Liberal update

Let’s talk about this Supreme Court case the Democrats are squealing about because it doesn’t let federal agencies be judge and executioner in one. Ermigawd, the defendant can have a jury trial!

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that people whom the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) would like to levy civil penalties against for alleged fraud violations are entitled to a trial by jury.

At the heart of the ruling is George Jarkesy Jr., a hedge fund manager who oversaw the investment advising firm Patriot28, LLC. The SEC accused him and the company of “misrepresenting the investment strategies that Jarkesy and Patriot28 employed,” “lying about the identity of the funds’ auditor and prime broker,” and “inflating the funds’ claimed value.” Yet whatever you think of those allegations, the SEC’s approach to handling the matter, as Reason‘s Jacob Sullum highlighted earlier today, was unsavory, to put it mildly, which included evaluating its allegations in-house, confirming them, and then imposing $300,000 in penalties.

Yep, we decided you owed, we imposed the penalty, investigated ourselves for fairness, and imposed a fine when you were found guilty. Huh?

That’s not to say Jarkesy is innocent of wrongdoing. It is to say that the SEC assessing the SEC’s accusations is not a picture of fairness.

Let’s just say the current system didn’t pass the smell test. Now, is the guy guilty? Or even sympathetic? Who knows – all the Court ruled on was that he should be allowed a jury trial – as guaranteed in one-a them Amendment thingies, right?

Consider the case of Sun Valley Orchards, a fourth-generation farm run by brothers Joe and Russell Marino, which a Department of Labor administrative judge ordered must pay the government over $550,000. The majority of that sum is in response to a paperwork violation.

A contractor failed to disclose on the company’s forms for the H-2A visa program—which allows employers to hire migrants for temporary agricultural work—that it would offer migrant workers a meal plan.

Charged ’em for meals. Not even over market price – but since it wasn’t stated SVO was charged over a half-a-mill. No jury. Should they get one? Law says so…now the Supremes say so too.  But…

But here, according to Sotomayor, the jury trial requirement in this civil setting, as outlined in the Seventh Amendment, is “a power grab.” She’s right, but in the wrong way. It takes power from the federal government—which in some sense holds the monopoly on that—and gives a little of it back to the people.  Reason.com

Funny how awkward the Constitution and laws can be. Sure might be nice if one of the political parties supported them,  huh.

Speaking of support, the Republicans in Congress floated a radical idea:

Republican Congresswoman Claudia Tenney of New York is reacting to the House passage of the SAVE Act that she co-sponsored, which aims to prevent illegal immigrants from voting in U.S. elections.

Under the legislation, voters would be required to provide proof of citizenship via IDs and documentation such as a passport, a government-issued photo ID showing proof the individual was born in the U.S., military IDs or a valid photo ID, as well as documentation showing proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, the legislation states.

Should be a bill which would not needed to be passed, right? We should always be doing it, right? Easy one to vote for…unless you are a Democrat.

Democratic leadership urged its members to vote against the bill, arguing that it would place “an extreme burden [on] countless Americans.”

Only five Democrats voted in favor of the measure, including Reps. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas; Vicente Gonzalez, D-Texas; Jared Golden, D-Maine; Don Davis, D-N.C.; and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Wash.Fox

Please, let’s hear about those countless Americans who would be burdened. Let’s hear how.

Five.

Category: "Your Tax Dollars At Work", 2024 Election, Democrats, Illegal Immigrants