Jan
29
I Never Thought I’d Say This
Filed Under American Politics | 1 Comment
But there is a brilliant post at The Daily Kos about the recent Supreme Court ruling on corporate money in elections. Actually, in truth, I read Kos on a daily basis. Far too much of the tea-bagging commentary from them but they do have some good stuff from time to time. Anyway, back to the article by Adam B.
It’s well worth reading it all, but the most accessible part highlights the difference between what happened before the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling and what happens after. Guess what, there’s not a lot of difference:
Before Citizens United:
* Corporations could make direct financial contributions to candidates in 27 states, but not in federal elections.
* In 26 states, corporations could run direct advertising for or against the election of a state/local candidate.
* In all 50 states and in federal elections, corporations could run “issue advertising” against candidates saying “Sen. [X] is wrong on this issue and is a bad person, so call him on the phone and say so,” and as long as it didn’t say “and you shouldn’t vote for him” and wasn’t too close to an election, it was legal.After Citizens United:
* Corporations can make direct financial contributions to candidates in 27 states, but not in federal elections.
* In all 50 states and in federal elections, corporations can run direct advertising for or against the election of a candidate.
* In all 50 states and in federal elections, corporations can run “issue advertising” against candidates saying “Sen. [X] is wrong on this issue and is a bad person” as well as “so don’t vote for him.”
So the only difference now is that groups including corporates and trade unions can now recommend voting for against a person, something they couldn’t do before hand, and that this messaging can be done in the run up to an election. This is hardly the catastrophic assault on democracy that the left would have us believe.
And then Adam B adds this nugget on the recent vote in Oregon to raise taxes on the wealthy:
It’s worth noting, by the way, that the tax referenda which were passed on Oregon on Tuesday were largely promoted by direct spending from the SEIU, ASCFME and NEA/OEA treasuries, which Oregon already allowed and are now constitutional everywhere. (Unions are corporations too.
So leaving aside the rights of free speech (or whether political money can be defined as such), this just doesn’t seem like the big deal that left are demagoguing it as. But then that’s not news.
Jan
23
Getting To the Basics Of The Supreme Courts Ruling On Political Speech
Filed Under American Politics | 1 Comment
From Matt Welch:
This is what the court case was all about:
Citizens United, a conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit that has funded a dozen political documentaries over the years, produced a critical documentary about Hillary Clinton in 2008 entitled “Hillary: The Movie.” By a decision of the federal government, which was enforcing the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (known more broadly as McCain-Feingold), this piece of political speech was banned from television.
Let’s boil it down to the essential words: Political documentary, banned, government.
You don’t have to be a First Amendment purist to intuit that political speech was, if anything, the most urgent subcategory covered by the First Amendment’s “Congress shall pass no law” restrictions. And you don’t have to be a Hillary-hater to imagine the shoe on the other foot. What if MoveOn.org’s 501(c)(4), Campaign to Defend America, had been blocked by George W. Bush’s Federal Elections Commission from broadcasting “McCain: The Movie”? Wouldn’t that stink, too?
This is at the crux of the left’s complaint about this ruling. They want to continue the status quo in which documentaries critical of politicians can be banned from appearing on television. That’s the left’s perception of democracy.
Case closed.
Jul
15
Lindsey Graham vs Sotomayor
Filed Under American Politics | 27 Comments
If you have the time, please try and watch this video (sorry but I can’t embed it) of Lindsey Graham questioning Sonia Sotomayor. It does last 30 minutes but is well worth it. Graham hits exactly the right tone. He is very respectful whilst showing up her weaknesses quite glaringly. It really brings out her evasiveness very well.
CNN said of Graham’s examination:
This was an exquisite cross-examination. This guy really knows what he’s doing.
And
the most honest, and least political, moment of the hearings.
The Republicans have handled this very well so far. They’ve been courteous and non-confrontational whilst challenging her on her infamous speeches, but more importantly her judicial philosophy (particularly in light of her more controversial rulings. Sotomayor on the other hand has looked evasive and non-committal. Some of her pauses before answering a question have been very revealing of a nominee being very careful to say the right thing rather than what she believes.
Despite the scare-mongering, there has been no “Borking” of Sotomayor. Cue video of Ted Kennedy:
A true demonstration of the difference in class between the darling of the left and one of the most outstanding Republicans.
Jul
13
When A Hispanic Supreme Court Nominee is Opposed On Racial Grounds
Filed Under American Politics | 5 Comments
No, not Sonia Sotomayor. Miguel Estrada, a Bush nominee to the US Court of Appeals For the D.C. District, often seen as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court.
In 2003, his nomination was filibustered by Democratic Senators ultimately resulting in his withdrawal from nomination. His was the first filibuster in the history of Court of appeals nominees.
Was he filibustered on ideological grounds? Not a chance. A leaked memo to Senate Minority Whip, Dick Durbin spelled out why liberal interest groups wanted him opposed:
They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.
The Democrats opposed Estrada’s nomination because he was a latino. Funny how racism only applies to Republicans.
Via HotAir with a link to the leaked memo.
Jun
2
The House Of Saud
Filed Under American Politics | 8 Comments
In one of our regular Iraq war debates, Ronnie made this point:
As we all know the House of Saud and the Bush family are very, very close. It is therefore inconceivable that Saudi Arabia would provide the war that Original Tony was looking for to provide a new weapons testing range.
You will remember that the only US civil flights allowed into the air after 9/11 were the ones taking Saudi nationals back home, thus denying the FBI the chance to interview them.
This of course was a regular anti-Bush talking point. Well perhaps it might be a regular anti-Obama talking point too now. In the latest in the line of “whatever Bush can do, Obama will do as well” comes this report that the Justice department is petitioning the Supreme Court to have members of the Saudi Royal Family removed from a civil case that accuses them of knowingly financing the 9/11 attack.
Relatives of Sept. 11 victims say they’re angry that the Justice Department is supporting the Saudi royal family’s bid to be removed from a 9/11 lawsuit.
The families of some victims have accused the royal family of financially backing terror groups that carried out the 2001 attack.
The Justice Department filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday. It supports the Saudis’ argument that the royal family as a sovereign state cannot be sued in a U.S. court.
The complaint, Federal Insurance Co. vs The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia alleged that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and four princes donated money to charities in the knowledge that some of those funds would be diverted to Al Qaeda.
Elena Kagan’s response (the Solicitor General) is that:
further review by this Court to determine the best legal basis for that immunity is unwarranted
The right like to compare the Obama administration with that of Carter, Obama’s supporters have more grandiose comparisons in mind, ambitiously thinking of FDR and Lincoln whilst the press want to see the glamour of a Kennedy. The truth is, the best label for the Obama administration is “The Bush Continuity Government”.
Perhaps Obama’s campaign slogan should have been “(No) Hope and (No) Change.
May
26
As now seems certain, Sonia Sotomayor is Obama’s first nomination for the Supreme Court. My first thoughts is that her appointment should be unopposed by Republicans.
1. This is clearly a wedge appointment in the hope that Republicans will strongly oppose her and forever alienate Latinos. Yes, her appointment is affirmative action writ large – she ranks as a below average appellate judge but she is a woman and a Latino so obviously qualifies in Democratic eyes. Republicans should not fall for this very obvious racial trap.
2. Obama has earned the right to pick his judge. The GOP should be welcoming the fact that he hasn’t picked a fire-breathing liberal. She may be progressive, she may arrogantly believe that Judges make laws and she may support affirmative action but there could have been far worse appointments.
3. If Obama serves a second term, he is probably be going to selecting one or more additional judges for SCOTUS. I suspect that they are more likely to be the radical progressives that the GOP fear. Republicans should keep their powder dry and store up political capital for future fights.
4. If Republicans strongly oppose Sotomayor, not only will they suffer with Latino voters, they will most likely alienate independent voters too. It will only feed the perception of the GOP as the party of no.
5. The final reason for not opposing Sotomayor – With such a Senatorial minority, they probably wouldn’t win anyway.
6. Not opposing Sotomayor will demonstrate the stark contrast between their own fairness and Obama’s objections to Bush appointees Roberts and Alito.
7. Souter was part of the liberal wing of the Supreme Court. another liberal doesn’t affect the partisan balance. The fight should come if and when Obama comes to appoint a more conservative Justice.
I think Obama has chosen Sotomayor to try and outmanoeuvre the GOP. The GOP should respond in kind and not fall into the petty judicial tactics of the Democrats. They should certainly express reservations about her ability and question the rationale for the appointment but should allow her to go through relatively unopposed.
NB I reserve the right to change my views on this as I learn more about the process involved and about Sotomayor.
May
26
Via Breitbart:
WASHINGTON (AP) – Officials tell The Associated Press that President Barack Obama intends to nominate federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor (SUHN’-ya soh-toh-my-YOR’) as the first Hispanic to serve on the Supreme Court.Sotomayor, 54, would succeed retiring Justice David Souter if confirmed by the Senate. The officials spoke to AP on condition of anonymity because Obama has not yet announced his decision.