No, wealth is not for the government to take and redistribute

The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century. The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity.

 

In Star Trek: First Contact, Captain Picard explains to a 21st-century visitor why money is not important.

 

After reading this article in The Atlantic, I was remined of something from the late great Rush Limbaugh back in the mid-90s. He spoke of how a GOP member of the congress asked the Congressional Budget Office to estimate, by year, how much revenue would be raised if you taxed all income over $250,000 at one-hundred precent. You would have to make it retroactive (see the Clinton budget of 1993), but as I recall the CBO said (going by a 30-year memory), “The initial year would be 225 billion dollars, the following year would be 243 billion dollars, etc.”

 

The obvious reality would be next year, no one would make a salary of over 250K. What is the point?  Two things about liberals and the money you have. One, it is theirs, not yours. Two, their attitude is, “We take it from you, we know how to spend it wisely, and you will just smile and say, ‘Thank you sir, take some more.’” You won’t, or should not,  do anything to avoid paying any more taxes.

 

But this article is rather interesting. Let’s look at a few points.

 

What Would Society Look Like if Extreme Wealth Were Impossible?

 

Limitarianism questions the idea that individual wealth is ever individual.

 

By Christine Emba April 1, 2024

 

In February, 93-year-old Ruth Gottesman, a former professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the widow of financier David Gottesman, announced a gift of $1 billion to her school. With the funds came instructions: The money is to be used to make tuition free for students at the Bronx institution, in perpetuity.

 

The donation was celebrated—for its size, of course, but also for its humanitarian cast. As the New York Times columnist Ginia Bellafante put it, Gottesman’s giving “broadcasts a message of how a billionaire might live his or her best life—without terra-forming Mars, without Burning Man, without the attempts to stealth-run Harvard…”

 

A generous donation on behalf of Ms. Gottesman, but if her late husband David had not acquired this wealth through his work, and she had not inherited it, the free tuition would have never happened. No Ms. Emba, the Gottesmans did not inherit their wealth, but acquired it over decades of investment, knowing the right people, and being disciplined.

 

…Endowing an underfunded medical school is clearly a better use of money than buying yet another super-yacht.

 

That is your opinion Ms. Emba, not a fact. Many colleges suck up millions and their endowments are greater than the GDP of other nations, e.g., Harvard and Yale. But for some reason they won’t put out their fair share and allow students to attend tuition free.

 

I would also remind you what happened when a former Democratic administration put a luxury tax on yachts. The rich buyers simply went overseas to purchase their new toys. The people who this hurt were not the “super rich,” but the middle class people who produced, sold, and serviced these yachts.

 

“For a long time, I felt there was something wrong with an individual amassing so much money, but I couldn’t properly articulate why,” writes the Dutch philosopher Ingrid Robeyns. “After a decade of analyzing and debating extreme wealth, I became convinced that we must create a world in which no one is super-rich—that there must be a cap on the amount of wealth any one person can have. I call this limitarianism.” In her book of the same name, Robeyns fleshes out the case for such a cap while upending common conceptions of agency, ownership, and what a fortune really signifies.

 

Extreme wealth keeps the poor poor, she argues, and expands inequality. The super-rich undermine democracy through their outsize political influence and wreck the climate with their luxurious lifestyles. Some of their money is acquired through questionable means—from exploitative business practices, or dodging taxes, or outright theft. Robeyns argues that no one deserves such excess, that people would be better off morally and psychologically without it, and that there are better uses for society’s spillover abundance—ending poverty, say, or improving infrastructure. Even well-intentioned philanthropy doesn’t make up for these downsides: It’s no stand-in for a well-functioning, well-funded government—the sort that the wealthy often undermine in the course of making their fortune…

 

Again, who are you to determine when I’ve made enough money? I recall a previous president lecturing a tradesman, “I do believe at some point you’ve made enough money.” Now he has no issue with himself being worth 70 million with speeches and make work positions on boards, etc.

 

I’ve known rich people before, and I’ve yet to meet one who had become rich because of “public service.” Obama (and Clinton) was not rich before the presidency, but somehow became fabulously wealthy after the White House. On the contrary, George W Bush was worth 20 million before achieving the presidency, mainly by oil and professional sports. Donald Trump entered the White House a multi-billionaire and actually lost wealth during his term. Ronald Reagan was worth over 20 million in 1981. And unlike the current Democratic alumni of the Oval Office, they money is rather unambiguous.

 

A don’t disparage anyone achieving wealth, by legal means. I do take serious offense of a rich leftist lecturing me on achieving a degree of prosperity from their personal yachts and Lear Jets.  

 

And it’s that government and its citizens on which any fortune depends. “Take any multimillionaire or billionaire, and put them on a desert island,” Robeyns writes. “They still have all the same talents and personal traits as before. How rich could they become? Not very rich, obviously.”

 

I think we have the issue here. Obviously on an abandoned island, the effort would be for survival, not things above  food, water, and shelter. But people with intelligence (not necessarily education), ideas, and drive will come up with something that people are willing to spend the results of their labors on, i.e., their disposable income, on. A few examples:

 

-      Henry Ford and his automobile.

 

-      Steve Jobs and Apple computer.

 

-    Elon Musk with electric cars, online pay programs and commercial space launch systems.

-  Joe Kennedy Sr and his whiskey.

 

Of the current ten richest men on earth, nine started with relative non-wealth in their early days. I dare say if you try to take their wealth from them, the company will immediately transfer its flag to a less insane nation like Switzerland or Lower Slovia. These men (and women) have worked for their success. They will not just hand it over to a politician because of a law.

 

But if you want to take the ill-gotten wealth of the superrich, I suggest you go after the liberals who want to steal from the American people. Ms. Bill Clinton, John Kerry (you know, the dude who dodged Massachusetts taxes by docking his yacht in New Hampshire). Let’s  not forget Elizabeth “Faukahuntus” Warren, she of lecturing students to not use real estate to make money, but she has no issue with herself making millions in the market. Or take a look at non-profit programs where the uber rich can park billions of dollars, give away a few million a year and dodge a fortune in taxes (See Bill Gates Discovery Foundation).

 

I have to say I’m interested in reading Ms. Robeyns book, but I definitely don’t want to buy it. Might drive her into illegitimate wealth and we don’t want to drive up her individual wealth.  

An Anti-Jail Break.

Not exactly Escape from Alcatraz here. From the old hometown of New Orleans. 

Man arrested after allegedly trying to climb into New Orleans jail grounds

NEW ORLEANS (WVUE) - A 29-year-old man was arrested Wednesday (March 13) after allegedly attempting to scale a wall to climb into the secure grounds of the Orleans Justice Center jail.

Dylon Guidry was booked with attempted burglary, resisting arrest by force, trespassing and attempting to bring contraband into the jail, Orleans Parish Sheriff Susan Hutson’s office said.

The unusual anti-jailbreak occurred around 1:36 p.m., the sheriff’s office said, after deputies spotted the man wearing a white shirt and cargo shorts attempting to climb a wall behind the OPSO’s Temporary Detention Center...

Guidry was apprehended about 11 minutes later by deputies from OPSO’s Investigative Services Bureau...

...The OPSO said the contraband allegation against the suspect stemmed from his attempt to bring a cellphone into the facility when he tried to scale the wall.

Let's all get a good laugh and to all my fellow cops out there, remember, we should take dudes like this. They are job security. 

Thank you Joe Sbisa for the link.

Lessons Learned From A Cop’s Death

Only a fool learns from his own mistakes. The wise man learns from the mistakes of others.

 

Otto von Bismarck

Chancellor of Germany 1871-1890

 

In my time in law enforcement, I’ve reviewed countless videos of officer involved deadly force incidents, and where officers get killed or critically injured. It’s not to blame the deceased, but to learn from their actions to prevent another cop being injured or killed. Much like as the armed forces embraced the after-action review in the 1970s, law enforcement is also using it to improve our operations.  

 

When I was a field trainer (and field training supervisor), a bible for instruction was from the 1970s. Officer Down: Code Three, by Pierce Brooks is still an excellent reference on things that get cops killed. When I was instructing new officers, I would assign them a chapter a night to read, and we would review the points the next day. 

 

The Las Cruces NM Police Department lost an officer a month ago. The officer approached a suspect who was originally non-hostile. The suspect then pulled out a kitchen knife, charged the officer, and stabbed him to death. The suspect was killed by a civilian with his personal pistol (I thought that never happened) coming to the aide of the officer.

 

Back to Officer Down: Code Three, the book list ten critical mistakes that get cops killed. Looking at this video, I see three apparent missteps that are covered by the writing: Relaxing too soon; Missing the danger signs, and; Failure to watch their hands. 

 

 

Looking at the video, the first thing to notice is how quickly the suspect jumps up as the officer approaches. The suspect has taken himself from a tactically weak position (on the ground with legs crossed) to a much stronger one (standing, able to run or engage). The implication is the suspect sees the officer as a threat and he is preparing to react. A definite danger sign missed.

 

Next, the suspect begins talking to the cop, seemingly in a friendly way. In a way that implies “I’m not a danger to you.” We can only assume the officer did not see him as the threat he was. 

 

The officer continues to approach with his hands in his jacket pocket. He doesn’t see the suspect as a threat and has relaxed to a point. But as you see the suspect quickly starts to move towards the officer and pulls the knife out. The officer doesn’t have the time to react, specifically pull his pistol out and fire. 

 

Yes YouTube use of force and police tactics experts, a kitchen knife is a deadly weapon. Don’t believe that? Shove one between a couple ribs and tell me how that feels. 

 

Reviewing the video, another critical point. As the cop approaches, the suspect has his arms crossed so the officer cannot see his hands. Something drilled into cops in every instruction, hands are what kills you. They are what strike you directly or handle the weapons that do injury or kill you. 

 

This video shows how the “21 Foot Rule” is applicable in law enforcement. Again, from the 1970s, it shows how quickly a man with a knife can charge and injure a cop with a gun before the cop can get his pistol out. There is a reason we train officers to approach with the pistol side back, hand on the weapon and the holster unlocked. It gives the officer the chance pull his weapon a bit faster, when a fraction of a second matters. 

 

To emphasis again, I am in no way ridiculing an officer (RIP). I am showing the lessons to be learned on the last call he took, and hopefully this will keep other cops from suffering a similar result.

Another example of deafening silence.

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?

Holmes: To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.

Gregory: The dog did nothing in the night-time.

Holmes: That was the curious incident.

 

Sherlock Holmes and Inspector Gregory, Silver Blaze, by Sir Author Conan Doyle.

On Sunday February 11^th, I was driving home from work around 200pm and noticed two Harris County Sheriff’s Office shops (also known as patrol cars) “running hot,” i.e.,lights, sirens, etc. I didn’t pay it much attention, it’s a not uncommon event in Houston TX.

 

A minute later I noticed a third car running hot. Then a fourth.  I assumed it was serious, like a unit “dropping an assist.” The call “Assist the Officer” means an officer is in danger and requires immediate backup. That was an understatement.

 

An active shooter call dropped at Joel Osteen’s mega-church, Lakewood. The attack occurred just as they were starting Spanish service, and the shooter was armed with a “rifle.” Fortunately two cops working off duty security at the church immediately engaged and terminated the suspect.

 

During the Super Bowl I checked on updates to the shooting and the POS was described as a “transgender female” using a “rifle” for the attack, with a 4–5-year-old child. In speaking with an officer on the scene, the POS (I will not mention its name, for multiple reasons, more to come) was using the child as a human shield. Unfortunately, the boy (the POS’s child) was hit and is in critical condition. However, thanks to the quick work of the two cops on the scene, the POS only shot one man in the leg and he should make a full recovery. 

Again, I find it curious that a mass shooting, in Texas, by a shooting using an “assault rifle” has not made a bigger splash in the  news. During the Super Bowl I checked the local channels and understandably they were updating as news became available. I checked my NY Times emails from Sunday afternoon and did not see a “breaking news” alert on an active shooter in Houston. I reviewed their emails from Monday and it showed nothing. 

 

They did actually have a decent summary on Tuesday 2/13/24, including the ”’Palestine” on the rifle, but nothing on the shooter being a ”transgender.” They did update their report on Wednesday 2/14/24, questioning how a mentally disturbed “woman” who had been involuntarily committed for phycological evaluation could purchase a firearm. But something was missing. The shooter was a ”transgender”

 

From the latest, the shooter is a biological female who “transitioned” to male, and apparently decided to go back to being a female (this is subject to change without notice). There are multiple reports referencing the shooters mental issues. Fair enough. But dare I say it, the fact  the shooter is a “trans” is a mental issue. From Psychology Today:

Individuals who identify as transgender tend to experience higher rates of mental health issues than the general population. While approximately 6.7 percent of the general U.S. population suffers from depression and 18 percent grapple with some iteration of an anxiety disorder, nearly half of all individuals who identify as transgender experience these issues. What's more, over 41 percent of trans men and women are estimated to have attempted suicide — a rate that's nearly nine times as high as the rate of cisgender Americans. 

 

I have no doubt if this shooter has a MAGA hat on or attended a Trump rally it would be front, center and above the fold on page one of every paper in the country. 

 

Exaggeration? I don’t think so. Remember in March 2023, a “transgender male” entered The Covenant School, murdered three children and three adults before being killed by responding officers. Almost immediately reports of the shooters manifesto surfaced, but authorities were against releasing it. If a trial was pending, that would be understandable, it could be used in the investigation. As the shooter was dead, there is no custodial interview conducted. But it was fortunately leaked (The people who were very happy Dobbs v Jackson was leaked were upset at this. I wonder why?) and showed a lot of motive. Politically incorrect motive. 

 

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (TND) — Portions of the manifesto belonging to Nashville school shooter Audrey Hale are circulating social media after months of debate regarding its release.

 

Steven Crowder, the host of the Louder with Crowder talk show, shared leaked images from the manifesto Monday morning. The pages released by Crowder allegedly reveal the intentions behind Hale's deadly attack.

 

Wanna kill all you little c*******," one page from the manifesto reads. "Bunch of little f****** w/ your white privlages f*** you f******…"

 

… Hale's manifesto includes an hour-by-hour calendar of the tragic day, which Hale called "Death Day," including everything from "getting dressed" and "eat breakfast" to "prepare for attack" and "time 2 die."

 

I'm a little nervous, but excited too. Been excited for the past 2 weeks," Hale allegedly wrote. "Can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm ready... I hope my victims aren't."

 

I have also not heard from President Biden, his VP, or any other member of the DC Establishment (the local federal agencies have been very involved with the investigation). And I doubt I will. The facts don’t fit the template. 

 

I’ll monitor this and update as needed. But I have no doubt it will be off the national news by the end of the week. 

I visited Boston and the USS Constitution around 20 years ago. Great long weekend in Bean Town, and I’ve recovered from my concussion on the ship. Be carful on that ship as men were shorter when she first sailed and the ceiling, and the cross  members sporting them, were low. 

I know the Navy works to manage the wear and tear on the Constitution. They sail it once a year, and rotate which side is docked to even out sun and water wear. I heard the Navy had a small forest of white oak to handle the ships repairs and maintenance. Here is the story  oh how that came about.

Where does a 225-year-old working warship get its parts? At the Navy forest, of course

A forest owned by the U.S. Navy in Indiana ensures that the U.S.S. Constitution—named by George Washington and built with bolts forged by Paul Revere—stays afloat and at the ready.

In the early 1970s, as the United States began preparing for its Bicentennial, Boston decided that the U.S.S. Constitution would be a focal point of the city’s anniversary celebrations, with a new museum to the celebrated warship opening at the Charlestown Navy Yard.

The three-masted heavy frigate, launched in 1797, was named by George Washington and built with copper bolts forged by Paul Revere. Black-sided and red-bottomed, with a single, stark white running stripe, Constitution protected American ships against the French in the undeclared Quasi-War of 1798-1800 and quelled pirate attacks in the Mediterranean during the First Barbary War. The armed vessel defeated five British warships in the War of 1812, and it was in the wake of one of those battles—in which the American crew watched enemy cannonballs bounce harmlessly off Constitution’s white-oak hull—that the warship earned its famous nickname: “Old Ironsides...”

...The Constitution fulfilled its last mission, seizing a slave ship near the Congo River, in 1853 but remains today a fully commissioned warship of the U.S. Navy and—225 years after its launching— the oldest warship still afloat anywhere on Earth, moored in Boston Harbor’s chilly waters.

In 1906, after decades of work as a training ship along the east coast, the Navy made its first attempt to restore Constitution to its original War of 1812 configuration. In order to maintain the ship’s seaworthiness, a near-full restoration would need to be undertaken every 10 years.

But when the Navy went looking for materials to repair Constitution ahead of the 1976 Bicentennial, the enormous white oaks needed for the restoration of Old Ironsides were hard to find in the Northeast, so supervisors at the Boston Naval Shipyard scoured the Midwest and eventually bought timber from a private seller in Ohio.

“Someone in the Navy caught wind of it and wondered why they didn’t just come another four or five hours west, where they had fantastic white oak right on Navy property that they could have gotten for free,” recalls Trent Osmon, the environmental manager at Naval Support Activity (NSA) Crane, a Navy installation 35 miles southwest of Bloomington, Indiana.

That pricey decision prompted the Navy in 1976 to begin harvesting white oak for the U.S.S. Constitution at NSA Crane. To celebrate the occasion, they established Constitution Grove, a ceremonial 40-acre dedicated section of forest on the sprawling base where much of the timber that keeps the formidable warship afloat is harvested. Today, NSA Crane is the only forest in the U.S. managed by the Navy to support its fleet...

...In one corner of NSA Crane’s expanse of white oak trees is the 40-acre area known as Constitution Grove. The white oak trees are tall and slender, with branches that start high in the trunk, culminating in a canopy that blocks most sunlight from reaching the ground.

This part of the forest was originally selected by the Navy due to its high concentration of high-quality white oak. And while Osmon and his crew harvest trees from across the Navy base for use on Constitution, most of it is tagged and felled right in Constitution Grove...

...After felling what it needs for Constitution’s upkeep, the Navy sells the rest of its harvest to private furniture and piano makers, and, thanks to tylosis—the unique cell structure that makes white oak waterproof—bourbon cask-making for distillers just a short drive south in Kentucky’s famed bourbon country...

...Maintenance of a 225-year-old, 304-foot-long wooden warship is a constant job, and in the 50-odd years that Constitution Grove has supplied timbers for the maintenance of Constitution, Osmon estimates that 114 white oaks have been felled for the two most recent dry-dock restorations of Old Ironsides.

...In a dry-dock restoration, Constitution is lifted out of the water for examination and repairs of its wooden hull below the waterline under the watchful eye of Robert Murphy, the production manager at Naval History and Heritage Command, Detachment Boston. Then the copper sheathing that protects the submerged section of vessel is removed, allowing Murphy’s team to more closely study the normally submerged section of the hull, looking for sections to repair and potentially replace. Armed with that knowledge, and knowing exactly how much wood Constitution will need, Murphy’s team contacts Osmon with an order for how many trees to fell for restoration of the storied warship...

...In felling trees for Old Ironside’s hull planks, Osmon’s forestry team seeks out mature trees anywhere from 110 to 125 years old and 120-130 feet tall, which are then loaded on commercial trucks and taken to New England. There, the ship’s caretakers mill the enormous white oaks into hull planks that stretch up to 40 feet long, with leftover pieces repurposed for more ornamental flourishes around the ship, such as handrails and trim...

My best friend passed on a few years back. I remember him showing me in Jane's Fighting Ships the one listed "Sail Frigate," the USS Constitution. He was annoyed because he wanted another carrier  named that, but I said no, let's have something historical like this with such a proud name. 

To the men and women who man that ship and work to keep her up, a grateful nation says thank you. 

What is the problem here.

I have a close friend who retired from the police four years ago. I've know his kids their entire lives, and he's a great dad and was a great cop. And it pains him to tell his son, "Do not go into the police." The scrutiny of every action you do is beyond believe right now. We're raising generations of kids to be against law and order, and we have an administration allowing an invasion of criminals over our southern border. 

You want another great example of why police are getting the hell out of the job. From the New York Police Department: 

Four of the men were arrested, arraigned and released without bail; the other five suspects remain at large

NEW YORK — A group of migrants pummeled NYPD officers attempting to make an arrest outside a shelter in Times Square, police and sources said Tuesday.

Two officers and a lieutenant from the NYPD’s Midtown South Precinct approached the group of men outside a migrant shelter on West 42nd Street near Seventh Avenue around 8:30 p.m. Saturday, cops said...

The officers had been trying to break up the disorderly crowd outside the Candler Building, where the city announced the opening of a mega-shelter in March. When the cops attempted to put one of the men under arrest, multiple people attacked, according to authorities.

The men kicked and punched the officers in the head and body, video released by police shows.

“They were kicking and punching one of the cops,” a security guard in the area told the Daily News on Tuesday. “They mobbed [the cops]. It was wild.”

The lieutenant suffered a cut to his face during the melee. He was treated on the scene along with his colleagues, according to cops.

Two 19-year-old men, a 24-year-old man and a 21-year-old man were arrested at the scene. All were charged with assault on a police officer...

Four of the suspects were released without bail following arraignment in Manhattan Criminal Court...

New York Post, first, they are not "migrants," but illegal aliens. But four suspects, who have no connections to the area (family, jobs, etc) charged with assaulting a peace officer, are cited and released! All they have to do is walk off and there is nothing we can do, unless they are unlucky enough to get busted again and (going out on a limb here). From the PBA president:

“Attacks on police officers are becoming an epidemic, and the reason is [the] revolving door we’re seeing in cases like this one,” Patrick Hendry, president of the Police Benevolent Association, said in a statement. “It is impossible for police officers to deal effectively with crime and disorder if the justice system can’t or won’t protect us while we do that work...”

I've said it too many times to count. The police are joining the fire department, i.e., they are signing on, answering their calls for service, but doing nothing self initiated. You can't take risks these days. And why would you? God knows, the ex-cop now in charge of New York will not back you up. NYPD, watch yourselves, you are targets now. God Bless. 

Where the Constitution is silent...

One of the points I've learned is almost six decades on this Earth is any bureaucracy, no matter how well planned or executed, has only one purpose. To insure its own existence. An interesting concept put forth by commentator Mark Levin in his book The Liberty Amendments is to sunset every federal agency every five years. These departments and agencies would have  them justify their existence and organization to the Congress at regular a  regular interval. 

Too much you think? Well, in the lead up to New Year's 2000, we spent a fortune on preparing for the end of days because of software issues in computers. The world did not end on 1/1/00, but the federal department that oversaw Y2K prep until 2017.

I found this article interesting about the Supreme Court reviewing the power of federal agencies to interpret federal law. A major issue with the bureaucracy is they can put out regulations with the power of law, but there is little or no legislative oversight, and if you get called inot a labor court or other hearing, you are guilty until you prove your innocence (slight exaggeration).

From today's Washington Post: 

Supreme Court divided over whether to curb the power of federal agencies

Ann E. Marimow

A divided Supreme Court debated whether and how to curtail the power of federal agencies Wednesday, with liberals urging the court to defer to the judgment of government experts and conservatives saying courts should not automatically favor government regulators over private companies, industry or individuals in litigation...

The high court was considering challenges to federal rules requiring commercial fishermen to pay for at-sea monitors. But the court’s decision has the potential to limit the flexibility of federal agencies to regulate vast swaths of American life, including the environment, financial markets, public health and the workplace.

Conservatives have long targeted the framework set in 1984 in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council because it requires judges to defer to the reasonable interpretation of federal agency officials charged with administering ambiguous federal laws....

On Wednesday, Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Neil M. Gorsuch, both nominees of President Donald Trump, took turns peppering the Biden administration with skeptical questions as Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar defended the Trump administration initiative — and the longstanding Chevron precedent.

(Justices Brett) Kavanaugh said Chevron has allowed federal agencies to flip flop and impose new rules each time a new administration takes over, leaving judges with little choice but defer to the changing interpretations of agency officials.

“Something needs to be fixed here,” said (Justice Neil) Gorsuch, who has previously called for overturning the precedent.

I see the issue with the Chevron case, and Justice Gorsuch is right, the bureaucracy is going far beyond what this ruling meant, IMHO. But I really find this interesting:

The court’s three liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — expressed concern about shifting power to unelected judges to make technical and scientific policy decisions when laws passed by Congress are not crystal clear.

“Judges should know what they don’t know,” Kagan said.

Jackson said she is worried about "courts becoming uber-legislators.”

Justice Kagan is worried about judges ruling on what they don't know! Justice Kagan, you voted in Dobbs v Jackson that the opinion of seven lawyers in black robes should overrule the citizens and governments of the fifty states, in violation of the 10th Amendment. Justice Jackson, that is exactly what you wanted when you voted against the Dobbs decision. And let's not forget Justice Sotomayor saying courts of appeal set government policy. 

Ladies, it's not that you don't the judicial branch making policy or policy decisions, taking the legitimate decision from the legislative. You only want that with your preferred legislative policies. 

Sorry, a major effort of the next Republican administration is to continue the work of the Trump presidency in appointing judges that will interpret the Constitution, and, in the wise worlds of the late Judge Robert Bork, "...where the Constitution is silent, leaves the policy struggles to Congress, the president, the legislatures and executives of the 50 states and to the American people . . . ."