Run for your lives: It's Charles Murray who is having the identity crisis, not America

Identity crisis: how the politics of race will wreck America:

The American experiment is fragile. It has always been fragile and always will be fragile because it is so extremely unnatural. ‘Unnatural’ in this context means in conflict with human nature. Jonah Goldberg has described the fragility of the American system by comparing it to a garden hacked out of a tropical jungle. A garden surrounded by jungle is unnatural. The gardeners must tend it with unremitting care lest the jungle return.

More. 

What's unnatural is Murray's perennial insistence that America was not a real nation where Englishmen revolted because they were denied their "chartered rights", who hoped to secure that nation "to ourselves and our posterity" as our Constitution says. Whether one believes their claim was legitimate or not is irrelevant to the history. An America populated as a nation by Englishmen who made that argument is a fact and shows they were a nation in their own minds, and nothing the left libertarians can say will ever change that, try as they may.

That opening sentence simply begs the question. You are asked to believe something else, that the first Americans didn't actually behave as a tribe whose members were loyal to each other and didn't already have a long history together before 1776. Which of course is ridiculous.

The violence done to this original American idea by libertarians, Lincoln and his worshippers, liberals, leftists, and other assorted lunatics is what is unnatural. It's they who have the identity crisis. They don't fit in here because our institutions survive from the founding and constantly remind them that they are misfits. They represent the foreign element, and usually are the main advocates for increasing the foreign element.

Instead give me millions upon millions of Italian Americans like Antonin Scalia who bowed to America as an Anglo Saxon nation, instead of this horde of harpies for every heresy.

Ann Coulter's best tweet ever

 

"America is an idea, not a place, not a people" is the BIG LIE mantra of neo-conservatism and libertarianism. 

If that's true, one should be able to explain it, write it down, teach it, and put it into practice successfully anywhere. No need to come here for it.

And of course it isn't just an idea. Millions come here and never come to learn it anymore. Millions more aren't taught it in school anymore, and don't see it in practice at home anymore.

That's why the country is a mess.

A famous Italian-American once had it figured out, as I, a German-American, once had it figured out. He starts in, in earnest, at about minute ten:

Pete Bootyjudge is turning out to be not the sharpest knife in the drawer

So sorry, Indiana. So sorry, US Naval Intelligence. So sorry, Harvard, Oxford, Cecil Rhodes.

Hm, so it was the Republicans who knocked off Scalia! Amazing! Only a US Naval Intelligence officer could know that.

Supreme Court ruling in 2011 requiring releases from Calif. prisons to ease overcrowding results in officer slaying on Monday

The story is here.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented here, called it "perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our Nation's history": 

Today the Court affirms what is perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our Nation's history: an order requiring California to release the staggering number of 46,000 convicted criminals.

What? Roe v. Wade, which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocents, was less radical? Overturning millennia of marriage law and the statutes of 30 states was less radical? Obliging people to engage in health insurance commerce was not a repudiation of centuries of contract law? 

Antonin Scalia was right to dissent in this one, but come on, Solomon he was not.

In England singer George Michael gets a post mortem as a matter of routine, but in the US not Justice Antonin Scalia

From the story here:

The Thames Valley Police, calling the death "unexplained but not suspicious," sent THR the following statement: "Thames Valley Police were called to a property in Goring-on-Thames shortly before 2pm Christmas Day. Sadly, a 53-year-old man was confirmed deceased at the scene. At this stage the death is being treated as unexplained but not suspicious. A post mortem will be undertaken in due course. There will be no further updates from Thames Valley Police until the post mortem has taken place."

Flashback to February here:

[A]fter Scalia died, it was Texas state law, not any federal framework, that guided officials’ actions—and left a single judge to make the call that an autopsy wasn’t needed.

Trump rewards Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for stonewalling Obama's Supreme Court appointment by picking his wife for Transportation

I don't view this as "nepotism" per se as others have who are much too quick to criticize Trump's centrism post-election.

Mitch McConnell withstood Obama's appointment power all through this period since the death of Scalia, enduring severe attacks for it from the left. People on the right who won't recognize what he accomplished are simply malign. They are like those who didn't recognize John Boehner's achievement getting the Bush tax cuts made permanent, and in many cases they are the same people, and unfortunately they are Legion.

McConnell's wife Elaine Chao had eight years' cabinet experience as head of Labor under Bush II and is competent to govern Transportation now under Trump. Not that we want her to have much to administer.

It is not a consequential appointment, except in the broad sense that Trump is not in the least setting about to take a machete to the federal Leviathan. Chao will maintain the status quo, more or less.

Here's my big idea for Trump's Supreme Court appointments

Don't appoint a replacement for Scalia . . . appoint three.

Thanks to Mitch McConnell the Scalia seat will be filled by Donald Trump

Jonathan Turley is saying right now that Trump is going to make almost unprecedented changes to the make-up of the Supreme Court.

Publius Decius Mus rightly mocks Mark Levin's convention of the states

Not in so many words, but he does nevertheless, here:

"[I]n the federally consolidated super-state, what good do state legislatures do anyway? Does Voegeli or doesn’t he agree with me that federal and administrative state control will become more consolidated rather than less in Clinton II? We could have every statehouse in the nation, and everything we try to do (which, once again, is: not much) would just be overridden by judges and bureaucrats."

It was amusing to hear Mark Levin play an Antonin Scalia audio this evening, in which Scalia ridiculed the parchment barrier of The Bill of Rights, which Levin's grand scheme is to increase the length of with his manifold "liberty amendments". Does Levin even listen to Scalia, or just grovel at his feet?

Scalia clearly expressed in the audio that the separation of powers was key to our liberties, not the Bill of Rights.

Yet, yet, neither Scalia, nor Levin, nor Publius Decius Mus for that matter recognize that it was Abraham Lincoln, their hero!, who destroyed the separation of powers and arrogated all the power to the executive, the very heart and soul of the once and future "federal and administrative state".

That Lincoln did so over slavery was simply the pretext.

Hello Barack Obama. Hello Black Lives Matter. Hello . . . communism.

What's wrong with America, epitomized by Glenn Harlan Reynolds

He thinks gay libertarian Peter Thiel would be an excellent nominee to the US Supreme Court.

Here.

The libertarian vote is like 1% of the population. LGBTQLSMFT is less than 4% of the population, but there isn't one Protestant on the Supreme Court even though 50% of the country is.  

Dilbert knows liberals have to have the presidency because without the Court they've got bupkiss

Hm. Maybe they did knock off Antonin Scalia.

Here:

When you encounter a rabid anti-Trumper, ask her what are the biggest concerns of a potential Trump presidency. 

If “Supreme Court nominee” is one of the top objections, discontinue your persuasion for ethical reasons. This person has put some thought into the decision and has a legitimate opinion that is at least partly based on reason. I don’t recommend changing that person’s mind.

The John Kasich vote is the Rorshach for the "Obamacon" vote, owns about 14% of the GOP primary vote so far

"I ought to be running in a Democrat primary", he said in New Hampshire.

"Just because someone happens to be a Democrat doesn't mean they're disqualified", he said about his possible choice of a vice presidential running mate.

"Well, you know, he received you know overwhelming support, I think even from Senator Hatch, so of course we'd think about it," he said about possibly naming Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court himself, Obama's current pick to replace Scalia.

Ted Cruz was all in for John Roberts in 2005, but Ann Coulter, who now supports Trump, wasn't. Any questions?

Ann Coulter, July 20, 2005, here:

But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate! 

We also have a majority in the House, state legislatures, state governorships, and have won five of the last seven presidential elections -- seven of the last 10! 

We're the Harlem Globetrotters now. Why do we have to play like we're the Washington Generals every week? 

Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we're ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork ... and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot. ...

Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of "stealth nominees" and be the Scalia or Thomas that Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won't. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette. 

Fake conservatives Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz both voted to confirm Sri Srinivasan AFTER he led the charge against DOMA

Freshman Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio both voted to confirm Sri Srinivasan, the most likely successor to Antonin Scalia, to the DC Circuit in May 2013 JUST TWO MONTHS AFTER Srinivasan helped lead the Obama regime's charge against the Defense of Marriage Act in March 2013 (US v Windsor) as Deputy Solicitor General. Cruz and Rubio are both fake conservatives.

From the discussion here:

As deputy solicitor general, Srinivasan led the Obama administration’s case against the Defense of Marriage Act, which resulted in same-sex marriage becoming constitutional throughout the country, as well as cases in favor of affirmative action policies and opposing restrictive voting laws. ... Srikanth “Sri” Srinivasan would not be the first Supreme Court justice to be nominated in an election year. In 1988, the last year of his second term, President Ronald Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy to the court.

And that didn't work out so well, either, did it: Kennedy led the charge overturning sodomy laws in 2003 and wrote for the majority making same sex marriage legal nationwide under Obama in 2015.

Here's Marco Rubio lying in the South Carolina debate about marriage:

If you elect me president, we are going to re-embrace free enterprise so that everyone can go as far as their talent and their work will take them. We are going to be a country that says that, "life begins at conception and life is worthy of the protection of our laws." We're going to be a country that says. "that marriage is between one man and one woman."

And here's Ted Cruz lying:

And today, we saw just how great the stakes are, two branches of government hang in the balance. Not just the presidency but the Supreme Court. If we get this wrong, if we nominate the wrong candidates, the Second Amendment, life, marriage, religious, liberty - everyone of those hangs in the balance.

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz both voted to advance our enemy, but claim to be on our side.

They're both fakes whom conservatives shouldn't trust as far as they can be thrown.

David Assholerod claims Scalia requested Kagan be nominated

Story here.

Everything's fine one minute . . .

. . . and the next you're in the car on an errand and suddenly hear on the radio that Antonin Scalia has died.

When you get home you learn your kid has just come down with a cold.

Then you go into the bedroom to get something and discover the cat has barfed up a hairball on the bed!

Arghhhhh.

Paw said there'd be days like this.

Wrong about immigration, Marco Rubio joins the mouth-breathers dissing the education which helps keep us free

From the story here:

Earlier this month, addressing the issue of student debt, Sen. Marco Rubio joked that students ought to know in advance “whether it’s worth borrowing $40,000 to be a Greek philosophy major. Because the market for Greek philosophers is tight.” His remarks echo North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, who in 2013 mocked liberal-arts courses and said, “I don’t want to subsidize [a major] that’s not going to get someone a job.” Gov. Rick Scott of Florida and former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas have passed legislation encouraging students to major in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) disciplines rather than the liberal arts. ...

Thomas Jefferson recognized that a broad education could ensure the survival of the new democracy. He recognized that “even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” To defend against this threat, Jefferson wanted “to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purpose.” ...

Considered in light of Jefferson’s argument, Mr. Rubio’s choice of Greek philosophy as a useless major seems especially inapt.

Sean Trende Calls For A Larger US House But Never Mentions The Actual Language Of The Constitution

In "It's Time To Increase The Size Of The US House", here, Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics makes many of the same points we have made about the sorry state of representation in these United States, including the importance of the "unratified" Article the First as the real First Amendment as opposed to the mythology which has grown up around the default one.

As Trende ably shows, Article the First would have fixed representation eventually at 1 US representative for every 50,000 of population. He appears horrified, however, at the prospect of a Congress of 6,100 representatives today.

Is that why he never mentions Article I Section 1 of the actual constitution which is ratified and under which we are supposed to operate?

"The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand . . .."

If 6,100 representatives is horrifying, the 10,533 representatives we should have according to the spirit of the actual constitution is downright heart-stopping. I can understand Trende not talking about this, but how come the Tea Party never does? After all, they carry the constitution around with them pretty much everywhere and are supposed to be the quintessential originalists these days, second only to Antonin Scalia.

This was the language Article the First was supposed to remedy. But as it stands, the constitution was ratified with this loophole specifying how many representatives we may not have, but not how many we should. As a consequence, when the light finally dawned on the dimwits in Congress in the 1920s that they could fix representation at the then current 435, they set up for themselves quite the little oligarchy of power, influence and corruption, and representation ceased to expand ever since. And along with that expanded our discontent.

That's why your congressmen doesn't know your name nor the name of the other 728,000 average constituents in his district. Nor does he care to. The only name in his Rolodex (sorry, I'm dating myself) is the Club for Growth or some such "org".

It's also why we have the other problems Trende mentions: malapportionment as in Montana, gerrymandering of the most unnatural sort just about everywhere, underrepresented minority enclaves and rural areas, and the expensive bought and paid for campaigns which depend on mostly outside money.

Trende mentions the British House of Commons has more representatives than we do, but the irony that they are better represented than we are never dawns on him. Nor does Trende mention New Hampshire. They have 400 in their House, a ratio of 1:3300.

America should be more like New Hampshire.  

Dissenting Justices' Opinion Lectures Roberts, Giving Up Debating Him

So Jan Crawford for CBS News, here:

The majority decisions were due on June 1, and the dissenters set about writing a response, due on June 15. The sources say they divided up parts of the opinion, with Kennedy and Scalia doing the bulk of the writing.

The two sources say suggestions that parts of the dissent were originally Roberts' actual majority decision for the Court are inaccurate, and that the dissent was a true joint effort.

The fact that the joint dissent doesn't mention Roberts' majority was not a sign of sloppiness, the sources said, but instead was a signal the conservatives no longer wished to engage in debate with him.

The language in the dissent was sweeping, arguing the Court was overreaching in the name of restraint and ignoring key structural protections in the Constitution.

From now on, we can legitimately expect to see Roberts making more alliances with the left than with the right. He is effectively unreachable.