Archive for 2022

MARK JUDGE: The Supreme Court Leak: The Left Sows Panic to Smother the Truth.

Say, where are all the condemnations of this leak from the greybeards of the Supreme Court bar? The joint statements? The loud defenses of norms and institutions? I looked on ScotusBlog, where I would expect to see that sort of reaction, and found nothing? Nothing from Chuck Cooper, the Federalist Society, Ted Olson, Michael Luttig, Miguel Estrada, Boyden Gray, John Ashcroft, the Constitution Society, various law deans, etc.

Bill Barr has suggested that the leaker might be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, and called for a special prosecutor and grand jury but we haven’t heard from very many people considering what a huge blow to the Court as an institution this leak was.

Just ask Scotusblog:

GLENN GREENWALD: The Irrational, Misguided Discourse Surrounding Supreme Court Controversies Such as Roe v. Wade. “The Court, like the U.S. Constitution, was designed to be a limit on the excesses of democracy. Roe denied, not upheld, the rights of citizens to decide democratically.”

Plus: “It was bizarre to watch liberals accuse the Court of acting ‘undemocratically’ as they denounced the ability of ‘five unelected aristocrats’ — in the words of Vox’s Ian Millhiser — to decide the question of abortion rights. Who do they think decided Roe in the first place? Indeed, Millhiser’s argument here — unelected Supreme Court Justices have no business mucking around in abortion rights — is supremely ironic given that it was unelected judges who issued Roe back in 1973, in the process striking down numerous democratically elected laws.”

DISBAND, OR AT LEAST DISARM, THE CAPITOL POLICE UNTIL THEY LEARN PROPER GUN-HANDLING: US Capitol officer fires gun in break room, gets suspended.

UPDATE: From the comments: “Lesson learned. If a US Capitol Police office fires his or her weapon, he or she damn well better kill a Trump supporter, or there’ll be trouble.” Analysis: True.

OPEN THREAD: Get ready to go. From the rooftops, shout it out.

NPR GUIDANCE FOR TALKING ABOUT ABORTION CERTAINLY IS…SOMETHING. Jonathan Turley linked to this for other reasons, but, well, you have to read it to believe it. Stare agog at passages as bad or worse than this one:

Is taking “baby” and “mother” and “life” out of the conversation profoundly biased in favor of those in favor of abortion rights? Science would say no.

Oh really? Would “science” do that? I don’t think even most ardent pro-choicers usually take the issue of life or when it begins “out of the conversation.” But don’t worry, “science” has more!

Scientists have widely differing opinions on when life begins…

Again, do they? NPR thinks the Perseverance rover is looking for evidence of newborn human babies on Mars?

This stuff is only the beginning of the logical pretzels you will encounter. You don’t have to be pro-choice or pro-life to find this embarrassing for NPR. But then what do I know about life? I’m not a biologist.

AS STACY MCCAIN ONCE SAID, AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO JOIN THE TEAM THAT YOU’RE ON: Why Elon Musk’s Politics Are Becoming More Pronounced. “His ideological and political history is similarly murky and unsound at many points in the past (and present), but as he sees the hysterical reaction of the media and the left to his proposed takeover of Twitter, like Trump he appears to have started recognizing who his friends are (or could be), and why the left and the media are his implacable foes. Connect the dots accordingly.”

A GOOD QUESTION, TO WHICH WE ALL KNOW THE ANSWER: