Almost 35 years ago I described to my lawyer a person with whom I was having problems as "vicious". He said"that's a strong word, you'd better be sure it applies". I am sure it does apply to the American left. Their sociopathic effort to derail Judge Kavanaugh's deserved seating on the Supreme Court reemphasizes it; it was confirmed a long time ago by their totalitarian behavior.
The 20th century history of the left, of course, is objectively described by terms perhaps unprecedented,unexpressed and inconceivable. How else to attempt to apply lessons the Vikings, the Mongols, Vlad Tepes, the TaiPing rebellion, seared into human memory, than to acknowledge that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot outdid them all. And good old "Che", beloved yet of the sophomore class, would probably have energetically reprised their feats had he not been prevented. The once leftist hypnotised writer Nat Hentoff recalled having asked "Che" when democracy would be restored in Cuba. "Che's" response was, well , viciously dismissive of that comical notion.
The left has demonstrated its viciousness ad nauseum. Eg. spitting on Vietnam veterans. Eg. putting Justice Thomas through an ordeal he survived only with unconquerable courage and self control. Eg. savaging the accusers of probable serial rapist ( not to mention draft dodger, convicted perjuror and probable salesman of top U.S. military secrets to China) William Clinton . Eg. nominating the Savagess in Chief, Hillary, as their Presidential candidate. Eg. Denying President Trump's Supreme Court nominations any consideration on the left's part of the nominees' professional legal competence ( a consideration inadvisedly extended by naive Republicans to President Obama's nominees ). Eg. subjecting Judge Kavanaugh to trial for his professional life by high school and freshman year hearsay.
The American left is singlemindedly devoted to the acquisition of totalitarian power by any means it thinks workable. What message does that send about their intentions should they succeed? It should be obvious. Take a look at our "universities" (eg. SUNY New Paltz) for a preview of your life in the "Politically Correct States of America".
When, oh when, will a decisive majority resolve that they have seen enough? That it is abundantly clear that the left will stop at NOTHING to destroy our country's fundamentals and then impose its own, murderously definite standards on us all (excepting their cadre) should be crystal clear by now and should absolutely confirm our resolve to defeat them, by any means they make necessary. The alternative? Hundreds of millions alive and dead in the myriad nations enslaved by subhuman leftists in the 20th century and even beyond bear irrefutable witness.
OK, "vicious" is a superlative, a term the application of which requires credible evidence, lest the accuser be intellectually discredited. The past and present conduct of the left provides plenty of evidence. Jack
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Monday, September 17, 2018
Kavanaugh nomination, Murkowski and Collins
A salient fact I have yet to hear mentioned in the brief time since the accusation against Judge Kavanaugh surfaced, is that Senator Murkowski from Alaska will not face reelection until 2022 and
Senator Collins from Maine will not face it until 2020. It has been speculated that if any Republican(s) were to vote against Judge Kavanaugh it might well be one or both of them.
If they wish to be reelected they must consider two possibilities: They sink the nomination and, if the Dems were to take the Senate, make the establishment of a conservative SCOTUS majority far less likely, and they anger their conservative states. If they support him, regardless of the outcome of further investigation into the accusation, regardless of whether or not he is seated, they will have excited the wrath of the MeToo movement, which is presently on a tear. Though many MeTooers are possessed of good will, their movement has probably been hijacked by those for whom accusation is condemnation and by man haters possessed of consuming bad will toward all men. Usurpation of this movement's prospective power is far too promising a power grab for the latter to pass up.
Should this accusation result in Judge Kavanaugh's defeat, the Senatorial election in November assumes critical import. President Trump will of course continue to nominate conservative judges for the post and he'll get one if we keep the Senate. If we don't, Charles Schumer will have far too much to say about the next Supreme Court Justice and the return of the Court to its true function of respectful and restrained construction. Jack
Senator Collins from Maine will not face it until 2020. It has been speculated that if any Republican(s) were to vote against Judge Kavanaugh it might well be one or both of them.
If they wish to be reelected they must consider two possibilities: They sink the nomination and, if the Dems were to take the Senate, make the establishment of a conservative SCOTUS majority far less likely, and they anger their conservative states. If they support him, regardless of the outcome of further investigation into the accusation, regardless of whether or not he is seated, they will have excited the wrath of the MeToo movement, which is presently on a tear. Though many MeTooers are possessed of good will, their movement has probably been hijacked by those for whom accusation is condemnation and by man haters possessed of consuming bad will toward all men. Usurpation of this movement's prospective power is far too promising a power grab for the latter to pass up.
Should this accusation result in Judge Kavanaugh's defeat, the Senatorial election in November assumes critical import. President Trump will of course continue to nominate conservative judges for the post and he'll get one if we keep the Senate. If we don't, Charles Schumer will have far too much to say about the next Supreme Court Justice and the return of the Court to its true function of respectful and restrained construction. Jack
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
Environmentalist misanthropy
Today I caught the 2008 movie The Day the Earth Stood Still , with a surprisingly convincing Keanu Reeves portraying an alien whose declared purpose in landing in Central park in a really nifty space ship is to "save the Earth". Love the special effects, those spherical vessels were, well, awesome. In the end humanity is spared imminent destruction by very advanced intelligent beings concerned enough with our "misuse" of the good earth to purpose our demise, by the ministrations of an earnest spokesperson for our species who declares "we can change!" In the end they spare us but at the cost of the disabling of modern technology like the use of electricity and motorized transportation. Rousseau would have approved but then, Rousseau - the French revolution and all(after all). The heavy handed symbolism was manifest in the film.
It reminded me of how the left, clearly the creative force behind this work, demonstrates its disdain for human life and the blessedly evolved technological miracles which have transformed much of our life from one burdened by unrelenting physical labor to one which can be enjoyed by multitudes and masses with prolonged relative leisure. I'm confident that the most comfortable and learned of inhabitants of the Western world in the 1700's (some of whom have had something to say about how we arrived at this happy state) would have rejoiced to know that human well being would be so advanced.
The summary dispatch of our modern "conveniences" depicted in this pedantic entertainment puts me in mind of the Khmer Rouge's insane overnight depopulation of politically sinful Cambodian cities in the wake of Pol Pot's ( who might as well have been an alien) dreadful triumph. But then, perhaps not so; at least the criminally insane Pol thought he was doing eventual good for humankind. Not so the dear , hirsute young man I sat next to on a bus from Albany to Buffalo, N.Y. a few years ago. Our conversation quickly revealed that we both had enjoyed extensive experience of the wonderful Adirondack mountains just north of our bus's route. But then he opined that he favored the depopulation of the Adirondacks in order to preserve them ( I suppose, for brief sojourns for such as he and I in their sylvan and airy haven). There was no hint in his aspect of concern for the population of the area, eh, some of which has deep roots in that rugged, beautiful region. He gave the distinct impression that consideration of their values, feelings or material well being were of negligible import. I hope he has not ascended to the policy making level.
Physically luxurious Al Gore has held forth, to acclaim in some quarters , on the perfidy of the internal combustion engine which he nonetheless employs with alacrity in transporting his considerable girth to organized public excoriations of the means he himself employs to enjoy this life. He sneers and then, he makes wassail!
The left has been thoroughly discredited by history in the political and economic spheres, though some do retain perverse devotion to those regrettable efforts. Having been so (except in the American academy and the Cuban junta) the left has glommed on to "environmentalism" as its latest power grab, and "human generated global warming" as its newest rallying cry. In doing so it has laid bare its always misanthropic essence for all to see. Lenin, Stalin,Mao - they lived it and hundreds of millions perished. Saul Alinsky bade the left conceal it but he may be exiting the fevered leftist scene. Jack
It reminded me of how the left, clearly the creative force behind this work, demonstrates its disdain for human life and the blessedly evolved technological miracles which have transformed much of our life from one burdened by unrelenting physical labor to one which can be enjoyed by multitudes and masses with prolonged relative leisure. I'm confident that the most comfortable and learned of inhabitants of the Western world in the 1700's (some of whom have had something to say about how we arrived at this happy state) would have rejoiced to know that human well being would be so advanced.
The summary dispatch of our modern "conveniences" depicted in this pedantic entertainment puts me in mind of the Khmer Rouge's insane overnight depopulation of politically sinful Cambodian cities in the wake of Pol Pot's ( who might as well have been an alien) dreadful triumph. But then, perhaps not so; at least the criminally insane Pol thought he was doing eventual good for humankind. Not so the dear , hirsute young man I sat next to on a bus from Albany to Buffalo, N.Y. a few years ago. Our conversation quickly revealed that we both had enjoyed extensive experience of the wonderful Adirondack mountains just north of our bus's route. But then he opined that he favored the depopulation of the Adirondacks in order to preserve them ( I suppose, for brief sojourns for such as he and I in their sylvan and airy haven). There was no hint in his aspect of concern for the population of the area, eh, some of which has deep roots in that rugged, beautiful region. He gave the distinct impression that consideration of their values, feelings or material well being were of negligible import. I hope he has not ascended to the policy making level.
Physically luxurious Al Gore has held forth, to acclaim in some quarters , on the perfidy of the internal combustion engine which he nonetheless employs with alacrity in transporting his considerable girth to organized public excoriations of the means he himself employs to enjoy this life. He sneers and then, he makes wassail!
The left has been thoroughly discredited by history in the political and economic spheres, though some do retain perverse devotion to those regrettable efforts. Having been so (except in the American academy and the Cuban junta) the left has glommed on to "environmentalism" as its latest power grab, and "human generated global warming" as its newest rallying cry. In doing so it has laid bare its always misanthropic essence for all to see. Lenin, Stalin,Mao - they lived it and hundreds of millions perished. Saul Alinsky bade the left conceal it but he may be exiting the fevered leftist scene. Jack
Friday, September 7, 2018
Supreme Court: Are We Home Free Yet?
Let's assume that Judge Kavanaugh is seated, as he very probably will be. We will have realized a tremendous boost in our security against a Supreme Court which would force unwanted and unneeded social engineering on us with presumptuous abandon. Moreover we will have gone a very long way toward realizing the existential good fortune we got when Hillary was defeated. Just imagine her nominees esconsed with the four radicals already there. Too, Ruth Bader Ginsburg might well have retired in order that a younger dreamer be put in her place. Its reasonable to think that those who would blithely legislate from the bench that which true legislatures would never pass, would have at least a 5-4 majority by now, with excellent prospects for expansion to unassailable dominance should more openings occur.
When Justice Kavanaugh sits the mostly conservative bloc will have gone from 4.5 (Justice Kennedy was not an assured conservative vote, though he sided with the real America in some very critical votes) to 5.0. Chances are we will hold the Senate and should another opening occur before at least 2021, we may expand the majority of Justices who believe in judicial restraint to 6 or even 7. The following is a real reach but one might hope that such an unassailable margin might prompt Justices (sic)Sotomayor and Kagan to resign in despair. Breyer and Ginsburg are paying increasingly burdensome tribute to Father Time.
But so is Justice Thomas; he is 70. We are still, given some bad luck
(loss of the Senate and a Biden Presidency in 2020) in some conceivable danger of the enthronement of a much more destructive Warren court. Judge Kavanaugh's ascension is an enormous victory, as is shown by the frantic gnashing of teeth displayed by Dems and their anarchic supporters in their present unendurably powerless state. But we must stay the course of support for this faithful President and a Republican Senate to enjoy probably final return of the Supreme Court to its proper role of construction, not legislation.
I've been reading about the role the Federalist Society has played in the return of the Court to integrity. Apparently, after Roe v. Wade confirmed the determination of philosopher-kings to drag the U.S. into that which they alone "knew" to be justice, the founders of the Society determined to nurture prospective judges and Justices who would stand against this totalitarian wrongheadedness. They have been spectacularly successful in having earned President Trump's respect, reflected in his nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. Charles Schumer knew it, oh yes he did, when he foamed at the mouth about the perfidy of the Society's having been a decisive factor in Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. His coastal blinders will admit of him no other conclusion. Again, I apologize to the real America for his onerous occupation of both our Senate seats but we real Americans in NY just don't have the numbers to outvote the People's Republic of the Mouth of the Hudson. Thank God you do! Jack
When Justice Kavanaugh sits the mostly conservative bloc will have gone from 4.5 (Justice Kennedy was not an assured conservative vote, though he sided with the real America in some very critical votes) to 5.0. Chances are we will hold the Senate and should another opening occur before at least 2021, we may expand the majority of Justices who believe in judicial restraint to 6 or even 7. The following is a real reach but one might hope that such an unassailable margin might prompt Justices (sic)Sotomayor and Kagan to resign in despair. Breyer and Ginsburg are paying increasingly burdensome tribute to Father Time.
But so is Justice Thomas; he is 70. We are still, given some bad luck
(loss of the Senate and a Biden Presidency in 2020) in some conceivable danger of the enthronement of a much more destructive Warren court. Judge Kavanaugh's ascension is an enormous victory, as is shown by the frantic gnashing of teeth displayed by Dems and their anarchic supporters in their present unendurably powerless state. But we must stay the course of support for this faithful President and a Republican Senate to enjoy probably final return of the Supreme Court to its proper role of construction, not legislation.
I've been reading about the role the Federalist Society has played in the return of the Court to integrity. Apparently, after Roe v. Wade confirmed the determination of philosopher-kings to drag the U.S. into that which they alone "knew" to be justice, the founders of the Society determined to nurture prospective judges and Justices who would stand against this totalitarian wrongheadedness. They have been spectacularly successful in having earned President Trump's respect, reflected in his nomination of Judge Kavanaugh. Charles Schumer knew it, oh yes he did, when he foamed at the mouth about the perfidy of the Society's having been a decisive factor in Judge Kavanaugh's nomination. His coastal blinders will admit of him no other conclusion. Again, I apologize to the real America for his onerous occupation of both our Senate seats but we real Americans in NY just don't have the numbers to outvote the People's Republic of the Mouth of the Hudson. Thank God you do! Jack
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
Judges do make law.
Let me presume as certainly no more than a sort of legal paraprofessional ( 20 years a prison law librarian and instructor to inmates in basic legal research but lacking a law degree) to hold forth on the issue of judges making law. It is of course a central issue in the confirmation process for Judge Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court. By the way, I am 100% in favor of the elevation of this fine jurist to SCOTUS.
There has been much exposition lately of the idea that judges should not make law. But it is firmly and beneficially in our legal tradition that, usually at the appellate level where issues of legal construction (interpretation) dominate over the issues of fact which are customarily decided in primary trial courts, that judges DO make law. When this power is exercised with full recognition of its terrible importance and a determination to proceed advisedly, it is a good thing.
First, because it is a legacy of the blessed, though tortured history of our mother country, England, the civilization most productive of humane and democratic institutions, certainly in the "West" and arguably in the world. I say this while freely acknowledging and admiring Islamic law's intolerance for criminality and the long practiced Chinese dependence upon highly educated officials' personal and incidental interpretation of justice case by case. Both systems may well be best suited to the societies which embrace or embraced them but they are not in our tradition.
American law is a child of the English synthesis of "common law" (judge made law), statutes promulgated by historically increasingly democratic bodies of legislators (Parliament in Britain, Congress and state legislatures in America) and rules having the force of law, made to enforce statutes and Executive will by subordinates of the Executive branch (administrative law) (eg. IRS or state motor vehicle dept's). In America, accordingly, when state and federal appellate level judges render decisions, they make law: it may be in the authoritative interpretation of a single word (eg. "viable" in abortion law or "militia" in Constitutional law) ) or in far more extensive explanation of federal or state statutes or in landmark construction of Constitutional amendments themselves, such as to whom the overall protection of the Second Amendment is extended, as it was brilliantly construed by majority spokesman Justice Scalia in the landmark Heller case which established the right to bear arms as being guaranteed to each and every U.S. citizen.
The concept of precedent, for which, at least until the '60's, the legal profession expected its members to pay close and often decisive attention, is much discussed now. It embraces the conviction that past decisions, especially those subsequently much cited and affirmed , provide very credible guidance in making present decisions (and hence, law). But the religious devotion to precedent trumpeted by the left in its castigation of Judge Kavanaugh is disingenuous in at least two ways: the left blithely ignores the landmark precedents set for gun rights in the recent Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions in its expressed contempt for the decisions (Hillary in 2016) and in its continuing campaign to abrogate this liberty enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Too, it knows that Judge Kavanaugh will strengthen a majority on the court which demonstrates caution and restraint in the use of its power to write new, far reaching law. The prospective permanent reestablishment of this principle on the court would doom the leftist dream of unfettered social engineering. The courts are all they have; the real America will never elect a Congress content with the unrestrained killing of unborn babies and Van Jones will never be elected President.
The multitudinous and anarchic baby boomer generation which blithely enabled attack on seemingly all American verities , generated the rise to influence in the '60's of modes of legal thought which maintained that all American judicial construction , though represented as the product of scrupulous examination of past decisions on cases involving analogous circumstances , was in reality simply a reflection of the Justices' personal values, reflecting in the main, the predominant contemporary standards in the economic, political , social and legal spheres . In addition, it was maintained, such decisions simply provided ruling elites with sanctimonious covers. Why not then, such leftist thinkers maintained, reject dry and intellectual adherence to outmoded wisdom and apply contemporary, revolutionary '60's standards of justice to current legal issues? "Why, it was what past jurists had done !" Precedent and jurisdiction (the legal principle that a judge or court's construction was law only in those geographical or institutional territories over which it presided) be damned. This school of thought has infected perhaps the majority of U.S. law schools and consequently a massive Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama appointed faction of the Federal judiciary only now being providentially and courageously pared down by President Trump .
The confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court could mark a tipping point in the 50 year struggle between tradition and recklessness in our legal polity over the proper use of the law making power appellate judges have. No wonder leftists are beside themselves with frantic dread; their vision of assured totalitarian sway, decreed by compliant courts, is fading fast.Jack
There has been much exposition lately of the idea that judges should not make law. But it is firmly and beneficially in our legal tradition that, usually at the appellate level where issues of legal construction (interpretation) dominate over the issues of fact which are customarily decided in primary trial courts, that judges DO make law. When this power is exercised with full recognition of its terrible importance and a determination to proceed advisedly, it is a good thing.
First, because it is a legacy of the blessed, though tortured history of our mother country, England, the civilization most productive of humane and democratic institutions, certainly in the "West" and arguably in the world. I say this while freely acknowledging and admiring Islamic law's intolerance for criminality and the long practiced Chinese dependence upon highly educated officials' personal and incidental interpretation of justice case by case. Both systems may well be best suited to the societies which embrace or embraced them but they are not in our tradition.
American law is a child of the English synthesis of "common law" (judge made law), statutes promulgated by historically increasingly democratic bodies of legislators (Parliament in Britain, Congress and state legislatures in America) and rules having the force of law, made to enforce statutes and Executive will by subordinates of the Executive branch (administrative law) (eg. IRS or state motor vehicle dept's). In America, accordingly, when state and federal appellate level judges render decisions, they make law: it may be in the authoritative interpretation of a single word (eg. "viable" in abortion law or "militia" in Constitutional law) ) or in far more extensive explanation of federal or state statutes or in landmark construction of Constitutional amendments themselves, such as to whom the overall protection of the Second Amendment is extended, as it was brilliantly construed by majority spokesman Justice Scalia in the landmark Heller case which established the right to bear arms as being guaranteed to each and every U.S. citizen.
The concept of precedent, for which, at least until the '60's, the legal profession expected its members to pay close and often decisive attention, is much discussed now. It embraces the conviction that past decisions, especially those subsequently much cited and affirmed , provide very credible guidance in making present decisions (and hence, law). But the religious devotion to precedent trumpeted by the left in its castigation of Judge Kavanaugh is disingenuous in at least two ways: the left blithely ignores the landmark precedents set for gun rights in the recent Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions in its expressed contempt for the decisions (Hillary in 2016) and in its continuing campaign to abrogate this liberty enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Too, it knows that Judge Kavanaugh will strengthen a majority on the court which demonstrates caution and restraint in the use of its power to write new, far reaching law. The prospective permanent reestablishment of this principle on the court would doom the leftist dream of unfettered social engineering. The courts are all they have; the real America will never elect a Congress content with the unrestrained killing of unborn babies and Van Jones will never be elected President.
The multitudinous and anarchic baby boomer generation which blithely enabled attack on seemingly all American verities , generated the rise to influence in the '60's of modes of legal thought which maintained that all American judicial construction , though represented as the product of scrupulous examination of past decisions on cases involving analogous circumstances , was in reality simply a reflection of the Justices' personal values, reflecting in the main, the predominant contemporary standards in the economic, political , social and legal spheres . In addition, it was maintained, such decisions simply provided ruling elites with sanctimonious covers. Why not then, such leftist thinkers maintained, reject dry and intellectual adherence to outmoded wisdom and apply contemporary, revolutionary '60's standards of justice to current legal issues? "Why, it was what past jurists had done !" Precedent and jurisdiction (the legal principle that a judge or court's construction was law only in those geographical or institutional territories over which it presided) be damned. This school of thought has infected perhaps the majority of U.S. law schools and consequently a massive Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama appointed faction of the Federal judiciary only now being providentially and courageously pared down by President Trump .
The confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court could mark a tipping point in the 50 year struggle between tradition and recklessness in our legal polity over the proper use of the law making power appellate judges have. No wonder leftists are beside themselves with frantic dread; their vision of assured totalitarian sway, decreed by compliant courts, is fading fast.Jack
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)