Judicial Crisis Network President: The Constitution dictates abortion should be left to states
Judicial Crisis Network president discusses SCOTUS hearing oral arguments in Texas abortion case on 'Sunday Night in America'
"Sunday Night in America" host Trey Gowdy invited Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino on his show to help explain the recent oral arguments at the Supreme Court.
Severino and Gowdy acknowledged that the oral arguments are not nearly as flashy as decisions, but they remain a vital portion of the law process.
"People are talking about this case as if it’s going right to the heart of Roe v. Wade. We actually have a case on the docket that’s going to do that, but that’s not argued until December. This case was really about some procedural issues that are very unique to the way that the Texas law is structured," Severino explained.
The Texas abortion law has reignited the debate surrounding abortion as the case in regards to the law awaits hearings before the Supreme Court. Severino explained the hearings would not affect Roe V. Wade currently and that the important thing is that the justices remain unaffected by political issues.
"What concerns me about the case is trying to make sure that, as you said, the Court is not getting distracted by their interest in the policy issues. Obviously, judges shouldn’t be looking at the policy issues ever, but that all of the discussion of this abortion issue doesn’t distract them from just applying the regular standards that apply to every case that comes before the Supreme Court in the question of who can bring the lawsuit and who do they have to sue," Severino said. "Because that was really the question this case. It’s not as exciting as is Roe V. Wade valid law, but the Court needs to not be bullied because there’s a lot of people saying you can’t let these cases die."
Severino argued that laws in regards to abortions are best left to the state since the Constitution "doesn’t say anything about it one way or the other."
"In the case of abortion, it is a little bit different. The state is not saying we’re going to perform the abortion in this case. They’re simply saying can this law stand. And, as Justice Scalia himself said, a lot it is not about whether I believe in abortion or not. It’s about if the Constitution talks about abortion. And in this case, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about it one way or the other which means it’s left to the states," she said.
She concluded "If they don’t weigh in on that core question, we’re going to keep on having cases. Whether it’s from Texas, from Arkansas, from Kentucky, we have all these cases in line testing other aspects of it. So there’s no way for them to get away from dealing with the real underlying question which is not what do you think about abortion. That’s something for the legislature. It’s is abortion really in the text of the Constitution itself. And if not, then why are we as judges making these calls and why don’t we leave it to the Americans’ representatives."
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case regarding an abortion law in Mississippi which bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
*********************************************
Why patriotic capitalism is the way forward for conservatism
Attacking capitalism is in vogue. Conservatives should not fall prey to this
"We do not merely study the past: we inherit it, from people to whom we are bound by natural piety. Inheritance brings with it not only the rights of ownership, but the duties of trusteeship. Things fought for and died for should not be idly squandered. For they are the property of others, who are not yet born." -- "Town and Country," ed. by Roger Scruton and Anthony Barnett
In this quotation, Sir Roger Scruton perfectly encapsulated conservatism’s essence. It is not an ideology, but rather a variety of ideas, beliefs and feelings that are natural to every human being.
We inherit from our parents the home we are born into, the extended family, the community, the city, and the country of our forefathers. Instantly, and quite instinctively, we become attached to these places and people, and a feeling of protectiveness arises.
We become heirs to traditions and culture, history, and deeds, for better or for worse. Each of us is born into an environment and into a certain social and economic status. It is our duty to leave to our successors this multi-layered inheritance in a better shape than it was in when we received it.
The conservative is an individual who understands this most natural relationship between the living, the dead and the unborn. However, apart from making this basic and humane relationship apparent to everyone, a conservative must find practical ways and means to protect and strengthen it.
To that end, conservatives should have an answer as to the political and economic systems that need to be implemented for a country and its individuals to be free, have social mobility, meritocracy and protect their cultural and moral norms. Through an appropriate economic system, conservatives can improve the welfare of every citizen in a society, so that each of us leaves a better world to the future generations, while honoring our past.
After decades of being bullied into silence, a sort of reawakening is occurring among conservatives – a resurgence that has been taking shape in the last six years. Under threat by cancel culture, self-censorship, revision of history, a return of Marxism, illegal immigration and a forced push towards herd mentality and rejection of critical thinking, conservatives are starting to rise and stand up for what they believe in.
It is an existential fight propelled by the most unlikely of individuals: a real estate mogul from perhaps the most progressive city, New York. Donald Trump’s campaign and presidency inspired not only tens of millions of Americans but seemed to awaken from a deep slumber the divided conservatives of Europe.
Many establishment conservatives do not like him and would not like to admit in public that Donald Trump gave them a fighting chance. He showed conservatives how to fight and win. The 45th president had the gumption to stand up for what he believes in, and consequently inspired conservatives, the right in general and freedom-lovers on both sides of the Atlantic.
Now, conservatives need to find common ground and build a durable and believable strategy that produces results.
Conservatism has many nuances and forms, each with something to offer in a great right of center coalition. We should agree on some core common fundamentals, based on what has worked in the past, adapted to the present circumstances.
There certainly are several conservative models of success that can be adapted to the reality of our age and implemented by nation states in Europe, as well as in the US.
We can learn from what President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher did in the eighties and combine their economic policies with the cultural, patriotic, and social values that Burke, Scruton and many others present and defend. These two sides are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, such alliance can be what the West needs to be saved.
Patriotic capitalism is the way forward for conservatism. A patriot cares for his family, his property, his community, his country, and the environment, undoubtedly while wanting to cooperate closely and peacefully with others. A capitalist system brings about the means to conserve everything that conservatives – and most human beings – hold dear.
A patriotic education leads to better citizens with a higher degree of civil responsibility and care for the environment – capitalism provides the means to have school choice and achieve this strong patriotic education. Educated individuals with the necessary economic means and opportunities, create stronger families, which undoubtedly lead to healthier and tougher societies.
Conservatives are right to focus on the cultural aspects. However, this focus does not mean abandoning or choosing the wrong economic policies. On the contrary! Conservatives should provide a holistic alternative that stands on both cultural and economic pillars. On the latter, they are providing no alternative.
What is the conservative alternative to the Modern Monetary Theory, crony capitalism and oligarchy? Which economic system do they advocate for? Where is the outrage towards big – and ever expanding – government, which is undoubtedly the main factor of the current economic degradation of the West?
Conservatives cannot rejoice when conservative politicians use the power of big government and denounce this when the left does it.
Governments should exist to preserve life, liberty, private property, national security and nothing else. That is what makes a strong government—a concept different from that of big government.
Limited governments have been a success story, especially in America. Europe’s legacy of big governments has produced a would-be super-state with socialist aspirations. The bigger the government, the greater the danger that it will abuse its powers. Coming from a country with a communist past, I well understand the dangers of expanding the reach of government as well as its allure, even for conservatives.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/patriotic-capitalism-way-foward-conservatism-nikola-kedhi
************************************************Israeli bookstores pull Sally Rooney novels over boycott row
Two can play the boycotting game
Two of Israel’s largest bookstores have announced they will no longer stock books by author Sally Rooney after she refused to let her latest novel be translated into Hebrew by an Israeli publisher.
Steimatzky and Tzomet Sefarim, which together own about 200 stores in Israel, said they would remove her books from their shelves and online sites.
Last month the Irish author said she would not allow her newest title, Beautiful World, Where Are You?, to be translated into Hebrew by Modan, an Israeli publishing house.
The writer said her decision was taken out of solidarity with the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which calls for governments to “cut trade, economic, and cultural relations” with the Jewish state.
While she said she was “proud” her previous two novels had been translated into Hebrew, she could not, she said, “accept a new contract with an Israeli company that does not publicly distance itself from apartheid and support the UN-stipulated rights of the Palestinian people”.
In May, 600 musicians, including Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters, published an open letter asking fellow artists to refrain from performing in Israel until there is a “free Palestine”.
But the notion of a blanket cultural boycott remains controversial.
Speaking to The Independent, public diplomacy expert and BDS critic Ran Bar-Yoshafat said: “It’s very easy to boycott Israel because she won’t be losing money – Israel isn’t a market for books. It’s all a game as she has nothing to lose.
“I don’t believe she cares about human rights – if she did she would boycott Russia, China and Arab countries for example. She won’t do that because that is a gigantic market.”
Israel has claimed that the BDS is a movement motivated by antisemitism and has rejected apartheid comparisons.
Rooney has enjoyed huge success for her work, including critical acclaim for her second novel Normal People, which was adapted into a hugely successful TV series.
**************************************************
Australian Federal Court slams criminal case against ANZ bank as a 'complete shemozzle'
ANZ now off the hook after the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions spent 3 years running around in circles. They could not specify exactly what the ANZ did wrong.
Government regulators tend to be lax about case preparation as they think nobody will have the funds or courage to take on the government. They think people will fold immediately. There have been some atrocious cases of that in Britain, notably the prosecution of Vincent Tchenguiz by the Serious Fraud Office. Their bureaucratic arrogance cost the SFO many millions
But the ANZ is a big beast so was not afraid to take on the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Prosecutors have abandoned a long-running criminal cartel case against ANZ and one of its senior executives, Rick Moscati, after the Federal Court described the matter as a "complete shemozzle".
The court also said the committal hearings — where a magistrate decides whether there is sufficient evidence to take the matter to trial — were "long, drawn out and ultimately ... fairly pointless".
In an embarrassing blow, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) was ordered to refile its indictment, for a third time, because it was "deficient and defective".
Despite the setback, the CDPP has decided to proceed with its criminal prosecution against banking giants Deutsche Bank and Citigroup, which are also defendants in this matter.
Criminal test case
In June 2018, ANZ, Deutsche and Citi were prosecuted for being "knowingly concerned in alleged cartel conduct".
It is essentially a form of alleged collusion — and the matter was the result of a two-year investigation by the competition watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC).
This case arose from ANZ's decision to raise extra cash from institutional investors, by issuing $2.5 billion worth of new shares in August 2015.
Citi, Deutsche and a third major global bank, JP Morgan, through some of their most senior executives, allegedly came to an understanding on what to do with any shares that were unable to be sold.
Often, there aren't any left over — but this time almost a third of the shares, worth about $790 million, did not sell.
JP Morgan is not facing charges because it blew the whistle and was granted immunity.
This is seen as an important test case because criminal cartel charges had never been brought against an Australian bank before.
For companies, the maximum fine for each offence is either $10 million, or three times the total benefits that have been earned and are "reasonably attributable" to the commission of the offence (whichever is greater).
For individuals, the maximum sentence is 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $420,000, or both.
'Complete shemozzle'
Justice Michael Wigney did not mince words when he criticised the prosecutor's handling of the case on Wednesday morning.
"It would not be unfair to characterise the situation concerning the state of the indictment as a complete shemozzle," he said.
The judge also said it was "entirely unsatisfactory" that the indictment had not been finalised — three years after the banks and their executives were first charged, and about six months before the trial was due to commence.
The CDPP filed its first indictment (which outlines the criminal charges) against the banks and its executives on February 1.
But it was ordered to file a new indictment by July 7 because the charges were poorly explained and "defective" — partly because of the "complex nature" of Australia's cartel legislation.
The same thing happened again on Wednesday's hearing (November 3). In a brief summary of the judge's decision, the Federal Court noted:
"The accused argued that the charges did not sufficiently describe the nature of the offences that they were alleged to have committed because, for the most part, the charges were entirely bereft of particulars and simply repeated the words of the relevant offence provisions."
Justice Wigney decided to give the prosecutor a third chance — and a November 24 deadline to file yet another set of indictments.
Instead of trying again, the CDPP decided to abandon its case against ANZ and Mr Moscati, but is pressing ahead with its prosecution of Deutche and Citi.
In a statement, ANZ's chief risk officer Kevin Corbally said: “We maintained all along ANZ acted in accordance with the law in relation to the placement.
"We defended the bank and Rick on that basis and we are pleased the matter is now behind us."
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment