Republicans Should Refuse to Pass Obama’s Use-of-Force Request

Obama doesn’t care about the law. He’s made this abundantly clear in his serial unilateralisms. There is no reason that Republicans should now pass a legal fiction designed to provide Obama with a stage on which to flaunt his respect for the rule of law.

The notion that Obama doesn’t want excessive authority is a shot across the bow of reason. He wants a law that authorizes him to only to act as he would anyway, irrespective of any law. He wants such a law to be passed because it will allow him to blame Republicans for the failures that result from his refusal to undertake such strategies as are seriously calculated to counter ISIS.

Instead, Republicans should authorize our effete president to wage unrestricted warfare against ISIS and any state that harbors ISIS.

Obviously, Democrats will make every effort to leverage this nakedly political slovenization of the war powers. But this is an ideal opportunity for Republicans not only to escape the frothing taint of complicity in Obama’s abdication-usurpation but also to enact real, positive public policy.

If ISIS is worth fighting, it’s worth fighting right. Obama’s America aspires to be some sneak-thief in the night, fighting our enemies in squalid alleyways. That’s the fight his proposal authorizes.

This is not a Great Power strategy. Great Powers don’t fight in the alley–they bomb the alley. They don’t answer the enemy’s ultimatum–they eradicate the world to which that ultimatum refers.

When a pygmy bites a giant, the question is not what the giants may do in response. The question is what is necessary to prevent pygmies biting giants. And this is a question that always has a rational answer. But that answer cannot be expressed in terms of how many troops the giants are permitted to deploy against the pygmies. That’s just an invitation.

Carthago delenda est.

Obama: Most Threatened President Ever?

Former RNC chair Michael Steele ends up agreeing with Ben Affleck on Maher that this is a result of racism (like Obama, Steele is black). Stuff like this (political professional has avoidable political debate with actor, loses badly) cost Steele his position with the RNC. His general incompetence also played a role.

Anyway, the topic question? The answer surely is yes, but not for racism.

Obama gets more threats than any previous president did because it’s never been easier to (1) anonymously threaten the president, and (2) identify and catalog threats made against the president.

Alternative Death Penalties

Wyoming has a bill pending which authorizes the firing squad in the event that the state cannot obtain chemicals required for lethal injection.

This is very much the right idea because anti-capital punishment advocates have lately focused their efforts on the lethal injection supply chain, and lethal injection is presently the only authorized method of capital punishment in most of the states retaining the penalty. And aside, lethal injection is an idiotic method in the first place.

But Wyoming errs in selecting the firing squad.

This is a practice best reserved for honorable deaths, which as far as I know, isn’t a thing outside of the UCMJ today (and whether or not they still have it I assume but couldn’t really say).

Honorable soldiers got the firing squad because they deserved “a soldier’s death.”

Criminals, always joined by dishonorable soldiers, got the noose or its equivalent, and they deserve no more today.

You can always tell by the method of execution whether the condemned was deemed honorable: honorable men were killed by other men; dishonorable men were killed by the State, which in practice usually meant gravity. And even where it provided the assist, you will see a difference, as with decapitation by sword instead of axe.

Wyoming absolutely should move past lethal injection — a shortsighted attempt to appease people who will stop at nothing to abolish capital punishment — but the obviously correct substitute is hanging, not the firing squad.

Let the condemned fall under his own weight.

WTF, Japan: Kuro Burger

In today’s edition: the “Black Burger.”

BN-EM419_bkingj_G_20140911022003[1]

Because the Tentacle Burger isn’t ready yet.

Preliminary Thoughts: Perfidia

James Ellroy has, I believe, written an autobiography called My Dark Places.

I really don’t read autobiographies because, aside from they’re apparently all fake, reflective insight is often unreliable. That said, I sort of think I have read Ellroy’s because what else could you call any of his other books?

They’re all about serious men disabled by creeping obsession as necessary to reconcile Ellroy’s byzantine plots with history. That is, they’re character-driven at the beginning but not at the ending, which is also a way of describing obsession.

Perfidia wastes very little time introducing this dynamic, which I would not call promising.

Michael Brown and the Interpretation of Science

recently released x-ray apparently demonstrates that the police officer who shot Brown suffered an “Orbital Blowout Fracture to Eye Socket.” Now, such expertise as I have is in the law and not medical science, but I get the feeling that this is one of the fractures tending to result when you get hit in the face.

Officer’s x-ray, purportedly.

That puts sort of an amusing spin on the previous announcement (worded of course by “lawyers for Mr. Brown’s family”1) that an autopsy of Brown showed no signs of a struggle.

That is: Brown was winning the struggle.


  1. Or something like that. In reality what are called “civil rights lawyers” who arranged to be retained by the family after the shooting, as these same did with the Trayvon Martin family. And in plain English, black lawyers who sue white defendants on behalf of black plaintiffs, which is apparently what “civil rights” now entail. 

Nazis! And Desperate Law Profs

If I were in the business of issuing awards for the most outrageously attention-seeking law review articles, this year’s first place winner would have me scouring WestLaw and Lexis for articles about Nazis.

Because that’s what the first place article is about.

Except it’s not — it’s actually an article supporting Argentina’s lawless assertion that it oughtn’t be bound by the terms of an agreement it made under New York Law.

Naturally, the article is titled: Pari Passu: The Nazi Gambit.

Because, right?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.