The system is rigged!

Elizabeth Warren on Janus: The system is rigged! By John Sexton – “one thing Elizabeth Warren never mentions is what the Janus decision actually means.”

“I wonder why Elizabeth Warren couldn’t fit this into her video clip somewhere? It’s probably because it shows her entire premise is a lie. When the left talks about “solidarity,” what they actually mean is compulsory solidarity where they take your money whether you like it or not. A system where workers choose whether or not to participate with their time and money is the opposite of a rigged system. But I guess it’s no surprise that the progressive left considers giving workers more control of their own money a national tragedy.

Supreme Court term finale: Targeting the gov’t compelled-speech archipelago by Ed Morrissey – “the court’s term — and Janus itself — have deeper implications for free speech and the relationship between individuals and the government, and for that matter between the judiciary and the legislature as well as the people.”

“This is striking in and of itself, as was the dissent against it, which focused on the disruption caused by overturning Abood rather than on the question of individual rights under the Constitution. Much of the media and analytical focus will fall on that disruption, and for good reason. However, it might leave the impression that undermining unions was a motivation for the majority.

That would be a shame, because the series of decisions at the end of this term makes it clear that they were thinking more broadly. Start with Masterpiece Cakeshop, a decision that initially disappointed conservatives, including myself. The Supreme Court overturned a punitive judgment against bakery owner Jack Phillips by the state of Colorado for refusing to take part in a same-sex wedding on the basis of his religious beliefs. Rather than rule on the compelled-speech argument, the court reversed by a 7-2 margin by focusing on the unreasonable hostility by regulators towards Phillips’ religious beliefs. They later reversed a judgment against Barronelle Stutzman and Arlene’s Flowers in Washington on the same basis, remanding it to the district court for retrial in what was certainly a win for Stutzman but seemed like thin gruel for the First Amendment fight.

That changed with NIFLA yesterday. Perhaps the majority stopped worrying about 5-4 splits or perhaps they understood that a case involving abortion would never get any support from the liberal wing, but Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas took the gloves off on compelled speech.

And thus we come to Janus and the reconsideration of Abood. Seen in this context, the majority on the court has woven a clear thicket against the imposition of speech and limits on religious expression by government on individuals, whether or not it it gets imposed directly — as in NIFLA and Masterpiece Cakeshop — or indirectly, as in Janus and public-employee unions that ally themselves with a political party. To use a different metaphor, the combined effects of these three decisions create a sledgehammer against imposed speech that should — and likely will — stymie any further attempts to recreate them.

That’s a big win for free speech, religious expression, and freedom of assembly. To the extent that others lose in this exchange, it is only to the extent that they have illegitimately profited off of infringements on basic rights in the past. Stare decisis cannot be used to continue injustices and infringements, a point Alito explicitly makes in his ruling

That’s not the only message sent by the court this term, either. As I wrote yesterday in The Week, the Supreme Court has all but shut down a new form of judicial activism that would have extended Article III authority far into the realm of electoral politics

Leftist Justices Don’t Like the Law By Andrew Klavan – “In a dissent on Janus, leftist Justice Elena Kagan accused the court of “weaponizing the first amendment

“The left doesn’t like the rule of law much. If they legally lose an election, they take to the streets as if some injustice had been done to them. If we enforce our border laws, they become hysterical and try to intimidate and bully public officials. If they can’t get a law passed by constitutional means, they are perfectly happy to use regulation to exert extra-legal control over the citizenry.

All of which is bad enough in leftist media, leftist mobs and leftist officials. But in leftist Supreme Court justices, it’s even worse.

In general, the leftist minority on the court has shown itself no friend to the law. It really is disturbing. In Hawaii, only the five conservatives agreed that the president had the legal power to bar travel from certain countries he deemed dangerous. Really? This is what the law says

If the rule of law can be overridden by the emotions of the people, the machinations of officials or the prejudices of courts, we can no longer depend on equal treatment or representative government.

Mexico — What Went Wrong? By Victor Davis Hanson – “Mexico gets a massive cash influx in remittances, American corporations get cheap labor, Democrats get voters

“Mexico in just a few days could elect one of its more anti-American figures in recent memory, Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

Obrador has often advanced the idea that a strangely aggrieved Mexico has the right to monitor the status of its citizens living illegally in the United States. Lately, he trumped that notion of entitlement by assuring fellow Mexicans that they have a “human right” to enter the United States as they please. For Obrador, this is an innate privilege that he promised “we will defend” — without offering any clarification on the meaning of “defend” other than to render meaningless the historic notion of borders and sovereignty.

Facts are stubborn and reveal Mexico, not the United States, as a de facto aggressor and belligerent on many fronts.

What is also unsaid is that many of the millions of Mexican expatriates in the United States who send remittances home to Mexico are themselves beneficiaries of some sort of U.S. federal, state, or local support that allows them to free up cash to send back to Mexico.

Mexico plays the same role with the Unites States that North African countries play with Europe, except in the former’s case, it has a deliberate rather than chaotic emigration policy — and uses it as direct leverage over the U.S. Mexico’s sense of immigration entitlement is predicated on the assumption that corporate America wants cheap labor, that liberal America wants voters, that identity-politics activists need constituents, that a liberal elite expresses its abstract virtue by its patronization of the Other — and that until recently most Americans were indifferent.

It is an act of belligerency for a nation to undermine the laws of its neighbor — and boast that more of the same is to come.

So, what, then, is the new Mexico — a friend, an enemy, neither, or both?

Good News, Satan Wants to Destroy You! By Derek Rishmawy – “It may sound weird, but knowing we have an enemy is encouraging.”

“Many of us already feel like we’re in the middle of a battlefield, with an ancient foe wreaking havoc and destruction. The Bible says we’re right.

the Bible says Satan is at work now and we dare not forget it. Indeed, it’s not enough to know we have an enemy. We need to know his “schemes” (Eph. 6:11) and what resources we have in Christ against him—what Puritan Thomas Brooks called our “precious remedies against Satan’s devices.”

First, our Enemy whispers lies about everything, but especially about God.

Second, Satan also whispers temptations to those of us who wander along, blithely unaware that “sin is crouching,” trying to destroy us by inflaming our desires.

Finally, our Enemy whispers accusations.

Yes, we have a foe looking to harm us, but even more, we have a mighty God of peace who has promised to “crush Satan under your feet” (Rom. 16:20).

But can you avoid false witness and self deception?

Comments are closed.