Tag Archives: rights

The Paranoid Hysteria of Progressive-Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

Presumptive Progressive-Democratic Party primary candidate for President in 2020 Congressman Eric Swalwell (D, CA) (who already has touted the use of the government’s nuclear weapons against any who disagree with his wish to limit our ability to keep and bear arms) is a core example.  The question, he says,

has “shifted” from “whether the president is working with the Russians” to “what evidence exists that the president is not working with the Russians?”

Because guilty on proof by Swalwell’s say-so.

And

I think that an unwillingness to sit down with the special counsel demonstrates a continued effort to obstruct and delay the inevitable[.]

Because no man—not even a President—has an obligation to cooperate with an investigation of that man.  Oh, wait—yes, he does; Swalwell says so.

And

“now we know” the notes from the 2018 summit in Helsinki have been “effectively destroyed” by the president.

Because a newspaper said so.

If Donald Trump took them, as the Washington Post story states, then they’re effectively in the hands of the subject and, you know, I don’t trust Donald Trump to turn them over.  We actually know in the past that he’s known to just rip up important pieces of paper and destroy them—notes that are important for presidential records. There’s been reporting on that. So, I see it as we have no way of obtaining the physical evidence now other than getting it from Donald Trump, someone who’s been wholly uncooperative.

It’s been reported.  What more proof is needed?  Well, here’s more: Swalwell doesn’t trust the President.  There it is.  Never mind that not even in that newspaper evidentiary story was there a claim that Trump had destroyed anything.

Can our nation—already harried by the identity politics and divisiveness of the Progressive-Democratic Party—afford such irrationality in the White House?

A Magistrate Judge Gets One Right

Posted on by
1

Of course, the Magistrate Judge Kandis Westmore’s ruling can be overturned on appeal by a District judge in the Northern District of California in which she operates, or on appeal on the ruling’s way up the appellate chain.  Nevertheless, her ruling stands, for now.

In its essence Westmore ruled that, even with an otherwise valid search warrant, a person cannot be compelled to unlock a digital device like a cell phone with that person’s biometrics—a fingerprint, a face, or an iris, for example.

There was a technicality that itself would have invalidated the warrant: it was overbroad.  It requested authority to unlock and search any device found inside the otherwise legally searched premises, including those owned or controlled by anyone happening to be present at the time of the search, and Westmore found that request to be neither limited to a particular person nor a particular device as the 4th Amendment requires.  That’s a 4th Amendment failure of the warrant.

The larger principle, though, flows from a 5th Amendment bar against forced self-incrimination violation. Westmore ruled that biometrics, when used in the context of a search—vis., to unlock a personal digital device—is no different from a personal passcode, and personal passcodes have already been ruled inaccessible to the government, even with a search warrant.  That would be forced testimony against oneself.  The owner of the device must voluntarily give up the passcode, and he cannot be “compelled” to volunteer [citations omitted].

The Court finds that utilizing a biometric feature to unlock an electronic device is not akin to submitting to fingerprinting or a DNA swab, because it differs in two fundamental ways. …the Government concedes that a finger, thumb, or other biometric feature may be used to unlock a device in lieu of a passcode. In this context, biometric features serve the same purpose of a passcode, which is to secure the owner’s content, pragmatically rendering them functionally equivalent.
…
It follows…that if a person cannot be compelled to provide a passcode because it is a testimonial communication, a person cannot be compelled to provide one’s finger, thumb, iris, face, or other biometric feature to unlock that same device.

And especially this, as I’ve argued elsewhere.

That the Government may never be able to access the complete contents of a digital device, does not affect the analysis.

Government convenience must never be allowed to override the individual liberty of an American.

In the end,

The Government may not compel or otherwise utilize fingers, thumbs, facial recognition, optical/iris, or any other biometric feature to unlock electronic devices.

It matters when, and why, biometrics are used.  The outcome here, should it survive appeal, is a stout blow in favor of individual privacy and a firm limit on Government’s authority to invade an American’s person[], houses, papers, and effects.

The magistrate judge’s ruling can be read here.

A Judge’s Error

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration had expanded rules allowing employers to opt out of being required to provide birth control coverage to their employees at no cost to the employees, so long as the opting out was convincingly based on religious or moral grounds.  Federal District Judge Haywood Gilliam of the Northern District of California has issued an injunction blocking enforcement of the expansion while an underlying lawsuit against the expansion is underway.

Ordinarily, blocking an enforcement while the underlying case proceeds is no big deal, but this one is just plain wrong.  Gilliam based his ruling in significant part on the premise that

the [expansion] would result in a “substantial number” of women losing birth control coverage, which would be a “massive policy shift.”

For one thing, given how cheap birth control drugs and devices are and how easily obtained prescriptions for them are, it’s not at all clear that a “substantial number” of women would be unable to obtain birth control drugs or devices.

But the larger, vastly more important matter is this.  As Gilliam himself noted, the expansion would be a policy shift (massive or not, that’s irrelevant here).  Policy matters are political matters, and so they clearly are outside the purview of the courts.  Policy—political—matters are the exclusive province of the political arms of our government and of We the People.  A judge who intrudes, from his bench, into political matters clearly violates his oath to uphold the law.  Making policy has no place in his oath.

Negotiate on the Wall?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what some Progressive-Democrats in the House claim they want to do.  After the partial government shutdown is ended.  Congressmen Eric Swalwell (D, CA) and John Garamendi (D, CA) have made such commitments.

However.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) has told President Donald Trump she will not negotiate on a border wall, demanding no funding whatsoever, even after the partial shutdown is ended.

Some questions arise.

Was Pelosi lying when she said that to Trump?

Was Pelosi lying to her caucus when they elected her Speaker on the basis of her promise to a significant fraction of her Party that she always and forever would oppose border wall funding?

Did Swalwell and Garamendi lie when they make their promise to negotiate after the partial shutdown ended?

How is it possible to negotiate with a Party whose members’ word cannot be believed?

Religious Bigotry?

Posted on by
Reply

North Dakota wants to let its high schools teach a Bible studies class, and the ACLU (among others) has gotten its institutional panties in a twist over it. State Congressman Aaron McWilliams (R) has a bill moving through the State’s legislature that would achieve that.  He said

The intention of this bill is to provide an option to schools to teach a class on the bible from a historical perspective.  My position is that no religious text should be excluded from being taught as it relates to the historical or philosophical influences in our history or on our society today.

The class would be an elective amounting to 1/6 of the total social studies requirement for graduating from a North Dakota high school.

The ACLU thinks that teaching a religious document even from a historical or philosophical perspective, even when it’s not a required course, is somehow the State establishing or supporting a particular religion.  That plainly isn’t the case; even the august personages of the ACLU know that—or American history wasn’t a safe space for them and they were triggered to unconsciousness by their grade school lessons and their junior high civics lessons.

Heather Smith, Executive Director of the North Dakota chapter of the ACLU does have a point, though.  Sort of.

A school could teach comparative religious classes, or you could talk about the Bible’s relationship to literature, art, or music[.]

But not its relationship with our history or culture, or with western civilization’s history or culture generally?  Not its relationship with our national philosophy, such as it is, or with philosophy generally?  Apparently, Smith was triggered by her high school logic class, too.

On the other hand, the comparative religion concern has some validity.  Perhaps McWilliams’ bill could include an option to teach an additional elective course, also worth 1/6 of the total social studies requirement, that teaches the Torah and the Talmud “from a historical perspective.”  After all, we are a Judeo-Christian nation, with a staunch Judeo-Christian history and underpinning.

Such a broadened perspective on who we are, how we began, and how we came to be where we are now—including these incessant attacks on our Christianity and Judaism—would strengthen our American culture, and it might inform even the members of the ACLU.

Side tidbit: the first Georgian patriot to die in combat in our Revolutionary War was a Jew.