even yet another blag: April 2009

Thursday, April 30

David Souter to retire

He's 69 years old and was nominated by George H. W. Bush 19 years ago.

His retirement should come as bittersweet to rightwingers who expected him to be more conservative:

At the time of Souter's appointment, John Sununu assured President Bush and conservatives that Souter would be a "home run" for conservatism In his testimony before the Senate, Souter espoused the concepts of originalism (as Bork had) and was thus thought by conservatives to be a strict constructionist on Constitutional matters. However, as a state's attorney and state Supreme Court judge, he had never been tested on matters of federal law.

Initially, from 1990 to 1993, Souter tended to be a conservative-leaning Justice, although not as conservative as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, or William Rehnquist. In Souter's first year, Souter and Scalia voted alike close to 85 percent of the time; Souter voted with Kennedy and O'Connor about 97 percent of the time. The symbolic turning point came in two cases in 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the Court reaffirmed the essential holding in Roe v. Wade, and Lee v. Weisman, in which Souter voted against allowing prayer at a high school graduation ceremony. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Anthony Kennedy considered overturning Roe and upholding all the restrictions at issue in Casey. Souter considered upholding all the restrictions but still was uneasy about overturning Roe. After consulting with O'Connor, however, the three (who came to be known as the "troika") developed a joint opinion that upheld all the restrictions in the Casey case except for the mandatory notification of a husband while asserting the essential holding of Roe, that a right to an abortion is protected by the Constitution.
After the appointment of Clarence Thomas, Souter moved to the middle. By the late 1990s, Souter began to align himself more with Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on rulings, although as of 1995, he sided on more occasions with the most liberal justice, John Paul Stevens, than either Breyer and Ginsburg, both Clinton appointees. O'Connor began to move to the center. On the abortion issue, Souter began to vote to override restrictions he believed in back in 1992. On death penalty cases, worker rights cases, criminal rights cases, and other issues, Souter began voting with the liberals in the court. So while appointed by a Republican president and thus expected to be conservative, Souter is now considered part of the liberal wing of the Court.

Predictions are that Obama is likely to appoint a woman to replace him.

To those who think Specter makes no principled stands

Read his article in the NY Review of books.

How does a selfish hack with no principles—as folks from across the spectrum are making him out to be—get off writing something like that at age 80? What's in it for him, power-wise?

I'm pleased that, as a swing vote, he has the Obama administration's ear and they seem willing to listen. Bushies would never have listened to talk of limiting executive power.

Condoleezza Rice: Torture was ok because Bush did it?

I've had some nice things to say about her in the past—which I've been regretting today—because boy has she gone off the deep end defending the legality of Bush's torture program.

I understand her need to be defensive, because she was complicit as National Security Advisor, but this doesn't wash.

Update: Actually, maybe I can parse her remarks as intended:

The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture...

The United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.

What she's doing here is merely defending her boss. Her defense may be insufficient or wrong, but she's not suggesting that Bush's orders were, by definition, lawful.

What she's saying is that Bush ordered everyone to act within the law, so his orders were, by definition lawful. If his subordinates exceeded it (e.g. by concocting bogus legal rationals) then this wasn't Bush's fault, but theirs for crossing a line he didn't want them to.

This line of thinking jives with Bush's public statements that "we don't torture". And "I asked, are these techniques legal? And so we got legal opinions..."

I don't think it's valid, because it seems to me Bush must have had knowledge that what he was doing wasn't kosher, but it was never a Nixonian "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal."

Obama's takeover of GM

Doesn't look pretty for the bondholders, and legally they were supposed to be paid first. This is a fair bankruptcy?

I'm going to wait for someone who knows what she's talking about, like Megan, to weigh in before I jump to conclusions on this. Because from these numbers it sure looks like Obama's version of assisting GM with "hard choices" is to reward unions for their parasitic, company-destroying behavior with a disproportionate stake in the company.

Americans now more libertarian

It seems an odd headline to write in today's "American Recovery and Reinvestment" bail-o-rama. But look at this ABC/Washington Post polling of other issues (.pdf)...

		2003	2009
Gay marriage	Support	37	49
	Oppose	55	46
	Net	-18	3	+21	(6 years)

		1986	2009
Marijuana	Support	21	46
Legalization	Oppose	78	52
	Net	-57	-6	+51	(23 years)

		2007	2009
Amnesty	Support	52	61
for illegals	Oppose	44	35
	Net	8	26	+18	(2 years)

		1989	2009
Gun rights	Support	34	48
	Oppose	60	51
	Net	-26	-3	+23	(20 years)

Short story of the day

I am a Zombie Filled with Love, by Isaac Marion

Pas comme la France, s'il vous plaît

French culture is amazing. Politics and economy, not so much. (ht Perry)

Marriage statism

"I don’t actually see why communities shouldn’t prohibit inter-racial marriage if they want to. I’d prefer not to live in such a community — given my domestic circumstances, in fact, I wouldn’t be able to! — but this doesn’t strike me as an unreasonable or immoral restriction for a state or country to impose on its citizens."

—John Derbyshire, posting as "Bradlaugh" at Secular Right

It strikes me as both unreasonable, immoral, and incompatible with the individualism of Charles Bradlaugh. I fear Mr. Derbyshire may need a new pseudonym; he's disgracing this one.

Grand New Party

Nate Silver:

Per the LOESS curves, the number of Republicans has decreased by about 5 percent since Inauguration Day, from roughly 27 percent to 22 percent. The number of Democrats has also decreased slightly, however, from 38 percent to 35-36 percent. The gains have been made by independents, whose numbers have increased from 30 percent to about 36 percent, such that there are now roughly equal numbers of independents and Democrats.

What say we forget about that 22 percent rump and start a new party of pragmatic centrists? C'mon, who's with me?

Obama reads the Dish

Ambers:

Andrew Sullivan and I have been told fairly regularly that President Obama reads his blog and has been influenced by Sullivan's writing on torture. We seem to have some proof now.... (A senior administration official confirms that Obama was citing Sullivan.)

I've had an inkling that Obama was directly influenced by Andrew and not just vice-versa. Now we know.

I think it's great news our president is semi-regularly exposed to Andrew's brand of libertarianish conservatism. Say what you want about Obama, but it's clear he doesn't abide within a bubble of like-minded advisors—as Bush did, not even reading newspapers.

Quote of the day II

"Somewhat weirdly, as I waited [in the West Wing lobby], I listened to a Marine guard and the uniformed Secret Service agent on duty quietly argue about the torture memos." —Marc Ambinder

Specter roundup

The Hill: Dems upset about seniority.

There are ripple effects for staff.

A TMVer cries DINO.

The hard left is gearing up to oppose Specter—to which I say:

The Post notes that, on his first day as Dem, he voted against Obama's budget. I, of course, approve.

Obama and Biden welcome him.

Meghan McCain was let down. Christine Todd Whitman admires and regrets. NYT gets letters.

Sen. Inhoe (R-OK) says this is the first visible evidence of a GOP comeback in 2010. And I'm a monkey's fraternal twin. Yglesias makes some interesting points, though.

Link blag

Jim Manzi makes the most compelling argument against torture.

1-800-[GET OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY]... Cato's David Boaz bemoans.

Speaking of tax-and-spend, the Leftopia of Washington, D.C. is now charging residents for parking in their own driveway.

Mexican Senate passes bill decriminalizing drug possession for personal use.

Megan examines why general practitioners are underpaid.

Giving up on politics, a libertarian brainstorms new frontiers of freedom.

Hathos alert: Sarah Palin is a twitter.

An environmentally-friendly pizza box.

Masturbation has fatal consequences (Le livre sans titre, 1844)

Another boring press conference?

Politico: "Obama works to avoid being exciting"

Andrew: "I'm beginning to regret watching this terribly dull and unnecessary pseudo-event."

A New York Economist blogger:

I'm starting to wonder after last night's presser, what the purpose of these things are. Barack Obama's first few prime-time appearances before the press were refreshing in their novelty; George Bush seemed allergic to reporters' unscripted, live questions. But do they really accomplish anything? Even when a reporter peacocks with a "tough" question (that he's obviously very pleased with himself for asking), the president can filibuster without saying much. Mr Obama did just that many times last night. Unlike his predecessor, he did allow a few follow-ups, but he still didn't say much that surprised anyone who has been alive since November. I'm starting to feel suckered into watching an hour-long campaign advertisement.

Apparently the hidden hypnosis is wearing thin.

But seriously, better too many press conferences that we can skip watching rather than not nearly enough, as Bush gave us.

Library Grape embeds the video and other reax. Transcript here.

I appreciated the part on Arlen Specter and Republicans:

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. On Senator Specter's switch to the Democratic Party, you said you were thrilled.

I guess nobody should be surprised about that. But how big a deal is this really?

Some Republicans say it is huge. They believe it's a game changer. They say that if you get the 60 votes in the Senate, that you will be able to ride roughshod over any opposition, and that we're on the verge of, as one Republican put it, one-party rule.

Do you see it that way? And also, what do you think his switch says about the state of the Republican Party?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think very highly of Arlen Specter. I think he's got a record of legislative accomplishment that is as good as any member of the Senate.

And I think he's always had a strong independent streak. I think that was true when he was a Republican; I think that will be true when he's a Democrat. He was a very blunt in saying I couldn't count on him to march lockstep on every single issue. And so he's going to still have strong opinions, as many Democrats in the Senate do. I've been there. It turns out all the senators have very strong opinions. And I don't think that's going to change.

I do think that having Arlen Specter in the Democratic Caucus will liberate him to cooperate on critical issues, like health care, like infrastructure and job creation, areas where his inclinations were to work with us but he was feeling pressure not to.

And I think the vote on the recovery act was a classic example. Ultimately, he thought that was the right thing to do. And he was fiercely berated within his own party at the time for having taken what I consider to be a very sensible step.

So -- so I think it's a -- overall a positive.

Now, I am under no illusions that suddenly I'm going to have a rubber-stamp Senate. I've got Democrats who don't agree with me on everything. And that's how it should be. Congress is a coequal branch of government. Every senator who's there, whether I agree with them or disagree with them, I think truly believes that they are doing their absolute best to represent their constituencies.

And we've got regional differences, and we've got some parts of the country that are affected differently by certain policies.

And those have to be respected, and there's going to have to be compromise and give-and-take on all of these issues.

I do think that, to my Republican friends, I -- I want them to realize that me reaching out to them has been genuine. I can't sort of define bipartisanship as simply being willing to accept certain theories of theirs that we tried for eight years and didn't work, and the American people voted to change. But there are a whole host of areas where we can work together.

And -- and I've said this to people like Mitch McConnell. I said, "Look, on health care reform, you may not agree with me that I've -- we should have a public plan. That may be philosophically just too much for you to swallow. On the other hand, there are some areas like reducing the cost of medical malpractice insurance where you do agree with me. If I'm taking some of your ideas and giving you credit for good ideas, the fact that you didn't get 100 percent can't be a reason every single time to oppose my position." And if that is how bipartisanship is defined -- a -- a -- a situation in which, basically, wherever there are philosophical differences, I have to simply go along with ideas that have been rejected by the American people in an historic election, you know, we're probably not going to make progress.

If, on the other hand, the definition is that we're open to each other's ideas, there are going to be some differences, the majority will probably be determinative when it comes to resolving just hard- core differences that we can't resolve but there is a whole host of other areas where we can work together, then I think we can make progress.

QUESTION: Is the Republican Party in the desperate straits that Arlen Specter seems to think it is?

MR. OBAMA: You know, politics in America changes very quick. And I'm a big believer that things are never as good as they seem, and never as bad as they seem. You're talking to a guy who was 30 points down in the polls during a primary in Iowa so -- so I never -- I don't believe in crystal balls.

I do think that our administration has taken some steps that have restored confidence in the American people that we're moving in the right direction, and that simply opposing our approach on every front is probably not a good political strategy.

"The Curtain Lifts" [updated below]

Byron York:

Obama's sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.

Andrew:

I'm with Benen. What can that last phrase possibly mean, except that African-American opinion does not count as much as everyone else's? Yglesias and Weigel pile one.

York is not implying that the opinions of black people matter less, as the others suggest. All he meant is that black approval of Obama has more to do with racial identification than Obama's policy positions.

Weigel shows that York is factually wrong about the degree and reason for Obama's popularity among blacks relative to other Democratic pols, so that's a lot of egg on York's face.

But there's no "curtain being lifted" or actual racism being exposed—York simply made an unwarranted assumption about black racism and failed to look at the data to disprove it.

Update: CBS/NYT had some very high approval numbers among the black community, so maybe there is something to what York is saying. When approval is so high, polls vary, because you need a pretty large sample size to figure out how high with more precision.

Wednesday, April 29

Ambassador stages coup at UN

Issues long list of non-binding resolutions...

100 days in seven haikus

Via Democracy in America, from the editor of More Intelligent Life:

In 100 days
A super-majority.
What next? A hushed Rush?

Seventy percent
Of Americans dig him
The dog didn't hurt.

As long as his foes
Hold lame "tea-party" protests
The force is with him.

A plump government
Is grand if it means cheap meds,
Not water-boarding.

Such ambition! Well,
Roosevelt would be impressed
If not Kim Jong Il.

It is a fine thing
To have a smart president
Whose sentences work.

A fine amuse bouche
For what promises to be
A grand, filling meal.

Seems I need to continue working on my effete librulness, for I didn't know about amuse bouches.

Let's just say my idea of a pre-meal snack is more pedestrian. Why not order a few packs? It's $0.37 a stick, half the price of brick and mortar stores.

Quote of the day

"Ross’ column was a thought exercise, which can be difficult for people who do not think." —Daniel Larison, via E.D. Kain

Towers at sea

The Maunsell Sea Forts: Fortified towers built in the Thames and Mersey estuaries during the Second World War to help defend the United Kingdom. [google map] (© Jason Hawkes) #

One such platform is now Sealand, a sovereign nation:

Dept. of OMG he speaks in full paragraphs!

Reihan highlights Obama's remarkable interview with David Leonhardt, an economics columnist for the Times.

That we've gone from Frat Boy in Chief to someone with this level of understanding is still, to me, a wondrous thing. I also find it disarming—it's difficult to rail against the deficit spending of someone so much smarter, well-informed, and articulate than I am.

I remain committed to my libertarian heuristic of opposing state interventionism. But seeing as people are demanding it, I'm hard pressed to come up with someone who'd be better suited to heading such intervention.

However, this is the very problem with larger governments—effectiveness depends on the quality of technocrats at the top. Reliance on the capability of present-day leadership is unwise, for that leadership will change. What happens when we elect a George W. Palin ignoramus in 2016 or beyond to manage Obama's forays into social democracy, regulation, and interventionism? Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

Anywho, be sure to read the interview.

Update: Andrew has other reactions.

Parties, countries, popularity

Ambers wrote:

My Republican friends keep asking me when I’ll take the GOP seriously again and why I’ve stopped writing about ticky-tak political gamesmanship and GOP consultant tricks. When they’re a serious party with serious ideas, then we can talk

Mark Hemingway protests:

To support his decision to ignore Republican politics, Ambinder cited poll numbers straight from a liberal blog that supposedly demonstrate that Venezuela — not specifically the country’s socialist government, but the country as a whole — has a higher approval rating than the Republican party. Of course, the same meaningless CNN polling data also show that Americans have a higher opinion of Turkey than of the Democratic party. Maybe Ambinder can explain what that means — perhaps Armenians and Kurds are underrepresented in the polling sample?

Deep thought

Republicans want Obama to be more like Sarah Palin and learn to speak without a teleprompter.

Baby squirrel parkour

Celebrating 112+ years of ignorance

(Archive link) Techdirt:

The fact that it focuses on Canadian copyright laws as the problem…nearly perfectly mimics today’s claims from the recording industry. The article even talks about a recent conference held by industry members to create a committee to fight piracy. Basically, it’s the same exact story we see today—and the same bogus complaints. If the industry has shown one thing, it’s that it will consistently overreact to any new change in technology, claiming it’s some massive threat, rather than learn how to embrace it and turn it into an opportunity.

Link blag

Libertarian dogma led the Fed astray?

Olympia Snowe opines in the Times: We Didn't Have to Lose Arlen Specter.

publius explains why Club for Growth Republicans are so counterproductive compared to the leftroots.

In analyzing Specter's move, Maddow is hypocritical.

Stephen Walt has a long but interesting post up on Israel and the "treason of the hawks".

Not-so-breaking-news: There is a negative relationship between high state+local taxes and economic growth.

Tuesday, April 28

The Final Countdown, absurd nerd version

Hold till 0:26

Quote of the day III

"So when our economy collapses after the deficit is doubled, it will be—my bad!

Otherwise, I am with you, Mr. President. Keep up the good work."

—Christopher Buckley

Specter laments club-for-shrinkage

Chafee winning in '06 with more money sounds unlikely to me, even though he was a better Senator than the Democrat who replaced him. Under Bush, Republicans were simply to unpopular at that point in RI. But I take Specter's broader point.

The Club's response...

"Senator Specter has confirmed what we already knew - he's a liberal devoted to more spending, more bailouts, and less economic freedom. Thanks to him, Democrats will now be able to steamroll their big government agenda through the Senate.
"This also shows how unprincipled he is. Just a few weeks ago, he stated quite clearly that he was remaining a Republican because he thought he had 'a more important role to play there.' And he said 'the United States very desperately needs a two-party system.'

"This cynical play for political survival calls into question whether Pennsylvania taxpayers can believe anything Arlen Specter says. If his only principle is personal ambition, can he really be trusted with the serious issues that face our country?"

"The Club for Growth PAC enthusiastically endorsed Pat Toomey for Senate in Pennsylvania when Specter was pretending to be a Republican. Club members will be even more committed to Toomey's candidacy now that Specter has revealed his true identity."

Nate Silver has more numbers on what the switch may mean in practice.