The Interocitor

New Planet Has Strange Properties

A lot of confusion today over a Kuiper Belt object that is of planetary size. Or maybe it is. Or, well, it's quite confusing. Take the NY Times:

"It is guaranteed bigger than Pluto," said Michael E. Brown, a professor of planetary astronomy at Caltech, who led the team that made the discovery. "Even if it were 100 percent reflective, it would be larger than Pluto. It can't be more than 100 percent reflective."

But then Space.com sees it differently. Quoting the same Caltech scientist:

Pluto is about 1,400 miles across. Brown figures 2003 EL61 has a diameter of around 930 miles.

Is there any chance it is bigger than Pluto?

"No," Brown said in a telephone interview. "Definitely not."

In fact, Brown's team got the new data they had been waiting for, from the Spitzer Space Telescope, last week. While not fully analyzed, he said the Spitzer observations show "absolutely" that the object is not bigger than Pluto.

So, there you have it: Guaranteed to be larger than Pluto, but definitely, absolutely smaller.

Update: The NY Times article has expanded greatly, and it now seems that three new planetoids were announced today, one bigger, the others smaller, than Pluto. See here.

Eugene McCarthy for FEC

The Instapundit links to a RedState suggestion about a recess appointment to the FEC. If the idea is to tweak McCain and the Democrats in Congress, wouldn't it be better to appoint an anti-FEC liberal hero like Eugene McCarthy?

Questions for Lockyer

Dan Weintraub reports that the Attorney General is refusing to create a new summary for Prop 77, even though the version that is currently scheduled to go on the ballot is not the one he originally saw:

The title and summary that's been posted at the secretary of state's site for Prop. 77 is the one Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer prepared for the version of the initiative that was never circulated. He's said he doesn't intend to prepare a new one unless ordered by the court to do so. But the law requires the title and summary to be available for review by the public for a certain period.

Dan has a question for Lockyer. I have more pointed ones:

Mr. Lockyer, either you are intentionally flouting the law, or the summary you initially prepared needs no changes, as the two versions are fundamentally the same. Which is it? If there are differences, which words in the summary would you change, and why?

(cross posted at the Bear Flag Special Election page)

Prop 77 Back Alive (for now)

A state appeals court has issued a stay of the lower court order removing Prop 77 from the ballot, pending a hearing. Briefs are due Friday. This means that nothing irrevocable will happen to Prop 77 until the appeals court has its review. Whatever they decide, the losing side will appeal to the state supreme court (now missing a judge). And no, the feds won't step in, even under the "guarantee clause."

(cross posted to Bear-Flag Special Election page)

How long have gerrymanders been going on?

Gerrymandering is probably an original political sin. In America gerrymanders go back to the founding, with this political cartoon complaining about Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry's redistricting plan in 1812:

Note that while Gerry was a signer of the Declaration of Independence and attended the Constitutional Convention, he voted against the new Constitution and would not sign it.

A very complete description of the history and practice of gerrymanders can be found on Wikipedia. Special reports are also available on gerrymandering in the United States and California in particular.

God's Peripheral?

Former FCC Chairman Michael Powell called the TiVo "God's Machine." Probably a bit overstated, as I doubt God watches all that much television, but it is one fine device -- everything the VCR was supposed to be without the cryptic controls. Unlike a VCR, though, a TiVo recording isn't very portable (although that's changing a bit). To an internet world, having to view content only in one room seems rather 20th Century and unreasonable. Surely someone can fix this -- preferably without violating copyright law, which many of us still grudgingly support.

Last weekend Dan Weintraub told the assembled Bear-Flag League about this new device he'd acquired: the Slingbox from Sling Media. He said that it allowed him to view all his real-time and recorded video content anywhere he had internet access and sufficient bandwidth (256Kbps or better). What he didn't say is that the Slingbox, which came out just this month, is severely back-ordered and nearly impossible to find -- it sells on eBay at a markup over list. It's a good thing I didn't know that, or I wouldn't have gone down to my local CompUSA and bought one off the shelf.

Dan's right -- this thing is fantastic. You need a wired Ethernet connection for the Slingbox in the vicinity of the video feed, or a wireless-to-ethernet bridge adapter, but given that, it takes about 20 minutes of painless installation and you have video on any PC you put their receiving software on (one PC active at a time). Pretty neat for only $250. Using my DirecTV/TiVo box as the video source (via its second set of A/V outputs), it's a blogger's dream. Not only can I blog from the car wash like the big bloggers, but I can blog about what they're saying on FOX or C-Span, or that movie I TiVo'd yesterday. Or maybe I'll just watch the ballgame. Do they have WiFi at the beach yet?

They've been talking for years about "Convergence." Slingbox is the first working convergence product. Weintraub was right. A needful blogging tool.

I will not vote

So, some folks think that there's a point to the November election without Prop 77. Think again.

I really have no great interest in any of the initiatives remaining on the November special election ballot. At this point in time, I probably won't bother voting, as it's cold in November and I don't have a dog in the race.

I expect that many Republicans feel the same. Abortion? Some court will overrule it anyway. Budget issues? Far too complicated and obscure. Besides, I've heard this all before. Didn't Arnold already fix this ? Why should this be the magic bullet? If he really wanted to do something about the deficit, he could have blue-pencilled about $17 billion in spending. Why does he need new powers when he won't use the ones he has? McClintock would have us in the black by now.

Union dues? Yawn. Don't belong to a union, so what interest is it of mine? Why should I tell some union folks what rules they need to use? Drugs? I hope they both lose, but if it isn't unconstitutional to impose a business model on someone else, it ought to be.

Let me know if we can vote on restoring free elections -- that I care about. Without that, everything else is just misdirection by the political insiders. Put 77 back on the ballot and maybe I'll vote on some of the others, but without Prop 77, it might as well be a junior college trustee runoff.

(Cross posted on the Bear Flag Special Election page )

Impeach Lockyer

Any officeholder who displays the US flag in a toilet in their lobby should be impeached, if nothing else for hideously bad judgment. Currently, Attorney General Lockyer is displaying this fine work in his lobby:

There's really no excuse for this. Is he drunk? If anyone wants to sue, I'm up for a piece of the cost.

(Hat tip: California Insider)

Supreme Court Christmas

According to all reports, President Bush is going to announce his first Supreme Court nominee tonight. This is a moment that many of his supporters have waited worked years for. Indeed much of Bush's most fervent support has come from those who want major changes in direction in the Court.

In short, it's Christmas, and we want our present. We've been really, really good to Santa, and Santa needs to deliver on his promises. There are those on the left that want to give us coal (again), moderates that argue for the always unpopular socks and sweaters. But Santa heard our list and we're waiting. Milk and cookies await the right choice.

UPDATE: It's a sweater.

New Prop 77 Lawsuit?

(cross-posted at the Bear-Flag Special Election Page)

Ted Costa remarked at today's Bear-Flag Conference that there is another lawsuit to be filed shortly against Prop 77. He also said that suits against his propositions were pretty common but usually were dismissed fairly quickly. Then again, it only takes one, as happened with the redistricting initiative struck from the March 2000 ballot.

Dog Bites Everybody, Often More Than Once

Are we done yet with the Plame Affair? Is there anyone unsavaged by this utter dog of a scandal? Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson, Karl Rove, Bob Novak, the NY Times, Judith Miller, TIME, Matthew Cooper, Bush, any number of bloggers on all sides, the CIA, and the whole idea of special prosecutors. And for what?

Olympus Mons out of a molehill. Every side thought at some point this thing would score them points, but in the end only the lawyers won.

The Loyal Opposition

"The Loyal Opposition" is one of those terms you don't hear much lately. Wikipedia has this to say about it:

Loyal Opposition is the concept that one can be opposed to the actions of the government of the day without being opposed to the constitution of the political system....

In the United States, the most common application of the term is to refer to the major political party (Democratic or Republican) which does not hold the office of President during time of war (most notably the Republican Party during World War II), implying an obligation for said party to cooperate fully and without reservation in the war effort. It is rarely if ever used in that country during peacetime.
[Emphasis mine]

Hmmm ... seeing this is wartime, you'd expect to hear this more now. Or is it only a Republican thing?

Next week: "It's a Free Country!"

Bad General, No Unocal.

According to the NY Times and Financial Times, there's a crazy Chinese general who threatens to use nukes if the US interferes with a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

"If the Americans are determined to interfere, then we will be determined to respond," he said. "We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."

Also the cities west of Xian and the spaces in between. This is the kind of idiotic statement US generals stopped making in the 1950's becuase it became obvious that it was useless, stupid, and dangerous. Kind of makes one want to be sure to hit all the Chinese ICBMs and subs in the opening shots of any conflict.

But in any event, we do need to decide what to do about the Chinese buying Unocal. Hmmmm. How about "No" and blame General Xhu.

So, Novak told Rove and _Rove_ is in Trouble?

According to Flap, who has links to the NY Times and AP stories, Novak told Karl Rove about Plame, not the other way around. So, maybe somebody committed a crime, but Rove is no more guilty of it than any reader of Novak's column.

Wonderful LA Times Op-Ed

Max Boot has a wonderful screed regarding the naïve cynicism and moral relativism of the anti-anti-terror crowd, and particularly the once-great BBC. Key portions:

As if to illustrate Orwell's point, a pacifist poet named D.S. Savage wrote a reply in which he explained why he "would never fight and kill for such a phantasm" as "Britain's 'democracy.' " Savage saw no difference between Britain and its enemies because under the demands of war both were imposing totalitarianism: "Germans call it National Socialism. We call it democracy. The result is the same."

Savage naively wondered, "Who is to say that a British victory will be less disastrous than a German one?" Savage thought the real problem was that Britain had lost "her meaning, her soul," but "the unloading of a billion tons of bombs on Germany won't help this forward an inch." "Personally," he added, with hilarious understatement, "I do not care for Hitler." But he thought the way to resist Hitler was by not resisting him: "Whereas the rest of the nation is content with calling down obloquy on Hitler's head, we regard this as superficial. Hitler requires, not condemnation, but understanding."....

Orwell's words, written in October 1941, ring true today: "The notion that you can somehow defeat violence by submitting to it is simply a flight from fact. As I have said, it is only possible to people who have money and guns between themselves and reality."

Tax Rate Down, Actual Tax Up For Many

Last year I posted about the 58% jump in the California State Disability Insurance payroll tax, and how that increase had come on the top of a 120% jump over the previous three years.

Comes 2005 and the SDI tax rate declines from 1.18% to 1.08%. Doubleplus good news, no? Well, maybe. Problem is, the cap on the tax has increased from $68,829 to $79,418, an increase of over $10,000. Last year someone making $80,000 paid $812, now they pay $857, even though the rate has dropped.

Five years ago, the maximum was $231 on a $46,327 cap. A nuisance tax has now become a real tax, and the increase is larger than the old auto registration tax ever was.

As before, see here and here.

Those Creative Hollywood Types

I was skimming through IMDB when I ran across this upcoming film plot summary for October Squall:

An African American women gets pregnant after having been raped by a Caucasian man. She raises this son and when he reaches puberty he starts to remind her very much of his father. Since he is very light skinned, he passes for being white and becomes a racist despite his black mother.

What an original idea! Can we get even more PC-stereotypical? Maybe the father is a Republican politician? How about an abortion protestor -- wouldn't that be ironic!

I can hardly wait.

The Democrats' Remap "Compromise"

(Cross-posted at Bear Flag League Special Election Page)

According to Dan Weintraub's excellent blog California Insider, the Democrat leadership has offered a proposed compromise to forestall the Costa initiative, Prop 77. Perhaps it's just an opening ploy, but according to Weintraub the "compromise" may be worse than doing nothing:

Under the Senate Democrat proposal, an amended version of SCA 3, the lines would be drawn by a 7-member commission, with four of the seven members appointed by the legislative leadership. In other words, a majority of the members of the panel would be beholden to the same people who draw the lines now. But there would be no governor to check their work. Only one appointee would be made by the governor. The remaining two would come from the Judicial Council and the president of the University of California.

The proposal's criteria are also thinner than offered in the Costa measure endorsed by Schwarzenegger. There's no requirement to nest two Assembly districts into each Senate district, which is a huge factor in reducing the game-playing. And there's no ban on using political data, voter history and incumbent addresses in the process. Costa bans them all.

The legislature's plan also seems to remove the governor's veto, since it is no longer a legislative action, and possibly removes the right to overturn the new districts by referendum. However, this plan may have been significantly revised in negotiations (the above is from late June). There is some indication that a new remap plan will be combined with a term limit extension -- so stay tuned. In this context, the Prop 77 suit might be viewed as a negotiating tool.

While I like the Costa plan a great deal -- it's pure and it's simple -- I'd be willing to support anything that separates politicians and political data from reapportionment decisions. Adding a few years to term limits doesn't bother me (so long as it doesn't restart any clocks).

California Gerrymanders (UPDATED)

I've made extensive updates to last week's California Gerrymanders post, to answer the (wrongheaded) objections of certain critics.

&^%$$ Movable Type

Tried upgrading to MT 3.17. Small disaster. I've got it limping now, but I'm not entire sure how I saved it.

I may be going to Wordpress sometime soon.

California Gerrymanders (UPDATED)

To understand why the California Democrat Party is so upset about the Costa-Schwarzenegger Redistricting Inititiative, one only has to look at a few current examples of how the powers-that-be prevent you, the voter, from mattering to them. You might also want to check out my previous posts on the subject here, here and here.

The first example is a former swing district along the central California coast. Until 2002, this was the old 22nd district, entirely in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties and mostly in the the latter. Lois Capps won this in 1998 and 2000 with 55% and 53% of the vote, respectively. Her late husband had wrested the seat from the incumbant Republican in 1996.

After the 2000 census, California gained a House seat and the newly renumbered 23rd district was drawn to give Lois Capps an easier time of it. She was re-elected in 2002 by a 20% margin. The following image, from the Costa campaign, may explain why:

Another example:

In 1994, Jane Harman beat Susan Brooks in the 36th Congressional district by 800 votes. The result was so close that until a recount in January, both women claimed the seat. In 1998, Harman tried to run for Governor and the open seat was taken by a Republican in a close race. Harman recaptured the seat in 2000, beating the moderate Republican incumbant by a few percent. Then came the 2002 remap, and lo and behold, Jane Harman wins re-election 61-35%. How does a district that's been 50-50 for a decade suddenly have such a change of heart? One need only look at the adjacent 35th District to see what happened.

Throughout the 1990's, Maxine Waters won each election with 88% or so of the vote in her South-Central 35th Congressional District. All of a sudden, in 2002, her vote totals drop to 77%. Those other 10%? They used to be Republican neighborhoods in Jane Harman's district. Now they are Republican neighborhoods in Maxine Waters' district. For all intents and purposes, their votes have been erased, allowing Jane Harman to coast to victory, and bothering Maxine not one little bit.

In 2002 and 2004, no California Congressional seat changed party hands and no incumbant lost in the general election. Only 3 seats out of 53 had margins of less than 20%, and only one was less than 10%. Contrast this with 1998 when 4 Congressional seats changed hands.

Those 1990's districts were drawn by the State Supreme Court when the Legislature and Governor couldn't agree. In 2002, the Legislature and Governor Davis saw eye to eye -- fix it up for the Democrats.

It's about time that Californians chose their Representatives, rather than the Representatives choosing their Californians. Get redistricting out of the hands of the politicians being redistricted and put it in the hands of retired judges who have no axe to grind. I will walk barefoot through snow to vote for Prop 77.

UPDATE: Here are some more maps for those who claim that the new districts are "natural."

LOIS CAPP'S DISTRICT BEFORE GERRYMANDER (1998) 42%D - 42%R

 

JANE HARMAN'S DISTRICT BEFORE GERRYMANDER (1998) 42%D - 42%R

 

JANE HARMAN'S DISTRICT AFTER GERRYMANDER (2000) 44%D - 32%R

Note how Palos Verdes and Westchester have been chopped out of Jane's district, even though they belong geographically and socially, due to their excess Republicanism.

Is this an egregious example of a gerrymander? No. It's just very typical, which is worse.

SOURCE: UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies

Democrats Sue to Block Remap Initiative

AP reports that Attorney General Lockyer has refused to support the Secretary of State's attempt to reconcile minor differences in Prop 77, the Redistricting Initiative, and has instead sued the Secretary of State to remove the initiative entirely.

Apparently the version submitted to the voters for signature was a slightly different draft than the one submitted to the AG for review. No substantive changes were made, the greatest being that some time frames were a day longer in one version than another. However, the Democrats do not want to give up their iron grip over redistricting -- the gerrymander is the difference between a slim majority and overwhelming control.

In negotiations with the Governor the most they've been willing to offer is a citizen's panel -- of which they choose a majority. They refuse also to bar use of precinct voting results and party registration figures in the "citizen" panel's remap efforts. And no remap before 2010 (and probably not then because they'll sue at the last moment over some poison they've hidden in it). Etc.

The fly in this ointment is the nearly one million California voters who are tired of rigged elections and corrupt politicians and signed the Prop 77 petitions. So the Democrat machine trots out their pocket attorney general to knock the damn thing off the ballot, lest the People interfere with the machine's gravy train.

Seems Lockyer and Shelley tried this during the recall of Governor Davis. Didn't work, and Davis is long gone. So is Shelley, matter of fact. According to Costa, they always try suing as a last resort.

Why is it that Democrats fear the People so?

UPDATE: Here's the LA Times article on Prop 77. Flap's blog has a different take -- he feels that reapportionment is something that can wait.

Vogon Poetry in Strange Places

Every so often one runs cross real-life Vogon Poetry. Like the Spanish Inquisition, it is always a surprise. Here's a stunning example I found today among Amazon member reviews: Douglas Gillman of the Truk Islands.

Towards a theoretical biology;: An IUBS symposium,
Edition: Unknown Binding
Availability: This item is currently unavailable.
4 used from $57.09

wkrc wcpo cpo , May 20, 2005

You are beginning to have a feel for your "product space" drehz.

c enquirer krc cpo wlw.. nu-fit

a four color map problem

who mf

say who or i come after you

cao phan

cow who?

i have cave pens in my p0cket from france phan..

don't come after me tonight

ok i be nice

who cow

[SNIP]

you hippie at Attica.. i know

how you going to take it drehz

manhattan is regular broomstick

As they say, read the whole thing...

Question

Does anyone know if the Queen of England can still clap people into the Tower? Like, say, George Galloway? Just wondering.

LA Times Silliness, Part II

In an op-ed today, Yale professor Bruce Ackerman, author of "The Failure of the Founding Fathers" [!], writes about Bush [Senior] and the Stealth Justice.

Two things stand out (besides the Founding Fathers' "failure"). One is describing Clarence Thomas as a "reactionary", which is one of those words only commie nutjobs progressives use. The writer clearly despises Thomas and all his counter-revolutionary ilk -- which may explain why he thinks the Founders were such failures.

The other thing is the characterization of David Souter as "a moderate conservative in the tradition of John Marshall Harlan." Note that Souter voted about 80% of the time last term with the two most liberal justices (Stevens and Ginsberg). If this is conservative, what are Scalia and Thomas? Oh. Right. "Reactionary."

I do agree with his conclusion, however -- don't send us a Souter, send us a rock-ribbed reactionary so we have something to argue about. With any luck, Janice Rogers Brown.

LA Times Silliness, Part I

The LA Times has a story on B-1 Bob this morning, noting that former Congressman Bob Dornan is considering running for Christopher Cox's seat as "an independent."

But wait ... that's the "Independent Party" according to the lead. Hmmm ... didn't know there was an "Independent Party" in California, and isn't that different from "independent" anyway, being a Party and all?

OH ... that's the "American Independent Party", according to the second paragraph. I'm really confused now -- I thought Bob was a Republican. Then I hit this:

Running as an independent candidate has appeal, Dornan said Wednesday, because he would not have to change parties to appear on the ballot — as long as at least 40 registered American Independent Party voters signed his nomination papers.

So, he's a Republican, running as an independent on the American Independent Party ticket. It appears that I'm not the one who's confused. It gets worse.

Note to the LA Times: either your reporter or editor should have at least a basic grasp of political terminology when writing a political story. This piece is an incoherant mess.

So, Arlen, we're racists are we?

Senator Arlen Specter (RINO-PA), chairman of the judiciary committee, thinks that people who believe that the printed text in the Constitution ought to mean something still yearn for the good old days of slavery.

Mr. Specter, appearing earlier on that program and several others, brought Mr. Bork up repeatedly. "I've been criticized a lot for questioning Judge Bork in one session for an hour and a half," Mr. Specter said, defending his criticism of Judge Bork's emphasis on the "original intent" of the Constitution's framers. "If his 'original intent' stood, we'd still be segregating the United States Senate with African-Americans on one side and Caucasians on the other side."

With friends like this, who needs Ted Kennedy?

Senator Specter should review his Constitution, as he seems to have missed the 13th and 14th Amendments, or not understood them. As for originalists, it shopuld be noted that it was the living-constitution pragmatists who voted for Plessy not the originalist whose spot-on dissent reads like a roadmap for originalist thought. No way you get to Plessy's conclusions using the text.

And one has to ask -- if Specter had been on the Plessy court, which way he would have voted. Given his track record, starting with the Warren Commission, I'd have to bet on going along over integrity.

Open mouth, insert foot, try to talk way around it. Can he talk his way out of this one? Impacting.

UPDATE: More at Confirm Them

J. Harvie Wilkinson Call Your Office

The New York Times reports on the various strains of "conservative" judges and has this to say about "Traditional Conservatives":

Traditionalist conservatives believe that judicial wisdom is built up slowly, and judges shouldn't depart radically in any direction from the Constitution as it has been interpreted in case law over the ages. ... On the current court, they are best represented by Justice David Souter.

Traditionalists are reluctant to overturn judicial precedents except in the exceptional cases, like Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed school segregation. On Mr. Bush's shortlist, the leading traditionalist conservative is J. Harvie Wilkinson of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, whom some administration officials reportedly consider too moderate.

Somehow I don't think that invoking the name of Justice Souter is going to help Judge Wilkinson very much. Souter is "conservative" only in the sense that a rear-guard defense of the Great Society is conservative.

I guess this makes Stevens a centrist to the NY Times.

Note on Villaraigosa

The new mayor could take speaking lessons from Bush. About as bad a public speaker as I've heard, short of forgetting his lines. Not that anyone else remembered them.

Democrat Nomination Translation Table

WHAT THEY SAY		WHAT THEY MEAN
"the freedoms this country was founded upon"		abortion
"a voice of reason and moderation"		supports abortion
"embodies the fundamental American values of freedom, equality and fairness"		supports abortion
"views are within the broad constitutional mainstream"		supports abortion
"a mainstream conservative"		supports abortion
"served the nation and the Constitution well"		supports abortion
"threatens to roll back the rights and freedoms of the American people"		opposes abortion
"the president should respect the Senate's advice and consent role"		get ready for a filibuster over abortion
"the American people will insist that we oppose that nominee, and we intend to do so"		get ready for a filibuster over abortion

(Hat tip: LegalXXX)

I really wish it wasn't all about this, but it is. Can't we ever settle this and move on? There are other issues. Even some we agree on.

UPDATE: Case in point

Note to Vincente Fox

This audio file isn't racist either. (1.3MB MP3)

New Mayor Makes Promise

According to the NYT, Mayor Villaraigosa's inaugural address ... promised to to make smog-choked Los Angeles "the greenest big city in America."

This I gotta see.

UPDATE: As Frank Martin noted in the comments, he probably means Green, not "green." As in we sort our garbage 107 ways and cars are banned.

Supreme Court Gotta-haves

With Sandra Day O'Connor, a notorious "swing" vote, retiring, one should stop and consider what issues and viewpoints are a priority in the "perfect" next Justice. Many will focus on abortion, and Roe in particular, but I'm not going to. I have opinions about this, but since I also think that it's an issue that has driven all too many Supreme Court choices (don't you really wish you'd asked Souter about other things?), I'll leave it to last.

GOTTA HAVES:

• Free Speech -- nominee must be unreserved supporter of unrestricted political speech. Must oppose all attempts to impose "speech codes", "speech limits", or "free speech zones" in political and personal speech. Must view "campaign-finance" laws with a high degree of suspicion. Must view limitations on commercial speech with high scrutiny. Must put all other forms of speech higher than pornography.


• Property Rights -- Must have a strong view of private property and the Takings clause, requiring compensation for all substantial new restrictions on property and limiting eminent domain to items of direct public use.


• Interstate Commerce -- Must have a clear definition of what is, and is not, interstate commerce; the view must exclude viewing purely personal activity as "commerce."


• Right to Keep and Bear Arms -- must view the 2nd Amendment as establishing an individual right. Must say exactly that at confirmation. Non-negotiable.


• Expansive view of "Privileges or Immunites" clause and 9th and 10th Amendments in the following regard: those rights which are widely shared by actions of large majorties of states, can be found to be binding nationally. Case in point: "concealed carry." If 40 state legislatures were to grant same-sex marriage rights, then that, too. It is absurd that judges view the actions of France more important than those of Missouri. [Not a chance in Hell. Clause has been dead since 1875 -- ed]


• Free Exercise clause and Education: Must allow state-subsidized private education so long as allocation of funds is by parental choice. Must not allow content-based discrimination in public use of government facilities.

DESIRED:

• Supporter of the death penalty.
• Unwilling to use foreign law as basis for correcting US law.
• Defers to legislature wherever possbile

ABORTION:

I'm in the large middle on abortion. I do NOT think it should be generally illegal. I ALSO do not think it should be legal in the second half of pregnancy except in clearly life-threatening cases (Roe's "life or health" language effectively prevents any limitations). I do not think the State should accept a child's consent, pay for the procedure and then conspire to hide the event from the child's parents -- especially not as the default condition.

I believe that Roe v Wade was not only wrongly decided, but was a political blunder on the order of the Viet-Nam War. Roe gratuitously instigated a constitutional crisis that has gone on for 30 years and shows no sign of abating. It has consumed every Supreme Court nomination hearing since 1973, caused the Supreme Court to assert complete authority over a political issue, impacted the workings and nomination processes of all lower courts, and -- this is the real sin -- resolved utterly nothing.

In a legislative system, this kind of screwup would be ripe for a motion to rescind and expunge, but I despair this will ever happen at the Supreme Court. Stare decisis is setting in year-by-year (and in fact was cited in Casey). It seems that only a constitutional amendment can overturn Roe at this point. Even without O'Connor (and with Rehnquist), the vote is still 5-3 in favor of Roe.

However.

There is no need for the Court to continue to view the unenumerated right to abortion more strictly than it views any enumerated right. It is actually unconscionable that it does so. Starting with partial-birth abortion and parental notification laws, the Court can begin to view abortion limitations with relaxed scrutiny. Certainly a Roe with a "rational basis" test would satisfy much of the center's discomfort with the current "strict scrutiny" regime, allowing different states to have different standards and reasonable restrictions. While, ideally, it would be possible for states to outlaw abortion completely (to honor both federalism and the Constitution), I don't view this as likely in the foreseeable future.

Therefore a justice who is content to allow some form of unenumerated abortion right to remain, while allowing significant state and federal restriction on the practice, is perfectly satisfactory to me. Give me my other gotta-haves and I'll even wait a while more for this.

Discussion over at the usual places: SCOTUSblog; How Appealing; Volokh

O'Connor Retires

I don't suppose it would be a great surprise that I think Janice Rogers Brown would be a great Supreme Court Justice...