Posted on

Two Dismal Days for Dems

As D-Day is June 6 of each year, maybe from now on June 26-27 will be known as the C-Days for these were the days that the Supreme Court announced two of this year’s decisions in favor of conservatives – much to the dismay of the Democrats.
First, in a  5-4 decision the Court ruled in favor of the President in Trump vs. Hawaii.
Here Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a “fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control,” quoting from an earlier case, and that the president has extraordinarily broad discretion under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) to exclude aliens when he believes doing so is in the nation’s interests.
Even though Democratic President Jimmy Carter did a similar thing in 1980, the Democrats cried foul. Were they impugning the integrity of Chief Justice Roberts? As I recall it was Justice Roberts who cast the deciding vote on the legality of Obamacare. In that case he sided with the more liberal justices in a 5-4 decision. Can anybody recall when Justice Ginsberg sided with the four conservative Justices in a 5-4 decision?
Second, the Court dealt a severe blow to the labor unions, ruling that public employees  cannot be forced to pay dues or fees to support their unions in a 5-4 vote. The Court ruled that the First Amendment protects these employees from being forced to support a group whose views are different from theirs. Justice Alito wrote for the majority, which based its ruling on the First Amendment, saying that requiring payments to unions that negotiate with the government forces workers to endorse political messages that they do not agree with. The Democrats cried foul with some calling the ruling an attack on workers and their communities! (That is an interesting take as the ruling appears to be exactly the opposite, i.e. something in favor of workers!) What’s astonishing is the Justice Kagan in her dissent stated the majority of the court “ is weaponizing the First Amendment”! Excuse me, but isn’t it the role of the court to preserve and stand behind the First Amendment?
And in that same week, if things weren’t bad enough for the Democrats, Justice Kennedy announced that he is retiring from the Supreme Court. Fasten your seat belts, as President Trump will nominate his second Supreme Court Justice on Monday, July 9th!
Posted on

The Supremes (But Can They Sing?)

With the retirement of Supreme Court Justice, Anthony Kennedy, two questions came to mind. An inquiring mind wants to know:
1. Do the four conservative justices (Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch) and the four  liberal justices (Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer) always vote en bloc?
2. In the recent past did Justice Kennedy more often side with the four conservative justices or the four liberal justices in 5-4 decisions?
I had my opinions on each of these questions, but then I did some research and learned some facts. At this time I would ask each of you to answer the same two questions to see if your opinion is the same as mine.
On the first question the most recent data that I found was from a New York Times article from 2014 when Justice Scalia was still on the Court. Obviously Justice Gorsuch is not included in this analysis because he was not on the Court in 2014. This article reviewed the 280 signed decisions in argued cases over the prior four years. Over those four years even the justices that were least likely to agree with each other, did agree 66% of the time (Ginsberg and Thomas). As one would expect both the conservative justices and the liberal justices were likely to vote together
. . . but this did not occur 100% of the time. Sotomayor and Kagan voted in tandem 94% of the time and Kagan and Ginsberg were in agreement 93% of the time. This is obviously a lot of concordant opinions, however this means, that in 6% – 7% of the cases their opinions were different. Likewise Alito and Roberts were in agreement 93% of the time, and Alito was in agreement with Thomas 91% of the time. Again by definition this means that Alito disagreed with Roberts 7% of the time and disagreed with Thomas on 9% of the cases. Even though there is not enough cases to know for certain who Justice Gorsuch agrees with most of the time, at this point he agrees with Thomas and  Alito most of the time.
Keep in mind that these statistics are skewed by the fact that in 2014, almost half of the decisions by the nine member court were unanimous! !
I found these stats very surprising on at least two different fronts.
First I couldn’t believe that there were that many cases that had unanimous decisions. I do not recall ever reading about a recent unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court ruling, but apparently they were occurring not infrequently, at least in the four years prior to 2014. My suspicion is that these cases are not very interesting to the public, and thus not reported on very much. This could also conceivably explain why Thomas and Ginsberg agreed 66% of the time. Likewise it would contribute to the 91-94% concordance by both liberal and conservative justices. The other interesting tidbit is that the Supreme Court Justices chose that many cases that were seemingly open and shut . . .
9-0! (4 of the nine judges have to agree to hear the case before it is put on the docket.) Were these apparently obvious, 9-0 cases chosen because the Circuit Court had made an egregious error forcing the Supreme Court to correct the lower court’s ruling? I immediately think, “Ninth Circuit?”
So how did you do on the first question?
The second question revolved around how Justice Kennedy voted in the more controversial cases . . . those decided by a 5-4 ruling, with he being the deciding vote. The day after Kennedy announced his retirement the Wall Street Journal reviewed this issue. They reviewed all 5-4 decisions from 2000 through 2018. I am going to focus on only the 5-4 cases in which Kennedy was the swing vote.
From 2000-2014 Kennedy sided with the conservative justices in 5-4 cases between 40-50% of the time, whereas he sided with the four liberal justices from 0-35% of the time. (Here he sounds like a conservative Justice.) However, since 2014, he changed direction, siding with the four liberal justices over 50% of the time, and with the four conservative justices only 25% of the time. (Here he sounds like a liberal justice.) Surprisingly, in 2015-2016, he sided with these same liberal justices 75% of the time, and only in 25% did he go with the four conservative justices. (Again he sounds like a liberal justice.) But wait! In 2017-2018 Kennedy sided with the four conservative justices close to 70% of the time, and did not side with the four liberal justices at all in 5-4 cases.
Will Kennedy’s replacement on the Court be more like a moderate (Kennedy-like) or more like a conservative (Thomas-like)? Time will tell. Nonetheless, I doubt that the new Supreme will be able to sing!
Posted on

Just “Dumb”

Obviously I look at the world through a jaundiced eye, but don’t we all? I like to think of myself as a thinking, deducing, logical person, and I would venture that most, if not all, of you who are reading this consider yourself in the same way. Going down that same path, sometimes I wonder if many on the other side ever stop and think logically, because some of the things that many of them say are just . . . there is no nice way to say this! . . . are just “dumb.”

Let’s first consider the “Red Hen incident.” Kicking Sarah Huckabee Sanders out of her restaurant because she works with Donald Trump was  . . .  again there is no nice way to say this . . . was just “dumb.”  How could Stephanie Wilkinson, the owner of this Lexington, Virginia restaurant possibly think that asking the White House press secretary to leave mid-meal was a smart thing to do? The only possible answer is that she didn’t think! Not only did Mrs. Huckabee Sanders leave without further incident, but she also offered to pay for the dinner that she was not allowed to finish. Who was the adult in that restaurant? In the end which side did Stephanie Wilkinson help? Even Bernie Saunders has come out against the position taken by Ms. Wilkinson!
Next let’s consider the “Maxine Waters incident.” As everyone is probably aware Maxine Waters is the uber liberal Democratic congresswoman from the L.A. area. At a Capital Hill rally on June 23, 2018 she said, “If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. You push back on them. Tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere!”
Her making a statement like that was just . . . again no nice way to say this . . . was just “dumb.” How could she possibly think that encouraging possible violence against those in the Trump cabinet was a smart thing to do? The only possible answer is that she didn’t think! In the end which side did Maxine Waters help? Even Nancy Pelosi came out against the position vocalized by Maxine Waters!
Next we have Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal recently likening America’s zero-tolerance immigration policy to the “cattle cars of Nazi Germany.” As we have recently been made aware of, many millennials actually know very little about Nazi Germany, but surely Sen. Blumenthal knows a lot about Nazi Germany. This statement was . . . again there is no nice way to say this . . . was just “dumb.” With these five words he offended not only all Jewish people, but also anyone who knows anything about what really happened in the 1930s and early 1940s. How could he possibly think that this was a wise thing to say? The only possible answer is that he didn’t think! In the end which side did Richard Blumenthal help?
There are obviously many more examples of those on the left saying “dumb” things. They are occurring at least once each week. But’s let’s be clear on my position here – I am encouraging these non-thinkers to continue to take advantage to their constitutional right of free speech! They can and should continue to say all the “dumb” things that they want!
Posted on

Diversity Over Merit

A recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal detailed how the progressive mayor of New York City (NYC), Bill de Blasio, wants to water down admission standards at eight public high schools where kids are achieving. At present admission to these high performing high schools is determined by the Specialized High School Admissions Test (SHSAT), but according to Mr. de Blasio something is wrong with this because 21 out of about 600 middle schools send almost 50% of the students that are enrolled in these high achieving high schools. To me, a rational person would conclude that the education process at the vast majority of the NYC public middle schools needs to be spiffed up. However, the progressive mayor wants to lower the bar for admission by scrapping the SHSAT, and introducing quotas so that 20% of the new students come from high poverty areas. Never mind that these students will not have the necessary skills to compete at these high performing high schools . . . it will look very good on paper as the percent of “poverty-area” students (predominately black and Latino) admitted to these schools will increase. Again to me, logic would dictate that more of these “poverty-area” children should be receiving a better middle school education perhaps by going to parochial schools (via vouchers) or charter schools. In the New York City Catholic schools the bar is set high. In the  Catholic high schools 97.9% graduate and 92% go to college. As far as charter schools go, in NYC there is presently a waiting list of 47,800 students! Perhaps instead of lowering the education-bar for all of these NYC children, he should try to improve the education of more of them.
I can hear many of you saying that you feel bad for these unfortunate school children, but actually Bill de Blasio’s progressivism in New York City will have little effect on any of us. Would you have a different attitude if this progressive way of thinking did actually have a real life effect on us. What if the “lowering of standards” had an effect on something many of us do not infrequently?
Look no further than airplane travel and the air traffic controllers. Obviously the air traffic controllers are critical to the safety of any of us who fly. I would bet that most, if not all, of us, would want the smartest and the most qualified individuals occupying those positions in the control towers. Well fasten your seat belts and prepare for a hard landing. In May 2013 Obama’s FAA changed the process for hiring air traffic controllers and applied this new process retroactively. They decided that beginning in 2014 the Air Traffic Selection and Training exam (AT-SAT) would no longer be used to select candidates for training. The AT-SAT is an 8 hour test that assesses numeric ability, tolerance for high intensity work, and the capacity for solving problems. The AT-SAT was scrapped  and a Biographical Questionnaire (BQ) was added to the screening process. This questionnaire asks questions like “How many high school sports did you play?” and “ What has been the major cause of your failures?” If a candidate did not score high on this “woe is me” test, he/she was no longer eligible to be an air traffic controller! Whereas the AT-SAT assessed merit and ability, for this high risk (for air travelers, very high risk!) occupation, the BQ instead uses more subjective “standards” to foster diversity in the air control tower! Yikes!
So while in NYC the brightest students who are striving to gain admission to these high performing high schools will suffer for the sake of diversity over merit, all of us who travel by air are now at risk for the sake of diversity over merit. Go figure!!
7/2/18
Posted on

Immigration Crisis, Part III

They “talk the talk”, but when push comes to shove, would they “walk the walk?” I realize that I have probably used up my quota of clichés in that one sentence, but the question is whether or not those that bellyache the most about the border immigration policies, will actually do anything if they are given the chance. Specifically I am referring to most of the Democrats and an increasing number of the Republican members in Congress who are “talking the talk.” Joining in, many of the churches in the U.S. are “talking the talk” from their pulpits, while their congregations silently “talk the talk,” nodding affirmatively from the pews. The T.V. talking heads literally “talk the talk” as do those who write for newspapers or on the internet. All of these are inflaming the situation, as they seemingly have no problem criticizing just about any immigration policy, but do they step up . . . would they step up in a pinch? Would they “walk the walk?”
Many years ago, Food for the Poor, an organization tends to the poor in Central America and the Caribbean came out and said that these poor Central Americans would fare better being helped with food and shelter in their own country as opposed to trying to emigrate to the U.S. The book, Enrique’s Journey by Sonia Nazario, tells the true story about  a Honduran teenager’s harrowing journey through Mexico, and across the Rio Grande into the U.S. Suffice it to say that things did not turn out as he expected. How many of the “talk-the-talkers” are familiar with the work of Food for the Poor (or other charitable organizations that deal with the poorest of the poor)? How many of the “talk-the-talkers” have read Enrique’s Journey (or other stories that describe the plight of a Central American immigrant or refugee)?
As I have already stated, I do have some ideas on how to help with this problem. What follows will not satisfy everyone . . . in fact it will probably not satisfy even a few. 
But it is an idea!
First off: Those that do not “walk the walk” should not continue to “talk the talk!” If you cannot put your money where your mouth is, then, how can I say this politely, “shut up.” This applies especially to politicians, including President Trump and all members of Congress, but it also applies to church pulpits, as well as the talking heads on T.V., and newspapers. (Individuals will always have the First Amendment right of free speech, but once that individual is on a soapbox, he/she should first “walk the walk” before “talking the talk.”) Congressmen/women could obviously debate the issues on the House or the Senate floor. That is their job. However, in order to “talk the talk” for T.V. or the press, they would have to “walk the walk” first.
There will be two basic ways to “walk the walk.” Let’s call them “Direct” and “Indirect.”
First let’s define the “Direct” way to “walk the walk”:
Sponsor a migrant family. By sponsoring a migrant family one would be responsible for them for five or perhaps even ten years. Responsible in terms of providing food, clothing, and shelter for this family. If the food, clothing, and shelter are provided in one’s own home, then the migrant family could be employed by their sponsor for at least the minimum wage. Potential migrant families would sign up to be sponsored in this “Direct” program. There would be a form to fill out by both the sponsor and the recipient individual or family so that preferences like religion, nearby family, etc. could be matched. Only after a matching sponsor is identified can the migrant family enter the U.S. It would be encouraged that a potential migrant family’s application be filled out at the U.S. embassy in their own Central American country. Migrant families who made the journey across Mexico to the U.S. border without being accepted by a chosen sponsor would not be considered for legal entry into the U.S.
There would be no politics involved in this program All politicians who desired to “talk the talk” would have to “walk the walk” in this “Direct” program. All churches would likewise have to participate in this “Direct” program, if they wanted to express opinions from the pulpit on this immigration subject. To editorialize on immigration, all local newspapers, and local T.V. channels would have to “walk the walk” by volunteering for this “Direct” program. Individuals likewise could participate in this “Direct” program if they so desired, although I would think that the “Indirect” program would be better for most individuals.
The “Indirect” program would involve trying to make the lives of the poor better in their own countries. For instance, a family in Honduras would be immensely thankful for a 400 sq. foot cement house. Building such a house in Honduras costs around $7000. Multiple families in the U.S. could “walk the walk” by combining their contributions to build such a house, perhaps every year or two. Since education is the key to any future hope of escaping poverty, churches or organizations, such as The Rotary or The Knights of Columbus could provide books and build schools in Central America. The cost of a school in Honduras is approximately $40,000. Likewise bloggers would have to participate in this “Indirect” program. Although the exact details of this “Indirect “ program would need to be further worked out, it is an idea!
Of course everyone knows that this type of idea will not fly. There would be a lot of objections, especially from the politicians.
My question to each of you is: “Are you merely “talking the talk” or are you actually ready to “walk the walk?”