Apparently both cases involve special interests and racism!
So it is obvious that Jamaal Bowman's loss was a matter of racism. You know, every time a black person loses anything it is because of racism. But it is also about the fact that pro-Israel special interest groups took an interest in this race (go figure).
Upset liberals demand that this is a congressional race being bought by pro-Jewish special interests. But even assuming that is true, all that could have been avoided by Bowman not being such an antisemitic ass-wipe. Don't declare support for the raping and pillaging of Jewish people and the pro-Jewish special interest groups will probably leave you alone.
On the ruling against the SEC the court basically gives people the right to a jury trial if the SEC accuses them of an SEC violation that involves large fines. The left is also upset here because special interests (not sure which ones) were pushing this issue. What they really do not like is the USSC taking the side of the individual against the government. The government has nearly unlimited resources and still wants the right to avoid going to trial to be able to find someone guilty and ruin them financially. My gut feeling is this hits the Trump nerve, because he was basically fined nearly a half billion dollars without being provided any sort of jury trial. Perhaps they see the writing on the wall that NY believing they can sue people under civil law and avoid any sort of jury trial might be on the cutting board as well. Nothing upsets the left more than something (anything) going Trumps way even by proxy.
But at the end of the day, the idea that you can call something a civil penalty and then declare fines in the millions without having to prove the violation to anyone other than the same people issuing the fines, seems unfair.
Now every time the Courts step in to undermine government control and government power, the left declares it to be a separation of powers issue, without really understanding the whole concept separation. The Judicial branch is designed to be the branch that reigns in the laws and regulations that are written in a manner that may be unconstitutional. If you truly believe that the government (especially unelected agencies) should have complete control over what they want to do without any oversight from the courts, then are you not the one trying to remove the courts from their duty and responsibility? In effect, you trying to take away the power of the court under the guise that the separation of powers provides them with no authority over other branches. By that logic, Congress should not be allowed to impeach a President and a President should not be allowed to veto a bill... because you know.. separation of powers. It makes no sense except for those times that the court rules against the issues pushed by government loving liberals.
Comments