Detailed Abstractions

More bad news for Obama & the Democrats for 2010 elections.  Via The Atlantic here:

Chris Cillizza’s Morning Fix reports new data from Gallup showing that independents now favor a generic Republican candidate for Congress over a generic Democrat by 12 points….

& as is continually the case with this congress, more bad news for freedom.  Via The Hill here:

The 30-second campaign ad could become a thing of the past for third-party groups if the Democrats’ campaign finance legislation becomes law.

Media strategists argue the new disclosure requirements would eat into the majority of their ad time….

& while we’re talking about lack of freedom…. what might Kagan do about this “disclose” act?  Via Reason.com here:

As solicitor general of the United States, Elena Kagan argued in front of the Supreme Court that the federal government had the constitutional authority to ban certain political pamphlets. She also strongly implied that some political books, if they were partisan enough, could also be censored…..

Does is matter that she’s against free political speech?  Unlikely…. via Yahoo News here:

…Kagan’s performance in the Judiciary Committee drew praise from Democrats and compliments even from some critics, putting her on a path to confirmation by the full Senate sometime in July.

“She will be confirmed. I believe she will be confirmed,” said Republican Orrin Hatch, a member of the Judiciary Committee, predicting there would be at least some Republican support…..

& least we forgot, there’s still an oil spill…. which is being screwed up by the same government that is promising to “fix” healthcare….  Via The Heritage Foundation here, all kinds of people are offering help, but we’re still considering it:

In total, there have been 27 countries and 5 international organizations offering boom, dispersants, skimmers, vessels, bird rehabilitation equipment as well expertise. Along with the other important action items for the administration to undertake, accepting international assistance must be a more urgent priority. The Department of State has a chart that lists the equipment and expertise sitting on the sidelines with most of the status orders “under consideration.” Owners of the equipment have been rapid in their response to government queries but the equipment remains idle. It simply needs to be better….

Not to mention the economic killing impact the asinine moratorium is having:

Meanwhile, the Gulf continues to suffer. It’s not just government incompetence when it comes to the environmental cleanup; the administration’s policy decisions are making the economic harm much worse – especially the offshore drilling moratorium. Although the ban was only meant to affect those rigs operating in water 500 feet or deeper, it has led to a de facto ban on shallow water drilling….

Butler said that only one of his four drill rigs are operating; all four were drilling before the spill. Spartan has six contracts that would put his entire fleet back to work, but he can’t get going until the permits come through, he added. The week before last, Butler said he had to lay off 72 employees. Come Tuesday he’ll have to let another 140 go. “That’s 140 families, is how I look at it,” Butler said….

Not only incompetence in the clean-up, idiocy in quickly implemented, but poorly thought out regulations (DA post here), The Atlantic takes all this and poses an interesting moral question here:

In this video from Climate Desk partner Need to Know, Atlantic correspondent and oil expert Lisa Margonelli talks to Jon Meacham about halting drilling in the Gulf. She explains her view that Americans don’t have a right to drive cars and use gasoline unless we’re willing to drill for it in our own backyard….

For good news – research conducted on parents and children in reference to video games demonstrates that most parents actually don’t need government help.  Via The Technology Liberation Front (here):

• 93% of the time parents are present at the time games are purchased or rented
• 64% of parents believe games are a positive part of their children’s lives
• 86% of the time children receive their parents’ permission before purchasing or renting a game
• 48% of parents play computer and video games with their children at least weekly
• 97% of parents report always or sometimes monitoring the games their children play
• 76% of parents believe that the parental controls available in all new video game consoles are useful

It might be scary to those in government who are continuing to try to push more laws concerning how parents raise their children as it discounts the need for those laws, but for us normal folk – it gives us what we see everyday:

Once again, these findings illustrate that parents are parenting!

SCOTUS pick made….now here comes the fun.  From CBS, Obama stated, among other things:

“one of the nation’s foremost legal minds.”

a “trailblazing leader.”

“She has won accolades from observers across the ideological spectrum,” Mr. Obama said today, “not just for her intellect and record of achievement, but also for her temperament.”

For full disclosure, I’m a veteran of the United States Army, but it seems to me…. when Ms. Kagan, decided, as Dean of Harvard law school to ban military recruiters from campus due to “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy implemented, she did so knowing she was legally in the wrong.

To be fair, she did follow the law in that she only banned recruiters after some appeals courts stuck down the Solomon Amendment as unConstitutional, but I think the facts suggest she was knowingly following bad law because it suited her beliefs.

Now, as I frequently say, I’m no lawyer, but it seems the appeals courts which struck down the Solomon Amendment, did so without any real legal basis.  I can say this easily with confidence now as SCOTUS upheld the amendment unanimously, but even without hindsight it seemed unlikely the amendment was unConstitutional.

For over 90 years, the federal government, with lots of backing from SCOTUS, has pushed policies and even laws on recipients of federal money.  It began with a highway bill to the states, but again and again SCOTUS has stated firmly that if the federal government gives you money, they can take that money away if your group/entity/state does something with which they disagree.

I’m probably in the minority on this view, but when the Dean of Harvard Law School pushes a policy with which the United States Supreme Court unanimously rejected, she likely shouldn’t be on the court.  Think about it – her beliefs and legal reasoning was unanimously rejected by the exact same court makeup that she will be joining…

But this is only the beginning and we truly know very little so far.  I’m still inclined to keep an open mind as this is only one incident and I could see an argument about following school policy as valid, but for analysis sake.

At this time it doesn’t seem even a unanimous rejection of her ideas by SCOTUS will deny her entry into a life long position from which she can help shape the American legal system for years to come.

The likely scenario is that her opponents don’t find anything truly damaging, mainly due to her complete lack of experience (less than that of Harriet Miers), and politicians scared of being called hateful or mean, never question her with the ferocity intended.  Not because she’s a woman, but because our politicians are fearful and will only risk a “meanie” tag once a firm majority is already behind them.

I have long been of the belief that our President is not stupid.  He’s always seemed very smart, especially with respect to Constitutional law.

For instance, in 2001, he stated correctly, that the Constitution is a charter which guarantees negative liberties.  For some this might seem obvious, but I doubt most of our current politicians understand what he meant and what is meant by the statement itself.

Now Mr. Obama’s policies belie the notion that he agrees the Constitution should be a defender of only negative liberties, but I think it was an instructive quote on his understanding of the fundamental principles which made America what it is.

Irregardless, over the time of his presidency, I’ve seen more clues to insecurity and lack of basic focus through the administration’s constant attempts to attack various news outlets and pundits directly, as well as the President’s comments without teleprompters.

& Last week was little exception.  @ Newsweek Blogs, Mr. Obama, when being asked about the new SCOTUS nominee stated (here):

“I don’t have litmus tests around any of these issues, but I will say that I want somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women’s rights, and that is going to be something that is very important to me.”

With all due respect to the President and anyone who agrees with this statement, but logically individual rights are mutually exclusive to “women’s” rights.

By definition, an individual right would be one that can be held and exercised by any individual, whereas any collective right, such as women’s rights, is the exact opposite; a right held by that group.

Maybe this is overly pedantic, but words have meanings & regardless of what “ism” might or might not be practiced by this administration, collectivist thought is the enemy as it serves as the basis for most of the world’s failed political philosophies.

As Calvin Coolidge stated:

“Liberty  is not collective, it is personal. All liberty is individual liberty.”

Wow… for a nominee to the Supreme Court, you would figure that ability to communicate ideas effectively would be a strong suit, but for Sotomayor it might be harder than most.

First – let’s give her some benefit of the doubt.  If someone followed any one of us around all day long asking questions, recording the answers, checking those answers against speeches and legal papers written in the last decade… well, let’s just say most of us are not consistent enough thinkers to handle this level of scrutiny.

Having said that, I still found one part of the recent political maneuvering interesting.  During some questioning in reference to the 2nd Amendment, Ms. Sotomayor said something funny (here):

The judge also stressed that she understood “how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans” and said some of her friends are gun owners and hunters.

It’s probably my sense of humor more than anything else, but anytime someone states to me, “But some of my best friends are X” it usually means they don’t really like X all that much.

& when a SCOTUS nominee does so – then it’s just pure gold.

On the serious side, for those who think the second amendment is as sacrosancct as the first amendment, this wasn’t the only disconcerting thing (even if amusing) that was said.  She went on to add that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to the 2nd as it does to the rest of them.

During the exchange, which bounced back and forth for a few minutes, Sotomayor said: “Well, the government can remedy a social problem that it is identifying or a difficulty it’s identifying (as long as the law) reasonably seeks to achieve that result. In the end, it can’t be arbitrary and capricious.” (In other words, many anti-gun laws enacted by states might end up being perfectly constitutional, as long as they weren’t “arbitrary and capricious.”)

Of course the real gist of this statement will depend upon how she and others will judge the phrase “arbitrary and capricious”, but it seems on the face of it she seems to believe less highly in the 2nd amendment than the 1st.

Always wondered how some people could argue that the 1st amendment is the most important amendment , but the 2nd amendment was written by old guys who had no idea what things would look like today.

Either way you happen believe, most of what is going on is nothing more than political posturing of each side.  One is attempting to increase her credibility, the other side attempting to decrease her credibility, all the while both knowing it’s unlikely to change the eventual outcome.

So from that point of view – might as well pick out little quotes here and there and laugh.  It’s more rational than worrying about the future.

Apparently, our new SCOTUS nominee has a belief that her background, being both a woman and a Hispanic gives her the ability to make better judgments than her white male counterparts.

As reported (here – emphasis is theirs):

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

First, she does have a valid point about judges life experiences being brought into judicial thinking.  & I think it’s a myth wroth destroying that justices are more prone to objectivity than any other human beings.  After all, in the end, we are humans with similar limitations.

Having said that, this portion of her speech seems to imply she’s a racist and certainly should make people question her decision making ability.

She notes, that while there can never be a universal definition of wise, her background makes her more wise?

This is the convoluted logic that has a large percentage of the country banging their heads when reading any judicial opinions as judges everywhere jump over illogical hurdles in order to rationalize bad decisions.  The 9th Circuit is famous for this, but they might start sharing their propensity for illogical gymnastics with a Supreme Court Justice.

& just for the record – Obama’s picks seem a little worthless, two treasury department picks who can’t pay their taxes, but now are trying to run the economy & the IRS.  Many picks never went to fruition due to tax and other problems.  More than one pick that directly broke a pledge of Obama’s and a new regulation he instituted stating no lobbyists in his administration.

It’s as if we don’t even care enough to pay attention, because it’s much more disconcerting knowing these things than being blissfully ignorant of politics in general…