The Threat to our Court System

…was made plain last week with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D, NY) naked threat against two of our Supreme Court Justices if they don’t start ruling the way Progressive-Democrats dictate.

Schumer’s threat follows threats by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D, RI) and his cronies in the Senate to stack the Supreme Court if that body didn’t start ruling the way Progressive-Democrats dictate.

These follow long-standing “liberal” judges’ and Justices’ utter disregard for our Constitution. Such disregard includes district judges presuming to issue nation-wide injunctions—arrogantly reaching into the jurisdictions of other judges’ districts, other appellate court districts.

It includes Justices like Thurgood Marshall whose mantra was an even more arrogant attitude of ruling wholly independently of the law and then demanding the law catch up

It includes the attitude of current liberal Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who considers our Constitution to be a document that lives through and is alterable by rulings from her judicial bench. She contemptuously ignores the fact that our Constitution actually lives through its Article V and is alterable solely by our Constitution’s owners, We the People.

Keep the power balance of the Senate—which must confirm or reject all judges and Justices—and the party residing in the White House—which originates all judicial nominations—in mind this fall.

Believability

Some Progressive-Democrats really, strongly dislike Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden, and they said so in very explicit terms.

Senator Cory Booker (D, NJ):

Mr Vice President has said that since the 1970s, every crime bill, major and minor, has had his name on it. And, sir, those are your words, not mine, and this is one of those instances where the house was set on fire and you claimed responsibility for those laws. And you can’t just now come out with a plan to put out that fire.

Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA)

trained her attention on the former vice president—calling his comment about working with segregationists “very hurtful”—and went on to slam Biden for opposing school busing in the 1970s.
“There was a little girl in California who was a part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bused to school every day,” she said. “And that little girl was me.”

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D, MN) on Biden’s brag of being the most Progressive of them all:

He has been running things for a long time as a senator and as vice president, I’m sure he’ll be able to point to some major accomplishments that are progressive. And then he’ll have to explain things that weren’t as progressive.

Ex-Mayor Pete Buttigieg:

I hear Vice President Biden say that this is no time to take a risk on someone new. But history has shown us that the biggest risk we could take with a very important election coming up is to look to the same Washington playbook and recycle the same arguments.

Now all of them—every single one—think Biden is the cat’s meow; they’ve endorsed him and his campaign for President. This is the believability of Progressive-Democrat words.

How Long Can Russia Hold Out?

What’s behind the oil price plunge and the associated stock index plunge?

Russia refused a Saudi Arabia deal to cut oil production during the current drop in demand for oil by an additional 1.5 billion barrels per day. This would have been on top of the 1.7 billion barrel per day cut begun some weeks ago in response to reduced oil demand driven by reducing Asian and European economic activity.

That reduced demand has been exacerbated by the coronavirus’ panic-driven impediment to overall economic activity.

In response to the Russians’ refusal the Saudis cut their price of oil by $6-$8 dollars and have said they’d increase their oil production by some 2.3 million barrels per day. In essence, the OPEC-agreed limits on oil output are completely withdrawn.

This has added stress to the Russian economy.

…the Russian ruble ha[d] its worst day since 2014, down more than 8% against the dollar.
…
Russian authorities on Monday pledged to use their $150 billion sovereign-wealth fund to support the economy and said the nation’s budget can withstand low crude prices for a decade.

But at what cost, what trade-offs? Given Russia’s financial commitments/needs to support its occupations of Ukraine and Georgia, its drive to build up its military, its cyber attacks against Ukraine, the Baltic States, and elsewhere around the world, it’s part in the joint development, with the People’s Republic of China, of Siberian resources, and on and on, for how long can Russia’s monetary reserves last, really? How long until Russia starts printing roubles, and triggering dangerous inflation?

And: do we have the stomach for lasting longer and doing better than Russia?

A Progressive-Democratic Party Debate in Arizona

With the latest Progressive-Democratic Party realignment of who’s running for President, we’re down to two folks who are going to participate in the next primary debate, this one in Phoenix: Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT).

There is, though, one other candidate still active in Party’s contest for its nomination, and she is, to use Biden’s own phrasing,

[A] mainstream [American Samoan-Hawaiian] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking [woman]. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.

You’d think with Party willing to make a late alteration of its rules to bring Michael Bloomberg onto its debate stage, it would be willing and able to make similar late accommodations to bring Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D, HI) onto that Phoenix stage.

But wait—Gabbard doesn’t have the money to buy her way onto the stage. Besides that, she’s already shown herself fully capable of incisive, reasoned argument, and that’s anathema to Party.

On top of that, in a further illustration of Party’s level of integrity, it has made a different late alteration of its debate eligibility rules. A Phoenix participant now must have at least 20% of pledged delegates–a requirement that carefully excludes Gabbard.

Hmm….

Elizabeth Warren’s Nearby Future

Now that Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and Senator (D, MA) has suspended her presidential campaign, the question arises regarding her future—and the future of the present Party campaigns for the nomination.

Second thing first: there’s little direct impact from her dropping out. She has only a handful of delegates with which to bargain at a brokered convention, although her few will increase in importance as the number of ballots required to get to a nominee grows.

Her real impact will be from her direct absence from the debate stages and from her commentaries as she campaigns. This will sharpen the contrast between the remaining Progressive-Democratic Party candidates, Joe Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) (the other candidates aren’t worth noticing at this point, except to the extent they play their delegate hands with skill at the brokered convention). That contrast, and the debates between the ideologies of the two, actually will work to the benefit of Party, as its core ideology gets a measure of clarification at the end of the primaries.

First thing second: the big winner here actually is Warren. Her dropping out creates a win-win situation for her. Why is she dropping out at this stage after having assured all around, as late as Tuesday night when those results were coming clear, that she was in it all the way to the Convention? Was she lying about that (don’t answer)?

Mark my words: Sanders offered her the Vice Presidency if she’d drop out.  Biden offered her her choice of Treasury or Commerce if she dropped out.