Along predictable lines.

The law banning the procedure relies upon the elastic and well-abused Commerce Clause power of the Constitution (the clause that supposedly gives the federal government the right to regulate and legislate anything that "affects the stream of interstate commerce," which means, when jurists want it to, the power to control anything and everything. Which is something conservatives are generally wary of.

Thomas joined the decision, but noted that neither party had even rasied the Commerce Clause as an issue, and hence that issue wasn't before the Court.

I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it.

He thus addresses an issue no one else had even bothered to mention, and which he didn't have to mention himself. Leading to the suspicion that were a challenge brought on these grounds -- i.e., that the Commerce Clause simply cannot be used as pretext for federal action on something that quite obviously does not "affect the stream of interstate commerce" in any meaningful way -- he might rule differently.

Of course justices are allowed to raise issues sua sponte (on their own initiative), and are quite capable of researching points of law no parties have briefed them on, so Thomas could have, if he chose, voted with the pro-PBA justices on these grounds.

The opinion is here.

A Longer Digest: at SCOTUSblog, recapitulating the major arguments.

The Court said that it was upholding the law as written -- that is, its facial language. It said that the lawsuits challenging the law faciallly should not have been allowed in court "in the first instance." The proper way to make a challenge, if an abortion ban is claimed to harm a woman's right to abortion, is through an as-applied claim, Kennedy wrote. His opinion said that courts could consider such claims "in discrete and well-defined instances" where "a condition has or is likely to occur in which the procedure prohibited by the Act must be used."

That is, the law should not have been challenged as unconstitutional as written, though specific parties may argue that it is unconstitutional as applied to their specific situations -- challenging not the entirety or basics of the law, but the specific application of it to themselves.

Justice Ginsburg was spitting nails. No Sullivanesque "politics of doubt" for her, thank you.

Ginsburg, in a lengthy statement, said "the Court's opinion tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. For the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception protecting a woman's health." She said the federal ban "and the Court's defense of it cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives. A decision of the character the Court makes today should not have staying power."

That final comment, concluding remarks delivered without an open display of emotion, clearly was a suggestion that the ruling might not survive new appointments to the Court -- just as the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and, especially, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. -- had led to the switch she claimed had come about this time. Ginsburg pointedly noted that the Court is "differently imposed that it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation" -- in Stenberg in 2000.

In the course of her dissenting opinion, Ginsburg accused the majority of offering "flimsy and transparent justifications" for upholding the ban. She also denounced the Kennedy opinion for its use of "abortion doctor" to describe specialists who perform gynecological services, "unborn child" and "baby" to describe a fetus, and "preferences" based on "mere convenience" to describe the medical judgments of trained doctors. She also commented: "Ultimately, the Court admits that 'moral concerns' are at work, concerns that could yield prohibtions on any abortion."

Another tidbit: While Thomas and Scalia called for a reexamination of the entire issue, stating that abortion rights had no constitutional basis, Roberts and Alito did not join that concurrence. Which doesn't mean they disagree, but it does seem to indicate they're not enthusiastic about such a reexamination.

Great Catch From Allah: Ginsburg citing the famous "Women's Right To Shape Their Destinies" Clause of the Constitution:

Though today’s majority may regard women’s feelings on the matter as “self-evident,” this Court has repeatedly confirmed that “he destiny of the woman must be shaped . . . on her own conception of her spiritual imperatives and her place in society.

She likens the majority to previous, ancient Courts holding that, for example, that women are basically adult children to be cared for and guided by men, and fit chiefly to serve the nation as wives and mothers.

Also from Allah: Giuliani wastes no time at all in declaring the decision to be the proper one, and keeps his statement short:

"The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it."

... thus avoiding the problem of wrong-footing it every time he speaks on a hot-button issue.

Posted by: Ace at 08:44 AM | Comments (68)
Post contains 936 words, total size 7 kb.

They're not even letting his siter show up to support him anymore, because they know she gets votes.

Posted by: Ace at 11:53 PM | Comments (61)
Post contains 20 words, total size 1 kb.

Magical Negro.

[The audio clip, available at the link] captures what moves a lot of people about Obama, and bothers others: His instinct for abstraction and large themes, and his sense that America's problems have at their root solutions that have as much to do with hope and process as with any specific course of action.

Other politicians would -- and will -- stay with the concrete. They'll talk about this tragedy, and, soon, gun control.

But while Obama mourns the slain students, he takes the massacre more as a theme than as a point of discussion.

"Maybe nothing could have been done to prevent it," he says toward the end.

So he moves quickly to the abstract: Violence, and the general place of violence in American life.

"There's also another kind of violence that we're going to have to think about. It's not necessarily the physical violence, but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways," he said, and goes on to catalogue other forms of "violence."

There's the "verbal violence" of Imus.

Then there's the "violence" of conscience of a shameless politician attempting to score points on the still-cooling bodies of the dead, and the "violence" perpetrated against the English language by a near-retard who can't comprehend the subtle distinction between a slight and a slaughter.

Posted by: Ace at 04:05 PM | Comments (55)
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

A documentary about the war, as told by the men fighting it.

This is absurdly effective. I hate talking about it that way -- in cinematic terms -- because yes, of course, I know this is recounting a real story of real heroes in a real ambush. Still, props have to be given on that score.

Here's the trailer for it. It's being shown on PBS as part of its (conservative-pushed) "Crossroads" series of documentaries about the war.

Thanks to Op-For, who has more about the series, this particular documentary, and the milblogger Colby Buzzell, whose writings provide the narrative for the animated clip.

Posted by: Ace at 03:41 PM | Comments (4)
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

A classmate reveals another one, "Mr. Brownstone," half of which is just a recapitulation of the Guns N' Roses song. The rest of it is just retarded, mixed in with angry loserdom.

It's worth reading just how obvious it was to people this cat was weird and a loaded gun.

What happened yesterday:

When I first heard about the multiple shootings at Virginia Tech yesterday, my first thought was about my friends, and my second thought was "I bet it was Seung Cho."

Cho was in my playwriting class last fall, and nobody seemed to think much of him at first. He would sit by himself whenever possible, and didn't like talking to anyone. I don't think I've ever actually heard his voice before. He was just so quiet and kept to himself. Looking back, he fit the exact stereotype of what one would typically think of as a "school shooter" – a loner, obsessed with violence, and serious personal problems. Some of us in class tried to talk to him to be nice and get him out of his shell, but he refused talking to anyone. It was like he didn't want to be friends with anybody. One friend of mine tried to offer him some Halloween candy that she still had, but he slowly shook his head, refusing it. He just came to class every day and submitted his work on time, as I understand it.

A major part of the playwriting class was peer reviews. We would write one-act plays and submit them to an online repository called Blackboard for everyone in the class to read and comment about in class the next day. Typically, the students give their opinions about the plays and suggest ways to make it better, the professor gives his insights, then asks the author to comment about the play in class.

When we read Cho's plays, it was like something out of a nightmare. The plays had really twisted, macabre violence that used weapons I wouldn't have even thought of. Before Cho got to class that day, we students were talking to each other with serious worry about whether he could be a school shooter. I was even thinking of scenarios of what I would do in case he did come in with a gun, I was that freaked out about him. When the students gave reviews of his play in class, we were very careful with our words in case he decided to snap. Even the professor didn't pressure him to give closing comments.

After hearing about the mass shootings, I sent one of my friends a Facebook message asking him if he knew anything about Seung Cho and if he could have been involved. He replied: "dude that's EXACTLY what I was thinking! No, I haven't heard anything, but seriously, that was the first thing I thought when I heard he was Asian."

While I "knew" Cho, I always wished there was something I could do for him, but I couldn't think of anything. As far as notifying authorities, there isn't (to my knowledge) any system set up that lets people say "Hey! This guy has some issues! Maybe you should look into this guy!" If there were, I definitely would have tried to get the kid some help. I think that could have had a good chance of averting yesterday's tragedy more than anything.

There's a a downside to nonjudgmentalism, of course. Our brains are wired to make snap decisions about people in all regards, but particularly as regards (naturally) sex and death. We know instantly if someone is a likely romantic prospect. We also know instantly if someone is a likely threat.

The fact of the matter lunatics -- florid lunatics, "quiet loners," etc. -- aren't usually able to hide the fact that they're touched. But our country has a culture -- positive in many ways -- of making no judgments about people based on looks or the vibe they give off, or, rather, at least not sharing such forbidden judging-a-book-by-its-cover thoughts with others. Especially not someone in a position of authority. We've been conditioned since infancy with thousands of morality plays that just because someone seems weird doesn't mean they are weird. Or bad. Or dangerous.

The trouble is that weirdness has a pretty high correlation with badness and dangerousness. If someone has a dysfunction that prevents the normal sort of interaction and empathy with one's fellow human beings, well, that's not likely to be a person that's otherwise well-adjusted. The very fact of his socio-psychological defect probably isolates him, and makes him angry and resentful in his isolation.

That weird kid you knew in third grade who everyone thought was psycho? Well, there's a pretty fair chance he was a psycho.

This is all an off the cuff bit of bullshit by someone trying to suggest something, anything constructive about these situations. I have no idea if it's a good idea, on balance, to start reporting the chronically strange to the authorities. I'm not sure what the cops could do, precisely, if they do in fact determine someone is deeply weird -- which is itself not an accepted diagnosis in the DSM IV. And cops can't "keep an eye" on certified weirdos forever.

But maybe it is about time people stopped being so damn nice and nonjudgmental and acted a little bit nosier and a little bit more the tattletale. Previously we've seen assassins and mass-murderers described so, so many times as "quiet" but "no one I'd ever imagine was capable of doing something like this." It's been speculated that that last bit was bullshit all along -- that people did suspect they were capable of doing something precisely like that -- and, perhaps because that cliche has been so well parodied, people are now much more willing to admit, "Yeah, I figured he was nuts, and maybe a pedophile, and maybe likely to shoot up the joint one day."

Perhaps the new cliche -- "he was quiet and exactly the sort of person I'd figure would commit this heinous act" -- is as bullshit as the old cliche.

But maybe it's not, and maybe people are just as good at playing Spot the Lunatic as they all secretly believe themselves to be, but are dissuaded from mentioning because of the demands of Niceness and Not Pickin' On The Strange Person. And maybe it's about time people started calling the police on such folks, if only the police, accompanied by a psychiatrist, could have a voluntary chat with the weirdo.

Over at Goldstein's, this advice from "experts:" Heed hints from strange people who give you the creeping willies. They're trying to tell you something.

"In our society, we've accepted a lot of very bizarre and bad behavior. That violent (tendency) doesn't seem to catch people's attention as much as it should, where people go, 'Whoah – what is he saying?' Kind of like, if you're in an airport and you say, 'I have a bomb in my suitcase,' that will get you nailed right to the floor, right then. But, if you're someplace else and you say that, a lot of times, people just shrug their shoulders and say, 'Oh, yeah, he's talking about guns, he's talking about this, he's talking about that.' Parents ignore it. Their friends just say, 'Oh, well, he's just being weird.' Even teachers sometimes will say, 'He should just talk to a counselor.'

"This is serious. When they start talking about it, we ought to be paying attention."

PS: I think I'm getting this old cliche/new cliche about "quiet loners" from Kaus. I know I'm not making it up myself; I know I read it somewhere, and it sounds like a Kaus thing.

Just noting I'm not trying to steal this. I think I read about this when that guy was found with the two abducted boys.

Posted by: Ace at 02:54 PM | Comments (194)
Post contains 1320 words, total size 8 kb.

Wanted: An Iraq veteran who tosses and turns at night screaming in horror at what he's seen and what he's done; snapping and murdering a dozen co-workers a plus.

A PBS series fails to deliver. No problem for the New York Times. They'll attribute the soldier's spiritual peacefulness to psychosis.

"But although Lieutenant Maloney has seen bad things happen both to the good and the wrong-minded, he seems immune to any genuine tumbling of the spirit. He had viewed going to war as an opportunity for growth, as another life-affirming experience like taking a new job after too much time spent in another. It is hard to tell whether this extraordinary forbearance is a product of some deep emotional delusion or an admirable quality."

Well played, New York Times. Very well played.

The way they... surround a story.

Posted by: Ace at 01:03 PM | Comments (39)
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

Wasn't sure if he had any cryptonazi sympthaties. I'm still not. But I begin to understand suspicions about him:

Ferry, who is about to embark on a UK tour to promote his latest album, made his comments to the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag.

He said: "My dear gentlemen, the Nazis knew how to put themselves in the limelight and present themselves.

"Leni Riefenstahl's movies and Albert Speer's buildings and the mass parades and the flags - just amazing. Really beautiful."

He then blurted out: "I call my studio in West London - no, I have to stop because you're German."

But when the term "fuhrerbunker" was suggested, he admitted: "You surprised me. Normally I always say to German journalists, 'My headquarters'. That is less shocking."

Could just be a joke, of course. Maybe some joke about the isolation and delusions of living in the "fuhrerbunker," where Hitler famously ordered about paper armies that had been wiped out in the real world months before. Could be some sort of joke about artistic delusions and megalomania.

On the other hand....

Thanks to JackM.

Sorry for all the backfilling today... I just can't seem to get up a single story without left-footing it today.

Posted by: Ace at 12:07 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

I should have known better than to trust the media on this, which has frequently informed me I could convert most semi-autos to auto by buying a kit from the classified pages of Soldier of Fortune magazine.

Confederate Yankee says it's just not that easy:

As for it being possible to convert a gun from semi-auto to fully-automatic, this is extremely unlikely, verging on impossible in this instance.

The ATF takes great pains to examine every new firearm being manufactured or imported into the United States to make sure that it takes a phenominal amount of work, a great degree of gun-making skill, and a machine shop full of tools to convert a weapon to fire fully automatic. It is not as simple as dropping in different parts.

The lower receivers (in the case of a pistol, the very frame itself) must be drilled, milled, etc, and then parts only available to law enforcement and military purchasers and Class III weapons dealers and manufacturers properly fitted. Even most highly-capable professional gunsmiths cannot do the necessary modifications, and this guy certainly did not go to Glock Armory school, nor would he likely have access to the tools necessary.

The media seems to be hoping for this possibility -- as it allows them to connect this to the lapsed "assault weapons" ban (well, not really, but they'll connect it up anyhow) -- but it appears less likely than they might wish.

Posted by: Ace at 11:57 AM | Comments (35)
Post contains 273 words, total size 2 kb.

Because it's not "germane" and may cause "harm."

Kind of interesting that our reporters are such big fans of censoring, bowlderizing, and embargoing actual reportage.

Maybe it would be better to just not report the massacre at all. That would keep the killer's ethnicity out of the news.

When asked what should be reported about Seung Hui Cho's ethnicity, a spokesman for the AAJA answered that "His name should be pronounced as 'white' as possible" and, if that failed, they should run a picture of "some black dude with a gold tooth" above his name with the disclaimer, "Artist's Conception."

Posted by: Ace at 11:43 AM | Comments (30)
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

Google allows companies to purchase "key words," which creates a "sponsored link." This link appears at the top of a Google search for those key words.

Who's sponsoring the Virginia Tech massacre? The New York Times and Inside Edition.

There's something... inevitable about that linkage. The Times becomes more and more tabloid and shoddy every year.

I wonder if Andrew Sullivan also finds this "creepy."

Oh wait-- the true conservative never seems to have a bad word to say about the arch-liberal NYT anymore.

Posted by: Ace at 11:35 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 106 words, total size 1 kb.