Submitted to a Candid World

Updates

• To those of you who enjoy reading this site, first, thank you. And second, my apologies for the longer-than-expected hiatus. I just took a new job with a, well, anonymous district attorney's office, and some attendant tasks had to be completed that took up large swaths of my time. But that's happily now at an end! I hope you'll keep reading in the future, despite this temporary interruption in posting.
• The conservative legal community loves Richard Epstein and John Yoo, Epstein because he's the rare bird, the true academic with well-reasoned conservative beliefs, and Yoo because he'll justify any damn thing they ask him to. But it's a sign of the true weakness of the case against Obama's recess appointments that (per Volokh) neither can frame a good argument on the subject. Epstein, for his part, argues that recess appointments may only be made for those vacancies that arise during the recess -- a theory the 11th Circuit, no bastion of liberalism, has already rejected (see the update to our last post). And Yoo jumps right to the slippery slope argument -- and a particularly absurd one at that. Because the recess appointment power relies on a discrete textual basis, there is literally no danger of an expansion of this power threatening any other institution (like the Supreme Court). Aside from being amoral, Yoo's just not a good lawyer. Why in God's name does he still have a job?!?
• It's hard to say what to take from last night's Iowa caucus, except that because Senator Santorum's little surge translated into real votes, we can conclude that each of the little boomlets that defined the fall campaign were real, and not creations of the media or polling companies. The Republican electorate is actually as undecided as they have seemed, and if they're willing to cast a ballot for the unelectable, disgraceful Santorum over clean-cut Romney, they're in no hurry to unite behind their "inevitable" candidate. In fact, I'm willing to see Romney's eight-vote victory as a loss -- as is he, considering he cut the line "Thank you, Iowa!" from his "victory" speech -- and a potential gain for his ultimate Democratic opponent.
• Please follow our friend and erstwhile political opponent, Mike, at his new home. We'll link to his introductory post, his first substantive post, and his new home, League of Ordinary Gentlemen. Though we're sparred on issues of policy -- and I think he probably wishes me dead for my wholehearted embrace of one kind of absurd, showy populism (Occupy Wall Street) but not the other (the Tea Party) -- he's an excellent individual whose opinions I've always respected. Wish him well in the new year, and be sure to follow. Ah, and apologies for my extended hiatus from writing. That ends.... now!
• Don't miss Rolling Stone's long-form piece chronicling the sad saga of the Republican Party's deliberate descent into economic malpractice. We need a reckoning.
• Last night, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York held an event to discuss "Reforming Albany: the Road Ahead," a task that necessarily begins with fair redistricting. Two lines worth remembering, from an excellent all-around event. Mayor Ed Koch: "fair redistricting is an 'existential threat' to the Republican [senate] majority." Senator John Sampson: "voters pick their representatives -- not the other way around."
• The RedState founder urges you to "never forget" by boycotting Japanese restaurants, one day only. Thanks, but I'll make point of going to my favorite sushi place tonight, because I support American small businesses regardless of the owner's ethnicity, and our international allies regardless of their past mistakes. This Pearl Harbor Day, remember by not forgetting that the values we fought for in World War II include, as critical elements, respect and pluralism. And CNN -- when are you going to fire this guy? [Update: Fox joins in the idiocy.]
• Republican also-ran Michele Bachmann finally decided to pick on someone her own size, and started a serious policy debate with high schoolers over gay marriage. Discussing her outright opposition to the practice, Bachmann calmly explained that there's no inequality issue in denying gay couples this basic human right, because gay and straight Americans are both entitled to marry someone of the opposite sex! See? Equality! We're sure she doesn't know it, but this is precisely the argument that was used to support the old ban on miscegenation -- mixed-race marrying -- before the Supreme Court. Blacks, the argument went, weren't being discriminated against, because under the law, neither black nor white could marry outside of their own race. Because the law was perfectly symmetrical in its subordination, there was no equal protection violation. Right? Wrong. The Supreme Court is smarter than that. Their words: "Judicial inquiry under the Equal Protection Clause, therefore, does not end with a showing of equal application among the members of the class defined by the legislation." McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 191 (1964) (cited approvingly in Loving). If Bachmann were anything like the constitutional scholar she claims to me, maybe she'd know this basic point of law, and not fall into the trap of endorsing the legal tools of institutional racism.
• Problem: Republican message-maker Frank Luntz realized that no-one likes Republican ideas (turns out)! Solution: get new ideas? No! Cover your bad ideas with enough misleading language, that no-one actually knows what you stand for! Well I don't know about you, but when I saw this, I was livid. We expect a certain amount of "spin" in politics, but how dare Republicans use language to trick voters into supporting positions they actually hate. Spin should convince, not manipulate, but here we are. Well, then I remembered this interview. If Frank Luntz is going to spend his life deceiving the American people, we can at least comfort ourselves that he's endured torture-by-Stephen-Colbert.
• Ted Kennedy had it, but held his fire, preferring to take the high road. See for yourself, and judge whether we (or Newt Gingrich, for that matter) should do the same. Here's a YouTube link, if you don't want to give Politico the clicks.
• Don't miss Republican congressman Don Young (R-AK) abusing Rice University professor Dr. Doug Brinkley, by calling him "garbage" and, apparently, forgetting his name (article/YouTube). Credit to Dr. Brinkley for standing up for himself, and successfully weaponizing the tea party "we pay your salary" mantra against the anti-intellectual, disrespectful, and profoundly uninformed Young.
• When the Founders set out to create the federal court system, James Madison and his colleagues ultimately settled on a system designed to insulate judges from the political arena, so that they could not be coerced into compliance with a political agenda by threats of arbitrary termination, or of financial manipulation. As such, Article III of the Constitution currently states that federal judges  "shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." U.S. Const., Art. III, § 1. Both guarantees are absolutely vital to the independence of the federal bench, as all five conservative justices of the Supreme Court recently explained, per Chief Justice Roberts. See Stern v. Marshall, slip op. at 17-18 (pdf). But no longer, in Rick Perry's America. Perry today called for term-limits for all federal judges, pledging to (functionally) abrogate an element of the Constitution that dates to the Declaration of Independence (see ¶ 11, "He has made Judges..."). So much for Tea Partier "respect" for the Constitution.
• Surprisingly, at tonight's debate, Ron Paul drew raucous applause for condemning waterboarding -- and all torture techniques -- as un-American, illegal, and immoral. And Romney caught "boos" for endorsing the targeted assassination of American citizens. Is it possible that the Democratic narrative of the war on terror has finally prevailed?
• Mississippi voted down a constitutional amendment to declare that fetuses are persons as of the moment of conception. Good! Remember, these sorts of things are just all kinds of unconstitutional. Congratulations then to Mississippi's taxpayers, for avoiding the inevitable, expensive, necessary, but avoidable litigation that would've resulted.
• Bill Bennett: "It is hypocritical in the extreme for those members of the media who didn't take the charges and allegations against Bill Clinton seriously to be taking the allegations against Herman Cain that we now have as seriously as they are. Hypocritical is probably too soft a word, frankly." Except Bill Clinton stood accused of cheating on his wife, in a tawdry but consensual affair. Herman Cain, instead, has been accused by no less than five women of using his power to attempt to extract sexual favors. One of those is much, much worse than the other, John Derbyshire's shocking sexism notwithstanding.
• Andrew Sullivan reports on the worst outlet for American creativity: devising new and all-but-deadly ways of torturing war-on-terror detainees. Here, "dryboarding," practiced on Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, whose detention the Fourth Circuit resoundingly rejected years ago.
• Here's a new theme, just because. Well, actually, I have reasons. The red tones in the old one struck me as a bit negative, and I'm feeling optimistic. So, cherry blossoms, and other things! Please let me know what you think by commenting on this -- or the most recent post -- or emailing!