A Thought on “Firsts”

Too many pundits, too many others, insist on commenting loudly (or quietly) on the first black man to do this, the first woman to do that, the first homosexual person to do the other. The loud current example is New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. He is, according to these Wonders, the first Muslim, the first Asian American, the youngest to become the city’s mayor.

So what? What he is is an American citizen. All the rest is decidedly irrelevant to the point of meaninglessness.

Unfortunately, as long as pundits, and too many others, insist on pointing that someone is the first this to achieve something or the first that to achieve something else, as long as those pundits, et al., insist on these manufactured firsts, they continue to keep us divided from each other by claiming special accolades for their approved groups.

That divisive decision very closely approaches bigotry. At the very least, it’s insulting to those groups as the pundits insist that the groups cannot succeed on their own; they must be singled out for their immutable characteristics rather than applauded or decried for the material things they’ve done or not done.

An Activist Judge Gets It Wrong

DC District Senior Judge Amy Berman Jackson has ruled that

the Trump administration is legally required to secure funding for the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and that failing to do so would violate a prior court order barring the government from dismantling or shutting down the agency[.]

However.

Leave aside the fact that the question of the Trump administration funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the question of the Trump administration dismantling or shutting down the agency are distinctly separate questions.

The fact of interest here is Jackson’s mistaken ruling that Trump must fund the CFPB. He cannot. By the statute that created the CFPB, that agency is funded solely by the penalties it exacts via its enforcement actions (pay no attention to the conflict of interest behind the curtain) and from the Federal Reserve Bank, the latter which the CFPB draws from according to CFPB-determined needs (pay no attention to the doings behind this curtain, either).

The Trump administration has no control over and no capacity to produce CFPB funding. This is the sort of shenanigan in which activist judges engage, causing increased cost and delay in cleaning up prior messes.

Tension?

The Supreme Court has taken up the question of whether Louisiana’s redistricting effort for its Federal Congressional representation is legitimate, or not. The Just the News‘ news writer, the unusually (for JtN) anonymous “Just the News Contributor,” posed the central question before the Supreme Court:

In Louisiana v Callais, the Supreme Court is confronted with a direct tension between two legal commands: the VRA’s mandate to protect minority voting rights and the Constitution’s limits on race-based decision-making by the state.

There is—or should be—no tension here. Our Constitution says this in Art VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land….

In Marbury v Madison, the Supreme Court made clear that conflicts between statute and Constitution must be resolved strictly and solely in favor of what our Constitution says, and every Supreme Court decision since has hewed to the ultimate supremacy of our Constitution. Any tension can exist only in the minds of activists and activist judges and Justices.

Nor can there be any half-measure wherein some level of race-based discrimination is OK. Any race-based discrimination or “preference” in political gerrymandering is too much and a violation of our Constitution. Here’s the 14th Amendment on the matter:

No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The clause does not say No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, except when it’s convenient to do otherwise.

Full stop.

There’s a Lesson Here

Recall that the Federal government last summer canceled a $4 billion grant to California’s slower-than-a-sick-snail-in-January bullet train project over that thing’s huge cost overruns and delays that kept the train not far from its drawing board. California’s Progressive-Democrat governor Gavin Newsom had filed suit over the Trump administration’s effrontery in declining to fund, further, this California waste management project. Now we get this:

California dropped its lawsuit against the Trump administration after it pulled roughly $4 billion in federal funding for the state’s high-speed rail project.

The bleats of the California High-Speed Rail Authority in explaining its decision to drop the lawsuit notwithstanding, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy explained the reason for cancelation.

Governor Newsom and the complicit Democrats have enabled this waste for years. Federal dollars are not a blank check—they come with a promise to deliver results. After over a decade of failures, CHSRA’s mismanagement and incompetence has proven it cannot build its train to nowhere on time or on budget[.]

The lesson: don’t do upfront Federal grants to States for projects. Don’t do grants after the fact without hardy strings attached. Make all grants conditional on the States having let the contracts; construction having begun; and significant, serious construction progress having been underway for six months. Then release the grant money a month at a time, after the State has released its funding for the month, with the granted funds matching, not exceeding, the State’s funding for each month. If the State misses funding its project for two consecutive months, or for any three months out of five consecutive months, the rest of the grant must be canceled. The grant could then be renewed, or funding resumed, conditioned on the State having relet its project contract; construction having been resumed; and significant, serious construction progress having been underway for six months. The month-to-month grant funds then could be released as above.

CHSRA’s CEO Ian Choudri had this in the alternative:

Interest from the private sector in investing in California’s high-speed rail project is strong and continues to grow[.]

Even better. If the private sector really is willing to fund this, then go for it. Just don’t expect the Federal government, or the taxpayers of the other 49 States who are the source of Federal dollars, to pay for it.

The Racism of the Mayor

And the straightforwardness of one recruit. Progressive-Democrat Mayor Karen Bass is upset that so many Americans of Latino background are enlisting in the Customs and Border Patrol along our southern border. Bass responded to a report that [a]pplications up 70% from last year as over half of southern border agents are now Hispanic.

Well, in a way, I think it’s sad. I think that those Border Patrol agents are going to have a difficult time when they’re out in the field and they see what actually happens in real life separate from their training.

Not so much. Maybe Bass ought to travel along the border without her entourage screening her and see for herself.

On the other hand, here’s a young recent recruit to the CBP:

Juan Peralta, a 20-year-old who said friends back home were surprised that he’d joined up and would say things like, “How do you feel about arresting your own kind?”
“And how do you answer that when you hear that?” [CNN‘s David] Culver asked.
Peralta responded, “They didn‘t come in the right way. So, they aren‘t my kind.”