Wisconsin’s Voter-ID Law Suppressed Votes? – A Misleading Account

The Nation published a story yesterday by Ari Berman with the headline “Wisconsin’s Voter-ID Law Suppressed 200,000 Votes in 2016 (Trump Won by 22,478).”  Here’s a definitive statement that 200,000 votes were in fact suppressed by Wisconsin’s Voter-ID law.  And a blunt inference that, but for this suppression, Trump would not have won in Wisconsin.  The problem with Mr. Berman’s headline is simple.  It is not supported by the facts.  It is yet another example of a media outlet misleading its readers.  And an example of a failure of a published reporter to demand of himself accuracy in his reporting.  Shame, shame, shame. Continue reading “Wisconsin’s Voter-ID Law Suppressed Votes? – A Misleading Account”

Comey Deserved to Be Fired, But Trump’s Judgment Was Terrible

The firing of FBI Director James Comey was long overdue.  Comey deserved to be fired.  But President Trump was wrong to do it now.  Rants to the contrary notwithstanding, this is not the Saturday Night Massacre.  Not by a long shot.  But President Trump’s decision is yet the latest example of poor judgment – very poor judgment.  Poor presidential judgment jeopardizes a President’s ability to effectively lead.  The nation becomes weaker in the eyes of friends and foe alike.  The subsequent need to show decisiveness and leadership grows, as is the risk of making follow-on poor judgments.  This is the underlying risk of President Trump’s decision, and it cannot be understated. Continue reading “Comey Deserved to Be Fired, But Trump’s Judgment Was Terrible”

Tyranny of the Majority on Campus – An Assault on Free Speech

A dangerous and continuing assault on free speech is growing on our campuses and across our society.  It is a threatening wave of illiberalism. Tocqueville long ago warned that a tyranny of the majority was the principle danger inherent in any democracy.  Majority despotism could overwhelm public discourse, ultimately leading to the danger of a restructured and intolerant government.  This despotism, he observed, is rooted within the majority’s values and mores, and pose the greatest threat to liberty.

Tocqueville’s concerns are in full display today at Middlebury College, Berkeley, Auburn and other universities.  Protesters at each institution suppressed the expression of political views seen as opposed to their own.  These protesters claim their actions are justified because these views offended their sense of social and personal acceptability.  And further, they completely silenced these voices before words were ever uttered, deploying uncivilized tactics.  In turn, each of these institutions were willing accomplices to the speech suppression.  Each was unwilling to create and protect an environment of full and free political speech, a base necessity for any institution of higher learning in the United States. Continue reading “Tyranny of the Majority on Campus – An Assault on Free Speech”

Americans’ Moral Obligation to Pay Taxes – But It’s Limited

Are Americans proud to pay their taxes?  Vanessa Williamson of the Brookings Institute thinks so, after studying survey data and conducting interviews.  She finds that Americans view paying taxes as a civic and moral responsibility, and the price of citizenship.  She believes that “the idea that ‘Americans hate taxes’ has become a truism without the benefit of being true.”  But this rather surface conclusion misses the point.  There is a real distinction between a moral obligation to pay taxes and a legal obligation. Continue reading “Americans’ Moral Obligation to Pay Taxes – But It’s Limited”

Deaf Ears to Maryland Black Caucus on Marijuana – And Rightly So

Michele Obama once said “when they go low we go high.”  But not the Maryland Black Caucus (MBC).  For them, “when they go low we get high  [just kidding] – it is racism!”  In a pathetic example of playing the race card, the Maryland Black Caucus screamed foul when there were no awards of Maryland’s 15 marijuana grower licenses to African-Americans. But it all falls on deaf ears in a Maryland legislature lambasted by the MBC with overtures of claimed corruption.  And outward – and ill-founded – claims of racism.   Continue reading “Deaf Ears to Maryland Black Caucus on Marijuana – And Rightly So”

Feckless American Leadership – The Lessons From the Syrian Chemical Weapon Catastrophe

So this is what happens when the United States enters into worthless agreements sponsored by a feckless American President.  This is what occurs after that American President drew a line in the sand that his enemy chose to cross – with no consequence.  We face this outcome when that American President desperately relies on the Russian Federation – yes, Russia – to bail him out.  This is the lesson for our future leaders when a President of the United States, with forethought, chose to rely on the words of Vladimir Putin, of all people, to ensure that the monstrous regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad would no longer chemically murder his fellow Syrians.  An American President who foolishly grabbed the thin reed of a September, 2013 “Framework” agreement promising the removal and destruction of chemical weapons in Syria, all in the name of saving his own political face.   Feckless American leadership.

Feckless American leadership

Continue reading “Feckless American Leadership – The Lessons From the Syrian Chemical Weapon Catastrophe”

Senator McCaskill Succumbs – Like Her Colleagues, She Is Unable to Elevate Principle Above Politics

We’ve ordered one fresh copy of “Profiles in Courage” for U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill.  Her political analysis regarding the Gorsuch confirmation process is spot-on.  She understands the larger war within which the Gorsuch nomination is a small (yes, small) battle.  No doubt Senator McCaskill is capable of understanding and articulating the key principal from the Democrats’ perspective.  But in the weakest tradition of partisanship, she sacrificed the major principles for the minor one. Senator McCaskill succumbs to partisanship.

She is a willing co-conspirator in the Democrats’ theft of the advise and consent responsibility from a long history of bipartisan respect.  She, and most Senate Democrats, act as if political warfare is and should be the norm.  We won’t review the history of Supreme Court nominations, other than to note that this is the first (and only) time in American history that a nominee is the victim of a solely partisan filibuster.  Shame, shame, shame.

McCaskill Succumbs Continue reading “Senator McCaskill Succumbs – Like Her Colleagues, She Is Unable to Elevate Principle Above Politics”

Death of the Filibuster – Brought to You By Our Principled U.S. Senators

The death of the filibuster is at hand, at least for Supreme Court nominations.  But slaying of the filibuster dragon requires a whole bunch of U.S. Senators to raise their hands on the Senate floor and proclaim for all to hear, “I am a hypocrite.”  You’ll see why below.

This hypocrites hall of fame list includes each and every Senator, as it turns out, who has said they will filibuster the Gorsuch nomination.  But before we put our Scarlet Letter around the necks of each of those likely luminaries, let’s pay homage to the scant few who stand for some principle. Any principle.  To the few who understand that the business of the United States requires accommodation, compromise, and respect in order to move forward the business of the people, if only in small steps. So who populates that list?

Hat’s Off List

First and foremost, a large tip of the hat to West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin.  Sure, he’s up for re-election in a State President Trump won by over 40 percentage points.  And yes President Trump made his big political move to support coal the other day.  Manchin may have his own personal political reasons for refusing to filibuster – can you say, political survival? But supporting a vote on the nominee is still supporting a vote, so a large tip of the old visor to Senator Manchin.

Second, a small tip of the hat to the Senate’s most senior Democrat, Vermont’s Pat Leahy, who said he’s “not inclined to filibuster” the nomination.  But that “inclination” was not a final decision, even for the allegedly-principled Leahy: “I am never inclined to filibuster a [Supreme Court nominee].  But I need to see how Judge Gorsuch answers my written Qs, under oath, before deciding.”  Leahy is the former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.  Having presided over two Supreme Court nominations by President Obama, he should know better.

Death of the filibuster

 Death of the Filibuster – The Hypocrites List

This list is a bit longer.  Actually, a lot longer.  So sorry, but we just report the facts, we don’t make them.  The death of the filibuster is no easy matter.  But we’ll start at the top and work our way down:

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer

The first rule for the Senator in the leadership position is to – lead.  It looks like our Minority Leader also leads our hypocrites list.  You be the judge. Here’s the principled Senator, in his own words:

Regarding a vote on the Garland nomination: “Our system of checks and balances requires nine Supreme Court justices.  Playing politics only weakens our democracy.  The Senate’s job is to hold hearings and vote on nominees.  The Senate has a responsibility to give advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees and stop playing judicial politics.”

Not one to play politics with this advice and consent responsibility, here’s New York’s senior Senator now:

Regarding a vote on the Gorsuch nomination: “I say if this nominee cannot earn 60 votes – a bar met by each of President Obama’s nominees and George Bush’s last two nominees – the answer isn’t to change the rules.  It’s to change the nominee.”

Editor’s Note: Excuse us, Senator Schumer, but could you point us to the Constitutional provision requiring 60 affirmative votes in the Senate for confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee.  We know there are a couple of Constitutionally-mandated Senate super-majority vote necessities – treaties and impeachment come to mind – but we don’t recall the one regarding the Supreme Court.

Other Nationally Prominent Senators

The light will shine on whomever it must.  Try to find the guiding principal behind the advice and consent philosophies of these leading Senators:

Bernie Sanders, Vermont, and former Presidential candidate

Regarding a vote on the Garland nomination:  “I call on . . . Leader McConnell to bring the [Garland] nomination to floor of the Senate if Judge Garland is approved by the Judiciary Committee.”

Regarding a vote on the Gorsuch nomination: “I will not support Republican efforts to change the rules to choke off debate and ram the nomination through the Senate.”  He supports the filibuster.

Elizabeth Warren, Massachusetts

Regarding a vote on the Garland nomination:  The Senator’s tweet – “Heading to the Senate floor now to tell the @SenateGOP:#DoYourJob and give judicial nominees a vote.”

Regarding a vote on the Gorsuch nomination: “I believe Judge Gorsuch’s nomination should be blocked.”

Dick Durbin, Illinois, and Senate Minority Whip

Regarding a vote on the Garland nomination:  “There’s no excuse for the Senate to ignore its constitutional responsibility – time to give Judge Garland a public hearing and a vote.”

Regarding a vote on the Gorsuch nomination: “I just announced that I’ll be voting against Gorsuch and for the filibuster – basically require 60 votes.”

Editor’s Comment:  Another leading light pointing somewhere into the ether to find that Constitutional 60-vote requirement. Keep looking, Senator.

Tim Kaine, Virginia

The former Vice Presidential candidate’s views:

Regarding a vote on the Garland nomination:  The Senator’s tweet – “Senate has an obligation and consitutional duty to advise and consent on the President’s [Supreme Court] nomination.  It’s part of the job description.”

Regarding a vote on the Gorsuch nomination: “The way I look at it is the Supreme Court is the only position that requires you to get to a 6o-vote threshold, which means it mandates that there be some bipartisanship and that is appropriate.  Life tenure.  Highest court in the land.  Should have to get to 60 votes.”

Editor’s Note: As we observed, there is no 60-vote threshold.  The Senator is incorrect.  He was referring to the Senate’s filibuster-debate cloture rule.  As to “bipartisanship”, he couldn’t be more wrong.  Supreme Court advise and consent should involve no partisanship at all.  In theory (and in today’s world, that’s all we have left) the nominee should be considered on the merits, and that’s it.

Cory Booker, New Jersey, Talked-About 2020 Presidential Candidate

Regarding a vote on the Garland nomination:  He tweeted “No Dem consoled Congress denied hearings or a vote.  This shouldn’t be about partisanship but about doing their job.”

Editor’s Comment: No, Democrats would never deny a vote, Senator Booker, of course not.  And you are right – this shouldn’t be about partisanship.

Regarding a vote on the Gorsuch nomination: “I’m going to oppose Judge Gorsuch every step of the way.  A 60-vote threshold is not something new for Supreme Court nominees to overcome.  It helps ensure that presidents seek nominees whose views are in the mainstream.”

Editor’s Comment: No, Senator, the 60-vote threshold for confirmation is something new.  And we all know that “mainstream” is the code-word for “people who share my political views.”  Yes, that’s certainly not partisan.

Others

So we grew tired of publishing a full compilation.  But here’s the current list of other Senators who will filibuster a floor vote on Judge Gorsuch. And in each case, they took the opposite view regarding Judge Garland.

  1. Patty Murray, Washington
  2. Tom Carper, Delaware
  3. Bill Nelson, Florida
  4. Ron Wyden, Oregon
  5. Al Franken, Minnesota
  6. Ed Markey, Massachusetts
  7. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
  8. Martin Heinrich, New Mexico
  9. Amy Klobuchar, Minnesota
  10. Maggie Hassan, New Hampshire
  11. Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire
  12. Gary Peters, Minnesota
  13. Debbit Stabenow, Michigan
  14. Kamal Harris, California
  15. Chris Murphy, Connecticut
  16. Jack Reed, Rhode Island
  17. Mazia Hirono, Hawaii
  18. Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island
  19. Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin
  20. Jeff Merkley, Oregon
  21. Bob Casey, Pennsylvania
  22. Tom Udall, New Mexico

Death of the Filibuster – The Principle

So we’re headed to the death of the filibuster.  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?   Some claim its death gives us more democracy.  Others fear it just grants a small majority further, and enduring, control over the lives of the minority.  A fair debate.

But it’s a list of principled men and women, yes indeed, who walk the Senate’s hallowed halls.  They bring us the death of the filibuster. Not because it is right or wrong to do so.  But because they are pure partisans, through and through.

A Stronger NATO – Welcome to Montenegro! Russia Beware

A stronger NATO is what we need.   Especially the native Europeans, what with President Trump’s threats and innuendos suggesting reduced U.S. support. More tanks, bombers, fighters, armies – anything to push back against the hegemonic Putin.  And more vital military installations – naval bases, landing strips, army stations.  Yes, yes we must push back against Russian aggression.  They annexed Crimea; they invaded the Ukraine and Georgia.  My God, Montenegro must be next.  Now’s the time to rally to their aid, before it’s too late.  Plus, we’ll get their formidable military. This could be a real NATO coup.

Who’s to argue?  Montenegro is certainly the most beautiful country in Europe.  The glacier-formed Durmitor National Park is home to the spectacular Tara Canyon, the world’s second largest.  The stunning Tara River runs through the canyon for over 30 miles.

Stronger NATO
Durmitor National Park

Nothing rivals the spectacular Bay of Kotor on the Adriatic Sea.  It runs 15 miles or so from the sea to the city of Kotor.  Nestled on a cape separating the bay from the gulf of Risan lies the small town of Perast.  Two stunning chapels rest on the two islets just past Perast.

Stronger NATO
Two Chapels Near Perast

And then there’s Montenegro’s full military complement.  They’ve got almost 2,000 active duty military.  But imagine if they had a draft!  Sure, most of their stuff came from the old Serbia-Montenegro combo before Montenegro’s emancipation in 2006, but the stuff’s only ten years old or so.

Stronger NATO

What’s more, there’s that navy.  Look, they’ve got 67 patrol boats.  And the Bar Naval Base – my God, the Bar Naval Base! Sure, we’ve had the American navy.  And the British and French navies.  But just think what NATO’s naval complement will look like now.  The heights that it can scale.  No more worries for our friends on the Adriatic.  The Russians will no longer be able to base their Italian night-time landing from their long-dreamed-for Montenegrin base.  Lay that one to rest!

No wonder the Kremlin objects to Montenegro’s NATO inclusion. They should fear a stronger NATO.  The West is so far-sighted.  Deterrence is the goal, and a NATO with Montenegro is certainly stronger than one without.  No way the Russians will dare further European incursions. Sure, an over-land Montenegrin attack would force them through the Ukraine, Romania and Serbia first.  Who could blame them, with the prize that lurks.  But not anymore!

At least not if the Montenegrins actually decide to join.  Their government has pushed hard to join the club for seven years now.  But their people are wise, and might not want to belong to any club that will accept them as a member.  Polls show only 39% or so really want to join the club.  Too much democracy might be a bad thing, so they’ll probably not be any Montenegro vote on this one.  We need a stronger NATO.

So Russia beware!  If President Trumpenstein approves, and the Spanish go along too, the full military might of 28 nations will be there to staunch your dream of a Montenegro coup.  Viva la Montenegro!

Glorious Time to Be Russian – Free Speech in the Moscow Springtime

What a glorious time to be Russian.  Governed by a constitution that provides “freedom of ideas and speech” for everyone.1  And other wonderful freedoms, including a “freedom of conscience” and a “freedom of religion.”  A Russian can’t “be forced to express his views and convictions or to reject them.”  Thank God “censorship shall be banned.” A Russian “shall have the right to association” and “the freedom of activity of public association shall be guaranteed.”  In fact “fundamental human rights and freedoms are inalienable and shall be enjoyed by everyone.”  Yes, it’s a glorious time in Russia!

Oh sure, there’s the little matter that “the propaganda or agitation instigating social, racial, national or religious hatred and strife shall not be allowed.”  Not to worry if a few of these terms aren’t defined.  Actually, none of them are.  But we Russians have a long history of trusting our leaders.  We’re quite sure our freedom of speech and right to public association won’t be impaired by these couple of undefined tawdry little words.  And yes, we know that our exercise of “the rights and freedoms of man and citizen shall not violate the rights and freedoms of other people.” But in government we trust. Continue reading “Glorious Time to Be Russian – Free Speech in the Moscow Springtime”