They Just Don’t Get It

  • by Gitabushi

I took a quiz I stumbled onto from Twitter last night.  I can’t find the link now, but it was something about 8 Political Traits. You took a quiz regarding your reactions to several political statements, and from that, it judged your position on 4 different paired-trait spectra.  Like, Authoritarian/Libertarian, Economic Freedom/Control, etc.

One thing I was struck with was that it got Conservatives/Traditionalists completely wrong.  Of course, Progressives usually get Conservatives wrong…it has been shown over and over that those on the Right understand the Left much better than the reverse.  Charles Krauthammer’s formulation is the Left thinks the Right is Evil, and the Right thinks the Left is Stupid.  Which makes sense, of course: the Right thinks the Left is stupid because they understand the Left’s viewpoints and find them immature or unworkable; the Left thinks the Right is Evil because they can’t understand how anyone can oppose the compassion of a $15 minimum wage and free birth-control for women.

Anyway, what bothered me was they characterized Progressives as believing that the human race can and should progress toward enlightenment.  The implication is that the past is always ignorant, and as we learn things, we can improve.  What is the opposite of that?  Why, that some people think that we should cling to the past because that’s how we’ve always done it!  Meaning, the quiz assumed that conservatives are conservative out of fear or reflexive adherence to tradition out of belief that Tradition is simply a Good.

That’s not my view at all.  Maybe I’m projecting to the rest of the Right and/or conservatives, but I think I’m not alone in this.  I’m convinced conservatives are Thinkers, and spend time questioning and trying to understand everything.

In my opinion, Conservatives conserve Tradition because Tradition arises out of What Works.  Humans are humans: we are biologically programmed (whether by God or Evolution) to exploit/game any system to its extinction, but also to require systems to reach our individual and social goals.  We are biologically programmed (whether by God or Evolution) so that in our interactions with the opposite sex, any/all errors of judgment result in pregnancy, because *anything* that results in reproduction is a successful reproduction strategy, and those traits of selfishness, sloppiness, pettiness, dishonesty, manipulation, etc, that assist in reproduction will be passed on.

As such, I support Traditions because those are time-tested ways to avoid pain, disaster, chaos, poverty, loneliness, heartlessness, death, despair, depression and Justin Bieber.

That doesn’t mean Traditions are immutable.  We can learn as a society, and do.  We can rise above our selfishness and pettinesses, and do.

But you have to make the case. You can’t just insist that there is an end goal of perfect equality between all people and all preferences, and anyone who obstructs that progress is wrong.  You have to explain how the direction of progress you want is helpful to everyone involved.  You have to make the case for overturning Tradition.  You have to move slowly when you do make changes, so that we have time to adjust to changes, and to reverse if it proves to be more harmful than helpful.

And most of all, you have to insightfully analyze and clearly identify and explain who pays the price and who benefits.  Assertions are not acceptable as proof.

If something benefits 1% of the nation and makes things worse for 60% of the population, it should not be done.  More time should be taken to ensure that the benefit is worth the cost, and to minimize the cost as much as possible.

So in the quiz, seeing that they characterized Conservatives as preferring Tradition simply because it was Tradition, it lost any/all credibility with me.

Closely related: Chesterton’s Fence.

They Just Don’t Get It

Untitled Novel, Teaser

  • by Gitabushi

The McCoy’s Story, Chapter 1: Beverly

Beverly woke, feeling groggy, not sure where she was for a moment.  Her bleary eyes blinked the world into focus.  Metal, glass, tile.  People hurrying past.  Voices over an intercom: “Flight 262 to Washington Dulles International, now boarding Zone 3.”

Beverly pressed the palms of her hands against her eyes.  Zone 3?  That was her boarding group.  She stretched, picked up her backpack and purse, stifled a yawn and stood up.  She shuffled over to the line, then fished her boarding pass out of her purse.  Another yawn rose, and this one would not be denied.  She covered her mouth, but despite her best efforts, this one was audible.

The man in front of him turned around at the sound.  “Tired, huh?  Well, you’ll get some sleep on this red-eye, as long as there are no infants near you.”

“Yeah, I just flew in from China.  I’ve already been traveling for 22 hours.  I couldn’t sleep on the plane earlier, but I just caught a nap there in the waiting area.  I think it made me feel worse.”  The line moved forward a step.

“Wow, long trip!  Where are you headed?”

“DC is my last stop.  Good thing.  I feel like a zombie or something.”  A few more steps forward.

“You’re not sick, are you?”  The man looked like he wanted to sidle away.

“No, I loaded up on vitamin C before the trip.  I’m just tired.”

They reached the flight attendant, and the conversation died.  As he was looking at Beverly’s boarding pass, she heard some yelling down the foyer, maybe 10 Gates away.  The flight attendant glanced past her shoulder, a puzzled look on his face.  The sound of commotion increased, and Beverly turned to look.  She couldn’t see anything at this angle, and she wasn’t willing to step out of line to see better.  The attendant motioned her to go on, and she smiled faintly at him as she walked past.  Just as she entered the jetwalk, she heard what sounded like a scream, and a loud report like a firecracker.

A gunshot?

No way.  Beverly shook her head.  Guns aren’t allowed in airports.

20 minutes later they were in the air, and Beverly was fast asleep.

***

She woke again as they were making the final approach into Dulles, then dozed until they pulled up to the gate.  Lack of sleep and disruptions to all the normal biological cycles made her feel groggy even after she gathered her purse (no carry-on, for the win!) and staggered off the plane and up the walkway.

Her luggage would be arriving at the very last turnstile.  Before walking down there, she stopped off in the Ladies Restroom.  She sat in the stall, staring at nothing, trying to will herself fully awake.

She heard someone stagger in, then stumble over and push at her door.

“Taken!  Try the next one.”

More pushing at the door.  The groans sounded a little urgent.

“Hey!  Taken!”

Whoever it was seemed to take the message, and stumbled into the stall next to hers.  She could see the woman’s feet, rather large in tennis shoes, in the 12-inch gap.  She saw a hand reach through and paw in her direction.

“Out of toilet paper?  Okay, hold on a second.”  Beverly unwound a big wad, reached down and held it out.  The other person knocked it from her hand.  Fine, I don’t care, Beverly thought.  Some people just have no gratitude.

She closed her eyes and put her head in her hands, took several deep breaths.  She pulled out her cellphone and held the button until it began to turn on.  She stood up and had just gotten the door open when she felt her foot grabbed.  She looked down in time to see a man’s head stuck through the gap between the floor and the stall divider, and saw him sink his teeth into her ankle.

blinding pain–

“SON OF A BITCH!” Beverly yelled, and dropped her phone as she yanked her foot free.  She aimed a kick directly at the side of his face, heard his head bounce off the base of the toilet.  She opened the door and ran out with her purse.  She heard the man struggling to get out of the stall behind her.

Out of the restroom, she picked out a security guard a few dozen yards away.  She ran up to him.

“A man just assaulted me in the ladies restroom!”  She pointed back the way she had come.  She had to repeat it again before he understood.  He looked grim and began to walk in that direction, lifting his radio to his mouth as he went.

Beverly hesitated a moment.  She didn’t really want to wait around and see the guy.  Just thinking of him gave her the creeps.  There was something funny about his eyes.

She also didn’t want to wait around to repeat her story a dozen times to the police.  She knew that she should do her part to get a jerk like that off the streets…but she was exhausted, and just wanted to go home.  At least she could pick up her luggage first.  That would also give her more distance from the bathroom.

She walked another couple hundred yards to the luggage turnstile, which was already turning with a few pieces forlornly waiting for owners.  Hers was already there, too.  She grabbed her suitcase, then heard a scream and turned to look back at the bathroom entrance.

A struggle was ensuing between two security guards and the guy.  It looked like one of the security guards was down with the guy on top of him, and the second security guard trying to pull him off.  As she watched, the second guard pulled the assailant off of his buddy.  The guard on the floor wasn’t moving at all.  The creep turned in the second guard’s grasp.  It was hard to tell from the distance, but it looked like the guy was winning!

Beverly felt a bolt of terror in her heart.  She turned and hurried toward the exit.  She looked back as she reached the door, saw the guard fall to the ground and saw the man stagger in her direction.  She pushed out the doors as fast as she could, scrambled out onto the sidewalk.

She looked for the economy parking lot bus stop.  There!  And her lot color was already there.  As she ran toward it, dragging her suitcase, it started to pull away.

Then the driver must have seen her, because it stopped and the doors opened.  She clambered on board, yelled, “Go!” and collapsed into a chair.  She looked back at the baggage claim door but didn’t see her assailant emerge.

Her ankle throbbed.  She pulled her foot up to the seat, looked her ankle over.  She winced as she pressed and explored the bite area.  Was the skin broken?  No blood, at least.  That seemed impossible with as bad as the bite hurt, but maybe her jeans got in the way?  The way it hurt, she was going to have one hell of a bruise.

When the bus reached her stop, Beverly raced to her car, jumped in, and locked all the doors. She sat, shivering with reaction, for about 15 minutes.  She transitioned directly from panic to exhaustion, however, and woke herself when her head lolled forward.
She shook her head to clear it, glanced at her watch, and estimated she had lost only about 20 minutes dozing.
“Better I get back home as soon as possible and crawl into bed for some good sleep,” she said out loud, trying to wake herself up.  “I just hope I don’t nod off on the road home.”
Not many cars were on the road.

At one point, she saw someone walking across the freeway ahead of her.  She slowed slightly, until she saw that he would pass safely across before she reached him.

Within about 40 minutes, she was turning the key of her Eckington neighborhood townhome.  Three levels, 4 bedrooms, all hers.  Well, after another 27 or so years of mortgage payments, as she liked to say to friends.

She stripped her clothes and showered as rapidly as she could.  She checked out her ankle, rubbed some soap on it, but no sting of an open would.  Sure enough, though, it was already turning purple. The sky was just beginning to lighten as she stumbled into her bedroom and slipped into bed.  And then out of bed again to close the heavier curtains, to make sure sunlight drifting in between the slats of the blinds after daybreak didn’t wake her.

She set the alarm for a little over 6 hours later, pulled the covers up to her chin, and waited to fall asleep immediately.

35 minutes later (as confirmed by the bedside clock), she was still waiting.  She started the self-hypnosis technique she had learned back in college, and before the second set (backwards from fifty), felt that curious falling sensation that accompanied entering sleep when completely exhausted.

***

Untitled Novel, Teaser

Overwrought Think-Piece O’ the Day

  • by Gitabushi

Progressive ideology. Political power shifts. Societal pendulums. Global Warming. Defeating Evil.

What do these things have in common, besides the letter “l”?

All these different issues cannot be discussed rationally without accurately identifying and applying feedback loops.

For instance, in the case of Global Warming Climate Change, the theory is that the increase in carbon dioxide from human activity is driving the Earth’s temperature spiraling upward. However, the only way this can be true is if factors influencing or controlling the earth’s temperature are, in total, a positive feedback loop. Meaning, the various elements snowball, so the more carbon gets into the atmosphere, the easier it is for carbon to get into the atmosphere in the future.

However, to make this argument, one has to be aware of several negative feedback loops, such as the logarithmic nature of carbon’s impact (the more carbon is in the atmosphere, the smaller effect any given unit of carbon has) and the likelihood that increased carbon in the atmosphere encourages plant growth that has a cooling effect.  Meaning, there are certainly elements that tend to resist change, that absorb changes into a cycle that brings temperature back to equilibrium.  The fact that the world has had both extreme temperatures during different ages, yet keeps within a relatively small, stable range, indicates that negative feedback loops are more powerful than the positive feedback loops in our global climate system.

Regarding defeating evil, the one thing I remember from the 1st Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever is that evil can never be fully defeated. Individual incarnations of evil can be defeated, but since some measure of evil exists in every single human being, evil will always return.

lrdflsbncc1978

Setting aside the notion of evil, that’s why it is so difficult for there to be a permanent one-party rule in the United States.  One significant negative feedback loop is the election interests of individual politicians.  If one party succeeded in complete domination of the political scene, the powerless party would dissolve and the in-power party would split in order for individual politicians to seek power by championing the interests of a minority.  Party overreach usually means that it never even gets to that point.  The Democrats were hailing their permanent majority just 8 years ago.  Now they almost lack the power to stop Constitutional Amendments.

Progressive Ideology assumes a social Positive Feedback Loop, in which human society inevitably progresses toward their assumed and preferred utopia of human enlightenment.

As a fan of science fiction, I have imagined what an Individual Rights Society might look like (call it Conservative, or Libertarian, if you with…neither seem to be fully appropriate terms), but even in my imagination, it is impossible to sustain.  Human nature is too obvious: there will always be people who see their advantage in claiming group rights over individual rights, and there will always be people eager to dictate groups rights to the exclusion of individual rights.

But is the reverse true?

Consider this tweet:

I think she’s 100% correct. However, the problem is that even after the precedent is set, it isn’t a precedent the GOP can use in retaliation against the Democrats.  This is because there simply is no GOP-leaning senior bureaucrat population.  The federal bureaucracy mostly embraces the Progressive mindset.  Where it doesn’t, it correctly sees the Democrat Party as more supportive of the unelected bureaucracy’s power.

As a result, where there should be a negative feedback loop that acts as a check on Progressive overreach, I fear that Democrats (and/or Progressives, and/or Leftists…there’s a huge overlap, but not complete) have metastasized in government to the point that they can enforce a positive feedback loop for their preferred policies.

Maybe not.  The Deep State’s attack on the US Constitution is out in the open now, and the GOP does have an unprecedented advantageous position to begin dismantling it, just like Walker is doing in Wisconsin.

However, let me clarify what I mean by the Left enforcing a positive feedback loop.

Normally, overreach results in the pendulum swinging back, as individuals exercise their political and social rights to disagree and oppose.  But the nature of Leftist ideology is to embrace and empower group rights, not individual rights.  They control education, so they can teach you the history and values they want you to have.  They control entertainment, so they can craft narratives in which the Progressive ideology always turns out to be correct. They control the news, so they can make it seem like the GOP following Democrat precedents is an outrageous, unprecedented scandal.  They control the federal bureaucracy, so they can pick and choose which of the millions of pages of regulations to enforce to punish individuals for opposing their agenda.  They can make the process be the punishment so that you can’t even fight back against things like EPA overreach without bankrupting yourself.  They control the judiciary (mostly), so they can re-legislate and nullify laws they don’t like (up to and including declaring a Constitutional Amendment to be Unconstitutional).  They can allow non-citizens to flood the nation to outnumber citizens and get representation and federal funding based on illegal aliens.  They can channel taxpayer money to Progressive organizations like Planned Parenthood, and get money back from Planned Parenthood to fund Democrat politicians.  And they can use all these various institutions to move the Overton Window to make it impossible to even talk about alternatives to their vision.

If Hillary Clinton had been elected, there would have been significant erosion of 1A and 2A rights.  So we dodged a bullet there.

But even with Donald Trump duly winning the election, even with the GOP controlling Congress, controlling approximately 2/3 of the governorships, controlling a majority of state legislatures, and conservatives about to control the Supreme Court, we find ourselves on the defense from the Deep State attempting to sabotage the Trump Administration.

The battle is in the open now, but despite it being open, I’m not at all certain the GOP can win.  Too many people would rather be right about Trump than protect the normal order of Constitutional governance.

If we lose this, we won’t lose our rights immediately.  But it will be a slow erosion.  Some negative feedback elements do still exist to slow, and sometimes even turn back, the growth of the Leviathan State.  But if the Deep State wins, expect to see more and more of the negative feedback loop mechanisms dismantled.

My bottom line: sure, a Trump administration is going to be a shit-show. It will be clumsy. It will make mistakes. But the more conservatives pile on, the easier it will be for the Deep State to win in their battle against the POTUS, and we’ll all be the worse off for it.

The Deep State has declared war on the rightfully-elected President of the United States.  By choosing to go to war against the President of the United States, the Deep State has declared war on the US Constitution.  You have to choose a side. There’s gotta be away you can defend the Office of the Presidency without defending Trump the man himself. Find it.

 

Overwrought Think-Piece O’ the Day

Walking Dead, Season 7: Far-Right Tutorial

  • by Gitabushi

There are plenty of spoilers in the following piece.  If you aren’t caught up on the story, well, at some point you have to take responsibility for being weeks behind.  There has been plenty of time for everyone to catch up on the storyline, so I’m not even going to try to avoid spoilers.  I’ll put it below the jump, however.  And the spoilers will be minor, I think.

Continue reading “Walking Dead, Season 7: Far-Right Tutorial”

Walking Dead, Season 7: Far-Right Tutorial

Rudy’s BBQ

I have lived in Texas multiple times.

It wasn’t until the last time I lived there, however, that I encountered Rudy’s BBQ.

728782

We were visiting with my parents, and to celebrate my father’s birthday, he requested Rudy’s BBQ in Boerne, TX.

It was a great meal.  On the way out, I dropped a business card into the jar, because why not?

cimg9437

About a month later, I got a call from Rudy’s saying I had won a free catered lunch. At the time, I was living and working in San Angelo, which was a 3-hour drive from the nearest Rudy’s BBQ.  They weren’t going to cater that far, of course.

However, my duties at that time included bringing US Air Force officers to the Personnel headquarters at Randolph Air Force Base in San Antonio, about 20 miles from the restaurant.  Would they cater there?

3455447309_2e8859c136_b

Yes, they would.

They brought us $250 worth of BBQ and sides, enough for my 12 officers, and the USAF General and his staff we were meeting with.

rudys-bbq-meal

We were all stuffed, with leftovers for the General’s staff to take home.

rudysbbq1w

Rudy’s earned my lifelong appreciation for that.

food_bbqsauce_cmyk

If you are ever in Texas, and there is a Rudy’s within reasonable distance, you must go eat there. You owe it to yourself.

Rudy’s BBQ

Political Strategery

  • by Gitabushi

I am a semi-skilled amateur in many, many fields.  One field that I feel like I can fumble my way to some useful insights is Games Theory.

My career has centered around analysis in general, and mainland China in specific.  One of the interesting aspects has been watching other analysts make assessments based on nations as if they were unchanging monoliths.  Perhaps that yields analytic results that are good enough. But to me, that always seemed inadequate.

Consider the US. Should other countries make their Geopolitical plans based on the US always being the World’s Policeman, committed to global trade and attempting to keep the peace worldwide while maintaining shipping lanes, eager to use military force to protect our National Interests?  Or put it another way: did the basic character of our actions on the world stage change from Bush to Obama, and will they change from Obama to Trump?  And even more subtly, did they change from SecState Clinton to SecState Kerry, and from SecState Powell to SecState Rice?  I think the answer to all these questions is “yes.”

I am convinced that the nature of the PRC-Taiwan conflict changed significantly when the leader of Taiwan changed from Lee Teng-hui to Chen Shui-bian.  President Chen was extremely good at giving Jiang Zemin (the leader of the PRC) no-win options.  If Jiang accepted what Chen did, Taiwan gained some measure of independence, but if he fought it, he made the PRC look like a bully and hardened the resolve of Taiwanese citizens to remain independent.  I can’t think of a good example at the moment.  Jiang Zemin knew how to exercise power, and he exercised it against Taiwan as much as he could, rattling sabers and making threats and blustering.

However, when Hu Jintao succeeded Jiang Zemin, that again changed the character.  Suddenly, the PRC was giving Taiwan no-win options.  The best example I can think of is when Taiwan was going through a minor recession.  Hu Jintao offered to let Taiwan fruit farmers sell their products to the Chinese mainland. That would immediately increase the demand for their goods without increasing the supply, which would help struggling farmers and perhaps even help them get rich quickly.  The problem for Chen Shui-bian was that Taiwan farmers almost exclusively supported his party.  If he allowed them to sell their fruit to the PRC, they would benefit from a stronger relationship with the PRC, which would likely soften their resolve to remain independent. But if he refused to let them sell their product, then he was harming their livelihood for politics, and perhaps for mere churlishness.

Prior to Hu Jintao, the PRC did everything they could to block Taiwan from participating in international organizations.  The PRC claimed that both the PRC and Taiwan were part of One China, and that China needed only one representative at the UN, the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, etc.  Taiwan could be represented by joining the PRC, or not be represented at all.  Under Hu, however, the PRC suddenly allowed Taiwan to participate as a region of the PRC.  That gave Chen an unhappy option: if they chose to gain a voice in international organizations, it was tantamount to accepting the PRC’s authority over Taiwan; if they rejected the opportunity, at least some of the international opinion would note that Taiwan cared more about political words than, say, the opportunity to participate in vital public health activities like preventing the spread of Avian Influenza.

And Hu Jintao continually forced Taiwan to make these choices. During his tenure, the PRC offered Taiwan the economic opportunities with mainland China they had been seeking for years…but with each economic deal, Taiwan tied its economy more closely to the PRC, meaning that the PRC could theoretically force re-unification by threatening to tank Taiwan’s economy at only an inconvenience to themselves.

So here’s the point:

The GOP, as a whole, seems to split our intellectual time and effort between trying to persuade people that conservative philosophy is correct and trying to enact conservative policy.  What I don’t think is happening enough, however, is trying to craft policy that puts Progressives into untenable positions.

Self-defense rights. Over-incarceration. Voting integrity. Right to Life. Lower taxes. Countering speech we don’t like with speech we do (trying to erase Political Correctness). I’ve seen it done in persuasion attempts, like pointing out that abortion is killing more black women than anything else. I’ve seen some steps toward the GOP fighting over-incarceration as a waste of money.

But why can’t we craft policy that puts the Democrats in the position of either admitting the GOP is helping blacks, or in preventing blacks from getting help?

Why can’t we craft policy that puts Democrats in the position of either allowing us to ensure the integrity of voting, or admitting they want illegal votes to cancel out the votes of citizens?

Is it just that the mainstream news media (the Democrat Operatives with Bylines) won’t allow the GOP to get that message out?  Is it also that too many in the GOP have no desire to defeat Progressive ideology (seeing themselves as the Washington Generals to the Progressive Political Harlem Globetrotters in order to push political policy they only pretend to oppose to get elected)?

Political Strategery

The Opposite of Populism

  • by Gitabushi

Have you noticed the mainstream media, pundits, and even Democratic Party officials are decrying populism lately?  Actually, if you pay attention to the news at all, I don’t see how you could miss it.  Barrels of ink have been spilled by the Democrat Operatives with Bylines (Glenn Reynolds’ characterization of the mainstream media, although the phrase has been taken up by his guest blogger, Ed Driscoll, as shown by the posts in the link) decrying populism since Donald Trump won the election.

Barrels of ink could be spilled exploring the phenomenon that populism, a cornerstone of Democratic Party policy and power, is suddenly a problem when Republicans embrace it (temporarily or not).

They hate populism because Trump rode a wave of populism to win the election.

As I am fond of noting, to Progressives/Leftists, “democracy” is whatever gives them power or helps them retain it, and “facism” is any process or act that results in them losing power.  That’s why every Republican is always Literally Hitler.

If Populism is so bad, what is the opposite of Populism?  Elitism? Has that served us well?

Actually, I think the opposite of Populism is Principles.

Populism is the notion that whatever the majority of The People want to happen should become law simply because the people want it. Usually the Court system is the way Leftists make this argument, but they will use Congress when they can (“We have to pass the law to find out what’s in it”), and lately have fallen in love with Executive Orders (“If Congress doesn’t act, I will“). And, of course, mob rule has also been one of their favorite weapons, if it is their mob and their rule.

Principle is when you want to follow the rules, even if it harms you personally; and when you want to follow the system, even if it makes it more difficult to do the things that are already obvious should be done.

An example: I am currently a government contractor. It is not a bad way to make a living, but there is no security. The contract you work under is usually re-competed every year, and another company could win the bid at any time. The rules for your employment are also far less friendly than that of government employees.  I would like to be employed by the government.  In fact, I have even applied for a position.  Donald Trump promised he would institute a hiring freeze on government employees. If I voted in a populist manner, I would have voted for Hillary Clinton. It was actually voting against my personal interests to vote for Donald Trump. I stuck with principles.  I want the future to be better for my children and grand children.  I think that as bad as Trump might be, electing Hillary Clinton to be POTUS will result in her establishing many more incentives that will make life worse for all people in my children’s and grandchildren’s adult life.

So what is Elitism, then?

In my opinion, Elitism is merely Populism for Elites.  The Elites want a huge influx of Illegal Immigrants, so they get the huge influx, even if the federal government has to sue to keep a state from enforcing federal laws. The Elites want same sex marriage to be legal, and so a fundamental Right to Marriage suddenly appears where none existed before.

I assert that we should resist and reject Populism in all its forms.  We should follow the laws of the United States, as written. If we do not like the laws, they should be changed by the processes allowed to us. Executive Orders should not be used to legislate. Executive Orders should not be allowed to stipulate not enforcing duly-enacted laws.  The Supreme Court should never re-write a law to make it Constitutional, like it did in Obergefell and “Obamacare” rulings.  If a law is UnConstitutional, it should be temporarily halted until Congress writes a new law.

Maybe we need a Constitutional Amendment to establish the process by which SCOTUS strikes down laws and how they are then re-written?  Because I don’t think it would be helpful to the United States if a law was passed, then overturned by the Supreme Court, but the rewriting vetoed by a President who didn’t want the law.  Without any rules for the process, the system could be exploited for Leftist gain.  More than it already is, I mean.

And while we’re at it, I think we need to develop a Constitutional Process for the other two branches to be able to overrule SCOTUS in some circumstances.  SCOTUS deciding to re-write laws to fit what it considered Populist Wishes, and the inability for anyone to stop it, is the biggest gap in our system of checks and balances.

The Opposite of Populism