There are three things to say about Obama’s comments on the Citizens United case and Justice Alito’s apparent response:
First, Obama flunks Con Law. If you’ve read the decision (and my take on it is here), you know that Obama’s characterization of it is simply wrong. Either Obama didn’t read the opinion or didn’t understand it or was perfectly willing to mischaracterize it for political gain. The Court expressly left standing the prohibition of campaign contributions from foreign corporations.
Second, Justice Alito should have sat in stoic silence as Supreme Court justices typically do. His reaction was a small breach of decorum, preceded by the much larger breach of Obama’s comments. Obama was the instigator. He broke a basic rule: if you want respect, you show respect. He knowingly invited his cohorts to pile on by applauding his mischaracterization of the Court’s decision. Obama essentially tied his opponent up, and sucker-punched him with all his buddies backing him up. That, more than anything, made Obama look small and petty. Alito was not on stage. Obama was.
Third, there is a theme developing in the blogosphere that I find most interesting. Ann Althouse notes the contrast between the impact of Alito’s tiny statement with that of Obama:
Isn’t it fascinating that the lengthy, amplified, magnified speech of the most powerful man in the world with his big captive audience — in the magnificent room and in smaller rooms all over the country — are outweighed by one man’s headshake and silent mouthing of 2 or 3 words?
And isn’t it ironic that, right when we saw the judge’s minimalist expression that overwhelmed the President’s torrent of words, Obama was railing about the “powerful interests” that would use their great wealth to speak far too much during election campaigns?
In a similar vein, Paco observes that Alito’s voiceless comment, coming in the midst of Obama’s bluster, was akin to Elijah:
“Go out and stand before me on top of the mountain,” God said to Elijah. Then God passed by and sent a furious wind that split the hills and shattered the rocks – but God was not in the wind. The wind stopped blowing, and then there was an earthquake – but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake there was a fire – but God was not in the fire. And after the fire there was the soft whisper of a voice. When Elijah heard it, he covered his face with his cloak and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave. (1Kings 19:11-13 GNT)
Truth has its own power: the small, still voice.
But I detected a reaction from Justice Kennedy as well, and it is one that should concern Obama more. Without moving his lips or stirring even slightly in his chair, Kennedy, who has played footsie with the liberals on occasion, seemed to glare, “Never again.” Let’s hope.
January 28th, 2010
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Law, Politics |
no comments
Climate change mania continues to push our resources out of useful projects and into junk science. As each new day brings more disclosures of unfounded hype and outright fraud, there remains a significant constituency for Chicken Little.
There was a time, I suppose, when great scientists labored in the shadows, dreaming up bold solutions to long-standing problems. Now our scientists hack for dollars, dreaming up new problems to justify yesterday’s mundane research.
In public life, we once had Jack Kennedy entreating us to the moon. The audacious one has no time for such frivolity.
When the White House releases his budget proposal Monday, there will be no money for the Constellation program that was supposed to return humans to the moon by 2020. . . .
In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects — principally, researching and monitoring climate change. . . .
“We certainly don’t need to go back to the moon,” said one administration official.
The science sparked by the Gemini and Apollo programs paid dividends for decades and inspired others to greater achievements. Now, despite procuring hundreds of billions to stimulate economic growth, much of the money remains unspent and the dollars already committed have produced nothing. This crowd has a curious definition of stimulus.
Indeed, today’s version of liberalism relies on soaring rhetoric to disguise a philosophy of limitation, animated by small-minded navel gazing, oblivious both to real threats and opportunities, believing fervently in every passing fad, and above all fearful that the ambitious achievements of others will prove them wrong.
Against all logic, they cut off the water to Central California for the sake of the delta smelt, unsure whether it will save the small bait fish, but certain that it will kill agriculture – a perfect convergence of liberal science and economics.
Our climate-change expenditures follow the same pattern of starving productive projects to prop up trendy speculation, producing nothing but articles that will be debunked later on. Those dollars could more appropriately be channeled into the Justice Department, were they could be used to prosecute climate-change fraud and perhaps recoup some earlier improvident grants.
There’s a better way. Let’s muster enough courage to get our heads out of the California sand we have created and take on some real challenges.
Dust Bowl by Calwest - Creative Commons
January 27th, 2010
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Politics |
no comments
The demise of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (a/k/a McCain-Feingold) is cause for celebration. Flimsily justified as a means of preventing corruption, McCain-Feingold gave established media outlets a near monopoly on political speech in advance of elections – precisely when such speech is most likely to persuade. The law constituted the most odious and cynical use of government censorship to protect incumbent elected officials.
As its title suggests, the law was passed in bipartisan fashion (an excellent example of the limited value of bipartisanship) and was signed into law by President Bush. It represented in my opinion the worst decision of his presidency as he simply kicked the constitutional can down the road, leaving it for the courts to decide. All branches of government, however, have an equal responsibility to safeguard the Bill of Rights. McCain-Feingold represented the best and an entirely sufficient reason to oppose McCain’s presidential bid (unfortunately counter-balanced by even more compelling reasons to oppose Obama’s).
The Supreme Court has finally reached the right conclusion, years later and with the barest majority. A good synopsis of the ruling can be found here. Justice Kennedy’s controlling opinion says many of the right things. For example:
[T]he FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11-factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech.
* * *
The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.
* * *
Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. . . . The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment “‘has its fullest and most urgent application’ to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.”
* * *
The First Amendment’s protections do not depend on the “financial ability to engage in public discussion.”
* * *
When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful.
On the other hand, the opinion does not go far enough. Justice Thomas provided the lone voice in pointing out the increasing dangers of disclosure requirements in the Internet age. Donors are discovered immediately and targeted by opponents. As experience proves in the wake of California’s Proposition 8, taking sides can cost you your job, your business, and your physical safety. Thomas concludes:
I cannot endorse a view of the First Amendment that subjects citizens of this Nation to death threats, ruined careers, damaged or defaced property, or pre-emptive and threatening warning letters as the price for engaging in “core political speech, the ‘primary object of First Amendment protection.’”
Precisely, just as I (as a lawyer) have to think seriously about the consequences of contributing to a judicial candidate. Do I really want to be on the list of contributors to a candidate running against a judge who will decide my case? Disclosure is a sure recipe for the kind of corruption McCain-Feingold claimed to prevent – a roadmap for favors and retaliation.
Count on the established media and the politicians favored by the established media to mount a concerted effort to reclaim their favored position by equally unconstitutional means.
January 22nd, 2010
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Law, Media, Politics |
no comments
Amid all the chattering about the Massachusetts special election, there is a brief roundup of commentary from Germany in Der Spiegel. In the “you-don’t-say” category is this observation in Süddeutsche Zeitung:
[Obama's] reform agenda, in its current form, is highly suspect to Americans. And they have the impression that, if he continues piling up debt, he will be gambling away the country’s future.
An “impression” - some vague notion that, apparently pushed by ignorant conservatives, that piling up debt might be a bad thing?
On the more poignant side, Financial Times Deutschland writes:
For everyone else in the world [other than the victorious conservatives], this means that they will have to bid farewell to a candidate for whom the hopes were so high. They will have to say goodbye to the charisma they fell in love with.
It’s hard to say what this really means. Does it mean that Obama has lost his mojo? Or does it mean that his ideals will be diluted in a sea of compromise with those dull and crass conservatives? Surely it’s not an acknowledgment that their love was misplaced.
But the best laugh line also comes from Financial Times Deutschland. It notes that Obama might have to change his style.
After all, he still has a majority in Congress - he could back away from his strategy of bipartisanship … which would mean giving up much of what he spent his first year in office creating.
On second thought, the analysis from this side of the Atlantic has a little more grounding in reality, like the assessment from Mort Zuckerman (a confessed Obama voter), which includes this:
Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”
And no amount of charisma will solve that.
January 21st, 2010
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Politics |
no comments
The peerless climate-science community kept criticism at bay by forming a clique that excluded all dissenting voices. Those who doubted the AGW line were labeled as quacks whose writing was not “peer-reviewed.” The media of course bought this hook, line, and sinker. In fact, the clique hid the data precisely to prevent their own shoddy work from being reviewed by their peers.
It’s all a question of how you define your peers.
Today we are learning about that threatened meltdown of Himalayan glaciers. The vaunted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said those glaciers would likely disappear by 2035.
The peer-reviewed science behind that finding goes like this:
- Unknown scientist in India speculates while talking to reporter.
- Reporter writes that glaciers will melt by 2035.
- IPCC reads newspaper.
Yes, I’d say this is a fine example of peer review. An unknown scientist with no supporting data speculates that the glaciers will melt, getting his name in the press and a career boost. A reporter with no sense of curiosity about the science speculates that the scientist is correct and spreads the opinion as fact. There could be a Pulitzer in this. The IPCC figures if it’s in the newspaper, it must be true, and besides, gullible governments will throw money at this and ensure the continuation of their little bureaucracy.
They are all peers in promoting junk science at the expense of the rest of us.
But the public is fed junk across the board and seems to prefer it to anything more rigorous. We have a “pop” version of everything, from music to economics, from education to the Supreme Court. Why shouldn’t science be admitted to the peer group?
January 17th, 2010
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Media, Politics |
no comments
What we need is a “Terminable Stupidity” clock instead of the “Doomsday” clock trotted out by the scientific community.
A spokesman said: ‘Factors influencing the latest Doomsday Clock change include international negotiations on nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, expansion of civilian nuclear power, the possibilities of nuclear terrorism, and climate change.’
If we look at the last item on this list, climate change, scientists should be rolling the clock back, not forward, based on mounting evidence that there is no evidence.
But if you really believe in AGW, civilian nuclear power represents one of the best solutions to the problem. A ready solution, of course, would take the problem out of the hands of theoretical scientists and turn it over to engineers. That would spell doomsday for grants that feed the families of scientists.
Meanwhile, we keep talking about the weather and pretending there is no real threat from terrorism - unless of course the terrorist get a nuclear bomb - the first of which was detonated by a group of theoretical scientist who weren’t entirely sure whether the reaction would be confined to the New Mexico desert as opposed to incinerating the whole planet. Talk about your global warming!
The scientists would presumably feel better if we get rid of the nuclear devices that they so graciously gave us in 1945 - “we” being the civilized world with democratic and accountable governments. As for failed states and terrorist organizations, “agreements” and kind words will have to suffice.
I tend to think Doomsday is not just around the corner, or at least it needn’t be if we can avoid giving scientists control over our economy and national security.
January 13th, 2010
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Leisure, Politics |
no comments
That would be liberals from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. JammieWearingFool has this tidbit concerning the latest television ad for Martha Coakley:
Heckuva job, Martha. At the bottom of the ad it says “Paid for by the Massachusettes Democratic Party. Eighteen years after the fact we still hear Dan Quayle “potatoe” jokes. I wonder how much the left will be yukking it up over this one?
That last bit, of course, is a rhetorical question. The left is entirely humorless except when promoting its inside joke that all conservatives are stupid.
January 12th, 2010
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Politics |
no comments
I stumbled on the question of classical music’s relevance this morning and immediately though, “Relevant to what?” My next thought was that it would be answered by the usual complaints about dead white males and bygone eras.
In fact, the question is posed and answered by our own Professor Carol, who occasionally graces this blog with her writing. Today she took up this issue at a new blog called “Music After 50,” a site worth visiting.
The topic is highly relevant on this blog, despite our tendency to get mired in the ephemeral problems of the day. In the future, when every person holding office in the federal government has been replaced and the political debate has shifted to entirely new topics, people will still ponder the things that express our common culture (or that failed in that regard) and our highest aspirations. Today, unfortunately, the highest aspirations of many involve fracturing the common culture and replacing it with trendy pabulum.
So what does Professor Carol say about music?
It’s more than relevant. We can discard outmoded technology without discarding the science behind it. But our cultural heritage is a different matter.
Culture is defined by what gets passed from generation to generation. Symphonies, operas, oratorios, sonatas, and other “old” types of music retain their powerful, even life-altering message for us today. Deprived of that message, we are weakened as a society.
The problem is not that classical music no longer speaks to us. Rather, we have become too distracted to listen.
January 6th, 2010
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Music |
no comments
Why would NPR be distributing childish videos criticizing the tea-bag movement?
Oh . . . right.
January 4th, 2010
Posted by
Fitzroy |
Media, Politics |
no comments
