It’s Friday, February 19th, 2016…but before we begin, courtesy of the creator of the most deceptive campaign logo in history…
…Feel the Bern:
Or, perhaps more accurately, smell the National Socialism!
Oh, on a side note, the Pope didn’t just “dive” into American politics; he executed the most egregious of belly-flops:
As for his bodily functions whilst in the woods…?!? Nonetheless, anything contained herein to the contrary notwithstanding, we humbly suggest Francis remove the wall,…er,…log…from his own eye…
Not to mention, like Mexico, among the most restrictive immigration policies on the planet!
…before helping anyone else with the speck in theirs! Not only is this pontiff ignorant of economics, climatology and the sovereign rights of nations, he also appears unschooled in Scripture…not to mention…
…utterly lacking in judgement and/or common sense!
Now, here’s The Gouge!
We lead off the last edition of the week with one more recollection of Antonin Scalia, courtesy of Balls Cotton and Andrew Napolitano writing at the Washington Times:
“…Justice Scalia was the most aggressive and consistent defender on the Supreme Court of the primacy of the text of the Constitution in the post-World War II era. He was the modern-day progenitor of the idea — and eventually the jurisprudence — of interpreting the Constitution faithful to the plain meaning of its words. He was utterly and unambiguously faithful to this concept. This theory of constitutional interpretation has two names — textualism and originalism.
Justice Scalia argued that the Constitution means what it says; Its says it is the supreme law of the land; and all American judges have taken an solemn oath to be subject to what it says. It is superior to the jurists who interpret it. It is what it says, not as they might wish it to say. Thus, all judges are bound by the text. Hence the word “textualism.”
So “no law” means no law. “Due process” guarantees fair process, not substance. A constitutional guarantee is a real guarantee. The exercise of rights articulated in the Constitution cannot be subject to popularity contests.
If the text of the Constitution is ambiguous, it then becomes the duty of the jurist to ascertain the original public meaning of the words that form the ambiguity. Hence the word “originalism.” Ascertaining original public meaning often requires the skills of a historian; yet, thanks to James Madison, the historical record is ample.
The rejection of this line of thinking permits jurists to interpret the Constitution in novel and creative or even destructive ways, according to their own ideologies. It permits them to adapt a meaning in the text that they wish had been there to fortify contemporary societal attitudes. Justice Scalia argued that that is not the job of jurists.
Federal judges have life tenure because they represent the anti-democratic part of the federal government. Their job is to preserve constitutional norms and structures and guarantees from interference by the popular branches of the federal government or the states, even when those branches or the states command popular support.
The job of the jurist, he argued, is not to adapt the text of the Constitution to public trends or cultural changes. That is the job of the Congress and the states through legislation…”
In a related item, courtesy of FOX News, the flip side of the coin:
“The top White House spokesman said Wednesday that President Obama “regrets” his 2006 decision to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court – after being accused of hypocrisy for blasting “obstructionist” Republicans now vowing to block his next high court nominee.
…“Looking back on it, the president believes that he should have just followed his own advice and made a strong public case on the merits about his opposition to the nomination that President Bush had put forward,” he told reporters.
Earnest said that Republicans are going further than Obama did, with a pledge to not consider anyone the president nominates. “There is a pretty stark difference here. What Republicans are advocating is wrong and is inconsistent with the requirements of the Constitution, primarily because the wording of the Constitution is unambiguous and does not provide an exception for election years,” he said.
Earnest also argued that the 2006 filibuster of Alito was different, because it was not likely to succeed since the votes already existed for him to be confirmed and was based on “substance.” “What the president regrets is that Senate Democrats didn’t focus more on making an effective public case about those substantive objections,” he said. “Instead, some Democrats …
“Some Democrat”
…engaged in a process of throwing sand in the gears of the confirmation process. And that’s an approach that the president regrets.”…”
Fact is, the odds against this White House ever telling the truth are about the same as Bill Clinton controlling his libido. As Andrew McCarthy relates at NRO, when it comes to the Constitution, it isn’t that Liberals are ignorant about its contents, they just know so much it simply doesn’t say!
“…Of course President Obama is going to propose a nominee. It is a legitimate exercise of his authority to do so. But it is also a legitimate exercise of the Senate’s authority not to entertain the nomination. That is clear from the Constitution’s plain language and attested to by the history of Democratic obstruction of judicial nominees by senators named Obama, Clinton, Schumer, Leahy, et al.
The presumption that a president is entitled to his nominees if they satisfy basic criteria of competence and probity applies to executive-branch officers, not judges. Officers of the executive branch exercise the president’s power and are removable at the president’s pleasure, so naturally the president is entitled to deference in this area — although (a) not if the nominee has a history of misconduct (see Eric Holder), (b) not if he nominates someone who says she will support executive-branch lawlessness (see Loretta Lynch), and (c) there cannot be unilateral surrender — if Democrats reject executive nominees for philosophical reasons, Republicans would be foolish not to respond in kind.
Judicial nominations are a different matter entirely…”
Meanwhile, back at the ranch with The Gang Who Still Can’t Shoot Straight, given William Galston’s perpetually Progressive politics, it’s no surprise we’ve never quoted his writings for the WSJ…that is until now…as regards the question preying upon every inquiring Christian Conservative’s mind:
“…I have asked some respected evangelical intellectuals to explain this curious phenomenon. Most express baffled dismay. One offered a disturbing hypothesis: Evangelicals are terrified that everything they value is under assault, and they have concluded that only a strongman can stem the tide. So they are willing to make common cause with someone they normally would disdain. But when you sup with the devil, goes the saying, you’d better have a long spoon.
The Trump phenomenon offers a moral challenge not only to evangelicals, but to the entire Republican leadership. Nine months ago I couldn’t imagine a scenario in which Mr. Trump would receive his party’s nomination and go on to win the presidency. Now I can. If he wins in South Carolina, conscientious Republicans will have to ask themselves whether they can be complicit in a course of events that hands the Oval Office to a man so manifestly unfit for the presidency. It is hard to decide which is a greater threat to the republic—Donald Trump’s pervasive ignorance or his deep-seated character flaws.
Some leading Republicans have quietly told me that they would break ranks if Mr. Trump wins their party’s nomination. A few have said so publicly. Unless a viable alternative emerges soon, every Republican will face the same dilemma.“
Though we get Galston’s point, there’s really no dilemma; not when one considers…
…the alternatives. We’ll continue to pray the choice need never be made.
Since we’re on the subject of choices, like The Obamao’s view on almost every politically-sensitive subject, our thoughts on Apple’s refusal to aid the FBI in circumventing the security on the San Bernardino terrorist’s iPhone have…evolved. We initially thought Tim Cook’s refusal to compromise his customers’ security praiseworthy; until we learned Apple had already provided similar services on seventy…yes, 70…previous occasions.
That being said, though now we find Cook’s concern about his corporation’s image less than ignoble, we cannot help but side with the back-handed defense of NRO‘s Kevin Williamson:
Hurray for Tim Cook
“A few days ago, I was bumping along a tooth-rattlingly rough stretch of interstate when I saw a sign: Rough Road. No kidding, Sparky. A mile or two of shake-rattle-’n’-roll later, another sign: Rough Road. You don’t say. Rocka-rocka-rocka-thumpa-thumpa-thump: Rough Road. Sign after sign after sign: Rough Road.
You know what they could have done with all the time and energy and resources put into erecting those Rough Road signs? Maybe — here’s a crazy notion — put some new blacktop on that sorry lunar hellscape that Uncle Stupid calls I-10. But that’s government for you: “Not only do we refuse to do our job and maintain these roads despite a $40 billion a year budget for doing just that, we’re going to pay a gang of union-goon schmucks $40 an hour to erect signs advertising the length and breadth of the shaft we are giving you.”
With that in mind: Hurray for Tim Cook.
Tim Cook is the CEO of Apple, and Uncle Stupid is leaning on his company just at the moment, demanding that the firm create some specialized iPhone code — call it “FBiOS” — that will allow it to crack the mobile phone used by one of the San Bernardino terrorists. Which is to say, with all of the power and money and other resources we put into national security, law enforcement, and counterterrorism, the Men in Black cannot defeat some yahoo’s iPhone PIN.
This is what happens when you apply the Rough Road–sign model to fighting the war on terror. Yes, of course we’d like to have some prosecutions and convictions in the San Bernardino case, inasmuch as it is clear that the jihadists there did not act without some assistance. And, yes, there probably is some useful information to be had from that iPhone. But there is something deeply unseemly about a gigantic and gigantically powerful national-security apparatus’s being stymied by ordinary consumer electronics and then putting a gun to the head of Apple executives and demanding that they do Uncle Stupid’s job for him.
You know what would be better than prosecuting those who helped the San Bernardino jihadists? Stopping them, i.e., for the Men in Black to do their goddamned jobs. An arranged marriage to a Pakistani woman who spent years doing . . . something . . . in Saudi Arabia? Those two murderous misfits had more red flags on them than Bernie Sanders’s front yard on May Day, and the best minds in American law enforcement and intelligence did precisely squat to stop their rampage. Having failed to do its job, the federal government now seeks even more power — the power to compel Apple to write code rendering the security measures in its products useless — as a reward for its failure…”
One last thought on the subject: were The Dear Misleader making his next tee time dependent upon cracking this code…or for that matter, repairing an “impassable” interstate like the Glenwood Canyon stretch of I-70…
…you can bet TLJ’s sweet ass the job would be done in time for Barry to squeeze in an extra nine holes!
Turning now to Matters Militaire, NRO‘s David French reports why the MSM needs to…
Stop Using Israel’s Example to Justify the Barbaric Practice of Drafting Women into Combat
“…When critics attempt to justify the Pentagon’s decision to open all combat jobs to women — or drafting women into those roles — by referring to the Israel Defense Forces, they’re betraying considerable ignorance. Israel’s history with women in combat is vastly overblown, its present policy is more restrictive than the Pentagon’s, and it’s in a fundamentally different strategic situation than the United States. To the extent there’s a valid comparison with the United States, Israel’s history should stand as a cautionary tale for American policy-makers.
It is true that women fought as part of the Haganah, the Jewish militia that defended Jewish settlements during the struggle for survival prior to and following World War II. But, as outlined in a comprehensive paper for the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, this policy — born of desperate necessity as Jewish citizens defended their homes and villages from genocidal assaults — also showed the limits of gender-integrated units. Mixed-gender units had higher casualty rates, and Haganah commanders stopped using women in assault forces because “physically girls could not run as well — and if they couldn’t run fast enough, they could endanger the whole unit, so they were put in other units.”
Indeed, when the IDF was formally established, women were soon put into an “Auxiliary Corps.” When the IDF engaged trained Arab armies in some of the most vicious conventional combat engagements in the modern era, it did so with all-male combat units. As reported in the Leavenworth paper, Israeli prime minister David Ben-Gurion justified the changes with a statement of sheer common sense:
There is a fundamental difference between the Haganah and the IDF. Until November 1947, the Haganah was for local defense. There was a need to defend the place of settlement and the call to defense included everybody who was capable. But an army is a totally different thing. In war, an army’s main task is to destroy the enemy army — not just defend. When we protected the home with rifle in hand, there was no difference between boy and girl. Both could take shelter, and everything he knew — she knew. But in an army and in war, there is a reality of inequality in nature, and impossible to send girls to fighting units. Yet an army also needs non-combat units. And women are needed for appropriate professions to strengthen the nation’s fighting force by releasing men from those tasks for combat.
Since that time, while Israel has drafted women, it has restricted their role in combat, and it presently restricts their role even more than the United States…”
If this offends your politically-correct, Socialist social-engineering sensibilities…
In a related item…
No, particularly in light of our personal experience…you CAN’T!!!
“…Army Green Berets and Navy SEALs face some limits on training due to cutbacks in fleet and training range operations, according to a budget overview document sent to Congress last week.
As this happens, SOCOM is looking at a spring deadline to begin tryouts for integrating women into teams where 85 percent of men oppose the move, according to a Pentagon-sponsored survey by the Rand Corp. Nearly 90 percent say that blending the sexes will lead to lowered physical standards for missions in which high endurance and brute strength are vital. Some male warriors are so opposed that Rand scholars labeled them “extreme.”…”
Good…and we hope their opinions NEVER CHANGE! Forget about illegal immigration, the Iran deal or any other of The Obamao’s unconstitutional/hopelessly misguided executive orders. What WE expect first and foremost from any Republican President is an order precluding women from combat!
That…and the head of everyone remotely connected with The Marxist-in-Chief’s plan to eviscerate our Military on a platter…
…starting with HIS!
On The Lighter Side…
Finally, we end the week, if you’ll forgive the tasteless pun, on a “high” note, with this compelling commentary from NRO‘s Kevin Williamson, who reports on a plague of truly Biblical proportions which isn’t coming to a town near you…it’s likely already there:
“…For working-class white guys who haven’t found their way into those good jobs in the energy economy or the related manufacturing and construction booms that have reverberated throughout the oil patch, who aren’t college-bound or in possession of the skills to pay the bills, things aren’t looking so great: While much of the rest of the world gets healthier and longer-lived, the average life expectancy for white American men without college educations is declining. Angus Deaton, the Princeton economist who recently won the Nobel prize, ran the numbers and found (in a study coauthored by his Princeton colleague Anne Case) that what’s killing what used to be the white working class isn’t diabetes or heart disease or the consumption of fatty foods and Big Gulps that so terrifies Michael Bloomberg, but alcohol-induced liver failure, along with overdoses of opioid prescription painkillers and heroin: Wild Turkey and hillbilly heroin and regular-old heroin, too, the use of which has increased dramatically in recent years as medical and law-enforcement authorities crack down on the wanton overprescription of oxy and related painkillers.
Which is to say: While we were ignoring criminally negligent painkiller prescriptions, we helped create a gigantic population of opioid addicts, and then, when we started paying attention, first thing we did was take away the legal (and quasi-legal) stuff produced to exacting clinical standards by Purdue Pharma (maker of OxyContin) et al. So: lots of opiate addicts, fewer prescription opiates.
And, unfortunately, a HELLUVA lot of heroin. Though we question Williamson’s use of the term “we”…which evokes memories of The Left’s attempt to blanket Conservative White America with collective responsibility for the involuntary servitude of Black slaves most of our ancestors never owned…we understand his point.
We live in a pretty affluent part of one of the five wealthiest counties in the country; and yet ten…count ’em, 10…of our 26-year-old son’s graduating class of some 420 have died due to heroin ODs thus far. That’s a higher mortality rate than our class from the Naval Academy suffered in a similar span.
In addition to the lives lost, two young men of our youngest son’s age…one our nephew, the other the offspring of one of TLJ’s best friends, both intimately familiar to us…suffer from the same affliction.
Call us crazy, but in an era of limited fiscal resources, could we not fire some of the deadwood inhabiting the halls of government bureaucracy and apply the funds to freeing the truly enslaved?
Just a thought.
Magoo
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.