Tag Archives: regulation

A Judicial Error

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has ordered a restructuring of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: its single director, removable only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, among other things, was an unconstitutional abridgment of Executive Branch authority.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, said that the

setup meant the CFPB’s director was unaccountable to the executive branch, creating an unconstitutional diminishment of presidential power.
“The CFPB’s single-director structure contravenes this carefully calibrated system by vesting significant governmental power in the hands of a single individual accountable to no one[.]”

And then,

To address the problem, the court changed the CFPB removal provision to make the director subject to presidential removal for any reason.

That’s the error. The Court’s position of the unconstitutionality of the CFPB’s structure is entirely correct. The Court’s remedy is entirely wrong.

With this ruling, the Court has unconstitutionally legislated from the bench, a thing it does far too often for far too long.

The correct remedy would have been to strike the CFPB entirely as unconstitutional and return this inherently political matter to where it belongs: the political branches of the Federal government, Congress and the Executive Branch for new legislation. And to We the People, the owner-boss of our Government, both the two political and the judicial branches.

A Judicial…Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has struck Louisiana’s abortion law that required doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital before they could be permitted to carry out abortions. The ruling was by a 5-4 vote; the five hung their ruling on the Court’s 2016 Whole Woman’s Health decision holding that there were “no medical benefits” to such a requirement, and so “a woman’s constitutional right to end a pregnancy” was circumscribed.

One of the five was Chief Justice John Roberts.

Here’s his rationalization for his vote:

I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.

Wow.

If the decision being used as precedent was wrongly decided, the correct response is to overrule that precedent and correct the error, not to flip and bureaucratically uphold the error and, by doing so, codify it.

Codifying error as precedent also has a strong whiff of legislating from the bench.

With his logic, maybe Roberts would have argued against going to war to overrule a Dred Scott, or argued against altering Plessy.

The Party of Economic Sense

Posted on by
Reply

A Sunday editorial in The Wall Street Journal provides some pretty dispositive data concerning State economic behaviors during the present Wuhan Virus situation.

The baseline: the national unemployment rate for May was 13.3%.

Ten States remained above even 15% in their individual unemployment rates:

  • Nevada 25.3%
  • Hawaii 22.6%
  • Michigan 21.2%
  • California 16.3%
  • Rhode Island 16.3%
  • Massachusetts 16.3%
  • Delaware 15.8%
  • Illinois 15.2%
  • New Jersey 15.2%
  • Washington 15.1%

These States also had some of our nation’s most draconian lockdown requirements.

States with no lockdown or very light-handed stay-home instructions coupled with very early reopening include these, and their May unemployment rates:

  • Georgia 9.7%
  • Arkansas 9.5%
  • Arizona 8.9%
  • Utah 8.5%
  • Nebraska 5.2% (our nation’s lowest rate)

It’s a nearly pure Progressive-Democrat vs Republican view of the importance of economic health, and so of overall health. As with most things, though, there are a couple of exceptions.

Massachusetts, in that top-ten list of poor performance, has a Republican Governor and Lieutenant Governor, although it has Progressive-Democratic Party veto-proof majorities in both houses of the State’s legislature.

Colorado, Progressive-Democrat-run, isn’t on the list of top-five best performers, but that government ended its lockdown very early, and its unemployment rate is below the national average and falling further: from April’s 12.2% to 10.2% in May.

Notice that. The economic recovery rate is markedly improved by early release from lockdown gaol or by not locking up the citizens in the first place.

Keep in mind who has the better sense—economic, liberty, health—this November.

Why We Can’t Have Nice Things—Yet

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Tim Scott’s (R, SC) bill that would have led to a measure of reform for our State and local police departments went down in flames at the hands of Senate Progressive-Democrats. The blocked an end to their filibuster of the bill; they refused even to let the bill come to the floor of the Senate for open debate and amendment—including their own amendments.

Their rationalization? It didn’t go far enough. So, instead of taking a compromise that moved in their direction, they blocked everything. They refused even to permit talk about it.

Progressive-Democrat contempt for us citizens isn’t confined to the Senate.

Here’s House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) in an interview with a CBS Radio reporter.

So, when they [Republicans]…have some suggestions that are worthy of consideration—but so far they were trying to get away with murder, actually—the murder of George Floyd.

Pelosi’s contemptuous dismissal of the concerns of Republicans in the House and the Senate Progressive-Democrats’ similar dismissal are of a piece with Progressive-Democrats’ general dismissal of all of us ordinary Americans, Americans in flyover country, Americans bitterly clinging to our Bibles and our guns, Americans who “are just no good” and irredeemable and deplorable.

Progressive-Democrats don’t consider our concerns worthy of notice, and so they will not debate, much less negotiate, in any serious fashion.

Too, Party doesn’t want any sort of solution to a problem; its members only want the problem alive and kicking for their personal political gain.

Remember this in November.

Police Training

Posted on by
Reply

“We also have to fundamentally change the way police are trained.”  This is what Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden is saying now.  He went on:

And the idea of standing there and teaching a cop and an unarmed person comin’ at him with knife and gonna shoot him in the leg instead of the heart is a very different thing.

Never mind that a person with a knife is not at all unarmed. Never mind that the reason police are taught that when they must shoot—and as a last resort, mind you (for all that there is the very occasional bad cop)—they must aim for center of mass so as not to miss altogether, and they must take care for the people and property that may be beyond the person at whom they’re shooting. Never mind that legs are much smaller targets and much more rapidly moving.

Keep in mind, too, that this is the same Joe Biden whose home defense advice is to shoot a shotgun through a closed door, without regard for target identification.

I won’t get into how out of breath Biden sounded or the general level of coherence that seems lacking in the minute-and-a-half clip.  Just attend to that bit about police training.

This is the incoherence the Progressive-Democratic Party wants to put into the White House.

Keep a close eye on who they choose for his Vice President candidate, and then think about the 25th Amendment.