15s, and A-10s to them.  We should be selling missile defense systems to them and brokering deals between the RoC and Israel for the latter’s Iron Dome and Arrow missile and rocket defense systems.  We should be selling the RoC anti-ship and anti-aircraft weapons systems.  We should be selling them land-attack cruise missile systems.

We should be selling the RoC the training necessary to maintain and operate those systems.

We should be helping the RoC defend itself against an increasingly aggressive and acquisitive People’s Republic of China.

Feinstein’s Weapons Distortion

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) isn’t only dissembling in the course of her Progressive-Democratic Party’s shambles-making of the Judge Kavanaugh Supreme Court Justice confirmation process.  She’s dissembling regarding our right to keep and bear Arms, also.  Using the hoo-raw the Party created during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings (she’s the Ranking Democrat on that committee), she had this comment in the lead up to a question she had for Kavanaugh:

I’m talking about your statement on “common use.”  Assault weapons are not in common use.

There are two cynical distortions in that claim.  One is her “assault weapons” nonsense.  There are no assault weapons available to civilians in the United States.  Assault weapons are weapons capable of fully automatic fire (some of which can be possessed, but not borne, by collectors under very narrow circumstances) and heavy weapons—antitank weapons, crew-served fully automatic weapons, and the like.  Feinstein is carefully conflating the term “assault weapons” with semi-automatic rifles, which most assuredly are in common use in our nation, as she tries to emotionalize a completely rational matter with her scary term.

The other is her business about common use.  Here’s the 2nd Amendment in its entirety:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There’s nothing in there about common use.  The Supreme Court has ruled on the need for common use, but this flies in the face of that Amendment on two grounds: one is the Court’s manufactured standard—it’s law-making from its bench—of commonness of use.  The other flies in the face of history and of the environment in which We the People ratified our Amendment: a significant fraction of the cannons used by our side during our Revolutionary War were privately owned.  Plainly, given their expense in obtaining, maintaining, and operating, they were possessed only by the wealthy—they were not in “common use.”  The Court’s ruling simply wants reversal so as to bring the matter back in line with our Constitution.

That second point might be a bit obscure, but the first is blindingly obvious.  Even to a Progressive-Democrat.

Promise

Posted on by
Reply

The People’s Republic of China has been rolling out its system for spying on surveilling its citizens for a while now.  This is the system that develops social scores for every PRC citizen, and the system has bennies for achieving high scores:

…waived deposits on hotels and rental cars, VIP treatment at airports, discounted loans, priority job applications, and fast-tracking to the most prestigious universities.

Things that can detract from those high scores include

[j]aywalking, late payments on bills or taxes, buying too much alcohol, or speaking out against the government….
Other mooted punishable offences include spending too long playing video games, wasting money on frivolous purchases, and posting on social media….

Get too low a score, and citizens will be punished:

…los[e] the right to travel by plane or train, social media account suspensions, and being barred from government jobs.

The system isn’t all bad, though, assuming private citizens can learn their scores.  Those with low scores are showing themselves to be trustworthy—at least by their fellow citizens—and high scorers expose themselves as puppets of the government.