For the most part I have not been disappointed in the
appointments to cabinet positions for the next administration—plus the first
appointment to the Supreme Court. I don’t know any of the appointments—or was
even aware of them beforehand, with the exception of Rick Perry, as Energy
Secretary, who was Governor of Texas, and Ben Carson for Housing and Urban
Development, who ran for president.
General James Mattis, now confirmed as Secretary of Defense, made
his first communication to the troops, and it is better than we have seen in some time:
Secretary of Defense James Mattis photo found here |
It’s good to be back and I’m grateful to serve alongside you
as Secretary of Defense.
Together with the Intelligence Community we are the sentinels
and guardians of our nation. We need only look to you, the uniformed and
civilian members of the Department and your families, to see the fundamental unity
of our country. You represent an America committed to the common good; an
America that is never complacent about defending its freedoms; and an America
that remains a steady beacon of hope for all mankind.
Every action we take will be designed to ensure our military
is ready to fight today and in the future. Recognizing that no nation is secure
without friends, we will work with the State Department to strengthen our
alliances. Further, we are devoted to gaining full value from every taxpayer
dollar spent on defense, thereby earning the trust of Congress and the American
people.
I am confident you will do your part. I pledge to you I’ll do
my best as your Secretary.
He serves. Her serves alongside.
He respects those he leads. And he leads them with the larger mission in
mind—defending American freedom. He intends to earn trust, rather than demand
it. He has the leadership qualities that Jim Collins identifies in his business
book Good to Great.
While I wasn’t aware of Neil Gorsuch before his nomination
to the Supreme Court, those who do know him are very pleased. He sees his role mainly as
his oath states, to
administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal
right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially
discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as justice under the
Constitution and laws of the United States.
There’s nothing in there allowing a justice to make up laws,
or to pretend laws say what he/she thinks they ought to say. So refreshing!
Justice Scalia (left) and Neil Gorsuch photo found here |
People say he is much like Scalia. Maybe even in writing
talent, which is good, because we will so miss Scalia’s wit and colorful
language. According to a recent study of “Scalia-ness,” out of 15 judges, Gorsuch
comes in second, out Scalia-ed only by Justice Thomas Lee of the Utah Supreme
Court.
He is known to quote Scalia as saying,
If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to
resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the
conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you’re probably doing
something wrong.
The item of interest about Gorsuch is where he differs from
Scalia, specifically on what is called the Chevron Deference, sometimes called
the Chevron Doctrine. In the 1984 case the court ruled that, when a statute (regulation,
typically) is not clear, the courts must defer to the regulating agency to
determine meaning as long as they have a reasonable basis. There are arguments
in favor of that view, in theory. But in practice the Chevron Doctrine has
shifted a great deal of power away from lawmakers, to the executive branch,
through regulatory agencies.
In 2016, in the case Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, he
concurred with the 10th Circuit ruling, but wrote a separate
opinion, referring to the Chevron Deference:
[T]he fact is Chevron… permit[s] executive bureaucracies to
swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate
federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with
the Constitution of the framers’ design.
Ironically, the new president has appointed a justice likelyto limit his power. I don’t know for certain whether President Trump agrees with
that limitation, but I think it’s long overdue. As Gorsuch added in his
opinion, “[m]aybe the time has come to face the behemoth.”
He was on the right side for the religious freedom in the Hobby
Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor cases. He’s a strong defender of 4th
Amendment rights.
He was easily approved for the
10th Circuit, so it would be for political reasons only if democrats
oppose him now. There is hope that at least a few democrat senators will do
their duty and vote to appoint. While senate higher-ups are refusing to say the
words “We will use the nuclear option implemented by Harry Reid,” they do say,
“He will be appointed.”
The appointment with the most opposition has been Betsy
DeVos. I haven’t known her, but early reactions from conservatives was
positive. Still, some good friends are very worried about her, so I’ve wondered
why. If nothing else, she is in favor of choice in education. She has
championed vouchers, and has been anti-Common Core. My feeling about vouchers
is that they are such a small incremental move that they solve very little, but
are at least better than total public school monopoly.
Since my view on education freedom, as a homeschooler, is an
outside view, I have searched for other people’s views.
Oddly, articles seem to be titled “5 things” about Betsy
DeVos, either in her favor, or supposedly against her.
Here are five mostly favorable, from “5 Things to Know About Betsy DeVos” from The Atlantic:
1. DeVos
will push for school choice.
2. Critics
of the Common Core standards may have reason to worry.
3. Expect
deregulation to be a priority.
4. She’s
politically active, but she doesn’t have a lot of political experience.
5. The
reaction to her nomination is mixed.
That last one includes a tweet against her, quoting someone
calling “DeVos the ‘most ideological, anti-public education nominee’ since the
start of the Ed Dpt.” Among teachers’ unions that might sound ominous. To me, I
think that’s a huge plus.
Here are another five from “5 Reasons to Oppose Betsy DeVos”
from US News and World Report:
1. Lack
of experience.
2. Lack
of knowledge and preparation.
3. Well
outside the mainstream.
4. A
dangerous precedent for pay-for-play in politics.
5. No
plans or vision, except for outdated and ineffective policies that are harmful
to public education.
These require some response. As for lack of experience, she
has not worked in public schooling, nor sent her children to public schools. The fears of pro-public-school-as-religion adherents are in evidence.
Education is
not a proper role of government, and is not among the enumerated powers granted
to the federal government. The creation of the Department of Education has cost
money without virtually any positive outcomes for American education as a
whole. I am perfectly happy to have someone not taken in by the public-school
believers.
There is further lack of experience in government, and in
running a particular bureaucracy. But we have a president who wants to shake
things up, so we shouldn’t be surprised he didn’t appoint a
go-along-to-get-along bureaucrat. She has, however, managed
multi-million-dollar philanthropies and has worked toward influencing society
in the way she is now being given the opportunity to act on.
The opponents call that pay-for-play. It’s an ugly term.
I’ve come across it locally and have mixed feelings about those who work that
way. But I try to use my influence in my small circle—pretty much without
money, since I don’t have that as an option. But if I had plenty of money,
would I donate to candidates I liked? Yes. And then would I make sure they knew
me and heard what I have to say? Yes. I do that even without the donation. So I
really don’t look at her wealth and donations as a disqualifier. Nor do I
believe she “bought” the position; she holds the position this administration
wants to implement. Does she have the skill to carry it out? We’ll see.
If the mainstream is being over-protective of the public
school monopoly, even at the expense of educating our children, then being
outside the mainstream is a good thing. I wrote about school choice ideas just last month. We're hoping something useful will make it's way through the Texas legislature now in session.
I don’t know whether Betsy DeVos has the capacity to do what
she intends—to put more choice into the hands of parents for their own
children, and hopefully to get rid of the federal education bureaucracy
entirely—but I’m here to cheer her on in her attempts.
It’s been an interesting couple of weeks so far. But, if you
can get past the hyperventilating press, there have been some things to bring
us hope.
No comments:
Post a Comment