There is this "I went and read the Constitution, and boy was I surprised!" meme running around the Interwebs for the past few days.
It goes like this:
1. Judge Bolton ruled against the State of Arizona
2. But the Constitution says (Article III):
Clause 2. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
3. Therefore, Judge Bolton had no jurisdiction, and the stay is invalid. For example...
The answer: Thanks for playing, but SORRY, you lose. I think Johnny has some FABULOUS prizes for you--on the way out.
Some problems with argument:
A. It was made by some Canadians. And some American Protestants. Like all Prot's, they have this "priesthood of all believers" hangup, where you read the Bible and you know as much as someone who speaks Greek and actually studied what the Bible means. You can't just go reading the thing. Same with the Constitution: the words have been interpreted by a community called the "courts" for 220 years.
B. There are explicit precedents that establish that the lower courts have "concurrent" original jurisdiction. That doesn't mean that the SC does NOT have original jurisdiction. It means that cases can be heard EITHER in the SC or the lower courts. Hard to get on the SC docket. Check this, for example. The simple version...
C. This was not a full-fledged trial, but rather a petition for a stay, pending Supreme Court ruling.
In short, the argument that Judge Bolton had no jurisdiction is simply absurd. It may be a shame that you can't read the Constitution without knowing the huge body of interpretations of its meaning, but you can't. "Discoveries" in the Constitution should always be discounted. Ask a lawyer before you make a fool of yourself.
Some sources: The SC's Original Jurisdiction
Adler in Volokh Consp.
Some precedents, on concurrent original jurisdiction:
Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 657 (1838); Bors v. Preston, 111 U.S. 252 (1884); Ames v. Kansas ex rel. Johnston, 111 U.S. 449 (1884).
(Interestingly, such suits could be brought and maintained in state courts as well, if all parties consent, so concurrent jurisdiction is even broader! Plaquemines Tropical Fruit Co. v. Henderson, 170 U.S. 511 (1898); Ohio ex rel. Poporici v. Alger, 280 U.S. 379 (1930).)
(Nod to the Blond, for asking cool questions)
Monday, August 09, 2010
Say WHAT?
In the WallStJ this a.m., this story.
A quote: Ms. Fisher's lawyer, Gloria Allred, said her client is a single mother, raising a young son, who had worked recently as the vice president of a commercial real estate company.
Really? Her 11 year old son worked as a VP at a real estate company? Impressive.
Have people completely forgotten how to write?
And, on the merits, what did Ms. Fisher THINK was going to happen? I have no sympathy for Hurd, if he acted badly he should be fired. But... if Ms. Fisher didn't want him to be fired, what DID she want? Furthermore, Hurd was NOT fired for harrassment, but rather for stealing money with doctored expenses (which he says he did not fill out, but acknowledges were inaccurate).
Lord, California, give it up.
A quote: Ms. Fisher's lawyer, Gloria Allred, said her client is a single mother, raising a young son, who had worked recently as the vice president of a commercial real estate company.
Really? Her 11 year old son worked as a VP at a real estate company? Impressive.
Have people completely forgotten how to write?
And, on the merits, what did Ms. Fisher THINK was going to happen? I have no sympathy for Hurd, if he acted badly he should be fired. But... if Ms. Fisher didn't want him to be fired, what DID she want? Furthermore, Hurd was NOT fired for harrassment, but rather for stealing money with doctored expenses (which he says he did not fill out, but acknowledges were inaccurate).
Lord, California, give it up.
ah would some power the gifter give us...
Great headline in Sunday's NY Times: "A Gift the Wealthy Don’t Need"
"In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation’s foundations to crumble — literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education — they’re choosing the latter."
and people, you just know the "gift" in question is a chunk of their own money.
Then today PK takes up the same cudgel: "But isn’t keeping taxes for the affluent low also a form of stimulus? Not so you’d notice. When we save a schoolteacher’s job, that unambiguously aids employment; when we give millionaires more money instead, there’s a good chance that most of that money will just sit idle."
Let's break this BS down piece by piece, ok?
"When we save a schoolteacher's job that unambiguously aids employment".
It may well aid employment, but it's hard to be certain without knowing what the alternative use of the money might have been. It's also not the case that "we saved a job" means the policy was a correct policy. "At what cost" still remains relevant.
"when we give millionaires more money instead".
This is the real stunner. First, families earning $250,000 or more is not exactly the same thing as "millionaires".
Second, we "give" them?
Really?
I am pretty sure it's their money to begin with and "we" are talking about how much to take. There's no gift giving involved.
Here's another PK gem:
"In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation’s foundations to crumble — literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education — they’re choosing the latter."
People, the "gift to millionaires" we are debating is just not that much money compared to the kind of budget hole we face. PK elsewhere says the lost revenue would be "$700 billion over a decade", i.e. $70 billion a year.
That's not going to re pave America folks. It's kind of small potatoes (is that right or did I just go all Dan Quayle on the English language). We are going to need a lot more than that from the millionaires to achieve PK's vision.
Finally, I don't see how anyone can say with a straight face that the problem with our educational system is too little money is being spent!
Yikes!
California is One Odd Place
The locational rents of the physical beauty and nice weather in northern CA have made their political leaders a little crazy. Okay, no, totally bat-sh*t crazy.
1. No water bottles. NO WATER BOTTLES. You can sell them, but you can't have them at public events. Why not ban outright? And of course that will happen soon. They want people to reuse containers. Well, at my house we reuse.... water bottles!
2. They actually think that they are crazy, themselves. That's nuts!
3. They have "POPOS." Yes, they do. Because they can. If you want to build, you have to agree to "host" a POPOS, voluntarily.
4. A lot of Dems in CA are not very impressive. But honestly I think they are more impressive than the Repubs. Check this: she won the primary, but insists on still campaigning against the guy she beat....IN THE PRIMARY. You might want to focus on your actual opponent in the upcoming election, what? Whitman does, however, promise "Una Nueva California." She is running against Jerry Brown. Yes, THAT Jerry Brown, "Governor Moonbeam." This is a very interesting race, because Whitman and Brown together don't add up to one real candidate. Is this really the best the state-sponsored parties can do?
CA is doomed. Let's let them have their own currency, and deal with their debt on their own by inflating and devaluing their currency. Then we'll check back in ten years, and see if they can rejoin the U.S.
1. No water bottles. NO WATER BOTTLES. You can sell them, but you can't have them at public events. Why not ban outright? And of course that will happen soon. They want people to reuse containers. Well, at my house we reuse.... water bottles!
2. They actually think that they are crazy, themselves. That's nuts!
3. They have "POPOS." Yes, they do. Because they can. If you want to build, you have to agree to "host" a POPOS, voluntarily.
4. A lot of Dems in CA are not very impressive. But honestly I think they are more impressive than the Repubs. Check this: she won the primary, but insists on still campaigning against the guy she beat....IN THE PRIMARY. You might want to focus on your actual opponent in the upcoming election, what? Whitman does, however, promise "Una Nueva California." She is running against Jerry Brown. Yes, THAT Jerry Brown, "Governor Moonbeam." This is a very interesting race, because Whitman and Brown together don't add up to one real candidate. Is this really the best the state-sponsored parties can do?
CA is doomed. Let's let them have their own currency, and deal with their debt on their own by inflating and devaluing their currency. Then we'll check back in ten years, and see if they can rejoin the U.S.
Saturday, August 07, 2010
Standing (firmly) on principle
Priorities are a wonderful thing, people:
The Milwaukee teachers union has asked a judge to order the school board to include Viagra in its taxpayer-funded health insurance plans.
The Associated Press says the filing by the union comes as the district faces layoffs of hundreds of its members.
It is the latest round in a unsuccessful two-year legal campaign charging that the board's policy of excluding erectile dysfunction drugs discriminates against male employees.
The union says such drugs are necessary treatment for "an exclusively gender-related condition," the AP reports.
I don't know what the fuss is all about. Here's how we handle this issue at OU:
The Milwaukee teachers union has asked a judge to order the school board to include Viagra in its taxpayer-funded health insurance plans.
The Associated Press says the filing by the union comes as the district faces layoffs of hundreds of its members.
It is the latest round in a unsuccessful two-year legal campaign charging that the board's policy of excluding erectile dysfunction drugs discriminates against male employees.
The union says such drugs are necessary treatment for "an exclusively gender-related condition," the AP reports.
I don't know what the fuss is all about. Here's how we handle this issue at OU:
Friday, August 06, 2010
Homocon
Wow. Hard to know if this is serious.
Well, it's obviously not SERIOUS. But is it seriously not serious?
We report. You deride. If you want to sign up....
Jonathan Higbee is NOT amused.
(nod to "Mr. Fabulous" Anonyman)
Well, it's obviously not SERIOUS. But is it seriously not serious?
We report. You deride. If you want to sign up....
Jonathan Higbee is NOT amused.
(nod to "Mr. Fabulous" Anonyman)
Mark Nameroff
KPC's best, and our sympathies, to the family of Mark Nameroff. His blog has been on our blogroll for years. I didn't always agree with him, but I was always glad to have him on the side of liberty.
RIP, brother.
RIP, brother.
Separated at Birth?
UPDATE: OH MY GAAAAH! Dr. Romer was SO upset at being compared to Benny Hill that she is quitting the C of EAs. This summary pretty much....well... summarizes things. (nod to Angry Alex for the news tip)
Benny Hill
Christina Romer
(Nod to L. Smith)
Benny Hill
Christina Romer
(Nod to L. Smith)
Hey Dick: Benjamin Strong ain't walking through the door!
While killing Peter Diamond's nomination to the Fed's board of governors, one Richard Shelby (Moron, Alabama) said:
"I do not believe the current environment of uncertainty would benefit from monetary policy decisions made by board members who are learning on the job"
As an astute commenter points out, I have the wrong Diamond. I humbly apologize for this error.
In my defense, if I was appointing an economist named Diamond to the Fed, I'd pick Douglas, the 57 year old finance expert and bank runs guy, not Peter, the 70 year old Social Security guy.
Maybe Shelby has a point? What does Peter Diamond bring to the table re monetary policy or bank regulation? He does have a paper on money illusion in the QJE from 1997, and a 1993 RESTUD on sticky prices and inflation, but he's not a monetary economist.
Wow. So Diamond, who has the seminal paper on bank runs and crises, is not qualified.
I would respectfully submit that Peter Diamond is a lot more qualified to be a Fed governor than Richard Shelby is to be a US senator!
From his quote, I assume Dick is holding out for Paul Volcker or Alan Greenspan?
It seems like the Fed has crossed a line and is now permanently going to be an overt political football in a way it rarely (never?) was before. I don't think this is a good thing.
******UPDATE*******
******UPDATE*******
As an astute commenter points out, I have the wrong Diamond. I humbly apologize for this error.
In my defense, if I was appointing an economist named Diamond to the Fed, I'd pick Douglas, the 57 year old finance expert and bank runs guy, not Peter, the 70 year old Social Security guy.
Maybe Shelby has a point? What does Peter Diamond bring to the table re monetary policy or bank regulation? He does have a paper on money illusion in the QJE from 1997, and a 1993 RESTUD on sticky prices and inflation, but he's not a monetary economist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)