Displaying the most recent of 90901 posts written by

Ruth King

Reining In the Agencies On the last day of its term, the Supreme Court stops the Environmental Protection Agency from making policy without express congressional authorization. Diana Furchtgott-Roth

https://www.city-journal.org/west-virginia-v-epa-ruling-analysis

The Supreme Court saved a crucial decision for the last day of its term, ruling 6–3 in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency that the Clean Air Act does not allow the EPA to move from regulating individual power plants to regulating regional emissions through its interpretation of the Clean Power Plan. The opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, cited the major questions doctrine, according to which Congress must “speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.”

“This decision properly keeps the EPA in its lane and rejects the agency’s efforts to usurp national energy policy from Congress,” Jones Day partner Yaakov Roth, who argued the case in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of the plaintiffs, told me. “It is a very important step toward political accountability and economic certainty” Indeed, the case has far-reaching implications for other agencies that could currently be exceeding their statutory remits. The Securities and Exchange Commission, for example, recently proposed requirements for companies to disclose their exposure to climate risk and to provide details about the climate effects of their operations. Meantime, the National Labor Relations Board is considering making franchise businesses such as McDonald’s accountable for the actions of local franchises. Such rules could find themselves on the wrong side of the Court’s approach, which found the EPA’s rulemaking to be an example of “agencies asserting highly consequential power beyond what Congress could reasonably be understood to have granted.”

The Clean Air Act allows the EPA to set maximum levels of new and existing emissions sources. However, the Clean Power Plan, proposed in 2015 under President Barack Obama, went further. If emissions exceeded the EPA’s requirements, a state, or group of states, would be required to shut down power plants or to install renewable energy sources. The plan was similar to the American Clean Energy and Security Act, introduced by Democratic congressmen Henry Waxman and Edward Markey in 2009, and the American Power Act, introduced by senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman in 2010. Neither bill became law, despite sizeable Democratic majorities in both chambers.

On Covid, schools, and the death of the liberal expert class Alex Berenson

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/on-covid-schools-and-the-death-of/comments

The New Yorker just ran its second big negative piece on Ron DeSantis in a week, proof of how much the woke media fears the governor of Florida. (Yes, I read the New Yorker so you don’t have to.)

The article is nominally about DeSantis’s support for age-appropriate teaching of gender and sexuality in public schools. Or, as the Democrats like to call it, “Don’t Say Gay.” The wokesters have not figured out that label is not quite the devastating comeback they think.

Plenty of parents of six-year-olds are fine with not having teachers say “gay” – they think that even if they support same-sex marriage (as I do), they and not outsiders should decide what their first- or second-graders hear about sex and family structures. Then again, these are the people who thought “defund the police” was an electoral winner, so their political instincts may not be the best.

But I digress, briefly. As you would expect, the article treats DeSantis as a political opportunist. But, unlike most woke media reporters these days, the author actually took the time both to talk to conservatives who support DeSantis’s views and to try to understand why those views are gaining so much ground right now. (As opposed to just repeating Fox News misinformation racism misogyny America is the worst endlessly.)

The result was something close to the truth – and the best explanation I have seen for the way Covid continues to drive our politics, even if no one is talking about it anymore. I urge you to read these three paragraphs – especially the sentence I have bolded – closely:

When I asked Republican activists and operatives about the rise of the school issues, they told a very similar story, one that began with the pandemic, during which many parents came to believe that their interests (in keeping their kids in school) diverged with those of the teachers and administrators.

The January 6 Committee Should Release the Engel and Ornato Depositions Andrew McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/07/the-january-6-committee-should-release-the-engel-and-ornato-depositions/

If the committee is honestly trying to get to the bottom of what happened in the presidential SUV, this and other steps would be in its interest.

The pushback against the congressional testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson, former principal aide to Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, has gotten more intense. (I addressed it in this post Wednesday.) After the fanfare with which the January 6 committee hyped Hutchinson’s testimony, which was presented in a nationally televised session, the panel owes it to the country to release recordings and transcripts of the behind-the-scenes interviews it has conducted with former White House operations director Tony Ornato and Secret Service agent Robert Engel.

To recap, Secret Service sources have told the media that Agent Engel, who ran Trump’s security detail, and a thus-far unidentified agent who drove the Secret Service SUV in which the former president was ferried away from his January 6 Ellipse speech both deny that there was a physical skirmish in the car. Hutchinson testified that she was told by Ornato, with Engel present and apparently concurring, that Trump grabbed the steering wheel, had his arm grabbed by Engel, and lunged threateningly at Engel with his free hand.

I continue to think this portion of the story is being overblown. Maybe I’ll be proved wrong. Vice chairwoman Liz Cheney, who assured skeptical Republicans that the committee would not be carried away by anti-Trump animus and would conduct a professional investigation, took the lead in presenting Hutchinson’s testimony. I’m taking her at her word, and thus assuming the committee would not intentionally present misleading testimony.

Hutchinson did not claim to have seen this encounter. Further, Hutchinson testified publicly and under oath. By contrast, the media’s sources are not only unsworn but anonymous. So in essence, Hutchinson is being contradicted about something she didn’t witness and probably would not be permitted to testify about in a real trial, by people who won’t attach their names to their claims and, for all we know, may have even less admissible testimony than Hutchinson — if they testified, which they haven’t.

Here Are So Many Examples of Democrats Denying Election Results That Your Head Will Spin By J.D. Rucker

https://thelibertydaily.com/here-are-so-many-examples-of-democrats-denying-election-results-that-your-head-will-spin/

The Republican National Committee is a strange beast sometimes. On one hand, they’ve essentially disavowed all discussions about the stolen 2020 election. On the other hand, they just posted an article and a video showing plenty of examples of Democrats denying presidential election results during the last three races they lost.

With a 99% certainty, I can say the 2020 election was stolen. Whether the RNC is finally acknowledging that possibility or not is up for debate, but kudos to them for putting together this video and the list below:

FOR DECADES, DEMOCRATS HAVE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE RESULTS OF ELECTIONS THEY LOST

Biden and Democrats have a long history of contesting election outcomes.
Many Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Barbra Lee (D-CA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), have cast doubt on every single Republican presidential victory in the last two decades.
Every single Democrat president since 1977 has cast doubt on the legitimacy of U.S. elections.
As recently as this year, Biden cast doubt on the legitimacy of the upcoming 2022 midterms.

The FDA Is Blocking Game-Changing New Drugs For Kidney Disease Henry I. Miller

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/07/01/the-fda-is-blocking-game-changing-new-drugs-for-kidney-disease/

Imagine you’ve been diagnosed with chronic kidney disease, told by your physician that if it can’t be managed, you may eventually need a transplant or long-term dialysis. This scary situation is one faced by hundreds of thousands of Americans every year.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an illness that affects an estimated 37 million people in the U.S. That’s more than one in seven adults across the country, or nearly the entire population of California. Despite this alarming statistic, investment in kidney disease research and therapies lags other sectors. We must redress that imbalance.

CKD is a serious condition that, if unaddressed, leads to organ failure. Without early interventions and disease management, CKD leads to an increased chance of heart disease, stroke, vascular disease, and even early death. Another serious, common complication – renal anemia – can cause debilitating symptoms that severely impact patients’ quality of life. Physicians and the millions of Americans living with CKD need more, and better, treatment options. 

While there have been increased efforts toward innovation in the kidney care community to provide new, effective treatments for patients, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has rejected most of the drugs for kidney disease that it has reviewed in recent years. Perhaps for that reason, nephrology has historically had one of the lowest rates of new drug applications submitted to the FDA, particularly when compared to other therapeutic areas like oncology and cardiology. 

Although the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has championed advancements in kidney care through initiatives like the public-private Kidney Innovation Accelerator (KidneyX), the FDA seems not to be onboard. By failing to approve drugs to treat patients with CKD and renal anemia, the FDA is out of step with the administration’s efforts to advance the development and access to cutting-edge treatments that have the potential to greatly improve patients’ lives and appear to have demonstrated a favorable risk-benefit profile.

The development of new kidney drugs such as vadadustat, one of a class of drugs called HIF-PHI, has given hope to the community that more options will be available to patients. Like other drugs in this new trailblazing class, it works by using the body’s innate oxygen sensing mechanism to stimulate red blood cell production, a great help to patients with anemia due to CKD.

‘Strangely, Beautifully Alive’ American traditions and Independence Day. James Freeman

https://www.wsj.com/articles/strangely-beautifully-alive-11656701722?mod=opinion_lead_pos11

This is the weekend for reflection upon the most important sentence ever written in this country:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Of course the Declaration of Independence, created 246 years ago this week, contained many other useful sentences. One in particular may offer a healthy perspective for those among us who are inclined to restructure American governance when it doesn’t yield a desired political outcome:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

The Declaration also noted that the “King of Great Britain” had “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” Among these offenses, contemporary political combatants may wish to note, was that the British government was not allowing enough immigrants to come to America:

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

In our own time the southern U.S. border has tragically become a place of lawlessness, suffering and chaos. Yet the people of color who endure almost unspeakable hardships, risk their lives and sometimes die trying to enter the U.S. demonstrate every day that America is not a racist, oppressive society but the hope of the world. People want in because they know that the liberty promised in that great sentence has been extended to all Americans. The founders were demanding an expansion of legal migration, which still sounds like a plan.

Should We Follow the Science Instead of the Votes? A thought experiment in replacing elections with surveys. By Harvey C. Mansfield

https://www.wsj.com/articles/should-we-follow-the-science-instead-of-the-votes-democracy-polling-elections-preferences-republicans-democrats-11656697672?mod=opinion_lead_pos10

The Democrats, ever solicitous of the people’s welfare and comfort, want to make voting easier. The Republicans, guardians of public morality, want to make sure votes are genuine. So why not abandon elections and replace them with surveys?

Surveys turn citizens into “respondents” answering from home by phone or computer. Respondents are scientifically selected to represent a slice of the population. Answering is easy, to please Democrats, and since your qualities and attributes are selected without regard to your name, there’s no risk of fraud, which should please Republicans. Now that we have surveys made reliable by the science of polling, why do we need elections with their hoopla, ceremony, and expense—not to mention their chanciness, rowdiness and unreason?

An objection to this question comes to mind at once. Polls often go wrong, failing to predict accurately the result of a following election. It would seem that we need elections to check on the surveys. But no—the objection takes for granted that an election is superior to a survey for reckoning the people’s will. That should be taken as a question, not an assumption. We must not underestimate the power of science. We must entertain the possibility that the survey is correct and the election—because it fails to follow the method of science—is incorrect.

This was done in 1995 by one of the founders of survey science, the late Sidney Verba, a friend and colleague of mine at Harvard. In a speech on “the citizen as respondent,” he made the claim that voter surveys are both more democratic and more accurate than elections because they reach those who don’t vote. Nonvoters are different from voters; they are less well-informed and less active on their own account, hence more vulnerable. The political scientist can reach out to them to capture their unvoiced opinions or even generously to articulate their feelings for them.

A Warning From Australia’s Power Crisis Green mandates cause shortages, as Canberra takes over the electricity market.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-warning-from-australias-power-crisis-green-energy-anthony-albanese-11655659465?mod=opinion_lead_pos4

Australia’s new Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has promised to ramp up green energy, but a national electricity crisis is showing that fossil fuels are hard to drop. Oz’s power crunch offers a warning for America’s political class, if it’s willing to listen.

Australia’s grid operator in June suspended the national spot market for power to prevent looming blackouts. Regulators ordered power generators using fossil fuels when they could run while also fixing prices. The grid operator last week lifted market controls but warned they could be reimposed if prices spike.

Australia’s climate left blamed the mess on fossil-fuel companies manipulating markets. Sound familiar? Some accused coal generators of deliberately withholding power to drive up electricity prices to boost profits before they are forced to close by climate regulation. As usual, the real culprit is bad energy policy. Australia has plentiful gas reserves, but it lacks the pipeline capacity to transport the fuel to metropolitan areas in the nation’s south. Coal still generates about 60% of Australia’s power, and renewables make up a third. The latter is about as much as in California, which is experiencing similar power shortfalls.

Renewable mandates in Australia have made it harder for coal plants to turn a profit. Many have shut down. Others skimped on maintenance, though they are stressed from powering up and down to back up renewables. Meantime, coal and natural gas prices are surging globally amid the war in Ukraine and economic recovery from the pandemic. Weak solar and wind output at the start of Australia’s winter has also squeezed power supply.

This confluence of events caused Australia’s spot power prices to spike, which prompted its grid operator to cap wholesale prices. Coal and gas generators couldn’t cover the cost of their fuel. Predictably, they throttled production, which set the stage for the recent market suspension.

Cancel Culture Goes to Washington George Washington University must change its name, says an article in, yes, the Washington Post. By Allen C. Guelzo

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cancel-culture-goes-to-washington-slavery-emancipation-freedom-history-president-11656699767?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

George Washington is a problem for George Washington University, according to the Washington Post. For years, the university in the nation’s capital has struggled with the shadow cast by President Washington’s ownership of slaves. In 2020 university officials began investigating the school’s sports teams’ name, the Colonials, because of the “ways colonists ravaged communities of color.” Last month “Colonials” disappeared. This spring, the Washington Post published an op-ed by Caleb Francois, a senior at the school, insisting that the university deal with “systemic racism, institutional inequality and white supremacy” by dropping the Washington name completely and renaming the university for Frederick Douglass.

George Washington certainly did own slaves. In addition to the 10 he inherited from his father, he accumulated another 65 through outright purchase over the years. When he married Martha Dandridge Custis in 1759, she brought another 84 slaves to the household at Mount Vernon. By 1786 the slaves numbered 216. In 1799, the last year of his life, Washington owned 317 men, women and children. Even in the years Washington served as the first president, he kept at least eight slaves in his home in the first capitals, New York and Philadelphia.

Nor was Washington necessarily an easy master. He punished four slaves for their “pranks” by selling them to the hell-on-water of the West Indies, and he approved the whipping by his overseers of the “very impudent.” When Ona Judge, one of the dower slaves Martha Washington brought with her to Philadelphia, bolted for freedom, Washington tried (in vain) to re-capture her. As a cure for his endless dental problems, he yielded to the persuasions of a French dentist in 1784 and paid his slaves for nine teeth to be extracted from their mouths and implanted in his.

Yet Washington’s time was also the Age of Enlightenment, when the classical hierarchies of the physical and political worlds were overthrown, to be replaced by the natural laws of gravity and the natural rights of “Nature and Nature’s God,” as the Declaration of Independence put it. Labor ceased to be a badge of subservience, and commerce became admirable. As commerce and labor gave people a greater sense of control over their lives for the first time in human history, slavery came to be seen as repugnant and immoral.

Lessons learned from the Bennett experiment  By RUTHIE BLUM

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-710928

Contrary to what many pundits have been suggesting in their eulogies for Israel’s collapsed government, the short-lived premiership of Naftali Bennett was not a successful experiment. Nor does it deserve accolades for surviving as long as it did.

The reason for this was twofold: a shared desire on the part of the coalition as a whole to prevent former prime minister and opposition leader Benjamin (“Bibi”) Netanyahu from remaining in or returning to the top job; and individual Knesset members’ fear of political exile in the event of another election.

Both provided the glue that kept the bloc of ideologically disparate factions in business. Until now, that is.

One thing that can be said of Bennett is that he managed, with a very small number of seats, not only to forge the ill-fated alliance but to reign over it. It was an unprecedented accomplishment that cannot be overstated.

Hopefully, however, it will be the last such foray into mish-mash minority rule. A majority of the public, on whatever side of the spectrum, should determine the general direction of the country.

This is easier said than done, of course, particularly with Israel’s electoral system and range of interest groups. It’s a tall order in any case, given all politicians’ penchant for campaign promises of the “read my lips” variety. You know, the kind that are as false as they ring.

Thus, purists of all sorts wind up disappointed in the officials they elect. Examples abound. Netanyahu, for instance, infuriated supporters who believed, or at least hoped, that he would honor his annexation vow.