<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Detailed Abstractions &#187; SCOTUS</title>
	<atom:link href="http://detailedabstractions.com/tag/scotus/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://detailedabstractions.com</link>
	<description>Pathologically Pro-Freedom</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:57:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>Infinite Monkey Theorems 20100713</title>
		<link>http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/07/13/infinite-monkey-theorems-20100713/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=infinite-monkey-theorems-20100713</link>
		<comments>http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/07/13/infinite-monkey-theorems-20100713/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:46:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael S. Langston</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Market Principles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judicial System]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[People/Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation/Deregulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cato]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elena Kagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freakanomics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nber]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robert Reich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://detailedabstractions.com/?p=1117</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Come on&#8230;. we can&#8217;t find any good justices to nominate to SCOTUS?  This is what&#8230; the third (including the previous administration) uninspired justice nominated in just 5 years. For such a prestigious and life long appointment, we should expect much better (via Cato here): Elena Kagan, President Obama&#8217;s nominee for the Supreme Court, seemed to shock many people [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Come on</strong>&#8230;. we can&#8217;t find any good justices to nominate to SCOTUS?  This is what&#8230; the third (including the previous administration) uninspired justice nominated in just 5 years.</p>
<p>For such a prestigious and life long appointment, we should expect much better (via Cato <a title="Why Should a Supreme Court Justice Care about Natural Rights?" href="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11968" target="_blank">here</a>):</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Elena Kagan, President Obama&#8217;s nominee for the Supreme Court, seemed to shock many people when she dodged questions about the Declaration of Independence during her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee&#8230;</p>
<p>DA posts <a title="Infinite Monkey Theorems 20100701" href="http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/07/01/infinite-monkey-theorems-20100701/" target="_blank">here</a> &amp; <a title="Kagan’s Nomination" href="http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/05/12/kagans-nomination/" target="_blank">here</a></p>
<p>Via Freakanomics <a title="When Nurses Go on Strike" href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/when-nurses-go-on-strike/?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed:+FreakonomicsBlog+(Freakonomics+Blog)" target="_blank">here</a>, which will hopefully put to rest the idea that nurses go on strike to &#8220;help&#8221; patients, from the NBER paper:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&#8230;Controlling for hospital-specific heterogeneity, patient demographics and disease severity, the results show that nurses’ strikes increase in-hospital mortality by 19.4% and 30-day readmission by 6.5% for patients admitted during a strike, with little change in patient demographics, disease severity or treatment intensity&#8230;.</p>
<p><strong>Robert Reich </strong>via Salon.com <a title="The root of economic fragility and political anger" href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/07/13/reich_economic_anger/index.html" target="_blank">here</a> demonstrates once again how much politics effects his economic analysis.  According to him, this whole economic mess, including a potential backslide can be blamed solely on deregulation:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&#8230;starting in the late 1970s, and with increasing fervor over the next three decades, government did just the opposite. It deregulated and privatized. It increased the cost of public higher education and cut public transportation. It shredded safety nets&#8230;</p>
<p>Which he believes is causing greater wage disparities:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&#8230;We’re back to the same ominous trend as before the Great Recession: a larger and larger share of total income going to the very top while the vast middle class continues to lose ground&#8230;.</p>
<p>Because with deregulation, of course, companies can become EVIL:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&#8230;Companies were allowed to slash jobs and wages, cut benefits and shift risks to employees (from you-can-count-on-it pensions to do-it-yourself 401(k)s, from good health coverage to soaring premiums and deductibles)&#8230;.</p>
<p>I submit what Mr. Reich fears is freedom &#8211; freedom of business owners to hire and fire as they wish, freedom of employees to change jobs easily (401K allows this, pension does not), just freedom.</p>
<p>Secondarily, you can see in his writing that the only thing the government has ever done wrong, is by not getting involved enough.  He doesn&#8217;t mention government meddling, deficit spending, enormous new health care expenses, entirely new federal agencies which more money will be needed, idiotic regulations like a moratorium on all oil drilling due to one company&#8217;s failure&#8230;.</p>
<p>Nope, for Mr. Reich, it&#8217;s all because the government hasn&#8217;t taken enough control over the little people.</p>
<p>Via Cato <a title="The (Still) Missing Social Security Annual Report" href="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11974&amp;utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed:+CatoRecentOpeds+(Cato+Recent+Op-eds)&amp;utm_content=Google+Reader" target="_blank">here</a>, more news on the Obama Administration&#8217;s <em>transparency:</em></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">The Social Security&#8217;s trustees&#8217; annual report is, by law, supposed to be published by April 1. This year, however, the trustees have postponed its release indefinitely. The program&#8217;s financial condition continues to remain hidden from public view — and by many accounts will continue to be so until the end of the fiscal year&#8230;.</p>
<p>Wonder if Reich views this as an issue?</p>
     ]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/07/13/infinite-monkey-theorems-20100713/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Infinite Monkey Theorems 20100701</title>
		<link>http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/07/01/infinite-monkey-theorems-20100701/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=infinite-monkey-theorems-20100701</link>
		<comments>http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/07/01/infinite-monkey-theorems-20100701/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:10:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael S. Langston</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NGOs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation/Deregulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elena Kagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[morality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nomination Process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oil Spill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Polling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reason.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Atlantic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Heritage Foundation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Technology Liberation Front]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://detailedabstractions.com/?p=1095</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[More bad news for Obama &#38; the Democrats for 2010 elections.  Via The Atlantic here: Chris Cillizza&#8217;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&#8230;. &#38; as is continually the case with this congress, more bad news for freedom.  Via [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>More bad news</strong> for Obama &amp; the Democrats for 2010 elections.  Via The Atlantic <a title="The Good Summarian" href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/the-good-summarian/59017/" target="_blank">here</a>:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Chris Cillizza&#8217;s <a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/1-2-3-ohio-lt.html"><strong>Morning Fix</strong></a> reports <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/141086/Independent-Voters-Favor-GOP-2010-Election-Tracking.aspx">new data</a> from Gallup showing that independents now favor a generic Republican candidate for Congress over a generic Democrat by 12 points&#8230;.</p>
<p>&amp; as is continually the case with this congress, <strong>more bad news</strong> for freedom.  Via The Hill <a title="Disclose Act requirements might end 30-second campaign advertisements" href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/106609-disclose-act-requirements-might-end-30-second-campaign-ads" target="_blank">here</a>:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">The 30-second campaign ad could become a thing of the past for third-party groups if the Democrats’ campaign finance legislation becomes law.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Media strategists argue the new disclosure requirements would eat into the majority of their ad time&#8230;.</p>
<p>&amp; while we&#8217;re talking about lack of freedom&#8230;. what might <strong>Kagan do </strong>about this &#8220;disclose&#8221; act?  Via Reason.com <a title="Will Elena Kagan Allow Books to be Banned?" href="http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/29/will-elena-kagan-allow-books?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed:+reason/Articles+(Reason+Online+-+All+Articles+(except+Hit+%26+Run+blog))" target="_blank">here</a>:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">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&#8230;..</p>
<p><strong>Does is matter </strong>that she&#8217;s against free political speech?  Unlikely&#8230;. via Yahoo News <a title="Court pick Kagan sails through Senate hearing" href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100701/pl_nm/us_usa_court_kagan" target="_blank">here</a>:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&#8230;Kagan&#8217;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.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&#8220;She will be confirmed. I believe she will be confirmed,&#8221; said Republican Orrin Hatch, a member of the Judiciary Committee, predicting there would be at least some Republican support&#8230;..</p>
<p><strong>&amp; least we forgot</strong>, there&#8217;s still an oil spill&#8230;. which is being screwed up by the same government that is promising to &#8220;fix&#8221; healthcare&#8230;.  Via The Heritage Foundation <a title="Help Has Been on the Way" href="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/30/help-has-been-on-the-way/" target="_blank">here</a>, all kinds of people are offering help, but we&#8217;re still considering it:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">In total, there have <a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.state.gov%2Fdocuments%2Forganization%2F143488.pdf">been 27 countries and 5 international organizations </a>offering boom, dispersants, skimmers, vessels, bird rehabilitation equipment as well expertise. Along with the <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/06/30/morning-bell-obamas-oil-spill-to-do-list/">other important action items for the administration to undertake</a>, 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&#8230;.</p>
<p>Not to mention the economic killing impact the asinine moratorium is having:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">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&#8230;.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">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&#8230;.</p>
<p>Not only incompetence in the clean-up, idiocy in quickly implemented, but poorly thought out regulations (DA post <a title="Regulate Now! Afterall, we have an oil crisis!!!" href="http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/05/12/regulate-now-afterall-we-have-an-oil-crisis/" target="_blank">here</a>), The Atlantic takes all this and poses an interesting moral question <a title="Why Drilling Moratoriums Are a &quot;Morally False Choice&quot;" href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/why-drilling-moratoriums-are-a-morally-false-choice/59030/" target="_blank">here</a>:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">In <a href="http://ec2-184-73-199-217.compute-1.amazonaws.com/wnet/need-to-know/?p=1870&amp;preview=true">this video</a> from <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/why-drilling-moratoriums-are-a-morally-false-choice/59030/www.theclimatedesk.org">Climate Desk</a> 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&#8217;t have a right to drive cars and use gasoline unless we&#8217;re willing to drill for it in our own backyard&#8230;.</p>
<p><strong>For good news &#8211; </strong>research conducted on parents and children in reference to video games demonstrates that most parents actually don&#8217;t need government help.  Via The Technology Liberation Front (<a title="Latest Video Game “Essential Facts” Report" href="http://techliberation.com/2010/06/17/latest-video-game-essential-facts-report/?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed:+techliberation+(Technology+Liberation+Front)" target="_blank">here</a>):</p>
<ul>
<li>93% of the time parents are present at the time games are purchased or rented</li>
<li>64% of parents believe games are a positive part of their children’s lives</li>
<li>86% of the time children receive their parents’ permission before purchasing or renting a game</li>
<li>48% of parents play computer and video games with their children at least weekly</li>
<li>97% of parents report always or sometimes monitoring the games their children play</li>
<li>76% of parents believe that the parental controls available in all new video game consoles are useful</li>
</ul>
<p>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 &#8211; it gives us what we see everyday:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Once again, these findings illustrate that <a href="http://techliberation.com/2010/06/11/news-flash-parenting-is-happening/">parents are</a> <a href="http://techliberation.com/2007/06/25/new-polls-suggest-radical-theory-parents-are-parenting/">parenting</a>!</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">
     ]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/07/01/infinite-monkey-theorems-20100701/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kagan&#8217;s Nomination</title>
		<link>http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/05/12/kagans-nomination/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=kagans-nomination</link>
		<comments>http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/05/12/kagans-nomination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 20:52:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael S. Langston</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics of Fear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elena Kagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harvard Law School]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nomination Process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Solomon Amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://detailedabstractions.com/?p=957</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SCOTUS pick made&#8230;.now here comes the fun.  From CBS, Obama stated, among other things: &#8220;one of the nation&#8217;s foremost legal minds.&#8221; a &#8220;trailblazing leader.&#8221; &#8220;She has won accolades from observers across the ideological spectrum,&#8221; Mr. Obama said today, &#8220;not just for her intellect and record of achievement, but also for her temperament.&#8221; For full disclosure, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="http://detailedabstractions.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/supreme-court-seal.png"><img class="size-thumbnail wp-image-962 alignright" title="supreme-court-seal" src="http://detailedabstractions.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/supreme-court-seal-150x150.png" alt="" width="150" height="150" /></a>SCOTUS</strong> <a title="Elena Kagan Nominated to the Supreme Court" href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004540-503544.html?tag=stack" target="_blank">pick made</a>&#8230;.now here comes the fun.  From CBS, Obama stated, among other things:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&#8220;one of the nation&#8217;s foremost legal minds.&#8221;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">a &#8220;trailblazing leader.&#8221;</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&#8220;She has won accolades from observers across the ideological spectrum,&#8221; Mr. Obama said today, &#8220;not just for her intellect and record of achievement, but also for her temperament.&#8221;</p>
<p>For full disclosure, I&#8217;m a veteran of the United States Army, but it seems to me&#8230;. when Ms. Kagan, decided, as Dean of Harvard law school to ban military recruiters from campus due to &#8220;don&#8217;t ask, don&#8217;t tell&#8221; policy implemented, she did so knowing she was legally in the wrong.</p>
<p>To be fair, she did follow the law in that she only banned recruiters after some appeals courts stuck down the <a title="Solomon Amendment" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Amendment" target="_blank">Solomon Amendment</a> as unConstitutional, but I think the facts suggest she was knowingly following bad law because it suited her beliefs.</p>
<p>Now, as I frequently say, I&#8217;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.</p>
<p><strong>For over 90 years</strong>, 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.</p>
<p>I&#8217;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&#8217;t be on the court.  Think about it &#8211; her beliefs and legal reasoning was unanimously rejected by the exact same court makeup that she will be joining&#8230;</p>
<p>But this is only the beginning and we truly know very little so far.  I&#8217;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.</p>
<p><strong>At this</strong> time it doesn&#8217;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.</p>
<p>The likely scenario is that her opponents don&#8217;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&#8217;s a woman, but because our politicians are fearful and will only risk a &#8220;meanie&#8221; tag once a firm majority is already behind them.</p>
     ]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/05/12/kagans-nomination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Infinite Monkey Theorems 20100427</title>
		<link>http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/04/27/infinite-monkey-theorems-20100427/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=infinite-monkey-theorems-20100427</link>
		<comments>http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/04/27/infinite-monkey-theorems-20100427/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 19:26:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael S. Langston</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judicial System]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[People/Blogs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Random Links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Auto Industry Bailout]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[e!Science News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Infinite Monkey Theorems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice System]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LA Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reason.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WSJ]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://detailedabstractions.com/?p=943</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 9th Circuit strikes again&#8230;. via LA Times (here): SAN FRANCISCO — A sharply divided federal appeals court in California on Monday exposed Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to billions of dollars in legal damages when it ruled a massive class action lawsuit alleging gender discrimination over pay for female workers can go to trial&#8230;. Now I [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="http://detailedabstractions.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/lady-justice.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-945 alignright" style="margin-left: 3px;" title="lady justice" src="http://detailedabstractions.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/lady-justice-190x300.jpg" alt="" width="130" height="210" /></a>The 9th </strong>Circuit strikes again&#8230;. via LA Times (<a title="Court: Wal-Mart to face massive class action suit" href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-walmart-20100427,0,3396163.story" target="_blank">here</a>):</p>
<p style="padding-left: 60px;">SAN FRANCISCO — A sharply divided federal appeals court in California on  Monday exposed Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to billions of dollars in legal  damages when it ruled a massive class action lawsuit alleging gender  discrimination over pay for female workers can go to trial&#8230;.</p>
<p>Now I don&#8217;t claim to be a lawyer and haven&#8217;t even played one on tv, but part of the dissent seems obvious to me:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&#8230;Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote a blistering dissent, joined by four of her  colleagues.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&#8220;No court has ever certified a class like this one, until now. And with  good reason,&#8221; Ikuta wrote. &#8220;In this case, six women who have worked in  thirteen of Wal-Mart&#8217;s 3,400 stores seek to represent every woman who  has worked in those stores over the course of the last decade — a class  estimated in 2001 to include more than 1.5 million women.&#8221;&#8230;</p>
<p>Maybe they like being overturned (<a title="Disorder in the court" href="http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/11/opinion/oe-fitzpatrick11" target="_blank">here</a> from 2007)?</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&#8230;The 9th Circuit also has a long-running streak as the most overturned,  which went unbroken this year. The Supreme Court reviewed 22 cases from  the 9th Circuit last term, and it reversed or vacated 19 times&#8230;.</p>
<p><strong>Via</strong> WSJ, <a title="The Big Brown Union Bailout " href="http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052748704133804575198232906957778-lMyQjAxMTAwMDIwNzEyNDcyWj.html" target="_blank"><em>The Big Brown Union Bailout</em></a></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">If you can&#8217;t beat &#8216;em, have Congress hobble &#8216;em. That&#8217;s the motto of some in corporate America, and Exhibit A might be United Parcel Service&#8217;s campaign to get Washington to impose its labor woes on rival Federal Express. This would be one more union bailout at the expense of business competition and economic efficiency&#8230;.</p>
<p>This is a continuation of this administration&#8217;s policies to pay off unions at the expense of others (DA posts <a href="http://detailedabstractions.com/?s=unions&amp;x=0&amp;y=0">here</a>).</p>
<p><strong>Via </strong>Reason.com, <a title="GM's Phony Bailout Payback" href="http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/27/gms-phony-bailout-payback?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reason%2FArticles+%28Reason+Online+-+All+Articles+%28except+Hit+%26+Run+blog%29%29" target="_blank"><em>GM&#8217;s Phony Bailout Payback</em></a></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">Uncle Sam gave GM <a href="http://www.carlist.com/blog/?p=1374">$49.5  billion</a> last summer in aid to finance its bankruptcy&#8230;.  So when Whitacre publishes a column with the headline, &#8220;The GM Bailout: Paid Back in Full,&#8221; most ordinary mortals unfamiliar with bailout minutia would assume that he is alluding to the entire $49.5 billion. That, however, is far from the case&#8230;.</p>
<p>I say if you want to buy American, buy Ford &#8211; no bailout money and still going strong.</p>
<p><strong>&amp; cool science </strong>news via e!Science (<a title="Physicists capture first images of atomic spin" href="http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/04/26/physicists.capture.first.images.atomic.spin?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eScienceNews%2Fpopular+%28e!+Science+News+-+Popular%29" target="_blank">here</a>):</p>
<p>&#8230;<a href="http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/04/26/physicists.capture.first.images.atomic.spin?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eScienceNews%2Fpopular+%28e!+Science+News+-+Popular%29"><img class="alignleft" style="margin-left: 4px; margin-right: 4px;" src="http://esciencenews.com/files/images/201004262985990.jpg" alt="" width="160" height="80" /></a>In a study published as an Advance Online Publication in the journal <em>Nature  Nanotechnology</em> on Sunday, physicists at Ohio University and the  University of Hamburg in Germany present the first images of spin in  action&#8230;.</p>
     ]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/04/27/infinite-monkey-theorems-20100427/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>President Says What?</title>
		<link>http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/04/26/president-says-what/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=president-says-what</link>
		<comments>http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/04/26/president-says-what/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:08:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael S. Langston</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Political Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quotations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Collectivism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Individual Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Negative Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newsweek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nomination Process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Constitution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://detailedabstractions.com/?p=924</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have long been of the belief that our President is not stupid.  He&#8217;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 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have long been of the belief that our President is not stupid.  He&#8217;s always seemed very smart, especially with respect to Constitutional law.</p>
<p>For instance, in 2001, he stated correctly, that the Constitution is a charter which guarantees <a title="Wiki - Negative Liberty" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty" target="_blank">negative liberties</a>.  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.</p>
<p>Now Mr. Obama&#8217;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.</p>
<p>Irregardless, over the time of his presidency, I&#8217;ve seen more clues to insecurity and lack of basic focus through the administration&#8217;s constant attempts to attack various news outlets and pundits directly, as well as the President&#8217;s comments without teleprompters.</p>
<p>&amp; Last week was little exception.  @ Newsweek Blogs, Mr. Obama, when being asked about the new SCOTUS nominee stated (<a title="Quote of the Day: President Obama " href="http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/04/21/quote-of-the-day-president-obama-3.aspx" target="_blank">here</a>):</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&#8220;I don&#8217;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&#8217;s rights, and that is going to be something that is very important to me.&#8221;</p>
<p>With all due respect to the President and anyone who agrees with this statement, but logically individual rights are mutually exclusive to &#8220;women&#8217;s&#8221; rights.</p>
<p>By definition, an individual right would be one that can be held and exercised by any individual, whereas any collective right, such as women&#8217;s rights, is the exact opposite; a right held by that group.</p>
<p>Maybe this is overly pedantic, but words have meanings &amp; regardless of what &#8220;ism&#8221; 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&#8217;s failed political philosophies.</p>
<p>As Calvin Coolidge stated:</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;">&#8220;Liberty  is not collective, it is personal. All liberty is individual liberty.&#8221;</p>
     ]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://detailedabstractions.com/2010/04/26/president-says-what/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
