Libertarian Leanings

Supremes Overturn Sotomayor

Ruling in favor of white New Haven firefighters, the Supreme Court reversed a decision by Obama Supreme Court Nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor in Ricci v. DeStefano.  The firefighters were denied promotions when the city of New Haven threw out the results of a promotion test because no African Americans and only two Hispanics passed it.  The city of New Haven claimed it feared a lawsuit from minorities.

'The white firefighters filed suit, saying their rights had been violated under both the law and the Constitution's protections of due process.

District Judge Janet Bond Arterton dismissed their suit before it went to trial. She said in her 47-page decision that the city was justified under the law in junking the test, even if it could not explain its flaws.

The case then went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, where Sotomayor and judges Robert Sack and Rosemary S. Pooler heard the appeal. Oral arguments lasted an hour, with Sotomayor leading the questioning, as is her reputation. But instead of issuing a detailed and signed opinion, the panel said in a brief summary that, although it was "not unsympathetic" to the plight of the white firefighters, it unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision for "reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion."

Kennedy's opinion referred to the judgment of Sotomayor and the other judges only by noting the short opinion.

Kennedy said the standard for whether an employer may discard a test is whether there is a strong reason to the employer to believe that the test is flawed in a way that discriminates against minorities, not just by looking at the results.

In New Haven's case, "there is no evidence -- let alone the required strong basis in evidence -- that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the city," Kennedy wrote.

The case has drawn considerable attention not just because of Sotomayor's role but because of the sympathetic nature of the claim brought by the firefighters, who said they were discriminated against simply because of the color of their skin.

The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, is a veteran firefighter who said in sworn statements that he spent thousands of dollars in preparation and studied for months for the exam. Ricci said he is dyslexic, so he had tapes made of the test materials and listened to them on his commute to work.'

And now for the bad news.  

'On the last day on the bench for retiring Justice David H. Souter, the court failed to reach a decision on one of its most important cases of the term: whether a conservative group's production of a 90-minute film on Hillary Rodham Clinton amounted to a documentary, or merely a long commercial of the type restricted by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act.

Instead, the court took the unusual action of scheduling new arguments on the case for Sept. 9, before the court's new term begins next October. The court wants new briefings on issues that could lead to the justices declaring unconstitutional that part of the act, formally called the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002.

The court's decision probably will lead Democrats to push efforts to have a vote on Sotomayor's confirmation so she can be in place before the September hearing, although it is unclear whether her replacement of Souter would affect the outcome of the case.'

So we'll have to wait until September to find out if the court will strike down the constitutional right liberals would like to have for limiting conservative speech.

Leftist Removed -- Obama Deeply Concerned

US President Barack Obama said he was deeply concerned after the Honduran military swooped in on elected President Manuel Zelaya's home and sent him off to Costa Rica and exile.  Hours later the Honduran Congress voted in an interim leader, Roberto Micheletti, who imposed a 48 hour curfew.  Obama was joined by his Venezuelan buddy Hugo Chavez in condemning the takeover.

'Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, also in the Nicaraguan capital, vowed to do "everything that is necessary in political, diplomatic, social and moral aspects to restore the government of Manuel Zelaya".

In Honduras however, Micheletti brushed off worldwide condemnation of the takeover.

He "had came to the presidency not by a coup d'etat but by a completely legal process as set out in our laws," he said. The curfew would end on Tuesday, he added.

[...]

Zelaya's overthrow was triggered by a standoff between the president and the military and legal institutions over his bid to secure a second term.

Congress said it had voted unanimously to remove the president from office for "apparent misconduct" and "repeated violations of the constitution and the law and disregard of orders and judgments of the institutions".

Micheletti was appointed to serve out the rest of the term, which ends in January. New general elections are planned for November 29.

Zelaya, elected to a non-renewable four-year term in 2005, had planned a vote Sunday asking Hondurans to sanction a referendum to allow him to stand again in the November polls.

The referendum had been ruled illegal by Honduras's top court and was opposed by the military, but Zelaya vowed to go ahead.  The Supreme Court said Sunday that it had ordered the president's ouster to protect law and order in the nation of some seven million people.'

Zelaya fired military chief, General Romeo Vasquez after military commanders refused to distribute ballot boxes for the referendum.  The Honduran Supreme Court turned around and voted unanimously to reinstate Vasquez.

Meanwhile Washington is working with other members of the Organization of American States on a consensus resolution to condemn the coup, but at the same time a senior U.S. State Department official warned that Honduras should not be "interfered with bilaterally by any country in the Americas".

Update:  The Wall Street Journal has more.  It seems Hillary Clinton is siding with the lefty.

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

It remains to be seen what Mr. Zelaya's next move will be. It's not surprising that chavistas throughout the region are claiming that he was victim of a military coup. They want to hide the fact that the military was acting on a court order to defend the rule of law and the constitution, and that the Congress asserted itself for that purpose, too.

Mrs. Clinton has piled on as well. Yesterday she accused Honduras of violating "the precepts of the Interamerican Democratic Charter" and said it "should be condemned by all." Fidel Castro did just that. Mr. Chávez pledged to overthrow the new government.

So, will the Obama administration will stand by its rhetorical campaign pledges about adhering to the rule of law?   It would appear the Honduran Supreme Court, Congress, Attorney General, and military all acted within Honduran law,  Unfortunately, the U.S. State Department doesn't care for the outcome.  If Hillary's actions are any indication, and they should be, the Obama administration would prefer the rise of a leftist dictator in Honduras.  What a sad state of affairs, should Obama decide that the hypothetical outcome of an illegal election that hasn't happened reflects "will of the Honduran people," and actively works to restore the aspiring dictator to power.

Weather Now Subject to Congressional Oversight

Jim Lindgren put it well.

'As you undoubtedly know by now, Congress voted on Friday to change the weather — or more accurately, the climate. The idea that a government of one country could appreciably change the world's climate over the next 40 years is the ultimate hubris.'

Less hubris than scam. it's a huge power grab intended to further entrench the political class.  Businesses and individuals to come hat in hand before the governing powers seeking permission to breath.  Lest we exceed our CO2 allotment.

The Strength of the Climate Change Argument

Australian Senator, Steve Fielding, decided to vote against his country's climate-change legislation. It seems a growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens have their doubts on the science of human-caused global warming. Fortunately, the number of skeptics in The U.S. is growing as well, and they include Joanne Simpson.

'The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief.'

Please note my emphasis in the excerpt above.  Once again we get a glimpse of the global warmists' argument.  Get with the program, or else.  I don't know what might have happened had she spoken out before her retirement, but whatever it was, Ms. Simpson didn't want to risk it.  Clearly, the science of global warming is the science of coersion.  The global warmists are thugs, and a vote in favor of any legislation to fight global warming is an invitation to more thuggery.

There are scientific arguments against human-caused global warming.

Michael Jackson

The immensely talented Michael Jackson has passed away at the early age of 50.  It was Diana Ross who first introduced Michael Jackson to the world as lead singer for the Jackson 5, and it was Ms. Ross who reintroduced him when he began his career as a solo star.  As I watched him on TV at that time I thought, what a great shortstop he'd be if ever decided to play baseball.  He was so incredibly graceful.   As it turned out, he did OK careerwise without having to take up the game. In fact I'd be greatly surprised if it ever comes out that he did get some chances play ball.  His entire life was spent as a celebrity superstar, carefully shielded from public view except for those times when he performed.  It's difficult to imagine what kind of childhood he was able to have, if any at all. Because of it, I never believed the accusations against him. I will always imagine Michael trying to enjoy the innocence of a childhood he never had.

Friends in Congress

As is pretty well known, Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad received very favorable mortgage terms from Countrywide Financial because of their "friendship" with former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo. Republican Congressman Darrell Issa of California wants to know what other "Friends of Angelo" might be sitting in Congress.

'A March report by Congressman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) highlighted internal Countrywide emails in which executives debated whether the mayor of Billings, Montana, was influential enough to warrant a waiving of his mortgage insurance premium. The company ultimately decided that he was. We can only imagine what Countrywide's internal emails might say about the benefits of "friendship" with Mr. Dodd, who chairs the Banking Committee of the U.S. Senate, or about others who benefited from the program.

Mr. Issa doesn't want to imagine; he wants to discover the facts. He's asked Rep. Edolphus Towns (D., N.Y.), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to subpoena records of the "Friends of Angelo" loan program from Bank of America, which bought the failed subprime lender last year. So far, Mr. Towns is noncommittal, and perhaps he is hoping that the issue will fade into the background during the long August recess.'

This was supposed to be the most ethical Congress in history, if we take Democratic Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi at her word.  Unfortunately, she has never shown any appetite for investigating corruption among Democrats, and since she has the final say in the matter subpoenas, we can expect she will do what she can to make this issue fade away.

Behind The Curve

Edward N. Luttwak, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says the writing is on the wall for Iran's hardline Islamic regime.

'At this point, only the short-term future of Iran's clerical regime remains in doubt. The current protests could be repressed, but the unelected institutions of priestly rule have been fatally undermined. Though each aspect of the Islamic Republic has its own dynamic, this is not a regime that can last many more years.'

Although somewhat late to the party, Obama has finally come around to putting his oratorical support behind the Iranian people instead of continuing his disgraceful suck up to the Ayatollahs in the futile hope that he will persuade them to swear off nuclear weapons.

'WASHINGTON – Dramatically hardening the U.S. reaction to Iran's disputed elections and bloody aftermath, President Barack Obama condemned the violence against protesters Tuesday and lent his strongest support yet to their accusations the hardline victory was a fraud.

Obama, who has been accused by some Republicans of being too timid in his response to events in Iran, declared himself "appalled and outraged" by the deaths and intimidation in Tehran's streets — and scoffed at suggestions he was toughening his rhetoric in response to the criticism.

He suggested Iran's leaders will face consequences if they continue "the threats, the beatings and imprisonments" against protesters. But he repeatedly declined to say what actions the U.S. might take, retaining — for now — the option of pursuing diplomatic engagement with Iran's leaders over its suspected nuclear weapons program.'

Obama is clearly not in the driver's seat.  Sure, he talks tough about consequences, but it's nearly impossible to imagine what consequences he would be willing to impose upon Iran's Islamic regime, so doggedly he pursues engagement with the hardliners.  But Neda Agha-Soltan's death on the street in Tehran has forced Obama to change his message.

'On Tuesday, President Obama called the images of Miss Agha-Soltan's death "heartbreaking."

"We have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history," he said at a press conference.'

As Mr. Luttwak's Wall Street Journal column points out, the Iranian people are driving events in Tehran.  Obama tries to figure out where.

'What's clear is that after years of humiliating social repression and gross economic mismanagement, the more educated and the more productive citizens of Iran have mostly turned their backs on the regime. Even if personally religious, they now reject the entire post-1979 structure of politicized Shiite Islam with its powerful ayatollahs, officious priests, strutting Revolutionary Guards and low-life Basij militiamen. Many Iranians once inclined to respect clerics now view them as generally corrupt -- including the Ahmadinejad supporters who applauded his attacks on Mr. Rafsanjani.

[...]

Therefore, even if he remains in office, Ahmadinejad cannot really function as president. For one thing, the parliament is unlikely to confirm his ministerial appointments, and he cannot govern without them. If Khamenei is not removed by the Assembly of Experts and Ahmadinejad is not removed by Khamenei, the government will continue to be paralyzed.'

A paralyzed Iranian government would leave Obama with no one to talk to.  Once again Obama is behind the curve.  At the start of the Iranian protests he moved cautiously, working to stay positioned for the big breakthrough negotiation, the foreign policy coup.  Events are getting in the way, though. 

It's not as if he has no idea about where he wants to take the country.  He's just wrong almost all of the time.  So he constantly backtracks, "refining" his positions until he is polar opposite of what he originally promised.  It comes as no surprise that his stimulus hasn't stimulated a damned thing except the lobbyists, so that now he's forced to concede that unemployment will go above 10%.  Close Guantanamo, "end" the war in Iraq, shut down those military tribunals.  The list goes on.

And so it goes with Iran.  Now that he's sure which way the parade is headed, he's belatedly running around to the front.  Meanwhile his adoring media gush about how well he's leading it.

Bad Ideas

Andrew Klavan's column in today's Wall Street Journal might be putting the cart before the horse.  It's a great column except for one thing.  One might get the impression from it that leftists' inevitable inclination to promote really bad ideas is some sort of misguided intellectual exercise that is ultimately aimed at finding a truth. 

'The tragedy of bad ideas unfolds from a moral flaw in a worldview or philosophy as inevitably as classical tragedy unfolds from a flaw in individual character. Tragedies of bad ideas are the most common, pervasive and destructive man-made mass disasters. Yet our thinking class has become powerless to oppose them or even recognize them for what they are.

The reason is that too many of our intellectuals are themselves ensnared in a bad idea. That idea is multiculturalism -- the notion that no system or government is inherently better than any other, that the rules of morality are just a doctrine written by history's winners. Thus there are no enduring human truths, only "narratives" by which almost any beastliness can be explained away if committed by a people with a claim to having been victimized by a dominant culture.'

Lefties are interested in power.  Individual liberty is at odds with power.  The individual is empowered at the expense of leftist governing classes.  On the other hand, the individual is lost in the multicultural tug of war.  There is no such thing as an individual in lefty parlance.  With lefties it's all about group rights, and when the individual can be crushed on behalf of a favored group, power has been achieved.

Lefties always have rotten ideas because those ideas have only one purpose -- to disenfranchise the individual.  As Iranian citizens are murdered in the streets of Tehran, where are the lefties?  Why they're busy praising Obama's restraint, until they can't anymore.  Here is E.J. Dionne trying to figure out how to keep gushing over Obama's contortions.

'In fact, Obama was right to exercise caution, both because the United States should not imply false promises to the regime's opponents that we won't be able to keep and because our embrace could, indeed, hurt them. And, paradoxically, European political leaders have been outspoken in criticizing the Iranian government's abuses precisely because Obama's restraint gave them room to act independently.

But if Obama, as the leader of the U.S. government, has to exercise great care in calculating his moves, rank-and-file progressives and liberals outside the government should be unwavering and unabashed in championing the Iranian push for freedom. Writing last week in the New Republic about how to deal with Iran's repressive ruling class, political philosopher Michael Walzer nicely summarized the proper division of labor: "For liberals and leftists -- opposition and nothing else; for state diplomats -- handshakes and negotiation."'

As always, the liberal media is there to offer cover.  Obama will be free to extent the open hand of diplomacy because liberal and leftist sycophants pretend outrage on his behalf at the crushing of dissent in Tehran. 

'Obama's initial caution served the interests of freedom by making clear that the revolt against Iran's flawed election is homegrown. As the struggle continues, we cannot pretend that we are indifferent to its outcome.

It's not easy to walk the progressive path. But Obama has always said that he knows how to deal with complexity. This is his chance to prove it.'

Yes, there are complexities to walking the progressive walk.  How does one maintain an aura of infallibility when events force so many reversals in position?  Actually, Obama's been working on that very thing for the last two years.  It comes natural to him.

Obama Goes Negative

For the first time in his presidency, Barack Obama's Rasmussen approval index has dipped into negative territory.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 32% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2. That’s the President’s lowest rating to date and the first time the Presidential Approval Index has fallen below zero for Obama (see trends).

The Health Care Horse

So the White House says it's ruled out the single payer plan for health care reform.  Oh really?  If you think so, please take the time to watch this video. 

Dr. Gratzer, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute who also happens to be a physician, recently described some single payer realities for the Wall Street Journal.

Not long ago, I would have applauded this type of government expansion. Born and raised in Canada, I once believed that government health care is compassionate and equitable. It is neither.

My views changed in medical school. Yes, everyone in Canada is covered by a "single payer" -- the government. But Canadians wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation in the public system.

The problems were brought home when a relative had difficulty walking. He was in chronic pain. His doctor suggested a referral to a neurologist; an MRI would need to be done, then possibly a referral to another specialist. The wait would have stretched to roughly a year. If surgery was needed, the wait would be months more. Not wanting to stay confined to his house, he had the surgery done in the U.S., at the Mayo Clinic, and paid for it himself.

Such stories are common. For example, Sylvia de Vries, an Ontario woman, had a 40-pound fluid-filled tumor removed from her abdomen by an American surgeon in 2006. Her Michigan doctor estimated that she was within weeks of dying, but she was still on a wait list for a Canadian specialist.

Interestingly enough, Dr. Gratzer points out in his column that liberal Democrats are driving the U.S. toward a single payer plan at the same time that Canada is inching away from theirs. 

So let's be realistic.  Progressives, as leftists like to call themselves, know all this about the single payer systems.  They just won't admit it.  Why is that?  One of the single payer shining stars in the video above is Yale Political Science Professor Jacob Hacker.  He is very candid about the underlying rationale for promoting a public option for health insurance.  It inevitably leads to a single payer system.

'Someone once said to me that this is a Trojan Horse for a single payer.  Well, it's not a Trojan Horse, right?  It's just right there.'

[...]

'One of the virtues of it is that you can at least make the claim that there's a competitive system between the public and private sectors.'

Another who makes her appearance in the video is Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat from Illinois.  A strong proponent of the single payer model, she is even more open about there being another agenda.  To the cheers of her single payer audience she says,

'This is not a principled fight.  This is a fight about strategy for getting there, and I believe we will.'

Ah, but where is "there?"  Just as the public option can be seen as a Trojan Horse for getting to a single payer plan, health care reform itself is a strategy. Barack Obama is pragmatic about getting and keeping power.  The goal is an enduring progressive majority in congress, and the progressive strategy for achieving it has always been to encourage more people to rely on government.  When people depend upon government they will vote for those who favor more of it.  Health care reform is vote buying on a massive scale.  And the beauty of it is that Democratic votes are bought with federal tax dollars.

Think about it for a moment.  When health care reform finally passes and we all depend on Uncle Sam to cure our ills, what will be the more beneficial to progressive politicians?  A health care system that works?  Or one that requires constant attention from our progressive champions in Washington?

Via Joust the Facts.