Separation of powers
This week we learned that the FBI illegally searched a national security database for the last name of a U.S. Senator. The U.S. Government has a surveillance tool known as Section 702, which is a database of foreign intelligence information. Agents may be granted permission by special courts to search the database. According to the court conducting an oversight review, in this instance agents were granted permission to search the database, but improperly searched for the Senator’s name. Although the court’s oversight report does not name the Senator, I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that the Senator was a conservative. This occurrence feeds into the other recent issues at the FBI that have separation of powers and free speech implications. Section 702 requires Congressional authorization, and is on a deadline for reauthorization by December 31, 2023. You can count on Congress demanding reform from the FBI before agreeing to reauthorize use of the database. If you’d like, you can read more about it here.
Retributive justice
City Journal has a nice article this week about the increase in shoplifting nationwide. You can read it here. The article dispels the myth of the starving shoplifter. As the article points out, shoplifting is increasing because organized retail theft rings are taking advantage of soft-on-crime policies occurring particularly in urban areas. The application of a retributive criminal justice model would fix the problem.
Judicial restraint
Last week, I settled a custody dispute over some dogs. At the same time, some state level trial court judge in Rhode Island ruled that the Chevron corporation is responsible for climate change. I may need to think bigger. Or maybe not. It turns out that the judge may be in disciplinary hot water for relying on evidence outside the record to support his decision that a single company altered the climate of the Earth. It is a good reminder that judges should just decide cases, not make policy. You can read all about it here.
Free speech
Last week, the U.S. House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government held a hearing regarding the Federal government colluding with big tech to censor Americans’ speech on internet platforms. After the hearing, New York Times reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg tweeted:
“Despite the theater, the hearing raised thorny questions about free speech in a democratic society: Is misinformation protected by the First Amendment? When is it appropriate for the federal government to seek to tamp down the spread of falsehoods?”
The answer is yes, “misinformation” is protected by the First Amendment. And, also, never, Sheryl. It is never appropriate for the federal government to “tamp down the spread of falsehoods.” These are not thorny questions. Americans’ right to free speech is right there in the Constitution.