Loose Ends (20)

I gather any day now—maybe today, who cares—we shall once again observe Equal Pay Day, when liberals will hector us about the wage gap between men and women. Kudos to Brent Scher of the Free Beacon for catching yet another example of liberal hypocrisy on this issue:

Elizabeth Warren’s Female Staffers Made 71% of Male Staffers’ Salaries in 2016

The gender pay gap in Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D., Mass.) is nearly 10 percent wider than the national average, meaning women in the Massachusetts Democrat’s office will have to wait longer than most women across the country to recognize Equal Pay Day. . .

Women working for Warren were paid just 71 cents for every dollar paid to men during the 2016 fiscal year, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis.

The median annual earnings for women staffers, $52,750, was more than $20,000 less than the median annual earnings for men, $73,750, according to the analysis of publicly available Senate data.

When calculated using average salaries rather than median, the pay gap expands to just over $26,051, or about 31 percent.

This won’t stop Thin Lizzy from her heavy metal hammering about inequality:

Warren Tweet

 

Of course, this is nothing compared to the hypocrisy and lame improvisations of the left over the Gorsuch nomination. It’s hard to pick out the best examples of this. Let’s just start with Princeton’s Julian Zelizer, writing today at CNN that the filibuster against Gorsuch would be good for Democrats, while blaming Trump for putting up a “non-moderate” nominee. Here’s the biggest howler of the piece:

If anyone was capable of making sure the process did not break down beyond repair it was President Trump. Had he demonstrated some genuine independence and sent a moderate nominee to the Senate, instead of a right-wing judge who pleased the evangelical right and anti-regulatory business conservatives, he could have made it difficult for Democrats to refuse the confirmation.

A moderate nominee, even from this President, would have persuaded many Democrats to vote yes and brought along enough Republicans who would not want to suffer a defeat. Yet Trump made a different choice, tapping a nominee from the “originalist” camp unlikely to move this divided court to the center.

Translation: When a liberal says “moderate nominee” for the Court, it means someone without any constitutional principles who can be relied upon to uphold a liberal view of government power. There is no such thing as a “moderate” nominee. The most charitable construction you can put on judicial “moderation” is a judge who is confused and erratic. But Anthony Kennedy is already on the Supreme Court.

 

Finally, the leftist mob has succeeded in preventing another speaker, this time Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was scheduled to speak soon in Australia:

Claire Lehmann reports at The Rebel:

Responses

-->