Sunday Book Thread
— Monty

I haven't had much time this past week to read for pleasure, but I did pick up one interesting book on my Kindle: Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State by William Voegeli.

Voegeli takes the rather surprising (for a conservative) position that the welfare-state in America is a fait accompli, and that the best course of action going forward is to simply limit how large it gets. It's rather a depressing book in that respect. The book does treat the liberal side of the argument carefully and seriously, which not many conservative books on this subject do, and it places the growth of the welfare-state into a broad historical context. This book expounds on a point I've made myself many times: we've all agreed long since that we're going to have a welfare-state; the question of whether to have one is off the table. The real question now is how big we want it to be, and how much we're willing to pay to maintain it.

Voegeli recently did an interview with Peter Robinson of the Hoover Institution's Uncommon Knowledge program. Here is the link.

What is everyone else reading?

Posted by: Monty at 05:17 AM | Comments (127)
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

Top Headline Comments 2-20-11 [Andy]
— Open Blogger

Because nothing ever happens on Sunday, here's a thread where we can talk about it.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:08 AM | Comments (53)
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Overnight Open Thread
— Genghis

What say we get things started off on the wrong track...

No question about it, the manÂ’s sperm(s) slice like a fuckinÂ’ hammer. Is sperm singular or plural? Or both? Or neither? Or a type of whale?

Nothing more to see here people...just move along below the fold. more...

Posted by: Genghis at 05:46 PM | Comments (735)
Post contains 850 words, total size 7 kb.

Intrepid Moronette Reportage
— Dave in Texas

Heather Radish is on the ground, doing the job most Americans won't do.

Pics here at her linky.

She writes:

more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:04 PM | Comments (133)
Post contains 634 words, total size 4 kb.

Observations from Wisconsin, Donna V.
— rdbrewer

Commenter Donna V. put this report in comments last night. It's an encouraging look at the glaring lack of enthusiasm about the union protests among Wisconsin citizens--once you get away from the union thug organized soiree at the capitol. It appears that average folk who have to go to work and, say, make arrangements for their children while teachers are lying about being sick don't seem to be very supportive of protesters.

Today after work, I went grocery shopping and ran a few other errands near a busy intersection in Shorewood WI. Shorewood is a well-to-do, lily white and generally very liberal suburb of Milwaukee.

There was a small band of high school students, in obviously high spirits because of their extra long weekend, jumping around and waving signs saying “Support Worker Rights.” They were accompanied by a few older people, teachers I assume, holding similar signs.

This is what struck me: it was rush hour, plenty of cars were going past and during the course of 15 or 20 minutes or so, I didn’t hear one single honk of support from any passing cars. This is a ‘burb where there is no shortage of Volvos with Obama/Biden and “Co-Exist” bumper stickers. I remember the anti-war rallies during the Bush years. The honks and cheers of support and encouragement the “Bush = Hitler” protesters got were constant. “Walker = Hitler” doesn’t seem to be going over nearly as well.The silence of the rush hour crowd was very noticable.

I don’t blame the kids for being clueless because they are kids, but their elders are another matter. Did any of those bozos pause to consider that even a wussy Volvo-driving Obama voter, driving home after a long, hard work week, might have glanced at those signs and thought “Worker rights? Hey, I’m a worker too – been busting my butt all week. Had to scramble to find sitters for the kids today and it made me late for work. Nobody will stand on the corner waving signs if I get laid off, or take a pay cut. Screw these people.”

Some otherwise pretty apolitical friends were furious at having to take two days off to watch their kids. TheyÂ’ve become big Scott Walker fans. Keep making friends and influencing people, lefties, itÂ’s working so well!

Really, if pro-union protesters can't attract a bunch of cheering, honking libtard supporters in libtard Shorewood of all places, you know Walker's winning this one.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 02:36 PM | Comments (370)
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.

Dem congressman's staff says he needs psychiatric help
— Purple Avenger

Of course they kept on working on his campaign even though they thought he'd deteriorated into a complete loon.

..."This is way beyond acceptable levels and the charade needs to end NOW," wrote Lisa Grove, a senior and long-serving campaign pollster, in an e-mail to colleagues the day of the meeting. "No enabling by any potential enablers, he needs help."...

I don't suppose there's any ethical issues involved in trying to foist off a candidate on the public who you believe to be nuts, right? Piffle, of course not. We elect certifiably insane people to congress all the time, so this is obviously no big deal. The psychiatric ward patients need representation in congress too, so I heartily applaud Mr Wu's staff for their "courage" in going through with the campaign in spite of the ummm...challenges involved.

P.S. - David, if you really are nuts, do get some help. You owe the people who elected you that much. You might want to think about replacing your staff too.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 11:13 AM | Comments (340)
Post contains 182 words, total size 1 kb.

Obama Admin: "Excuse Me, I'm Sure I Didn't Hear You Right. Did You Really Really Just Call My Healthcare Law Unconstitutional?"
— Gabriel Malor

On Thursday, the Obama Administration went back to court to get a "clarification" of Judge Vinson's ruling striking down ObamaCare as unconstitutional. The states involved in the lawsuit have until next Thursday to respond. The Administration wants to know if it can continue implementing the law without getting a stay of Judge Vinson's order first. (Short answer: no.)

There has been a great deal of confusion on this point, however, from the states, the Administration, the lawyers involved, and especially the public. I've been meaning to pick up the issue, but just didn't have time until now. My father emailed me earlier in the week to ask if tanning salons will have to pay the tanning tax this year, since the law has been declared unconstitutional. (Answer: yes, if the IRS demands it; you can ask Wesley Snipes about messing around with the IRS . . . when he gets out of prison.)

First, though, click over to Aaron Worthing writing at Patterico's because he notes the glaring error in the Administration's motion for clarification. Worthing calls it "dishonesty" and I'll be straight with you: it's certainly misleading and if I wrote that motion I'd be waking up with cold sweats in the middle of the night for fear of getting sanctioned by the Court or a bar association.

Many people have asked about the effect of a declaratory judgment, like the one Judge Vinson made declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional. They also want to know why he didn't just issue an injunction. Particularly astute court-watchers want to know why the Obama Administration didn't just ask for a stay of Judge Vinson's decision when it was issued and make the whole issue go away until the appeal is resolved. I don't have any inside information on the motivations for any of these people, but in the course of explaining each of these judicial mechanisms I'll tell you what I think is going on here.

A declaratory judgment ("DJ") resolves rights between the parties of a lawsuit. In other words, it describes how they must treat each other going forward. An injunction, on the other hand, binds one or both parties to do or refrain from doing something in the future, and not just in relation to each other, but in relation to everyone. Judge Vinson didn't issue an injunction because of, in his own words:

a long-standing presumption that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction. . . . There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.

Several important, but unspoken consequences followed from this decision. First, though a DJ is like an injunction it is not an injunction. An injunction binds all parties everywhere, which means that if ObamaCare were enjoined as unconstitutionally beyond the power of the federal government then it would be beyond the power of the federal government everywhere. Obama would have to halt implementation in all states because the federal government is a party. On the other hand a DJ just describes rights between the parties and so wouldn't impact implementation outside of the 26 plaintiff states (without further action).

Yes, I know that's basically a ridiculous distinction--either the law is constitutional or it is not constitutional; it can't be constitutional in some states and not others--but this is law. These separate mechanisms exist for separate purposes and there is only a presumption that government officials will comply with a DJ as if it were an injunction. (I'd say that the Obama Administration has rebutted the presumption.)

So the next step is for states or individuals who do not want to comply with ObamaCare regulations or mandates to refuse and dare the Administration to complain to the courts. That's what it did Thursday by means of its "motion for clarification." The motion (PDF) notes the inconsistent stands several states have made and is asking the judge if he really really meant it when he said the law was unconstitutionally beyond the power of the federal government. The Administration is hoping to get a de facto stay of the decision without actually having to go through the effort to get one. (I explain below why the Administration would want to avoid a stay motion.)

Okay, then after an injunction or after Judge Vinson rules on the motion to clarify, the Administration will have no choice, I'm sure, but to ask that his order be stayed pending appeal. A stay is a judicial mechanism that preserves the status quo while litigation ensues. (Hah. Pun.)

Why would Judge Vinson do it this way? Well, it means the Obama Administration was always going to have to come crawling back for at least one more round of abuse when states started suggesting that they didn't have to comply with Secretary Sebelius' demands. And I have no doubt the judge won't pull his punches, just as he didn't in his Tea Party-referencing decision (the original Tea Party).

To get a stay, the Administration will have to demonstrate (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood the it will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of a stay will substantially injure the other parties in the proceeding; and (4) that the stay is in the public interest.

Anybody who read Judge Vinson's decision (PDF) on the merits want to guess how he will evaluate those factors when it comes to a stay? Expect an especially pointed comment on the "public interest."

That explains why the Administration was hesitant to ask for a stay right from the start, since it would pile one PR disaster on another. (If they'd been smart, they would have asked for the stay before the decision on the merits, like the Prop 8 proponents did. It got it out of the way fast, so they could then go right to the appellate court.) Now the Administration has to go back to Judge Vinson before it can seek a stay at the Eleventh Circuit. Which will be a whole 'nother gamble and potential PR disaster, since there's no way to know at this point which Circuit judges would get the motion.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:07 AM | Comments (151)
Post contains 1097 words, total size 7 kb.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics UPDATED
— Dave in Texas

Eric Cantor press release, "we cut $100 billion from the budget".*

I'm speechless.

No wait, I'm not either. This is brazen rhetorical budget-year bullshit, the kind I was told by "serious" Republicans was the same nonsense Obama used to defend his health care savings calculations (take money for ten years spend it for six). And shoving the BS claim in your face a mere day after voting with the Dems to avoid an additional $22 BB in actual cuts, well "shameless" is too kind a word.

It's not $100 billion, it's $61 billion.

Andy said it better, "this is measuring from the taint".

*holds my fingers four inches apart and winks. Oh yeah baby.

UPDATE: Roll call vote on Jordan/Blackburn via MelissaTweets

* yes, I know, it's not the budget, it's a CR. I also know it ain't 100 billion.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 06:55 AM | Comments (244)
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

A hot slice of DOOM, with a tasty dessert of misery and failure to follow
— Monty

What does our government do these days? Mostly, write checks to beneficiaries of various social-welfare programs. In a nutshell:

[W]what you find is that the federal government has over the years essentially turned into a gigantic wealth-transfer machine -- taking money from a shrinking pool of taxpayers and giving it out to a growing list of favored groups.

This completely unsustainable, of course, and the end of the road looms ever larger in the window. Yet we seem to be unable to turn away from the crash -- instead, we rush towards it, as if welcoming the oblivion to follow.

h/t Instapundit.
more...

Posted by: Monty at 06:46 AM | Comments (53)
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

Top (Weekend) Headline Comments 02-19-2011
— Dave in Texas

They told us if Bush ever became president, civility would be over, and they were right.

Also, if you need bad advice, I'm here for you. Send your questions, hopes, your aspirations and dreams, even your huddled masses yearning to be free to daveintexashasthedope ~at~ gmail /dot/ KHAN!!!! Stupid answers every Sunday evening.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 06:00 AM | Comments (135)
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.