Savor this, as it might be the only schadenfreude you’ll get this silly season: Kathleen Kane in handcuffs being carted off to prison. They had high hopes for this rising star in Democratic politics, and now where are they? Bloomberg sank, if I recall, about half a million into her race. That’s a lot of cash to spend to buy a few reciprocity agreement changes, but it’s always good to get in the ground floor of a rising political career. But that was not to be.
Pennsylvania voters will be casting votes for a ballot initiative they have already defeated once this year. Why?
Because lawmakers realized what the outcome would likely be and decided at the last minute to invalidate the question wording to put something more misleading on the ballot instead. Based on a test run by a polling firm, they are going to get what they want by playing dirty.
What’s the issue? Judicial retirement ages.
In April, we were asked directly whether or not to increase the age at which judges could retire from 70 to 75. The question before voters was clear:
Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges and justices of the peace (known as magisterial district judges) be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years, instead of the current requirement that they be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 70?
It explained who it would apply to, the proposed change, and the old rule. Perfectly reasonable ballot question! Except that when you look at the history of these types of votes in other states, they almost always go down in defeat. So the lawmakers decided to change the wording at the last minute. Except absentee ballots were already printed and voting machines programmed. Instead, we were told that our votes wouldn’t count, so we shouldn’t bother voting on it. But 2.4 million people voted anyway, and they said no to the increase – exactly what lawmakers feared would happen.
When the new language was announced, a couple of former Supreme Court Chief Justices sued on the basis that it’s deliberately deceitful. You be the judge:
Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges and magisterial district judges be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years?
Funny how now it sounds like you’re adding a judicial retirement age to the constitution instead of extending the terms of those in office! Even funnier that the current Chief Justice turns 70 this winter, and the next in line for the seat turns 70 next year. What an odd and completely unexpected coincidence! What an even stranger coincidence that the Supreme Court decided to leave the question alone with one Justice recusing, half saying it’s perfectly clear and the other half saying it’s confusing. Average age of the justices voting that it’s clear as day? 62. Average age of those voting that it’s clear as mud? 55. If you count the Chief Justice’s recusal as putting him in the camp of those wanting the new, confusing language, that average age goes up to 64.
While I did vote no on the initial non-binding vote, I could have been convinced that it’s worthwhile to increase the retirement age. But now, no way. This is a deliberate deception, and one columnist mentions that a local polling firm has found it’s likely going to work exactly how lawmakers and the courts wanted it to work.
Berwood Yost, chief methodologist for the Franklin & Marshall Poll, … found in a split-ballot experiment that voters presented with the current wording tended to vote “yes.” When asked if justices should be able to retire at 75 instead of 70, however, most say no.
If you’re a Pennsylvania voter, I would strongly encourage you to vote “NO” on the ballot question this November. More importantly, tell your friends and family who vote about what’s going so they know not to support this kind of deceit. In April, it was a legitimate vote on the retirement age. Next month, it’s a more of a vote on legal ethics. Don’t let them play these games and get away with it.
Yet he didn’t immediately join the the gun safety movement. It wasn’t until the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Mass., when he watched the victims on TV the same way the rest of the nation watched his tragedy at Virginia Tech, that something changed for Goddard. He has come to refer to this shift as his ‘Newtown moment.’
“I think the fact that it was an elementary school shook this country to its core,” he told Forbes. “People said, ‘Something has to change.’”
The following day, Goddard packed his bags and moved to Washington DC.
That’s not the history I remember, and I’m betting you don’t either. The reason for that is because it’s totally made up. A search for “Goddard” on my blog turns up dozens of stories when Colin was professionally employed by the DC-based Brady Campaign wellbefore Sandy Hook. The entire narrative offered to lackadaisical Forbes reporter Alexandra Wilson is entirely manufactured! Ten minutes of Googling would have shown Colin Goddard is making up this timeline.
Reporters need to be a lot more skeptical of claims from the gun control movement. Chances are if you see their lips moving, you’re either being outright lied to, or you’re being deceived in some way. Check their facts with actual experts.
UPDATE from Bitter: It turns out that she didn’t even need to Google it. Colin’s own LinkedIn page says he started working as an Assistant Director of Federal Legislation in the gun control movement years before the Newtown shooting. Yet Alexandra Wilson claims he didn’t even head to DC until after Sandy Hook. So is she lying about the timeline, was she deceived, or do Brady Campaign donors have a very fair concern over why a former Assistant Director wasn’t working in DC, despite his job being to work on federal affairs?
Fact: the word “child” nor “toddler” can be found at all in the Heller decision. It was about whether a 66 year old security guard was allowed to keep a firearm in the home and ready for self-defense. Hillary Clinton has said she is opposed to the Heller decision. When she claims that this is about the children, she is out-and-out lying.
The iP9 is expected to retail for about the same suggested retail price as the iP1 — $1,365, which is more than twice the price of many conventional 9mm semi-automatic pistols. While smart gun technology will always bring with it a price premium, Tweraser said that’s to be expected, and he compared it to a Tesla electric car.
You could get a decent defensive pistol and a quality quick-open safe with that kind of money, and that would be a far better option. As long as politicians are interested in smart-gun mandates, there’s no way they are going to get any retailers to sell this thing, because we’ll ruin any retailer that cooperates with Armatix and thus cooperates with the politicians looking to pick smart guns as the winner out of the gate.
I have no issue with smart gun technology per se, if it were allowed to succeed or fail in the open marketplace, but politicians who hate guns are never going to allow that to happen. If this ends up on the market, it will be mandated, as is already the case in New Jersey. So screw Armatix: if they think you’re getting back into the US market without a fight, they’re dreaming.
Passed by a 30-19 vote. Unfortunately, that’s not a veto-proof majority. It takes 33 votes to override a veto, and it’s hard to see which votes there could be switched. NRA is asking folks to reach out to their State Reps to try to get this passed in the House. It’s worth at least sending to Wolf and making him take a position on it, which unlike Republicans in Congress, PA GOP lawmakers have shown a willingness to do.
NRA is Fact Checking the Fact Checkers over Hillary’s endorsement of the Australian Model of gun control. The problem with a lot of these Fact Check sites is that they are fact checking opinion. I’ve seen this in a more contexts than guns. It is a fact that Hillary Clinton endorsed the Australian Model. This is not disputable. But it’s the opinion of the fact checkers that she didn’t really mean it, because her campaign tried to walk it back. Fact checkers should judge facts. They shouldn’t be in the business of discerning whether a politician is lying or spinning for the general public. It’s fine to mention Hillary’s campaign tried to walk back the statement. It’s fine to mention when asked directly about supporting confiscation, she dodges. It’s the ultimate judgement that the claim is false because she’s of course telling the truth that she didn’t really mean it that I have issue with. That should be for the public to decide.
Based on how I see these fact check sites used on social media, their sole purpose is as a mean to allow Democrats to smugly shut down lines of arguments that are potentially damaging to their candidates: “Politifact said it was false, so shut up with your paranoid wing nut NRA talking points.”
Although PLCAA provides a narrow exception under which plaintiffs may maintain an action for negligent entrustment of a firearm, the allegations in the present case do not fit within the common-law tort of negligent entrustment under well-established Connecticut law. A plaintiff under CUTPA must allege some kind of consumer, competitor or other commercial relationship with a defendant, and the plaintiffs here have alleged no such relationship.
Remember that their theory was that selling AR-15s to civilians at all constituted negligent entrustment. If this novel theory of that concept had been allowed to proceed, it would have rendered the PLCAA effectively meaningless. It’s a good thing for us the Judge in this case wasn’t buying it.