Category: Politics

“Ranked choice” voting

The candidate with the most votes loses. Welcome to ranked choice voting.

Maine congressman loses seat in controversial ranked-choice voting race

I predicted that ranked-choice voting would be used to game the system – with Libertarian and Independent voters as pawns – and that’s exactly what has happened. Independent candidates became vote-gatherers for the Democratic party in this Maine election, rather than the spoiler candidates of previous elections.

I expect our elections to become like a monkey fight at the zoo if this “second chance” voting system is ruled constitutional. Let’s keep our fingers crossed that the Federal courts will rule to ban ranked-choice voting schemes.

But they can vote?

From a Washington state voter-passed initiative to, in part, restrict the purchase of semi-automatic rifles to those 21 years of age or older:

“…studies show that eighteen to twenty year olds commit a
disproportionate number of firearm homicides in the United States

and research indicates that the brain does not fully mature until a later age. Raising the minimum age to purchase semiautomatic assault rifles to twenty-one is a commonsense step the people wish to take to increase public safety.” (emphasis mine)

OK – so we acknowledge that their brains are “…not fully mature…” and as a result they should not own semi-automatic firearms. But it’s OK for them to vote? On this initiative, no less? Really??

Now, to be fair, as a general rule I agree with restrictions banning semi-automatic firearms for those less than 21 years of age (as I have discussed before here and here). I just think that those under 21 should not be able to vote, either, based on the same “… not fully mature…” argument.

However,  I disagree with the position that we should restrict access to firearms for a particular group because they “…commit a disproportionate number of firearm homicides in the United States…”. Such claims are ripe for abuse, and can be used to punish or subdue a significant portion of the population for the actions of a very small minority. Why couldn’t it be argued that whites have committed a higher percentage of mass shootings in America than any other race (63%, according to Politifact, although that is less than their 72.4% share of the 2010 population) and use this statistic to disarm all whites? Think, too, about how this could be applied to other races for firearm-related crimes. Now do you see the problem with such restrictions? I hope so.

Selective memory

NPR quotes Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) as he laments Republican action to fill federal judicial vacancies:

…Sen. Patrick Leahy …  is “disgusted” by what he sees as the dismantling of a long-standing system that was aimed at achieving a limited bipartisan consensus on judgeships.

Really? Has Senator Leahy forgotten how Harry Reid (D-NV) exercised the “nuclear option” so that Democrats would not have to achieve  “limited bipartisan consensus” for their appointees to the federal bench? It was Reid’s action that ending all pretense of consensus for such appointments; where was Senator Leahy’s disgust then?

Note, too, how Reid’s actions allowed President Obama to reshape the federal circuit courts without any concern for bipartisan approval. Is there any wonder that Republicans want to restore a balance to the Federal judiciary, and would use similar tactics as the Democrats?

Oh – and thanks, NPR, for the misleading statement:

The GOP-controlled Senate has confirmed 29 Trump nominees to federal appeals courts, compared to confirming just two nominees over the last two years of the Obama presidency.

It is interesting that you chose to compared current Republican appointees only to Obama’s last year in office, ignoring the record number of Obama judicial appointees confirmed after Reid’s rule change. From a CNN story on the matter:

During the first year of the congressional session, before the nuclear option, the Senate confirmed a total of 36 federal district and circuit court judges appointed by the President. After the rules changes, which took place Nov. 21, 2013, the number of judges confirmed more than doubled to 84.

Nice job at showing your political bias, NPR.

Political chess

The liberal left is still up in arms over the Kavanaugh Supreme Court appointment, claiming that the seat was “stolen” from Merrick Garland. Sorry, folks, but that’s not what happened. The Republicans played by the rules (as spelled out clearly in the Constitution of the United States) and won, fair and square. The fact that the Democrats are sore losers in a fair fight does not justify an effort to change the rules of the game, yet that is exactly what many academics are suggesting.

In fact, the Democrats are directly responsible for the initial rule changes (the so called “nuclear option”, with the “stacking” effect it had on the lower courts) that led to Republican-led rules changes and Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court win. Maybe the Democrats should think a little harder before attempting any more rule changes.

It’s a game of chess, folks; sometimes you lose. Don’t be sore losers.

Freedom of speech?

Only if they agree with you…

Campus mob enraged by ‘Confirm Kavanaugh’ display

I understand why some people might want to believe Kavanaugh’s accuser, but in America one is innocent until proven guilty. Just because someone makes a claim against another does not make it true, and Christine Ford’s 35 year old, conveniently-timed accusations – without a scintilla of corroboration or proof – are just not enough to establish guilt.

But what concerns me most here is not that some people disagree; it’s that they don’t want others to be able to express a competing idea (that perhaps Kavanaugh is innocent, and this was just a political tactic to thwart his confirmation).

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – tactics meant to silence your opponent by fear or force are tactics reminiscent of Hitler’s Nazi movement (remember the Nazi Brownshirts used to disrupt opposition rallies?). So when people call conservatives “Nazis”, maybe they should look a little closer at their own party.

In any event, people can disagree. Democrats think that the solution for disagreement is to eliminate those who disagree, or at least to silence them. That will be their solution if they gain control of the Senate or House in the upcoming election. However, I think that the solution is to engage in civil discourse so that we can understand each others concerns. That won’t guarantee everybody walks away happy, but it preserves the free speech guaranteed by the Constitution – and it’s a lot better than attacking or forcibly silencing your opponents.

Interesting read

NPR has an interesting article on their site contemplating how Brett Kavanaugh might rule on issues critical to many Americans. It is interesting because on one hand they are painting a picture of potential harm, but independent review of their claims brings quite another view.

For instance, the article seems to imply that abortion rights are in jeopardy. However, if you read the court case cited in the article (Garza v. Hargan) you will see that Kavanaugh’s dissent does not dispute that an unlawful immigrant minor has a right to an abortion. His issue is only whether or not the remaining one week delay – so that the government can find the minor an immigrant sponsor – constitutes an “undue burden” to her abortion rights. Hardly an anti-abortion sentiment.

Furthermore, the article cites Kavanaugh’s support for shielding a sitting president from civil and criminal prosecution. This is true, but does not leave the president free from justice. Kavanaugh rightly points out that impeachment is still a viable tool against a sitting president, and could be used for legitimate concerns. However, preventing common prosecution in criminal or civil cases while in office would free the president from partizan, unsubstantiated claims designed to consume their resources or prevent them from performing their duties. Also, it is important to note that the protections described by Kavanaugh would not preclude charges or lawsuits after the president leaves office. Frankly, I agree with Kavanaugh on these points. If you wonder why, just look at how effective the charges made against Kavanaugh were at delaying his confirmation. If you don’t think these same people would use similar tactics to disrupt a sitting president, think again.

The article goes on to cover gun control (Kavanaugh is a second amendment supporter), campaign finance (they bash the Citizens United case, mis-characterizing it yet again), and the Chevron deference rule (although they expressed it as if Kavanaugh was anti-environmental). And, to put it bluntly, I’m with Kavanaugh on all these points. All in all, the article – which in my opinion attempts to paint Kavanaugh in poor light – shows in fact that he is an excellent choice for the Supreme Court. I am very secure in my belief that all Americans will be well served by Justice Kavanaugh in the coming years.

Take a look at the article and judge for yourself.

Bordering on the absurd

As part of the left’s continued attack on Brett Kavanaugh, CNN legal analyst Areva Martin made a demand that the new Associate Justice recuse himself from all civil rights cases before the court. Her basis for this demand is her perceived bias by Kavanaugh against his Democratic accusers resulting from their attempts to derail his confirmation. Martin’s demand is patently absurd.

First, if it be the case that justices hold a grudge against those who opposed them, then unless a Supreme Court nominee was unanimously confirmed they could be challenged as needed by opposing legal parties as “biased”. Frankly, I hope that that our judicial appointments are of sufficient caliber to reject such bias, as required by their oath of office.

Second, all a political party would have to do to essentially neutralize a Supreme Court justice is to vigorously (and shamelessly) oppose their nomination using distasteful and uncorroborated allegations, thereby cementing their claim of bias for future cases brought by that same party.

It might be time to listen to cooler heads.

Propaganda doesn’t always work…

I was watching the talking heads on a major news network today. The commentators were noting that Republican voters seemed to be energized by the Brett Kavanaugh debacle, and by Trump’s support for Brett Kavanaugh in light of the uncorroborated but salacious charges leveled against him (and the subsequent discrepancies in the testimony of his primary accuser). They also noted that Trump’s mocking of Ford seemed to give Republicans a boost in the polls.

Wrong again, talking heads. What has energized Republican voters is the low tactics used by the Democrats in their all-out assault and smear campaign against Judge (now Justice) Kavanaugh. Also, Trump was not mocking Dr. Ford; he was actually mocking the Democrat tactics that resulted in Ford’s last-minute, uncorroborated and inconsistent accusations. Piling on other uncorroborated and ludicrous claims didn’t help the Democrat cause, either; it just made them look ridiculous. Face it, Democrats: the energized Republican base is the direct result of the absurdity brought into the confirmation process by Democratic party leaders.

Perhaps the Democrats were just trying to prevent people from noticing that we have the lowest unemployment rate since 2000. Or that we have a robust and growing economy. Or that we’ve successfully renegotiated improved trade deals with Canada and Mexico. And that it all occurred under President Trump.

Go figure.