PowerLine -> A Chappaquiddick Reckoning At Last?
- A Chappaquiddick Reckoning At Last?
- John Kelly fires back at Luis Gutierrez
- Irma update
- Almost blacklisted by Google
- The gutless Mr. Franken (2)
|A Chappaquiddick Reckoning At Last?
Posted: 11 Sep 2017 04:46 PM PDT
I paid no attention to the fact that Hollywood was producing a biopic of Ted Kennedy’s famous “accident” at Chappaquiddick in 1969, and would have assumed that it was a typical gauzy pro-Kennedy puff piece if I had known. But Variety magazine, the main trade journal of Hollywood, offers a review that not only says that the forthcoming movie Chappaquiddick is suitably harsh on Teddy, but that he—and the Kennedy reputation—deserve it:
But this is just the beginning. The reviewer, Variety chief film critic Owen Gleiberman, piles on:
I hope Gleiberman has good life insurance and checks his car’s ignition before he starts up every day from now on. Just to be safe, don’t park next to Oliver Stone.
For what it’s worth, some years ago I had a long conversation with someone who owned a second home on Chappaquiddick and was present that weekend, though, as a Republican, he was not at the infamous party. He told me the story went out over the weekend that Kopechne had fallen asleep in the back seat of Kennedy’s car, and that Teddy wasn’t aware she was back there when he drove off the bridge. This doesn’t square with a lot of the circumstances and other facts of the story, leading to the suggestion that this was the first version of an alibi that was abandoned because couldn’t hold up.
This person (now deceased) also said that the Kennedy machine descended upon Chappaquiddick like the Normandy invasion, canvassing the island’s small population to see whether there were any witnesses and tamp down any “rumors.”
|John Kelly fires back at Luis Gutierrez
Posted: 11 Sep 2017 03:20 PM PDT
I wrote here about how Rep. Luis Gutierrez called John Kelly, President Trump’s chief of staff, a “hypocrite” and a “disgrace to the uniform he used to wear.” Kelly served in the military for more than 40 years.
Gutierrez never served a day. However, he became hysterical over Trump’s decision to phase out the DACA program, while giving Congress the opportunity to implement its protections. Gutierrez claimed that Trump’s action violated a promise Kelly had made. As I demonstrated here, though, there is no inconsistency between what Gutierrez says Kelly promised — no mass deportations of “dreamers” — and the winding down of a program that granted them secure status plus benefits.
Kelly has now responded to Gutierrez. He said:
Kelly also defended the decision to phase out DACA, while giving Congress time to pass legislation that accomplishes the same things:
It’s not really true that every legal scholar says DACA is unconstitutional. One can find left-wing academics who defend its constitutionality.
It’s telling though that a former left-wing academic initially conceded that DACA-style amnesty would be an illegal usurpation of power by the executive. The professor’s name was Barack Obama.
Rep. Gutierrez’s office responded lamely to Kelly. It noted that “the constitutionality of DACA has never been challenged successfully in court.” But the constitutionality of DAPA has successfully been challenged, and the arguments against DACA are very similar.
In any event, the president of the United States takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. He has thus sworn not to maintain programs that, in his view, are unconstitutional. He need not, and should not, wait for courts to opine.
If the president were considering a program to take some as yet unheard of draconian measure to punish illegal immigrants, it would not do for him to blow off constitutional concerns on the grounds that the constitutionality of the punishment has never been challenged successfully in court. It will not do for Gutierrez, apparently illiterate when it comes to the Constitution, to blow off constitutional concerns over DACA.
Gutierrez owes Kelly an apology. But Kelly probably doesn’t take the open-borders loudmouth seriously enough to want one.
Posted: 11 Sep 2017 02:38 PM PDT
Our Florida hurricane correspondent provides this brief update from Fort Myers and Cape Coral:
Irma passed very slightly to the east of Fort Myers, which was actually worse for the city since it saw nothing but eyewall for several hours instead of getting a respite in the eye. Still, there is little major damage – uprooted trees, a few houses damaged by falling trees, localized flooding, signs damaged or knocked down, widespread power outages (though LCEC has done a very effective job at restoring electricity to critical installations). The vicious storm surge everyone feared largely did not materialize; even Sanibel and Captiva suffered little significant damage. No doubt damage and fatalities would have been worse had a large surge occurred. Miami, Naples and the Keys suffered the most of what damage there was, and only the latter was really smashed. No reports of looting locally and the cleanup is proceeding.
Six deaths are attributed to the storm. Three emergency responders were killed in car accidents, a fourth death was a civilian in a car accident, and a carbon monoxide poisoning from a Miami man who ran a generator in an enclosed space. Only one person was killed by the storm itself, a man on Shark Key (Monroe County) who failed or refused to evacuate or go to a storm shelter and was apparently drowned in his house.
There is not a single other reported death — not at the landfall site in Collier (Marco Island; Naples), not in Lee County, nor anywhere else in the state. As Irma was still a huge Cat 2 storm when it raked most of the peninsula, I attribute the good outcome to Florida’s preparation and its building codes – Florida is a much harder target than pretty much anywhere else in the country. The authorities responded magnificently, organized, efficient, and firm. And the vast majority of people acted rationally and cautiously. I think having Harvey hit two weeks earlier probably prompted even the most blasé Gators to prepare and/or evacuate and/or shelter.
One notable casualty: the 100-year-old Banyan tree at the Edison estate. A shame.
|Almost blacklisted by Google
Posted: 11 Sep 2017 05:20 AM PDT
All I can say at this point is that we are in good company.
|The gutless Mr. Franken (2)
Posted: 11 Sep 2017 05:00 AM PDT
President Trump has nominated Notre Dame Law Professor Amy Barrett to the Seventh Circuit and Professor Barrett once gave a speech to the legal rights organization Alliance Defending Freedom. The ADF has recently been designated an anti-LGBT hate group by the absurdly misnamed hate cult known as the Southern Poverty Law Center. Drawing on the SPLC’s assault on the ADF and Professor Barrett’s appearance to speak before the group once upon a time, Franken has attacked Professor Barrett as unworthy of confirmation.
Here we have absurdity heaped upon absurdity in the style of McCarthyite guilt by association, but with a twist. At the end of McCarthy’s attacks was the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. At the end of Franken’s attack is the Alliance Defending Freedom. Franken’s performance in the hearing on Professor Barrett before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week made for a sickening display of ignorance heaped upon bigotry and dishonesty.
Franken has drawn on the same technique to state his opposition to the nomination of Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Stras to the Eighth Circuit. In the statement that he released after his pretended four-month study of Justice Stras’s record, Franken announced that he would withhold his blue slip and therefore prevent Justice Stras’s nomination even from consideration by the Senate unless it is dishonored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley. Here are the two operative paragraphs of Franken’s statement (with my editorial notation of falsehoods):
Again note the McCarthyite approach that makes up the sum and substance of Franken’s opposition to Justice Stras (and of his prospective opposition to Professor Barrett). Justice Stras clerked for Justice Thomas. Justice Stras has spoken highly of Justice Scalia. Justice Stras is supported by the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society (putting the facts to one side). Franken, therefore, opposes Justice Stras.
Franken cites nothing from Justice Stras’s scholarly or judicial record to support his opposition. Franken’s opposition is founded entirely on guilt by association — not with the Communist Party or some nefarious organization, but rather with Justice Thomas and with the Federalist Society.
I took a look at Senator Amy Klobuchar’s statement on the Stras nomination last week in “The many moods of Amy Klobuchar.” Klobuchar’s statement supports a hearing for Justice Stras while also supporting deference to Franken’s blue slip. Star Tribune reporter Patrick Coolican declared Klobuchar’s statement — seeking to please all while committing herself to nothing — “peak Klobuchar.” She is a walking parody of a politician.
They put the question squarely to Senator Grassley. Will he respect this nonsense?