Amazing.

"The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional. They are no longer going to be defending the cases in the 1st and 2nd circuits," a person briefed on the decision said.

The administration will formally notify Congress later today. The act sought to restrict single-sex unions.

(Added: Since I put the first post up, the linked story has been expanded. Apparently the DoJ's position only applies, at this point, to Section 3 of DOMA which deals with the definition of marriage for federal benefit and administration purposes.

It seems this decision doesn't apply to Section 2 which seeks to ensure that recognition of same sex marriages aren't forced on other states.)

Remember when Bush signing statements were grounds for impeachment or something? Now Presidents get to declare laws unconstitutional and ignore them? That's the rule? Ok, the first GOP candidate who says if elected they will not enforce any ObamaCare, Davis-Bacon or other liberal legislation gets my vote.

Just a reminder you bitter clingers who voted for Obama...he doesn't support same sex marriage (wink, wink, nudge, nudge liberals).

Hey, who is ready for a fight on the Defense of Marriage Amendment now? It's got no shot at passing but I bet it just jumped to the top of the list for a lot of folks.

Oh by the way...The US Constitution, Article II, Section III:

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Funny, I don't see anything about the ones he likes or doesn't like.

I think Presidents have a responsibility to determine if a bill is constitutional when they decide to sign or veto it but once it's the law, that ship has sailed.

Now some will say, well, that's not the same as defending a law in court. Except, that's long been the tradition in this country, that the executive defends the laws until the Supreme Court says no. Democracy isn't simply a set of rules, it's a series of habits and shared traditions that people elected respect. Start breaking that down and you do real damage to America.

And for the umpteenth time...If you think the framers of the Constitution or the 14th Amendment meant to protect gay rights you're going to need to provide some proof. If you think what they meant doesn't matter...you're supporting the idea of a living Constitution (which to me is a grave insult).

(I changed part of that last paragraph. It's not helpful to call people with a differing opinion "nuts".)

FWIW- My non-lawyer take down of the judicial standard that got us into this mess.

I really hate that these cases so often involves gay rights issues because I'm much more of small "l" libertarian on these things (I really don't care who people sleep with or fall in love with). I just really hate the way the judicial system can be warped to achieve ends the Constitution simply doesn't allow.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:16 AM | Comments (235)
Post contains 518 words, total size 4 kb.

They watched it like a hawk during the Bush presidency, and made sure you knew (or thought) that Bush's policies or lack thereof were driving the price.

Now, not so much. True, this is a mention in the media, but there's a big difference between a non-highlighted print mention and all three network newscasts displaying that Big Scary Up Arrow graphic as they note the rising cost of gas three times a week.

If political unrest in Libya spreads to other oil-rich countries and the ensuing chaos disrupts crude oil production, gas prices could hit $5 a gallon by peak summer driving season, industry analysts say.

I'm sure the media believes this is not Obama's fault. But instead of reporting the facts and either just trusting the public to figure things out for themselves, or offering some spin on behalf of Obama's failed administration, they simply choose to not report the facts in the first place. It's easier that way.

Of course, if the theory that the public will unfairly blame the president for ills not directly under his control is true, that means the media played their favored role as DNC shill by always mentioning oil prices under Bush; but I guess in some cases they don't mind so much if the public draws unfair inferences.

Posted by: Ace at 08:14 AM | Comments (56)
Post contains 231 words, total size 1 kb.

Like many an AoSHQ moron, I was dismayed when Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana in effect condoned the actions of the Indiana Dems who fled the state rather than vote on right-to-work legislation:

First of all, just to affirm, the activities of today are perfectly legitimate part of the process. Even the smallest minority – and that’s what we’ve heard from the last couple days - has every right to express the strength of its views and I salute those who do.

Seriously? Fleeing to another state to avoid voting on legislation they don't like? That's legitimate, particularly when the Indiana Legislature only has four (4) months to work on legislation?

On the other hand, Avik Roy over at NRO puts forth a spirited defense of Daniels, noting among other things:

Mitch Daniels decertified all public unions, entirely rescinding their collective-bargaining rights, on his first day in office in 2005. . . . In other words, Mitch Daniels has already done more on the issue of public-sector unions than Scott Walker is even attempting. . . .

. . . the Democratic minority in the Indiana legislature wields considerable power that Daniels has no choice but to deal with. . . .

. . . the Indiana minority can block all legislation. IndianaÂ’s legislative calendar is only four months long, meaning that other pressing reforms that Daniels campaigned on will wither. . . .

. . . In 2011, Daniels’s rhetoric has been more conciliatory, likely because he knows from his experience in 2005 that he needs seven Democrats in the House to get anything done. Jim Geraghty asks, “If the Indiana House Democrats get what they want through this tactic, what’s to prevent them from using it again and again every time they think they’ll lose on a big issue?” The answer is, they already have, and Republicans can’t do much about it. . . .

It's worth reading the entire thing; Roy's arguments deserve full consideration. But, unless there's something I'm not understanding (always a real possiblity), I come back to this question: if the Democratic minority can block legislation the Indiana House anyway, why did they run away? Why not just stay?

If on the other hand their only option in blocking this legislation is to flee the state of Indiana, then (IMHO) Daniels should very much hold their feet to the fire and make it clear to the citizens of Indiana just who is shirking their individual and collective responsibility.

I appreciate Roy's defense of Daniels, and I could even defend myself Daniels' refusal to send the state police after the missing legislators. But Daniels seems to be remarkably tone-deaf to what's happening in other states and thus undermines those efforts. A wrong choice, in my opinion; your mileage may vary (though knowing the AoS crowd, I doubt it will vary by much). ..fritz..

Posted by: Open Blogger at 07:49 AM | Comments (99)
Post contains 496 words, total size 3 kb.

Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and Babs Boxer (D-CA) have asked senators to submit "requests for specific projects" to the Water Resources Development Act.

The word "earmark" is conspicuously absent from the letter, even though senators believe it trips all over Rule 44 which "requires disclosure of congressionally directed spending that recommends budget authority, credit authority or expenditure to an entity or specific state or locality."

Inhofe (through his spokesman) rejects the idea that committee-approved projects are "earmarks".

“One of the questions that will be worked out over the next year is the question of what is an earmark,” said Matt Dempsey, Inhofe’s spokesman. “Sen. Inhofe has been strong in saying that as long as something is authorized and appropriated, it’s not an earmark.”

Inhofe believes earmark restrictions should apply to projects that are dropped into bills without going through the proper authorizing process, and should not prohibit projects in the WRDA, an authorizing bill.

Inhofe misses the point. The problem is the perception that senators are gaming the system by directing pork to their home states piling stuff onto a bill that's nothing more than a spending vehicle for "stuff related to water". John McCain noted the 2007 version of this bill contained over 900 "specific project and programmatic requests" earmarks.

If Inhofe intends to change that perception, he's going to have to come up with something better than "not using the word earmark" or "Committee Approved! *two big thumbs up*"

via Gabriel Malor

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 07:20 AM | Comments (60)
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

The latest ObamaCare ruling, this time from a district judge in Washington, D.C., is here (PDF). Legally, it does not break new ground. Like the other Democratic-nominated judges to get the issue, she finds the health care mandate plenty justified by the Commerce Clause. The Republican-nominated judges to get the case found that it wasn't.

The split is one of worldview. For many Democrats the federal government's power is nearly unlimited or should be. That has been the foundational premise of almost all "progressive" litigation and a great deal of Democratic legislation, which seeks to impose solutions on backward individuals and states that just won't get with the program.

And so Judge Kessler's "struggle" with the question of whether the Commerce Clause justifies forcing every person who takes breath in the United States to buy health insurance merely because they are breathing in the United States isn't much of a struggle after all. She goes the same route as her Democratic fellows who determined that the Commerce Clause doesn't regulate just commercial activity but all decisions which have an economic effect. At least she has the grace to admit this is new ground:

First, the Court must consider whether the decision not to purchase health insurance is an “economic” one . . . or a “non-economic” one.

. . .

As previous Commerce Clause cases have all involved physical activity, as opposed to mental activity, i.e. decision-making, there is little judicial guidance on whether the latter falls within Congress’s power…. However, this Court finds the distinction, which Plaintiffs rely on heavily, to be of little significance. It is pure semantics to argue that an individual who makes a choice to forgo health insurance is not “acting,” especially given the serious economic and health-related consequences to every individual of that choice. Making a choice is an affirmative action, whether one decides to do something or not do something. They are two sides of the same coin. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality.

Of course, if Judge Kessler is correct, then every "mental activity" that has an economic effect is subject to regulation by the federal government. This would indeed justify a mandate to buy broccoli or GM cars or whatever because your decision not to make such purchases is "economic activity" that affects the price of these goods in the interstate marketplace.

She tries to distinguish a health insurance mandate from these kinds of mandates by saying, essentially, that health insurance is special because there is simply no way any American will ever go their entire lives without consuming health care. Note the casual conflation of health insurance with health care. But also note that this "health care is special" argument works for any market, so long as it is defined broadly enough. For example: no American will ever go their entire lives without consuming food. Therefore, a food mandate requiring the purchase of minimum quantities of food with pre-approved nutritional features would pass muster under Judge Kessler's reasoning.

Her flippant approach to the question is nowhere more apparent than when she chastises the plaintiffs (some of whom want to pay for health care out of pocket and some of whom refuse health care for religious reasons) for being "free riders".

To put it less analytically, and less charitably, those who choose--and Plaintiffs have made such a deliberate choice--not to purchase health insurance will benefit greatly when they become ill, as they surely will, from the free health care which must be provided by emergency rooms and hospitals to the sick and dying who show up on their doorstep. In short, those who choose not to purchase health insurance will ultimately get a “free ride” on the backs of those Americans who have made responsible choices to provide for the illness we all must face at some point in our lives.

No. No. No. People do not get credit for "responsible choices" when, in fact, they have no choice at all. The individual mandate takes the choice whether to purchase health insurance out of the hands of Americans. The judge's snide aside -- "on the backs of responsible Americans" -- simply demonstrates her biased view of these plaintiffs and of the healthcare law. That's not a legal argument. It's a policy one.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:24 AM | Comments (265)
Post contains 730 words, total size 5 kb.

Think of them as children and you inevitably forget how dangerous they are.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:46 AM | Comments (108)
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

The 13 Current Longest Serving World Leaders: Then & Now

Can you identify these world leaders, all of whom have been in power for at least 40 years?

Well so far that is.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:37 PM | Comments (829)
Post contains 667 words, total size 8 kb.

Hey, that was suggested here.

State senators who miss two or more session days will no longer get paid through direct deposit. They'll have to pick up their checks in person on the Senate floor during a session.

...

Tuesday's vote was along party lines. The three Republicans on the Committee on Senate Organization voted for it and the two Democrats opposed it.

The measure applies to paychecks, per diem checks, and any expense reimbursements. The absent senators will have to collect their checks from the Senate majority leader.

Why would they get per diem checks when they're not at work?

And how the hell are they being allowed to vote on this?

Update: The "courtesy" of letting fugitive lawbreakers vote by phone is being rescinded. At least they denied a Democrat the license to vote in committee.

The committee made significant changes to the bill in a meeting that included a bizarre element. Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) participated in the meeting by phone, but Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin), the committee chairwoman, refused to let him vote because he and the 13 other Senate Democrats left the state Thursday.

Senators routinely participate in committee meetings by phone and are allowed to debate, offer amendments and vote on measures. But Lazich said she wasn't allowing Erpenbach to vote because he had an invalid reasons for being absent.

"I won't extend courtesies for unethical behavior," Lazich told Erpenbach.

"Do you want the headline to be, 'Republicans won't let Democrats vote,' even though we've allowed that many, many times?" Erpenbach said.

Erpenbach's name was not called as the clerk took the roll, but he repeatedly yelled, "No!" over the speakerphone. The committee's three Republicans voted for the bill.

The bill could go before the Senate on Thursday, though leaders have not yet decided when they would vote on it.

Heh: The Flee Party.

Posted by: Ace at 03:20 PM | Comments (277)
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.

Thought I'd suggest our computer-savvy, artistically-inclined readers to give a look at the Data Viz Challenge.

The Challenge: Visualize how your individual federal income taxes are spent.

We give you the numbers; you make them speak to us. Our jury will be awarding $10,000, including $5,000 for the top submission.

Every year, Americans fill out income tax forms and make a payment to the IRS. ItÂ’s an important civic duty, but it is also a lot of money. Where does it all go? Using data provided by WhatWePayFor.com, we challenge you to create a data visualization that will make it easier for U.S. citizens to understand how the government spends our tax money.

See some sample visualizations and get the data at the link. Submissions are due March 27th.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 03:07 PM | Comments (26)
Post contains 151 words, total size 1 kb.

Epic smackdown.

My favorite part starts at 8 minutes where Mitchell uses Colin Powell as a shield and Rumsfeld calls her out on it. It's really all worth it.

I love the way he refuses to accept the premise of a number of her questions. It's a skill I wish more political figures had. Far too often Republicans accept the framing of the question. They also tend to treat reporters as if they are trying to get information and not score liberal points. A few reporters but most aren't. Rumsfeld doesn't have any of it. He understands he's in an adversarial situation and acts accordingly.

Also fun? Hearing Rumsfeld pimp his website several times. Not sure why, it just is.

I'm telling you...Rummy for US Senate from New Mexico!

Part II below the fold. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 02:16 PM | Comments (207)
Post contains 174 words, total size 4 kb.