Tag Archives: law

He’s Right

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) is looking to seal off leaks, especially those that center on potentially treasonous leaks to the press.

A leaked report claimed that the U.S. strike only set back Iran’s program by a few months. U.S. officials have said the nuclear sites were destroyed and it would take years for Iran to rebuild them.
…
Trump suggested compelling the journalists who publicly reported on the leaked intelligence to reveal their source for national security reasons.

Certainly such leakers should be identified, haled into criminal court, and if convicted, locked up for a very long time. This kind of leaker isn’t just violating his oath of office, or the terms of his employment, he’s committing the felonious act of sending classified material—national security-related material—to the press, which our enemies avidly read. Furthermore, the only way this sort of leaker can have passed the classified material along to the press is by having stolen the material first, and the theft itself should be separately punished with a jail term.

There’s more to this than just that, though.

In all other walks of life, receiving stolen goods is itself a crime, magnified by efforts to profit from the receipt. Unlike the legal and medical professions, there is no intrinsic right to confidentiality between news writers—journalists—and their sources. The Frankenstein-esque creation of a “need to protect sources” is right next door to violating the 14th Amendment’s requirement for equal treatment under law.

Journalism would suffer mighty and irreversible damage were journalists required to reveal the source(s) who transmitted to them stolen materials or communicated to them information the sources were revealing in violation of the obligations of their position? This is cynically offered nonsense. In times past, journalists were required by their editors to have at least two on-the-record sources corroborating the anonymously sourced information those journalists published. That requirement has since been abandoned by the journalist guild.

What concrete, publicly accessible, and publicly measurable standard of journalistic integrity do today’s news writers and their editors use?  They refuse to say, which is them saying loudly and clearly that they have no standard.

It’s long past time to bring journalism, which refuses to regulate itself, back within the bounds of a law that the rest of us must obey.

Judicial Inconvenience

Posted on by
Reply

A prison inmate went without his heart medication for a week, had a heart attack, and died. The 6th Circuit ruled no Qualified Immunity for the nurse who didn’t, per the Institute for Justice‘s 27 June newsletter, call his pharmacy to verify his prescriptions or take 10 minutes to get the necessary release form filled out for getting his prescription filled out.

The dissenting judge in the panel beefed (IJ paraphrase),

Now everyone in CA6 who dies in jail because they were briefly without their medication has a constitutional claim.

Sorry, Judge, the convenience of you or your court is no excuse for denying even a prisoner his due, and it’s no excuse for not holding materially accountable those prison officials who deny a prisoner his due.

The Circuit opinion and dissent can be read here.

Disingenuosity Example

Posted on by
Reply

And one that’s typical of the Leftist objections to the Trump administration’s temerity in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. The example is a sign that’s ubiquitous at Leftist protests and at Leftist overt interferences with ICE arrests.

It’s certainly true that no human being is illegal. The disingenuosity of the Leftist “protestors” is centered there, as they ignore the underlying principle: what human beings do often is illegal. In the context of immigration, what human beings do that’s illegal is breaking into or sneaking into our nation in violation of our immigration laws. Their illegal behavior is compounded by the next crime they commit: hiding in some way, whether directly or through anonymity, and remaining in our nation illegally.

These intrinsically non-illegal human beings need to be apprehended and held accountable for their intrinsically illegal behaviors: jailed for their immigration crimes, or more simply deported.

But of course, Leftists and the politicians of their Progressive-Democratic Party insist that the actions of illegal aliens, perpetrated by intrinsically non-illegal human beings, also are intrinsically non-illegal.

All Too Typical

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for New York City mayor and currently sitting City Comptroller says it’s remarkable that he was arrested by ICE agents, two of whom were themselves immigrants, for his obstruction of their arrest of an illegal alien and that he’s sad and angry over the arrest.

This is all too typical of Progressive-Democratic Party politicians: they profess to see no difference between immigrants, such as those two ICE agents, and the illegal alien whom those agents were arresting.

It’s also all too typical of Progressive-Democratic politicians that they think laws, especially laws about obstructing law enforcement personnel, don’t apply to them.

These are just two more examples of Party’s intrinsic disdain for those law and order that isn’t of their construction.

California’s Problem

Posted on by
Reply

Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed into law a resolution rescinding the Biden administration’s EPA’s last-minute waiver for California to mandate more stringent rules for gasoline and battery cars than the Federal government’s—and that EPA’s—rules. That Biden EPA waiver allowed California to mandate only battery cars to be sold in California; average Americans who also are citizens of California would be required to buy battery cars after 2035 if they wanted another car, whether they wanted a battery car or not. The interstate market for transportation vehicles being what it is, that would have been tantamount to a requirement for all of us average Americans all across our nation to buy only battery cars after 2035.

Hours later, California’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom led a lawsuit against the Trump administration asking a Federal court to find the waiver rescission…unconstitutional.

Newsom called it “the latest illegal action by a president who is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big polluters.”

Newsom’s Progressive-Democrat State AG Rob Bonta:

We will continue to fiercely defend ourselves from this lawless federal overreach[.]

How dare our elected representatives act against the wishes of California? That’s illegal.

It’s plainly unlawful for Congress to pass a national law of which the State of California disapproves.

Newsom and his syndicate bleat about an allegedly lawless Trump administration. The real lawlessness, though, is Newsom’s claim that a waiver granted by a government agency cannot be rescinded by the elected representatives of the United States, the Congress and the President.

That’s lawlessness, and it’s instructive of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s use of a Newspeak Dictionary to cloak their claims. This is what we can look forward to the moment the Progressive-Democratic Party returns to power.