I’m going to have to keep posting pieces like this until anyone who insists that the Axis media is “independent and non-partisan” gets laughed out of the room and has to change their name and identity.
Tim Walz, the Minnesota Knucklehead whose national exposure during the 2024 campaign showed the nation that 1) progressives like him don’t like freedom of speech, 2) and haven’t read the First Amendment; 3) Kamala Harris picked an understudy who was almost as unqualified to be President as she was; and 4) Minnesotans are out of their minds to elect such a boob governor. But, amazingly, with the dearth of competent, trustworthy, non-wacko leaders in the increasingly absurd Democratic Party, Walz is looking (everything is relative, after all) pretty good, since the alternatives are Gavin Newsom, AOC, Pete Buttigieg and “None of the above.” So, as the man who managed to make J.D. Vance seem like Abe Lincoln in their debate goes around the country saying the same kinds of dumb things he said while helping Democrats lose the White House, the Axis media feels unethically obligated to mitigate the negative impact.
Walz was in Eau Claire for a town-hall-style event aimed at supporting his party’s candidate for Chief Justice of the Wisconsin [NOT Minnesota, as the first version of the is post carelessly stated] Supreme Court. [The position at Ethics Alarms is that electing judges is unethical and, duh, guarantees critical decisions will be based on politics rather than that law thingy.] The New York Times writes that “Groups backed by Musk have poured millions of dollars into the race on behalf of the conservative candidate, Brad Schimel.” Yes, those groups backed by Musk are called “conservative groups” and “the Republican Party.” Why didn’t the Times write that “groups inspired by Abraham Lincoln” support Schimel? Democrats are promoting the contest as “The People vs. Musk.” [I hope to have a post on Musk Derangement up later today.]
To be fair, it should be noted Fox News et al. routinely describe progressive advocacy groups as “supported by George Soros.”
Back to Walz: in his speech to the crowd, Walz called Musk a “dipshit” and, later, an “unelected South African nepo baby.” Nice.
The Times headline: “Taking a Page From Trump’s Book.”
Ethics Alarms 
Am I the only one who’s wondering why all of a sudden Dems are “doing town halls” and the media are dutifully reporting on said town halls? The number of town halls occurring and being reported on is unprecedented. The two Arizona senators, Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego were at one in Phoenix earlier this week telling people Trump and Musk were going to take away their Social Security and their Medicaid. Amazingly, the Arizona [Not] Republic [an] ran a fairly objective piece debunking the claim.
But clearly, the DNC seems to have decided Dems need to get out of D.D. and among the hoi polloi reengage with the working class. Hilarious. The big shot Dems have been reduced to appearing at town halls as if they are running for dog catcher or a school board. Few people show up at such events but the dutiful media reports on them and magnifies them for the Dems.
I thought Walz stating that the media are afraid of his obvious masculinity was pretty funny, for so many reasons I don’t need to post here. Walz? Toxically masculine? Really? Who knew?
jvb
“The position at Ethics Alarms is that electing judges is unethical and, duh, guarantees critical decisions will be based on politics rather than that law thingy.”
I used to agree with that. No longer. It is not that the statement is no longer true it is because nominated for life judges cannot be trusted either.
I believe we are witnessing the tyranny by the judiciary. I have yet to hear the rationale behind any TRO against Trump other than simply being probably unconstitutional. I thought the SCOTUS had original jurisdiction when disagreements between branches of government occur.
Judge shopping appears to be a tactic used to stymie the agenda of a lawfully elected president. One cannot maintain the appearance of neutrality when specific judges are sought to handle cases plaintiffs. Currently, judges have blocked the president 127 times since January 29, 2025. The most recent was to reinstate all federal workers at USAID. If these agencies are deemed “independent” organizations created by Congress, then why shouldn’t Congress be responsible for managing its activities. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that Congress can create agencies independent of the electorate. Why is the creation of an agency that is supposedly “independent” of government not itself be deemed unconstitutional?
Thus, the plain reading of the language creating the agency means that it is not fully independent Congress or the executive branch. Has our current Congress weighed in on its priorities for USAID in its mission of promoting US interests abroad. If Congress does not establish the priorities then the obvious default position is that of the president who is charged with conducting foreign policy. How he implements that is up to the president and not Congress.
Another example has ordered the DOJ to explain why it did not turn a plane around carrying Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador as he had ordered after the plane had left the US. Which branch is charged with the actual protection of its citizens from foreign threats? How does a federal judge get to inject himself into foreign policy negotiations. For political reasons Venezuela rejected the Venezuelan gang members, who entered the US illegally and would have been rejected for asylum at the border, Trump negotiates a deal with another foreign nation to house them for a fee which was less than what taxpayers would have had to house them here. Only five of the 261 deportees were being represented by the ACLU. The judge did not order that only the five be returned he ordered the entire planeload of gang members be returned. That suggests judicial activism which is becoming an euphemism for abuse of power.
Those who believe that the natural reading of Article Two in the Constitution limits the power of the President to simply that of the executing arm of Congress would also have to believe that all debts have to be authorized and appropriated by that branch and approved by the President. The natural reading would imply that Congress cannot delegate authority to spend allocated funds or make rules having the full force of law to an agency that it may create to carryout the execution of a specifically funded activity. I posit that Congress can create the agency but the agency must provide Congress a specific list of activities and rules it plans to implement that must be voted on by the legislature before it plans to carry them out. The agency, on its own, cannot under a natural reading incur debt obligations without Congressional approval so individual programmatic expenditures must also voted on by Congress and signed into law by the president. The point I’m making is that you cannot make the argument that only Article II is subject to a natural reading approach while Article I provides for far reaching implied powers of the House and Senate.
The corollary to the Unitary Executive understanding that provides for much broader implied powers to the presidency would be that which our current Congress is operating. Delegating rule making powers to legislated agencies is nowhere in the Constitution except for the following: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” I find that this is eminently reasonable to assume that Congress can delegate some rule making powers to agencies that promote the general welfare. This would apply to making rules on housing, transportation, food safety, and to some degree promoting the transfer of knowledge. One can argue that the Commerce Clause allows a variety of agencies to make rules affecting commerce. But to what extent can we infer that Congress meant with respect to commerce? Is it merely B2B , B2C, B2G or does it include any activity that at some point in time resulted in an economic transaction? If it means any economic transaction then theoretically an unelected agency has absolute control over your life.
As a lay person, I see the Congress as the Board of Directors and the President as the CEO. Obviously, unlike the private sector the Board, who is elected by the people cannot remove a president, who is also elected by the people. Notwithstanding that exception the Board enacts legislation (organizational policies) that the CEO is charged with executing. Any activity performed by the CEO in furtherance of the Board’s broader policies should not mean that the CEO is obligated to do as all predecessors have done.
In the case of USAID is to advance US interests globally. My understanding of our national interests is that we want a peaceful, stable world with minimal conflicts so that people around the world can focus on self development and equitable trade. One cannot argue that hotly debated topics in the US such as CRT, DEI, transgender issues that affect a small portion of our public are not really advancing US interest globally. Nor should we us USAID to facilitate regime change except as an indirect byproduct of a more concrete project such as building a school or providing food and medical aid. All regime change initiatives should be an organic movement by indigenous populations. USAID must be apolitical.
In the case of the Department of Education the goal is to promote a literate, thinking citizenry. Funding for tuition or school construction promotes the general welfare. Any work in curriculum development should have to be tested with the same rigor as any other scientific work and proven to be repeatable among a cross section of academic cohorts before we say it promotes the general welfare. While nutrition plays a role in being able and ready to learn it is outside the bailiwick of educators to determine dietary needs and studies show that as much of 58% of school provided lunches wind up as plate waste. The DoEd is not situated to deal with this issue and is largely outside of their control.
I began this comment saying I believe we are seeing the emergence of something I would label as judicial tyranny. I began to feel this way when Trump was routinely denied standing in cases he brought in 2020 and the news reported that his case had no merit yet we see group after group given standing to sue Trump without any proof of harm. District judges imposing nationwide injunctions and injecting themselves into Article II territory without providing the public with a basis for the decision that does not require law degree to understand. The same judges continually seem to be the ones making every decision. That suggests that certain judges typically rule in favor of the plaintiffs. Perhaps if the defendants got to shop the judges things might go differently. The problem is that many citizens believe that justice is determined by the judge you get and not the law.
Chief Justice John Roberts is quick to condemn remarks made by Trump regarding impeaching federal judges. He is not however as quick to condemn others for their attacks on the judiciary or associate justices. He never admonishes the press for identifying who appointed a particular judge. Saying this decision was made by a Trump appointed judge or an Obama or Bush appointed judge suggests that the decision was politically influenced. If the judiciary is be viewed as neutral it has a lot of work to do the remediate its image in many people’s minds. One thing would help is for district judges whose family members work for the NGO’s or federal agencies themselves should be required to recuse themselves from any and all decisions that could affect the economic interests of those family members.
Just my 2 cents
Correction: Sentence should have been . . . One cannot argue that hotly debated topics in the US such as CRT, DEI, transgender issues that affect a small portion of our public are really advancing US interest globally. Originally a double negative
“Originally a double negative“
A double negative is a no-no…
PWS
That is not as bad as leaving out an entire subordinate clause
District judges imposing nationwide injunctions and injecting themselves into Article II territory without providing the public with a basis for the decision that does not require law degree to understand, creates mistrust among the electorate toward that institution.
A correction: the context for this story is Wisconsin’s State Supreme Court race, not Minnesota’s.
(Campaign ads are flying thick and fast here in America’s Dairyland.)
“Campaign ads are flying thick and fast here in America’s Dairyland.”
As a 77 Square Miles Surrounded By A Sea Of Reality resident, this I can unequivocally confirm.
Sheesh, talk about flooding the zone; there’s often two (2) for each Supreme Court candidate during the same commercial break!
PWS
Yeah, I’ll fix that. Dumb: I was confused by Minnesota’s governor getting involved in Wisconsin’s election. Seem…inappropriate, somehow.
The national attention focused on Wisconsin’s race is indeed unusual. As to the whys —
This contest will determine whether the ostensibly non-partisan State Supreme Court tilts left or right.
Which will affect Congressional redistricting for 2026.
Which could gerrymander multiple R Representatives out of their seats.
Which could tilt the U.S. House to the Ds.
Which would then cripple T’s agenda.
The race’s potential national impact coupled with Wisconsin’s history of low turnout for its Presidential+1-year spring Supreme Court elections brought out the political world’s big guns.
Soros-funded and other left-wing dark money groups came in on the side of the left-leaning candidate.
Then Musk opened his checkbook to support the right-leaning candidate.
On the right, Charlie Kirk and Scott Presler have their organizations here to oversee GOTV.
On the left, we had Bernie Sanders in Kenosha WI rallying with a singer whom some viewed as blasphemous; and Tim Walz sharing joy and love in Eau Claire.
This election is a big deal.
And I think most Wisconsinites will be relieved when it is over.