Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Cruising the Web

Jim Geraghty suggests that reporters ask Hillary if she regrets her actions in how she approached defending a child rapist by preparing to attack the 12-year old victim.
If asked, Hillary will presumably attempt to revert to “everyone is entitled to the best legal defense/legal ethics,” spin and try to keep it there, try to make it a boring story of two legal professors arguing abstract principles. The more interesting question will be whether anyone asks how she feels about attacking the credibility of a 12-year-old rape victim — particularly when, as Hillary later said on the tapes, she believes her client committed the crime.

This story could change the race if this blows up big enough. If Hillary says, “yes, I regret it,” she’s admitting to an unpardonable sin in the eyes of the feminists, the Left, and honestly, a lot of Americans.

But if she says, “no, I didn’t do anything wrong, I did what every good lawyer would do” she looks callous and harsh and ruthless, confirming all of the old 1990s stereotypes.

Some may wonder how this aggressive legal strategy squares with Hillary’s declaration, “the Bible was and remains the biggest influence on my thinking.”

Jeff Jacoby makes the common-sense proposal that laws be written with expiration dates.
In the real world, things don’t last forever. The carton of milk in your refrigerator has an expiration date. So does the credit card in your wallet. Cars need periodic tune-ups. Medical prescriptions have to be reauthorized.

Government should operate on the same assumption. Every law should expire automatically after a fixed period of time — say, 12 or 15 years — unless lawmakers expressly vote to reauthorize it. Likewise every legislatively created agency and program. Members of Congress and state legislatures should be required to revisit their handiwork on a regular basis, reviewing it for relevance, efficacy, and soundness, and allowing measures that have outlived their usefulness to lapse.

“The presumption should be that laws are experimental solutions to social problems we want to eliminate,” says political scientist Matthew Franck of the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J. If the solutions are working and continue to be needed, a legislature is always free to extend them. But if the experiments fail — the “solutions” didn’t solve — “a sunset provision helps forestall the problem of vested interests, in and out of government, building up to protect [laws] despite their failure or irrelevance.”

Some liberal myths about partisanship are revealed to be just that...myths.

Gee, what does NBC think it's going to gain by hiring the daughters of famous politicians and paying them absurd amounts of money given their journalistic inexperience? Paying Chelsea Clinton $600,000 is just the worst of their bad bets.

The media have their own problem with the IRS's implausible story about the loss of Lois Lerner's emails. But they'll continue to downplay and ignore that story just as they've done for the whole scandal for the past year.

The lawyer for True the Vote, one of the groups illegally targeted by the IRS, has some pointed questions for the IRS. Given that TTV has filed a lawsuit that includes Lois Lerner, those missing emails are part of the record in that lawsuit. The letter cites legal standards that "the bad faith destruction of evidence relevant to proof of an issue gives rise to an inference that production of the evidence would have been unfavorable to the party responsible for its destruction." The IRS will have some 'splaining to do.

So what did Jane Fonda do to deserve an AFI Lifetime Achievement Award?

Scott Walker is getting ready and honing his message.

The linguistic barbarians are winning.

No comments: