Thursday, July 19, 2018

United States Withdraws From UN Human Rights Council : Too Many Mass Killers

Nikki deserves a metal for courage in the face of terrorists.

What breath of fresh air that Nikki brings to that abysmal and maliciously criminal organization called the United Nations.

Dominated for decades by tyrants and other monsters of socialsit destruction, little wonder the Human Right Council is just the poser child of what an be seen as a systemic problems that have driven the United Nation into what it is today, an abysmal malfeasant concoction of depraved, immoral and unethical gang of leeches, blood suckers and rent seeking mass killers. 

How Nikki Haley is able to work in that atmosphere is a portrait in courage. She deserves a metal.

Nikki Haley Defends Decision to Leave UN Human Rights Council, Calls It ‘Greatest Failure’ of UN
Rachel del Guidice / /  

The United States’ withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Council has nothing to do with its commitment to human rights, Ambassador Nikki Haley said Wednesday in a fiery speech at The Heritage Foundation.

“No one should make the mistake of equating membership in the Human Rights Council with support for human rights. To this day, the United States does more for human rights, both inside the U.N., and around the world, [than] any other country. And we will continue to do that,” said Haley, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in prepared remarks.

“We just won’t do it inside a council that consistently fails the cause of human rights.”

On June 19, the United States announced it was leaving the United Nations Human Rights Council, citing the council’s bias against Israel and its tolerance for human rights abusers to be included in the council.

At the time of the announcement, Haley said that the council was a “protector of human rights abusers and a cesspool of political bias.”

In her speech Wednesday, the ambassador struck a similar tone, saying “the Human Rights Council has provided cover, not condemnation, for the world’s most inhumane regimes,” and that the council “is the United Nations’ greatest failure.”

Watch the video ;

Haley specifically singled out the addition of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the U.N. Human Rights Council as inappropriate.

“In October, the Democratic Republic of the Congo was elected to a seat on the council,” Haley said. “The Congo is the setting for atrocities that shock the most hardened international aid workers. They were discovering mass graves in the Congo even as the General Assembly approved its bid for the Human Rights Council.”

The Human Rights Council ignoring human rights abuses in countries like Iran and Venezuela also helped solidify the United State’s decision to leave the council, said Haley, adding:

In December and into this year, the Iranian people took to the streets in peaceful protest against their horrendous regime. The government responded with beatings, arrests, and killings. The Human Rights Council was silent.

And throughout the year, Venezuela descended further and further into misery and dictatorship. But the Council didn’t address the massive abuses in Venezuela for the reason I’m sure you’ve guessed by now: Venezuela sits on the Human Rights Council.

The ambassador said the United States was disappointed and surprised that countries who stand for human rights, as well as nongovernmental institutions such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, neglected to support the United States in its effort to reform the Human Rights Council.

“The NGOs were afraid that opening up the Human Rights Council to changes would result in hostile amendments in the General Assembly that would make the council even worse,” Haley said. “Think about that for a second. Their view is that a bad situation can’t be improved because it might get worse?”

Countries also came to the United States to express their concern about the council failing to protect human rights and allowing membership to human rights abusers, but did not ultimately stand by the United States and demand reform, said the ambassador.

“We gave them opportunity after opportunity,” Haley said. “But after months of agreeing with us on all of the flaws of the Human Rights Council, they would not take a stand unless it was behind closed doors, outside of public view.”

However, Haley also extended an invitation to other nations.

“Our withdrawal from the Human Rights Council does not mean we will give up the fight for reform. On the contrary, any country willing to work with us to reshape the council need only ask,” she said.

Despite the challenges the United States had experienced at the U.N., Haley said the United States has seen successes, including stopping attempts from Russia and China to significantly lessen the number of U.N. peacekeepers working to further the protection of human rights and a session held by the United Nations Security Council to discuss Iran’s human rights violations.

The former governor of South Carolina said her experience visiting refugee camps in Ethiopia, Congo, Turkey, and Jordan and visits with “mothers scarred by trauma,” as well as “battered, aimless children lost to ignorance and extremism” underscore the importance of her position to advocate human rights on the world stage.

“I will use my voice,” Haley said. “Not just because I am a mother. Not just because I am an ambassador. But because I am an American. And America can no more abandon the cause of human rights than abandon itself.”

Our Culture of A Civil Society : Illegal Immigration Changing Everything

What is the alternative? Where will you run?
 Where will you hide?
We are all immigrants? Not really. Not a chance. What went on at our founding and the consequences of that founding has changed the world for the better and for ever.

As then and now, America is seen as that ''shining city on the hill'' that is there for everyone that cares about individual freedom, prosperity and the rule of law applied evenly for everyone that comes here seeking a new life legally looking for the safety of a civil society governed by our founding Constitution, not the tyranny if lawlessness. The legal immigrant understands the law.

Do many that come here illegally have any idea about what individual freedom means and what it costs to maintain it for everyone? Of course not. Ignorance reigns supreme. Immigrants being promised everything is free. All that's required is just crossing the boarder.

It seem simple to understand, if you don't want to come here legally, then your motivation is not conducive to joining our civil society and living and obeying the laws that ensure prosperity. You are coming here to America just to be some place other then where you came from, bringing with you the same attitude that made you cross the boarder illegally.

So with that attitude of indifference to country's laws and culture, you are a problem and must be turned away. You are not welcome.

Here’s an Indisputable Fact: Immigrants Bring Cultural Change
Dennis Prager / /

The most frequently used description of America by those who advocate for large numbers of immigrants—those here legally or illegally—is “America is a nation of immigrants.”

The statement sounds meaningful. But in reality, it’s meaningless.

What else could America be? If no one had come to America from elsewhere, the North American continent would have remained populated only by its indigenous people—which is what many on the left wish had happened. As the late Howard Zinn, author of “A People’s History of the United States,” the most widely used American history text in high schools and universities, said to me, the world was not better off thanks to the founding of America.

So, the statement “America is a nation of immigrants” tells us nothing about the only questions that matter: Should there be any limits to immigration? And what should we do about illegal immigration?

Regarding the first question, an increasing number of Americans on the left do not believe in any limits: We should allow all those escaping poverty or violence into the United States. As Hillary Clinton was caught on tape saying, she doesn’t believe in borders. She speaks for the American left: In the past few weeks, leftists have marched in American streets demanding the abolition of ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Therefore, for the left, the second question, “What should we do about immigration?” is essentially irrelevant. Their answer is “Nothing. All migrants are welcome.”

However, for those of us—liberals, conservatives, and independents—who do believe in borders, the second question is critical. And the reason has nothing—absolutely nothing—to do with race or ethnicity.

The reason we worry so much about vast numbers of immigrants is that too many immigrants in too short a period of time will change American culture and values. Our concern is not rooted in xenophobia; it is rooted in values-phobia.

Why is this an issue now? Because the vast majority of past immigrants changed their values, not America’s, when they came to this country. They came here to become American, not only in terms of language, citizenship, and national identity, but also in terms of values.

But while some immigrants still do, the majority does not. They want to become American citizens in order to better their lives—a completely understandable motivation—not to embrace American values and identity. The majority of today’s immigrants from Latin America, for example, wish to become wealthier Latin Americans.

Tens of millions of people have been coming to America with non-American values—essentially, values of the left such as big government and a welfare state. And thanks to the Democratic Party and the left, they don’t jettison these non-American values at the border and are encouraged to hold on to them.

Again, the concern many have over the issue of immigration has absolutely nothing to do with race or ethnicity. Pope Francis is a good example. He looks like a white European, but he has brought the left-wing Latin American values of his native Argentina into the papacy.

One more proof that opposition to vast numbers of immigrants has nothing to with xenophobia, racism, or nativism and everything to do with values is the effect of American immigrants going from northern states to southern states. The large number of (white) American internal “immigrants” from northeastern states has changed Florida’s values. Once a rock-solid conservative state, Florida has become more and more liberal and leftist because of the influx of people from New York and the Northeast.

Is noting the values effect of New Yorkers immigrating to Florida—or Californians to Arizona and Oregon—xenophobic, racist, or nativist? Of course not.

That’s why opposition to large-scale Muslim immigration into Europe (or America) also has little or nothing to do with xenophobia, racism (Muslim is not a race anyway), or nativism. It has to do with changing European values. Large-scale Muslim immigration to Europe will do to Europe’s values what large-scale northern-state immigration has done to Florida and what large-scale European immigration did to the native culture of North America.

So, while the issue appears to be whether one is for or against large-scale immigration into America, the real issue is whether one wants to preserve American values or see them changed.

The left wants them changed. Conservatives don’t.

Student Safety Paramount for Sec. DeVos : Ending Barrrack's Exec. Order

The public demands Republicans must always do the right thing
to bring common sense and the rule of law back to civil society.

This situation where schools are in fear of losing their federal funding if they don't accept the executive letter recommending students can become belligerent without fear of reprimand or expulsion, is the real legacy of Barrrack and the progressive socialist liberals.

Truly, the murders in Parkland can be associated with the demand from the government to allow individuals to do what ever they want without discipline can be seen clearly as collateral.

It is incumbent on DeVos to eliminate this progressive ideology where not having to take responsibility for ones own action must end if student safety is to be regained in our schools

Betsy DeVos Should Get Feds Out of School Discipline Policy, Withdraw Obama-Era Guidance
Jonathan Butcher / /

Sometimes in a compromise, both sides walk away unhappy.  That’s exactly what would happen if the Trump administration accepts a compromise measure on school discipline policy proposed by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. The proposal is a non-starter, particularly for those who value local control over federal overreach.

Here’s what’s at stake.

In 2014, the Obama administration issued a “Dear Colleague” letter on school safety and student discipline that represented a significant executive overreach. That letter should be rescinded, but some advocacy groups want it to remain in place.

The letter tells schools they may not discipline minority students at higher rates than their peers, even if the school’s policies are “facially neutral” with regard to race.

Watch the video :

No reasonable person thinks students should be punished for the color of their skin, and fortunately, federal civil rights laws support common sense here. But this guidance document goes much further. It says the Office for Civil Rights will proactively investigate school districts to root out policies that suspend or expel minority students at higher rates than white students, an effect called “disparate impact.” Even if such discipline is warranted, the letter warns that the Office for Civil Rights will come calling:

''Schools … violate federal law when they evenhandedly implement facially neutral policies and practices that, although not adopted with the intent to discriminate, nonetheless have an unjustified effect of discriminating against students on the basis of race.''

Advocates of this federal guidance say it’s necessary because of ongoing discrimination against minority students. “The federal government has an important role to play in upholding students’ civil rights and can do so without stifling important local autonomy,” says a recent coalition letter in favor of the guidance.

No doubt, the federal government should uphold civil rights law as it currently exists. But the 2014 letter goes beyond that. The federal government went so far as to tell schools how to discipline students and how to design school safety rules.

As Heritage Foundation research explains, the 2014 letter contains an appendix that micromanages school codes of conduct. The letter outlines restorative justice practices, saying schools should sign memoranda of agreement with law enforcement to limit student interaction with police, and tells schools to use suspension and expulsion as a last resort.

It’s noteworthy that ideas such as this were spearheaded in 2013 by school officials in Broward County, Florida, and did not prevent the tragic massacre in February 2018. The Obama administration cited Broward County as a model for the policy, which was then implemented in dozens of school districts across the country.

 Reports Show Obama-Era Policies May Have Eroded School Safety in Broward County

The Fordham Institute suggests doing away with the “disparate impact” portion of the document. It argues that Washington should keep all the directives about best practices in school safety plans and the threats of investigation, but rescind the section on schools implementing “facially neutral policies” that have discriminatory effects.

Yet this still assumes that federal regulators know more about maintaining order in a classroom than school personnel.

To keep students of all backgrounds safe and create an effective learning environment, a teacher must be able to remove a student from class if the circumstances call for it—regardless of the student’s race. Not doing so jeopardizes the safety of all students in a classroom.

Officials in Washington should return to teachers and school leaders the freedom to maintain order in schools without fear of federal reprisal.

After the Parkland massacre, the White House asked Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to lead a commission that would consider rescinding the 2014 letter. DeVos can leave her mark on school safety by returning to teachers and school leaders the freedom to make decisions about student discipline.

The Fordham Institute admits getting rid of the “disparate impact” portion of the letter “won’t make either side entirely happy.” Yet neither side should be happy, because such a compromise would leave Washington’s heavy-handed directives in place.

DeVos should remind Washington of its limited role and leave student welfare and school operations to those who know their schools best: parents, teachers, and principals.

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

United Nations On Poverty In America : It's Extreme?

As usual the United Nations is in full flow to demonize and shame the United State as a method to increase the amount of money they can extract to support the rest of the tyrants and mass killers that run this sinister and unscrupulous organization.

And of course as this article points out the internal rot of progressive socialist liberalism that taints or completely infest our government institutions as unethical and immoral in reporting the facts on poverty in the United States. How could the results of government exercise be anything else other then corrupt with socialsit liberals having power?

They are everywhere and operate at all levels of our government, Never vote democrat to begin the process of turning America back to it's original founding of individual freedom and prosperity for everyone that wants it. And if you don't want that, then go back where the hell you came from!

Don’t Believe the UN’s Propaganda About ‘Extreme Poverty’ in the US

Philip Alston, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, recently reported that in the United States, “[a]bout 40 million live in poverty, 18.5 million in extreme poverty, and 5.3 million live in third-world conditions of absolute poverty.” He further argued before the U.N. Human Rights Commission that “one of the world’s wealthiest countries does very little about the fact that 40 million of its citizens live in poverty.”

He is wrong on all counts.

Such claims do have a veneer of legitimacy, however, because when compiling the U.S. government’s official poverty statistics, the Census Bureau considers only the cash income each family reports in an annual survey.

These “official” income figures exclude substantial off-the-books earnings among low-income households and omit roughly 95 percent of the $1.1 trillion U.S. taxpayers provide in means-tested cash, food, housing, and medical benefits for low-income persons each year.

Fortunately, the Census Bureau also conducts, on behalf of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a survey of household expenditures, in which families are asked to report how much money they spend each month on each of up to 594 categories of purchases. Poor families routinely report spending an average of $2.40 for each dollar of official cash income.

From these spending data, we are able to calculate alternative poverty metrics that are more representative of true living conditions.

Alston claims that 40 million Americans have incomes below the official U.S. poverty level of roughly $24,000 per year for a family of four. However, the reality is that at most 25.9 million Americans live in poverty, based on reported spending less than the official poverty threshold. And, the official U.S. poverty threshold is far higher than the living standard for most of the world’s population.

The contrast between the income-based and expenditure-based poverty measures becomes even starker at lower poverty thresholds of the type Alston has recently begun to popularize.

The special envoy claims that 18.5 million Americans live in “extreme poverty” with an income less than 50 percent of the official U.S. poverty threshold. In reality, only 1.5 million Americans report spending below that level.

What about Alston’s most provocative claim that in the U.S. “5.3 million live in third-world conditions of absolute poverty”?

In response to this claim, the U.S. Mission in Geneva cited our recent work showing that, since 1980, only 175 of 222,170 households—1 in 1,270, or 0.08 percent—included in the U.S. government’s official Consumer Expenditure Survey reported spending less than $4 per person per day. At the more common $2 per person per day consumption threshold used by the World Bank, the figures are even lower, with only 66 cases—1 in 3,360, or 0.03 percent—of apparent third-world poverty.

The severe shortcomings of income-based poverty measures are made clear when one considers the actual living conditions of those whom Alston considers to be in “extreme poverty.” American families living in “extreme poverty” typically have air conditioning, computers, DVD players, and cellphones. They rarely report material hardships such as hunger, eviction, or having utilities cut off.

Claims of widespread extreme poverty in the U.S. are based on faulty information. They promote alarmism that generates pressure to increase welfare spending and benefits. But sound public policy cannot be based on misinformation.

Even worse, misinformation distracts attention from the real issues facing the welfare state: the prevalence of self-defeating and self-limiting behaviors such as low levels of educational attainment, low levels of marriage and work, criminal activity, drug and alcohol abuse, and poor home environments for children. These conditions generate a need for welfare assistance in the first place and undermine human well-being.

On June 19, when Ambassador Nikki Haley announced the withdrawal of the United States from the U.N. Human Rights Commission, she called the organization “a protector of human rights abusers, and a cesspool of political bias.” The Trump administration was right to make this decision.

The administration should also make a concerted effort to improve the accuracy of the official poverty statistics for the United States, so that our government will no longer provide misleading figures to be used by those who are biased against us. Then it will become more obvious to all that our current spending of $1.1 trillion on assistance to the poor each year is not, in fact, “very little.”

San Francisco NonCitizens Can Vote : Just For School Board? Come On!

Voting is open to all as long as you vote democrat.

Why isn't this a surprise to anyone that's actually living in the real world? Whether it's San Francisco or most any other city in California, and other dominated state by socialsit democrats , the conventional wisdom is to do what is it takes of get and keep power.

Rule and laws are of no use when progressive socialists are on the move for control. Sanctuary cities that harbor criminal illegal aliens are okay as long as the criminals vote democrat.

Remember the founding principle to get and keep power for liberal democrats is ''by any means necessary''.

One of the statement of the local authority on who can vote is good. The courts must determine if a person is mentally ill they can't vote. How would  the courts do that? Wouldn't that eliminate just about everyone in California as they are nearly all socialsit democrats?

Citizenship Is No Longer Required to Vote in San Francisco School Board Elections
Grace Carr / /

Noncitizens can vote in San Francisco’s Board of Education elections after the city’s Department of Elections ruled Monday to do away with citizenship requirements.

Noncitizens seeking to vote in San Francisco’s Board of Education elections must be at least 18 years old and residents of the city, CBS SF Bay Area reported Monday. They must also be parents, caregivers, or legal guardians of children under 19 years old who reside in the city.

Those serving time for a felony conviction, as well as those persons on parole for a felony, cannot vote in the city’s Board of Education elections. Those deemed by the court to be mentally incompetent are also barred from voting in the elections.

The new requirement comes after San Francisco voters passed local Proposition N, allowing noncitizens to vote in education elections. The proposal passed 54 percent to 46 percent and will continue taking effect until 2022, wherein the Board of Supervisors will have to decide whether to preserve or abandon the law.

Up until the 1920s, a number of states, cities, and municipalities allowed noncitizens to vote in elections as long as they were residents of that city, state, or municipality. San Francisco is the first California city to allow noncitizens to vote in its Board of Education elections.

Other cities also allow noncitizens to vote in school board elections. Cambridge, Massachusetts, along with Chicago extend the privilege to noncitizens. A number of Maryland municipalities also do so.

Voters will cast their ballots in San Francisco’s Board of Education elections on Oct. 22.

Illegal immigrants can obtain driver’s licenses, qualify for state-paid medical insurance, and receive in-state college tuition. They can also practice law, according to a 2015 bill signed by Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email

Social Media Vies For Absolute Power : Big Brother Is Here!

Facebook explains why you don't matter.
The last sentence here is what identifies the problem. What controls social media and other  of this country's outlets for information is the ideology of progressive socialsit liberalism to take power from the individual and centralize it in the hands the few for absolute control.

This is 'soft subversion' as opposed to Maxine  Water's violent rhetoric for the population to physically attack the opposition. democrats advocating for mob violence. Facebook and the others in social media outlets are no different except they aren't calling for violence. (Yet!) 

The worst part is these media giants control nearly all aspect of information now and they are progressive socialist thugs of repression.

It's high time to elect people that can find a way to stop this overreach. In other words, if we are serious about saving our country from socialsit tyrants, never vote for another democrat.

The Bias Problem Plaguing America’s Social Media Platforms

Americans deserve the facts, objectively reported. They know media bias is pervasive. A recent Morning Consult poll found that only a quarter of voters now trust the media to tell them the truth, a record low.

The media savages President Donald Trump and portrays his administration in the worst possible light. Over 90 percent of his network news coverage has been negative, higher than any other president.

The muting of conservative voices by social media also has intensified. Social media companies have repeatedly censored, removed, or “shadow banned” conservative journalists, news organizations, and media outlets that do not share their liberal political views.

Facebook’s new algorithm for what users see on their timeline has disproportionately harmed conservative publishers. They’re getting fewer readers while their liberal counterparts haven’t been impacted to the same degree.

Recently, Google’s employees easily convinced the company’s management to cut ties to contracts with the military.

And Google has long faced criticism from fact-checkers over manipulating search results to slight conservatives. Google also has deleted or blocked references to Jesus, Chick-fil-A, and the Catholic religion. When will it stop?

Also alarming are the guidelines being written by these companies to define “hate speech.” Facebook’s newly published Community Standards, which determine what content is allowed, define these terms for the American people.

It violates Facebook rules “to exclude or segregate a person or group.” So a conservative organization calling for illegal immigrants to be returned to their home country could be labeled a hate group by the platform and their content removed altogether. Some platforms have allowed liberal interest groups to determine what information is available to the public.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is allowed to influence platform guidelines and sometimes censor content that it deems “hate” speech. The Southern Poverty Law Center has a “hate map” that lists over 900 organizations. These include pro-life, religious freedom, and border security groups—all popular with the American people. And all are unfairly targeted by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

It’s no secret that social media organizations are typically controlled and run by individuals who lean liberal, sometimes radically so.

It will require a constant effort by these entities to neutralize this relentless bias if, in fact, they really want to do it.

All media entities should give the American people the facts, not tell them what to think.

Supreme Court's New Balance : Live By The Law As Written.

As Walter states here, we should all live by natural rules and laws. But his comparison to him and his sisters having a problem dividing up the cake, and then mom finally became the arbiter of the rules for progress and equity is natural law. Good outcome.

But his comparison to the NFL, the two sides play hard and in the end abide by the final out come in a civil manner as determined by the score and the officials that ''enforce'' the rules of play okay, but believe, if there were no arbiter, the out come of the game would be chaos.

The law is what governs us but it's the threat of punishment for not obeying the law that makes it work. The Constitution of the United States is the arbiter of life in this great country. Without this naturel set of laws and rules we wouldn't have a free and prosperous country

The progressive socialist liberal democrats believe they must control all aspects of life in this country, even though by their interpretation of what justice means would cause chaos, is of no concern as long as they remain in power.

Having a Supreme Court that will stand on the rules ands laws as written in the Constitution is seen by the socialist democrats as a disaster for their ideology of governing. The progressive socialist believe power flows from seats of centralized authority.

The people are subjects to centralized power. That the people are the arbiters of power is outdated and wrong. Remember Barrrack said, 'The Constitution is written to limit what the government cannot do, but I believe it should state what the government can do for the people.'

Why the Supreme Court Should Be More Like the Last Super Bowl

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement, leading to President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, has thrown progressives, the Democratic Party, and the news media into an out-and-out tizzy.

The online magazine Slate declared, “Anthony Kennedy Just Destroyed His Legacy as a Gay Rights Hero.” The New York Times’ editorial board said about a second Trump court appointment, “It is a dark moment in the history of the court and the nation, and it’s about to get a lot darker.”

It’s indeed a “dark moment” for those who’ve for decades used the courts to accomplish what would have been impossible through federal and state legislatures—such as same-sex marriage, abortion, and preferences with regard to race and sex. With this Supreme Court pick, and possibly another during his term, Trump can return us to the Framers’ vision of the judiciary—a vision that’s held in contempt by many liberals and conservatives.

The Constitution represents our “rules of the game.” Supreme Court justices should be seen as umpires or referees, whose job is to enforce neutral rules.

I’ll give a somewhat trivial example of neutral rules from my youth. Let’s call it Mom’s Rule.

On occasion, my sister and I would have lunch in my mother’s absence. She’d ask either me or my younger sister to divide a last piece of cake or pie. More often than not, an argument would ensue about the fairness of the cut.

Those arguments ended when Mom came up with a rule: Whoever cuts the cake lets the other take the first piece. As if by magic or divine intervention, fairness emerged, and arguments ended. No matter who did the cutting, there was an even division.

That’s the kind of rule we need for our society—the kind whereby you’d be OK even if your worst enemy were in charge. By creating and enforcing neutral rules, we minimize conflict.

Consider one area of ruthless competition where that’s demonstrated—sports. The 52nd Super Bowl featured the Philadelphia Eagles and the New England Patriots. A lot was at stake. Each player on the winning team would earn $112,000; losers would get half that. Plus, each winner would get a Super Bowl ring that might cost as much as $40,000.

Despite a bitterly fought contest and all that was at stake, the game ended peaceably, and winners and losers were civil to one another.

How is it that players with conflicting interests can play a game, agree with the outcome, and walk away as good sports? It’s a miracle of sorts. That “miracle” is that it is far easier to reach agreement about the game’s rules than the game’s outcome. The rules are known and durable. The referee’s only job is evenhanded enforcement of those rules.

Suppose football’s rules were “living” and the referee and other officials played a role in determining them. The officials could adjust the applications of the rules. Suppose the officials were more interested in the pursuit of what they saw as football justice than they were in the unbiased enforcement of neutral rules. In the case of Super Bowl LII, officials might have considered it unfair that the Eagles had never won a Super Bowl and the Patriots had won five.

If officials could determine game rules, team owners, instead of trying to raise team productivity, would spend resources lobbying or bribing officials. The returns from raising team productivity would be reduced. Also, I doubt that the games would end amicably. The players probably wouldn’t walk off the field peaceably, shaking hands and sharing hugs, as they do now.

We should demand that Supreme Court justices act as referees and enforce the Constitution. If they don’t and play favorites with different groups of Americans, as we’ve seen, the potential for conflict among the American people is enhanced. Who is appointed to the high court becomes the all-consuming issue.

The question is not whether a justice would uphold and defend the Constitution, but whether he would rig the game to benefit one American or another.