Posts Tagged ‘the courts’

About a week ago I saw a piece at the NYT that argued that Democrats would be better off if Roe v Wade was repealed and sent back to the states on the grounds that it would take the issue off the table and allow religious people who might like Democrat social programs but for some reason draw a line in the sand over murdering kids, a reason to return to the party.

I found the argument interesting in the sense that the reason why I left the Democrat Party in the 90’s was I concluded that as a practicing Catholic I just plan wasn’t welcome anymore.

That issue, becoming the sacred cow for the party combined with the move of the Democrats to a secular party makes a tough generational fight against a party that welcomes those who choose to “be fruitful and multiply” but amazingly the Democrats are on the verge of repeating this mistake with a totally different set of voters on a totally different issue. Court Packing.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have already balked on giving their position on the issue (I helpfully outlined it for them earlier this week) and it seems they are not the only candidates ducking and weaving with the subject comes around.

Other Democrats, in safe seats in deep blue states have been less circumspect:

Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts recently urged Democrats to support court-packing if Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell moves to confirm President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

“Mitch McConnell set the precedent,” Markey tweeted. “No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.”

Congressman Joe Kennedy of Massachusetts issued a similar statement in support of court packing. “If [McConnell] holds a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021. It’s that simple,” he tweeted on September 19. Grassroots progressive groups like the Justice Democrats have also supported the idea.

Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Saturday told NBC, “We should leave all options on the table, including the number of justices that are on the Supreme Court.” Her remarks have also been echoed by Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.

Their public embrace of this position completely changes the game and cements the trap.

This means that in every house race and in every senate race this year the whole “packing the court” issue can be raised over and over again and Democrats will have the fun choice of bucking their angry Marxist base or keeping their mouth shut

I’m suggested that Trump can checkmate the Democrats by introducing a Constitutional Amendment to fix the Supreme Court at nine seats. While it will come in handy this time around it has The democrats rejection of such an amendment can cement the issue for those worried about the destruction of the court system for decades.

It will be abortion all over with a whole different set of voters.

If Conservatives are smart they will force the Democrats into this dilemma and if they play it right, they’ll have an issue that will make coin GOP majorities long after Donald Trump is out of office.

If Democrats are smart they’ll help that constitutional amendment I suggested pass congress and while feigning opposition guide it though ratification to take the issue off the table as soon as possible, because if they don’t this trap will close on the and hold their party tight.

If you want to know why the left is so afraid of Donald Trump this headline says it all:

9th Circuit Dismisses Climate Change Lawsuit Brought By Kids

The idea that a federal court would dismiss a frivolous lawsuit is in general not all that odd a thing, but that the 9th circuit, the historical court of liberal insanity is doing so is a sign of the difference Donald Trump is making.


This was the fun story of the week.

Let’s point out that Congressman Schiff was on TV constantly, the media was pushing him constantly, newspapers were mentioning him constantly and three contestants on Jeopardy, the folks who know everything about everything had no idea who the hell he was, even with a picture. included.

That’s how little impeachment means to the public.


Speaking of things nobody cares about the media outrage over Senator McSally putting media hack Manu Raju in his place is really funny:

Given the abysmal ratings of CNN these days, the complete disintest by the country in impeachment and the low opinion the press is currently held while their anger is in fact a “tale told by an idiot” or rather idiots and does “signify nothing” I don’t think it their whining rises to the level of being “full of sound and fury” although it is full of something.


I’m really enjoying all of the outrage by the Bernie Sanders fans and others over CNN as being biased:

The big loser of the night was the network that hosted the event. CNN was so consistently aligned against Bernie Sanders that it compromised its claim to journalistic neutrality.

That’s from that well known right wing bastion the Nation in fact some Bernie sites are taking direct action:

A Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) subreddit has banned all content from CNN over the network’s coverage of the presidential candidate.

A moderator with the r/SandersForPresident subreddit, which has more than 373,000 members, announced the decision on Wednesday following the presidential debate in Des Moines, Iowa.

The post argues that CNN, which hosted Tuesday evening’s debate, has “abandoned their journalistic integrity” in an effort to derail Sanders’ campaign.

The level of outrage is really amusing as much worse than all of this is the kind of treatment that any conservative who isn’t willing to attack conservatives is subjected to daily.

Of course the Sanders crew has never been outraged over this kind of behavior as long as it’s directed at conservatives, but the idea that they might be the target, is beyond the pale.

cue the Troll in chief

Point and laugh time.


Finally it’s the Chiefs vs the 49ers in the Superbowl in two weeks. Basically an unstoppable offense vs an impenetrable defense but there are two stats that I find amusing going into this game

Stat 1: Going into the playoffs there were four QB’s in the playoffs that are locks for the hall of fame. Brees, Brady, Rogers and Wilson. Only Rogers made it to the final four and none of them made it to the big game suggesting this will be the passing of the torch.

Stat 2: If San Francisco wins this will be Jimmy G’s 3rd Superbowl ring as he won two with the Pats, one as a backup all season and the other starting a pair of games without losing one (he gone by the time they lost to the Eagles) that will put him at a full half Brady and he’s just getting started.

On the Charlie Sykes (620 WTMJ Milwaukee) show in Wisconsin they are commenting on the “protection” racket that the unions are using. Let’s remind you of what the unions are saying:

“Failure to do so will leave us no choice but (to) do a public boycott of your business. And sorry, neutral means ‘no’ to those who work for the largest employer in the area and are union members.”

So in other words as far as the unions are concerned you MUST take a position and it must be theirs or they will get you. One Republican legislator called in and suggested business so contacted check out chapter 943.30 of Wisconsin law and start making complaints

So let’s take a look at what Wisconsin law states, specifically Wisconsin Statutes > Criminal Code > Chapter 943 > Subchapter III > § 943.30 – Threats to injure or accuse of crime:

943.30
943.30 Threats to injure or accuse of crime.
943.30(1) 1) Whoever, either verbally or by any written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse or accuses another of any crime or offense, or threatens or commits any injury to the person, property, business, profession, calling or trade, or the profits and income of any business, profession, calling or trade of another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened to do any act against the person’s will or omit to do any lawful act emphasis mine, is guilty of a Class H felony.

Note that since according to the letter sent out to businesses a “neutral” stance is not allowed, the union is COMPELLING the person to act against their will or suffer the consequences. That makes this section active and makes the union letter written proof of a class H felony.

A class H felony in Wisconsin carries a max of 6 years a fine of $10k or both.

And the second section is even more interesting:

943.30(2)
(2) Whoever violates sub. (1) by obstructing, delaying or affecting commerce or business or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or business is guilty of a Class H felony.

So that means that if you are a protester as part of the promised boycotts or picket of a business based on the above letter: Presto! You are subject to this same penalty!

And in our litigious society wouldn’t you like to be the lawyer starting a class action suit against the Unions who are boasting of full coffers and financial support to fight in Wisconsin? Can you imagine the size of the civil suit and award in a case like this? You want to sue people with a lot of money or insurance for a big payout. The local sub shop who gets the letter might not have it but the Union that sent it does. Every business who got that letter is a potential member of the class and the unions who supported this campaign and their national counterparts is a potential target. It’s a money tree!

I’m amazed a union lawyer didn’t spot this but it’s what comes of arrogant and unchecked power.

Update: Big Government was on this first but didn’t think of the class action angle, Ann Althouse is bother by the police involvement:

I can’t get my head around the concept of police involvement in boycotting businesses. That reads like pure corruption. I can’t believe it’s being done openly. Can someone explain to me how you can even argue that it is acceptable for police to extort political support from citizens?

If you ever wondered why the left always seemed to side with totalitarians, now you know.

“Outlaw Money” in North Carolina

Posted: March 21, 2011 by datechguy in economy, oddities
Tags: ,

Episode 51 of the old Robin Hood TV series from the 50’s was called “Outlaw Money”. In the episode the Sheriff arranges for the arrest of the person in charge of minting coin for Nottingham and replaces it with his own man who mixes in base metal for silver coins while the Sheriff pockets the difference. Robin and his band hijack the new coin dies take them in the forest, and sheltering the old mintmaster provide silver mint their own coins and distribute them to the poor. When Friar Tuck is arrested for passing counterfeit money at the trial the mintmaster (disguised as the inspector from London) appears and notes that the “counterfeit” coins have the right amount of silver and the regulation coins do not, foiling the scheme.

I couldn’t help but remember that episode when reading this story:

The leader of a group that marketed a fake currency called Liberty Dollars in the Asheville area and elsewhere has been found guilty by a federal jury of conspiracy against the government in a case of “domestic terrorism.”

I found this interesting:

The silver medallions were produced by a private mint in Idaho on behalf of Evansville-based Liberty Services, which also issued paper notes the group said were backed by silver reserves.

During the raid, about a dozen agents seized nearly two tons of coins that featured the image of Ron Paul, a Texas congressman. They also took about 500 pounds of silver and 40 to 50 ounces of gold, as was paper currency and other metals.emphasis mine

Two quick thoughts, Ron Paul? Passing currency with the image of Ron Paul? Paul fans have always seemed a bit messianic about him but this is ridiculous.

Secondly, on the law I think the conviction is correct but describing his as a “terrorist” is a bit much.

Silver if I’m not mistaken is trading at $20 an ounce or so $160,000 in silver and gold is going around $1500 so say $750,000. So that means that this guy was actually putting his money where his mouth was backing this stuff.

It’s an odd thing when you have “counterfeit” money backed by actual precious metals while the US dollar is backed by…faith?

Ironically Paul has a hearing coming up on Bullion.