Tim Kaine's Eyebrow
EDIT: For the record, I can raise my right eyebrow very high.
You are invited to attend theI have already reserved my spot. Judge Sykes served on the WI State Supreme Court and is currently on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. She's been talked about as a potential Supreme Court Justice in the event of another vacancy. She's giving hope to the rest of us Marquette Law School students/alums.
10th Annual E. Harold Hallows Distinguished Lecture
Reflections on the Wisconsin Supreme Court
by Judge Diane S. Sykes
March 7, 2006
Helfaer Theatre, Marquette Campus
525 N. 13th Street
The former U.S. appeals court judge will quickly be sworn in at the Supreme Court before his expected appearance at Bush's annual State of the Union speech Tuesday evening with the White House's other new Supreme Court judge, Chief Justice John Roberts. Alito will be ceremonially sworn in a second time at a White House East Room appearance on Wednesday.That's excellent.
WTF?! I was expecting a close call. Not a mere 25. What happened?Yes, take those rational people down. Replace them with a fleet of Ted Kennedys. Here's the roll call vote on cloture.
i'm pissed. ...everyone of those dems who voted for cloture should be brought down
To more effectively oppose Supreme Court nominees in the future, Democrats need to convince the public "their values are at stake" rather than use stalling tactics to try to thwart the president, said a senator who opposes Samuel Alito's confirmation.This statement is from Senator Obama. The article continues...
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said he, too, would support the filibuster attempt but agreed that it was not particularly wise.This is so weird. We've got senators trying to take both sides. I'm guessing by that "too" and other hearsay evidence that Obama is reluctantly going to support the filibuster (it doesn't say so in the article). Senators are saying that this filibuster is stupid, a waste of time, and doomed to fail, yet they are going to vote against cloture anyway.
"I think a filibuster make sense when you have a prospect of actually succeeding," Biden said on CNN's "Late Edition." "I will vote one time to say to continue the debate. but the truth of the matter" is that Alito will be confirmed, he said.
Alito's supporters must produce 60 votes to cut off a filibuster; an Associated Press tally shows at least 62.This whole thing will be wrapped up by Tuesday. I hope Justice Alito makes an appearance at the State of the Union.
The AP tally also shows that at least 53 Republicans and three Democrats intend to vote to confirm Alito; that is well over the required majority.
EnterpriserI guess that's as close as a short internet poll is going to get.
Based on your answers to the questionnaire, you most closely resemble survey respondents within the Enterpriser typology group. This does not mean that you necessarily fit every group characteristic or agree with the group on all issues.
Enterprisers represent 9 percent of the American public, and 10 percent of registered voters.
As in previous studies conducted in 1987, 1994 and 1999, this extremely partisan Republican group's politics are driven by a belief in the free enterprise system (Yes) and social values that reflect a conservative agenda (Personally, I don't give a damn what you do with your personal life. It's none of my business unless you are infringing on the rights of others). Enterprisers are also the strongest backers of an assertive foreign policy, which includes nearly unanimous support for the war in Iraq and strong support for such anti-terrorism efforts as the Patriot Act. (I used to be a strong Buchanan-like non-interventionist. I was a supporter of George Washington's farewell address, no entangling alliances and such. I think 9/11 changed that for me. The modern world is too small. The U.S. is no longer protected by the oceans. Isolationism is a relic of the past).
Assertive on foreign policy and patriotic (Pretty much); anti-regulation and pro-business (Yup); very little support for government help to the poor (Social engineering doesn't work); strong belief that individuals are responsible for their own well being (Yeah). Conservative on social issues such as gay marriage (Eh, my views on marriage are pretty weird actually...), but not much more religious than the nation as a whole (I'm not very religious). Very satisfied with personal financial situation (I'm not starving).
Who They Are
Predominantly white (91%) (Yes), male (76%) (Last time I checked) and financially well-off (62% have household incomes of at least $50,000, compared with 40% nationwide) (Again, not starving). Nearly half (46%) have a college degree (Yes, I do have a degree), and 77% are married (Haha, not married. Not even close...). Nearly a quarter (23%) are themselves military veterans (Not in the military, but considering it). Only 10% are under age 30 (I'm 24, so I guess I'm in that 10%).
59% report having a gun in their homes (There are guns in this house. Multiple guns); 53% trade stocks and bonds in the stock market (I own stocks), and 30% are small business owners (I've worked for a small business for many years) - all of which are the highest percentages among typology groups. 48% attend church weekly (Nope); 36% attend bible study or prayer group meetings (Nope).
Bush 92%, Kerry 1%. Bush's most reliable supporters (just 4% of Enterprisers did not vote) (I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and I didn't have to think twice about it).
81% Republican, 18% Independent/No Preference, 1% Democrat (98% Rep/LeanRep) (I vote for more Republicans than any other party. I also leave much of my ballot blank. I really don't vote for many candidates, but I vote in every election).
Enterprisers follow news about government and politics more closely than any other group (I consider myself reasonably informed on the issues), and exhibit the most knowledge about world affairs. The Fox News Channel is their primary source of news (46% cite it as a main source) (I don't watch TV news often at all. It bores me. I can find out more information in 30 minutes of internet surfing than watching the news) followed by newspapers (42%) (I read the MJS for laughs) radio (31%) (I like Belling) and the internet (26%) (Hello, my mistress).
This past week, Judge Alito gained the endorsement of Pennsylvania's Democratic Governor, Ed Rendell. Governor Rendell said he was not pleased with the partisan way some of his fellow Democrats have handled Sam Alito's nomination. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia announced he was voting for Judge Alito. And he said that many people in his state were calling the treatment of Judge Alito by some Democrats "an outrage and a disgrace." Another Democratic Senator expressed concern that the Senate confirmation process in recent years has become "overly politicized, to the detriment of the rule of law."Governor Rendell is married to Judge Marjorie Rendell of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. That's the same court that Judge Alito has been on for 15 years. Gov. Rendell knows from Judge Rendell that Judge Alito is a decent guy. If Gov. Rendell, the former Democratic Party Chairman, is willing to go on the record in support of Judge Alito, maybe his fellow party members have gone overboard on their attacks. Maybe, just maybe.
I found particularly interesting the references to Senator (and presumably Presidential-aspirant) Kerry's efforts to reach out to bloggers, such as his post this week on Daily Kos announcing his decision to try to filibuster the Alito nomination (and before that his comments on Iraq). My initial thought is that it is quite a savvy way by him of trying to establish his bona fides with the Democratic grass-roots base so as to try to peel away some of this constituency that otherwise seems naturally inclined Senator Clinton.Until '08 comes around, this looks like Kerry's strategy. He's got to undercut Clinton's support. How can he do that? Get the base on his side. Get the Kos kids on his side. Throw them a little red meat (like a futile filibuster of Judge Alito). It's a great way to attack Clinton. Look at how fast she signed on to the filibuster. But Kerry already won this round with the base. It's his filibuster, not hers. She's just along for the ride.
This leads me to wonder whether one explanation for the apparent difference between conservative and liberal blogs is that in some sense conservative blogs and talk radio work in tandem with each other, whereas liberal blogs essentially have to perform simultaneously both of the functions served by two distinct outlets by conservative media (talk radio and blogs). My impression is that liberal blogs tend to be in some sense larger and more centralized (such as Daily Kos), whereas conservative blogs tend to be more plentiful, smaller, and more decentralized in structure.Here is the problem that Kerry's strategy will run into in time. Sites like Kos get way more hits than the top conservative blogs. Is this good? Not really. This is centralization and concentration. Spend some time reading Daily Kos, especially the comments. There is some pretty messed up stuff on that site. Is that the kind of site that presidential wannabe Kerry wants to associate himself with in the long run? It's a campaign ad waiting to happen. "John Kerry frequently posts at Daily Kos. Here is what people on that site have to say... Do you want to vote for someone who sides with them?"
I will not be able to stay in front of the computer, as I have quite a bit to take care of today.It's Saturday night. Guess what Teddy is doing. It probably involves a bottle, a glass, and a toilet.
In this sense, the Alito-Roberts ascendancy also marks a victory for the generation of legal conservatives who earned their stripes in the Reagan Administration. The two new Justices are both stars of that generation--many others are scattered throughout the lower courts--and they are now poised to influence the law and culture for 20 years or more. All those Federalist Society seminars may have finally paid off. Call it Ed Meese's revenge.One of the goals of legal conservatives (whatever name you want to call them) was to have a deep bench of potential nominees ready. The old guard of the leadership knew that a time would come (now) when vacancies would open on the Court. There had to be a long list of experienced, intelligent, and credentialed candidates. I've looked at a chunk of the list recently. A few decades ago, the Republican party decided to take the federal courts seriously and work to get strong jurists onto those courts. Chief Justice Roberts and Judge Alito are the fruits of that work.
The liberal interest groups that devised the filibuster strategy and wrote the anti-Alito talking points for Senators Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy thus contributed as much as anyone to Judge Alito's confirmation. Congratulations, Ralph Neas. It's your finest hour.People like Ralph Neas have done more damage to their cause than good. It's the "cry wolf" syndrome. Neas and friends attacked then-Judge Roberts harshly. One of their ads (which they were forced to pull) claimed that Roberts sympathized with abortion clinic bombers. This is an over the top statement, but it's not isolated. The statements come one after another, on every issue, on every nominee. People start to tune them out. These interest groups get ignored by everyone but the people who already support them.
This does not mean this will be a "conservative" Court, however. Four reliable liberals remain, as well as the protean Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been making his own migration to the cultural left and the make-it-up-as-you-go jurisprudence exemplified by Lawrence v. Texas (on state laws on homosexuality) and Roper v. Simmons (on the juvenile death penalty). You can bet the press corps and liberal politicians will now apply their carrot-and-stick strategy of praise and castigation to push Justice Kennedy further to the left and retain a five-vote liberal majority.Justice Kennedy has been drifting further to the center in recent years. He's going to relish his position as the new O'Connor. Maybe he'll even wear that frilly collar-thing that O'Connor wore. Until there is a retirement by one of the liberals, it's Kennedy's Court for many issues. It will be interesting to see if either Roberts or Alito will be able to persuade him to the conservative side more often than has occurred in the past. Justice Scalia's biggest problem in the past has been pushing away the moderates. I love reading his opinions, especially the fiery ones, but they don't do much to build a 5 vote majority. We're looking at very interesting times in Con Law in the near future.
Twenty-eight, by contrast, is morbidly obese. It is larger than the original Senate. Add senior judges, plus visiting circuit and district judges, and the effective size of the Ninth Circuit is closer to 50 than to 28. Town-meeting size makes coordination difficult and can conduce to town-meeting conduct. It is smaller than the mob that condemned Socrates, but that's not saying much. On average, more than two years pass between the time any given judge of the Ninth Circuit sits with any other, which frustrates the ability to operate as a single institution. And its record in the Supreme Court speaks eloquently. See Richard A. Posner, Is the Ninth Circuit Too Large?, 29 J. Legal Studies 711 (2000) (studying unanimous or summary reversals, which cannot be attributed to philosophical differences between the Justices and the appellate courts).The 9th Circuit gets overturned very often by the Supreme Court. It's become something of a joke within legal circles. If you're reading a Supreme Court opinion reviewing a case from the 9th Circuit, assume that the Court is going to go the other way. I think that Judge Easterbrook is correct. They are just too large to function as a single institution.
When I was in the SG's Office, we contemplated filing a cert. petition that began: "This is a petition to review a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and there are other reasons to issue the writ." Now that dubious mantle has passed to the Ninth Circuit. A few years ago, a lawyer who propounded some farfetched proposition was asked: "Do you have any authority for that point?" Counsel cited a decision of the Ninth Circuit, and the questioner (not me!) continued: "All very well, but do you have any legal authority?"
He announced his decision Wednesday to a group of Democratic senators, urging they join him, Henry said. Kerry also has the support of his fellow Massachusetts senator, Democrat Edward Kennedy.Yeah, that's shocking.
From a Senate source: Kerry's call for a filibuster comes after his leadership, that is, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, decided there won't be one. In other words, Kerry was making a brave, Kos-friendly pronouncement in the total confidence that a filibuster will never happen.Kerry is also currently in Switzerland. That might make any sort of Mr. Smith antics difficult.
From a Senate source: It is "likely" that the Republican leadership will file a cloture motion tomorrow on the Alito nomination, which would mean a cloture vote could be held on Monday, followed -- assuming there is no Democratic filibuster -- by an up-or-down vote on the nomination.Vote on Monday, swearing in on Monday night, celebration at the State of the Union address Tuesday. Sounds like a plan.
Justice Clarence Thomas "is an abomination when you contrast him to the leadership and principles of someone like Thurgood Marshall," Salazar said.Do not besmirch the name of my favorite Supreme Court Justice.
Even a losing battle would draw the public's attention to the import of this nomination.I don't think the public cares. I care, but I'm a law nerd. I once held hope that the public knew the names of at least a few of the Justices. Now I'm pretty sure that isn't the case. It's a fairly esoteric part of the national government.
Judge Alito's refusal to even pretend to sound like a moderate was telling because it would have cost him so little. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who was far more skillful at appearing mainstream at the hearings, has already given indications that whatever he said about the limits of executive power when he was questioned by the Senate has little practical impact on how he will rule now that he has a lifetime appointment.So is the NYT suggesting that Judge Alito, under oath, should've lied? Or "pretended"? The shot at Chief Justice Roberts is cute too. Are they suggesting that Chief Justice Roberts lied in his testimony? The idea of the NYT editorial board judging what is "mainstream" is pretty laughable.
Senate Democrats, who presented a united front against the nomination of Judge Alito in the Judiciary Committee, seem unwilling to risk the public criticism that might come with a filibuster - particularly since there is very little chance it would work. Judge Alito's supporters would almost certainly be able to muster the 60 senators necessary to put the nomination to a final vote.I'm not convinced that he will get 60 votes. I think it will be somewhere in the high 50's. The editors are forgetting something. Senator Frist is just itching for a chance to do away with the judicial filibuster. He only needs 50 votes for that. With many members of the Gang of 14 already solidly behind Judge Alito, I think Frist has the votes. Then the Democrats lose their ace in the hole. Even if there is a public backlash over the rule change (and I doubt it would be a huge one), it's very likely that the Republicans will stay in control of the Senate after the midterm elections. Then what? Then the Republicans can get through ALL of their judges on a simple majority vote. They get to fill the appeals courts with their chosen nominees. In the event of another Supreme Court vacancy, they have a much easier time getting through a more controversial nominee.
When all the dust has settled, there is really only one way to determine which of two competing political ideologies has emerged victorious, and that is:You be the judge.
Which side has the best-looking women?
I'm all for criticism. It makes us better professionals. But I won't sit around and take any more abuse from a person who knows nothing about journalism. Do I come into your office and spout off about the standards of political science? No. Know why? Because I don't know the first thing about it. Keep that in mind the next time you want to talk jive about journalism.He's all for criticism, as long as it comes from a narrow group of individuals. This is a freaking student newspaper. It's not like the folks at the Trib are running a nuclear reactor and McAdams is telling them what buttons to push. He and many others have taken issue with the strange ethics policy.
This is something I'm toying with calling the "Accountability Paradox": Conservatives who cannot mandate standards and testing fast enough for the public schools absolutely abhor the idea of applying those same standards and tests to private schools that take state money.He then quotes part of my post and responds...
My views on MPS come primarily from personal experience. I spent nine years in three different MPS schools. Two of those schools were considered to be excellent MPS schools. The workload was light, the classes were easy, and good grades came without much effort. Then I entered a private high school and everything changed. First, I had to catch up to my peers because I was way behind in areas like math and English. Second, I actually had to study and apply myself to get good grades. Every night, I spent hours studying and doing homework. I was constantly challenged (I hadn't been at any of the MPS schools). My friends who stayed in MPS were shocked at the amount of time that I spent studying. They didn't have nearly the workload that I had. While I hated my private school while I was there, I was better off in the end.A lot of this testing talk is just a means to control the private schools. Let's say that Doyle gets his way and his chosen test is used to measure the quality of the private schools. The private schools don't want to look bad based on these test results. They will abandon their chosen curriculum in order to "teach for the test" as it has been called. That kills the whole idea behind school choice: parents should chose the kind of school that they want for their kids. The private schools that once offered a diverse range of educational programs will now be forced to teach for Doyle's test or look like they are "failing". And believe me, if they look like they are "failing" based on the test, school choice opponents will be happy to claim that as proof that school choice doesn't work.This is different from the way people use the test to label public schools as "failing" . . . how? Steve himself complains that he doesn't want his "tax money being wasted in the public school system as it currently is." How does he know it's a waste? Could it perhaps be because the test data (or other data collected by MPS but not voucher schools) show that the schools are "failing"?
At the very least, I hope I can expect to see Steve and Professor McAdams at the next anti-NCLB protest.As a general rule, I don't go to protests. It's just not my kind of thing. But I am no fan of NCLB or any other unfunded federal mandate. Schools should be run at the local level, and the feds should stop interfering. The Department of Education hasn't done a whole hell of a lot for the quality of education in this country. I agree with you about standardized testing across the board. I think it is a poor system of accountability. An improperly written and administered test could provide us with poor data. I don't want that. That wastes money and class time.
One important question that I had about Judge Alito was his view on the role of precedent and stare decisis in our legal system. At his hearing, while restating the doctrine of stare decisis, Judge Alito repeatedly qualified his answers with the comment that stare decisis is not an "inexorable command." While this is most certainly true, his insistence on qualifying his answers with this formulation was troubling. Combined with a judicial record in which fellow judges have criticized his application of precedent in several cases, Judge Alito's record and testimony do not give me the same comfort I had with Chief Justice Roberts that he has the respect for and deference to precedent that I would like to see in a Supreme Court Justice.Then the professor shows that now-Chief Justice Roberts said the same thing when discussing stare decisis...
At the same time, as the court pointed out in the Casey case, stare decisis is not an inexorable command. If particular precedents have proven to be unworkable -- they don't lead to predictable results; they're difficult to apply -- that's one factor supporting reconsideration.Alito said it "repeatedly" though. That's probably because he got the same questions and the same kinds of questions over and over again.
Clearly, the Democrats' strategy was poor. But exactly why was it so poor? I've said before that I think it's a mistake to portray judicial decisionmaking as a political enterprise, which is what they did, leaving Alito to prevail by doggedly explaining legal doctrine in response to every attempt at an attack. I think people want the Court to decide cases based on the law and want to believe a judge can do that. If so, the Democrats' attack on Alito would look ugly and offensive.I agree.
I fear a very bad precedent is being set today, a precedent that a unanimous minority will oppose a nominee on political grounds, not because the nominee is in any way unqualified. Republicans did not apply that test to Justices Breyer or Ginsburg.Expect the next nominee by a Democratic president to have a much more difficult time than Ginsburg and Breyer did.
And I say precedent because it is simply unrealistic to think that one party will put itself at a disadvantage by eschewing political considerations while the other party almost unanimously applies such considerations.
So I say to my Democratic friends, think carefully about what is being done today. Its impact will be felt well beyond this particular nominee.
McAdams, Eminent Domain, and the proposed Republican law to "solve" the voucher problem in Milwaukee all demand that instead of lifting the cap from 15% to 18%, that the enrollment cap be eliminated all together which is just another way of saying that the Milwaukee will have a full blown voucher system with vouchers going to everyone-the poor, the rich, and everyone in between.Yeah, it sure would be horrible for all people of all income levels to have the same choices and opportunities when it comes to their children's education. Or we could just keep paying $11,334 per student per year into a school system that isn't getting the job done.
I'm willing to bet that even if Green or Walker were to become Governor and even if the Republicans retained control of the state legislature, that even they would not institute a full blown voucher system in Milwaukee (despite whatever their campaign promises are).Too bad. They should.
So how do McAdams, Eminent Domain, and other Republicans attack Governor Doyle's practical and logical plan for the voucher program to keep the issue deadlocked? By arguing that requiring voucher schools to administer the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination, while good intentioned, would somehow reduce the number of voucher schools, cause schools to change their curriculum, or worse the test would impose political correctness on students or ask them questions about homosexuality and birth control.He then produces this information about voucher schools and standardized tests...
According to the survey results, 64 of the schools say they administer the Iowa Test of Basic Skills; 40 the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (which is used by public schools in the state); 33 the Terra Nova; and 22 another exam. Nine schools reported that they do not administer any standardized test.Alexander claims that this shows that standardized tests place no additional burden on voucher schools, so they shouldn't have a problem with Doyle's plan. "...[W]hat is the deal?" he asks.
Now, I'll admit that I am not the product of Wisconsin public schools and the last time I took a standardized test in school was in public middle school (and yes that means I went to private school for High School)Hmm... private prep school decides that it is unnecessary to administer standardized tests in order to accurately measure the progress of their students. That's just fine with me. Milwaukee choice school decides that it is unnecessary to administer standardized tests in order to accurately measure the progress of their students. That's just fine with me too. Again, let the schools run themselves.
I do not know for sure what the difference between the ITBS, the Terra Nova, and the WKCE are, but I'm betting that there isn't all that much of a difference aside from which grade levels the tests are assigned to.Followed by...
So if almost all of the voucher schools administer a form of standardized test and the subject matter in all the tests is not only similar but made with the same basic goals in mind..."I have no idea what's on the tests but they're all the same." If they are all the same, why do different schools choose different tests? If they are all the same, why is Doyle demanding that the schools only use one test, a test of his choosing?
This logic is clearly flawed because as I have shown already none of these tests "subvert the benign organizational culture of private schools"...You didn't show that anywhere in your post. You just made a claim and failed to back it up with any evidence other than what you "think". Your post was heavy on rhetoric (yeah, that's shocking...) and light on proof.
2. CERTAIN ANIMALS PROHIBITEDNow the question becomes how do I turn my house into a research lab...
a. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no person shall keep within the city, either temporarily or permanently, any live bees, fowl, cows, cattle, horses, sheep, swine, goats, chickens, ducks, turkeys, geese or any other domesticated livestock provided, however that such animals or fowl may be kept at places approved by the commissioner for slaughtering, educational purposes, research purposes and for circuses or similar recreational events.
Yes, it's Monday, but that's just the startGuess whose birthday it is today.
Jan. 23 is said to be worst day of the year
...Arnall said January is a time when people are simply working and don't have a lot of events, parties or holidays to look forward to.
People are struggling to cope not only with the bleak weather, but also with the debts they amassed by spending too much over the holidays.
It's also a time when people are starting to feel like failures because they've broken their resolutions so shortly after making them.
"All these elements converge to make for a very unhappy day on the 23rd of January," Arnall said.
I highlight this because some might have been inclined to assume that justices on the losing side of a 5-4 with O'Connor in the majority would strategically delay the completion of their dissent so that they could, with any luck, get a different result with Alito. After all, that's what we would expect legislators to do.Our justices acting honorably. Maybe the Senate Judiciary Committee could learn a thing or two from them.
Controversial decisions--even decisions that rend the body politic--are sometimes necessary. The Constitution stands for certain fundamental principles of free government, and there are times when the courts must intervene to make sure they are not neglected. But when judges act on the basis of their own political predilections, without regard to constitutional text or the decisions of representative institutions, the results are illegitimate.Judge Michael McConnell, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
10. U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton 1995 decision that denied the peoples of the states the right to set term limits on their congressional representatives even though the Constitution is silent on term limits and the 10th Amendment leaves to the states and the people powers that the Constitution does not explicitly give to the federal government or expressly deny to the states.Quite a list, and they went all the way back to Wickard. Wickard v Filburn is pretty much the reason that we have such a huge federal government these days (that and the 16th Amendment). That case concerned a quota that the federal government placed on grown wheat. Farmer Filburn grew more than the quota allowed, because he wanted to keep the excess for his own personal use. He wasn't going to sell it. He claimed that since it didn't enter commerce at all (and definitely not interstate commerce), then the federal government could not regulate it under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. That clause states that Congress has the power...
9. Baker v. Carr 1962 decision that laid the groundwork for the "one man, one vote" standard ending county representation in state legislatures and forcing states, unlike the U.S. Senate, to redistrict based solely on population.
8. Plyer v. Doe 1982 decision that said that the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires state governments to provide public education to illegal aliens.
7. Grutter v. Bollinger 2003 decision that said the University of Michigan Law School could use race as a factor in admissions so it could achieve a "critical mass" of a particular racial group.
6. Wickard v. Filburn 1942 decision that said Congress could regulate a farmer's growing of wheat for his own use on his own property under the constitutional language that authorizes Congress to regulate commerce "among the several states."
5. McConnell v. Federal Election Commission 2003 decision that upheld the McCain-Feingold law's prohibitions on political speech.
4. Berman v. Parker 1954 case that said the District of Columbia could seize a department store and hand it over to a private developer to redevelop a "blighted" neighborhood, even though the department store itself wasn't "blighted." Decision set the stage for the 2005 Kelo v. New London decision allowing government to take property other than for direct "public use."
3. Everson v. Board of Education 1947 decision that said 1st Amendment Establishment Clause erected a "wall of separation" between church and state. Precursor to the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman decision that created a three-pronged test for when "wall of separation" was breached and led to cases such as McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, which prohibited the posting of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse.
2. Lawrence v. Texas 2003 decision that declared same-sex sodomy a constitutional right, creating the rationale for the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to declare a right to same-sex marriage.
1. Roe v. Wade 1973 decision that declared abortion-on-demand a constitutional right, overturning the abortion laws of the states, and led to further abominations such as Stenberg v. Carhart, which declared partial birth abortion a constitutional right.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.The Court rejected his argument, claiming that there was a grand, nebulous structure of commerce. Filburn's wholly intrastate activity would preclude him from buying other wheat on the open market. See the problem here? Under this view, everything a person does can be tied to interstate commerce in one way or another. Anything that you do can be connected to your ability to buy or sell something. That means that Congress can regulate any activity.
First, it was the impression I had of Alito when I was a Third Circuit law clerk. I clerked in 1997-98, and assisted on some panels in which Alito participated. Alito struck me as right-of-center, but very institutionalist. As Judge Garth (who ought to know) said in his Senate testimony, "Make no mistake, he is no revolutionary."Interesting points, but I have my doubts. I have my doubts because Alito did not become a federal judge until after the defeat of Robert Bork's nomination. Bork's defeat sent a message to judicial conservatives: if you want to make it to the Supreme Court, be careful about what you say.
Second, I think the testimony of Alito's colleagues and former law clerks (of all ideological stripes) is particularly telling. If Alito were in fact a revolutionary, or had a big agenda, surely it would have come out at one point or another: It seems unlikely to me that an agenda-driven judge can keep that agenda secret from his colleagues and clerks for 15 years on the bench
Doyle ProposalNot good enough. Not even close. Raising the cap by 3% doesn't go far enough. The program should be open to anyone who wants to participate. If a child in a MPS school is not getting a good education for the $11,334 per year that the taxpayers are spending on it, then that child should be able to get a voucher and go elsewhere.
Increase school voucher cap from 15% to 18%
Eliminate all prior-year eligibility rules, thereby allowing children to participate in the voucher program regardless of where they attended school the previous year
Increase the income eligibility cap for families who want to participate in the voucher program from 175% to 220% of the federal poverty level.
Allow MPS to count each voucher student at a rate of 45%, phased in over five years, when calculating state aid; all of the funds that come from this must be used by MPS for instruction.
Starting in the 2007-2008 school year, increase SAGE funding from $2000 per participating student to $2500 per participating student
Increase the enrollment cap on the Racine Charter School from 400 to 480
Implement mandatory WKCE standardized testing in grades 3-8 and 10 of all schools participating in the voucher program
Starting in the 2007-2008 school year, make it mandatory for all voucher program schools to be accredited by one of a number of specified independent accrediting authorities
Requiring private schools to give state-selected achievement tests would have harmful effects on the participating private schools. Some private schools would have to give up the curriculum they have designed for their own students and teach the state-sanctioned curriculum instead.A lot of this testing talk is just a means to control the private schools. Let's say that Doyle gets his way and his chosen test is used to measure the quality of the private schools. The private schools don't want to look bad based on these test results. They will abandon their chosen curriculum in order to "teach for the test" as it has been called. That kills the whole idea behind school choice: parents should chose the kind of school that they want for their kids. The private schools that once offered a diverse range of educational programs will now be forced to teach for Doyle's test or look like they are "failing". And believe me, if they look like they are "failing" based on the test, school choice opponents will be happy to claim that as proof that school choice doesn't work.
That would kill the diversity and vitality of the private schools. Many state tests emphasize fuzzy math over traditional math, and stress the use of "culturally diverse texts" over traditional classical literature, a staple of many effective private schools.
Private schools have legitimate reasons for selecting one type of test over another. Some prefer the Iowa Test of Basic Skills because they think it tests for a more traditional coverage of the curriculum. Others prefer the Stanford-9 or the CAT.Doyle's supporters will claim that they want accountability. If they think that meeting a clumsily set state standard assures a quality education, then they are sorely mistaken. Hasn't it been the political Left that has done nothing be berate standardized testing for years? Now it's the lynchpin of school choice regulation?
Some private schools shun standardized tests altogether, choosing to rely instead on more holistic measures of student progress.
The fact that most private schools don't want to administer state tests doesn't mean that they are not serious academic institutions with rigorous standards of excellence. It simply means that their curriculum and standards are different than those of government schools.
Most state standards have no empirical basis. Rather, state standards and tests are typically an awkward compromise between disparate factions of the professional education community, many of which are influenced by fads and politically correct thinking.
"I won't trust him, but anything that gives me the opportunity to seek peace, I would at least check it out.Jones says not to negotiate, then she says we should find a diplomatic solution. I think that is negotiation. "Peace in our time"... right.
"People make deals with the devil all the time. We make deals with people we don't like," she said.
"You don't negotiate with terrorists," said Elisabeth Hasselbeck, the show's youngest (ME: and most sensible) host.
"You don't negotiate," Jones interrupted, "but I do think you figure out when there is a solution that's diplomatic that doesn't result in [loss of] human life.
"What do we have to lose to check it out?" Star said.
"You know what?" she then added, "At some point, one of these men has to put it back in his pants and zip up the zipper at some point."Oh man. Calling four hijacked planes, two destroyed World Trade Center towers, one damaged Pentagon, one bombed USS Cole, two bombed African embassies, one blown up Bali, blown up Spanish trains, and blown up British subways "posturing" is just a wee bit of a stretch, don't you think? This is a war. This isn't two guys thumping their chests over some grudge. She should apologize for her stupidity and her moronically simple male-bashing stance that she seems so quick to embrace.
"This isn't somebody whipping it out," shot co-host Meredith Vieira.
"You know what, I'm a little tired of posturing back and forth," Jones replied.
Not surprisingly, cutting wages isn't high on UAW President Ron Gettelfinger's auto industry to-do list. Speaking at the Automotive News World Congress Tuesday, Gettelfinger suggested that the U.S. government needs to be a big part of the solution. The three areas where the government should help, according to Gettelfinger, are outlined after the jump.Absent from the list is making a better, more desireable product. Nope, we need to have the government step in and make it harder for Americans to buy better foreign cars. UAW needs to realize something. Protectionism is not going to save your company or your union.
1. Revamp U.S. trade policy. The UAW is opposed to the government's free trade policies in particular, and the trend to globalization of manufacturing in general. (I'm afraid that horse has already left the barn.)
2. A national health insurance program. His position is that the problem is universal, and not restricted to the auto industry. (The current President is adamantly opposed to a national program. Maybe after the next election.)
3. An alternative fuel incentive program for automakers. Gettelfinger says the need to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil points to an opportunity to move to alternative fuels - if the government provides incentives for automakers. (This is really the trade issue revisited - the market is already doing a good job of stimulating alternative fuel vehicles, and the government already subsidizes E85 and hybrid cars. The UAW really wants to ensure that new auto technology jobs stay in the U.S.)
Wal-Mart's critics also paint the company as a parasite on taxpayers, because 5 percent of its workers are on Medicaid. Actually that's a typical level for large retail firms, and the national average for all firms is 4 percent. Moreover, it's ironic that Wal-Mart's enemies, who are mainly progressives, should even raise this issue. In the 1990s progressives argued loudly for the reform that allowed poor Americans to keep Medicaid benefits even if they had a job. Now that this policy is helping workers at Wal-Mart, progressives shouldn't blame the company. Besides, many progressives favor a national health system. In other words, they attack Wal-Mart for having 5 percent of its workers receive health care courtesy of taxpayers when the policy that they support would increase that share to 100 percent.The point is that Wal-Mart isn't exploiting the system any more than anyone else. The only difference is that there is a organized, dedicated hit squad going after Wal-Mart right now.
This message is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end those wars.And then...
It was not my intention to talk to you about this, because those wars are definitely going our way.
But what triggered my desire to talk to you is the continuous deliberate misinformation given by your President [George] Bush, when it comes to polls made in your home country which reveal that the majority of your people are willing to withdraw US forces from Iraq.
We do not mind establishing a long-term truce between us and you.Okay, logical disconnect here. If you are winning a war ("definitely" too), why would you offer a truce? You wouldn't. You'd press your advantage and kill some infidels. Bin Laden promised a holy war in the Middle East. He promised that governments would topple under his forces, and his kind of fundamentalist regimes would take over. So far, that hasn't happened. You call for a truce when you're losing. You say "we're winning" to save face.
We know that the majority of your people want this war to end and opinion polls show the Americans don't want to fight the Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their (US) land.Translation: Let's stop fighting because I'm not winning.
In response to the substance of the polls in the US, which indicate that Americans do not want to fight Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their land, we do not mind offering a long-term truce based on just conditions that we will stick to.Translation: There will be "peace in our time", and we won't break our word...
We are a nation that Allah banned from lying and stabbing others in the back, hence both parties of the truce will enjoy stability and security to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, which were destroyed by war....honest.
I would like to tell you that everything is going to our advantage and the number of your dead is increasing, according to Pentagon figures.Translation: Really, I am still winning. But can you please take your troops home now?
In one of the most infamous episodes of his reign, Muhammad Ali definitively broke the power of the Mamluks by massacring their leaders. Having worn down the Mamluks for years with raids and skirmishes, in 1811 he invited their amirs to a feast to celebrate his son Tusun Pasha's appointment to lead the army being sent against the Wahhabi rebellion in Arabia. As the procession of Mamluk princes made its way through a narrow gated alley in the Citadel, Muhammad Ali's men shut the gates, trapping all the Mamluks inside, and soldiers positioned in the buildings facing the alley opened fire from above. When the shooting ended, soldiers on the ground finished off any Mamluks still living with swords and axes.Believe me, Bin Laden will appreciate the historical reference.
...state protected monopolies tend to be sluggish and unresponsive, especially when they are beholden as a matter of state law to recognize and negotiate over the terms and conditions of employment with strong teachers' unions. The results in question are not surprising. System-wide failure that translates itself into expensive and unresponsive education that works far better for the well-to-do families that live in the suburbs than for the urban poor who have neither the wealth nor clout to escape the system.That's the problem. If you are too poor to move to a better area or too poor to pay for private school out of pocket, you're stuck.
The ability of parents to opt out of public education and finance their children's education privately is an important check on the state monopoly-an option that is frequently exercised in the form of home schooling programs. But that option still has the unfortunate consequence that, by removing one's own children from the school system, parents do nothing to reduce their tax burdens to support the education supplied to other students who choose to remain in the public school system-or who are trapped by it. Put simply, the escape from the public school system comes at the cost of double taxation.The people who can afford to pay for private schools still have to pay money into the public education system, a system so broken and unacceptable that they've chosen to abandon it. That's sort of like shipping a box via FedEx but still having to pay the US Postal Service too. Yes, USPS is a government service, but that doesn't mean you should be forced to support it. Also notice that USPS was once a monopoly too. When they had no competition, they couldn't get a package to its destination overnight. Opening the marketplace to a little friendly competition put the spurs to USPS. Now, overnight delivery is available.
The first of these illustrates the danger of adopting hortatory constitutional provisions that promise particular level of state services as opposed to the allocation of powers and responsibilities that are the traditional fare of most constitutions. These Soviet-style provisions of positive rights are always honored more in the breach than in the observance, for there is no way that any constitutional document can guarantee the supply of the need level of resources or expertise, let alone the desired level of services.Why on earth do we want the courts deciding what an "efficient" school is, or a "secure" school? Florida just drafted a weird constitution.