Supreme Court Ruling Stopped Elections From Having Consequences

 It's discouraging that once a Supreme Court rewrites a law for Congress, it's permanent.

Obamacare passed the Senate with a simple majority as a reconcilement bill, claiming it would save, rather than spend money.   After a Republican won a Massachusetts special election by campaigning against Obamacare, Democrats no longer had the votes to break a filibuster.

Roberts bent over backwards to make the penalties into taxes to make the bill Constitutional.  He did that because in 2012 it was clear that sending it back to Congress for a rewrite would mean the bill would be defeated.  Roberts' ruling prevented Congressional elections from having any consequences, and removed the consent of the governed from the bill.

Now Obamacare is the status quo, and it takes 60 Senate votes to get rid of it.  The suit asks the Supreme Court to do the right thing and send the bill back to Congress for a rewrite.  The WSJ EB says they won't, but the ruling will show the need for more originalist judges.

Historical Fact: Gerrymandering Invented by Democrats

 Elbridge Gerry (1744-1814) was a Democrat.  Gerrymandering was first used in Massachussets in 1812 by the Democratic-Republican Governor, Elbridge Gerry to keep the State Senate in his party's control even though Gerry himself lost the 1812 election for governor.  The Democratic-Republican party became the Democratic party.

Obviously, after the Democrats showed how effective gerrymandering is, Republicans began using the tactic too.

Since both sides have used gerrymandering for a very long time, it's unlikely that the system will change.

Democrats Keep the US Safe for Vote Fraud

 The Democrats are very keen to keep America safe for vote fraud of various kinds.  Democrats oppose voter ID requirements because they make voting early and often, Chicago style, harder.  Democrats support longer vote counting periods because it gives them more time to "find" uncounted ballots in car trunks, Minnesota style.  Democrat judges decide all cases based on what they would like the law to say, rather than what the law says, Pennsylvania style.  And people wonder why Republicans expect Democrats to cheat.  History!

Every voter in Chicago deserves to vote, dead or alive.  Clean voter rolls and voter ID requirements are voter suppression plots by Republicans who have trouble selling their programs to the dead.  Polls showing Hillary winning by 5 points should have made voting unnecessary.  Democrats can win with a stuffed animal running for president!  /sarcasm

Supreme Court Appointment: Elections Have Consequences

As President Obama famously said, elections have consequences.  Trump won in 2016 and is president.  The Republicans expanded their majority in the Senate in 2018.  Under the Constitution, the president nominates Justices to the Supreme Court when vacancies occur, and the Senate confirms them by majority vote.

Democrats complaining about Merrick Garland don't seem to have noticed that the Senate was Republican in 2016, and decided not to vote on his nomination.  Again, the 2014 Senate election had consequences.

As we've seen for the last 4 years, Democrats don't like elections to have consequences when they lose.  They expect deference because, in Democrats' minds, they should have won.  Democrats wishes not withstanding, elections always have consequences, whether Democrats like them or not.

Democrats seem to believe that Supreme Court seats are either the personal property of the justice who died, or an entitlement of the party who last filled the seat.  Neither is true.  

Only One Hour of Hate?

 MSNBC and CNN have outdone Orwell's 1984 in one major respect.  In 1984, there is a two minutes of hate program every day directed at Emmanuel Goldstein.  On MSNBC and CNN, there are almost 24 hours of hate directed at Donald Trump every day of the week.  In 1984, the two minutes of hate is used to justify the necessity of the dictatorship of Big Brother, because only with unlimited power can Big Brother protect us from Emmanuel Goldstein.  Similarly, only with unlimited power can Democrats "protect" us from Trump.

Years ago, everything was blamed on El Nino, a weather pattern in the Pacific Ocean.  Later on, everything was blamed on George W. Bush.  Now everything, including bad weather, is blamed on Trump.  MSNBC and CNN are playing their audiences for fools.

What Do Big Deficits Stimulate?

 If big government deficits stimulated the economy, Greece would have passed Germany as an economic powerhouse.  Isn't it time to admit that John Maynard Keynes was wrong, based on the experience of the last 90 years?  Big debts lead to bankruptcy.

Political Censorship Online and Section 230

 

For me, the problem is the political censorship enforced by Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and other tech companies, whose business models are based on Section 230 of the Communications Act.  Section 230 allows internet platforms to host 3rd party content without copyright liability under the assumption that the platforms exercise no editorial control of their content.  All social media companies' business models are based on Section 230.

For me the solution is quite simple.  Congress should alter Section 230 so it doesn't allow social media companies to remove content for any reason.  Instead, allow the tech giants to put an "Are you sure?" question on content they disapprove of, warning that the content you are asking for doesn't meet their "community guidelines."  Then let the users click through the question.

Allowing users to opt out of platform content filters, as a condition for allowing companies to hide behind Section 230, is a simple way to minimize the political censorship they now exercise.  It would involve no complex government regulation or anti-trust litigation.

What Your Voting Decision Comes Down To

If voters really cared about the country, they would not subject it to 4 years of shutting down non renewable energy sources, like the 87% of US electricity generation that's not renewable.  They wouldn't support the party that likes to cancel people who express views contrary to their orthodoxy, which gets wackier day by day.  They wouldn't empower the party that thinks defunding the police is fine, even if it doubles violent crime.

The choice is pretty clear.  On the one hand you can pick impulsive tweets, rude manners, judges who rule on what the law is rather than what they would like it to be and respect for law and order.  On the other hand, you can get the Green New Deal, Antifa riots, judges who make up the law to suit their preferences and the party that made California into a third world country with power blackouts and huge forest fires.

I think rude tweets a small price to pay to avoid economic suicide.