Tag Archives: politics

Donald Trump Bullies?

Posted on by
Reply

Really? A letter writer in Wednesday’s Letters section of The Wall Street Journal thinks so. He credulously makes, though, a couple of critical mistakes that no rational, grown adult would make.

Today, Donald Trump’s “bullying” embodies the more contemporary meaning: the cowardly actions of one who seeks to harm or intimidate those he views as weak.

This is risible on its face. Bullies have only the power their putative victims choose to grant them, not a minim more. The cowardice is in those who make the decision to allow themselves to be bullied. Yes, that’s often a hard decision to make, but “hard” means “possible.” There’s no excuse for choosing wrongly here.

The letter writer’s other mistake centers on this—which he, in all seriousness, offers as an example of Trumpian bullying:

[T]he president has issued an executive order stripping security clearances from lawyers at Covington & Burling, who provided pro bono legal assistance to former special counsel Jack Smith. More recently, Ed Martin, interim US attorney for the District of Columbia, sent a letter to Georgetown Law School, demanding that it cease diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, and warning that his office wouldn’t hire the school’s graduates unless it did so.
These actions violate the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of expression.

This is laughable beyond anything related to “bullying” or being “bullied.” There is no intrinsic free speech right, or any other right, to a security clearances—which grants the holder access (given a parallel and simultaneous need to know) to data involving national security. Neither Covington & Burling as an institution, nor any of its lawyers, have any such right. It’s not bullying to rescind the clearances of those entities and persons who no longer work for the government.

Neither is there any intrinsic free speech right—or any other 1st Amendment right or any other right sourced to any other clause or clauses of our Constitution—to a government job. The government, like any potential employer, has its own intrinsic right to determine for itself the qualifications required for a job and then to determine for itself who the best candidate(s) might be to be hired into that job.

Nor is there any such right held by Georgetown Law School to place its graduates into any particular job, including a government one.

Back to the bullying foolishness: if Georgetown managers feel bullied by this, that’s their conscious choice. It would be particularly easy, though, for these worthies to stand up to the alleged Trumpian bullying. The Federal government’s authority to enforce any demand, whether to desist from DEI efforts or anything else, extends only so far as Georgetown Law School takes in Federal dollars. The institution is under no obligation to take those dollars. The school’s managers could eliminate the pressures they’ve chosen to perceive simply by ceasing those acceptances rather than ceasing their DEI efforts.

Not an Excuse

Posted on by
Reply

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson has his lawyers in court asking the judge to delay an ongoing and longstanding suit against Amazon. The excuse is this:

Our resource constraints are severe[.]

Oh, wah. The convenience of the government is no excuse for this—or any—delay. Our Constitution requires a speedy and public trial, and that extends to civil trials, also, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, as this one surely does. There is nothing in either of those two Amendments, or anywhere else in our Constitution, that caveats any of our rights on what any Government personage decides is convenient to himself.

The FTC’s attempt is just another cynical attempt to drag out an intrinsically lousy suit in the hope that Amazon eventually will roll over and “settle.”

No. Amazon should refuse any sort of settlement other than a court declaratory ruling in Amazon’s favor, with legal and reputational damages awarded Amazon. In an ideal world, the judge either would so rule, or he would dismiss the case with prejudice (with costs awarded) and heavily fiscally sanction the FTC’s lawyers for seeking to extend so blatantly obvious a frivolous suit.

More on Birthright Citizenship

Posted on by
Reply

Jed Rubenfeld, Professor of Law at Yale Law School, had an op-ed in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal in support of the concept of birthright citizenship. In it, he hung his hat on the “visitor” aspect of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment jurisdiction phrasing.

The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to everyone “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The opacity of the “jurisdiction” language allows reasonable people to land on either side of this issue. But in 19th-century legal usage, being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US had a long-settled, straightforward meaning. As Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Schooner Exchange v McFaddon (1812), it meant being subject to US law.
Could you be prosecuted in an American court and imprisoned in an American jail for violating American law? If so, you were subject to US jurisdiction.

That “vulnerable to prosecution and jail” means “subject to US law” is at the core of the misunderstanding here (I’m eliding the question of whether a then-56-yr-old “settled meaning” remained settled after the 14th Amendment was ratified), including to birth tourism—whereby a pregnant woman enters the US for the express and sole purpose of giving birth on US soil so as to garner citizenship for her baby, after which the now-mother leaves with her baby to return to her home nation. Such “visitors,” while so subject, are not subject to US jurisdiction, but only to US government power and authority.

Birth tourists subject themselves only to some of our laws—that small subset of them that lets them enter our nation legally and then avail themselves of our medical-related duty of care laws. They otherwise remain within the control of their home nation laws and so retain the jurisdiction of their home countries, to which they fully intend to return as soon as they’re able to travel after giving birth. They’re holding themselves apart from and outside of our nation’s full and complete jurisdiction—which is what our 14th Amendment requires, even for birth tourists.

Illegal aliens go even farther: they hold themselves completely outside our jurisdiction by holding themselves completely outside our laws: they’ve disregarded our laws from the outset by their entering illegally. They render themselves subject only to the power of our government even as they, too, are subject prosecution and jail—or deportation.

This misunderstanding by Rubenfeld (and others) expands on the matter:

When a foreign army invades and conquers another country’s territory, that land becomes subject to the conquering country’s laws.

Not at all. That conquered territory becomes subject only to the conquering country’s power and ability to impose its laws. Even as long ago as Emer de Vattel, in his The Law of Nations, this was well understood.

The Left’s repeated ignoring of these simple facts does not make those facts nonexistent.

Unfortunately (cynically?), Rubenfeld, like others pushing this argument, leave wholly unaddressed those last.

Another Reason Why…

Posted on by
Reply

…no member of the Progressive-Democratic Party can be trusted in any way. Elizabeth Warren (D, MA), for instance, in her letter to Businessman Elon Musk, who’s working the additional duty [sic:] of pro bono member of DOGE’s leadership, claimed that:

American taxpayers will shoulder the burden of tax cuts for Tesla, and they deserve answers about your efforts to secure massive tax breaks for billionaire corporations[.]

Here are some facts underlying Tesla’s income tax liability:

• much of Tesla’s $7.1 billion in net income last year doesn’t come from selling electric vehicles, solar panels, or battery storage
• $2.8 billion came from the sale of regulatory credits to other auto makers that need to comply with government EV mandates
• $1.6 billion in interest income on cash and short-term investment holdings. [Progressive-]Democrats can thank the Biden inflation for allowing companies to earn higher interest on their cash holdings
• Tesla recorded nearly $600 million in book income from price appreciation in its bitcoin holdings, but this is akin to an unrealized capital gain
• [Tesla] lost money every year it was in business from 2003 until 2020. All companies are allowed to carry forward net operating losses to offset future tax liabilities
• [Progressive-Democrats] exempted most net operating losses from the Inflation Reduction Act’s 15% corporate alternative minimum tax, including categories that include Tesla’s loss carry forward
• Tesla recorded $625 million from tax credits for its electric vehicles and $756 million for its solar and energy storage business last year

o these tax credits can also be carried forward to offset future tax liabilities
o Tesla had $1 billion in renewable energy tax credits on its books at the end of last year

Warren, and all of her Party cronies, are well aware of these things. Warren, and her cronies in Party, lie.

Moral Bankruptcy of Some University Managers

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration is investigating quite a number of universities over allegations of rampant antisemitism and discrimination generally infesting them. The managers of those institutions are upset, and with their upset, they’re demonstrating their blatant moral bankruptcy.

Administrators, professors and prospective students at major universities across the country are expressing concerns about the future of higher education as the Trump administration restricts funding for DEI and investigates schools for charges of antisemitism.
School officials “are in an impossible situation with facing the unknown as to what may happen down the road,” Ohio University alumni association board member Kim Barlag told The Wall Street Journal.

There’s nothing at all impossible about doing a right thing, nothing at all impossible about moving against the bigotry rampant at those institutions. Many of those institutions’ managers are just sulking and doing the academic equivalent of holding their breath until they turn blue. Typical is this from West Virginia University via its “spokesperson” April Kaull:

[O]ur nation’s research universities cannot maintain research programs essential for continued national prosperity [unless Federal research funding is continued].

This is cynical and disingenuous, and grown adults should know better than to throw a temper tantrum. It’s perfectly straightforward for university managers to do the things promised in those universities’ bragged about policies—free and unfettered enquiry, with freedom of speech and of academics. In fine, stop the antisemitic bigotry, cut out the discrimination on any basis other than plain academic talent and performance, expel those students who routinely violate those tenets, and fire those university personnel—including tenured professors—who violate those tenets. That just takes a modicum of moral courage.

Of course, I’m being generous to suggest these personages are morally bankrupt—that implies that they had morals to begin with. Condoning, or even merely accepting, bigotry—antisemitic, racial, sexist, whathaveyou—demonstrates a complete lack of moral sense.