It isn’t pretty.
Fainting-Couch Feminists
A new video from Christina Hoff Sommers on how they threaten freedom:
I recently encountered fainting couchers at Oberlin College and Georgetown University. I visited both campuses to give talks on the need to reform feminism and correct exaggerated victim statistics. In the past, activist students who disagreed with me came to my lectures to spar and debate. Today, they issue trigger warnings and accuse me of giving them PTSD. At both Oberlin and Georgetown, activists organized safe spaces were where students could flee if they were panicked by my arguments. While I spoke at Oberlin, 35 students and a therapy dog sought refuge in a safe room. (I feel badly that I triggered a dog.)
Clearly, she is history’s greatest monster.
King Versus Burwell
The legality of executive action, if the government loses.
Bottom line: The road to fixing this legislative atrocity goes through Congress. But of course, the Democrats will blame Republicans, none of whom voted for it, for this mess.
Hillary’s Work Emails
Busted: Proof she didn’t turn them all over.
It’s not like her withholding evidence is anything new. It goes all the way back to the Rose Law Firm.
Also, In addition to continuing to pressure the thugs at the IRS, Judicial Watch continues to go after Huma:
Revelations that Hillary Clinton used a secret email account to conduct official business while serving as secretary of state has led to more decisive action today by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Judge Sullivan issued a decision to reopen a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking records about Huma Abedin, the former deputy chief of staff, to Hillary Clinton.
This is actually the second Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit that has been reopened because of Hillary Clinton’s hidden email records. Judicial Watch is aware of no prior instances of closed FOIA cases being reopened by federal courts.
Judge Sullivan ruled that the “changed circumstances” of the discovery that Hillary Clinton and members of her State Department staff used secret email accounts to conduct government business warranted “reopening” the lawsuit.
In asking Judge Sullivan to reopen the lawsuit, Judicial Watch cited a federal court rule (Rule 60(b)(3)) that allows a party to reopen a case due to “fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party”:
The State Department had an obligation under the Federal Records Act to properly preserve, maintain, and make available for retrieval records of its official functions. In fact, it is the obligation of the head of every federal agency to do so. Secretary Clinton plainly violated her own legal obligations. Doing so was misconduct.
The State Department originally agreed with Judicial Watch’s request but later changed its mind and asked the Court to reopen the lawsuit because of “newly discovered evidence.” In today’s ruling, Judge Sullivan simply reopened the case, rather than “spilling ink” on whether Hillary Clinton and the State Department committed fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct.
Good for them, and the judge. These people don’t deserve a term in the White House. They deserve a term of twenty to forty in Club Fed.
Better Batteries
…through better manufacturing?
I hope so. But of course, high-capacity batteries are potentially bombs.
The Government’s Legal Assault On Reason
It’s even more outrageous than we thought. And there is no accountability.
Over at USA Today, more commentary from Instapundit.
Liberal Pieties
…that only the “Right” believes any more.
I continue to wage war on the Left’s assault on the language. They are not liberal (or, for that matter, progressive), and never have been.
China’s Hackers
It’s not possible to overstate what a disaster this is for national security. But the media would rather talk about Confederate flags.
SCOTUS
More opinions coming today. Follow live at (where else?) Scotusblog.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Heh. From Amy Howe: “Don’t type the phrase ‘the Ninth Circuit is affirmed’ that often. My fingers rebelled.”
[Update a couple minutes later, scrolling through]
Court ruled against the government in Horne, in favor of the raisin farmers. This is potentially huge. It could be major blow to idiotic anti-market agriculture policies dating back to the Depression.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here is Amy’s round up of today’slast week’s court action, prior to today’s rulings [oops].
[Late-morning PDT update]
Hearing that more decisions will be announced not only on Thursday, but Friday as well. Both King v. Burwell and the same-sex marriage rulings will be huge.
[Late-afternoon update]
Ilya Somin discusses the implications of the Horne ruling:
whatever one thinks about the compensation issue, the Court’s holding on the question of whether a taking has occurred is an important victory for property owners. It ensures that personal property gets the same level of protection as real property under the Takings Clause, and that the government cannot avoid takings liability by giving owners a small share of the proceeds from the disposition of their property.
The ruling also calls into question a number of other similar agricultural cartel schemes run by the federal government. In addition to property owners, consumers of agricultural products are likely to benefit from the decision, if these cartel schemes can no longer operate. Freer competition between producers in these agricultural markets will increase the amount of goods sold, and thereby lower prices. Lowered food prices are of particular benefit to poor and lower-middle class consumers, who generally spend a higher proportion of their income on food than the affluent do.
Republicans don’t emphasize enough how these market interventions by the government hurt the poor. Including minimum wages laws.
Science, Uncertainty And Advocacy
Judith Curry is attending an interesting conference in the UK, and has some formal comments:
Some people regard any engagement of a scientist with the policy process as advocacy – I disagree. The way I look at it is that advocacy involves forceful persuasion, which is consistent with the legal definition of advocacy.
In the code of ethics for lawyers, where forceful persuasion is part of their job description, they are ethically bound only not to state something that they know to be false. Lawyers are under no compunction to introduce evidence that hurts their case – that’s the other side’s job.
Unlike lawyers, scientists are supposed to search for truth, and scientific norms encourage disclosure of sources and magnitude of uncertainty. Now if you are a scientist advocating for a specific issue, uncertainty will get in the way of your forceful persuasion.
In principle, scientists can ethically and effectively advocate for an issue, provided that their statements are honest and they disclose uncertainties. In practice, too many scientists, and worse yet professional societies, are conducting their advocacy for emissions reductions in a manner that is not responsible in context of the norms of science.
Much of climate “science” abandoned science years ago, going back to Schneider.