Apparently, the richest man in the world is not exempt from bullying.
At least that is how Tesla CEO Elon Musk interprets a Feb. 7 subpoena from the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking information about Musk’s compliance with a 2018 settlement that requires Musk’s tweets on “material information about the company” be vetted by company lawyers prior to posting.
Musk clearly has irritated the SEC and, more generally, the Biden administration by controversial opinions that seem to have little, if any, relationship to TESLA.
Musk has exercised what many would consider to be his First Amendment right to communicate with his 63 million followers on Twitter (twice as many as Pres. Biden).
Continue reading “Can The Richest Man In the World Be Bullied?”
If you can’t get the state legislature to do what you want, bully corporations that are critical to the state’s economy into advocating your position.
A group of 72 black executives, including some Fortune 500 business leaders, appear to be using this strategy to either force Georgia to repeal Georgia SB 202, an election integrity law, or to scare other states into not passing similar measures.
In a letter this week, they called the Georgia bill an effort to suppress minority voting and urged corporations to oppose the measure. And they are.
Ed Bastian, president of Delta Air Lines, a Georgia-based company and the state’s largest employer, said Wednesday “the bill includes provisions that will make it harder for many underrepresented voters, particularly Black voters, to exercise their constitutional right to elect their representatives. That is wrong.”
The bill, signed into law by GOP Gov. Brian Kemp last month, requires all voters to provide a driver’s license or a free state ID card number to request and submit an absentee ballot. Every voter already must present some form of photo ID to vote in person.
The bill also makes it a misdemeanor for individuals to give gifts or “food and drink” to voters who are waiting in line to vote. (Poll workers can still provide water.) And it restricts the number and placement of ballot drop-off boxes to insure ballot security.
Poll: Most Blacks Support Voter ID
The issue is anything but clear cut.
For one thing, a recent poll shows that most Americans – including most black Americans – support voter identification.
Continue reading “Will Bullying Corporations Discourage States From Passing Voter Integrity Bills?”
A majority of the U.S. Supreme Court recently dismissed, without comment, lawsuits alleging election fraud in swing states during the 2020 Presidential election.
In a neat twist, the Court refused to hear the cases prior to the election because it was too close to election day and then, after the election, declared the cases were moot.
So far the Court has managed to avoid what may be the greatest crisis of confidence in America’s electoral process in U.S. history.
But it still faces another test.
A month prior to the 2020 election, the Court agreed to decide a challenge by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to an Arizona law that prohibits ballot harvesting, a practice where a third-party often is paid by an advocacy group to fan out across poor neighborhoods to collect and then file absentee ballots. The DNC also wants to overturn an AZ policy requiring ballots be cast in the precinct that matches the voter’s home address.
The case is scheduled to be heard next month.
Continue reading “An Election Integrity Issue The U.S. Supreme Court Can’t Duck?”
It is well settled that it violates the U.S. Constitution for the government to engage in speech discrimination based on political viewpoint.
So how did U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield of New York City justify dismissing a lawsuit filed by a pro-Trump women’s group that was denied a permit in July 2020 to paint a mural on NYC streets after the city condoned eight yellow “Black Lives Matter” murals on its streets?
Judge Schofield ruled the BLM murals do not constitute private or political speech, which would require the court to apply strict scrutiny. Rather, she said the BLM murals are “government speech” that spread the message “that these are our values in New York City.”
Judge Schofield compared the BLM murals to a display of a donated Ten Commandment monument in a public park or a state’s approval of specialty license plates.
The plaintiff in the case, Women For America First, wanted to paint the following message: “Engaging, Inspiring and Empowering Women to Make a Difference!” (Not, apparently, reflecting the values in New York City?)
Political Content Irrelevant
Judge Schofield does not address the fact that BLM is a political organization that espouses Marxist views. Apparently, that’s not relevant.
Continue reading “Tortured Reasoning: BLM Murals Are ‘Government Speech’”
The impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3, Clause 6: states: “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.”
The Constitution expressly requires the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court to preside over a presidential impeachment trial. But Chief Justice John Roberts is nowhere to be seen in the ongoing U.S. Senate “trial” of former President Donald J. Trump.
Instead, Senate President Pro Tempore John Leahy, a partisan Democrat from Vermont who already has declared his support for Trump’s impeachment, is presiding. Leahy is also a juror, which makes the situation even more absurd.
If it is Robert’s job to preside at the impeachment trial then he darn well should be doing it. But he is definitely not there. He’s not sick or otherwise incapacitated. He’s just absent.
The Supreme Court has no comment about Roberts’ absence from Trump’s second “impeachment trial.” There is speculation that Roberts refused to preside because Trump is no longer President. As previously noted, the impeachment clause specifically pertains to “[w]hen the President of the United States is tried.”
Roberts’ Absence = Not An Impeachment Trial
Continue reading “It’s Not an ‘Impeachment Trial’ So What Is It?”