Liberty Updates

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

Thanks to today’s “Internet of Things” (IoT), there is an “automation” for almost every aspect of our lives. From such mundane if not downright silly things as kitchen faucets that activate on voice command, to the impressive — massive shipping warehouses run by robotics — many aspects of life today go beyond that imagined decades ago in science fiction.  While we still are waiting for flying cars depicted in the Jetsons television show of the 1960s, or space hotels as portrayed in the sci-fi epic 2001, the array of technologically driven devices available to the average citizen is indeed impressive.

Yet, while automation and artificial intelligence simplifies or altogether eliminates many of the activities of day-to-day life, the technology complicates others. For example, how do you program a self-driving car in an emergency situation to choose between the life of a pedestrian or that of its “driver?” Even more complex are questions now being asked in the context of judicial systems; decisions cutting to the heart of individual liberty. As a Forbes article propositioned, what does justice look like if, or rather when, many aspects of judicial procedures, such as sentencing, are left to computer algorithms?

On the surface, injecting AI into certain legal procedures may appear to make sense for the same reasons it is used across other sectors of industry and professions.  In many arenas, artificial intelligence can process information far faster than humans, even while incorporating astronomically more data; and doing so without “human error.”  

Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether all human “error” should be eliminated from decision-making, advocates for such technology would ask why wouldn’t we want to use AI in a judicial system that constantly is being blamed for mis-judgments in determining guilt and then in sentencing decisions?

Already algorithms are used in the judicial system in areas such as risk-assessment and “predictive policing,” in which AI processes crime data to identify trends that can help improve patrol decisions and police staffing needs.

Clearly, there are positive and negative aspects to these AI-developments. For example, risk-assessments can help eliminate prejudice in assigning bail. On the other hand, we have seen the disastrous consequences of innocent people sucked into legal nightmares when predictive AI mistakes perfectly benign activities (like a science teacher’s shopping trip) as criminal conduct if certain boxes are checked. 

As with any computer-driven action, the output of algorithms and AI is only as good as what is input; and, just as more important, who is doing the inputting and why. 

What might a sentence look like from the perspective of an algorithm designed by the so-called law-and-order types, in which any infraction of a law, no matter the circumstances, warrants the full weight of the law in response? Or, what about the “zero-tolerance” gun control zealots who suspend children from school for making finger guns? Just look at the type of “justice” Democrats demand for President Trump, and imagine such a powerful tool as algorithmic sentencing guidelines crafted by them. 

Can “justice,” especially in the context of criminal law, which by its very nature balances individual liberty against government power, ever be reduced to a technologic formula?  Should it be thus degraded?

In a fundamental sense, determining whether all aspects of a crime exist in order to pursue prosecution and then doling out punishment should the defendant be found guilty, are merely aspects of the judicial process; they are not justice in and of itself.  In its truest sense, “justice” is a principle that ensures — to the greatest human degree possible — the right guilty party is brought before the courts, and that the resultant punishment is commensurate and reflective of the individual situation at hand.  

Justice reduced to algorithm is a two-dimensional reflection of a multi-dimensional condition.  No matter how sophisticated or expansive the data, AI cannot possibly factor in such relevant circumstances as motive, mens rea (that is, a guilty state of mind), or even the fairness of the law itself. 

Experience following the adoption of federal Sentencing Guidelines in the late 1980s is highly relevant to any consideration of imposing AI on judicial proceedings.  These guidelines were the culmination of a multi-year process to standardize and streamline sentencing for defendants in federal trial court proceedings, but have required numerous and extensive revisions ever since.  They ultimately were deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be unconstitutional as mandatory “guidelines.”  This example alone should cause efforts to “standardize” fundamental aspects of our legal system via “artificial intelligence” to be viewed with extreme caution; and, in my view, ultimately discarded. 

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

If a college student today was asked on an exam to explain what a “Star Chamber” was, the answer would be far likelier to have something to do with the “Star Wars” saga than to include any reference to the notoriously corrupt system of secret judicial proceedings that prevailed in England from the late 15th Century through the mid-17th. However, if the student’s answer noted that the impeachment proceedings now being orchestrated in the House of Representatives by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her team of inquisitors bore a clear resemblance to Star Chamber proceedings, you would have to give that student at least a passing grade.

Students of British history would know as well that Star Chamber proceedings were conducted by Privy Counsellors and common-law judges according to arbitrary standards of “justice.” While such positions as Privy Counsellors are not found in 21st Century American government, the manner by which House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff is proceeding in his effort to impeach President Trump, bears a striking resemblance to those British “jurists” of long ago. His colleague Jerry Nadler, who chairs the Judiciary Committee and also has targeted the President for removal, would fit the characterization just as nicely.

As with the Star Chambers of old, Schiff has shown a clear preference for conducting the business of investigating a sitting president in secret. He is able to do this because the committee he chairs is charged with conducting essential oversight of the federal government’s sprawling Intelligence Community, and dealing with the often highly-classified information necessary to carry out that responsibility. The Committee, which was established in the late 1970s, never was intended to serve as the vehicle by which the House considers the impeachment of a president. That awesome responsibility by rules of the House, always has been assigned to the Judiciary Committee. There are, however, reasons why the House Democrat leadership has opted not to follow such precedent, and turned instead to the Star Chamber model more suited to the highly partisan and vindictive nature of its current effort. 

The most recent presidential impeachment effort — conducted in 1998 against then-President Bill Clinton — provides a clear roadmap according to which a majority of House members would be able to achieve such result with transparency and the sort of due process that were anathema to Privy Counsellors three centuries ago.  

The impeachment process in 1998 was straightforward.  The full House adopted a Resolution to inquire into whether grounds to impeach Clinton existed, which then directed the Judiciary Committee to conduct such an inquiry.  The House openly adopted rules and procedures according to which the impeachment process was to proceed. In short order, the Judiciary Committee then proceeded to hold hearings, subpoena witnesses, receive evidence, and vote to adopt articles of impeachment.  Those articles were then voted on by the full House and, after receiving a majority vote, the matter of conducting a trial vested in the Senate.  

The impeachment process back then, in 1998, was fully consistent with historic precedent and in accord with existing House rules.  It was neither arbitrary nor secret.  And while Clinton’s supporters understandably found fault with the substance of the charges against him, and with the final results in the House, no legitimate charges could be leveled that the process lacked transparency, or that the President’s lawyers did not have access to all the same information on which the Republican majority relied for its work.

Contrast that with the proceedings currently proceeding under Pelosi’s direction — secret witnesses, secret transcripts, inconsistent rules, and multiple committee venues.  The process of live witnesses testifying in open committee has been replaced with un-named “whistleblowers” apparently coached in secret by Intelligence Committee staffers and members. Subpoenas — from Democrats only — fly frequently from that Committee (and from other committees) to the White House and various other Executive Branch officers.   

Finally, in their public pronouncements, Democrats sound more like the Queen of Hearts in Alice’s Wonderland — calling for sentence first, then the trial — than they resemble public servants sworn to uphold the basic principles of due process, equal protection of the laws, and other norms of fair process for which our Founding Fathers declared the 13 colonies independent and separated from the British Crown.  Free of that very same sovereign that subjected its citizens the corrupt and unaccountable Star Chamber proceedings.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

Perhaps Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has been reading too many Ian Fleming and Tom Clancy novels. This would explain why the Senator’s September report titled, “The NRA and Russia: How a Tax-Exempt Organization Became a Foreign Asset,” reads far more like a fantasy spy thriller than a legitimate Senate report. The dramatic cover for Wyden’s docu-novel sets the tone, that when it comes to the National Rifle Association and Russia, danger lurks! 

Give us a break.

This minority committee report reflects the Democrats’ yearning to once again be in the majority, but in fact reminds us how important it is to our country that they are not permitted to regain that position. 

This latest Democrat effort to demonize the NRA centers around the comically pathetic exploits of Maria Butina, a Russian citizen convicted last year by the federal government for failing to register as an agent of a foreign government. In the post-2016 Russia-crazed paranoia in which the Democratic Party continues to dwell, that paperwork failure by Ms. Butina is tantamount to being a world-class secret agent, a la James Bond or Mata Hari. 

By any reasonable standard, the young woman’s elementary efforts to curry favor with Moscow by making some friends in the United States were never taken seriously by anyone other than a few federal prosecutors blinded by their desire to nail a Russian “hide” to the wall.  

Nevertheless, the Butina storyline is just too juicy for the Democrats to let go, especially when they can link it – however remotely — to their favorite bogeyman, the NRA. 

Attacks by the Left against the NRA have been the norm for decades but have increased in both creativity and severity since Democrats lost the 2016 election. At the state level, New York is leading the charge; with its Department of Financial Services pressuring insurance companies to stop doing business with the gun-rights organization. At the same time, New York’s openly and virulently anti-NRA Attorney General is attempting to revoke the organization’s corporate charter, which has been in the Empire State since 1871.

Not wanting to be left behind in the fight, Oregon’s Wyden has latched onto the Butina episode to lend a hand at the federal level. He and his staff, along with some of his Senate colleagues are concocting a scheme according to which the NRA, because Butina befriended a handful of its members, should be stripped of its federal tax-exempt status. This is nonsense, of course; but in today’s hyper-partisan and fact-averse world, whether a charge actually makes any sense is completely irrelevant.

In spite of its scary name and the fact that it is labeled a “Senate report,” the content across 70 pages of Wyden’s screed is little more than the continuation of the overblown Butina saga that was in the news months ago. The report centers around a 2015 trip to Russia by a few NRA officials that was partly organized by Butina in order to help launch a pro-gun group in that country. This would have been a big win for human rights in Russia, considering President Putin’s penchant for tyrannical control. However, the mere fact that Butina had a hand in organizing the visit is more than sufficient evidence on which Wyden bases his conclusion that the NRA is an agent of Putin’s government, and thereby has forfeited its non-profit status in the eyes of the IRS. 

The taxpayer-funded investigation led by Wyden represents nothing more than yet another in a continuing string of blatantly partisan investigations launched by Democrats in both house of Congress.

Even though the report itself comes from the minority and carries no legal weight, Wyden knows that simply publishing such fantasy will generate media buzz and provide further ammunition with which gun control advocates will fuel their attacks against the NRA. It is precisely the same strategy with which Democrats in the House are pursuing in their faux impeachment effort against President Trump.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

Today’s Democratic Party resembles less the days of John F. Kennedy and the romanticism of Camelot than it does the set of “Kids Say the Darndest Things.” Long gone are stirring speeches encouraging the best from Americans regardless of their political persuasion. Instead we now are treated to profanity-laced riffs from teenagers scolding the rest of us about everything from school shootings to global warming. 

Today’s Democrats have dived head-first into the shallow end of the Fountain of Youth.

From the foul-mouthed David Hogg as the Left’s new voice of gun control, to the shrill scolding of Swedish 16-year old Greta Thunberg as their new global warming cheerleader, Democrats have pushed radical-minded children to the Party’s vanguard. 

Adult Democrats, of course, would like us to believe this is an organic transformation; with talented young people flourishing in the zeitgeist of the moment. The reality is that this movement represents a deliberate and cynical tactic by Democrats, that more than anything else illustrates the shallowness of their “progressive” platform. 

There is a reason why the adults of the Party, including Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, are noticeably in the background when kids take the microphone and call for policy positions so extreme they can be taken seriously only by the most rabid activists. This tactic affords Party leaders the benefit but not the risk of being directly associated with an extremist platform that in earlier times would have been laughed out of the halls of Congress. 

These teenagers are essentially serving as human shields for politicians who love the fervor the kids create, while allowing plausible deniability for the misinformation and outright lies used to push their agenda.

It is the same dynamic at play between Pelosi and the so-called “Squad” in the House — the young, new faces of Reps. Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley. While Pelosi handles the traditional duties of a veteran politician in trying to manage the Democrat Caucus, the rambunctious freshman can parade about, screaming, name-calling, stamping their feet, and most of all, making sure cameras are clicking while they perform.

Assertions by such children and their adult enablers would be otherwise ignored, except they actually are taken seriously by Leftist activists, who thrive not on the substance of the claims, but on the emotional fervor with which the assertions are delivered and with which the mainstream media reports them. Take, for instance, the scolding lectures of global warming guru Thunberg. Leftist activists and their media cohorts appear not to hear her absurd, world-ending claims of imminent Doomsday that would be more fitting if she were wearing a tinfoil hat; instead, they just see a highly emotional, baby-faced child guilt-tripping adults for robbing her of her childhood. 

Oh, the emotion! She must be right!

And, don’t dare to challenge her or any of the other child political puppets fronted by Democrats – that is tantamount to heartless bullying.

Therein lies the perfect set up for Democrats. They can use kids to push the extremes of their agenda, in an overly emotional way that drives news cameras and link clicks, and nobody on the Right is permitted to touch them. This strategy relieves Democrats from any obligation to underpin their agenda with facts and logic. 

To be fair, the Right occasionally has tried drinking from the political fountain of youth. Who can forget the sophomoric “AR-15 girl” that proved a public relations disaster for the Right back in 2018. 

But it is the New Age Left that has bought heavily into the practice of deploying Toy Soldiers to serve as the vanguard for its global battles against guns, capitalism, and traditional Western values. Where this next generation will lead us is, to say the least, worrisome to contemplate.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

It is the end of the world, and progressives are dancing in the streets. If this seems a rather curious, if not bizarre response to a fast-approaching global calamity, you probably do not understand today’s “progressives.”

This week’s #ShutDownDC global warming demonstrations have been less a protest than a public exhibition of costumes, dance moves, and pet political causes, many of which are only at-best tangentially related to environmental stewardship. There were LGBT activists gyrating in the streets as confetti rained over them. There were Black Lives Matter advocates and assorted anti-capitalists. Most notably, of course, there were plenty of cameras to capture the pageantry. You would hardly know mankind was only a few “impossible burgers” away from global calamity.

Farcical is the only way to accurately describe this circus of a “protest.” No mature and rational person would view the menagerie and think to himself, “You know, this event convinces me that I must do more to protect the environment.” 

Fundamental changes to public policy, much less sweeping cultural shifts, requires years, if not decades, of hard work – marshalling data, building coalitions, and developing long-term strategies and workable tactics; with the entire endeavor predicated on clearly defined and realistic goals. Ideally, policy changes occur in tandem with private sector advancements. 

In contrast to the mainstream media’s treatment of the week’s climate change protests as a serious, if not game-changing event, it appears to be more of an opportunity by many participants to see and be seen; an undertaking where the more outrageous the antics, the greater social credibility one gains in the eyes of one’s peers. 

Contrary to the Left’s stereotypical view of conservatives, most conservatives are strong conservationists — hunters, boaters, anglers, and outdoors-types who are passionate about protecting the places they love and enjoy. There are a number of low hanging, but nonetheless effective environmental policy options that would enjoy support among conservatives.  These include expansion of natural gas technology and uses, removing regulatory red tape that keeps costs for alternative energy investments prohibitive, and strengthening property rights to protect citizens and communities against illegal pollution. Yet, because such ideas are not sufficiently radical to be included in the “Green New Deal,” they remain of little, if any, interest to the Left. 

Another reason such practical proposals are unattractive to climate change progressives, is that they do not deliver the emotional kick liberals use to determine “value” to the movement. Moreover, such realistic proposals do not have as their goal the deconstruction of America’s capitalist framework, which is the true aim of rabid environmentalists.  These radicals use global warming as a smokescreen for their more extreme goals, as easily seen in the many anti-capitalist signs and banners on display during this week’s street theater.

This is the ugly truth behind the climate change farce.  Democrats by and large do not so much care about the environment as wanting to be perceived as caring about it. This is why they favor the “all or nothing” approach to reform; which affords them the luxury of not having to make inconvenient lifestyle changes, while pursuing extreme measures cloaked in the message of “reform, or we all die.” 

When climate activists back up doomsday rhetoric with confetti-laced street dancing, and when their movement’s loudest climate advocates – whether in Washington, DC or Hollywood, California – refuse to lead by example with basic lifestyle changes, what value is there in coming to the table with them to parlay?

Instead, conservatives will find more success in taking individual responsibility at the local level for environmental stewardship and conservation. They should continue to support private sector innovation (and policies that foster such innovation) for ways to make our energy consumption cleaner and more efficient; whether that be expanded use of natural gas, ever-cheapening solar energy, or something completely new. 

In spite of the best efforts by New Age Democrats to kill-off the private sector, it remains the best hope for our environment and our future.  This is the case even if Elon Musk fails to inspire the same street-dancing enthusiasm as does the prospect of moving Americans back to a pre-industrial agrarian economy in the siren name of “progress.”

Townhall.com

By Bob Barr

In a world not that long ago, a newspaper’s “Editor’s Note” was used primarily to address minor, factual errors; mistakes like a wrong date or misspelling of a name. Today, however, it increasingly appears to be the only place where actual journalism is transacted; albeit, only after the original article has been published.

“Report, thenverify” should be the new masthead motto for The New York Times and other news outlets that have lost all semblance of balance and professionalism.

This phenomenon is especially prominent in articles about President Trump and his administration.  A “blockbuster” scoop about the president, or Republicans in general, seems to be followed shortly by an editor’s note clarifying the “facts” of the story; and, in many cases, repudiating it altogether. 

Recall the infamous BuzzFeed article from January, reporting what would have been a devastating blow to Trump, but which was quickly debunked by Robert Mueller himself. And, this week, we see the Times going once again after Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh on alleged past sexual misconduct, only to have the crux of the article dunked by a follow-up editor’s note detailing the accuser has no memory of – wait for it – the accusations on which the hit piece is based.

Editors blame weak fact checks in the rush to publish first in today’s 24/7 news cycle, but the Mainstream Media’s abhorrent treatment of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh made clear the much more disturbing truth; that when it comes to weaponizing bylines against political enemies, facts are irrelevant when the damage of accusations alone will serve nicely.

To cover themselves and their precious “ethics” in this repulsive practice, the Mainstream Media has invented a new term — “credibly accused” — which allows them to go to print with mere allegations rather than take the extra step of substantiating the claims. These New Age Journalists understand that in today’s outrage culture, an accusation is all it takes to get someone or something “canceled,” especially if such an accusation is deemed “credible.” And if the accusations eventually fall apart? No worries. They were just reporting that the target was accused, not that he or she was “guilty”; a distinction without a difference to the target of the article.

This, of course, is entirely the point of “credibly accused.” In spite of the surface gravitas of the phrase, there is no objective standard to what is considered a “credible” accusation. It has no meaning other than that a journalist decides to label it “credible.”  Individuals who then read, hear or view it in various media forms, tend to believe it to be true because, after all, it wasprinted in a newspaper. 

In the past, such circular reporting would have been bounced by editors who still maintained some shred of integrity.  Today, however, as in the case of this week’s New York Times Kavanaugh hit piece, such articles appear once and then grow generically from news to opinion sections, and thence into the limitless world of social media. 

Does the reader know the difference? Most times, no; especially when the initial reporting is further fueled by “credible” political figures who themselves run with the story before they determine its veracity. Back in the newspaper’s headquarters, there is no worry because, once again, the editors and the reporters have created for themselves plausible deniability.  They are journalistic cowards who have no care whatsoever for the damage they do to the targets of their faulty reporting; in fact, they likely revel in it.

Did a retraction help restore the life and reputation of the Covington Catholic School kids skewered in the media for racism, when it turned out that they were the victims? And what about Kavanaugh, who once again is dragged through the mud over “credible” accusations that cannot be recalled even by the supposed accuser? The public by and large will remember only the headline, not the small footnote added days after the original piece with the faux apology.

For these New Age Journalists, who boast openly that they have a duty and obligation to use their bylines against those who they deem to be dangerous, facts have become irrelevant.  It is the cause that matters.  After all, in their minds’ eye, they are saving the world, and if there is collateral damage to other individuals along the way, that is to them a small price to pay. 

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

The “public nuisance” legal theory cited recently by an Oklahoma judge as the basis on which to hold a drug manufacturing company liable for opioid abuse in that state, joins other dubious legal and public policy mechanisms as tactics with which the gun control movement aims to achieve its long-desired goal of disarming law-abiding Americans.  The movement’s advocates are framing the legal and public debate about gun violence in much the same way as that surrounding the opioid problem – as an “epidemic.”  The strategy is the same – driven by fear, not facts.  

Headlines designed not to educate but rather to stoke emotions are the norm.  Language and semantics are employed with little if any regard to accuracy, but with every intent to elicit the public’s fear.   

Factually, for example, firearm violence is down.  Millions of AR-15 style rifles are owned and used safely by millions of law-abiding citizens regularly.  Fully automatic firearms still are unlawful except in the hands of the military, law enforcement, or the very few individuals specifically licensed by the federal government to possess them.  

Regardless of facts such as these, however, the media and Democrat presidential candidates continue to scream that “weapons of war” like the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle — claimed by them to have been designed for the “sole purpose of killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible” — are everywhere and must be banished from every home and business in the country.  With histrionics like these, it is no wonder politicians and even judges look to every possible way to “do something”; even if it means using laws on the books for purposes never so intended. 

Public nuisance laws are by no means a new arrow in the quiver of gun control advocates. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg used New York’s public nuisance law in the early 2000s to go after firearms retailers in states as far removed from the Big Apple as Georgia.  His overall plan fizzled, but he did succeed in putting several small firearms stores out of business because their owners could not afford the legal fees needed to defend against his abusive lawsuits.  The current New York state government is employing the same public nuisance strategy, among others, in a drive to put the NRA (which is chartered as a non-profit entity in the state) out of business.

Never a Party to be deterred in its drive to limit individual liberty guaranteed by the Second Amendment, Democrats are pulling every trick out of the bag this election cycle.  Calls for “red flag” laws, AR-15 “buy-back” mandates, and “universal” background checks, vie with calls for “impeachment” for top billing at Democrat town halls and debates.     

The fact that each of these (and other) proposals contain provisions that violate various parts of our Constitution, appears of little import when balanced against the overarching need to “do something.”   Just as long-standing legal principles must give way in the face of cries to “do something” to address the “opioid crisis,” so too must “outdated” notions of gun ownership succumb to the 21^st Century “crisis” of gun violence.

The notion that whatever “crisis” is declared at any given time by government or by those seeking to become part of the government, justifies whatever means are deemed necessary to overcome it, is by no means limited to the crusades against opioids and guns.

Just last week, for example, in the name of fighting international terrorism, the federal government demanded that Apple and Google turn over names and other identifying information on thousands of individuals who downloaded an app designed to improve the performance of a particular rifle scope.  Neither the companies that developed the app or manufactured the scope, nor any individuals who downloaded it, are suspected of having committed any crimes that would provide the basis required under federal law or the Fourth Amendment for such broad inquiry by the government.  

Apparently, however, the simple assertion by the government that it needs this trove of information in order to pursue an investigation of users in other countries in possible violation of federal export laws, is deemed by the Justice Department to be sufficient basis on which to make such a privacy-invasive demand.

In a time that seems so very long ago, our courts would step in and protect against constitutional, legal and policy overreaches such as these.  Sadly, however, that safety valve can no longer be assumed to be there.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

Anyone hoping to find consistency in how courts are assigning responsibility for the so-called “opioid crisis” will be sadly disappointed.  Last May, a North Dakota judge dismissed a lawsuit against Purdue Pharma that sought to hold the pharmaceutical manufacturer responsible for that state’s opioid problem. Just last week, an Oklahoma judge in a very similar case decided to take the opposite approach and found that another drug manufacturing giant, Johnson & Johnson, was responsible for the state’s high number of individuals using the opioids it manufactured; to the tune of nearly $600 million.

In each of these lawsuits, the pharmaceutical company was charged under the respective state’s “nuisance” laws, with engaging in “deceptive” marketing practices that in turn caused and contributed to individuals’ opioid addiction.  

Using nuisance laws in this way — targeting deep-pocketed corporations selling or manufacturing dis-favored products within a state – is a legal maneuver increasingly favored by aggressive state attorneys general to attack everything from cigarettes to firearms. 

Considering the facts in these two most recent opioid cases were very similar, why were the judges’ rulings dramatically different?  As Reason’s Jacob Sullum put it, the rulings “pit a simple narrative of the ‘opioid crisis’ with a clear set of villains against a more complicated story that’s closer to the truth.” In other words, the two courts had very different concepts of “justice” regardless of the facts presented.

In North Dakota, both sides of the controversy were argued and weighed, with Judge James Hill holding that the State failed to meet its burden of proof; not that Purdue was completely innocent, but rather the State did not have sufficient evidence to find the company legally responsible. Oklahoma Judge Thad Balkman took a far more policy-based approach. He appeared to essentially ignore the evidence presented by the corporate defendant, including strong evidence showing that abuse of the prescription medication it manufactured was only a small part of the overall opioid death trend.  He then went for the multi-hundred-million-dollar pound of corporate flesh.

In North Dakota, we see judicial reasoning reflective of the objective standard normally expected from courts.  The Oklahoma judge’s reasoning reflects something more akin to mob justice; purposed only to slake society’s collective thirst for assigning blame and punishment. 

Broadly speaking, the problem with the Oklahoma verdict extends far beyond the opioid setting on which it and its North Dakota counterpart were based.  

For example, as Democrats continue their relentless effort to dismantle the buffer between politics and the judiciary at every level, we face the very real danger that courts are becoming little more than public stockades, where true guilt matters far less than simply finding someone to punish and shame. It is distressing that many of today’s judges appear willing, if not eager, to make decisions reflecting such a philosophy.

Democrats understand this well, and it is why they have become adept at using our state and federal court systems as political bludgeons to hamper President Trump’s ability to implement the public policies on which he was elected.  In this emerging game of judicial brinksmanship, a single federal judge is able to bring to a screeching halt virtually any important national policy move Trump makes. 

Democrat kingmaker George Soros also clearly understands the power inherent in our supposedly impartial judicial system.  In recent years, he has devoted significant financial resources to ensure that local prosecutors, state attorneys general and state judges who share his political philosophy are elected to such offices (along with a willingness to thus abuse the powers of those positions).  

At the federal level, Democrats are keenly aware that Trump’s picks for district, appellate and Supreme Court judges are far less likely than those nominated by his Democrat predecessors to view courts as policymaking bodies.  It is precisely why Senate Democrats remain so hatefully dedicated to regaining control of the Senate and defeating Trump next year.  The Oklahoma judge’s expansive assignment of responsibility to a perhaps unsympathetic corporation for individuals abusing a product is but a small taste of what is to come if the Democrat Party succeeds in its political goals next year.