Biden’s Mandate
It is entirely possible to desire a policy outcome without sanctioning the means chosen to implement it. For instance, many people in the United States see illegal immigration across our Southern border as a national security problem. There was once a President who agreed with them, and so he evoked a national security justification for re-routing appropriated Department of Defense funds to pay for the building of a Wall, a great, big, beautiful Wall. A Federal Appeals Court disagreed and the the Biden Administration petitioned the Supreme Court to drop the Trump appeal of that decision, effectively denying the fund transfer. Trump’s abuse of power was aided and abetted by congressional GOP toadies who once again voted to deny themselves the Constitutional authority that they ought jealously guard, on the grounds of a provision in existing law that gave the President the right to declare such a national security threat, failing to read the remainder of the statute that prohibited such authority in cases where the Congress had already failed to provide such funds.
And now we face another threat to our security, or at least a public health threat. President Biden, clearly and rationally pissed with the mouth-breathers of Delta Nation and their refusal to accept the widely available and free of charge COVID vaccination, has decided to invoke powers of workplace safety granted under a 1970 law and force employers to certify their workforces (in excess of 100 employees) as having been vaccinated. The cited New York Times review of the authority strikes me as just a bit too favorable to the law’s chances in court, especially given the history of this law's implementation having been blocked on far narrower questions.
I want people to get vaccinated. I think people who don’t get vaccinated are public health threats. I think private businesses have the right to deny their service to customers who do not vaccinate and fire employees who do not vaccinate. I think government can require its workers and contractors to vaccinate, and terminate those who do not.
I am wary of a government that can force private businesses to act on this. I am CERTAINLY wary of a FEDERAL government that does so. I did not support the last President’s overstepping of his authority EVEN BEFORE THE COURTS VALIDATED MY OPINION, and I will not wait until the courts rule not to support this President’s overstepping of his authority. Of course, Biden may win. I think that would be unfortunate, as I continue to be wary of the power accreting to the Executive and its regulatory agencies, power properly exercised in the federal legislature.
I’m also wary of this pronouncement on logical grounds. Why 100? Why not 50? Or 20? Or 200? It seems to me the courts may ask the same question.
President Bush on 9-11
The presidency of George W. Bush does does not appear on many “Top-10” lists among modern historians, and my guess is that fifty years from now, it will not be treated much better. Dubious decisions about war and occupation, not to mention staggering media opposition from the get-go, helped create what will at best be considered an average Presidency. I liked him and his presidency more than most, but I realize I’m in the minority there.
I thought he rose to the occasion in the aftermath of 9-11. I thought he rose to the challenge of the financial crisis late in his Presidency and got some things going that President Obama was able to see through. He was a good, earnest, and honest man, wise and faithful.
His post-presidency has been wonderful. He generally keeps quiet, but when he speaks, he speaks with a moral authority that no longer exists in the GOP. His is the conscience of an unconscious Party.
And when he took the stage in Pennsylvania on 9-11 to talk about the events of that day and their impact, he quietly reminded us of his goodness and judgment. Here is that speech in its entirety.
What has gotten the attention of the Trumpenproletariat is GWB’s comparison of foreign and domestic extremists, something I find unobjectionable given the logic he applied.
We are in for an excellent opportunity for the pro-insurrection crowd to reveal the shallowness of their defense for the January 6 assault on our Constitution. They are gathering again on 18 September seeking “justice” for those charged in that assault, who they believe were peaceably protesting. So--and stay with me here--if they assemble peaceably and protest, they will show the nation what that looks like from them. And in the process, doing so would provide a stark contrast to what we all saw with our own eyes 8 months ago. Which was of course, (an attempted, bungled, unsuccessful) insurrection.
And when no less a conservative giant than Kevin Williamson calls it a “coup” attempt, one must take notice. Williamson is the most entertaining and consistent intellectual conservative I know, and he’s taking no crap on this.