Tag Archives: responsibilities

It’s Appropriate

Posted on by
Reply

Senate Majority Whip and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D, IL) says it’s entirely appropriate to select a Supreme Court Justice first on the basis of her race and gender. He then says,

If they have achieved the level of success in the practice of law and jurisprudence, they’ve done it against great odds.

We’ll never know whether that’s true of President Joe Biden’s (D) nominee, though, since he’s made plain he’ll nominate on the basis of race and sex, and not on the basis of any level of success in the practice of law and jurisprudence.

But this degree of racism, much less of sexism, shouldn’t be a surprise from a party with a history of racist bigotry stretching back into the pre-Civil War years and today whose racist and sexist bigotry is demonstrated through Party’s insistence on proselytizing its identity politics.

As a side note, Durbin also justifies his President’s racist and sexist choice criteria on the claim that other Presidents did it, too. There’s the concept of morality with which we’re so familiar in the Progressive-Democratic Party and its predecessor, the Democratic Party: the morality of a behavior isn’t at all intrinsic in the behavior; on the contrary, morality is rooted in whether somebody else behaved that way, too; morality is a matter of situation, of what’s personally convenient to the behaver.

A Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board had a piece about Justice Stephen Breyer’s impending retirement last Wednesday. One bit in it caught my eye.

Like many liberals of his generation, he [Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer] is an institutionalist who believes in the promise of the Constitution and incremental social improvement.

And herein lies the fundamental misunderstanding of liberal judges regarding their role as judges. A judge cannot both believe in the promise of the Constitution and act on the premise of incremental social improvement.

Acting on social improvement, incremental or otherwise, is a strictly political matter and is solely the province of the political actors—Congress and We the People who hire those actors.

If a judge believes in the promise, he must adhere solely to his duty to apply the statute(s) and Constitution that are before him in any case. If he acts on those views of social improvement—which views are inherently his personal views—he is violating both Article I, Section 1, of our Constitution and his oath as a judge to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

A President’s Legacy

Posted on by
Reply

With Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s impending retirement, President Joe Biden (D) has an opportunity. Unfortunately, he’s about to abuse it badly, to the detriment of our nation and to his legacy.

Biden has a chance to follow through on a campaign promise to appoint a Black woman to the court.

Biden has a chance to keep a racist and sexist campaign promise. What a legacy to leave behind.

Right up there with the blatantly racist Woodrow Wilson.

NBC and “Perspective”

Posted on by
Reply

NBC now says they’ll provide geopolitical context along with their coverage of the upcoming olympics [sic] doings in the People’s Republic of China.

…our coverage will provide perspective on China’s place in the world and the geopolitical context in which these Games are being held.

Tellingly, that claim comes only after prodding by members of Congress.

Sure, though. NBC will provide every syllable of the perspective the PRC government tells it to. And not a syllable else.

I’ll not be watching NBC while Beijing’s olympics are going on. Not during the coverage. Not during any other part of those days and weeks.

I’ve also lost interest in the actual Olympics, summer or winter, as they’re currently run and as long as the incumbent managers remain in place. The International Olympics Committee, and the US part of that, the United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee, have shown where their values are. I don’t approve of the PRC’s genocide. At best, the IOC and USOPC don’t care about the PRC’s genocide.

Negotiating

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt Jr. had some thoughts on negotiating in his take on the relationship between the Biden-Harris White House and Congress. In one thought in particular, though, Levitt is badly…off.

Governance takes two. If a director opposed the CEO without proposing something better, he’d be ignored. In Washington, Republicans don’t seem interested in negotiating. … Republicans, you can oppose, but if you have an opportunity to shape policy, take it.

Levitt badly misunderstands. Progressive-Democrat Ocasio-Cortez openly hoped for Progressive-Democrat control of Senate explicitly so Party would not need to negotiate with Republicans.

Republicans have often tried to negotiate, only to be told “we won, you lost.” The last time Progressive-Democrats controlled Senate, then-Majority Leader Reid routinely “filled the tree” precisely to prevent Republicans from offering amendments.

Progressive-Democrats have already passed one reconciliation bill so as to exclude Republican amendments, and they’re bent on same a second time. They’re also determined to blow up up the filibuster so they no longer have need even to pay lip service to negotiating.

Where is this “opportunity” of which Levitt wrote for Republicans to shape policy with Progressive-Democrats refusing to negotiate?

President Joe Biden (D) often says it’s his goal to fundamentally change America. How is it possible to negotiate with a Party that refuses to negotiate and that is openly bent on destroying the republican democracy that is the United States and to remake us into their image?