Tag Archives: responsibilities

Hypocrisy

Posted on by
Reply

Recall Samantha Bee‘s slurs against Presidential advisor and First Daughter Ivanka Trump:

You know, Ivanka, that’s a beautiful photo of you and your child, but let me just say, one mother to another, do something about your dad’s immigration practices, you feckless c—!

That’s not all.  She also showed her disdain for men—any men:

Many men were also offended by my use of the word—I do not care about that.

Then she complained about the blowback, and “resigned” herself to it.

I do think that being a part of the outrage machine is an inevitability now. That’s a reality everyone has to grapple with—not just me. The level of ferocity is something I hadn’t quite experienced up to that point….

This, of course, is nonsense.  Bee, and her fellows on the Left, are the ones inflicting the ferocity and actively boosting its level.  She, and her fellows on the Left, know this full well.

Disturbing Video

Posted on by
Reply

This one from a wedding celebration.  It seems the newly-wedded couple were sitting at a picnic table under a tree, when a tree branch, with a loud crack announcing its move, began to fall.

The two look up, lean away, and then rapidly depart the table just ahead of the branch’s impact.  That’s pretty cool, right?  Close, but successful escape.

But what did the man do?  With not a move to help his lady, or even a glance to see if she was promptly following, he just booked.  Saved himself without a moment’s hesitation to see to his bride.  Don’t look back, something might be falling on you.

Not very Gentlemanly.  Not at all.

The lady seems to love the man, anyway, and hasn’t a thought for his rapid departure.

The Case Against Brett Kavanaugh

Posted on by
Reply

The writer JD Vance, this time in The Wall Street Journal, has made a strong case for Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the DC Circuit, being nominated for the Supreme Court.

He is a committed textualist and originalist, one whose time on the bench has revealed a unique ability to apply these principles to legal facts. He deeply believes in the constitutional separation of powers as a means for ensuring governmental accountability and protecting individual liberty.

And

…Judge Kavanaugh’s opinions have been adopted by the Justices 11 times—a record of influence and persuasion that suggests he would be effective on the still-divided high court.

I disagree, though.  Ex-President Barack Obama (D) stacked the DC Circuit with a number of “liberal,” activist judges.  Kavanaugh is more valuable, say I, staying on the DC Circuit, where he can apply those qualities in counterbalancing that liberally stacked court.  He still will have, from there, the influence on the Supreme Court and on our jurisprudence generally that he already has.

There are a number of other judges with the same talents, skills, and understanding of and appreciation for our Constitution, its text, and the text of our laws.  Any of those would make excellent choices for the Supreme Court.

It’s true enough that any of those also would make excellent choices for backfilling Kavanaugh should he depart for the Supremes.  However, that would require a second confirmation hearing and Progressive-Democratic Party time-wasting fight.

The Sanctity of Precedent

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democrats have their panties in large, tight twists over the possibility of President Donald Trump getting another pick for the Supreme Court.  So much so that now they’re making stuff up in their hysteria.

“Abortion will be illegal in twenty states in 18 months,” tweeted Jeffrey Toobin, the legal pundit, in a classic of cool, even-handed CNN analysis soon after the resignation news.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY):

Whomever the president picks, it is all too likely they’re going to overturn health-care protections and Roe v Wade[.]

And so on.

What these guys are carefully ignoring, though, are some basic fundamentals (excuse the redundancy).

Conservatives are very reluctant to overturn precedent, as the Editorial Board points out. However, the Progressive-Democrats’ insistence on the absolute sanctity precedent—and of Republican Senator Collins’ identical insistence—means that now these worthies have to defend the sanctity of the Dred Scott precedent, and they have to defend Plessy‘s separate-but-equal and explain the inequity of Brown fixing that.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for their explanations. Don’t hold your breath, either, waiting for the NLMSM—CNN, for instance—to ask them for those explanations.

Non-Merit Discrimination in College Admissions

Posted on by
Reply

The non-merit discriminants that colleges and universities use—Harvard comes to mind—center on race, ethnicity, and gender.  The Trump administration has moved to reduce that reliance on bigotry for admissions (ironic word, that), and the Left is crying race.

Anurima Bargava, ex-President Barack Obama’s DoJ head of “civil rights enforcement” (an ironic title), insists that the rollback of regulations authorizing racism and sexism in determining who will be admitted—and who will be barred from admission—is

a purely political attack that benefits nobody.

The rollback benefits those being discriminated against without harming anyone else. But the Obama administration’s politics of divisiveness and…identity…considered those people to be nobodies; that’s why the policy discriminated.

The bigotry lives loudly within the Left, to paraphrase a Progressive-Democrat Senator from California.