Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Malloy, The Nullifiers, And The Runaway Elephant



Abraham Lincoln gave the following example of common sense: “When you have got an elephant by the hind legs and he is trying to run away, it’s best to let him run,” and Voltaire is noted for having pointed out that nothing is so uncommon as common sense.

Proof of the theorem may be found in a document released by Governor Malloy more than a year ago that explains in some detail – but not nearly enough detail – when cops do not have to enforce Federal immigration law. The document, circulated “to school superintendents and police chiefs outlining suggested protocols on how to help these jurisdictions make decisions on enforcing President Trump's executive order on immigration,” was summarized in Bridgeport’s Daily Voice.

Thursday, July 26, 2018

Why Connecticut’s Left Of Center Media Will Endorse Ned Lamont


After the August primaries, most major papers in Connecticut will endorse Ned Lamont as the state’s next governor. Like politicians, newspaper owners and Editorial Page Editors are victims of their past choices. If you’ve said “yes” at the altar in the presence of so many church witnesses, it becomes a chancy proposition to call it quits too soon after the honeymoon.

Lamont was the preferred candidate of former Senator and Governor Lowell Weicker. Left of center writers in Connecticut became Weicker-likers for any number of reasons. He was a manageable Republican senator. Indeed, there are some people who think, considering his record in office, that Weicker was a closet Democrat. Weicker’s left of center Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) rating during his last term in office was 90; Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Dodd’s was 85. Weicker could be depended upon to frustrate wide-awake conservatives. Generally, the left of center media in Connecticut, then and now, will gleefully strangle conservatives in their political cribs.

Monday, July 23, 2018

Get Markley!


In Shakespeare’s King Lear, a dethroned but wiser king, about to be dragged off to prison, says to his only faithful daughter, Cordelia, “Come on, let’s go to prison. The two of us together will sing like birds in a cage. We will be good to each other. When you ask for my blessing, I’ll get down on my knees and ask you to forgive me. That’s how we’ll live—we’ll pray, we’ll sing, we’ll tell old stories, we’ll laugh at pretentious courtiers, we’ll listen to nasty court gossip, we’ll find out who’s losing and who’s winning, who’s in and who’s out. We’ll think about the mysteries of the universe as if we were God’s spies. In prison we’ll outlast hordes of rulers that will come and go as their fortunes change.”

The reporter might easily have opened his piece on State Senator Joe Markley – “Tea Partier Or Constitutional Conservative: Lt. Gov. Candidate Owns GOP Right Flank” – by noting, very incidentally, that Markley is one of the few, if not the only, state legislator with whom one might have an entertaining and profitable discussion of Shakespeare’s King Lear, which, sadly, is not often seen on Connecticut stages.

But no. Here is the lede: “He [Markley] once championed a bill to stop the state from requiring the addition of fluoride to the public drinking water – unconvinced of the efficacy of the decadeslong (sic) practice.”

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Blumenthal And The Nullifiers


In “History’s Bad Ideas Are an Inspiration for Progressives, historian and columnist Victor Davis Hanson examines the dark side of progressivism.

Stymied by a Supreme Court that was a bit too traditionalist for his tastes – that is to say, a high court that faithfully interpreted the laws with reference to a real rather than a fictitious “living Constitution” --   President Franklin Roosevelt, Hanson notes, attempted to pack the court. His “convoluted proposal would have allowed Roosevelt to select a new—and additional justice—to the Supreme Court for every sitting judge who had reached 70 years, 6 months, and had not retired. And in theory, he could pack on 6 more judges, creating a 15-member court with a progressive majority.”

Thursday, July 05, 2018

The Repeal Of Roe v Wade, A Democrat Strawman?


As July rose and June set, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy surprised everyone by announcing his retirement from the high court. Kennedy’s leave-taking will allow President Donald Trump to appoint yet another justice; this when leftists in the United States have yet to recover from his last appointment, Neil Gorsuch.

It is difficult to pigeonhole Kennedy ideologically. According to the Cato Institute, a reliable conservative organization, Kennedy’s judicial philosophy does not fit neatly on a conservative or liberal grid: “Most terms he agreed with Cato’s position more than any other justice and so he’s also sometimes known as the Court’s ‘libertarian’  justice. There’s some truth to that, even though he often reached results that libertarians liked for reasons that [supported} dignity and civility rather than classical-liberal or natural-rights theory.”

Kennedy’s announcement brought the mourners out in droves, pitchforks in hand.

U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro, “a cheerleader and part prognosticator” on the left, according to CTMirror, sounded the alarm:  “This [yet another Trump appointment to the Supreme Court] has to be raised to a decibel level that is deafening around the country. We thought that they could never take it away but it gives you some sense of how fragile democracy is … we are fighting for the soul of this country and for democracy in the next several months.” DeLauro was alluding to the likelihood that a Supreme Court with Trump’s nominees might result in the repeal of Roe v Wade.

Some legal scholars argue that the intellectual path to Roe v Wade was tortuous. Deriving a constitutional  right to abortion from a 14th amendment fashioned in the post-Civil War Period to prevent states from depriving newly liberated slaves of “ life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” struck some constitutionalists as a form of juridical necromancy on a par with deducing Shakespeare from lamb chops.

Others thought the court’s insistence that the fetus should be shorn of all human rights until courts and legislatures thought it politically convenient to assert such rights was too clever by half. However, a majority of the voting public would agree that the defective means used by the high court to arrive at its decision should not invalidate the end point. Abortion, if not late term abortion, has now become, as the lawyers say “settled law.” The possibility of a repeal of Roe v Wade is highly unlikely. However, the remote possibility is used by demagogues as a sump pump to push campaign money into the war chests of DeLauro and other Democrat members of Connecticut’s U. S. Congressional Delegation.

Connecticut’s U.S. Senators, Dick Blumenthal and Chris Murphy, have announced their opposition to any Trump nominee to the high court. Blumenthal, not up for re-election in November, would be happy if Trump should reseat Kennedy following his retirement – not likely. Both intend to use the remote possibility that Roe v Wade will be repealed only to generate funds for the cause.

“As a candidate,” Murphy said, “I will be raising money. I will be organizing volunteers around one of the most important jobs of a United States senator, which is to make sure that the Supreme Court reflects the values of the country.” Murphy has $8 million tucked away in his campaign kitty, but more of a good thing is a better thing. His Republican opponents collectively are unlikely to pass the million dollar mark – advantage Murphy.

Unlike DeLauro and Murphy, Blumenthal will not be campaigning for re-election this year. But is it never too soon for entrenched incumbents to begin amassing campaign war chests. “As a non-candidate,” Blumenthal said, “I’m going to be using this issue to sound the alarm, as a call for action, a five-alarm fire, a break-the-glass moment. This kind of moment is going to be front-and-center in this election for sure.”

If Blumenthal ever does lose his seat in the Congress – a possibility as unlikely as the repeal of Roe v Wade – he easily could assume the position now occupied by Cecile Richards. Born (she was lucky) July 15, 1957, Richards has served as president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund since 2006.

Blumenthal, whom some have characterized as “the senator from Planned Parenthood," has sternly opposed all reasonable attempts to impose restrictions on abortions – incredibly on moral grounds. A bill “requiring parental notification prior to a minor obtaining an abortion, unless the minor gives notice that she fears for her safety, in which case the matter shall be referred to the courts” – Raised Bill 324 -- was introduced by State Senator Len Suzio during the 2017 session. Blumenthal’s assent to the measure was notably lacking. And we know why.

Two thirds of Americans – 60 percent of women – believe late term abortion should generally be illegal, and 80 percent oppose abortions in the third trimester, a point at which the developing child can live outside the womb and late gestation increases risks of complications. In 2016, Blumenthal proposed a piece of legislation, S 1696, that effectively wiped out in a single stroke carefully calibrated state laws, including  regulations on abortion after viability, and bans on the use of abortion as a method of sex selection.

Bills such as those introduced by Suzio are popular with parents whose best interests are not represented by the senator from Planned Parenthood. But Blumenthal has the advantage of both a massive campaign kitty and an uncritical media. Connecticut’s regulator-in-chief when he was the state’s Attorney General for 20 years, now the senator from Planned Parenthood, can well afford to play the yo-yo to abortion facilitators and claim, implausibly, that any attempt to regulate an industry that aborts late term fetuses and sells their body parts is morally indefensible.


Monday, July 02, 2018

Courant Preparing Not To Endorse Herbst


It’s a pretty safe bet that former First Selectman of Trumbull Tim Herbst, now vying with Danbury Mayor Mark Boughton in a Republican Party Primary, will not be receiving the Hartford Courant’s gubernatorial endorsement in the upcoming 2018 general election. Elephants will fly first.

There are sound reasons to suppose the chatter around the water cooler at the paper is not favorable to Herbst.

Sunday, July 01, 2018

The Democrat's Progressive Pickle


It seems clear that state Democrats will be running against President Donald Trump in the 2018 elections. They already are doing so. Will this be a winning strategy?

Ned Lamont is the Democrat Party nominee for governor. His hand-picked Lieutenant Governor running mate is Susan Bysiewicz. Lamont is facing within his own tribe a primary challenge from Mayor of Bridgeport Joe Ganim. A straggler, Guy Smith, has bowed out of the race. Ganim, despite his recent graduation from prison, may present a real threat to Lamont.

The two Democrats will be running against each other in a party primary, the winner of which will, it seems likely, be running against Trump, if only because the primary victor will not be able to win in a general election as a Malloyalist progressive.