Category: Constitution

The irresponsible Eric Holder

Obama AG Eric Holder questions legitimacy of Supreme Court after Kavanaugh confirmation

The fact is that the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh occurred exactly as prescribed under the Constitution of the United States and is therefor legitimate, regardless of whether or not Eric Holder agrees. His approval is not required.

A stable government is a fragile thing; in part it depends greatly on the people’s perception of the government as legitimate. It was irresponsible and petty for former AG Eric Holder to question the legitimacy of our highest court simply because he did not like the outcome of the confirmation hearings. Holder’s statement is simply the sign of a sore loser; remember that when he runs for President.

Demo-nazis?

Doesn’t anyone but me recognize these tactics as those of the “Brown shirts” from Nazi Germany? Not allowing some to speak, and accosting those who do, simply because you do not agree with what they say? How do these actions honor the freedom of speech upon which the first amendment is based?

Ted Cruz latest Republican accosted after Maxine Waters’ call for confrontation

Ban the press?!?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has banned the press from several campaign events she’s been holding. The thought that first comes to mind is: “What is she hiding?”.

For all his rants about the press by Trump, at least they have access to his white house. To ban all members of the press seems very provocative, particularly since we’ve seen other socialist regimes begin their path to power by restricting the press.

Very scary… I’m just sayin’…

Does Citibank oppose the 2nd amendment?

I wonder what the fallout would be if they decided to oppose the 1st, 4th or 5th amendments? Or perhaps the 14th? But it’s OK if they trash the 2nd…

Announcing Our U.S. Commercial Firearms Policy

I’ve made sure I am no longer doing business with Citibank. They don’t need to worry about my minor potential contribution to their bottom line any more. I urge all of you to divest yourself of Citibank holdings and financial instruments.

How liberty is lost

The partisan politics we have experienced as of late are bad enough, but the escalating efforts to circumvent checks and balances in place for decades, if not (in some form) for hundreds of years, has left us with the tyranny of the majority. This means that once either side has a majority, no matter how slim, they can ignore their political counterparts in other parties (and their respective constituents) and simply do as they please. No longer will any attempt be made, not even for the sake of appearances, to obtain a consensus between legislators. This has created a very dangerous time in America for personal freedom and liberty.

The current state of government has been brewing for a bit. It started when Harry Reid utilized the “nuclear option” to change Senate rules; this change allowed President Obama to stack the lower federal courts with left-leaning judges. It allowed a simply senate majority (rather than a super-majority of 60) to end a filibuster and force a vote for appointments to important judicial positions. Such appointments should rightfully demand some consensus among senators to insure that the entire population is represented in the appointment.

Republicans later used their own form of the nuclear option to alter the rules for confirming Supreme Court justices, a move designed to counter successful stacking of the lower courts by the Democrats (but I doubt that the Democrats would agree with this assessment). This rule change extended that previously made by Democrats to include Supreme Court confirmations.

The rules that were changed by both parties via the nuclear option had been in place in some form for over 200 years, and acted to protect the minority positions in our country from the tyranny of a small majority. Given that neither rule has been restored to its original form, our slide into tyranny continues. Only now, the stakes are increasing.

The latest danger to our democracy is another threat from Democrats, this time to “stack” the Supreme Court to thwart the actions of a duly-elected President. In this scenario they would – if able to obtain a slim majority in both houses and also the presidency – vote to increase the number of Supreme Court justices. This would give a Democrat president the ability to appoint additional justices and skew the court in any direction they wish. While this is allowed under the constitution, the current Supreme Court justice count has remained the same for 150 years and all attempts since 1868 to stack the court have been thwarted. This begs the question: When will it end? Do the Democrats really believe that the Republicans will not do the same when they have power? How far will these efforts escalate before their insanity is recognized?

Now is the time to restore a thoughtful Democracy to the United States – one where some level of decorum and consensus is required for the advancement of laws and judicial appointments. The Senate should restore past cloture rules before it’s too late, so that the minority is not a forgotten component of our legislative system.

End the tyranny of the majority now!

More on Janus

Here are a few excerpts from a Sacramento Bee article on responses to the Supreme Court Janus decision (along with, of course, my comments):

Kamala Harris, D-California: “The Court’s decision today undermines the basic American premise, held up by courts for more than four decades, that if a union represents all employees in negotiating and administering a collective bargaining agreement, then all employees ought to share the costs of that representation.”

What about my right to select the representative of my choice? A government worker subject to collective bargaining is forced to relinquish this right; this gives great power to the union, and is the reason they are forced to represent all members. Ask them (the union) if they would be willing to represent only union members; I would guess that this would not be an option they would accept, as it would significantly diminish their power during negotiations. Frankly, I would prefer to be able to select my own representation.

Kevin De Leon, D-Los Angeles: “Today, SCOTUS sided with corporate billionaires to threaten hardworking families…”

The Janus ruling only affects public-sector employees; what does that have to do with private corporate billionaires? That’s right – nothing. It’s just rhetoric meant to inflame their base.

Todd Gloria, D-San Diego: “This case was nothing more than a blatant power grab by those who do not want to give workers a fair shake and want to diminish their collective voices in the workplace and in our democracy.”

No, Todd – I just don’t want you to claim my voice is yours, using my own money.

Art Pulaski, California Labor Federation: “The decision today … is nothing more than a bald attempt to weaken unions by some of America’s richest CEOs and five right-wing political appointees sitting on the court.”

Frankly, I’m always surprised how the left calls Kennedy liberal when he votes with them, and conservative when he votes against. The fact is that Justice Kennedy has been pivotal in decisions leaning both left and right over his career; why the left would turn on him now is confusing.

Frankly, universal right-to-work is long overdue. I’m glad it’s here.

The Supreme Court Janus decision

As expected, both the left and right political elements are screaming about the Supreme Court’s Janus decision – the right in support, the left in opposition. The reality is that this is boon to workers while forcing accountability on the unions. I believe that unions will actually have to become better at servicing their members as a result of this ruling, making this a win for all.

The primary union objection to this decision is that – since they claim that they are required to represent all workers regardless of whether or not they pay dues – it will encourage union members as well as non-members to stop paying union dues (the so-called “free-rider” dilemma). I disagree.

Contrary to the union’s claim, there is no requirement that the union represent all workers in any way but at the bargaining table – a small price to pay for the exclusive right to represent all employees that is granted to the union. Such exclusive representation severely restricts the rights of the employee, who can no longer represent themselves or select any other representative, and gives great power to the union. As such this is an equitable trade for the union.

In addition, Justice Alito’s opinion makes the case that unions can refuse to provide, or charge non-members a reasonable fee for, services other than collective bargaining such as grievance proceedings. The notion that the union must provide this representation free of charge is false; this narrative is simply posturing by the union in an attempt to garner support for agency fees.

Also, there is nothing in this ruling that prevents the union from offering tiered fees based on a clear separation of agency fees vs. political contributions or expenditures, only now the union will have to satisfy their agency-fee paying members (instead of a likely union-member government bureaucrat) that the fees requested are really destined for services that benefit the member. In this way those who do not wish to support union politics are free to support the union without supporting their political efforts.

The Janus decision has been long overdue.

I’m tired of being right…

I predicted earlier that the government, barred by the first amendment from limiting speech, would use the threat of regulation to force social media sights to do their bidding instead. Unfortunately, I was right – this is exactly what they are attempting to do. It’s covered well in this Cato Institute editorial by John Samples so I won’t bore you with the details here – read it for yourself instead.

Scorched earth tactics at the CFPB

OK, so the outgoing director of the CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) Richard Cordray, who holds a position appointed by the President of the United States,  has decided that he has the authority to appoint his own successor. Really?

Here’s how it works: On his last day in office Cordray appointed his Chief of Staff, Leandra English, as deputy director of the agency. English is now claiming that the Dodd-Frank Act has a provision that requires the deputy director to become acting director if the director position is vacant.

I’m not a lawyer, but I’m still going to call bullshit (big time) on this absurd claim. Here’s the relevant text from the Dodd-Frank Act:

(5) DEPUTY DIRECTOR.—There is established the position of Deputy Director, who shall—

(A) be appointed by the Director; and

(B) serve as acting Director in the absence or unavailability of the Director.

Note that the text of the Act does not appoint the deputy director as the director; it simply allows the deputy to act on behalf of the director if the director is unavailable. It does nothing to stop the appointment of a new director – interim or otherwise – by the President of the United States. Once the new director is appointed they effectively relieve the “acting” director of their temporary director functions.

The willingness to make such absurd arguments in an attempt to disrupt the operation of our government shows the disdain that these people and their brethren have for our fragile democracy. Their actions undermine the stability of our country and erode the legitimacy of our government, and should be recognized as the acts of a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum when they do not get their way. Their actions should be remembered as such at election time.

Gun (pronounced “people”) Control

That didn’t take long.

Gun control pundits, in the aftermath of the Rancho Tehama shooting, are already calling for more gun laws (here and here, for example). They seem not to notice that the shooter resided in California, a state with some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. In addition, the shooter was alleged to have been indicted for assaulting his neighbors and was under a restraining order – both conditions for which California generally precludes the possession of firearms by the accused. What additional gun law do they expect to pass that would have prevented this tragedy?

The truth is that gun control advocates want a complete ban on firearms and their nation-wide confiscation. That is their ultimate goal. However, this will also remove a significant protection afforded the people against an overbearing and tyrannical government – a protection that makes possible every other freedom we enjoy. Only when the people have the means to resist their government does the power truly reside with the people. Only then are their freedoms secure.