To review: the Indiana police and teachers pension plans are secured creditors in Zombie Chrysler who are trying to hold off the sham sale of the company which has been concocted by President Obama. They sought a stay in the district court. It was just rejected:

After a federal court hearing in Manhattan on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa said he would deny a motion by a group of Indiana pension funds that claim the government did not have the authority to provide funds to Chrysler for its proposed sale. The funds had asked the judge to prevent Chrysler's scheduled sale hearing in bankruptcy court on Wednesday from going forward, but the Judge also denied that request.

Judge Griesa said he would explain his decision in a formal opinion later on Tuesday and that once the bankruptcy judge rules on Chrysler's sale, the objecting parties should have a "fair" opportunity to appeal that decision.

Chrysler, which filed for bankruptcy protection on April 30, is seeking approval this week to sell itself to a "New Chrysler" owned by the U.S. and Canadian governments, Chrysler's union and Italian carmaker Fiat SpA.

Under the proposed sale, the creditors would only get 29 cents on the dollar for their portion of Chrysler's debt. The reduction is because under Obama's sham sale the unions get jumped ahead of the senior creditors.

The sale hearing in bankruptcy court will take place tomorrow. The district court judge said that the pensions can appeal any adverse decision which comes out of the sale hearing.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 12:49 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 271 words, total size 2 kb.

That's the Chicago Way. And that's how you get a Senate appointment.

(Slublog's special Blago-centric flaming skull)

In a November conversation caught on an FBI wiretap, Roland Burris promised Gov. Rod BlagojevichÂ’s brother that heÂ’d write the governor a campaign check by mid-December, BurrisÂ’ lawyer said today.

That was about a month before Rod Blagojevich appointed Burris to the U.S. Senate.

But lawyer Timothy Wright told the Chicago Sun-Times today that his client never sent the check because he believed it wasnÂ’t a good idea given BurrisÂ’ interest in the U.S. Senate seat appointment. Wright said BurrisÂ’ decision not to send the check had nothing to do with BlagojevichÂ’s Dec. 9 arrest.
Burris made his decision before the arrest, Wright said.

“Sen. Burris, as he said, decided he couldn’t send a check because it wouldn’t look good,” Wright said.

Burris did not mention a promise of a check in a Feb. 4 sworn affidavit that Burris submitted to an Illinois House panel investigating Rod BlagojevichÂ’s impeachment. That affidavit sought to supplement BurrisÂ’ testimony before a House panel, where Burris only mentioned having contact with Lon Monk with regard to the appointment.

But Wright said the amount of the check was to be $1,500. The conversation with Robert Blagojevich happened when Burris was interested in the U.S. Senate. Wright said BurrisÂ’ answers to the House panel have been consistent, and he has made repeated efforts to be as complete as possible to the public.

Wright scoffed at the notion that a promise of a check was part of any pay-to-play scheme.

“Fifteen hundred dollars? Come on” Wright said. “Burris had been a fund-raiser in years past. This had nothing to do with pay-to-play.”

Actually, parts of this story is old, from February. The new element of it is that the wiretapped conversations are being released and, critically, that Blago's brother didn't merely ask for a check; one was promised.

Note that the headline suggests that the check might have been for $10,000. I see no evidence that the promised amount was $1500 -- only Burris' mouthpiece says this. When the story broke in February, it was reported that Blago's brother had solicited $10,000.

Whether Burris negotiated that down to $1500, I don't know. But until I hear the transcript specifying the $1500 amount, I'm not accepting that figure. Maybe the personal check from Burris was to be $1500, with an additional $8500 in promised fund-raising by Burris' pals.

I don't think someone of Burris' shady background quibbles over $10,000 when it comes to a valuable f'n' thing like a Senate seat.

Posted by: Ace at 12:10 PM | Comments (24)
Post contains 454 words, total size 3 kb.

You probably read about this during the election. With Chris Matthews yukking it up over Sarah Palin's need of a collaborator for her own book, Jack Cashill unloads again, making a persuasive case that Bill Ayers wrote, or substantially wrote and rewrote, Obama's Dreams of My Father.

The case isn't quite proven, though there is strong evidence here. I hate being Johnny One Note, but this is yet another case of a story begging to be pursued by the MSM -- and an important one -- which they don't pursue because they fear they know where it will lead.

There are plenty of echoes in "Obama's" memoir of Ayers' own memoir (Fugitive Days), but I find the nautical stuff the most convincing.

Ayers lived a considerably more adventurous life than Obama, beginning with his youthful days as a merchant seaman in the North Atlantic. "I realized that no one else could ever know this singular experience," Ayers writes. Yet much of the nautical language that flows through Fugitive Days flows through Obama's earth-bound memoir.

Although there are only the briefest of literal sea experiences in Dreams, the following words appear in both Dreams and in Ayers' work: fog, mist, ships, seas, boats, oceans, calms, captains, charts, first mates, storms, streams, wind, waves, anchors, barges, horizons, ports, panoramas, moorings, tides, currents, and things howling, fluttering, knotted, ragged, tangled, and murky.

Cashill explained this at greater length in a previous article:

Given that advice, I dug deeper into both memoirs and established one metaphoric thread that ties the two books together in a way I believe is just shy of conclusive, a thread that leads back to Bill Ayers's stint, after dropping out of college, as a merchant seaman.

"I'd thought that when I signed on that I might write an American novel about a young man at sea," says Ayers in his memoir, Fugitive Days, "but I didn't have it in me."

The experience had a powerful impact on Ayers. Years later, he would recall a nightmare he had while crossing the Atlantic, "a vision of falling overboard in the middle of the ocean and swimming as fast as I could as the ship steamed off and disappeared over the horizon."

Although Ayers has tried to put his anxious ocean-going days behind him, the language of the sea will not let him go. "I realized that no one else could ever know this singular experience," Ayers writes of his maritime adventures. Yet curiously, much of this same nautical language flows through Obama's earth-bound memoir.

"Memory sails out upon a murky sea," Ayers writes at one point. Indeed, both he and Obama are obsessed with memory and its instability. The latter writes of its breaks, its blurs, its edges, its lapses. Obama also has a fondness for the word "murky" and its aquatic usages.

"The unlucky ones drift into the murky tide of hustles and odd jobs," he writes, one of four times "murky" appears in Dreams. Ayers and Obama also speak often of waves and wind, Obama at least a dozen times on wind alone. "The wind wipes away my drowsiness, and I feel suddenly exposed," he writes in a typical passage. Both also make conspicuous use of the word "flutter."

Not surprisingly, Ayers uses "ship" as a metaphor with some frequency. Early in the book he tells us that his mother is "the captain of her own ship," not a substantial one either but "a ragged thing with fatal leaks" launched into a "sea of carelessness."

Obama too finds himself "feeling like the first mate on a sinking ship." He also makes a metaphorical reference to "a tranquil sea." More intriguing is Obama's use of the word "ragged" as an adjective as in the highly poetic "ragged air" or "ragged laughter."

Both books use "storms" and "horizons" both as metaphor and as reality. Ayers writes poetically of an "unbounded horizon," and Obama writes of "boundless prairie storms" and poetic horizons-"violet horizon," "eastern horizon," "western horizon."

Ayers often speaks of "currents" and "pockets of calm" as does Obama, who uses both as nouns as in "a menacing calm" or "against the current" or "into the current." The metaphorical use of the word "tangled" might also derive from one's nautical adventures. Ayers writes of his "tangled love affairs" and Obama of his "tangled arguments."

In Dreams, we read of the "whole panorama of life out there" and in Fugitive Days, "the whole weird panorama." Ayers writes of still another panorama, this one "an immense panorama of waste and cruelty." Obama employs the word "cruel" and its derivatives no fewer than fourteen times in Dreams.

On at least twelve occasions, Obama speaks of "despair," as in the "ocean of despair." Ayers speaks of a "deepening despair," a constant theme for him as well. Obama's "knotted, howling assertion of self" sounds like something from the pages of Jack London's "The Sea Wolf."

...

If there is any one paragraph in Dreams that has convinced me of Ayers' involvement it is this one, in which Obama describes the Black Nationalist message:

"A steady attack on the white race... served as the ballast that could prevent the ideas of personal and communal responsibility from tipping into an ocean of despair."

As a writer, especially in the pre-Google era of Dreams, I would never have used a metaphor as specific as "ballast" unless I knew exactly what I was talking about. Seaman Ayers most surely did.

The science of this (to the extent this is a science) suggests Ayers is the author as well:

The "Fugitive Days" excerpt scores a 54 on reading ease and a 12th grade reading level. The "Dreams'" excerpt scores a 54.8 on reading ease and a 12th grade reading level. Scores can range from 0 to 121, so hitting a nearly exact score matters.

A more reliable data-driven way to prove authorship goes under the rubric "cusum analysis" or QSUM. This analysis begins with the measurement of sentence length, a significant and telling variable. To compare the two books, I selected thirty-sentence sequences from Dreams and Fugitive Days, each of which relates the author's entry into the world of "community organizing."

"Fugitive Days" averaged 23.13 words a sentence. "Dreams" averaged 23.36 words a sentence. By contrast, the memoir section of "Sucker Punch" [Cashill's own memoir, offered for purpose of comparison] averaged 15 words a sentence.

And, just for fun, let's review Obama's previous literary output-- a poem he wrote for a college magazine:

Under water grottos, caverns

Filled with apes

That eat figs.

Stepping on the figs

That the apes

Eat, they crunch.

The apes howl, bare

Their fangs, dance . . .

It sure would be nice if anyone in the media would ask Obama from whence he'd derived his ease of speaking in maritime metaphors. And when he lost his interest in dancing apes and figs.

Thanks to someone.

Posted by: Ace at 10:49 AM | Comments (30)
Post contains 1161 words, total size 7 kb.

In the Wall Street Journal, an article using an analogy long-favored on the internet. With an entry of "Phase 2: ?" for practically every half-baked policy he announces.

This more or less sums up Mr. Obama's speech last week on Guantanamo, in which the president explained how he intended to dispose of the remaining detainees after both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly against bringing them to the U.S.

The president's plan can briefly be described as follows. Phase One: Order Guantanamo closed. Phase Two: ? Phase Three: Close Gitmo!

...

Now take the administration's approach to the Middle East. Phase One: Talk to Iran, Syria, whoever. Phase Two: ? Phase Three: Peace!

...

In Gnome-speak, then, Mr. Obama's energy policy goes something like this: Phase One: Inaugurate the era of "green" energy. Phase Two: Overturn the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Phase Three: Carbon neutrality!

It turns out that Hope was not merely the gassy, evasive rhetoric that we on the right assumed it to be. Unfortunately for us all, it turns out that mere Hope is in fact nearly the sum and entirety of Obama's plans for America. In virtually every policy, "Hope" -- as in "Hope that a policy announcement somehow changes reality" -- is pretty much the working guts and engine of the "policy."

In almost no cases can Obama announce a tangible, logical, proven mechanism by which his pronouncements result in the outcomes he seeks (or, in some cases, claims to seek).

This is not a prudent way to run a Foot Locker franchise, let alone the country.

Posted by: Ace at 10:17 AM | Comments (30)
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

If true patriots have the guts to produce shivering-douchechill videos like this, what chance do the terrorists have? more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:46 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

I wrote about this last week in the context of some "studies" which show that the wealthy are fleeing high-tax states. Now comes the Wall Street Journal with a specific example:

Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.

No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession. However, this is one reason that depending on the rich to finance government is so ill-advised: Progressive tax rates create mountains of cash during good times that vanish during recessions.

But don't expect this to penetrate the thick skulls of Democrats. For them it's quite simple: "rich people have our money and we're gonna take it from them." Why people believe the President's BS about lowering taxes is beyond me. You want to lower taxes? Vote Republican.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:41 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

One more thing, just to be a grouchy sonuvagun. To all the silly folks who wrote about lawless and oblivious judicial tyrants and the inevitable Gay Agenda of the California Supreme Court: nice job. You sure nailed that one while simultaneously undermining the rule of law.

Look, there's a reason we have courts and laws and constitutions. Decisions of the courts are not "arbitrary." With very few exceptions, judges and juries do their best to rule justly according to the law. But the judiciary is a lot like a computer. You put good laws in, you get good rulings out. You put shit in and the whole place turns into a sewer. (E.g., the endless environmental litigation).

Part of that is some inherent ambiguity in the English language. Hence the mixed decision we got today, upholding the Prop 8 AND the already existing marriages. Often legislators are not clear about what a law is supposed to do. Frequently the courts are called on figure out what to do about changing technologies and the law (e.g. what do we do about the Fourth Amendment and email?)

And the reason this attitude pisses me off so much is because it undermines our system of government and our system of justice. If it is true that there's nothing we can do except bow down to our judicial overlords then we might as well shut up and die or rise up in revolution. If you believe that our laws and constitutions are meaningless then you might as well lay down and die or rise up in revolution.

I don't believe that our options are so extreme and California (yes, CALIFORNIA!) proved it in November and today. Our laws and constitutions are not meaningless. And our courts are not so broken as people claim. The justice system works and works well most of the time. Should we tweak it with appropriate legislation (and props, where possible) and by appointing hard-working minimalist judges? Hell yeah. But exclaiming every time a court decision goes the other way that "the activist black-robed tyrants are at it again" undermines the very point that laws exist for a reason.

There would have been no point to passing Prop 8 if people truly believed that laws and constitutions have no meaning.

More importantly: if it were true that they were activist black-robed tyrants when they ruled against us then it is equally true that they are activist black-robed tyrants when they rule for us. It's the same judges. Nothing has changed except now we like the ruling. So make your choice: either the courts generally work and we should stay the course or the courts are arbitrary, results-oriented tyrannies and we should burn the whole place down. But you can't do both. Make your choice.

Update: Welcome GayPatriot readers. There's lots more today, including posts on Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Alito and one more on Prop 8. Apparently it's an unofficial Law Day here at the blog.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:18 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 502 words, total size 3 kb.

I haven't seen the decision yet (the California Supreme Court website is down, as expected), but local media is reporting that the decision is: Prop 8 is upheld; the gay marriages still valid.

Congrats to everyone (and me) who guessed right. I'll update as soon as I find a copy of the decision.

More:

Alright, I managed to download a copy of the decision. You can find it here at the Court's website if it works (PDF). (You might have better luck right clicking and "save as" than just clicking over there.)

The decision is 185 pages long. It's going to take a minute or two to digest. The gist is that Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment, not a constitutional revision (which would have had to go through the legislature). However, because Prop 8 did not explicitly apply retroactively to invalidate existing marriages, the 14,000 (now reported as 18,000) gay marriages lawfully performed before Prop 8 passed are still valid.

The decision was 6-1. A single justice wrote that Prop 8 worked such a sweeping change in rights that it constitutes a constitutional revision.

No justice agreed with AG Brown's argument that citizens cannot amend the constitution if the judiciary interprets the amendment to conflict with the existing constitution.

About the 18,000 Gay Marriages: Folks are asking what that's about and why these gay marriages still stand. The reason is that unless a statute, initiative, or amendment is expressly retroactive or it is "clear" that the intent of voters (or legislators) was that it have retroactive effect, it only operates prospectively. In other words, unless there was text in the amendment that said, "this will invalidate the currently existing gay marriages" it does not have that effect.

The justices did not find the "clear" intent of the voters to nullify the existing marriages because the ballot pamphlet which described Prop 8 did not address the question. The only mention which touches the issue was in the rebuttal to the argument against Prop 8: "Your YES vote on Proposition 8 means that only marriage between a man and a woman will be valid or recognized in California, regardless of when or where performed."

According to the Court, that single mention in an ancillary text does not demonstrate the voters actually intended that be the result.

I can feel the eyes rolling. The truth is, courts have always been hostile to retroactive alteration of vested rights. I would have been very surprised if they had found that one sentence enough to overturn marriages which were lawful when performed.

Does this lead to some (convenient) problems in the future? Sure. There's another equal protection argument now. But it's not an insurmountable one. Prop 8 is in the California Constitution now and stands on equal ground with the Equal Protection Clause.

Original Post is Below the Fold: more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:01 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 828 words, total size 5 kb.

What is it, Law Day around here? Sheesh.

This morning the Supreme Court issued a decision (PDF) which overturned a 23 year-old precedent which held that police officers cannot continue to question a defendant once he has requested an attorney. The Court split 5-4 with Kennedy siding with the conservative justices. I'm not sure they came to the right conclusion, (I tend to think that once a defendant asks for a lawyer the police should not continue to badger him into confessing; he has a right to an attorney) but ignore that for now.

Whenever the the Court is asked to reconsider precedent--aside from whatever substantive issues a case may involve--there is always a lot of quiet infighting. The idea of "superprecedent" and Roe v. Wade is never far from the justices' thoughts. So Justice Alito's concurring opinion today, where he is joined by Justice Kennedy, makes interesting reading.

The short version is that he bitchslaps the liberal justices for hypocrisy on the issue of precedent. The funny part is that he uses a technique common among bloggers: he does the old switcheroo to use the the justices' own words against them. Alito's concurring opinion begins on page 24 of the PDF. I've tucked the important part (edited to remove citations) below the fold: more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 07:41 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 584 words, total size 4 kb.

Pretty damn hard in my opinion.

ItÂ’s a given that the left will try and package this pick as non-confrontational and historic. In fact, that process has already begun.

But Obama has chosen a mainstream progressive, rather than a wild-eyed liberal. And he has chosen a rags-to-riches Hispanic woman. Her life story is inspirational — a political consultant's dream. Since she is certain to be confirmed, there are plenty of smart conservatives who will, by midday Tuesday, have done the political cost-benefit analysis: at a time when Republicans are trying to demonstrate that their party can reach beyond rich white men, what mileage is there in doing anything but celebrating such a historic choice?

The White House plans to take the high road in selling Sotomayor to the public. They will point to her résumé, her previous Senate confirmation and her impeccable credentials to make a case for her. Obama's aides are so confident in the political pluses of this pick that some of them would welcome attempts by fringe conservatives to come after her. A few would even like liberals to attack her as insufficiently committed to their causes.

No doubt some squishy Republicans will claim we will alienate Hispanics if we oppose her. Funny but that wasnÂ’t so much a concern to Democrats when they savaged Miguel Estrada and kept him off the Court of Appeals and foreclose any chance he had to be named to the Supreme Court.

The Democrats, including then Senator Barack Obama, have made it perfectly clear over the years that good character, outstanding educational credentials and relevant experience are not enough.

As we all know, there's been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.

I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record. And when I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Samuel Alito, I'm deeply troubled.

I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve. He's an intelligent man and an accomplished jurist. And there's no indication he's not a man of great character.

Obama voted against Alito.

Baring something unforeseen in her background (and letÂ’s not forget, the Obama vetting team isnÂ’t exactly batting a thousand), Sotomayor is going to be confirmed.

As Gabe has begun to lay out below, Sotomayor is clearly a hard left activist judge who thinks minority judges have special knowledge and empathy based on nothing more than their own experiences and heritage. She and Obama clearly think those are more relevant than an impartial application of the law.

But what the Republicans and conservatives must do is use this opportunity to layout what they believe in when it comes to the proper role of judges in our system. They should put Senators from nominally ‘red states’ like Ben Nelson, Byron Dorgan and Blanche Lincoln into the uncomfortable position of defending and pushing this very liberal activist judge over the top.

There's also the benefit of laying down a marker. If Sotomayor gets through without a fight the perception will be that this type of 'progressive' judging is mainstream and acceptable. Obviously liberals think it is but this is a fairly bright line distinction between the parties. People always say Republicans and Democrats are the same, there's no difference between the two. Well judicial philosophy and role of the courts clearly is one big difference and an important one. We should not shy away from making that case, even if we are doomed to fail in the Senate.

Also, Democrats must know the days of them opposing Republican nominees while Republicans support the likes of Ginsburg, Breyer and now Sotomayor are over. The Democrats have been playing tackle football since the Bork nomination while the Republicans have been playing flag football. No more and the game changes now.

It will be good to stop fighting each other and get back to fighting the left.

More: Gabe sends this along...only 7 Republicans voted for Sotomayor when she was confirmed to the Second Circuit.

Sens. Robert Bennett (R-Utah), Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) joined a unanimous slate of Dems in pushing Sotomayor through by a vote of 68-28.

Among the 29 Republican nays were current Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kent.), Minority Whip John Kyl (R-Ariz.), ranking Judiciary Committee member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.).

If you couldn't get John McCain....

Added [Gabe]: Senate Dems are at 59 votes, so they only need one squish to switch. Who's going to jump fastest, Collins or Snowe? Or maybe they'll have a joint press conference.

DrewM. Again: Gabe adds a good note about the filibuster. Personally, I don't think Republicans should go that far. Republicans spent a lot of time making the case that filibusters shouldn't be used against Supreme Court nominees. I think they were right, a nominee should get an up or down vote. I think Republicans should play hard ball but such naked intellectual dishonesty is best left to the Democrats.

Early Republican reaction. Not a good sign. They should have been ready to go from the start. Kennedy didn't wait before launching his "In Robert Bork's America..." shit. I'm not saying that Republicans should slander Sotomayor like Kennedy did Bork but being ready from the first moment is important. Being statesman like is admirable at times, this is not one of those times. Being honest, fair and tough is what we need now, not in a few weeks.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:07 AM | Comments (14)
Post contains 1030 words, total size 7 kb.