Maybe it's just me, but the first time I heard Elena Kagan speak (i.e., away from the television screen), I thought that Fox News was replaying another outrageous Rosie O'Donnell clip. I did a brief search to see if others had made a similar connection, but it wasn't clear anyone had. Maybe it's a regional speaking style...
I've made my position clear on Elena Kagan: I would not have personally nominated Elena Kagan, I disagree with her politics (in particular, her views on abortion and on gay rights vs. military recruitment), but I respect her academic background, intellectual vigor and collegial reputation, and I do believe elections have consequences, meaning Obama has the right to nominate qualified candidates with a more liberal judicial philosophy. In this case, I do think the fact that she has come outside the more usual appellate judge mold is a breath of fresh air and that she respected philosophic diversity in faculty recruitment. (Anyone who stands up to the political correctness police demanding faculty minority quotas earns a certain degree of respect in my eyes. I have no doubt that Kagan made a good faith effort to recruit quality minority faculty applicants, but the bottom line is the integrity, quality and reputation of the Harvard Law School, providing a well-rounded legal perspective.)
I was somewhat amused listening to the back and forth between Kagan and Senator Sessions over the attempts of Harvard under Kagan to discriminate against military recruiters while accepting federal funds--in particular, Kagan's questionable judgment over the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy as a 'moral injustice of the first order'. I hardly think that being discreet about one's sex life, whether straight or gay, to be an injustice; rather, I tend to regard it as prudent under most circumstances. I would save characterizations of moral injustices of the first order for things like religious police arresting a Saudi rape victim.
Because of other activities, I haven't watched the full committee hearings, but I heard enough of repeated Democratic political spin that it was time to address one point in particular. Once again, we heard Senator Durbin accuse conservatives of being hypocrites because conservative jurists had reversed precedents, e.g., on gun banning and campaign finance legislation, which he termed 'activist'. Hardly. The issues in these cases involve the very first two amendments of the US Constitution.
Lately, liberals, including Obama, have been implicitly attacking the concept of legal person and relevant rights, particularly in the aftermath of the Citizens United v FEC decision. But, first, let us recall this statement from an 1886 SCOTUS case (118 U.S. 394):
The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.Next, let's consider a dissenting opinion in a 1957 SCOTUS case ( 352 U.S. 567):
The principle at stake (whether a union can express its views on the issues of an election and on the merits of the candidates, unrestrained and unfettered by the Congress) is applicable as well to associations of manufacturers, retail and wholesale trade groups, consumers’ leagues, farmers’ unions, religious groups and every other association representing a segment of American life and taking an active part in our political campaigns and discussions. It is as important an issue as has come before the Court, for it reaches the very vitals of our system of government.In fact, to any thinking person, the idea that a nonprofit organization has a right to express its political point of view, but a for-profit organization does not, is clearly an unconscionable double standard. The other parts of the decision, e.g., funds as a form of speech, are consistent with other decisions. Whether or not laymen understand the concept of a legal person, the decision was, in my view, inevitable.
What disturbs Obama, Durbin and others is that tax-paying businesses have a right to participate in the political process and perhaps may object to erratic public policies that create uncertainty for business decision making (including business expansion and jobs) and massive federal borrowing siphoning off money which would otherwise be invested in the private sector. In any event, superior resources do not guarantee a political victory. For example, Mitt Romney could not put away John McCain in 2008, despite using millions from his considerable personal fortune, and the unions recently failed to deny Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) renomination in Arkansas.
What we see, in the gun and campaign finance issues, is that progressives often look at the issues as all-or-nothing. The issue on the Second Amendment wasn't whether you could reasonably regulate self-defense weapons but whether you could prohibit them, even on the owner's own property; similarly, the First Amendment issue on campaign reform focused on the prohibition of corporate-funded political speech.
The Obey Edujobs Amendment: Thumbs Down
It isn't often that Obama and I are on the same side of an issue. In fact, I have reservations for the federal governments involvement in education, which I think is more appropriately managed and funded at the local and/or state level. But for me, the key issue here is educational COMPETITION. I prefer a solution that focuses on leveraging private sector approaches to education; I think, for instance, administrators can more easily implement market-based salaries reflecting demand and supply and merit-based teaching performance, don't have to offer tenure or negotiate around arcane work rules. But consider the following information derived from the Center for Education Reform:
| TYPE SCHOOL | AVG STUDENT COST | ENROLLEES | STUDENTS/TEACHER |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public School | $12,018 | 49,293,000 | 15.7:1 |
| Private School | $8,549 | 5,910,210 | 11.1:1 |
| Public Charter School | $8,001 | ||
| Catholic School | $6,018 | 2,308,150 | 14.7:1 |
What does the Obey amendment do?
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey’s (D-WI) proposed amendment will [take back] $800 million already committed to three critical Department of Education reform efforts—Race to the Top, the Teacher Incentive Fund, and the Charter Schools Program—to help pay for Edujobs legislation.What's even worse, there have been reforms enacted by states like New York, Maryland, Louisiana, Illinois, Colorado, and California, and Congressman Obey wants to take back the incentive funds to spend them on other education jobs (i.e., consistent with public teacher union objectives). Nothing like changing the rules in the middle of the game, Mr. Obey... Obama has promised to veto any bill with the Obey Amendment. I will dance a happy dance anytime Obama vetoes a spending bill. As a conservative, I think we need to cut spending across the board. But if the choice is between investing in educational competition or in the status quo, I don't want to throw good money after bad.
Political Cartoon
Mike Lester notes that that billionaire golfer Tiger Woods is having to pay a steep price for his marital infidelity. Price for violating his marital vows and disrespecting his gorgeous Swedish wife and family: $750M. The loss of a credible role model for youth and Tiger's personal and professional reputation: priceless. The assessment of all of us straight men whom acknowledge the indisputable truth that Swedish women are hot and can barely fathom an idyllic life of playing golf for a living and having a beautiful wife and family: Idiot!
Quote of the Day
We rarely think people have good sense unless they agree with us.
Francois de La Rochefoucauld
Musical Interlude: Chart Hits of 1981
Kim Carnes, "Bette Davis Eyes"
Abba, "The Winner Takes It All"
Rick Springfield, "Jessie's Girl"
John Lennon, "(Just Like) Starting Over"
Tom Petty & Stevie Nicks, "Stop Draggin' My Heart Around"
