September 30, 2018: No Standards

The common term of raising the bar comes from pole vaulting where competitors continually raise the bar attempting to be the last successful person to clear the bar.  The bar represents the high standard by which a person is allowed to continue their performance.  Continue reading

Advertisements

June 30, 2018: SCOTUS Revisited

Conservatives have a rising hope for the stability of our Constitutional Republic.  The President now has a second opportunity to appoint another candidate for the Supreme Court with a Constitutional philosophy closer to the departed Justice Scalia than the departing Justice Kennedy. 

 

August 30, 2017: Wrenn v DC

On July 25, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion on two cases that had opposite opinions from lower courts. The other case was Matthew Grace, et all v. DC, et all.  It was combined with Brian Wrenn v. DC for the U.S. Court of Appeals DC Circuit.  The majority decision and dissenting opinions are both are listed on the http://www.CADC.uscourts.gov web site.  16-7025 for Wrenn and 16-7067 for Grace.  I’m pretty sure it’s the same document for both opinions.  Continue reading

October 15, 2016: I Tuned In …

to the second Presidential debate held October 9. Hillary Clinton is a much more polished public speaker than Donald Trump.  She was much more engaging with the selected questioners both during and after the debate. 

Her presentation was smooth and patient. I understand why she has a following.  If Hillary Clinton did not have a history, she would be a compelling candidate.

But Hillary Clinton does have a history. As Hillary Rodham she was appointed to represent Thomas Alfred Taylor who was accused of raping a 12 year old girl. Though she states that she was reluctant to take the case, once committed, she applied a “win, no matter what it takes” style to the defense. Continue reading

June 11, 2016: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision

While not shocking, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit decision on the case of Peruta v. County of San Diego is telling.  What it tells us is that only four of the eleven judges understand that some California’s counties requirement to show “good cause” or “valid” reasons is tantamount to a total ban on the right of an ordinary citizen to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.  Individual counties requirements for “good cause” or “valid” reasons combined with California’s “may issue” approach are used for denial of permit requests.  A general desire for self-protection and protection of family does not constitute “good cause.” Continue reading

June 2, 2016: Response to Alan Berlow

Alan Berlow’s Op-Ed piece titled “Gun Control That Actually Works”, ran in the New York Times on May 31, 2016 and the Tampa Bay Times on June 1, 2016.

Alan Berlow proposes that the 1934 National Firearms Act is a model to build on. He is suggesting that this law should be the basis for how all gun owners are treated in the United States.  That he suggests that the 1934 NFA is “Gun Control That Actually Works” is an example of Orwellian double-speak.  The 1934 NFA was so flawed, it was found to be unenforceable in the 1968 Hayes decision by the US Supreme Court.  It had to be redefined as Title II of the 1968 Gun Control Act and paired with a new Title I to overcome the constitutional flaws.  Continue reading