Avoiding reality

The Democrat debate farce. E. Jeffrey Ludwig – “They featured hilarious, inconsequential, and pure bilge being passed off as serious political worldviews.”

“What characterizes a farce? A farce is a literary piece that contains highly improbable situations, stereotyped characters, violent horseplay, extravagant exaggeration.” Collinsdictionary.com suggests that “If you describe a situation or event as a farce, you mean that it is so disorganized or ridiculous that you cannot take it seriously.”

The answers were vapid and repetitive, yet there was an aggressiveness permeating the event that the interviewers could barely control.

Most of the debaters insisted that climate change is properly called a “climate crisis.” How anyone of them is qualified to deal with life-defying changes in nature of the magnitude claimed is never addressed.

It is hilarious to hear 20 persons boasting “I am the best” when their tirades and self-aggrandizement lacks substance and evidence. While laughing uproariously, we can reject them all.

In debates, Democrats move toward open borders. Byron York – “The Trump team was obviously delighted. But some Democrats were clearly concerned.

“Raise your hand if you think it should be a civil offense, rather than a crime, to cross the border without documentation,” said NBC’s José Díaz-Balart.

All 10 candidates — Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, Gillibrand, Bennet, Swalwell, Hickenlooper, Yang, Williamson — raised their hands in approval. That moment was perhaps the Democratic Party’s most significant step yet toward embracing a policy of open borders.

Democrats did not stop with opening the border. On Thursday night, they also unanimously supported a policy of offering health care to everyone in the country illegally

All that happened in just a couple of days. There is no indication it will be the end of such proposals in the Democratic race; after all, it is just the first debate in a long race.

A Democratic debate that ignores China and trade isn’t much of a debate. James Pethokoukis – “The core of Trumponomics is a protectionist trade policy built on tariffs, both threatened and implemented.” This is interesting in contrast to Mark Perry’s Happy 218th Birthday to French classical liberal economist Frederic Bastiat!Bastiat’s biggest contribution to economics was “his fresh and witty expressions of economic truths made them so understandable and compelling that the truths became hard to ignore.” Pethokoulis and other economics could do well to set aside their bias and desire to oversimplify and consider Bestiat’s famous essay “What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen” and comments about “legal plunder,” especially “from the viewpoint of the consumer.”

Right on Gerrymandering, Wrong on the Census. National Review – convoluted, complex decisions are an indication of a problem in decision making.

“Roberts’s work in the census case was far more troubling. Working in concert with the Court’s liberals in a decision with a confusing mishmash of opinions complementing and contradicting his own, he found that Trump had failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.

as Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito spelled out in separate opinions, it is not the Court’s job to play psychoanalyst, and the decision paves the way for courts to scrutinize policymakers’ motives much more broadly.

Since Trump’s election, liberal judges have adopted the stance that the usual rules don’t apply; that the president’s unusual — and, yes, frequently lamentable — approach to governing requires abnormally high levels of judicial oversight, future consequences be damned. This time, Roberts joined in.

Roberts The Mind Reader Joins Liberal Justices On The Census. Thomas McArdle – “Chief Justice John Roberts is giving further sign that he is yet another unpleasant surprise in GOP appointments to the highest level of the Judicial Branch, following in the footsteps of David Souter (Bush 41), Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor (Reagan), and John Paul Stevens (Ford).

“The Court’s holding reflects an unprecedented departure from our deferential review of discretionary agency decisions,” Justice Clarence Thomas warns in his dissent, joined by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. “And, if taken seriously as a rule of decision, this holding would transform administrative law … the Court has opened a Pandora’s box,” Thomas declared.

Motivated by politics and ideology, lawyers would challenge all sorts of Executive Branch decisions “with accusations of pretext, deceit, and illicit motives” leading to “an endless morass of discovery and policy disputes,” Thomas cautions. “Now that the Court has opened up this avenue of attack, opponents of executive actions have strong incentives to craft narratives that would derail them. Moreover, even if the effort to invalidate the action is ultimately unsuccessful, the Court’s decision enables partisans to use the courts to harangue executive officers through depositions, discovery, delay, and distraction.”

The establishment media, of course, would dutifully report such endless haranguing as scandals.

“For the first time ever,” Thomas writes, “the Court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency’s otherwise adequate rationale.”

In his majority ruling, Chief Justice Roberts claims that the law “calls for an explanation for agency action. What was provided here was more of a distraction.” In truth, what was provided was an explanation Roberts and the four liberals found unsavory.

SCOTUS rules against citizenship question on census … for now. Jazz Shaw – “In a long and rambling explanation,

“Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the decision, and as you read through it you may find it frustrating. I’ve been making the argument here for some time now that adding a question that’s been asked repeatedly on one form of the census or another for virtually the entire history of the Republic should be a given. In part of the ruling, Robers writes precisely the same thing.

Roberts also goes on in other paragraphs to declare that the Secretary of Commerce is perfectly within his rights to add or delete questions from the census. So how is it that we’re not done with this and adding the question? In a long and rambling explanation, the court explains that the challenges brought to the addition of the question are based on the belief that certain individuals (illegal aliens, specifically) will be less likely to respond if the question is asked. They also openly admit that failing to respond would be the fault of the individual since a response is required by law.

But because the census results are used to apportion federal funding, a drop in response rates could reasonably be expected to impact the distribution of those funds adversely for certain communities. Still, the court doesn’t go so far as to say that the question can’t or won’t be added. What’s missing is an adequate explanation of why the Secretary wants to add it. In other words, it’s being tossed back down the line for a fresh look and a request for more details. In the meantime, since the risk exists that the petitioner’s fears might be realized, the lower court’s ruling that they can’t add the question yet is allowed to s

convoluted, contradictory, complex, rambling – all signs of dissonance and rationalizations of farce.

Comments are closed.