Supreme Court

Supreme Court Makes Landmark Ruling

Climate Change, Deep State, Politics, Supreme Court, US Constitution / By / July 1, 2022

The Supreme Court just handed down a ruling that has the potential to reshape the very future of the country. I’m not talking about SCOTUS overturning Roe vs. Wade. Nor am I talking about the Court shooting down New York’s concealed carry restrictions. Both of those are major rulings with huge implications. But they pale in comparison to the ruling that dropped yesterday on the EPA and CO2 regulations.

Basically, the Court ruled that federal regulatory agencies can’t implement sweeping changes in policy by their own volition. Major policy changes must originate in laws passed by the Congress, from which the agencies derive their authority. This is a monumental win for self-government and the rule of law. And a major set-back for the globalist left and the ever-expanding administrative state.

The left loves the Deep State… the vast army of career bureaucrats who occupy positions of (regulatory and administrative) power and are completely unaccountable to voters. Progressives believe that this legion or technocrats, or “experts”, should be able to set policy based on “the science” and their elite judgement about what is best for the common good. In contrast to letting the people decide for themselves through their elected representatives.

As I’ve noted before, progressives HATE the US Constitution despite paying lip service to it when it suits their ends. The Constitution was designed to limit the power of the Federal government while maximizing the liberty of the States, and the people, to the greatest extent possible. One of the primary means progressives have used to get around Constitutional limits is by creating a pseudo 4th branch of government in the administrative state. A branch they alone shape. A branch untouchable by voters or even opposition Executive administrations. It is hard to overstate the importance of the SCOTUS ruling against the EPA. It is a dagger thrust at the heart of the technocratic administrative apparatus and the progressive deep state. It strips technocratic “experts” of the power to shape policy, and returns it to the Congress where it belongs.

Obviously, the progressive left is totally freaking out.

The subject matter of the regulation here makes the Court’s intervention all the more troubling. Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change. And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.

– Justice Elena Kagan in dissent

Kagan’s hysterical dissent is total non-sense. The Court did not appoint itself the decision maker on climate policy. They didn’t say what the policy should be, or limit what it could entail. The only thing the Court said is that the EPA could not wipe out an entire industry and reshape the American energy sector by fiat. The Court simply said such radical policy changes must originate in laws passed by the Congress.

Progressives hate this answer. They know their Green New Deal, and much of the rest of their agenda, is not popular with the American people. Building enough support to pass laws enacting them would be extraordinarily difficult. They would rather ram them down the peoples’ throats via unelected bureaucrats, while avoiding taking responsibility at the ballot box. Some decisions are just too important to be left to the rabble, they would argue.

This is a very good day for liberty in America. Seeing the continued downward slide of the country and it’s culture can be frustrating and depressing. Enjoy the victories when you can get them.

Fauxcahontas Fails Math and Civics in 30 Seconds While Patronizing Progs

1 Comment / Abortion, Politics, Supreme Court / By / May 14, 2022

The Republican establishment is famous for playing Kabuki Theatre to keep the base engaged. What I mean by that is, they routinely promise legislation they have no intention of ever passing and use rhetoric they don’t really believe. The most egregious example that comes to mind is Obamacare. Conservatives (rightly) saw it as simultaneously being terrible policy and a blatant trampling of individual rights. Republicans in congress repeatedly promised to repeal it. They voted to repeal the law around 60 times when Obama was President… knowing full well that Obama would veto the bill and it was all for show. Then when the voters gave them the power to actually repeal the ACA in 2016, they folded. Vile crap stain John McCain famously said he wouldn’t vote to repeal Obamacare until a suitable replacement was agreed upon with Chuck Schumer. Huh??? Give your opponent everything he wants without a fight, and then invite him to negotiate down from that? It was a giant “fuck you” to the Republican base wrapped in an insult to our intelligence.

It gives me a little schadenfreude to see that the Democrats sometimes play the same game. After the Roe opinion was leaked, Schumer could have put together a bill to codify Roe in Federal law. It might even have had a slim chance of passing, even if it could easily be overturned by a future Congress. Instead, they put together a bill so radical and loaded with poison pills that it was doomed to failure. The Senate bill was was never meant to be law. It was meant to appease the enraged Democrat base.

Senator Paleface just had to get in on the performance, and compressed an amazing amount of stupid into a short sound bite.

Lie-awatha speaks with forked tongue

First, the Democrats’ bill was so toxic, one of their own even voted against it. So the bill actually went down in flames 49-51. Somebody needs to send Warren to a remedial math class so she can learn that 49 out of 100 is not a majority. Second, she claims:

I don’t believe the minority should have the ability to block things that the majority wants to do. That’s not in the Constitution.

– Sen. Farts Like Hog

Protections for the minority are not in the Constitution? Really? What does she think the Senate is?!?!? The very fucking body she is a member of was established to allow a minority (i.e. small States) to thwart the will of a majority. What a total moron. The entire U.S. government was structured to empower and protect the rights of the smallest minority, i.e. the individual.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner.

– Somebody much smarter than Elizabeth Warren

The Left’s Weaponization of Corporate America

Media, Politics, Supreme Court / By / May 4, 2022

Corporate America used to be largely apolitical. We expected Disney to provide us with family-friendly movies. We expected Walmart to sell us retail goods. And that was all. They provided the goods and services their customers wanted. End of story. But as this blog has noted several times before (see here or here for examples), the left has been very successful at co-opting big business to do their bidding in recent years. Now corporations are telling us how to live, think, and vote. Being WOKE(!) keeps companies in the good graces of the SJW cancel mobs. And gets them cozy symbiotic relationships with Democrat politicians. We saw firsthand how all of the big tech companies were willing to censor speech to help the left squelch the Hunter Biden laptop story. Twitter locked the New York Post’s account in the weeks leading up to the election. Facebook censored any mention of the story.

More recently, Disney vocally condemned the Florida legislature and Governor Ron DeSantis for passing a law banning sex and gender education in grades K-3. Disney glommed onto the left’s dishonest talking points by referring to the very reasonable parental rights legislation as the “don’t say gay bill.” And I’m sure they expected their leftist overlords to give them a nice pat on the back. Unfortunately for Disney, perverts and radical trans-activists aren’t their main customer base. And those customers were paying close attention to what Disney was saying about them. Disney got slammed hard by the general public, and their bottom line has taken a real beating since making their WOKE(!) stand. Apparently telling parents they must let purple-haired weirdos preach to their 5 year-olds about the wonders of gender transformations isn’t a winning business plan for a company known for wholesome family entertainment.

The left has worked hard to build up their propaganda machine. Progressives can put up a veritable wall of leftist doctrine through their corporate and media allies. They can continually bombard us from every angle with their leftist dogma. TV, movies, music, and even sports are infused with leftist politics. They have a near monopoly on media which allows them to spread their message far and wide while stealthily silencing their foes. And they will fight like hell to keep that monopoly. Which explains the total freakout over the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk. The left has no fear whatsoever that the billionaire who built Tesla will censor them. What terrifies them is having to compete in the arena of ideas on an even footing.

Which brings us to the article below. Unlimited abortion on demand is a hallowed institution for the American left. To even question a woman’s absolute right to end a pregnancy at any time for any reason is heresy to them. Problem for them is, there is no such “right” recognized by the US Constitution. An activist Supreme Court invented the “right” to have an abortion out of whole cloth in their 1973 decision of Roe vs. Wade. Without going into details, suffice to say the reasoning behind the Roe decision was shoddy at best.

But Roe was a boon to the progressives. Abortion has always been a sticky subject for them. They are obsessively self-righteous. It is absolutely essential that they define themselves as the kindest, most compassionate, most empathetic, and most enlightened people on the planet. Their moral superiority is crucial to their egos. So support for the dismemberment of unborn babies was always difficult to reconcile with their self image. They invented numerous ways to reframe the debate… a woman’s right to chose, body autonomy, etc. But they tend to fall flat when you have to actually debate against someone who sincerely argues the pro-life position. At best, the pro-abortionists will come across as less than compassionate. At worst, they can sound outright ghoulish. Just check out the radical libs who celebrate their abortions on social media if you ever need a reason to vomit.

Roe v. Wade has shielded the left from really having to defend abortion for the last half century. It’s status as a Constitutional “right” meant that the topic was off the table. However, if Roe were to be reversed, suddenly the left would have to convince the voters that forcibly removing a growing baby from it’s mother piece-by-piece is actually just “reproductive healthcare.” It is not a case they want to have to make. And they are less than confident it is an argument they can win in the country at large.

Which is why they are losing their shit over the leaked opinion suggesting the Supreme Court is on the verge of reversing Roe. This is a five alarm all-hands-on-deck emergency for the left. They are pulling out all the stops to intimidate one of the Justices into switching their vote before the ruling becomes final. And they expect their corporate cronies to eagerly join the fight. But after the public smack down Disney received, it seems like some of the WOKE(!) companies are less than wild about jumping into another hot button culture war issue. Apparently the liberal media is not amused by this timidity. Which explains why CNBC made sure to publicly chastise them for failing to support leftist political goals with sufficient zeal. Silence is violence!

Liberal media giving corporate America marching orders.

SCOTUS Pick Doesn’t Know What a Woman Is

Supreme Court / By / March 23, 2022

I haven’t been following the confirmation hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson. However, this exchange tells me everything I need to know about her.

Jackson claims she can’t define what a woman is because she is “not a biologist.” That is a clear signal KBJ is more interested in liberal activism than facts or truth. And the fact she claims you have to be a biologist to know what a woman is means she buys into the left’s delusion that trans-activism is based on science. The biological answer to that question is trivial: a person with two X chromosomes. Children learn that in the 5th grade (at least they used to.) There haven’t been any great advances in the biology of sex in recent years.

All the recent changes to the definition of “woman” have come from the gender studies departments. You know, the social scientists. Or as rational people like to refer to them: not scientists at all. The terms gender and sex were synonymous for eons. Then one day, some gender studies “researchers” “discovered” that gender is actually a social construct decoupled from biological sex. They co-opted the word “woman” to mean how an individual feels inside and chooses to identify to the world. Then, they amazingly started discovering new genders right and left. And they act like all these genders are real things that they have uncovered, and not something they made up themselves out of whole cloth.

The trans activists could have invented a new word to describe how someone self-identifies, but they chose to steal the words “woman” and “gender” instead. The tactics of this co-option are intentional. The trans-activists want to separate “woman” from “female”, but only when it suits their agenda. When it serves their purposes, they still treat the two terms as synonymous. It is a kind of verbal shell game. And it is intended to obscure the utter silliness of their ideas and give a false patina of science and scholarship to their lunar rantings. Had they invented new terms for all the goofy ideas that they pulled from their butts, the absurdity would have been even more blatant.

I’m 100% certain Ketanji Brown Jackson knows what a woman is. But the left wants to redefine the word to mean nothing at all. Other than how a particular person is feeling inside at any given time. The left basically wants to undefine the word “woman”, so that it can mean anything they need it to mean at any given time to fit with their agenda. That Jackson would choose to bow to political correctness over acknowledging scientific fact in a Senate hearing should be disqualifying. We need Justices on the Court who will faithfully interpret the Constitution to ensure it is followed. Not activists who will ignore the plain meaning of words when they don’t fit an agenda. When the plain words of the Constitution cease to mean what they say, then they mean nothing at all. We no longer have liberty or self-government. We have the tyranny of activist lawyers.

Zero Chance Dems Listen to Tulsi on SCOTUS Pick

Biden, Current Events, Supreme Court / By / February 1, 2022

Tulsi Gabbard dropped this MOAB of truth on Twitter:

LoL. Honestly, how is this woman still a Democrat? Of course, she is 100% right about Kamala being grossly incompetent. “Heels Up” was chosen to check off the “person of color” and “female” boxes to coax the identity-obsessed progressives to vote for Joe Biden’s crusty old white male ass. The fact she was not chosen based on qualifications isn’t all that unusual though. VPs are routinely chosen to help a presidential candidate in a crucial swing state, or with a demographic they would otherwise struggle to hold. Of course most VPs are also at least marginally competent public officials too. Joe and Kamala have both made their political careers on personality and identity. Neither have ever actually done anything of substance or created anything of value since holding office. All talk, no action (or skill, or drive, or knowledge.) A cult of personality doesn’t keep the trains running.

Yet, the Supreme Court has historically been (mostly) different. Candidates are generally expected to have the highest credentials, the right experience, dazzling intellect, and flawless records to be confirmed. Drooling imbecile Sonya Sotomayor not withstanding. But “President” Biden has promised to pick a black woman as his nominee, regardless of who is most qualified. It honestly wouldn’t surprise me if the Dems were to cynically nominate someone really radical. A candidate they know would be completely unacceptable to conservatives. They would love the optics of Republicans blocking the nomination of a black woman in an election year. And if the Republicans blink, they get a progressive activist on the Court despite a 50/50 split Senate. Heads they win, tails we lose.

Unpopular Opinion: SCOTUS was Right to Throw Out Texas Case

Election 2020, Politics, Supreme Court / By / December 12, 2020
Justices Barret, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch

The rightwing blogosphere is crucifying Supreme Court Justices Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch right now for refusing to hear the Texas case against WI, PA, MI, and GA. They are being roundly criticized for a lack of loyalty — throwing Trump and Conservatives who supported their nominations under the bus. They have been widely tarred as cowards and coup enablers.

This is, however, deeply unfair. These 3 Supreme Court Justices did exactly what Conservatives always claim we want them to do. They ruled based on the law as written. They didn’t rule based on party loyalty or their own personal sense of justice. Texas has no business telling other States how to run their elections. To take this case would have upended 230 years of Federalism and set a dangerous precedent for expanding Federal power over the States. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Justices were just as appalled at what is going on as the rest of us. But they swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, and that is exactly what they did. It is not the role of the Supreme Court to correct legislative shortcomings or impose their personal vision of justice. Justices need the humility to accept their role even when it leads to results they personally don’t like. And the facts in the Texas case left no room for any other outcome.

The 2020 election was a farce and a national embarrassment. What has been uncovered so far with regards to potential election fraud is appalling. The blatant disregard for State election laws is a total outrage. And the stonewalling by the States involved is inexcusable and sure to backfire in the long run. The American people will never accept this sham of an election as legitimate until a thorough, open, and honest accounting of what really happened is allowed. But that reckoning has to happen the right way. A sham trial is not the right way to overturn a sham election.

Related

Looks like Representative Chip Roy of Texas came to pretty much the same conclusion. Check out his Twitter thread below…

Why Amy Coney Barrett is Exactly What the Supreme Court Needs

Current Events, Politics, Supreme Court / By / October 25, 2020
Amy Coney Barrett
Amy Coney Barrett

Amy Coney Barrett breezed through her confirmation hearings a couple of weeks ago. Now, it looks like the Senate will have the votes to confirm her on Monday. This is excellent news for fans of limited government and the Constitutional order. Judge Barrett has demonstrated that she has the perfect blend of temperament, humility, intellect, and ideology to serve on the country’s highest Court.

The Founders had a few basic principles in mind when they designed our system of government. One of the core principles was the idea that free citizens should be empowered to govern themselves. This was the idea Abraham Lincoln eloquently described as “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” in his Gettysburg Address. To serve this end, the Founders also believed that government power should remain as local as possible. The US Constitution spells out the roles and powers of the federal government. But just as importantly, the Constitution also spells out things the federal government is restricted from doing. These protections, which Barack Obama famously derided as “negative liberties”, are at the heart and soul of self-government. Without them, a massive, powerful, and all-encompassing central government could enforce an oppressive hegemony. Individual citizens would have little say in their own affairs.

To big government progressives who believe in top-down technocratic leadership, these ideals are anathema. They rightly see the Constitution as a barrier to implementing and enforcing the grand-scale social engineering they deem superior to leaving society’s overall direction up to the collective choices of individuals. They argue that the Constitution must grow and evolve with the times. That is must be seen as a “living document” and not just words on a dead piece of paper. In this way, progressives argue, the Constitution can change to meet the evolving needs of the people.

Of course, the Founders fully anticipated changes to the Constitution would be necessary over time. Which is why they explicitly created a method for doing so! In fact, the process for amending (i.e. changing) the Constitution is built right into it. The problem with the amendment process for progressives is the bar is set extremely high for doing so. After all a change to the Constitution amounts to a change in the fundamental rules of the game. As such, the Founders deemed any Amendments should have near universal acceptance. Constitutional Amendments require super-majorities in the House and Senate to approve of them, as well as a super-majority of the State legislatures. (Yes, I know there are other mechanisms, but they are equally burdensome and this is the one that has been used the most often by far.) This ensures that any change enshrined in the Constitution has overwhelming support.

For this reason, progressives strongly prefer the idea of the Constitution as a “living” document. With the Supreme Court free to reinterpret and insinuate the meaning of the words actually in the Constitution as the Justices see fit, a whole new avenue opens up for advancing an agenda that isn’t particularly popular. It no longer becomes necessary to get an overwhelming majority of the country to agree with your objectives. You just need to convince a simple majority of 9 lawyers to go along.

And of course, those 9 lawyers then become absolutely crucial to setting public policy. Those lawyers, and who gets to choose them, can determine the course of the country for a generation under the “living document” vision. And the justices, once seated, are completely unaccountable to the voters. Clearly, this is not what the Founders had in mind and is completely at odds with the ideals of self-government. The Founders would no doubt be appalled to see how contentious and political Supreme Court appointments have become. If the Court were apolitical as intended, it would be a ho-hum occurrence.

Barrett will of course be replacing the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Court. Ginsburg led a noteworthy life and was a liberal icon. However, she was absolute abomination of a Supreme Court Justice. Ginsburg fully embraced the activist vision of the Court and the “living document” interpretation of the Constitution. Ginsburg even took judicial activism a step further, arguing that the Court could and should take the laws of other countries into consideration when deciding cases. To Constitutional conservatives and believers in self-government, this is outright heresy. American citizens would be held to legal standards devised in foreign countries by governments they had zero say in choosing and which are completely unaccountable to them. Hopefully, the addition of Amy Coney Barrett will restore the Court to it’s proper role.