As Brit Hume observed, he was in a class by himself. Indeed he was. In the tribute on Bret Baier’s program, his assistant talked about how people were cautious to approach him and she’d encourage them, “Go say hi, he’ll love it.” True! I saw him almost daily for two years at 19th and M in D.C. and he was never out of time to chat and laugh.
May God Bless Charles and his family. If you read the post before this edit, you can see I am struck!
The Supremes punted the Gerrymander cases back to the states when they failed to rule on the cases brought from Wisconsin and Maryland. Earlier, they declined to hear a case from Pennsylvania even though the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was in clear violation of its state constitution when it rewrote the district map to take authority from the Republican legislature and approved by a then Republican governor. Simply, the Democrat majority on the court muscled their way to a majority of legislators.
The message is clear, the Supremes believe in the Constitution that prescribes the method for allocating Congressional representation to the legislative bodies in the states.
The United States Congress could act legislatively and, for the first time since 1911, simply dilute it’s own representation. The original House had 65 representatives, one for every 33,000 people. As the country’s population grew over the next century, so did the size of the House, until it reached 435 in 1911, when each member at that time representing an average of 212,000 people.
If the house were to expand itself to limit district size to somewhere between 33,000 and 212,000 people or, as many as 10,000 members to as few as 2,000, districts would be so small that drawing compact geographic boundaries would be far easier and almost unavoidable. And, an additional benefit, perhaps even more worthy, is that members’ power, susceptibility to “special interest” influences, and craven pursuit of campaign funds would nearly evaporate. They would truly know their districts, in fact, they’d know many of their constituents personally. What an idea, eh?
What are the chances that this could happen, the notion of current legislators voting to minimize their footprints? I’m quite sure finding a Palestinian solution will come sooner. But, watching the shuffle and favor-swapping would be a spectacle worth the price of admission. Imagine representatives most vulnerable to fed up constituents trading with those least vulnerable for the privilege of supporting the proposal, just not enough of them to allow passage! The debate would be a laughfest, the rationalizations pretzel-like, and the fear palpable.
If only . . .
The popular meme among mainstream “Journalists” and Democrats, but, I repeat myself, is that the (love) Strzok texts with Page are their personal political expressions, to which we are all entitled, and there is no evidence that it affected their professional judgments. That is not what Inspector General Horowitz concluded. A clear reading of the IG’s conclusion is that bias is glaringly obvious, but, there was no evidence available to prove it affected their professional performance. No smoking gun memo, “Let’s save Hillary.”
How important is bias, evident or perceived? Imagine a young black man, charged with raping a white woman in say, Natchitoches, Mississippi. During voir dire, the defendant’s lawyer asks a potential juror, “Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Ku Klux Klan?” “Well, I was a Grand Kleagle, a recruiter, just like former Democrat Senate Leader Robert Byrd, but, I resigned. I’m good now with Negroes.”
Would a sane person risk the defendant’s life on such an assurance? Would a sentient being conclude that the juror’s judgment would be free of bias? Apparently Democrats will. They are so committed to acquitting Hillary of bad acts and impugning The Donald, that any sense of propriety, sense of justice, any sense of any sense, is a price they’ll gladly sacrifice.
While there are many objectionable things about The Donald, shame on those who reject our jurisprudence, our culture, logic, and decency simply because their flawed candidate lost.
Fortunately for the Donald, his opposition is paving the way for his reelection as they relitigate their mistakes . . .
If you are curious about “Presentism,” that is applying today’s knowledge, known facts, morals and ethics to the past, as we see among “Progressives” who rewrite Civil War history, watch the confirmation hearing of Gina Haspel to be Director, Central Intelligence.
Seeing Wyden, Heinrich, and especially Feinstein, never to be confused with Einstein, preening, the former like bantam cocks, the latter like an old hen, is disgusting. They are smug, uninterested, and oppose this very able woman only for who nominated her. Throw in the cowardly Angus King . . .
It’s truly a “War on Women” when they are willing to slice and dice her purely for politics.
Morrissey won in WV! CNN and MSNBC are melting. They so wanted Blankenship, they can’t decide: Poop or go blind? Both you morons . . .
What an interesting choice West Virginians make this primary season! Patrick Morrissey, a New Jersey native who only recently adopted his new home, is slippery. Evan Jenkins, a Democrat turned Republican turned Democrat turned Republican – yes, it makes your head spin like an exorcism – is unctuous. And Dan Blankenship, who doesn’t reside in the state and was convicted of a misdemeanor that some say was miscarried justice, make up the field. Oh my! But, Jay Rockefeller, a truly despicable man, was an interloper, switched parties, and, talk about OILY! So, West Virginia is again faced with seemingly poor choices.
That said, tonight Blankenship hit a solid double. He was clever, direct, and comfortable without wiggling into position. I look forward to overnight polling.
Judge Napolitano is a good analyst. He should be. But tonight on Bret Baier’s hour, His Honor got way ahead of his skis! If you parse his argument on attorney-client privilege, it means nothing, nada, zero, zip!
He argued essentially that, if a client lies to his lawyer, or admits criminal acts, it can be an excuse for the government to seize her lawyer’s records to be used against the client.
Uncle Joe Stalin would have knelt for that power . . .
Here’s the deal my “Progressive” friends. You should be pooping your pantalones . . . but you’re not so smart. Yup, Justice Gorsuch rejected the Administration’s argument. Why? Because the legislative part of our experiment (we call it Congress) should write laws that are clear, understandable, and executable. That’s the nature of “Originalism.” The intent and consequences should be clear to all.
In other words, laws that even “Progressives” can understand. Deep State Bureaucrats will NOT have powers unless specifically granted by “The People!” The Congress, The People, must write laws that are understandable and, NOT expect civil servants to impose their will.
Neil is faithful to the Owner’s Manual (The Constitution for “Progressive” Leftists) and a worthy successor to Nino . . .
Mrs. Bush had a far greater influence on history than will ever be appreciated. Why? In large part because the “Progressive” Left, the Left that is now adoring her, spent years, and considerable capital to dismiss her . . .
Personally, I had problems with Bar. I got crossways with her squeeze, and while he was forgiving, Bar, not so much.
But, most important, her love for her family, her country, and life itself, punctuated by her desire to go at the right time, is grace.
Jim Acosta hectored The Donald’s Press Secretary Sarah Sanders today, which is not different from his want to do any other day. But, as a beacon of “Progressive” Left intellect, his demand to know if today’s indictments of Manafort and Gates, and guilt plea from Papadoulis doesn’t prove “collusion, what does?”
In the case of Manafort and Gates he apparently thinks that a decade-old financial reporting failure before The Donald was a candidate, spills into the candidate’s good citizenship. In the case of Papadopoulos, he thinks that opposition research pursued from a foreign source is a high crime and misdemeanor!
So, if we have this right, Hillary or another candidate in 2020, say, Fauxcahontas, should feel quite free to collude with any foreign government knowing that the Mainstream Media will maintain its incuriosity and shame. seeking criminalization of any inquiries and a jail sentence for those who care.
Hence, a Democrat candidate can, and should, ask Putin to fund her campaign, much as he did the Clinton Foundation, with the assurance that disclosure will be met by the Mainstream Media and its subsidiary, the Democrat Party in fierce high dudgeon . . .
Sane and Insane 