Right Side of the Rainbow

Associated Press:

A hospital in the Netherlands — the first nation to permit euthanasia — recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.

The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives ...

Chilling, isn't it?

Posted by Paul at 6:56 PM | Permalink

Reuters:

Republicans who want to slow immigration to the United States and crack down on illegal immigrants believe they are gaining political strength and public backing, which may pose a problem next year for President Bush.

Bush has already signaled his intention to push a major proposal to allow some of the estimated 8 million to 10 million illegal immigrants in the country to gain legal work visas for up to six years as part of a "guest worker" program.

But he may face growing anti-immigrant sentiment, not only his own party but in the country at large, several opponents claimed.

Mr. Bush is wrong to support de facto amnesty for illegals, which is not only bad public policy but also bad politics for the GOP. Happily, he's about to get called out on it.

Posted by Paul at 6:01 PM | Permalink

Democrats are having a hard time accepting it.

Posted by Paul at 5:49 PM | Permalink

If a lender fails to make full disclosure to a consumer who secures a loan with an automobile or other personal property, federal law permits the recovery of no more than $1,000 in damages, the U.S. Supreme Court said today.

But that's not what I found interesting about the opinion in Koons Buick Pontiac v. Nigh. What's interesting is the extensive discussion of methods of statutory construction. Specifically, what should the courts do when, as here, Congress is apparently guilty of a so-called "scrivener's error," i.e. a technical mistake in writing that, if taken literally, produces an unintended or even absurd result?

The vote in this case was 8-1, with Justice Antonin Scalia the lone dissenter. Justice Scalia is often thought of as a strict constructionist, and he is. But that label is also a little misleading. For Justice Scalia is a particular type of strict constructionist; he's a textualist. He believes we are governed not by what Congress intended to say but by what it actually said. To him, the presumed intent of the law is neither here nor there; the exact language of the law is what matters.

In his dissent, Justice Scalia explains why the courts ought to rely on the text of the law as written and not on indices of congressional intent (e.g., legislative history) when construing a statute:

I have often criticized the Court’s use of legislative history because it lends itself to a kind of ventriloquism. The Congressional Record or committee reports are used to make words appear to come from Congress’s mouth which were spoken or written by others (individual Members of Congress, congressional aides, or even enterprising lobbyists). The Canon of Canine Silence that the Court invokes today introduces a reverse -- and at least equally dangerous -- phenomenon, under which courts may refuse to believe Congress’s own words unless they can see the lips of others moving in unison.

[...]

The Court should not fight the current structure of the statute merely to vindicate the suspicion that Congress actually made -- but neglected to explain clearly -- a different policy decision. As the Court noted earlier this year: “If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform it to its intent. It is beyond our province to rescue Congress from its drafting errors, and to provide for what we might think is the preferred result.”

Even when you disagree with him -- I think the Court's correction of a scrivener's error is harmless enough -- he still gives you something to think about.

Posted by Paul at 4:13 PM | Permalink

Fueled by consumer spending, the economy grew last quarter at an annual rate of almost 4%.

The Commerce Department said gross domestic product, the measure of all goods and services produced within U.S. borders, grew at a 3.9 percent annual pace in the July-September quarter, up from 3.7 percent estimated a month ago.

[...]

The gain marked the sixth successive quarter GDP has expanded at a rate exceeding 3 percent, implying healthy and sustainable growth.

Posted by Paul at 3:59 PM | Permalink

The Solomon Amendment, 10 U.S.C. § 983, requires the U.S. Department of Defense to withhold funds from colleges and universities that deny military recruiters access to their campuses.

But today, having concluded that the "Solomon Amendment requires law schools to express a message that is incompatible with their educational objectives," the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit reversed the ruling of a lower court judge and ordered him to enter a preliminary injunction against the law's enforcement.

A group of law schools that bar military recruiters from campus to protest the Government's exclusion of open homosexuals from the armed forces (see 10 U.S.C. § 654) brought suit in federal district court seeking relief from enforcement of the Solomon Amendment. The district judge had denied the request for injunction.

The opinion of a divided panel of the 3rd Circuit is here.

From the New York Times:

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, found that educational institutions have a First Amendment right to keep military recruiters off their campuses to protest the Defense Department policy of excluding gays from military service.

The 2-to-1 decision relied in large part on a decision in 2000 by the United States Supreme Court to allow the Boy Scouts to exclude gay scoutmasters. Just as the Scouts have a First Amendment right to bar gays, the appeals court said, law schools may prohibit groups that they consider discriminatory.

The court's opinion, including the dissent, is 102 pages in length and I have not yet read it all. But at first blush, I believe its decision is in error. The withholding of funds cannot constitute an infrigement of the First Amendment unless the Amendment is read to require the funding of speech, something it has never been understood to mandate.

Moreover, this case is not analogous to the Boy Scouts' case. In Boy Scouts v. Dale (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a New Jersey public accomodation law requiring the Scouts to accept a gay scoutmaster was violative of the right to expressive association as protected by the First Amendment. In other words, the Scouts could not be told with whom they must associate.

But the Solomon Amendment doesn't prohibit the law schools from barring military recruiters; the schools remain at liberty to exercise their associational freedom. Rather, the law merely stipulates a condition of federal funding.

I'll read the rest of the court's opinion, but I'm pretty sure it's wrong and should be reversed if the Supreme Court accepts the case on appeal.

Posted by Paul at 10:15 PM | Permalink

"More and more people are coming forward and saying, 'I'm sick of this.' They don't want this anymore."

A Democrat in New York gets it. And he's not alone. Alas, the president doesn't get it, and Republicans should worry.

(Thanks to Michelle Malkin.)

Posted by Paul at 6:40 PM | Permalink

The redoubtable George F. Will makes the case for allowing Senate Democrats to obstruct confirmation of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees. In arguing against a change to the Senate rules to prevent the filibustering of judicial appointments -- the so-called "nuclear option" -- Mr. Will writes:

"And someone should puncture Republicans' current triumphalism by reminding them that someday they will again be in the minority."

True, of course, but not convincing. When next a Democrat sits in the White House and his party holds a majority of the seats in the U.S. Senate, shouldn't he too get an up or down vote on his nominees?

We are, still and yet, a democracy where elections have consequences. The obstructionism, from both sides of the aisle, should end.

Posted by Paul at 5:50 PM | Permalink

The U.S. Supreme Court, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist again absent, today heard oral argument in Ashcroft v. Raich. The case presents the question whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the state-authorized possession of homegrown marijuana for medicinal use.

Associated Press:

California's law allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Besides California, other states with such laws are: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

Whatever the Court decides, the law in these eleven states will still be valid. But a victory by the Government would put citizens who grow or possess medical marijuana at risk of federal prosecution or of having their marijuana seized by federal authorities.

Larry Solum of Legal Theory Blog was in court today for oral argument and posts this detailed and informative entry.

Posted by Paul at 5:13 PM | Permalink

They haven't written anything yet, but Gary Becker and Richard Posner are going to blog.

Who, you may ask, are Gary Becker and Richard Posner?

Dr. Becker is a professor of economics at the University of Chicago and the winner of a Nobel Prize in economic sciences.

Richard Posner is senior lecturer in law at the University of Chicago's school of law and a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

Now some might say I'm overstating it. But to me the forthcoming launch of their joint blog is to the blogosphere what the launch of Halo 2 was to video gaming. It's a Big Deal.

The discerning reader will bookmark the page.

Posted by Paul at 4:09 PM | Permalink

Los Angeles Times:

It is not weapons of mass destruction per se that threaten the U.S., but the nature of the societies or groups that seek such weapons. Britain has nuclear weapons and no one is concerned. But fundamentalist societies and groups that reject Western freedom pose a threat that, although not specific and imminent — like the Cold War threat — is global and immanent.

That, in a nutshell, is the neo-conservative strategic rationale for U.S. intervention in Iraq. For more, and for a discussion of the foreign policy differences among conservatives, see Henry R. Naus' informative essay.

(By the way, count me among the internationalists.)

Posted by Paul at 2:57 PM | Permalink

Washington Post:

By any measure, President Bush and his fellow Republicans had a good night on Nov. 2. The question now is whether the election results set the GOP up for a good decade -- or more.

As some partisan operatives and political scientists see it, Bush's reelection victory and simultaneous Republican gains in the House and Senate suggest that an era of divided government and approximate parity between the major parties is giving way to an era of GOP dominance. By this light, the Republican advantage on the most important issues of the day -- the fight against terrorism, most of all -- and the party's uncontested control of the federal government leave it in a position to win long-term loyalty among key voter blocs and craft an enduring majority.

As much as I'd like for it to be true, I doubt the GOP's victory this year heralds a "realignment" -- at least not if realignment means what the Post suggests: a readily reproducible coalition capable of winning future presidential elections.

This year's election was notable for three facts:

• historic turnout
• the weakness of the Democratic nominee
• and an aggressive, well-organized drive to get Republicans to the polls.

Yet Mr. Bush captured only 51% of the vote. I don't read that as an indication of realignment; I read it as an indication of maximum GOP voting strength. If so, it's worrisome.

For one thing, emerging changes in voter demographics do not bode well for Republicans. The U.S. Hispanic population is growing explosively, and I don't see how we can take that as anything but good news for Democrats. While more Hispanics than blacks vote Republican, Hispanics are still an overwhelmingly Democratic constituency; the notion that Mr. Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote is just nonsense. (Incidentially, if the exit polls were wrong about Mr. Kerry winning the election, why are they right about the president's share of the Hispanic vote?)

Secondly, while the Republican coalition is stable for now, with the Nation on the field in Iraq and on alert at home, that's no guarantee of future stability. Even this year, the orgy of federal spending very nearly put many conservatives into open revolt; and the president's insistence on de facto amnesty for illegal aliens may push his party into civil war. In a quest for tighter immigration controls, rebellious House Republicans have already "stiffed" the president by derailing the intelligence reform bill. (Illegal immigration is to Republicans what same-sex marriage was to Democrats: a "category five hurricane" that they didn't see coming.)

The truth is that this year Mr. Bush got a pass. If you're a conventional Republican, you know he got a pass. You gave him one. So did I. On spending, immigration and federalism, among other things, key Republican constituencies let this president walk; we're a Nation at war, and if there's one issue on which virtually all Republicans are united, it's national security.

But this election is over and there's no heir apparent for 2008. Meanwhile, turning their attention from from power to principle, many in the party are asking: what does it mean to be a Republican?

The intraparty fighting begins shortly. There will be casualties. At 51%, we can't afford many.

Posted by Paul at 2:28 PM | Permalink

The debate over the origins of homosexuality seemingly never ends. But whether we're "pro" gay or "anti," few of us are truly interested in the answer. Homosexuality -- or, more precisely, homosexual conduct -- ignites our moral passions, not our scientific curiosity. Even if science answered definitively the question of homosexuality's origins, would that change anybody's view, pro or con, on the morality of homosexual behavior? I doubt it.

Posted by Paul at 1:04 PM | Permalink

What's instructive is not that the police can organize raids to shut them down, albeit only temporarily; what's instructive is that dealers prefer profit over risk in operating open-air drug markets.

We are losing the "war" on drugs. That's just a fact. One day, maybe we'll accept it.

Posted by Paul at 4:21 PM | Permalink

In a piece that's not only informative, but also surprisingly fair and balanced, the New York Times (D-N.Y.) examines the fiscal implications of Mr. Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security.

The particulars of Social Security reform admittedly make for dry reading, which might explain the blogosphere's silence on the subject. (I searched in vain today for comment from a big blogger on the Times' article.) But the president will reportedly make Social Security reform the top item on his domestic agenda, and it's hard to imagine another issue with more import for the future of America's younger workers. The U.S. Social Security system is the largest government-run social program in the world; reforming it is a Big Deal.

On the path to change, the crux of the how and why:

The White House and Republicans in Congress are all but certain to embrace large-scale government borrowing to help finance President Bush's plan to create personal investment accounts in Social Security, according to administration officials, members of Congress and independent analysts.

[...]

Borrowing by the government could be necessary to establish the personal accounts because of the way Social Security pays for benefits. Under the current system, the payroll tax levied on workers goes to benefits for people who are already retired. Personal accounts would be paid for out of the same pool of money; they would allow workers to divert a portion of their payroll taxes into accounts invested in mutual funds or other investments.

The money going into the accounts would therefore no longer be available to pay benefits to current retirees. The shortfall would have to be made up somehow to preserve benefits for people who are already retired during the transition from one system to the other, and by nearly all estimates there is no way to make it up without relying at least in part on government borrowing.

[...]

A reasonable amount of borrowing now, the proponents say, would avert a much bigger financial obligation decades later. They say personal accounts would yield higher returns for individuals than the current system and could be a catalyst to broader changes that would bring the benefits promised by Social Security into line with what the system, which is also about to come under intense financial strain from the aging of the baby boom generation and the increase in life expectancies, can afford to pay.

[...]

The main Republican players in Congress on the issue say they expect to endorse an increase in borrowing to finance the transition to a new system. But they remain split over whether to back plans that would include larger investment accounts and few painful trade-offs like benefit cuts and tax increases - and therefore require more borrowing - or to limit borrowing and include more steps that would be politically unpopular.

During the election campaign, Democrats noted that the president never said how he would pay the transition costs, perhaps as high as $2 trillion, of moving from a fully government-run system to a partially privatized one. We still don't know the exact mix of tax increases, benefit cuts and borrowing upon which Mr. Bush will rely. But we do know that borrowing will figure prominently. Meanwhile, the Democrats have themselves not said how they'll pay the cost of doing nothing, the approach Mr. Kerry advocated. In a little more than a decade, Social Security will face unfunded liabilities of $26 trillion as measured in 2004 dollars. How do Democrats plan to pay that?

We should have started this debate years ago. But in typical American fashion, we've waited until the last minute and now the clock is against us. If Mr. Bush can pull off meaningful Social Security reform, it will be the most important domestic legacy of his presidency.

Posted by Paul at 1:05 PM | Permalink

When the U.S. Supreme Court sits Monday to hear oral argument, Chief Justice William Rehnquist will again not be there, marking the sixth week of his absence.

How long now until he resigns? Weeks? Days? The answer lies somewhere between soon and very soon.

Posted by Paul at 12:26 PM | Permalink

When it comes to anything having to do with religion, especially Christianity, it's stunning how intolerant the tolerance-promoting left can be. But tax credits for donations to faith-based charities seem to me a reasonable balance between government promotion of religion and government tolerance of it:

With Minority Leader Tom Daschle leaving the Senate and Republican gains in both chambers of Congress, supporters of President Bush's faith-based initiative hope to quickly pass into law next year legislation providing tax incentives for donations to faith-based and other charities.

In addition to permiting taxpayers to deduct their faith-based contributions even if they don't itemize, religious conservatives in Congress, led by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., have in mind these other harrowing ideas:

The measures also would provide incentives for farmers, restaurants and businesses to donate food for the hungry; allow tax-free donations from individual retirement accounts to charities; and expand government-matched savings accounts for low-income workers.

Ummm, hmmm. Food for the hungry. These Jesus freaks are out of control, aren't they?

Posted by Paul at 8:40 PM | Permalink

Congress is bearing down on countries that would subject U.S. citizens to the risk of prosecution by international moonbats:

The Republican-controlled Congress has stepped up its campaign to curtail the power of the International Criminal Court, threatening to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in economic aid to governments that refuse to sign immunity accords shielding U.S. personnel from being surrendered to the tribunal.

The move marks an escalation in U.S. efforts to ensure that the first world criminal court can never judge American citizens for crimes committed overseas. More than two years ago, Congress passed the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, which cut millions of dollars in military assistance to many countries that would not sign the Article 98 agreements, as they are known, that vow not to transfer to the court U.S. nationals accused of committing war crimes abroad.

Posted by Paul at 7:36 PM | Permalink

By providing an incentive to settle even frivolous lawsuits, Florida may have found the best way yet of encouraging doctors to leave in large numbers.

Posted by Paul at 7:21 PM | Permalink

At 10 p.m. EST tonight, ABC's "20/20" will air a report that considers whether the murder of Matthew Shepard was motivated by robbery and drugs, and not by hate.

Rig for impact. Reaction from the gay left will be vitriolic; already we're apprised that there is no way to "de-gay" the crime.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times carries a thoughtful commentary on the intellectual sophistry of "hates crimes" law and the underreported legal machinations behind the prosecution of Matthew's killers.

Posted by Paul at 6:28 PM | Permalink

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Ashcroft v. Raich, a case to which I commended your attention here and here. The Associated Press provides this background on the woman for whom the case is named:

Traditional drugs have done little to help 39-year-old Angel Raich.

Beset by a nightmarish list of ailments that includes tumors in her brain and uterus, seizures, spasms and nausea, she has been able to find comfort only in the marijuana that is recommended by her doctor.

It eases her pain, allows her to rise out of a wheelchair and promotes an appetite that prevents her from wasting away.

Her Berkeley physician, Frank Lucido, said marijuana “is the only drug of almost three dozen we have tried that works.”

Although Ms. Raich strikes me as a sympathetic figure, the legal import of her case has almost nothing to do with her or with the merits, if any, of medical marijuana. The issue here is federalism, which posits that Congress should refrain from exercising powers not specifically delegated to it by the Constitution and avoid meddling in the states' policy decisions.

Conservatives, favoring decentralized power and faith in the polity, have long championed federalism. We have done so out of principle, and not out of the self-serving belief that the people of every state would always make decisions with which we agree. But now the Bush administration, roiled by the knowledge that a blue state does not prefer conservative policy, is resisting the preference of California voters, who approved medical marijuana in 1996.

In an unprincipled display for a conservative Government, the Justice Department will rely Monday on an activist interpretation of the Commerce Clause to argue that the will of California's electorate must yield to the will of Congress. If the conservatives in the administration aren't embarrassed by this rank hypocrisy, let's hope the conservatives on the Court are.

In brief, it isn't about medical marijuana. It's about the right of a state to make decisions in an area where Congress ought to have no say.

Posted by Paul at 4:45 PM | Permalink

On Election Day, voters in Madison County, Ohio rejected a 1% school income tax. The vote was 3,170 in favor of the proposed tax to 3,171 against it. As a margin of victory (or, as in this case, defeat), it can't get any closer than that.

Normally, most of us would agree that unless a voter chooses to disclose the information, how he voted, even on a school tax referendum decided by a single vote, is none of anybody else's business. But what if the voter admitted to voting twice?

From the Associated Press:

COLUMBUS - A couple in a neighboring county who admitted to voting twice on Election Day could be forced to reveal how they cast their ballots in the disputed, single-vote defeat of a proposed school income tax, the school district's attorney said.

The county prosecutor says he has no plans to force the couple, who voted absentee and then again on Election Day, to testify about how they voted. Still, their behavior raises the question: are there no limits to ballot secrecy? If the board of elections has to hold another election, it could cost thousands. Should taxpayers just eat that? (I assume here that the couple are turnips from whom blood cannot be squeezed.)

Posted by Paul at 4:05 PM | Permalink

I hope you have a wonderful holiday, and I'll "see" you again Friday afternoon. Until then, blogging off.

Posted by Paul at 5:27 PM | Permalink

Relying on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, a new study says that immigration enforcement has become more lax, not less, since 9/11, and that contrary to the assertions of some, the level of immigration is unaffected by downturns in the Nation's economy.

[Steven] Camarota [the study's author] said the countries primarily represented among the nation's immigrant population are much poorer than the primary sending countries in the past. The United States' much higher standard of living, he said, exists even during recessions, noting that people come to the United States to join family, to avoid social or legal obligations, to take advantage of the United States' social services, and to enjoy greater personal and political freedom.

Immigrants, legal and otherwise, now make up 12% of the U.S. population; of the more than 34 million immigrants living here, roughly 30% are illegals. Mr. Bush has promised them de facto amnesty.

Posted by Paul at 4:54 PM | Permalink

New York Times:

The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit yesterday against a Missouri high school that twice admonished a gay student for wearing T-shirts bearing gay pride messages. The suit charges that the school violated the youth's constitutional right to free expression.

By the account of the civil liberties union, the student, Brad Mathewson, a 16-year-old junior, was sent to the principal's office at Webb City High School on Oct. 20 for wearing a T-shirt that he said came from the Gay-Straight Alliance at a school he previously attended, in Fayetteville, Ark. The shirt bore a pink triangle and the words "Make a Difference!"

Mr. Mathewson, the A.C.L.U. said, was told to turn the shirt inside out or go home and change. Instead he traded shirts with a friend, who wore the gay pride shirt the rest of the day without incident.

A week later, Mr. Mathewson was again admonished for wearing a gay pride T-shirt, this one featuring a rainbow and the inscription "I'm gay and I'm proud." Told once more to turn the shirt instead out or leave, he chose to go home and was eventually ordered not to return to school wearing clothing supporting gay rights.

The school's principal declined comment.

It's unclear from the Times' account whether the school has a uniform, content-neutral policy prohibiting any expressive t-shirts. If so, that would make a difference in what I thought of the school's policy. But I'm not sure it would make a difference to the federal courts.

In 2001, a federal judge told a high school in Minnesota that in the absence of an actual disruption, it could not prohibit a student from wearing a t-shirt with the phrase "Straight Pride." In 2002, two students in Kentucky settled out of court with a school that had told them not to wear t-shirts bearing the Confederate flag.

Posted by Paul at 4:13 PM | Permalink

Liberal animosity for anything having to do with God or Christianity is reaching new -- and appalling -- heights:

A California teacher has been barred by his school from giving students documents from American history that refer to God -- including the Declaration of Independence.

Steven Williams, a fifth-grade teacher at Stevens Creek School in the San Francisco Bay area suburb of Cupertino, sued for discrimination on Monday, claiming he had been singled out for censorship by principal Patricia Vidmar because he is a Christian.

[...]

Williams asserts in the lawsuit that since May he has been required to submit all of his lesson plans and supplemental handouts to Vidmar for approval, and that the principal will not permit him to use any that contain references to God or Christianity.

Posted by Paul at 3:51 PM | Permalink

I've been using Firefox for about two weeks now and I love it! I bet you will, too, especially if you blog. (In case you don't know, Firefox is a free Internet browser with a heavenly tab feature.) And be sure to look over the 73 extensions, many of which are exceptionally useful. You'll want to install a few.

Posted by Paul at 12:25 AM | Permalink

"Enhanced ballots," "accidentally overlooked ballots," ballots that the "election worker fixes" and runs back through the machine, plus the prospect of a re-recount, are all features of the still undecided Washington gubernatorial race.

Posted by Paul at 12:15 AM | Permalink

More than 20 Republican moderates in Congress, some of whom won close re-election contests by convincing voters of their ability to bring home the pork, have learned that the pig is dead.

Posted by Paul at 12:05 AM | Permalink

The Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk, Va. has dropped the column of conservative book author and blogger Michelle Malkin. The reason? She's "too stridently anti-liberal."

No word yet on how Michelle will thank the paper for its compliment.

(Thanks to Coldhearted Truth.)

Posted by Paul at 8:13 PM | Permalink

Pete Guither at Drug War Rant has put together an excellent guide to Ashcroft v. Raich, the case about which I blogged below.

The case is only superficially about medical marijuana; the principle of federalism and the limits of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause are at issue here. For those reasons, Raich will be among the most important cases the Court decides this term.

Whatever your political leanings, if you believe that the people of a state ought generally to be free to decide public policy for themselves, you'll want to follow Ashcroft v. Raich.

Posted by Paul at 7:27 PM | Permalink

Faced with relentlessly rising costs, the LA County Board of Supervisors does what it must and votes to ration health care. The biggest losers? Gang members.

Posted by Paul at 6:53 PM | Permalink

Whatever else it may mean to have a Republican majority in Congress, it does not mean an end to pork-barrel spending.

Posted by Paul at 6:31 PM | Permalink

Will Democrats or Republicans control the Montana House of Representatives? The answer to that hinges on a recount in a single legislative district where the winner has a 2-vote lead.

Posted by Paul at 4:50 PM | Permalink

Post 9/11, most Americans agree that heightened security measures are appropriate. But that doesn't mean anything goes. Airport screenings in particular have become especially intrusive; in fact, some women say they're downright degrading:

Nancy Davis Kho, a financial data developer from Oakland, Calif., said, "They're totally overlooking the need to preserve a person's dignity." Ms. Kho said she was mortified at La Guardia Airport in New York on Sept. 28, when a female screener patted her down, "running her hands under bra straps and just about everywhere else," while other passengers gawked.

[...]

Ms. Maurer, the executive from Washington, reluctantly agreed to a search by a male security officer when a woman was not available. After he gave her a full body pat-down, she said, "he lifted my shirt and looked down the back of my pants."

[...]

At the Fort Lauderdale airport on Nov. 5, Ms. LuPone says she removed her shirt after vehemently protesting, revealing the thin, see-through camisole that she was wearing. Next, she was given a pat-down by a screener who, she said, "was all over me with her hands," including touching her groin area and breasts.

Referring to a terrorist attack in which 90 people died and two planes were destroyed by Chechen women who may have boarded with nonmetallic explosives, a security worker reportedly told a passenger: "We don't want another Russia to happen."

That's true, of course -- in more ways than one. Surely there's a balance between protecting people's lives and protecting their dignity. It doesn't sound like the Government has found it just yet.

Posted by Paul at 4:08 PM | Permalink

Saddam Hussein will reportedly stand trial for crimes against humanity by year's end.

Posted by Paul at 3:54 PM | Permalink

New York Post:

A lawyer burst into a Manhattan courtroom and began yelling and cursing without provocation yesterday — then was arrested after allegedly rushing toward the bench.

Court officers subdued Jemal Deshong, 28, and took him to Bellevue Hospital for psychiatric observation, said John McKillop, of the New York State Supreme Court Officers Association.

Deshong burst into Justice Bonnie Wittner's courtroom in state Supreme Court around 10:30 a.m., McKillop said. Court officers ordered the Bronx lawyer to sit down, but he began yelling profanities and then rushed toward Wittner.

As he was handcuffed, Deshong yelled, "You'd better be careful. I'm a lawyer, you know," McKillop said.

Posted by Paul at 3:46 PM | Permalink

You like, yes?!

Posted by Paul at 1:31 PM | Permalink

On Monday, November 29, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Ashcroft v. Raich, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The case presents the question whether the Controlled Substances Act (see 21 U.S.C. § 801) exceeds Congress' power under the Commerce Clause when applied to the intrastate possession of marijuana as prescribed by a physician in accordance with California law (see Health & Safety Code § 11362.5)

The 9th Circuit's opinion, from which the U.S. Government appeals, is here; the Government's Supreme Court brief is here; the brief for the respondents is here. Lastly, the Cato Institute's amicus brief on behalf of the respondents is here.

Law professor Randy Barnett, who blogs at The Volokh Conspiracy, will argue the case for respondents Angel Raich and Diane Monson, two California patients who use marijuana to treat their conditions. They sued seeking injunctive relief from enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act after agents from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration seized and destroyed their cannabis plants.

In ruling for the two California women, the appeals court quoted Justice Louis Brandeis:

It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

There's a name for the principle to which Justice Brandeis referred: federalism. Here's hoping the Supreme Court affirms it.

Posted by Paul at 12:30 AM | Permalink

Of the many divisions among Republican constituencies, few are more important, I think, than the one between the party's corporate interests and everybody else.

For the record, most Republicans are not anti-immigrant. America renews herself, in part, through her immigrants, and most conservatives are happy to welcome them. But we are opposed to uncontrolled, illegal immigration and to the social pathology and financial burdens that come with it. This is a critical distinction and one that, for wholly commerical reasons, the GOP's corporate element seeks to elide.

Posted by Paul at 6:16 PM | Permalink

The media may love him, but conservatives can't abide him. I rate his chances as zero.

Posted by Paul at 5:54 PM | Permalink

Richmond Times-Dispatch:

In 2001, U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter and Clarence Thomas withdrew from considering a high-profile death-penalty case.

The extraordinary recusal of one-third of the high court's justices wasn't because of the killer, Napoleon Beazley. It was because of their ties to the son of the man Beazley murdered.

Beazley shot John Luttig to death during a carjacking in Tyler, Texas, in 1994. His son is Judge J. Michael Luttig of the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Luttig is thought to be on the Bush administration's short-list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

Posted by Paul at 5:34 PM | Permalink

Denver Post:

Emboldened by the results of the month's elections, the nation's largest gun lobby will push again for a federal law shielding gunmakers and sellers from lawsuits.

When the new Congress convenes in January, the National Rifle Association says, it will have four more pro-gun senators. The trade group hopes that will help make the difference in passing a bill that died in the Senate in March.

This will disappoint advocates of gun control, who had hoped to use private litigation to write public policy and sue the Nation's gunmakers into financial ruin.

Posted by Paul at 4:01 PM | Permalink

The pseudonymous Jack Dunphy, an officer in the Los Angeles Police Department, writing in National Review Online on the young Marine who shot a wounded and apparently unarmed insurgent in Fallujah:

But for one moment try as best you can to put yourself in that Marine's boots. He had been under fire for a week as his unit battled a maniacal enemy through the streets of Fallujah. He had seen a friend and comrade killed by a booby-trapped corpse. He had been shot in the face himself the previous day but chose to remain in the fight with his brother Marines. And now, as the camera rolled, he came upon several terrorists who appeared to be dead or wounded. What was it about that one man that presented a threat? Perhaps one day we will learn what was in that Marine's mind when he pulled the trigger, but it seems safe to speculate he was thinking about his dead friend, a young man like himself, but one who did not see the danger until it was too late.

That young and still unidentified Marine sits alone somewhere waiting for others in the calm and comfort of their offices to pass judgment on a decision he had to make in the fog of war.

Please, don't let that young man hang out to dry. Do what you can. Sign the petition.

Please.

Posted by Paul at 10:40 PM | Permalink

In an otherwise abysmal election for Democrats, there was one bright spot: Colorado, a Republican-leaning state where Democrats cleaned the GOP's clock.

Smart Democratic operatives are busy studying the lessons of Colorado; smart Republican operatives should do likewise.

ADDED: Further evidence that Democrats can be competitive in red states.

Posted by Paul at 6:38 PM | Permalink

U.S. News & World Report:

The 2000 exit poll showed an electorate that was 39 percent Democratic and 35 percent Republican. The 2004 exit poll, which was tilted toward Democrats, found a dead heat: 37 percent to 37 percent. That means that Republican turnout was up 19 percent and Democratic turnout up only 7 percent. This is the most Republican electorate America has had since random-sample polling was invented.

The credit for that, says political maven Michael Barone, belongs to Ken Mehlman, whom Mr. Bush named Tuesday as chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Posted by Paul at 5:53 PM | Permalink

With the depature of William Rehnquist from the U.S. Supreme Court now imminent, J. Harvie Wilkinson III is reportedly on the short-list of potential nominees to the vacancy.

Judge Wilkinson is a jurist on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which sits in Richmond, Virginia. The Richmond Times-Dispatch carries this profile.

Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas is reportedly unwilling to undergo the confirmation fight that would follow his nomination as chief justice.

(Thanks to How Appealing.)

Posted by Paul at 5:12 PM | Permalink

Some conservatives are urging a renewed focus -- one that goes beyond banning same-sex nuptials -- on protecting and strengthening traditional marriage. But here's the kicker:

... Americans face a choice of whether to view marriage as primarily an act of individual satisfaction or as an institution serving the communal good.

The push for gay marriage finds its genesis, I think, in the widespread acceptance of no-fault divorce, which says, in effect, that marriage is about the happiness of the couple and not about some purpose larger than the couple.

Prior to the promulgation in the 1970s of no-fault divorce, marriage had a social purpose, one not especially contingent on the personal satisfaction of husband and wife: the raising of children under an optimal family structure. If, as most Americans believe and as a mountain of social evidence confirms, that structure consists of one mom and one dad, then it's self-evident that a marriage must be limited to the union of a man and a woman. "Discrimination" against other arrangements is rational; other arrangements are inconsistent with the purpose of marriage. Under this view, the vocabulary of civil rights is inapposite; a would-be applicant has no civil right to admission to an institution for which he's unqualified. And he's unqualified if he's unable to effect the institution's purpose. Should the Secret Service, for example, accept for training as an agent a 300-pound blind man?

No-fault divorce, by placing primacy on the married couple's happiness, or lack thereof, changed the purpose of marriage. No longer is the institution concerned chiefly with the well-being of children; now the overriding concern is for the (often fleeting) bliss and convenience of grown-ups. But if marriage serves mostly to unite two adults only for as long as they're happy with each other, why should gay adults be excluded?

Unless the Nation's religious and political leaders end their silence and reverse fields on no-fault divorce, we are, I believe, not more than a generation away from the widespread legalization of same-sex marriage, the just-passed referenda to the contrary notwithstanding. America's children are being taught by example that marriage serves no purpose other than to unite two happy adults. More tolerant of homosexuality than their parents, they will as voters rectify the incoherence of our marriage law.

Posted by Paul at 2:48 PM | Permalink

Associated Press:

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's health is shrouded in mystery, the extent of his thyroid cancer a closely guarded secret. Several coming events could give the public an idea about the seriousness of his condition.

Since announcing his illness in a statement on Oct. 25, the 80-year-old Rehnquist has run the nation's highest court from his home in suburban Virginia.

He rules on cases by reviewing transcripts of arguments and passing along his votes to justices. Opinions are largely researched and drafted by law clerks. Administrative tasks fall to a top aide.

Even when justices are healthy, their "opinions are largely researched and drafted by law clerks." For more, see the chief justice's book The Supreme Court.

Several court watchers and former clerks say that Rehnquist is not one to stick it out any longer than he feels able. They noted that he was a witness to Justice William O. Douglas' steady decline after a stroke in December 1974.

Douglas' refusal to step down despite obvious mental confusion led Rehnquist and the other justices to secretly stop counting his vote in some cases. Douglas eventually stepped aside in 1975.

The Supreme Court next sits to hear oral argument on November 29; the chief justice has missed oral argument for the last month.

Posted by Paul at 2:00 PM | Permalink

Wizbang is hosting the 2004 Weblog Awards. You can learn more and enter your nominations here.

Posted by Paul at 12:31 AM | Permalink

Reuters:

President Bush on Saturday reached into a throng of squabbling bodyguards and pulled a Secret Service agent away from Chilean security officers after they stopped the U.S. agent from accompanying the president at a dinner.

Chilean security stopped several members of the president's Secret Service detail and a pushing and shoving match ensued.

[...]

Bush was posing for pictures on the red carpet ... when the president noticed the confrontation unfolding behind him.

He stepped away ... and reached into the quarreling crowd and hauled the lead Secret Service agent from Chilean security agents.

UPDATE: The Daily Recycler has the video. (Thanks, Alan.)

Posted by Paul at 11:48 PM | Permalink

I'm all for free enterprise. But I still recognize cheesy business practices when I see them.

Posted by Paul at 9:49 PM | Permalink

In the New Year, two facts, discussed here by Caroline Glick, deputy managing editor of the Jerusalem Post, will come to dominate the news and rivet our attention:

• Iran will proceed with its nuclear weapons program;


• Israel will not accept a nuclear-armed Iran.

Posted by Paul at 1:06 PM | Permalink

The Associated Press reports on the trouble Democrats are having adjusting to their role as opposition party.

Posted by Paul at 12:00 PM | Permalink

"U.N. Again Warns Violence, Atrocities Must End in Darfur Now" -- headline, Washington File, a State Department publication

At that same session in Nairobi, Kenya, the Security Council passed its fourth U.N. resolution on Sudan in 2004.

Posted by Paul at 10:10 AM | Permalink

We're here! We're moonbats! Get used to it!

"We want Bush to know that he is not welcome here," said Monica Cerón, a college student, who was wearing a "Bush Stinks" t-shirt and a red headband emblazoned with "Down with Bush" and a hammer and sickle.

Posted by Paul at 9:57 AM | Permalink

New York Times:

House and Senate negotiators have tucked a potentially far-reaching anti-abortion provision into a $388 billion must-pass spending bill ...

The abortion language would bar federal, state and local agencies from withholding taxpayer money from health care providers that refuse to provide or pay for abortions or refuse to offer abortion counseling or referrals. Current federal law, aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors, provides such "conscience protection" to doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training. The new language would expand that protection to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics and insurers.

Left-wing bloggers -- here, here and here -- are upset. I don't know why exactly; none of them say. I guess they just assume that not only do women have a right to an abortion, they also have a right to coerce others into performing them.

Although I think that as a matter of constitutional law Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, I nevertheless share the view held by most Americans that abortion should be legal in the first trimester. But I see nothing wrong with public policy that discourages abortions by protecting the rights of health care providers who, for moral or religious reasons, do not wish to perform them.

For even if we assume, arguendo, that the Constitution guarantees a woman the right to an abortion, that only obliges the Government to not interfere with the exercise of the right. It doesn't guarantee third party payment or the collaboration of her fellow citizens.

I have a First Amendment right to read books by conservative authors. But it doesn't follow that the Government must supply my books or that I can compel you to read them.

Posted by Paul at 8:35 AM | Permalink

MSNBC:

With the number of people sentenced to death row nationally reaching a 30-year low in 2003, according to a Justice Department study, all eyes are on Texas — the one state that executes far more convicted murderers than any other state.

Last year, 144 inmates in 25 states were given the death penalty, 24 fewer than in 2002 and less than half the average of 297 between 1994 and 2000, according to the Justice Department.

But the drop in numbers doesn't apply to Texas. In fact, there are more men on death row in Texas from Harris County, the area around Houston, than from most other states.

As a resident of Harris County, that doesn't surprise me. The county, of which Houston is the seat, is solid red. The judges here are elected, and everyone of them -- including the women and minorities -- is a Republican. In this neck of the woods, attitudes toward violent crime are cross-cultural and harsh.

I've lived in Harris County all of my life; save for the traffic and heat, I think it's a wonderful place to earn a living, buy a home and spend your days. But it is true that the locals don't cotton to violent criminals, and the courts and juries here don't hesitate to jack 'em up. For men with evil in their hearts, this is a dangerous place, and it's not going to get safer anytime soon.

Posted by Paul at 4:43 PM | Permalink

Even if it means Senate Republicans have to go "nuclear," the Democratic filibustering of the president's judicial appointments is coming to an end.

"The bottom line is, you win the election, you get your nominees."

Posted by Paul at 3:59 PM | Permalink

Washington Times:

In the space between the fog of war (lethal confusion, peril and instant reflexes) and the edited news break (carefully scripted and produced filler between Viagra commercials) a young Marine hangs out to dry.

Folks, we have to stand up for this Marine. Sign the petition, call your members of Congress and call the White House.

Here's the original Associated Press report from Tuesday, which includes this:

... a Marine in the same unit had been killed just a day earlier when he tended to the booby-trapped dead body of an insurgent.

NBC reported that the Marine seen shooting the wounded Iraqi had himself been shot in the face the day before, but quickly returned to duty.

The worse that can be said from reading the full report is that the circumstances of the shooting are ambiguous. (At best, the shooting was clear-cut self-defense.) But ambiguity in a war zone ought to be resolved in favor of our troops. We have no business second-guessing life-or-death decisions by U.S. soldiers in combat.

Our boys have to react under conditions that most of us can only try to imagine. But our expectations of them should be clear: if forced to wonder whether they survive or the enemy survives, our soliders should never have to doubt the choice we want them make. What if this Marine was your son or brother or husband or partner? What would you have wanted him to do? Risk getting shot for the second day in a row? If we don't back this boy up, we send the message to every other soldier in the field: hesitate. In combat, that's a deadly message.

This as-yet unidentified Marine had to make a judgment call and act on the information available to him at the time. Even if a slow, methodological investigation and the benefit of hindsight prove his judgment in error, I'm still not going to second-guess him. A potentially dead American kid or a dead terrorist insurgent? Didn't we just vote for the latter? I know I did. Now let's follow thru.

This Marine, who's been taken off the battlefield pending an investigation, should either be returned to his unit, if that's his wish, or else honorably discharged and sent home to his parents for the holidays.

Now please, pick up the phone.

Posted by Paul at 12:49 PM | Permalink

(Thanks to Cox & Forkum.)

Posted by Paul at 11:07 PM | Permalink

A California judge is in hot water with that state's judicial conduct commission for, among other things, holding court in a strip club and adjudicating a dispute over a wet t-shirt competition.

(Thanks to The Southern California Law Blog.)

Posted by Paul at 10:39 PM | Permalink

Does liberal white guilt explain this year's inaccurate exit polling?

Posted by Paul at 10:20 PM | Permalink

"Feinstein Warns Goss Against CIA Reforms" -- headline, Associated Press

"Goss Isn't Done With Housecleaning at CIA" -- headline, Los Angeles Times

Meanwhile, from USA Today:

CIA Director Porter Goss told his new chief of spy operations this week to launch a much more aggressive espionage campaign that would use undercover officers to penetrate terrorist groups and hostile governments such as North Korea and Iran, according to a senior U.S. official with direct knowledge of Goss' plans.

The risky new strategy would be a sharp departure from the CIA's traditional style of human intelligence, in which field officers under flimsy cover as diplomats in U.S. embassies try to recruit foreign spies and gather tips from allied intelligence services. Those methods don't work with terror groups or in countries where the United States has no embassies, such as prewar Iraq or present-day North Korea and Iran.

Given what we've learned about the consequences of a poorly informed CIA, it's heartening to see the agency finally under adult supervision.

Posted by Paul at 7:54 PM | Permalink

James Driscoll, formerly a policy adviser to Log Cabin Republicans and Bush appointee to the Presidential Council on HIV/AIDS, in the Washington Times:

We must stop blaming religion and learn to use it to help secure our rights. Mankind's great religions deserve our respect; gay people need religion and are religious as often as straights. "All men are created equal" and the 14th Amendment are political manifestations of the teachings of Jesus and Hillel. The rights we have and will gain, we owe and will owe in large part to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Instead of demonizing conservative politicians, we should work with them so that they know and better understand gay people, and, equally important, so that we understand them. Mr. Bush and Sen. Rick Santorum, Republican from Pennsylvania, play as legitimate a role in representing voters as Sens. John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

(Link may require registration.)

Posted by Paul at 7:30 PM |