Tag Archives: history

“Black” voting districts are unconstitutional, unfair, and condescending

Posted on by
7

The map shows the contorted Congressional District in Louisiana that is at issue in the Supreme Court case that was argued yesterday.

You won’t see this map in most of the news reports on the case – not because it’s not newsworthy, but because it is. This picture speaks a thousand words about the absurdity at issue.

All parties to the case – and the Supreme Court Justices, as well – agree that this strange amalgamation was created for the express purpose of establishing a district that is supposedly Black* so that Blacks could be assured of electing Black representatives.

(I say “supposedly Black” because most Blacks in Louisiana, as in other American states, are actually of mixed race.)

There are several problems with this notion of Black Congressional Districts. First, it assumes that people identifying as Blacks can be represented in Congress only by other people identifying as Blacks. Why is that the case? I’m white and I’ve voted for Black candidates, and I’m sure many Blacks have voted for white candidates. In fact, Donald Trump got a substantial share of the Black vote last year.

Second, the flip side of concentrating Blacks into Black districts is to concentrate whites into white districts. If we’re to have separate Congressional Districts, should we also have separate schools? Separate drinking fountains?

In a region of the country with a sordid Jim Crow history of “separate but equal,” having separate Congressional Districts strikes me as a vile throwback.

Third, what happens if one of the white districts in Louisiana elects a Black? That would result in Blacks having too many seats, right? Conversely, what happens if a Black district elects a white? Does that mean we need to go back to the racial gerrymandering board to re-draw the districts again?

Fourth, this notion that Blacks are entitled to Congressional representation in exact proportion to their population (or more in the event a Black gets elected in a white district) would seem to apply equally to other races.

In Washington State, for example, about 10% of the population is of Asian descent. Many of their ancestors were exploited and discriminated against. Should we gerrymander the Congressional Districts in Washington to ensure that 10% of the representatives are Asian?

What do we do if the Asian voters don’t go along? What do we do if they “wrongly” vote for a white or Black or Hispanic rather than for the Asian candidate that they’re supposed to vote for? What if they vote for politicians on the basis of policy, not race? Or on the basis of the content of their character, not the color of their skin?

Gee, that’d be horrible, huh?

What about other minorities? In New York State, about 11% of the population is Jewish. Should we gerrymander some Jewish districts? Does it matter whether the Jews are observant or not?

What about transexuals? In California, about 97% of the population is transexual.

OK, I made that up, but you get the point.

The premise to this racial gerrymandering is that Blacks are unique among minorities, in (1) possessing “Black issues” that only they care about, and (2) lacking the ability to persuade non-Blacks to their side of those issues.

I disagree. I think Blacks are fully functional citizens who can vote their minds on all issues, side-by-side with the rest of us, and they have the ability to persuade the rest of us on those issues. They are not in need of child-like allowances any more than Asians or Jews or transexuals or Hispanics or Scots. It’s time to end the separate-but-equal Congressional Districts and end the soft bigotry of racial condescension.

*Although much of my tribe disagrees with me on this, I use “Black” rather than “black” when referring to American Blacks. That’s not because the AP Style Manual calls for it, but because I’m willing to call a race by the name that a majority of the race prefers. If a majority of whites start asking to be called “Whites,” or a majority of Scots start asking to be called “scots,” then I’ll go along with that, too.

In California – and probably your state – illegals easily get driver’s licenses and are automatically registered to vote

Posted on by
2

There’s an odd little side show that caught my attention in the vaudeville act of “Dr.” Ian Roberts, the illegal immigrant from Guyana whom the Des Moines School District hired, heroized, and paid $300,000/year. (None of those particular things caught my attention in themselves, since they’re all par for the illegal immigrant course, these days.)

What caught my attention is that he’s registered to vote in Maryland, which was one of his waypoints on his grand and illegal tour through America. How, I wondered, did he manage to register to vote in Maryland?

It’s easy. In fact, it’s automatic.

Like about 18 other states, Maryland allows illegals to get driver’s licenses. Yes, it’s illegal for an illegal to be in America but, no, it’s not illegal in those states for them to get a driver’s license to drive around. Their presence is illegal, but their driving is not.

Okay, fair enough. On second thought, that’s not fair at all to the rest of us who wind up dodging illegals whose driving “skills” are the product of the roads and customs of such places as Guadalajara while we see our insurance premiums skyrocket.

But, anyway, there’s more.

In about 24 states, when the state issues a driver’s license, it automatically registers the person to vote – completely and willfully ignorant of whether the person is an American citizen.

Re-read that last paragraph. Yes, you got it right.

This scheme has a name. (The Democrats are great at branding things. See, e.g., “Affordable Housing,” “Reproductive Rights,” and “Me Too.”) They call this one “Automatic Voter Registration” or “AVR.” Democrats boast that AVR makes it easier to vote.

About that, they’re right.

Back to the erstwhile “Dr.” Ian Roberts. He got a driver’s license in Maryland while he happened to be on-the-lam there. Under their AVR system, Maryland automatically registered him to vote, as other states with AVR would have done.

Voila! He was in the country illegally, but had a valid driver’s license to drive around and was duly registered to vote.

Nothing odd or extraordinary took place. What happened undoubtedly happens thousands of times every day. It’s supposed to happen that way. There was no breakdown in the system. His voting registration was not a mistake.

The mistake was a bigger one. The mistake was a failure of American government. One political party has hijacked the levers, arms and dials of American government to produce deliberate and systematic voting fraud.

Democrats: “Nobody move, or we’ll shoot ourselves!”

Posted on by
2

Democrats are willing to shut down the government if Republicans refuse to re-negotiate part of the tax bill passed in July. They say the main thing they want re-negotiated are government subsidies for Obamacare.

The Democrats have some leverage here because, while it took only a Senate majority to pass the tax bill, and the Republicans hold that majority, it takes a supra-majority to pass a bill to keep the government from shutting down. A supra-majority cannot be achieved without a handful of Democrats.

There are several principled objections to this strategy by the Democrats, which are worth mentioning before I get to the main point.

First, this isn’t the way legislation is supposed to get done. Once a bill is passed, the losing side is not supposed to get another bite at their losing apple by threatening to shut down the government many months later.

Second, shutting down the government is a little like hostage-taking. The threat is of a different kind and degree from the matter in dispute.

Third, this is stupidly hypocritical by the Democrats. The party of Big Government says that if they don’t get their way, they’ll . . . shut down Big Government.

It reminds me of Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles, when he pointed a gun at his head and warned his pursuers, “Hold it! Next man makes a move, the n***** gets it!” (Note that in what passes for today’s “culture” you can get all manner of porn and snuff films with a few clicks on the internet, but finding that clip takes some effort.)

Fourth, the Republicans are prepared to turn the tables. Trump says that if the government gets shut down, he’ll have no choice but to fire government workers. There’s some logic to that. It’s not fair to employ workers you can’t pay.  

Democrats have shown a talent for political malpractice lately, but this one looks like a real boner. The Democrats can be stupid, but usually not this stupid. So why are they doing it?

The conventional wisdom is that they are captive to their “base,” the far-left kooks. That’s true, but it leaves the question, why are they captive to kooks?

The answer to that question is the same as the answer to the question “Why do you rob banks?” asked of serial bank robber Willie Sutton. He replied, “Because that’s where the money is.”

Kooks don’t normally have money, but these particular far-left ones do. Billions are funneled to them from unabashed radicals like George Soros and billions more from purportedly philanthropic foundations and leftist non-governmental organizations like Greenpeace, Common Cause and Black Lives Matter that are only slightly less radical. (Imagine entrepreneurs like John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford and John D. MacArthur turning in their graves at the sight of how their money is spent today.) The kooks receiving those billions, in turn, are major campaign donors to Democrats.

These monied far-left interests are not really driven by details like Obamacare subsidies. That’s just an excuse. If the Republicans compromised on that, there will be another demand and another. What really drives them is a desire to sow chaos and confusion in American society, culture and government. Shutting down the government, they believe, serves that end. They seek a revolution, by whatever means necessary but preferably through a societal breakdown – by violence.

If the Democrats want to shut down the government in order sow a little chaos and confusion, fine. They’ll lose in the end, and it won’t take long. Let’s not take the bait for a violent confrontation.

Let Chicago destroy itself

Posted on by
4

President Trump’s efforts to bring down crime have been successful in Washington, D.C. The rate of murder and other violent crimes is down substantially, and the rate of car-jackings is down dramatically.

Even the Democrat mayor of the city admitted that the crime rate has dropped. Oddly, however, she mumbles in the next breath that the program is “not working,” apparently to mollify national stage Democrats to whom she answers.

Such as Democrat Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer. He was asked at the outset whether the initial 30-day period for the effort could be extended. His response was “f*** no!” It will be interesting to see him now choose between enabling murders and climbing down from his vulgar perch. I’m guessing he’ll choose the side of murder, and stay on his vulgar perch.

So, if it worked in D.C., why stop now? We can curtail crime and simultaneously embarrass Democrats around the country. We should next send the troops to Chicago, right? And then Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, St. Louis and Portland, right?

I don’t think so. My reasons are legal, philosophical and political.

Legally, D.C. is a special case. It’s under the direct jurisdiction of the federal government (notwithstanding the limited “home rule” that Congress legislated some years ago). One federal judge has already ruled that the deployment of troops to Los Angeles to quell the illegal immigration protests was illegal. I don’t have much regard for that particular judge – the bowtie-wearing, San Francisco-residing, 83-year-old little brother of retired liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer – but it is conceivable that his big brother’s former Court will uphold his ruling.

Now the more important reasons – the moral and philosophical ones.

D.C. is the workplace and often the home of over a hundred thousand federal employees who have little choice about their workplace venue.

It’s also the face of America to millions of foreign visitors who reasonably assume that it reflects American values, just as we would assume that Paris reflects French values, London reflects English values, and Berlin reflects German values. (Each of those cities has a lower crime rate than D.C., especially in the category of violent crime.) How America presents itself to the world through its capital city is rightly a national and federal concern. How Chicago presents itself to the world is less so.

Here’s the most important point. The crime in Chicago and other major cities is largely due to ongoing choices they make in law enforcement. Recall that only five years ago, many residents of American cities were calling for the “defunding” – i.e., abolition – of city police forces. Even now, police forces are short-handed because the Democrats ruling these cities are hostile to law enforcement. They hate the cops more than they hate the criminals.

When they’re not short-changing the cops, they’re hand-tying them. Many crimes are simply not investigated or prosecuted. For example, shop-lifting has effectively been de-criminalized. If you want to get fired from your job at a local store, call the cops on a shoplifter or, worse, chase after one.

Other crimes have also been effectively de-criminalized on the grounds that too many racial minorities were being arrested for committing them.

People who commit crimes are criminals, but they aren’t stupid. They know what they can get away with, and so that’s what they do.

In short, big-city crime is a big-city choice. Specifically, it’s a choice by big city Democrats. They could decide tomorrow not to tolerate crime. So far, with the exception of the D.C. mayor who has had an epiphany on the subject, they have not decided that. We cannot coerce everyone into epiphanies.  

Finally, there’s a legitimate issue about using federal troops for routine law enforcement. From the German Gestapo of a century ago to the Mexican Federales of today, federal law enforcement in local matters has a sordid history. 

To be sure, the crime in American large cities inflicts real harm on the residents who, by and large, are not criminals of any kind. They sometimes get attacked, shot or killed and they often get their property stolen or vandalized. Even in the absence of tangible harm, they live insecure, semi-terrified lives.

But they keep electing those soft-on-crime Democrats. They are entitled to, but I say let these residents see and suffer the consequences of their choices – for years and years, if that’s what it takes.

Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago is widely seen outside of Chicago as the worst mayor in America. Even within Chicago, which is an overwhelmingly Democrat city, his approval rating this summer is down to the mid-20s. Maybe that means the Democrat residents of Chicago will throw the bum out.

But don’t count on it. Especially if he can make political hay by distracting the Democrat residents from his incompetence with a show of “standing up to” the Orange Man that they hate more than the criminals and even more than the cops.

You may ask, “What about the residents of Chicago who do want to throw the bum out? Who do want effective law enforcement? Who do want to reclaim their city from filth and crime? Who do vote with their minds and not with their tribe?”

My answer is, they have an alternative. Unlike federal employees locked into workplaces in D.C., the residents of Chicago who vote with their minds but get outvoted every time can vote with their feet.

My advice to them is to get the hell out of the failing cities. Let the failing cities burn and rot. Maybe then, and probably only then, the residents will insist on effective governance. If they don’t even then, well, at least they’ve self-concentrated in places we can watch and, if necessary, avoid or isolate.

And who knows? Their proclivity toward killing one another might prove to be an unfitness in the Darwinian sense.

Yes, my advice to sane people in insane places is to move to another place. Move to Texas, move to Florida, move to Idaho. Move to Galt’s Gulch.

Democrat betas think the F word will make them alphas

Posted on by
2

There’s a Democrat in Texas (yes, really!) who lost a race for senator, and then lost a race for governor. He’s a designated loser.

His name is Robert but he has a nickname. Since he’s proven himself not exactly an Alpha, you might assume his nickname is “Beta.”

Close. It’s “Beto.” Beto has a lot more in common with “Beta” than with “Rambo.”   

Beto/Beta attended elite private boarding schools and then Columbia where he took a degree in English Literature. It was probably Shakespeare that taught him not to be.

But Beto/Beta has a strategy to show his toughness and finally rise to leader of the pack. He says the F word. A lot.

When he lost the senate race, he informed his supporters, “I’m so f***ing proud of you!” He and his supporters promptly regrouped and went on to lose the gubernatorial race.

Offering incisive commentary on Donald Trump, he exclaimed, “What the f***?” Significantly, the object of his invective is now President; Beto/Beta is not.

His brave response to a mass shooting was, “This is f***ed up.” Shooters everywhere scurried.

His recent legal argument in opposition to the Texas rules requiring state legislators to, well, legislate rather than flee the jurisdiction, was, “F*** the rules!” The Democrat lawbreaking lawmakers caved yesterday. Beto/Beta fought the rules, and the rules won.

Other Dems have joined the f-fest. New York Senator Charles Schumer, formerly the Senate Majority Leader and one of the most powerful people in D.C., at least on paper, was asked whether the National Guard would be permitted to keep the peace in D.C. beyond just 30 days.

“No f***ing way” was his response. (But Schumer is already checkmated. Crime will be down during this 30-day period. At the end of the 30 days, Dems will then be in the position of saying they want it to go back up.)

Dems always had potty mouths – LBJ cursed like a Texas roughneck – but the election of Trump really unhinged them. They’re angry and frustrated. Turns out that advocating crime, boys in the girls’ bathrooms, racial quotas and open borders didn’t go over as well as they anticipated.

So . . . drop the f-bombs!

A Dem in New York who says he’s a “former journalist” (of course, there’s no such thing as a current journalist – they’re all former ones) has started a campaign to unseat a Republican Congressman with the erudite slogan “Unf*** our country!” That’s typical of journalistic eruditeness these days.

Another “former journalist” Dem running for Congress – this one a woman – declared in a video clip she posted on X that it was time for the Dems to, “Grow a f***cking spine.” How endearing. They even put the F word into their teleprompter speeches

Back when these potty mouths were future former journalists, I’m sure they were very careful never to let their political leanings get in the way of objective reporting. Uh huh.

A sitting Democrat Congresswoman began with a confession: “I don’t swear in public very well” and then showed that her inability is surely not for lack of practice in declaring, “We have to f*** Trump.”

Lady, who you calling “we”?

Another sitting Congresswoman ejaculated on live TV, “Somebody slap me, and wake me the fuck up!” As for her second request, she seems plenty woke already. But I’d be happy to fulfill her first request.

So, why are Democrats spouting the F word as eagerly as fourth graders who just learned it?

Several reasons. First, they’ve always been just a step from the gutter. While conservative intellectuals like William F. Buckley, Milton Freidman and Thomas Sowell were slicing and dicing the Democrats so eloquently they didn’t know they’d been filleted until they saw their guts on the floor, the mob and their molls were infiltrating the JFK White House and the rest of the Democrat machine, from Chicago to Philly to San Francisco.

It’s all about raw physical power. The Democrats’ idea of intellectual debate for two generations has been, “Nice argument you got there, be a shame if something happened to you.”

Second, the Democrats truly are angry. They’ve lost the White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, most state legislatures, most governorships, their lunch money, and their cookies. They’ve lost it all to people they hate, and, in their ignorance, despise and disrespect.

When people get angry, they often get profane. It feels good to express anger.

Third, much of the Dem f-bombing is to rally their filthy f***ed up base. They’re making a show of uncontrolled anger – in a controlled, manipulative sort of way.

This manipulative f-bombing does indeed rally the filthy Dem base, but that base is already rallied. They always are. They wouldn’t be filthy f***ed up Democrats if they weren’t on Adderall.  

It’s the middle-of-the-roaders that the Dems need to rally. Those middle-of-the-roaders who decide elections are not paying much attention (that’s why they’re middle-of-the-roaders) but they don’t like hearing government would-be leaders shouting words that they would not let their children hear or speak.

So, bring it on, Democrats. See if you can f*** your way back into f***ing control of the f***ing government.

An alternative approach might be to change your language, change your tone and change your policies. Nah, f*** that!

Democrats sacrificed socialism on the altar of cultural wokeness – thank goodness

Posted on by
9

Here’s a thought experiment. First, picture Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and other communist despots of the 20th century. (I could add to that list the head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, but I don’t want emails purporting to correct me.)

Now imagine if part of their pitch to the public had been the following:

  • Men pretending to be women should compete against women in women’s sports, and, after the women lose to the men, they should be forced to shower with them;
  • People should be judged not on their merit or even their economic class, but on their skin color, and, moreover, those with skin colors who commit murder at 7x the ordinary rate should be judged more favorably;
  • Gay people should get preferences in admissions and hiring;
  • We should abolish our national borders;
  • Boys having adolescence issues should be called “girls” and have their penises cut off; and
  • Criminal laws are illegitimate.

If Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot and the other communists had preached such nonsense, the result would have been fantastic. Because they never would have come to power. And so we would have avoided 100,000,000 deaths caused by communism.

Fast forward to today. In an incredibly lucky twist of fate, would-be socialists and communists calling themselves Democrats over the past two decades did pitch that nonsense.

Enough people paid attention and recognized it as the nonsense that it was, that the Democrats were finally voted out of power.

Yes, there was also the matter of their latest leader and his senility, corruption and incompetence. But in the absence of their culturally woke nonsense, the Democrats/socialists/communists probably would have overcome the drag of their bad leader. They probably would have won the last election, and we’d be well down the road to lethal, ruinous economics.

That’s because socialism polls surprisingly well. Although people understand that men in drag should not beat and shower with women, they understand basic economics less well.

Among young voters especially, there’s a convenient tendency to believe that the reason they aren’t as wealthy as they’d like is because rich people are stealing their money.

Many young people believe this because they’ve never heard of Marx, Lenin, Mao, or Pol Pot, or the destruction and misery they inflicted. That’s no surprise, for their “teachers” are mostly (not all, fortunately) socialists themselves.

Democrats are now at a crossroads. One road is the one they’re on – the road of socialism in combination with woke cultural issues. The other road lets go of the woke cultural issues while continuing the socialism.

It’s common wisdom, at least outside the fever swamps of academia, that the Democrats need to take the road away from woke cultural issues if they want to win elections. To win elections, they should focus on socialism, not rainbows and bathrooms.

I am praying they don’t take that advice. I’m praying they keep losing elections by staying on the road of woke cultural issues in combination with socialism. If they’ll just stay the course, the story of the 21st century might be the 100,000,000 lives that we didn’t lose to communism.

“Veni, vidi, vici,” sayeth the Orange One?

Posted on by
3

The first to say that was Julius Caesar. After his crushing win over a Persian/Greek king in what is now Turkey, Caesar reported to the Roman Senate with characteristic immodesty and uncharacteristic brevity: “Veni, vidi, vici.”

I came, I saw, I conquered. Caesar had a flair for drama.

He similarly came, saw and conquered most of Gaul – what is now France – in an era well before the invention of B2 stealth bombers. Travelling from Rome to Gaul was an arduous multi-month sea and land adventure. Conquering the barbarians there was a crazy idea for anyone but Caesar.

He laid the foundation for the greatest and longest-lasting empire the world has ever seen. It’s impossible to travel in Europe without marveling at ubiquitous, still-majestic two-thousand-year-old ruins of that empire.

Caesar came from a privileged but not powerful family. Ambitious from the outset, he clawed his way up the political ladder of the Roman republic, a place with a governing structure that we vaguely recognize.

Indeed, we should. Aspects of our own republic consciously imitate Rome, such as the naming of our Senate after the Roman Senatus and even the Greco-Roman architecture of our capital.

Caesar’s foreign exploits were not just to conquer foreign lands. They were to conquer his homeland, Rome. He wanted conquests because he wanted attention because he wanted power – in Rome.

But he also did want to conquer those foreign lands. The Romans were keenly aware of their legendary cousins across the Ionian Sea, and Caesar knew all about the astonishing conquests of Alexander the Great.

When Ceasar was still relatively young (but, he was painfully aware, already older than the age of Alexander when he’d conquered much of the world) he was chosen to be something akin to a prime minister.

Later, during a period of increasing social turmoil in an unwieldy republic deteriorating toward civil war, Caesar was named dictator for life and offered a crown.

He made a show of publicly refusing the crown, but he did not refuse the powers that went with it.

After five years as dictator, at age 56, Caesar was stabbed 23 times by senators. Brutus, too, was one of those senators.

Myth has it that this assassination was because Rome wanted to reclaim its republic from the dictator. The truth is more prosaic – particular senators opposed particular policies of Caesar.

Indeed, the dictatorship, itself, survived and thrived after Caesar’s death. Rome became an empire ruled by a succession of emperors.

That sounds terrible, right?

It wasn’t. It was the best thing that ever happened in the ancient world. For the next centuries, the Pax Romana ensured relative peace, prosperity and enlightenment. There’s a reason that what followed the ultimate crumbling of the Roman Empire is called the Dark Ages and the subsequent period is called the Renaissance or “rebirth” of the civilization that preceded that dark age.

Some Roman emperors were great and good, such as Augustus, Trajan and Hadrian. Rome was at its biggest and best as an empire ruled by emperors, notwithstanding the occasional lunatics like Caligula and Nero. Similarly, Britain achieved the most when it was ruled by kings and queens. Same for Spain and France. There’s a lot to be said for benevolent dictators, so long as they aren’t crazy.

But Americans are taught, or at least used to be taught, that democracy is the ultimate and natural evolution of political governance. Isn’t it wonderful and equitable, say the propagandists, that everyone gets one vote, regardless of what they contribute, what they know, and what they merit?  

Isn’t it genius that we rely on ordinary Americans, 50% of whom are stupider than average, to select our leaders?

To ask those questions plainly stated is to answer them. So why have America and other western democracies been so successful?

Arguably, their success is not so much because democracy works well, but despite the fact that it doesn’t. What has worked well instead is something quite different.

It’s technology. The last two hundred years entailed the industrial revolution, the electronics age, and the ongoing computer revolution. Productivity is through the roof, even as people work far less than ever before.

Today’s average westerner is consequently much richer than the kings and queens of yesteryear. He has air conditioning, a house, one or two cars that take him anywhere he wants, only 1.7 children to feed, and a gadget in his pocket to get all the information in the world – and entertainment too – on a magical screen.

It wasn’t democracy that got him all that. It was technology.

If democracy is so great, then why aren’t companies managed by democracies? Shouldn’t we have employees elect their boss by popular vote, just as we elect our political representatives? Shouldn’t there be company-wide referendums by the employees to vote on how hard they have to work and what they get paid for that work?

Again, to ask those questions is to answer them. That system just wouldn’t work. So, what makes us think that such a system works in political governance?

I submit that democracy is not the ultimate evolution of political governance. “One man, one vote,” regardless of merit, does not work over the long run any better now than it did in Athens or Rome – and now we’ve corrupted it still further with universal suffrage and voting by mail.  

In the end, this democratic feel-goodery conflicts with meritorious substance. Almost by definition, the meritorious will win that conflict one way or another. Veni, vidi, vici.

Hurrah for the IDF, but does Iran already have a nuke in Tel Aviv?

Posted on by
4

This war has been distinctly one-sided so far. It’s been all Israel and no Iran.

But we won’t know for days or weeks how successful the Israeli Defense Forces were in their main objective of disabling Iran’s nuclear weapon program.

Israel says it intends to pound Iran for two weeks. If that pounding entails anything like the strikes yesterday which involved about 200 aircraft, and if Iran’s air defenses don’t improve (in fact, they are apt to deteriorate even more from the bombings) then Iran could be crippled for decades.

I’m all for it. But here are some known unknowns:

First, Iran might already have nukes. We think that’s not the case, but, as everyone now knows, that thought is only as good as our intel on the matter. When it comes to intel, remember Russiagate? Remember Hunter’s laptop? I’m betting that the Mossad has better intel operations than we do, but that bet is no sure thing.

Let’s assume the intel on Iran’s development of nukes is accurate – that they’re still weeks away from enriching uranium to bomb-level enrichment concentrations.

That doesn’t mean Iran doesn’t have a bomb. There are thousands of nukes in the world, held by bad guys that are friendly to Iran because Iran is hostile to the west. That includes North Korea, Russia, China, Pakistan and India on some days. Nothing would stop one or more of those bad guys from simply flying or trucking a nuke over to Tehran, especially if Iran paid them some real money to do so.

The explosion from a nuclear bomb is all out of proportion to its size. A bomb that fits in an ordinary truck – not even a semi – could easily take out Tel Aviv.

Ah, you say, but Iran lacks the hardware to mount this bomb-in-a-truck onto one of their thousands of ballistic missiles. So how would they deliver their bomb-in-a-truck to Tel Aviv?

In the truck.

The Ukrainians delivered truckloads of drones thousands of miles across Russia. Surely a single truck could be smuggled into Israel and parked in a storage unit in Tel Aviv.  

Nukes are most destructive if they are detonated a few hundred feet above the ground. So, this bomb-in-a-truck detonated in a storage facility in Tel Aviv would be only, say, 30% as destructive as it could have been if detonated a few hundred feet in the air.

It could still easily take out Tel Aviv.

Ever since I was an aerospace engineer for Boeing, I’ve been puzzled by the inordinate interest in bomb delivery vehicles. Cruise missiles can deliver a warhead across a thousand miles of complicated terrain by flying a few feet off the ground – under radar detection. That’s marvelous, I thought, but why don’t we just rent a U-Haul?

I assume (though I was never privy to such information even when I had a security clearance from Boeing) that we did indeed rent U-Hauls, and so did the Soviets. I assume that we had nukes tucked into strategic locations across the Soviet Union, and they similarly had nukes tucked into strategic locations across the U.S. I assume that Russia took over control of those nukes when the Soviet Union fell, as they took over the rest of the Soviet Union’s nukes. I assume that China, similarly, has nukes residing in the U.S.

It would be military malpractice not to. I’m afraid that the answer to the question I asked myself at Boeing – why don’t we just rent a U-Haul? – is, “Because Boeing doesn’t make U-Hauls.”

The million-dollar question is, does Iran have a nuke – or access to the detonator of a nuke – in Tel Aviv? We’ll probably know one way or another within days.

In a life prior to law school, Glenn Beaton was an aerospace engineer for Boeing.

Chief Justice Roberts isn’t your hired gun

Posted on by
6

The Republican-appointed Justices on the Supreme Court are now six of the nine. Unsurprisingly, the ideological tilt of the Court is more conservative than it’s been in two or three generations.

It shows. Last year, the Court took the conservative side in reducing deference to administrative agencies; deciding expansively in favor of presidential immunity (which of course benefits both liberal presidents and conservative ones, but the particular case that was decided benefited a conservative one, namely Donald Trump); limiting the obstruction of justice laws (which could also benefit liberals, but the particular case decided concerned the Jan. 6 protestors); allowing the removal of vagrants from public property; and striking down a ban on “bump stocks” that are used to convert a legal semi-automatic rifle into something akin to a “machine gun.”

In the few years prior, the Court took the conservative side in outlawing affirmative action in universities; overturning Roe v. Wade; limiting the president’s power to cancel student loans; and siding with religion over gender rights.

But that’s not enough, some of our tribe are howling. Some of the six Justices appointed by Republicans are not toeing the party line, they complain.

Indeed, in a few recent cases, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, in particular, and, to a lesser degree, Justice Kavanaugh, have failed to come out on the “right” side of cases. And so, they’re derided as something less than “real conservatives” because they have failed occasionally to vote with the conservative “block.”

The critics point to the three liberal Justices, who typically do vote as a “block.” Getting a fix on this, however, is not easy. As I noted above, sometimes it’s not obvious which side of the law is doctrinairely the liberal one and which is the conservative one, apart from the liberal and conservative litigants who happen to be litigating that particular case.

For example, if President Trump wants to do something in the next four years that is legally equivalent to canceling student loans, what people see as the “liberal” side and the “conservative” side of Presidential power could flip.

But I will admit that on other issues, the liberal and conservative sides are ascertainable apart from the identity of the particular litigants in the case. On those issues, it is fair to say that in recent cases the three liberals have pretty much voted as a block, while the six conservatives sometimes have not.

In support of that conclusion, one source notes that in the ten politically-charged decisions last year that were 5-4 decisions (meaning at least one conservative “defected”) the three liberals voted as a block every time, while the six conservatives split seven times.

Some in my conservative tribe shout that the conservative Justices should vote as a conservative block, just as the liberals vote as a liberal block. Fight fire with fire, goes the reasoning.

I see two problems with that approach. One is practical and the other is moral.

The practical problem, as I’ve already stated at least twice, is that it’s not always apparent which side of the law – apart from the particular litigants in that case – is the “conservative” side and which is the “liberal” side. Today’s case decided on an expansive reading of the Second Amendment could, tomorrow, present a compelling opposite decision on law-and-order grounds.

You see, individual rights – whether they’re Second Amendment or First Amendment or simply common law or statutory rights – do not exist in a vacuum.  For every “right” held by one person there is a corresponding obligation on other persons to permit the exercise of that right. One person’s right to free speech means other people have an obligation to hear or at least tolerate that speech.

That obligation sounds trivial, until the speech by one person that others are obligated to tolerate is speech advocating, for example, another Holocaust or a speech mocking a child’s disabilities or a speech that arguably incites violence or perhaps is defamatory or maybe it’s just simply untrue. 

The task of the law is to balance rights of one set of people with the obligations of the rest of the people.

It’s not easy. To say simplistically that conservatives stand for lots of “rights” for some people gets you nowhere, because it is to say, simultaneously, that they stand for lots of obligations for other people.

That’s the practical problem with demanding that conservatives vote as a block just because liberals do.

The moral problem is that we conservatives are better than that. In war – which, after all, is just politics in another form – one side sometimes commits war crimes. That does not justify war crimes by the other side. If it did, where would that end?

I’m glad Americans don’t commit war crimes just because our adversaries sometimes do, and I’m glad Supreme Court conservatives vote for the law, not for the litigants.

Mexico sues Smith & Wesson, Supreme Court shoots them down

Posted on by
Reply

One summer day in 1924, a train stopped at a station on Long Island. A man carrying a harmless-looking package ran to catch it. He struggled to board the train as it departed. One of the train employees on board reached for his hand as another on the platform gave him a boost from behind.

The package fell onto the tracks. It turned out to be a package of fireworks. The fireworks exploded. 

So, the exploding fireworks injured someone, right?

Not exactly.

The court opinion was written by Benjamin Cardozo, the brilliant judge who was then on the New York state supreme court (which they called, and still call, the New York Court of Appeals). Cardozo later became a storied member of the U.S. Supreme Court. In his words:

“The shock of the explosion threw down some scales at the other end of the platform, many feet away. The scales struck [Helen Palsgraf], causing injuries for which she sues.”

Today, of course, the phrase “injuries for which she sues” is redundant.

This case has been studied by generations of first-year law students. The legal question presented is, should the railroad be liable for Mrs. Palsgraf’s injuries?

Cardozo said the answer is no. People who are negligent are not liable for all the consequences of their negligence. They are liable for only those consequences that are reasonably foreseeable.

Cardozo seemed to accept for purposes of argument that the railroad employees were negligent in boosting the package-carrying man onto the train, and implied that the railroad might be liable if the package were labeled as combustible and the injury had occurred to that man.

But Mrs. Palsgraf was just too far away physically and causatively. The employees could not have reasonably foreseen (1) that their normal boost to a passenger carrying a harmless-looking package would knock the package out of his hands, (2) that the package would land on the hard tracks, (3) that the package would contain combustible fireworks, (4) that the fireworks would explode, (5) that the explosion would knock down heavy scales at the other end of the platform, (6) that the scales would fall onto Mrs. Palsgraf, and (7) that she would thereby be injured.

This principle in law is called “proximate cause.” A person committing a negligent act is generally liable for only the consequences that are “proximate” to that act – the ones that are reasonably foreseeable.

If the law were otherwise, imagine the weird outcomes. If you negligently run a red light, and three miles later someone jumps in front of your car, then you could be liable for his injuries. Because, after all, you would not have been at that exact spot at that exact time if you had not negligently run the red light three miles back.

Which brings us to Mexico.

Like America, Mexico has a gun violence problem. The guns are manufactured mostly in the United States, and smuggled illegally into Mexico. There, the guns are used by bad “we-don’t-need-no-stinkin’-badges” Mexicans to shoot good Mexicans.

Mexico has not been willing and able to address their gun violence problem any more than Chicago has. Putting gangsters in jail would cost them their votes, and might well cost them their lives.

So Mexico thought of another approach. They sued the American gunmaker Smith & Wesson back in 2021 for manufacturing and selling guns in the United States that were transported across the border into Mexico.

You see, Mexico is less interested in stopping gun violence by gun-toting gangsters who have, shall we say, “leverage” over the Mexican government, and more interested in profiting from the gun violence by taxing the manufacturers of the guns.

Mexico faced two obstacles in their case. First, there was the formidable Mrs. Palsgraf. The “proximate cause” between Smith & Wesson’s manufacture of the guns and the guns’ misuse by Mexican bandits was doubtful.  

Second, the United States had enacted legislation on this very point in 2005. Even if Mexico were to get past Mrs. Palsgraf, a law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (the “PLCAA”) expressly insulates firearm manufacturers from blanket liability for the wrongful use of firearms that they legally sell.

Mexico filed suit anyway.

They didn’t file in San Antonio, which you’ll remember was the site of their last great victory over the Yanquis. And they didn’t file in Tennessee, where Smith & Wesson are located along with their friends Jack Daniels and Phillip Morris.

(Speaking of which, “Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms” should be the name of a convenience store, not a government agency.)

Mexico instead filed suit in a federal district court located in . . . Massachusetts.

That was clever.

But it didn’t work. The District Court judge tossed the case.

Mexico then appealed to the federal court of appeals sitting in . . .  c’mon, you know . . . Boston.

That did work. The Court of Appeals reversed, in deciding that Mexico had a viable case.

Don’t think the fix was in at the Court of Appeals, however. The opinion was written by a judge appointed by a President with a distinctly un-Mexican name, Barack Obama.

Smith & Wesson then appealed to the Supreme Court, now dominated by six conservative-ish Justices, three of whom were appointed by our conservative-ish President. The Supreme Court is not in Boston and is not even in Massachusetts. These days, it’s in Heaven.

The formal opinion of the Supreme Court won’t be issued until around June, but the Justices were not exactly poker-faced at this week’s oral argument. The conservative Justices practically laughed at the arguments of the American lawyer who represented Mexico.

Even two of the three libs asked questions that seemed hostile to Mexico’s case. That included a Justice who is liberal but (or is it “and”?) very smart, Justice Kagan.

What’s the lesson? Sometimes, the wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine. Adios amigos.

Glenn K. Beaton practiced law in the federal courts, including the Supreme Court.