I hope Mayor Bloomberg has what it takes to do the right thing and fire the NYC transit workers a la Ronald Reagan's canning of air traffic controllers.
Even aside from all the obvious arguments about why this is wrong, including their stability in a government mandated monopolistic job and the fact that they are no less essential to the city functioning than the police department, what do the unions think they'll get out of this? They've been slapped with a contempt fine of $1,000,000 a day, which will cost the average Ralph Cramden who has to pay for it with his fees. They're not getting any sympathy from New Yorkers, or won't if this goes on much longer. And the fact that they already agreed not to strike when they took their jobs in the first place means that they can no longer be trusted at the bargaining table to keep their word about anything. This is a suicide move by out of touch union leadership who think the "rightness" of their cause is more important than the inevitable and disastrous consequences that will result from it.
Public unions have to force people to join them by law. Private unions haven't prevented layoffs at Boeing, AT&T, GM, or anywhere else. The only good thing about this strike is that it will continue to weaken the labor movement which passed the point of usefulness sometime back in the 50s.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Bork on Original Intent
In a letter to the WSJ.
Its about time that a voice of authority came out against the hideous abomination that is the chocolate martini. Also reassuring that he draws a bright line between drinks and vegetable snacks ...
Its about time that a voice of authority came out against the hideous abomination that is the chocolate martini. Also reassuring that he draws a bright line between drinks and vegetable snacks ...
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
"Journalist Privilege" Harms Free Speech
This New York Post editorial sums up nicely why the media has lost our trust. In short, it points to Woodward and Bernstein as harming the country beyond measure by inspiring generations of young journalists to make it their mission to take down (or at the very least to challenge) The Man.
In fact, you could use All the President's Men to teach a course in journalistic ethics, using it as an example of what NOT to do - using anonymous sources without corroboration, revealing high level, sensitive information without considering their consequences, and making a mission out of taking down a politician. I'm not excusing Nixon, but his bad acts cannot justify theirs.
Now, journalists want to legally protect this type of bad behavior by creating a "journalist-source" privilege that would protect them from revealing such communications in a legal proceeding. They sanctimoniously note that they "have a duty to tell the public everything they learn, which is The Truth", while omitting or downplaying information that may not comport with their pre-established world view. (Case in point, the reporting on the US Economy.) The problem is that doing so would necessitate defining the word "journalist", and doing so in such a way that creates a de facto "official, licensed journalist." That would give the industry a larger chokehold, giving them an edge over bloggers, startups, and other ordinary citizens who want to get the word out. And that, as any corporation-phobic hippy will surely tell you, is a threat to a robust free and diverse press.
The First Amendment makes EVERY American citizen a journalist by birthright. The Internet makes that even more of a reality, with easy access to the ability to publish world wide. But we also have responsibilities as citizens, one of which is to cooperate with criminal investigations and to not harm our nation in time of war.
Journalists should remember that they are human beings first, then Americans, and THEN journalists. If their reporting of key facts assists the enemy in an armed conflict, they have an obligation to refrain from publishing those facts. If they are privy to information about a criminal affair, the "Public Right to Know" should not somehow supersede the right of the criminal justice system at a public trial to also know those important facts. If their reporting aids international terrorists by undermining the war against them, and by legitimizing suicide bombers on school busses as "militants" or "freedom fighters", then they have lost their humanity.
This is not to say that they necessarily should be silenced. But they should be condemned by all Americans, and by all people who think saving lives and promoting freedom is worth more than their job.
In fact, you could use All the President's Men to teach a course in journalistic ethics, using it as an example of what NOT to do - using anonymous sources without corroboration, revealing high level, sensitive information without considering their consequences, and making a mission out of taking down a politician. I'm not excusing Nixon, but his bad acts cannot justify theirs.
Now, journalists want to legally protect this type of bad behavior by creating a "journalist-source" privilege that would protect them from revealing such communications in a legal proceeding. They sanctimoniously note that they "have a duty to tell the public everything they learn, which is The Truth", while omitting or downplaying information that may not comport with their pre-established world view. (Case in point, the reporting on the US Economy.) The problem is that doing so would necessitate defining the word "journalist", and doing so in such a way that creates a de facto "official, licensed journalist." That would give the industry a larger chokehold, giving them an edge over bloggers, startups, and other ordinary citizens who want to get the word out. And that, as any corporation-phobic hippy will surely tell you, is a threat to a robust free and diverse press.
The First Amendment makes EVERY American citizen a journalist by birthright. The Internet makes that even more of a reality, with easy access to the ability to publish world wide. But we also have responsibilities as citizens, one of which is to cooperate with criminal investigations and to not harm our nation in time of war.
Journalists should remember that they are human beings first, then Americans, and THEN journalists. If their reporting of key facts assists the enemy in an armed conflict, they have an obligation to refrain from publishing those facts. If they are privy to information about a criminal affair, the "Public Right to Know" should not somehow supersede the right of the criminal justice system at a public trial to also know those important facts. If their reporting aids international terrorists by undermining the war against them, and by legitimizing suicide bombers on school busses as "militants" or "freedom fighters", then they have lost their humanity.
This is not to say that they necessarily should be silenced. But they should be condemned by all Americans, and by all people who think saving lives and promoting freedom is worth more than their job.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
SCOTUS Panel on Civil Rights
The ACS and the ACLU are hosting a panel with Professors Junker and Lombardi tomorrow (Thursday) at 12:30 in room 133. I'll be there trying my hand at simul-blogging. Prof. Lombardi clerked for Judge Alito, and will unquestionably have some interesting insight. See you all there!
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Senator Lieberman...
...gets it. As soon as the Dems start getting it, too, they'll start winning elections.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
On "Judicial Activism"
I hate this phrase. I really do. Use of the phrase usually constitutes some act of faith, meaning that it means whatever the person saying it thinks it does. For many conservatives - especially those without a lot of legal background - it generally means "judges who sit on cases that don't turn out the way we think they should not having looked at the actual case, like when criminals get off on 'technicalities'." For many liberals, it means "judges who strike down laws", or "make decisions", whereby they giddily point out that conservative judges are just as "activist". I think both of them are wrong in their understanding.
To me, a "judicial activist" is one who first makes a policy decision based on what they think the law SHOULD be, and then only after their mind has been made up, justifies it with some case law, statutes, or most egregiously, Constitutional Amendments that may or may not actually apply. This definition encompasses those who make decisions that fall outside the realm of justiciabilty, are manifestly political questions, or are not even within that court's jurisdiction.
Striking down laws is NOT, in my view, judicial activism. Sometimes they need and deserve to be struck down - but only under existing rules of law, not because the judge thinks they're bad policy. Making a decision based on analogy when there simply isn't case law, a statute, or some other source of law directly on point is likewise not offensive - so long as the decision rests within the logical scope of the law as it exists, and doesn't unilaterally expand some conception of rights, then such a decision is exactly WHY we have judges at all.
Every so often someone thinks they've "got me" advocating judicial activism. A few weeks ago, in my smoking thread, I was accused of it when I said I hoped small business owners would use the well developed doctrine of regulatory takings to seek compensation for the wrong that the Seattle City Council did to the owners of those businesses who will suffer for their actions. That's not activism in my mind because the legal doctrine is already well developed. Last week in one of my classes, I was accused of advocating it because I thought a judge who determined that a man who had sex with his ex-wife's minor adoptive daughter didn't need to prove with a Harvard study that his actions were bad for the other kids of the marriage. Again, I think that's within a judges power to decide, because it falls well within the logic and common sense of the existing statutory scheme even if that particular case's facts weren't specifically contemplated.
There is no question that under such a definition, there certainly ARE "conservative activist judges." I happen to think Justice O'Connor was such a justice (and to a lesser extent Kennedy), and that Harriet Miers would have been one as well. And that's why I'm not sorry to see J. O'Connor go, and why I was opposed to Ms. Miers' nomination. Where I see them, I oppose them. Even Justice Scalia, who so vocally opposes such an approach, can fall prey to the problem (the only plausible explanation for his concurrence in the Raich medical marijuana case decided last year). When he does it, I have no problem pointing out my disappointment.
But I think it's clear that liberals are MORE prone to this kind of "decision first, justification after" kind of "reasoning." I say that because most liberals espouse a "living Constitution," kept alive by judicial decision rather than the amendment process. This concept cannot exist without the ability of judges to make policy changes to text unchanged by the people's elected political representatives.
I know I can trust a judge when I occasionally see this in an opinion: "I personally think this law is ridiculous, and even potentially damaging. I would vote against it if I were a legislator. But this is not within my purview to decide, and therefore I decline to address the merits." You will never, ever see that in a Ginsberg or Souter opinion. You WILL see it from those most often attacked as "conservative judicial activists" - Thomas and Scalia. You see it in Alito opinions as well.
Judges - and Supreme Court Justices in particular - have grown far more powerful than the founders envisioned. Their decisions are unreviewable in many cases, and nearly impossible to get "undone". As such, they have the responsibility to ask themselves in every instance, "Just because I have an opinion on this topic, is it for me to make this decision?" When they refuse to do it, the balance of power among the three branches of government is upset, and we're faced with ridiculous efforts to counter it like gay marriage Constitutional amendments, further eroding the power of the document and the foundation of our country.
To me, a "judicial activist" is one who first makes a policy decision based on what they think the law SHOULD be, and then only after their mind has been made up, justifies it with some case law, statutes, or most egregiously, Constitutional Amendments that may or may not actually apply. This definition encompasses those who make decisions that fall outside the realm of justiciabilty, are manifestly political questions, or are not even within that court's jurisdiction.
Striking down laws is NOT, in my view, judicial activism. Sometimes they need and deserve to be struck down - but only under existing rules of law, not because the judge thinks they're bad policy. Making a decision based on analogy when there simply isn't case law, a statute, or some other source of law directly on point is likewise not offensive - so long as the decision rests within the logical scope of the law as it exists, and doesn't unilaterally expand some conception of rights, then such a decision is exactly WHY we have judges at all.
Every so often someone thinks they've "got me" advocating judicial activism. A few weeks ago, in my smoking thread, I was accused of it when I said I hoped small business owners would use the well developed doctrine of regulatory takings to seek compensation for the wrong that the Seattle City Council did to the owners of those businesses who will suffer for their actions. That's not activism in my mind because the legal doctrine is already well developed. Last week in one of my classes, I was accused of advocating it because I thought a judge who determined that a man who had sex with his ex-wife's minor adoptive daughter didn't need to prove with a Harvard study that his actions were bad for the other kids of the marriage. Again, I think that's within a judges power to decide, because it falls well within the logic and common sense of the existing statutory scheme even if that particular case's facts weren't specifically contemplated.
There is no question that under such a definition, there certainly ARE "conservative activist judges." I happen to think Justice O'Connor was such a justice (and to a lesser extent Kennedy), and that Harriet Miers would have been one as well. And that's why I'm not sorry to see J. O'Connor go, and why I was opposed to Ms. Miers' nomination. Where I see them, I oppose them. Even Justice Scalia, who so vocally opposes such an approach, can fall prey to the problem (the only plausible explanation for his concurrence in the Raich medical marijuana case decided last year). When he does it, I have no problem pointing out my disappointment.
But I think it's clear that liberals are MORE prone to this kind of "decision first, justification after" kind of "reasoning." I say that because most liberals espouse a "living Constitution," kept alive by judicial decision rather than the amendment process. This concept cannot exist without the ability of judges to make policy changes to text unchanged by the people's elected political representatives.
I know I can trust a judge when I occasionally see this in an opinion: "I personally think this law is ridiculous, and even potentially damaging. I would vote against it if I were a legislator. But this is not within my purview to decide, and therefore I decline to address the merits." You will never, ever see that in a Ginsberg or Souter opinion. You WILL see it from those most often attacked as "conservative judicial activists" - Thomas and Scalia. You see it in Alito opinions as well.
Judges - and Supreme Court Justices in particular - have grown far more powerful than the founders envisioned. Their decisions are unreviewable in many cases, and nearly impossible to get "undone". As such, they have the responsibility to ask themselves in every instance, "Just because I have an opinion on this topic, is it for me to make this decision?" When they refuse to do it, the balance of power among the three branches of government is upset, and we're faced with ridiculous efforts to counter it like gay marriage Constitutional amendments, further eroding the power of the document and the foundation of our country.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Class Warfare and Social Mobility
This interesting piece today summed up very well the class warfare arguments of the left. Basically:
- We admit grudgingly that the poor are better off now than they ever have been,
- But the gap between rich and poor matters, no matter how well the poor are doing.
- When you die, your wealth should be given to someone else. It's immoral to want to spend your money on your own children - you should spend it on someone else's instead with the government as the executor.
- The gap and inter-generational wealth = lack of social mobility, making the American Dream that used to exist a joke.
- Government should DO something to lessen the gap (i.e., wealth transfer).
- Other industrialized countries don't have the gap, and we should follow their lead.
These are all interesting thoughts unburdened by fact or experience. We don't need to guess what more governmental interference and regulation with personal wealth will do - we have dozens of examples all over the world. Our economy is growing faster than any other industrialized nation (not counting China and India), our unemployment rate is about 2.5 times lower than that of Western Europe (the heart of socialism), and our policies don't have the effect of preventing social mobility through over-regulation, creating a permanent underclass the likes of which is now rioting in France.
I hate the "gap" argument. I personally don't care if someone else is twice as rich as me, 50 times richer, or a million times richer. Because I hope to someday be in their shoes, why should I advocate a policy that would take away my opportunity to get there? The left has switched to that argument because they can no longer say that the poor are getting poorer with any accuracy. When I see someone who's really rich in this country, all that tells me is that I can get there, too.
The author states that social mobility is also on the decline. I would argue that this might have something to do with the fact that our middle class has grown dramatically over the last few decades, and people often stay middle class. I personally don't see that as a crisis.
In this country, the poor people are fat. Plumbers can go on Caribbean Cruises. According to US census figures, 46% of people officially bellow the poverty line own their own homes. Some 75% own a car. And how many do you think have color TV's, DVD players, stereos, etc., not to mention clean, potable running water, reliable sewage and sanitation services, and can afford cigarettes (still)? And even better, most of those people are young, and are in a state of transition. Think how many college students are "below the poverty line" - does anyone seriously think that's permanent? The left responds to these stats with eye-rolling hyperbole and non-statistical anecdotes.
In this country, you have two options. You can whine about other people getting stuff, or you can go out and get it yourself. Leftist economic policies, as evidenced in Europe, make it harder to go out and get it yourself, leaving you with the single option of whining about other people. Well, that and burning Peugots.
When I graduated from high school, I lived in a small trailer house in South Dakota. It was a particularly crappy one, and some "activist" trying to "help me out" would probably have considered my poverty "abject." But I was lucky enough to live in a place where such "activists" aren't given a lot of credibility, and where personal responsibility is still expected, and now, quite obviously, I no longer live in the trailer. Thank God I live in this country, where the government isn't "doing" anything about the "wealth gap," so that unlike poor Western Europeans, I had (and continue to have) the opportunity to close that gap all on my own.
If you aren't free to fail, you simply aren't free.
"Bosh, blatherskite, and flapdoodle"
Stuart Taylor of the National Journal addresses the arguments of the Alito critics who say he's outside the mainstream.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
W on the offensive
The President has finally started defending his decision to go to war in Iraq, and more importantly, attempting to correct the record (here and here) on his and others' use of pre-war intelligence. The Democrats current "Bush lied us into war" meme is irresponsible and more than a little dishonest. It is important, for the sake of his administration's credibility, the validity of the war effort, and the continued effectiveness of US foreign policy that the President squelch this attempt on the part of the Democrats to rewrite history:
- The intelligence services of every major country on the planet (France, Germany, the UK, Italy, Israel among others) believed Saddam had WMDs.
- President Clinton and Secretary Albright repeatedly made the case, in 1998, that Saddam had refused to disarm and that he continued to develop his WMD capability. There was no evidence that he had abandoned his attempts or dismantled his capabilities between 1998 and 2oo2.
- The Democrats in the Senate (Jay Rockefeller, John Kerry, John Edwards et al) who are now denouncing the president for having misled us into war, had access to substantially the same intelligence as the President. Their remarks in support of the war resolution were anything but ambiguous.
- The vote authorizing war in 2002 was plainly a vote contemplating, and approving of, military action in Iraq. It was not, as some Democrats now claim, merely a vote to strengthen the President's diplomatic hand by raising the possibility of war.
Monday, November 14, 2005
Lying About Alito
This impassioned little piece of hyperbole from the former NARAL Pro-Choice America president is the latest broadside against the nomination of Samuel Alito. The trouble is that it's a bald faced lie.
Notice how she interchangeably uses the words "notification" and "permission." She never, ever, as she claims, had to get the father's "permission" to get an abortion. If the nurse indeed told her that, then her beef is with that nurse, not the law or Alito. The two are quite different, obviously.
Here's what the "burden" ACTUALLY was:
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1993). Note that she didn't need her husband to sign anything. All she needed to do was call him and then tell the doctor she called him. If she had merely the belief that he would hurt her, she didn't have to do that. I agree with Judge Alito that this doesn't constitute an "undue burden," especially if we think fathers have both duties and rights as parents in this country. If NARAL disagrees that fathers matter, I expect to see them oppose child support laws as well.
NARAL wants you to believe that with Alito on the court, burquas and the repeal of the 19th Amendment are inevitable. The trouble is, they're lying to you. Don't believe it. And if you're part of these organizations, ask yourself why they feel the need to play so fast and loose with the truth in order to sell their agenda to the public.
NOTE: My personal views on abortion are still pretty unformed. I don't like it, but I am persuaded that making it illegal wholesale (a) could be more harmful, and (b) have a lot of religious overtones that make me a little uncomfortable. If I were a legislator, I might very well vote to keep legal a scheme not unlike the Roe v. Wade court's recommendation. But the jurisprudence behind that decision is an embarrassment, and allows constitutional protections to shift out from underneath us based solely on the policy predilections of 5 unelected people. Just a preemptive note for the inevitable "obviously you want women impaled with coat hangers!" commentors.
UPDATE: A commenter correctly pointed out that Ms. Michelson was not talking about the PA statute as it was decided in Casey. Mea culpa - I jumped to exactly the conclusion that she wanted me to, that Alito's decision would have had a direct and negative effect on her. In fact, they had nothing to do with each other. Because she implied that it did, I stand by my belief that this is deliberate dishonesty about Judge Alito perpetrated by those who think (a) judges should decide policy by fiat, and (b) this judge doesn't share their policy views and will act accordingly.
Notice how she interchangeably uses the words "notification" and "permission." She never, ever, as she claims, had to get the father's "permission" to get an abortion. If the nurse indeed told her that, then her beef is with that nurse, not the law or Alito. The two are quite different, obviously.
Here's what the "burden" ACTUALLY was:
Section 3209 of Pennsylvania's abortion law provides, except in cases of medical emergency, that no physician shall perform an abortion on a married woman without receiving a signed statement from the woman that she has notified her spouse that she is about to undergo an abortion.
The woman has the option of providing an alternative signed statement certifying that her husband is not the man who impregnated her; that her husband could not be located; that the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault which she has reported; or that the woman believes that notifying her husband will cause him or someone else to inflict bodily injury upon her.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1993). Note that she didn't need her husband to sign anything. All she needed to do was call him and then tell the doctor she called him. If she had merely the belief that he would hurt her, she didn't have to do that. I agree with Judge Alito that this doesn't constitute an "undue burden," especially if we think fathers have both duties and rights as parents in this country. If NARAL disagrees that fathers matter, I expect to see them oppose child support laws as well.
NARAL wants you to believe that with Alito on the court, burquas and the repeal of the 19th Amendment are inevitable. The trouble is, they're lying to you. Don't believe it. And if you're part of these organizations, ask yourself why they feel the need to play so fast and loose with the truth in order to sell their agenda to the public.
NOTE: My personal views on abortion are still pretty unformed. I don't like it, but I am persuaded that making it illegal wholesale (a) could be more harmful, and (b) have a lot of religious overtones that make me a little uncomfortable. If I were a legislator, I might very well vote to keep legal a scheme not unlike the Roe v. Wade court's recommendation. But the jurisprudence behind that decision is an embarrassment, and allows constitutional protections to shift out from underneath us based solely on the policy predilections of 5 unelected people. Just a preemptive note for the inevitable "obviously you want women impaled with coat hangers!" commentors.
UPDATE: A commenter correctly pointed out that Ms. Michelson was not talking about the PA statute as it was decided in Casey. Mea culpa - I jumped to exactly the conclusion that she wanted me to, that Alito's decision would have had a direct and negative effect on her. In fact, they had nothing to do with each other. Because she implied that it did, I stand by my belief that this is deliberate dishonesty about Judge Alito perpetrated by those who think (a) judges should decide policy by fiat, and (b) this judge doesn't share their policy views and will act accordingly.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Making Orrin-Criticizing Easier
We've changed the settings of the blog to make it easier to post comments - you don't have to set up your own blog any more!
Please keep in mind that this subjects us not only to wild anonymous postings of all kinds, but also leaves us open to spam comments as well. If the moderation duties get to difficult, we may revert back to the old way.
We welcome all comments, especially thoughtful ones which disagree with us. Part of our goal is to refine our own ideas, after all, through rigorous debate. However, personal attacks, obscene language, and other posts we as the Executive Board deem to be inappropriate will be deleted. Thoughtful debate makes us all smarter. Angry, obscene rants make us all more partisan and consign us to our own comfortable echo chambers.
Above all, remember - this is a grown-up forum.
Please keep in mind that this subjects us not only to wild anonymous postings of all kinds, but also leaves us open to spam comments as well. If the moderation duties get to difficult, we may revert back to the old way.
We welcome all comments, especially thoughtful ones which disagree with us. Part of our goal is to refine our own ideas, after all, through rigorous debate. However, personal attacks, obscene language, and other posts we as the Executive Board deem to be inappropriate will be deleted. Thoughtful debate makes us all smarter. Angry, obscene rants make us all more partisan and consign us to our own comfortable echo chambers.
Above all, remember - this is a grown-up forum.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Veterans Day and Local Heros
Here's an inspiring story about a Tumwater man who was the youngest Navy recipient of the Medal of Honor in WWII who recently passed away. I, for one, am proud and humbled to be part of his tradition in a small way.
Don't forget to thank a vet for this day off!
Don't forget to thank a vet for this day off!
Thanks for a Great TGIT!
I just wanted to thank all the members of the FedSoc E-board for setting up and executing a fantastic TGIT, and for everyone who came to drink, debate, and have a good time.
Special nod to Jon Keith, who had the idea to pull out the political quiz. Whatever the deficiencies and over-simplicities of the "labels" the answers created, it provided a great launching pad for lots of great conversations.
Special nod to Jon Keith, who had the idea to pull out the political quiz. Whatever the deficiencies and over-simplicities of the "labels" the answers created, it provided a great launching pad for lots of great conversations.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Freedom Up In Smoke
I'm incredibly disappointed that I-901, the state anti-smoking initiative, passed by such a wide margin. (Unlike California or NYC, you can't even smoke on the sidewalk in front of the bar within 25 feet.) This is another blow to concepts like personal property rights and individual responsibility, and a win for the nanny state. I'm not a smoker. I've never smoked a cigarette in my life. I don't like the way my clothes smell after a night in a dive bar. But then, no one has ever held a gun to my head to make me go to a dive bar.
I don't buy that employees have no choice, either. I would bet any amount of money that if you only let vote bar employees and waiters/waitresses who work at the few restaurants left that allow you to smoke, the ban would fail miserably. This would be especially true if people actually knew the facts - that no study has ever shown any significant causal connection between ill health effects and second hand smoke.
The worst, though, are these latest TV spots - the ones with the scary puppet kids who eat dead, maggot-ridden roadkill and then try to make out with another scary puppet. "Kissing a smoker is just as gross." I've kissed smokers before. And while I've never shoved a dead crow in my cake-hole, I can tell you which I think is more disgusting by a factor of a bajillion.
When you lie to 11-14 year olds about this kind of thing (their target audience) they won't believe ANYTHING adults tell them about drugs, alcohol, or any other thing that really can harm them. And who's paying for it? We are, of course, from the unconscionable billions extorted from the tobacco companies by our current Governor that was supposed to go to offset the harm already caused to our health care system caused by RJ Reynolds' lies. It's ironic (but not surprising) that the people most self righteous about the tobacco companies' lies are so willing to do it themselves - and at our expense.
Smoking is a choice. Anyone who started after about 1950 and still didn't know it was bad for you is so stupid that they probably would have won a Darwin Award anyway. For the rest of 'em, they're exercising their right to control their own bodies and own risks as a free adult should, and any attempt to control that should be met with universal scorn in a free society.
I don't buy that employees have no choice, either. I would bet any amount of money that if you only let vote bar employees and waiters/waitresses who work at the few restaurants left that allow you to smoke, the ban would fail miserably. This would be especially true if people actually knew the facts - that no study has ever shown any significant causal connection between ill health effects and second hand smoke.
The worst, though, are these latest TV spots - the ones with the scary puppet kids who eat dead, maggot-ridden roadkill and then try to make out with another scary puppet. "Kissing a smoker is just as gross." I've kissed smokers before. And while I've never shoved a dead crow in my cake-hole, I can tell you which I think is more disgusting by a factor of a bajillion.
When you lie to 11-14 year olds about this kind of thing (their target audience) they won't believe ANYTHING adults tell them about drugs, alcohol, or any other thing that really can harm them. And who's paying for it? We are, of course, from the unconscionable billions extorted from the tobacco companies by our current Governor that was supposed to go to offset the harm already caused to our health care system caused by RJ Reynolds' lies. It's ironic (but not surprising) that the people most self righteous about the tobacco companies' lies are so willing to do it themselves - and at our expense.
Smoking is a choice. Anyone who started after about 1950 and still didn't know it was bad for you is so stupid that they probably would have won a Darwin Award anyway. For the rest of 'em, they're exercising their right to control their own bodies and own risks as a free adult should, and any attempt to control that should be met with universal scorn in a free society.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Debate Federalists! Drink Beer!
Our TGIT is scheduled for this Thursday, and we pride ourselves on having good beer. Mmmmm... Schlitz... Anyway, please come out and enjoy.
But even better, we'll be hosting our first pub debate of the year. Meet us in the back room of Big Time Brewery at 6 PM or so on Thursday night, after we're done cleaning up the TGIT. We'll buy the first two pitchers, and supply friendly, spirited debate for free all night long. The topic will be "Washington Election 2005 Postmortem - Strippers, Smoking, and the Role of Government."
From there, it may go to karaoke - and you won't want to miss publius rex's haunting rendition of "18 and Life"...
But even better, we'll be hosting our first pub debate of the year. Meet us in the back room of Big Time Brewery at 6 PM or so on Thursday night, after we're done cleaning up the TGIT. We'll buy the first two pitchers, and supply friendly, spirited debate for free all night long. The topic will be "Washington Election 2005 Postmortem - Strippers, Smoking, and the Role of Government."
From there, it may go to karaoke - and you won't want to miss publius rex's haunting rendition of "18 and Life"...
The BLS Alternative
I've talked to a lot of people who feel frustrated and aren't getting what they need from the texts in BLS. I didn't either. If you're one of them, I highly recommend The Legal Writing Handbook by Oates, Enquist, and Kunst. If you're one of the people I've talked to, this is the book I've been talking about. It's the text they use at Seattle U (Prof. Oates is the head of their legal writing program), which has one of the top ranked legal writing programs in the country. This book taught me legal writing. Enjoy.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Please Don't Vote...
...if you aren't informed.
Even better, get informed, and don't forget to vote tomorrow. And if you live in King County, I don't suggest putting those rockin' Ronald Reagan stamps on your mail in ballot...
Even better, get informed, and don't forget to vote tomorrow. And if you live in King County, I don't suggest putting those rockin' Ronald Reagan stamps on your mail in ballot...
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Guns, "the people," & the ACLU's Shifting Legal Philosophy
I recently made a point a friend of mine associated with the ACLU that his organization picks and chooses the "rights" it wishes to protect, and ignores some parts of the Constitution altogether while imagining parts that it wishes were there but weren't. Specifically, I mentioned that they completely ignored the 2nd Amendment.
He responded with the ACLU's 2nd Amendment information page, and quoted their official philosophy on it:
Here's the actual text of the Amendment:
The page goes on to explain that because hand guns and hunting rifles could never be used to challenge the government with tanks and bazookas, the people should have no weapons at all. A strange stance coming from a group that no doubt imagines that a few thousand insurgents in Iraq with IEDs have already beaten the US Army there.
The thing that kills me is that this is one of the few Amendments to the Constitution the ACLU wants to restrict. (Unmentioned abortion is an absolute right that should never be taken away, but specifically mentioned gun ownership isn't? What what what?!?!)
I understand that it could be read in a more limited way. And I don't think that owning full military grade hardware up to and including nuclear weapons is protected, just as certain kinds of speech aren't protected. But the phrase "the people," along with the specifically enumerated authority elsewhere in the Constitution to raise armies and enforce the law, means that it meant (and means) something more than a provision enabling the government to do something it was already empowered to do.
The reason you bother to write out a Constitution is so that there is an unchanging (or at least difficult to change) baseline of inviolable rights that are secured for ourselves and "our Posterity." If the founders envisioned such rights to be subject to a veto by judicial fiat any time 5 justices thought "times had changed," then it would be called the Bill of Suggestions instead.
He responded with the ACLU's 2nd Amendment information page, and quoted their official philosophy on it:
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
Here's the actual text of the Amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)
The page goes on to explain that because hand guns and hunting rifles could never be used to challenge the government with tanks and bazookas, the people should have no weapons at all. A strange stance coming from a group that no doubt imagines that a few thousand insurgents in Iraq with IEDs have already beaten the US Army there.
The thing that kills me is that this is one of the few Amendments to the Constitution the ACLU wants to restrict. (Unmentioned abortion is an absolute right that should never be taken away, but specifically mentioned gun ownership isn't? What what what?!?!)
I understand that it could be read in a more limited way. And I don't think that owning full military grade hardware up to and including nuclear weapons is protected, just as certain kinds of speech aren't protected. But the phrase "the people," along with the specifically enumerated authority elsewhere in the Constitution to raise armies and enforce the law, means that it meant (and means) something more than a provision enabling the government to do something it was already empowered to do.
The reason you bother to write out a Constitution is so that there is an unchanging (or at least difficult to change) baseline of inviolable rights that are secured for ourselves and "our Posterity." If the founders envisioned such rights to be subject to a veto by judicial fiat any time 5 justices thought "times had changed," then it would be called the Bill of Suggestions instead.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Temper Tantrum in the Senate
Sigh. This is just ridiculous in every way. Note that this happened a day after Senator Reid was informed that the Intelligence Committee was a week away from wrapping up their lengthy investigation of the very issues Reid claims were being ignored. To me, that speaks pretty loudly that Reid knew there wasn't going to be anything incriminating in the report, but wanted there to be. So he pulled this stunt instead to blow smoke, hoping people would (a) think a report had never been in the works, and (b) confuse his manufactured smoke for actual fire.
If Harry Reid actually knew something, he would reveal it. If any of the Democrats on the Intelligence Committe had dirt on lies, coverups, Hitler's brain in a jar, etc. and yawn, they'd spill it. And I for one would be glad that they did. But they don't, 'cause there ain't, and so the hysteria continues.
Does a kid throwing a temper tantrum in public focus one's attention on the kid, and away from whatever else is going on? You bet. But it doesn't exactly endear anyone to the kid throwing the tantrum.
The Republicans have done a lot of stupid, non-conservative things in the last few years. They'll continue to do it so long as the opposition party insists on being even stupider, and represents no threat. One party systems - no matter what the party - are never friendly to limited government. Frustrating.
If Harry Reid actually knew something, he would reveal it. If any of the Democrats on the Intelligence Committe had dirt on lies, coverups, Hitler's brain in a jar, etc. and yawn, they'd spill it. And I for one would be glad that they did. But they don't, 'cause there ain't, and so the hysteria continues.
Does a kid throwing a temper tantrum in public focus one's attention on the kid, and away from whatever else is going on? You bet. But it doesn't exactly endear anyone to the kid throwing the tantrum.
The Republicans have done a lot of stupid, non-conservative things in the last few years. They'll continue to do it so long as the opposition party insists on being even stupider, and represents no threat. One party systems - no matter what the party - are never friendly to limited government. Frustrating.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Casey Dissent
Alito's dissent in Casey has already been the target of much shameless demagoguery (is there any other kind :-)), and I'm sure Teddy's speechwriters are pulling an all-nighter in an attempt to replicate his (in)famous "In Robert Bork's America" speech. NRO's Bench Memos has a great post that sheds light on the dissent, the statute and the rule Alito was applying -- well worth reading.
Strippers, Choice, and Freedom
These guys have been hanging out around campus lately to get people to sign their petition to overturn the City Council's ban on lap dances. The mayor signed the new rules into effect last week that require a 4 foot spacing between the dancers and customers, waist high railings around the stages, and lights that would be more at home in a Wal-Mart than in a seedy night spot.
Anyone who's ever had to plan a bachelor party in Seattle should be outraged. And frankly, anyone who believes in freedom, women's rights, or property rights should be too.
It's interesting that a council that no doubt would react with abject horror and a lecture about "respecting the rights of women" to a proposed ban on abortion don't see the hypocrisy in a de facto ban on women choosing to dance in a strip club. Why is one more worthy of protection than the other? If pro-choice activists see abortion regulation as an effort by the Religious Right to criminalize the sexuality of women, then where are those same activists now? Either women are adults who can and should be trusted to make their own choices, or they're not. One thing is for sure - if the Mayor was an avowed Christian who stated publicly that he thought stripping was an abomination to God, you can bet that we'd see major protests and all kinds of references to the council as no better than an American Taliban.
I'm not saying that strip clubs can't or shouldn't be regulated, even if those regulations are abjectly stupid. But it's worth noting that these particular rules will almost without question force the clubs to close (there are other options not too far out of town) and put dozens of people out of their jobs, and that it's done for no other reason except either (a) prudishness or (b) a blind adherence to some particular sect of feminism that says women should be free to choose and follow their own path - unless the feminists don't approve of the path, of course.
If the petitioners are unsuccessful and the gentlemen's clubs are forced out of business by the rules, I hope the owners sue the city for compensation for the taking of their livlihoods. It's a shame that our local government is so disinterested in personal property rights.
Anyone who's ever had to plan a bachelor party in Seattle should be outraged. And frankly, anyone who believes in freedom, women's rights, or property rights should be too.
It's interesting that a council that no doubt would react with abject horror and a lecture about "respecting the rights of women" to a proposed ban on abortion don't see the hypocrisy in a de facto ban on women choosing to dance in a strip club. Why is one more worthy of protection than the other? If pro-choice activists see abortion regulation as an effort by the Religious Right to criminalize the sexuality of women, then where are those same activists now? Either women are adults who can and should be trusted to make their own choices, or they're not. One thing is for sure - if the Mayor was an avowed Christian who stated publicly that he thought stripping was an abomination to God, you can bet that we'd see major protests and all kinds of references to the council as no better than an American Taliban.
I'm not saying that strip clubs can't or shouldn't be regulated, even if those regulations are abjectly stupid. But it's worth noting that these particular rules will almost without question force the clubs to close (there are other options not too far out of town) and put dozens of people out of their jobs, and that it's done for no other reason except either (a) prudishness or (b) a blind adherence to some particular sect of feminism that says women should be free to choose and follow their own path - unless the feminists don't approve of the path, of course.
If the petitioners are unsuccessful and the gentlemen's clubs are forced out of business by the rules, I hope the owners sue the city for compensation for the taking of their livlihoods. It's a shame that our local government is so disinterested in personal property rights.
Which Average Americans?
I guess home owners under threat of having their home taken by the government and re-sold to the highest bidder don't count as "average Americans."
That's the problem with "living Constitutions". It's a shame that Senator Shumer doesn't recognize that the only thing that protects "the little guy" (or anyone, for that matter) in a world of "living Constitution" liberal jurisprudence is the beneficence of at least 5 people who can't be voted out of office.
That's the problem with "living Constitutions". It's a shame that Senator Shumer doesn't recognize that the only thing that protects "the little guy" (or anyone, for that matter) in a world of "living Constitution" liberal jurisprudence is the beneficence of at least 5 people who can't be voted out of office.
Ah... That's Better
Today, of course, Bush announced the nomination of Samuel Alito, Jr. From what I know so far, I'm a fan. Most notably, he was the lone dissenter when Planned Parenthood v. Casey (947 F.2d 682 (3rd Circuit, 1991) was before the Third Circuit, and authored the opinion (later reversed by SCOTUS) that upheld Pennsylvania's spousal notification act. For me personally, it's not the policy implications of abortion that make me root for such an opinion writer, but the jurisprudential approach behind them. The Casey opinion is particularly instructive, as he concurs in part and dissents in part, and you get a very good feel for the methodical way he breaks down a statute and applies the rule of law.
Even better than that was his opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, where he said that a school doesn't have the right to punish vulgar language from students when it doesn't disrupt the school day. He also authored the opinion in ACLU v. Schundler, allowing a city holiday display to remain standing that included a Christmans tree and a menorah. I like the broad 1st Amendment take, with the additional bonus that, unlike the ACLU, he doesn't forget that the Free Exercise Clause is part of it, too.
Best of all, I've known about this guy for about 2 hours, and I've already been able to get a pretty good read on his approach. Contrast that to Harriet Miers, where people were trying to dissect city council speeches, and divine her philosophy from a few paragraphs in a questionnaire. I'm sure I'll refine my opinion as we learn more, but first impressions tell me that it's a good day in the Land of Judicial Restraint.
One side note - I'm curious if he's a Federalist Society member. I hope he is. At the very least, I hope he doesn't run away from FedSoc like Miers and even Chief Justice Roberts did. I hate feeling like those of us who are trying to keep the debate on limited government and judicial restraint alive should keep our heads down and shut our cake holes if we ever hope to be a judge. The Federalist Society is the only legal group I know of anywhere that's even trying to have the discussion, and everyone loses when that discussion is discouraged.
Even better than that was his opinion in Saxe v. State College Area School District, where he said that a school doesn't have the right to punish vulgar language from students when it doesn't disrupt the school day. He also authored the opinion in ACLU v. Schundler, allowing a city holiday display to remain standing that included a Christmans tree and a menorah. I like the broad 1st Amendment take, with the additional bonus that, unlike the ACLU, he doesn't forget that the Free Exercise Clause is part of it, too.
Best of all, I've known about this guy for about 2 hours, and I've already been able to get a pretty good read on his approach. Contrast that to Harriet Miers, where people were trying to dissect city council speeches, and divine her philosophy from a few paragraphs in a questionnaire. I'm sure I'll refine my opinion as we learn more, but first impressions tell me that it's a good day in the Land of Judicial Restraint.
One side note - I'm curious if he's a Federalist Society member. I hope he is. At the very least, I hope he doesn't run away from FedSoc like Miers and even Chief Justice Roberts did. I hate feeling like those of us who are trying to keep the debate on limited government and judicial restraint alive should keep our heads down and shut our cake holes if we ever hope to be a judge. The Federalist Society is the only legal group I know of anywhere that's even trying to have the discussion, and everyone loses when that discussion is discouraged.
Friday, October 28, 2005
What is the Federalist Society?
There have been some bizarre and amusing descriptions of the Federalist Society in the national press (PDF), especially lately with the recent Supreme Court nominations. The stories describe us as anywhere between the legal Samuris of the Bush Administration to a Skull & Bones-esque secret society that colludes with the Freemasons, Knights Templar, Stonecutters, Evil Corporations, and probably Elvis in his secret hideout with the aliens at Area 51. The Society and its members have been called dangerous, out-of-the-mainstream, and have been accused of trying to "bring down America from the inside." (For more links to various articles in the press, see the main Federalist Society webpage.) The truth (PDF) is far simpler.
This is the official mission statement of the Federalist Society:
This is the official mission statement of the Federalist Society:
"The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities."Here at UW, those "activities" involve sponsoring formal debates, encouraging student discussion, and working with other chapters and the Puget Sound Lawyers' Chapter to make it clear that the principles we stand behind are taken seriously, and that the consequences of non-principled jurispurudence are laid bare. (Just ask Connecticut homeowners.) This blog is the latest effort in our work to foster healthy debate within our local legal community.
Welcome to the UW Chapter Federalist Society Blog!
I am Orrin Johnson, President of the University of Washington Federalist Society Chapter. I'd like to personally welcome you to our chapter's official blog!
The Federalist Society was formed in 1982 because conservative and libertarian law students were increasingly disappointed that only one point of view was ever coming across in their law school classes, and that this view was a universally liberal one. Recognizing that scholarship unquestioned becomes dogma instead of knowledge, and striving to create a dialogue instead of the monologue they were experiencing, they created the Society to provide law students access to different points of view.
It is in that spirit that this blog has been created. We look forward to thoughtful comments, criticisms, and above all, real dialogue. We aren't hear to try to shout anyone down. We believe that our ideas - given a fair hearing - will speak for themselves. We look forward to educating the UW Law School community about what the Federalist Society is (and isn't). And we look forward to exercising our minds by challenging all assumptions (not the least of which are our own), and making us all better lawyers in the process.
Please note that all opinions expressed on this blog are purely those of the individual authors. The Federalist Society itself does not take policy positions, endorse political candidates, or involve itself in litigation to pursue policy agendas. The goal is to simply provide a free and fair forum for us as individuals to make our own determinations.
The Federalist Society was formed in 1982 because conservative and libertarian law students were increasingly disappointed that only one point of view was ever coming across in their law school classes, and that this view was a universally liberal one. Recognizing that scholarship unquestioned becomes dogma instead of knowledge, and striving to create a dialogue instead of the monologue they were experiencing, they created the Society to provide law students access to different points of view.
It is in that spirit that this blog has been created. We look forward to thoughtful comments, criticisms, and above all, real dialogue. We aren't hear to try to shout anyone down. We believe that our ideas - given a fair hearing - will speak for themselves. We look forward to educating the UW Law School community about what the Federalist Society is (and isn't). And we look forward to exercising our minds by challenging all assumptions (not the least of which are our own), and making us all better lawyers in the process.
Please note that all opinions expressed on this blog are purely those of the individual authors. The Federalist Society itself does not take policy positions, endorse political candidates, or involve itself in litigation to pursue policy agendas. The goal is to simply provide a free and fair forum for us as individuals to make our own determinations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
