The Schuette Decision

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

The ruling this week by the Supreme Court - Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, No. 12-682, has been widely misunderstood, as evidenced by the histrionics of the demagogic liberal wing of the body politic. The media sycophants of the left have perpetuated the myth that the ruling has somehow abolished Affirmative Action throughout the nation.

As can be expected when dealing with such ideologues, the facts are actually quite clear, concise and unambiguous; to admit that fact by the imbecilic left would serve only to thwart their attempts to diminish the authority of the Supreme Court when cases prove unpopular. The evidence of such vocal contempt has subsequently been expressed by the attorney who tried the case before court.

To wit:

The high court’s 6-2 decision (the decision notes that Justice Elena Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case) Tuesday upheld a voter-approved change to the Michigan Constitution in 2006 that forbids the state's public colleges to make race, gender, ethnicity or national origin a factor in college admissions.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s controlling opinion for three justices took pains to say that the decision was a modest one.

“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved, It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters.”

Justice Kennedy’s opinion is quite clear. The justices did not rule on affirmative action, but rather on the right of a state, in this instance Michigan, to put such decisions before the electorate. That is all that was decided.

Justice Sotomayor immediately derided the decision in her 58-page dissent, a somewhat rambling dissertation on the need for racial preferences, which again, was NOT the point of the suit brought before the court.

Now consider the comments made by the losing litigator in the case.

The lawyer who argued unsuccessfully before the Supreme Court to end Michigan’s affirmative action ban repeated Sunday that the high court’s decision was “racist. “This is a racist decision that takes us back to an era of state’s rights,” civil rights attorney Shanta Driver protested. “This decision cannot stand. The old Jim Crow is now the new Jim Crow.”

A fine example of judicial respect; the American people should be appalled by such comments, especially given their level of ignorance.

Campaign Finance - The McCutcheon Decision

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

The American electorate has again been subjected to the idiocy and hypocrisy of the political class and the hysteria over campaign financing. A ruling this month by the Supreme Court has driven imbeciles from all parts of the body politic to cries of the end of democracy – the liberal left – to proclamations on the leveling of the electoral playing field – the hypocritical right.

To wit:

The Supreme Court in its ruling has removed the prohibition of limits on total campaign contributions in a case brought before it by plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon. McCutcheon claimed that there was no constitutional or legal restraint to his ability to donate to an unlimited number of elections in any given election cycle of two years.

The Court agreed, without ruling on, or removing the cap that is permitted to any specific candidate.

Obviously both ends of the political spectrum and their accompanying media flacks have it wrong.

Sadly for the American people, Congress has failed to act upon this ruling to provide the clarity and transparency they all claim they desire in the matter of campaign finance reform.

The Madison Conservative has on many occasions noted how best to resolve the ambiguities of money in politics, and thus will take advantage of the Courts ruling to again address the issue.

The Court has previously ruled in the Citizens United case that corporations are entities and as such should be allowed to contribute as they wish to any and/or all political campaigns.

While The Madison Conservative disagrees vehemently with that decision –it is our belief that only those who can enter a voting booth should be allowed to financially participate in elections - it is indeed the law of the land and cannot be ignored.

Herein is the proposal:

As there are now no restrictions to who may contribute financially to any given campaign, and no limit to the number of campaigns, the United States Congress should enact a simple law, one that will easily pass constitutional muster. The law would  state that any individual or corporation which provides any financial or other manner of support to any campaign, any political party or issue driven initiative must have that donation published within 24 hours by the Secretary of State of the state within which the financial largesse was provided.  This level of information would allow for the dismantling of the political action committees and their nbuloius financial reporting systems.

In this way, the American electorate can easily distinguish who is providing the funds for each and every campaign. It would disclose the medias’ political proclivities, and provide the transparency the American people deserve.

It would be of great interest to see which politicians would argue against such a law and the reasoning behind such an opposition. In addition, it is the belief of the Madison Conservative that such a law would help dry up funding by clandestine political means, for surely there are many corporations and other such entities that would not wish to have their political funding apparatus known.

The nation must take hold of this opportunity and demand action by the political cowards who have so far shown no inclination to provide for true electoral democracy.

{ed. Note – The blog will return in two weeks}

Brendan Eich - 4-7-2014

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

The liberal left within the body politic has on more than one occasion proven their intolerance and desire to limit free speech to only that with which they unilaterally find acceptable. Their media sycophants have willingly chosen to collaborate in this devastating example of cowardice. It is a national disgrace.

Before proceeding, a quick refresher on the wisdom and brilliance of the framers and founders in the construction of the United States Constitution:

The First Amendment -

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

With that in mind, consider the case this week of Brendan Eich, the CEO of Mozilla. Mr. Eich was forced from his position, in the company he helped found, because of a contribution to supporters of California’s’ Prop 8, which delineated marriage as being between one man and one woman. His contribution was made public, five years AFTER he made said contribution, and on that basis, the company bowed to the hysteria brought on by the ignorant liberal left and forced him out.

One of the intriguing tidbits is that Mr. Eich, at the time of his contribution, agreed exactly with the position of then Senator and President-elect Barack Obama. The silence on that fact is deafening.

Of course, Mr. Eich is now labeled as intolerant, a homophobe and a hater of people. Absent from those baseless accusations is the fact that Prop 8 PASSED by a sizeable majority of the people in California.

Sadly, however, when the liberal left targets a citizen exerting his right to freedom of speech with whom they disagree, the result is a forgone conclusion.

The American people must unite and stand firm against these assaults upon the touchstone of liberty – the right to express ones’ opinion without fear of recrimination.

To complete the travesty of this weeks events, presented below is the entirety of the post from the new CEO of Mozilla. Please read it carefully and note the use of the word ‘equality’.

Where was the tolerance for Mr. Eich and his opinion, an opinion, again, shared by a majority of thr California electorate?

To wit:

Over the past few days we have been asked a number of questions about Brendan Eich’s appointment as CEO. This post is to clarify Mozilla’s official support of equality and inclusion for LGBT people.

Mozilla’s mission is to make the Web more open so that humanity is stronger, more inclusive and more just. This is why Mozilla supports equality for all, including marriage equality for LGBT couples. No matter who you are or who you love, everyone deserves the same rights and to be treated equally.

We realize that not everyone in our community or who uses our products will agree with this. But we have always maintained that as long as you are willing to respect others, and come together for our larger mission, you are welcome. Mozilla’s community is made up of people who have very diverse personal beliefs working on a common cause, which is a free and open internet. That is a very rare and special thing.

Mozilla has always worked to be a welcoming community, committed to inclusiveness and equality for all people. One voice will not limit opportunity for anyone. That was true yesterday and will be true tomorrow. Our Community Participation Guidelines state:

The Mozilla Project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone. It doesn’t matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you: we welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they interact constructively with our community, including, but not limited to people of varied age, culture, ethnicity, gender, gender-identity, language, race, sexual orientation, geographical location and religious views.

Our culture of openness extends to encouraging our staff and community to be candid about their views on Mozilla’s direction. We’re proud of that openness and how it distinguishes Mozilla from most organizations. Most of all, we want to ensure that all Mozilla users and community members know how deeply committed we are to openness and equality for all people.

* Deleted from above: “and to outline a series of actions we are taking to reaffirm this position”
Note – we deleted this text as it was from an earlier draft of this post. We are still considering a series of actions but in the interests of announcing our position this weekend we decided to narrow the scope and shorten this post.