Category Archives: Law

Business, Economics, Health, Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Trump To Democrats

2 Comments

“Negotiate on ObamaCare, or I’ll enforce the law“:

At stake are “cost sharing” payments that Obamacare backers say are supposed to be made to insurance companies to cover their losses from low-income customers.

A federal court has invalidated the payments, saying the Obama administration spent the money even though Congress specifically stripped the funds from its annual spending bills.

The government is still making the payments pending an appeal of the case, but Mr. Trump hinted last week that he would halt the payments himself, forcing Obamacare into a quick death unless Democrats agree to negotiate over major changes to the Affordable Care Act.

“If Congress doesn’t approve it, or if I don’t approve it, that would mean that Obamacare doesn’t have enough money, so it dies immediately as opposed to over a period of time,” he told The Wall Street Journal.

Live by the pen and phone, die by the pen and phone.

[Update a few minutes later]

Related: What is Trump’s deal?

he confusion here is rooted in trying to figure out what Trump’s convictions are, what his foreign policy is. This inevitably goes astray, because Trump doesn’t actually have any firm convictions, at least along those lines. He can be in favor of and against gun control; be against the government being involved in healthcare and in favor of a government single-payer system; be opposed to bombing Syria and okay with Tomahawk cruise missiles striking Syrian airbases—because he doesn’t actually have any sort of coherent large-scale vision or any particular ideals about the human condition.

He’s a salesman. What he cares about is the Deal. He even says it outright: his autobiographical business book is called The Art of the Deal.

If you want to understand salesmen, the best start is to watch the famous “Always Be Closing” speech from Glengarry Glen Ross.

“Always Be Closing” is not David Mamet’s invention, it’s an observation. It was the advice given to salesmen back at least into the ’60s when I was reading sales training materials that my grandfather had for the salesmen that worked selling pianos and appliances in the family business. (Yes, I actually will read anything.) It’s the advice given to salespeople now.

“Always Be Closing” means everything you do should be in the service of getting the deal, getting a signature and a check.

Whatever else one may think of Trump, you have to admit that Trump is a master salesman. Look at the campaign, where he took various positions — expel Muslims, deport Mexicans, or well, maybe not all Muslims, and Mexicans are mostly wonderful people — one after another, clearly responding to the reaction. Always Be Closing: he made sure his positions got him closer to closing the deal on the presidency. Did it matter that he contradicted himself? No! Concerns about things like that weren’t helping him close the deal.

This has been clear to me from day one. Beyond his boorishness, his utter lack of principles or coherent worldview was the reason so many principled conservatives (and libertarians) opposed him. But I’m still glad she lost.

[Update a few more minutes later]

Trump’s choice: Populism or corporatism.

It’s a shame that neither are particularly principled. The Founders would weep.

[Update a few more minutes later]

Corporate America’s support for the Paris agreement is why Trump should get us out of it.

Well, it’s not the only reason, but yeah.

Education, Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Popular Culture, Science And Society, Technology and Society

Bill Nye, The Cognitive Dissonance Guy

11 Comments

I haven’t been able to get all the way through this interview yet, but he sure is full of himself. I found this a little amazing:

Is there anything about Trump’s administration, and here I’m thinking specifically of Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, that leads you to believe the government will support the kind of innovation you’re hoping for?

I’m going to wait to see on Scott Pruitt. I want to engage you on this question, but I think maybe you’re politicizing something that doesn’t need to be politicized. I mean, the EPA was created by Richard Nixon. The EPA and the National Parks were set aside by conservatives. With respect to Scott Pruitt, I wouldn’t be surprised if the bureaucracy just sort shrugs its shoulders at his directives and says “we’re going to be here long after you’re gone. We’re going to carry on doing what we were doing.”

That reminds me of the saying, “The function of an institution is to perpetuate the institution.”

That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about laws.

No, you’re talking about a lawless agency that Pruitt was brought in to rein in and get under control. He seems to be as ignorant of how government works as he is about science and climate.

Rick Perry showed up at the Department of Energy and realized what’s involved, that he’s in over his head, and now he’s going to let the thing run the way it was being run. But in contrast, Mr. Scott Pruitt — it’s not that he’s unqualified, it’s that he thinks the EPA shouldn’t exist.

If he really believes that, he’s profoundly ignorant of Scott Pruitt. It’s frightening that so many young people pay so much attention to this ignoramus.

Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Lois Lerner

2 Comments

The Congressional committee is requesting that the new Attorney General do the job that the previous ones wouldn’t:

…the Committee found that Ms. Lerner used her position to improperly influence IRS action against conservative organizations, denying these groups due process and equal protection rights under the law. The Committee also found she impeded official investigations by providing misleading statements in response to questions from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. Finally, Lerner risked exposing, and may actually have disclosed, confidential taxpayer information, in apparent violation of Internal Revenue Code section 6103 by using her personal email to conduct official business.

As you know, your predecessor brought no charges against Ms. Lerner or any other IRS employees involved in the improper targeting of organizations applying for tax-exempt status.

Disturbingly, in February 2014, while the investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) was ongoing, President Obama stated there was “not a smidgeon of corruption” at the IRS, preempting a fair investigation in which he had political equities. It is clear that when the DOJ announced in October 2015 that it would not bring charges against Lois Lerner, the agency was following President Obama’s signal on how he wanted the investigation to be handled.

Taxpayers deserve to know that the DOJ’s previous evaluation was not tainted by politics. Again, I respectfully request that the Department of Justice to take a fresh look at the evidence presented in the attached referral in order to assure the American people that DOJ’s prior investigation was handled fairly and to restore taxpayers’ trust in the IRS.

There has to be accountability for this corruption and tyrannical lawlessness.

Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

Susan Rice

Here are the questions that she needs to answer under oath.

If Nunes is telling the truth—and despite a widespread effort to make him look like a liar, he’s been right so far—then this incidental collection had nothing to do with Russian collusion charges. Why has the media shown such little curiosity about the subject matter of the collection?

Yes, reporters, we know that “unmasking” is legal. So is meeting with a Russian ambassador during a campaign. And no, it does not vindicate Trump’s tweet. Stressing the legality of the unmasking is a way to distract from the real questions: Did Rice abuse her power? Who did she share it with? Why? Did those people then leak the information for political purposes? That is illegal.

That will be pretty challenging for her, given that she seems to be as big a congenital liar as Hillary Clinton.

[Update a few minutes later]

Sorry, Democrats, the Obama-spying scandal isn’t going away.

Nope. Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation. He didn’t recuse himself from this.

History, Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

“The Nuclear Option”

2 Comments

The left brought it on itself by insisting on the politicization of judges. For a leftist, nothing can be outside politics, and political power takes precedence over the law. Fortunately, we may still have a chance to restore originalism, and the Constitution.

[Update early afternoon]

If judges want to make laws and bypass the legislature, let them be elected, not appointed for life.

Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

The Erosion Of The Second Amendment

3 Comments

Why “liberals” should be concerned about it.

They’re not concerned about it because they’re not liberals — they’re leftists who are perfectly fine with the government having a monopoly on firearms (as long as they’re in charge of the government).

[Update a couple minutes later]

Nice to see that some commenters at Glenn’s site are making similar comments to mine. Stop calling leftists liberals.

Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Technology and Society, War Commentary

The Obama Administration’s Abuse Of Foreign Intelligence

5 Comments

Did it start before Trump?

In a December 29, 2015 article, The Wall Street Journal described how the Obama administration had conducted surveillance on Israeli officials to understand how Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, like Ambassador Ron Dermer, intended to fight the Iran Deal. The Journal reported that the targeting “also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups.”

Despite this reporting, it seemed inconceivable at the time that—given myriad legal, ethical, political, and historical concerns, as well as strict National Security Agency protocols that protect the identity of American names caught in intercepts—the Obama White House would have actually spied on American citizens. In a December 31, 2016, Tablet article on the controversy, “Why the White House Wanted Congress to Think It Was Being Spied on By the NSA,” I argued that the Obama administration had merely used the appearance of spying on American lawmakers to corner opponents of the Iran Deal. Spying on U.S. citizens would be a clear abuse of the foreign-intelligence surveillance system. It would be a felony offense to leak the names of U.S. citizens to the press.

Increasingly, I believe that my conclusion in that piece was wrong. I believe the spying was real and that it was done not in an effort to keep the country safe from threats—but in order to help the White House fight their domestic political opponents.

It would be perfectly in character.