People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Monday, June 14, 2010

The Problem With Small Minds

Those who wield them never see the bigger picture.

Today we have a sad example of liberal-think coming out of the Roanoke Times editorial page.  It has to do with Congress's "failure" to act on "carbon pollution" legislation, something the liberals at the Times have deemed to be necessary.  Though an increasing number of scientists around the world would disagree.

To the small minds at the Times it is quite natural to expect the EPA to step in and create carbon regulation if Congress won't.  See "The EPA fills in for Congress."
"[EPA regulation] would amount to an unprecedented power grab, ceding Congress' responsibilities to unelected bureaucrats, and move an important debate from our open halls to behind an agency's closed doors," [Senator Lisa] Murkowski said in a floor speech before the vote.

The spirit of what she said is right. It would be better for all concerned if Congress took the lead on this important issue for the security of the nation and the future of the world. Alas, the partisan divide is stronger than the threat to the planet.

She is wrong, though, that the EPA is staging an unprecedented power grab. Rather, it is filling an unprecedented power void.
Can you picture for one moment these geniuses having that same sentiment if George W. Bush's executive branch had stepped in under similar Congressional "power void" circumstances and called in the 1st Marine Division to clear the streets of Detroit because of its ongoing crime problem - one that Congress has failed to eliminate?  Or if Bush had decided to eliminate food stamps because they have failed to stamp out hunger as Congress, in establishing the program, originally intended?  Or if Bush had seized control of America's newspapers since they can no longer dispense "freedom of the press" if they no longer exist?

I'd suggest that the boys and girls at the Times consider their stance on executive branch power grabs.  But my suggestion would fall on deaf - and dumb - ears.  To them it's all circumstantial.  Bad idea yesterday becomes good today.  And bad again tomorrow.

Picture these same people writing this laudatory headline in 2002 - "Bush Fills In For Congress" - and you'll understand what I mean.

Not in a thousand years ...

Genius.  Pure genius.

We Can Thank Obama

Our relationship with the British is at an all-time low.

Just what we needed at a time when our relationship with the rest of the world is at an all-time low too.

See "Special relationship? America's still itching to bash us in the snoot" in today's London Daily Mail.

See also "Boehner: Obama has “coddled our enemies and pushed our friends aside.”

I'm reminded of Tony Blair's wonderfully uniting speech right after 9/11.

Seems so long ago now.

Thanks, Barack.

Souter Was Never Up To The Task

I've always wondered if small minds on the left ever ask themselves, if Supreme Court justices should be able to make it up as they go along, as the Left advocates, why the Founding Fathers created a constitutional amendment process in the first place.  After all, if the deep thinkers on the High Court can simply pass judgment on the issues of the day according to their interpretations of "what's right," the Constitution can be morphed into whatever they say it is on any given day.

Thus, no need to amend that which is written in mud. Right?

It appears that I'm not alone in my thinking:
David Souter's Bad Constitutional History
By John O. McGinnis and Michael B. Rappaport, writing in the Wall Street Journal

At the recent Harvard commencement, retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter attacked what he regards as the "simplistic" model of giving the Constitution a "fair reading." A judge, he said, must determine which of the conflicting constitutional values should become our fundamental law by taking account of new social realities. His remarks were a thinly veiled assault on those who, like Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, think the Constitution should be interpreted according to its original meaning.

Justice Souter actually provided a primer on how not to be a judge. He made up a Constitution that never was to justify a kind of judicial power that was never intended.

Justice Souter recognizes that his method of interpreting the Constitution is indeterminate, but he argues that it is necessary to put our trust in justices to reach just results. The historical reality is that this interpretive method permitted justices to create a Constitution of their own contrivance in the service of injustice. [link]
Read the whole thing.

And read Souter's defense of liberal readings of the Constitution.

As we are learning in the Kagan nomination process ongoing, Supreme Court appointments are as much about politics as a nominee's ability and experience in interpreting the law.  Souter's argument, therefore, that we should rely on nine politicians to determine the law has always been a frightening proposition.

Not that the nitwit would ever grasp the implications.

Hillary Gets Spanked ...

... by the Wall Street Journal:

"We hope Mrs. Clinton can lead her administration to similar changes of mind elsewhere in the world."

Amen to that, brutha.

Into The Past

Want to see some great video of the origins of the American auto industry?

Go to Car Data Video to see "Ford Historic Model T."

You probably didn't know that over a twenty year period Ford built 15 million of these treasures and revolutionized the world.

Great stuff.

L.A. Is Already Knee Deep In Magnanimity

But its massive debt burden was furthest from their minds when city leaders there passed a boycott of Arizona over the latter's illegal-immigration policy.

Arizonans would like to remind the greathearted souls in Los Angeles of the consequences of their actions.  A sign on I-10 north of Tucson:

Yeah, it's probably photoshopped, but the sentiment works.
Click on the image to enlarge it.