Some hyper-partisan people, with no evidence to support their claims, often accuse our liberal friends of being entirely incapable of finding any joy in even the most simple, politically-neutral things.

These baseless accusations must stop.

If your other half bought you a Valentine's card, be sure to say thanks for the 18.5 grams of CO2 it created. http://t.co/JlxWN5Pjzv

— The New Republic (@tnr) February 13, 2014

Posted by: JohnE. at 03:51 PM | Comments (304)
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

Volokh looks ahead to the near-term, which, as Gabe said, involves an almost certain decision from the Supreme Court. Likely, this will be resolved in favor of shall-issue, but we don't know that.

The next step is: Well, what comes after that? I was asking John Ekdahl and Charles C.W. Cooke about their opinion as to whether the Second Amendment's protections would forbid, for example, a state law banning any guns from being carried into a nightclub or any establishment that serves liquor. I ask not because I favor such a law, but because this would be the natural next step of the gun restrictivists, should shall-issue be the rule of the land: The gun restrictionists will begin passing laws that say you can't have a gun in many, many places: Churches, schools, and hospitals, first of all, citing safety; then they'd add "malls" to the list, citing the special danger guns in malls pose, as malls represent a target-rich environment for a crazed shooter. (They will ignore the fact that an armed citizen in the mall could stop a crazed shooter, of course.)

Then they'd say "nightclubs" because of the possibility that a drunken argument turns into a shooting.

Of course they wouldn't stop there; they'd keep on adding new venues where guns were illegal. They would attempt to eat at the ruling that people are permitted to carry guns in public by finding new exceptions to that rule, new venues excluded from what "public" means, with an eye to making the exceptions swamp the rule.

So their campaign would be to prohibit guns from this place, and then next, until the law's guarantee that citizens can carry guns in public was limited, pretty much, to "your home, and the woods."

Cooke says his research tells him that New Hampshire has a law forbidding guns at polling places, and he imagines that would be found constitutional.

Anyway, that's what I see the next battles as being about, at least if the Supreme Court endorses the Ninth Circuit opinion.

Posted by: Ace at 03:01 PM | Comments (185)
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

#slatepitches, as they say. Post something grabby for viral hits.

Ann Althouse writes about the article.

Per the Slate article's headline: "The Massive Liberal Failure on Race. Affirmative action doesnÂ’t work. It never did. ItÂ’s time for a new solution."

The guy wrote a book called, "Some of My Best Friends Are Black: The Strange Story of Integration in America."

Althouse comments:

Obviously, Slate's publishing the article boosts Colby's stature as an expert on this topic. It's why I'm reading Colby's piece. But I can see the reasons why Slate would publish this. It knows its readers are mostly white liberals, and it's easy to guess that they're susceptible to the narcissistic question: Where are my black friends? (Obama counts as one friend, but he's always so busy.) And Slate's headline is one of the most egregious pleas for traffic I have ever seen: "Massive Liberal Failure on Race: Affirmative action doesnÂ’t work...." Massive! Liberal! Failure! Race! The righties will not be able not to link to this, I can hear them chuckling. And maybe, oozing in around their self-loving liberalism, they believe that plenty of their regular readers, the good liberals, feel secretly aggrieved about affirmative action.

The guy's point seems to be that affirmative action has created (or reinforced) a separation between the races... which I actually don't think is true, but okay. He then suggests a big government expansion (of course!) in exchange for getting rid of affirmative action.

He says everyone on the right is desperate to get rid of affirmative action. That's not really true. That position exists. But some of us have a moderate take on it, something like this:

I do not oppose special efforts to find minority candidates for a position. I think such efforts are advisable and wise.

I don't even oppose soft quotas, not hard ones, but soft ones. For example, if a company has always had 3% or less black workers, despite blacks making up 15% of the nearby job pool, I don't mind a fair inquiry into this situation, so long as the company is able to rebut any presumption or conclusion that they're hiring on a discriminatory basis. (Part of the problem, here, is that such inquiries frequently do not seem fair, the company is not allowed to fairly rebut the implicit charge, and the soft quota quickly becomes a hard quota.)

I don't even mind, and I'm just speaking for myself here, Chris Rock's claim that affirmative action is a good policy, because a tie should go to the runner, as in baseball. He says it's so hard to get on first base, just as it's been hard for blacks to get ahead in America, that if there's a tie as to qualifications between a black and white applicant, you should give the job to the black one.

I know many conservatives may disagree in principle. In principle, I wouldn't disagree, or perhaps I'd disagree too, but mutedly. But while I don't mind ties going to the runner, per Rock's analogy, I will object when the runner is clearly out (that is, that there is a clear reason to hire the white guy over him, based on nonracial factors), but the law or political pressure supports the hiring of the black guy anyway.

Our goal should be a color blind society. We're not there yet. I don't mind some efforts taking cognizance of this fact... but I do start to object when the state imposes a discriminatory regime based on race. I maybe can go along with a little bit of such discrimination. But only a little.

A tie, a near-tie, okay. I get that. I concede diversity is, all other things being equal, a laudable thing to strive for. I certainly would like racial problems in America to be past us, and when the races are at rough economic equality, they will be past us.

But you can't turn to actual racial discrimination in favor of this goal.

I mean, when it comes right down to it: Even ignoring such things as principle (that it's unfair to discriminate against any race based on race, including the white race or, frequently as it turns out, Asians, who are "overrepresented" in colleges), the fact is that I have a strong personal preference to not be discriminated against myself. It's not "racist" of me to prefer to not be discriminated against, even if someone can make a compelling case (in their opinion) as to why I ought to be.

At any rate, read Althouse, read this #slatepitch, decide what you think.

Posted by: Ace at 02:20 PM | Comments (404)
Post contains 779 words, total size 5 kb.

Turley is a liberal himself. But there are two sorts of liberals: principled ones and partisan ones. Someone like Turley will call out one of his own when one of his own violates important principles.

But most liberals won't. The official word from much of the progressive side of the aisle is glee that Obama is "getting tough" with conservatives (and also, "getting tough" with the Constitution, I guess.)

This is why I won't call most progressives "liberal." The word liberal, despite being discredited in the 70s and 80s when it came to describe the New Left, has an honorable tradition existing well before that time. Many people who we would now call "conservatives" in the 40s and 50s in fact called themselves "liberal" at the time.

There was once a tension, for example, between expanding state power and "liberalism." Liberals opposed it, in the main, and championed the individual

But at some point, the New Left embraced (and how!) growing state power over economic aspects of life (while, I must acknowledge, resisting state power in the spheres of sexuality and free speech) and while they were often termed "liberals," I think that term was misapplied, when one looks at the whole history of it.

At any rate, Turley is a liberal, but those cheering for Obama's unconstitutional collection of all government power within the Executive and his single person are not. They are an assortment of statists, progressives, revanchist cryptosocialists, and simple-minded partisan Democrats who just take the position that anything their team is doing is fine, because it's their team.

Turley calls this "dangerous," and notes that we are now in the slippery slope to a "false democracy." He doesn't say this explicitly, but by "false democracy" I imagine he's thinking of a banana republic, in which there is a pretense of democratic republicanism, but in fact is an authoritarian structure, as the Jefe in such a system actually has all the power.

He says those currently remaining silent will "come to loathe" their silence.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:36 PM | Comments (518)
Post contains 375 words, total size 3 kb.

I am only halfway through the decision, which is linked below.

To sum up, if I botched Gabe's Twitter feed: San Diego County had a rule that, in addition to the acceptable limitations on concealed carry (good moral character (no prison, etc.), a training course, etc.) the Sheriff also required "good cause" to carry, something that indicates the person seeking to carry a gun is outside of the "mainstream" as far his personal level of danger and personal need for self-protection. A generalized claim of the need to protect oneself was not good enough, the Sheriff (and county) said; concealed carry was only permissible if someone could document a particularlized need for self-defense, such has having a restraining order against a threatening third party, or being in discussions with a DA about bringing charges against a potential threatening party, or the like.

Held: That requirement is impermissible. The right of self-defense is enshrined in the Constitution. Citizens of sound moral character applying for a carry license to not have to document or even claim some particularized, outside-the-"mainstream" need for personal self-protection. They have that right generally.

San Diego's policy of requiring a showing for special cause is stricken.

Gabe has digested the outlines of it on Twitter, posting important quotes.

The decision is here.

Posted by: Ace at 10:36 AM | Comments (532)
Post contains 441 words, total size 5 kb.

When Gabe heard about this yesterday -- the Treasury's new claimed rule that businesses must sign a statement swearing they are not cutting their staff (or avoiding increasing their staff) in order to avoid Obamacare's disincentives for expanding your staff (that is, different Obamacare's strictures kick in at 50 or 100 employees) -- he had a simple question:

I suppose that's a quaint question now, isn't it? Gabe seems a naif for even asking it. We all now understand that Obama feels that any law he feels should be a law is a law, whether Congress has gone through the bother of passing a law or not.

Ed Morrissey discusses it himself, and also links Andy McCarthy discussing it.

Let's just cut the chase. Obama wants businesses to swear to this, under penalty of perjury, because he would like to use these statements -- whether true or false -- to argue that Obamacare is not causing reductions in hiring.

Note he has created a powerful coercive force to get businesses to lie on these things. A businessman, being asked by the Treasury to swear he's not reducing staff to avoid Obamacare, understands exactly what Treasury wants: Treasury wants him to claim this. If the businessman claims this, even if falsely, Treasury will leave him alone.

If a businessman decides to to tell the truth and say, "Why, actually, I am reducing staff to avoid Obamacare, as is my right," he can expect that Treasury will take an interest in him. An auditing interest.

It is thus in businessman's interest to perjure themselves, and Treasury would like them to perjure themselves.

The bad faith of this action is demonstrated by the fact that Treasury doesn't even ask a straight question about it. (Which they would also have no power to ask, by the way.) A straight question would be, "Have you refrained from making new hires, or have you cut staff, due to the incentives and disincentives of Obamacare?" Such a question would be more likely to lead to truthful answers (though any businessman with a grain of savviness would still understand what Treasury wants him to say, and adjust his answer accordingly).

But at least that formulation isn't so plainly constructed to force one answer, the answer that is politically helpful to Obama.

In addition, if Treasury merely wants to know the truth, they can employ a method more likely to produce candid answers: send out a survey form to 10,000 business owners, making answers voluntarily, and creating a special means of response that safeguards each respondent's identity, so they can feel comfortable speaking a truth that the IRS (while under Obama's control) might not like.

But they do not want a truthful answer. They want a specific answer, truthful or not.

Obama, using the power of the IRS, is thus now compelling private citizens to commit perjury in order to use those deliberately-elicited perjurious statements as part of his political campaign. He doesn't care if these Loyalty Oaths are true; but he does want the paperwork on record so he can point to it.

To get back to Gabe's question: What legal basis does the Treasury have for this? Demanding that a citizen or business sign a statement, on penalty of perjury, is a serious thing. Businessmen are under a great many laws already; Congress has passed these laws, however. They are constitutional laws (or, for those who object that they're nevertheless unconstitutional, at least they have the surface appearance of being constitutional, as they were passed by Congress and then signed into law by a President, as the Constitution requires).

What basis does the executive have for creating new laws? If Treasury can make people swear to this, can they also make people swear to not taking advantage of tax loopholes and preferences to reduce their tax burden?

For example: Can a Republican President direct Treasury to make businessmen swear that they are investing in tax breaks favored by liberals (such as green energy) out of actual support for those boondoggles, as opposed to simply wanting the big tax break for them?

This is lawless, and this is scary. And it just keeps on happening, day after day.

At some point the Supreme Court must step in and save our democracy. Whether or not Obamacare was "constitutional" as written, it is now unconstitutional as interpreted by President Obama. Obama is interpreting not as an actual law, with firm dates, specified strictures and duties, but as an illegal Enabling Act that simply transfers, unconstitutionally, the power of Congress to legislate to the Executive.

Even when Congress actually intends to do this, the Supreme Court has knocked down overbroad delegations of power to the Executive-- the Constitution requires Congress to pass laws, and the President to enforce them, and even a willing Congress cannot pass its power to the Executive. The Constitution forbids it.

Now Congress can pass some rule-making power and discretion to the Executive. However, there are limitations on that power:

In the 1989 case Mistretta v. United States,[6] the Court stated that:

Applying this "intelligible principle" test to congressional delegations, our jurisprudence has been driven by a practical understanding that in our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives. Accordingly, this Court has deemed it "constitutionally sufficient" if Congress clearly delineates the general policy, the public agency which is to apply it, and the boundaries of this delegated authority.

Where can Obama point to in the tax codes or in Obamacare to say Congress has delineated this general policy, or named which Agency should execute it, or... even mentioned it at all?

In this situation, Congress is not even willing to transfer its constitutional power to the Executive. The Executive is simply asserting that it did, or at least, that this is what is "required" to save Obamacare.

A lawsuit must be lodged to declare Obamacare an unconstitutional delegation of lawmaking power to the executive, as interpreted and actually enforced by Obama.

Facially, Obamacare looks like a normal law. But in actual practice, it is, as Charles C.W. Cooke called it, an illegal, unconstitutional enabling act.

Poaching: If Obama is presuming to poach Congressional power, why doesn't the House of Representatives poach back?

Let the House pass a bill stating that no business has to comply with this, as it is unconstitutional.

Let them say further that their statement of intent on this matter shall be a perfect defense to all prosecutions or attempts of the executive to enforce the clause.

And let the House start doing more than that: Let the House pass a bill that in its opinion Obamacare is simply no longer the law of the land.

Now, Obama will object: One House of Congress has no right or authority to do this.

Oh?

Lot of that going 'round, huh?

Posted by: Ace at 09:41 AM | Comments (458)
Post contains 1196 words, total size 8 kb.

Ted Cruz. Is there anything he can't do?

"House Republicans who supported 'principles' of immigration reform floated by Speaker John Boehner late last month grumbled Tuesday that the plan was dead on arrival because Cruz blasted it as 'amnesty,' spurring a blizzard of negative phone calls to House Republicans."

Yeah. People were totally jamming the phone lines because Ted Cruz called it "amnesty". If that one blasted fellow hadn't said anything, people would've been a-ok with it.

These unnamed, grumbly House Republicans sound a lot like Al Gore's AGW co-religionists who blame Climate Change!™ for everything.

Meanwhile, out here in the hinterlands we don't need Ted Cruz to tell us that the House desperately wants to sell us out on amnesty. We have Drew M. for that.

Posted by: andy at 08:12 AM | Comments (475)
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

Technically it was yesterday but it's too delicious to let slip by. After saying he couldn't imagine passing a clean debt ceiling, Mitch McConnell was set to let that very thing happened yesterday. And then along came Ted Cruz.

The leaders had wanted to allow the toxic measure to pass with just 51 votes so all 45 Republicans could vote against it. But Cruz, the Texas tea party freshman, demanded approval by a 60-vote threshold.

So McConnell and Cornyn tried to persuade more than five Republicans in safe seats to support the effort, but they were met with stiff resistance. No Republican wanted to be vote No. 60 to advance a bill to raise the debt ceiling without spending cuts, forcing the GOP leaders to secure a comfortable margin of victory or risk being blamed for a historic debt default.

How bad was this vote? Even Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins wanted cover for it. They usually vote with the Democrats to save guys like McConnell and number 2 Senate GOP leader John Cornyn the embarrassment of voting with Harry Reid. Well not yesterday.

The vote started late, as Senate Republicans huddled behind closed doors. After meeting for roughly an hour in private, the conference still did not know whether it could conjure up the needed votes.

On the floor, the procedural vote ran on for another hour, with Republicans slow to offer support.

Cornyn and McConnell, who is the most vulnerable Senate Republican up for reelection in 2014, then voted to end the debate, making it clear the procedural motion would be approved.

After their dramatic votes, another group of Republicans met in a room off the Senate floor. They returned, and several switched their votes from no to yes.

Some members said they switched their votes to give cover to McConnell and Cornyn.

“I didn’t want this to come down to just be a criticized vote for just a few of our people. It just wasn’t right,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who fought off a primary challenger in 2012 and is serving his last term.

12 Republicans wound up voting with Obama, Reid and the rest of the Democrats on the cloture vote, the one that counted. They all bravely voted against it on final passage when it only needed 51 votes to pass.

Cruz has laid a little low lately after his dust ups with the establishment over the shutdown. But yesterday he delivered an enormous gift to McConnell's primary opponent Matt Bevin and once again showed what a bunch of feckless hacks so much of the GOP is.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:09 AM | Comments (407)
Post contains 461 words, total size 3 kb.

• OmertaCare
  
• Senate Dem Urge IRS To Intensify Harassment Of Conservative Groups
  
• Benghazi Movie In The Works
  
• Dem Group Spending 310k On One Ad Against Pryor's Opponent
  
• Tea Party Groups Are Making And Spending Millions, But Not On Candidates
  
• 400 Pound Dem: Republicans Just Want People To Starve
  
• Meh, I Can't Fault Barack For This Decision
  
• Top 10 Things To Get Your Conservative Woman On Valentine's Day
  
• Begich Allies Already Spending Against Sullivan
  
• What Do The Jobless Do When Benefits End
  

Sorry for the meager offerings but I didn't fall asleep until around 5am.

Follow me on twitter and please don't tweet results for the Olympic hockey games into my feed. I'm DVRing them for later.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:22 AM | Comments (159)
Post contains 123 words, total size 2 kb.

Blah, blah, snow.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 03:04 AM | Comments (314)
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.