Patterico's Pontifications


When They Say That It Will Never Happen, Count On It Happening

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:42 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Not long ago, Americans were lectured about their concerns “hysteria” over transgenders choosing their bathrooms and dressing rooms according to the gender they identified with rather than what they were assigned at birth. Americans were also derided as bigots for their concerns that things like this might happen:

An Idaho man who told police he identifies as a woman was arrested Tuesday after allegedly taking photos of a woman in a Target fitting room, officials said.

Sean Patrick Smith, 43, was allegedly dressed in women’s clothing when he entered the fitting room in the women’s section of the store in Ammon on Monday, East Idaho News reported. Smith, also known as Shauna Patricia Smith, then began taking pictures of a woman in the changing stall next to him, police said.

“The woman was begging for help as she chased the man out the door,” a witness told East Idaho News. “She kept saying she wanted those pictures deleted.”

Detectives found Smith on Tuesday and charged him with one felony count of voyeurism. He was booked into the Bonneville County Jail and was set to make a court appearance Wednesday.

As a reminder, it has been estimated that Target lost approximately $2.5 billion within two weeks of announcing their new transgender restroom/dressing room policy.


FBI Agents Involved In Hillary Clinton Email Investigation Required To Sign Non-Disclosure Agreements

Filed under: General — Dana @ 4:05 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Everything involving Hillary Clinton has a foul and treacherous stench that threatens to suffocate any remaining decency in the halls of government. It almost seems as if her sole mission in this life is to force the masses to be reminded of the brutal, unyielding truth that amassed power in the hands of the few will ultimately cost us our freedom.

Sources said they had never heard of the “Case Briefing Acknowledgment” form being used before, although all agents must initially sign nondisclosure agreements to obtain security clearance.

“This is very, very unusual. I’ve never signed one, never circulated one to others,” said one retired FBI chief.

An FBI agent currently on the job admitted, “I have never heard of such a form. Sounds strange.”

Meanwhile, FBI agents expressed their “disappointment” over FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to recommend charges against Clinton, sources close to the matter told The Post.

“FBI agents believe there was an inside deal put in place after the Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting,” said one source.

Another source from the Justice Department was “furious” with Comey, saying he’s “managed to piss off right and left.”

I have questions. They may be ignorant, but nonetheless: If agents are required to sign a standard nondisclosure agreement from the get-go in order to gain security clearance, wouldn’t that also cover any investigation in which the agent was involved with during their employment, and wouldn’t they be bound by it after they were no longer employed at the DOJ? Also, wouldn’t said nondisclosure agreement to gain security clearance also come with severe penalties if not adhered to? And, couldn’t we assume that those penalties would include prosecution and even possible time served, depending on which section of the United States Code was violated?

In considering James Comey and the choices he may have made, this would ring true: A reputation for doing the right thing under pressure is hard to make and easy to break.


Washington Post And New York Times Tell Ruth Bader Ginsburg She Needs To Zip It

Filed under: General — Dana @ 1:23 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Surprising to see the editorial boards of both the Washington Post and the New York Times actually take Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to task for her repeated attacks on Donald Trump this past week.

From the Washington Post “Justice Ginsburg’s inappropriate comments on Donald Trump”:

However valid her comments may have been, though, and however in keeping with her known political bent, they were still much, much better left unsaid by a member of the Supreme Court. There’s a good reason the Code of Conduct for United States Judges flatly states that a “judge should not . . . publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.” Politicization, real or perceived, undermines public faith in the impartiality of the courts. No doubt this restriction requires judges, and justices, to muzzle themselves and, to a certain extent, to pretend they either do or do not think various things that they obviously do or do not believe. As the saying goes, however, “hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue.”

When the story of Justice Ginsburg’s career is written, there will be many highlights — her pioneering work as a lawyer advocating women’s rights; her many trenchant opinions on the high court in defense of American society’s underdogs. Her performance this week, alas, confirms her fallibility.

From the New York Times “Donald Trump is right about Ruth Bader Ginsburg”:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling.

There is no legal requirement that Supreme Court justices refrain from commenting on a presidential campaign. But Justice Ginsburg’s comments show why their tradition has been to keep silent.

In this election cycle in particular, the potential of a new president to affect the balance of the court has taken on great importance, with the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out, other justices are nearing an age when retirement would not be surprising. That makes it vital that the court remain outside the presidential process. And just imagine if this were 2000 and the resolution of the election depended on a Supreme Court decision. Could anyone now argue with a straight face that Justice Ginsburg’s only guide would be the law?

While the editorial boards of the WaPo and the NYT surely didn’t appreciate being pushed to the point of having to publicly side with Trump, at least we can all still count on the White House high-fiving the naked partisanship of a loyal progresive Democrat on the Supreme Court:



Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0731 secs.