Doomscroll News

Tag: conservative

  • The Bork Nomination: The Man, The Philosophy, and The Transformation of American Judicial Politics

    The Making of a Verb

    In the lexicon of American politics, few eponyms carry the weight of the verb “to bork.” Its definition is stark: “to obstruct (someone, especially a candidate for public office) by systematically defaming or vilifying them”. More pointedly, it means “to viciously attack a presidential nominee, blackening his name in an all-out effort to defeat his confirmation by the senate”. The term’s origin lies in the tumultuous 1987 confirmation battle over President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Judge Robert Heron Bork to the United States Supreme Court. The fact that a man’s name became synonymous with a new and particularly ferocious form of political destruction signals a phenomenon that transcends a single failed appointment. The story of Robert Bork’s nomination is not merely a historical footnote; it is the story of a flashpoint—a moment when decades of simmering legal and political conflict over the role of the judiciary in American life erupted, irrevocably altering the landscape of judicial politics.   

    The creation of a new word suggests that existing language was insufficient to capture the nature of the event. Nominees had been rejected before on grounds of ethics, cronyism, or ideology. What happened to Robert Bork, however, was perceived as fundamentally different. It was not just a rejection; it was a new method of rejection, one characterized by an unprecedented fusion of interest group mobilization, sophisticated media campaigns, and a public trial of a nominee’s entire intellectual framework. The verb “to bork,” therefore, signifies more than defeat; it signifies defeat through a modern, public, and ideologically charged campaign of a type and intensity not seen before.   

    This report seeks to answer the central question arising from this etymology: How did a jurist with impeccable professional credentials—a former Yale Law professor, Solicitor General of the United States, and sitting judge on the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, widely considered one of the most qualified nominees in decades—become the target of such a successful and transformative opposition that his name entered the dictionary as a synonym for political annihilation?. To understand this event is to dissect the career of the man himself, the revolutionary and polarizing nature of his legal philosophy, the high-stakes political context of the 1987 Supreme Court vacancy, and the profound, lasting consequences of his defeat. It is a story of a man, his ideas, and the political firestorm they ignited, a firestorm that continues to shape the American judiciary today.   

    (more…)
  • A New American Platform

    A New American Platform

    After an 𝕏 history filled with plenty of bogus ideas, my stances have obviously evolved, so consider the following my most current platform.

    Don’t reform the failed systems of the past or indulge the inaction of extreme libertarianism.

    Platform Overview

    Signature National Initiatives

    • Launch a 21st Century Manhattan Project: Secure absolute American technological, energy, and military supremacy. Focus on topics such as: nuclear engineering, the development of sovereign AI, and the construction of a ‘Golden Dome’ missile shield. Absorb and accelerate other critical advanced projects: like directed energy, hypersonics, and cybernetics. Participation in this project, at all levels, will be restricted exclusively to U.S. citizens.
    • The Phoenix Mandate: A plan to eliminate the national debt by revolutionizing the U.S. healthcare system through personal health tech, ending the nursing home model, funding “moonshot” cures via a public-private “Titan Mandate”, issuing a “Stargate Ultimatum” for AI to slash costs, and enforcing a “Patriot Price Mandate” on pharmaceuticals.

    Taxation, Revenue & An American Dividend

    • Abolition of Income Taxes: Immediately abolish all Federal personal and corporate income taxes. The IRS’s role as a tax collection agency should be eliminated.
    • Strategic Capital Gains Tax: A modest capital gains tax will be retained for the sole purpose of preventing rampant short-term speculation, designed to heavily incentivize mid-to-long-term investment.
    • An American Dividend (Hybrid System): A hybrid system should be implemented immediately. A significant portion of all tariff revenue should be used to aggressively pay down the national debt, while the remainder should be returned directly to The People as an immediate “Freedom Dividend.”
    • Full Dividend Potential: Once the debt is paid, the full revenue from the baseline 15% tariff will be returned directly to The People, potentially translating to more than $1,700 per U.S. citizen, per year.
    • Mandatory Cash Option: The United States cannot become a cashless society. Physical cash must always be preserved as a valid form of payment.

    Economic & Financial Policy

    • Multi-Level Strategic Tariffs: Implement a 15% baseline tariff. Additionally, POTUS must have full discretionary authority to impose massive strategic tariffs (e.g., 50%, 100%, 400%, 1000%) on critical sectors like microchips.
    • Prohibit Peacetime Cryptocurrency: Cryptocurrency is a national security threat and its use by the general public should be prohibited.
    • The Wartime Digital Asset Act: Treat the underlying crypto technology (blockchain, ASICs) as a strategic military asset to be deployed only in times of declared war.
    • Prohibit Hostile Financial Systems: Expose and ban the integration of Sharia-compliant finance into the U.S. economy.
    • Reject Corporate Bailouts: The $10 billion investment in Intel is a bailout.
    (more…)

  • Justice KBJ: Anti-DEI, Pro-Religious Freedom, Defender of Jan. 6 Rioters … or Not?

    As I’ve been telling people since she was confirmed—and I have witnesses—Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s record is revealing a judicial philosophy with surprising MAGA elements. Here are a few of her rulings that prove it:

    • Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (2025): Marlean Ames, a straight woman, alleged her supervisor, a lesbian, discriminated against her by favoring LGBTQ+ employees. The case centered on whether plaintiffs from majority groups had to meet a higher legal standard—showing “background circumstances” of discrimination—to bring a lawsuit. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Jackson ruled that Title VII forbids such a two-tiered system. The decision eliminated the “background circumstances” test, ensuring all individuals face the same evidentiary standard when alleging workplace discrimination.
    • Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (2025): The Court unanimously sided with Catholic Charities against the state of Wisconsin, which had denied the organization a religious-employer exemption from unemployment taxes. Wisconsin argued the charity wasn’t “operated primarily for religious purposes” because it served all people, not just Catholics, and didn’t proselytize. The Court held that the state’s position violated the First Amendment by imposing a “denominational preference” and attempting to define what constitutes a valid religious activity, which the government is forbidden from doing.
    • Fischer v. United States (2024): This case questioned whether a felony obstruction charge, originally passed to prevent evidence tampering, could be broadly applied to defendants from the January 6 Capitol riot. Justice Jackson joined the conservative majority in a 6-3 decision that found prosecutors had interpreted the law too broadly. The Court ruled the law is limited to acts that impair the integrity of evidence, not any conduct that disrupts an official proceeding. This significantly narrowed the application of a key felony charge in Jan. 6 prosecutions.
    • CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association (2024): Her opinion, while far from perfect in my opinion, was a strong defense of judicial restraint, arguing that courts have no power to overrule Congress on funding matters unless the Constitution is explicitly and unambiguously violated. This reasoning champions a limited role for the judiciary, a core principle of legal conservatism.
    (more…)

  • Big Beautiful Bill: Critiquing Expenditures & Rescissions with a New Federalism Vision

    This article will dissect key components of the bill, reinforcing a fiscally conservative perspective focused on efficiency, market-based solutions, and a reduction in federal overreach.

    A recurring theme will be the devolution of certain programs and responsibilities to the states. It is important to note that many of the responsibilities envisioned for state management are relatively minor in scope, aiming to return local control over local matters. However, even in these areas, and certainly in any more significant transfers, fiscal prudence is paramount. This necessary shift away from federal overreach cannot be a license for states to engage in fiscal malfeasance, particularly when such actions have broader national implications, such as contributing to inflationary pressures through unfunded liabilities or chronic deficit spending.

    To ensure accountability without fostering inter-state conflict, any transfer of responsibilities must be accompanied by a carefully designed mechanism for mutual accountability. This system would involve regular reviews, based on clear, objective, and pre-agreed metrics, of state performance in managing these devolved areas. Should a state demonstrably and significantly mismanage its obligations, leading to measurable negative externalities for other states – for example, by directly exacerbating national inflation through irresponsible fiscal policies directly tied to these devolved functions – a transparent and impartially administered penalty system could be considered. Such penalties, if ever deemed necessary, should be narrowly targeted and proportionate, based on an automatic formula and/or pardons, to avoid politicization and ensure they serve as a corrective measure rather than a tool for “financial war.” The primary goal is to incentivize sound governance, not to create adversarial relationships between states.

    (more…)