Politics, Government & Public Policy: May 2009 Archives

It's hard for me to interpret what President Obama is saying in defense of Sonia Sotomayor:

President Barack Obama on Friday personally sought to deflect criticism of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who finds herself under intensifying scrutiny for saying in 2001 that a female Hispanic judge would often reach a better decision than a white male judge. "I'm sure she would have restated it," Obama flatly told NBC News, without indicating how he knew that.

There are several ways this could be interpreted, and I think the President was intentionally ambiguous so that we can each believe in the way that makes Sotomayor look the best in our own minds.

1. Sotomayor didn't mean what she said. She meant to convey an entirely different meaning, and she would have restated herself to convey that meaning if she had the opportunity. (Which she didn't?)

2. Sotomayor meant what she said, but if she had known that she would be nominated to the Supreme Court eight years later she would have phrased it more ambiguously so that her beliefs couldn't be so easily held against her.

3. Sotomayor meant what she said but now wishes she could take it back because she has changed her mind.

4. Sotomayor meant what she said but now wishes she could take it back because she thinks it will hurt her chances of being confirmed.

Is there another option? Which of these really speaks well of a person who could very well get a life-long appointment to the Supreme Court?

Our government is Constitutionally required to protect our nation, but the Navy is at least $10 billion short for its shipbuilding needs.

The fiscal year 2010 program recently presented to Congress calls for $14.9 billion in shipbuilding funds for eight ships:

1 SSN attack submarine1 DDG Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (a restart of that program)3 LCS littoral combat ships2 T-AKE replenishment ships1 HSV high-speed vessel

With a planned average ship service life of 30 years, this building rate would sustain a fleet of 240 ships. This is less than the Navy's current 283 ships and far short of the long-standing Navy "requirement" for 313 ships.

The distinguished speakers at the Hudson conference on 22 May made it clear that without a massive increase in shipbuilding funds a larger fleet was not achievable. Dr. Eric Labs, senior naval analyst at the Congressional Budget Office said that about $25 billion per year for new ships is needed to reach the Navy's goal.

Meanwhile, the government has no Constitutional mandate or power to get involved in private enterprise but is poised to spend more than $70 billion to bail out another car company.

Including the more than $20 billion that has already been spent to prop up G.M., the government will provide G.M. at least $50 billion to get the company through Chapter 11, people with direct knowledge of the situation said Tuesday. By some estimates in Detroit, tens of billions beyond that amount may be required.

Maybe we could divert some of that payola money to one of the legitimate purposes of government and buy a few more ships?

Gateway Pundit is all over this story: are Republican-owned car dealerships being targeted for closure? The data will come out, and this could be a huge story considering: a) car dealerships are often extremely active in local politics, b) there is already widespread anger and frustration on every side of the auto industry bailouts.

My opinion of President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is very easy to discern from this despicably racist and sexist quote:

In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”

In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor[.]

Stuart Taylor bottom-lines it:

Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: "I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life" -- and had proceeded to speak of "inherent physiological or cultural differences."

I fully expected President Obama to nominate a liberal "living constitutionalist" to the Supreme Court, but I find it reprehensible that he selected a racist bigot.

Wendy Long says that Sotomayor isn't just a liberal, she's an activist:

Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one's sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench. ...

She has an extremely high rate of her decisions being reversed, indicating that she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court.

Tome Goldstein looks at the political dynamics:

For Republican Senators to come after Judge Sotomayor is not only hopeless when it comes to confirmation (something that did not deter Democrats in their attacks on Roberts and Alito) but a strategy that risks exacting a very significant political cost among Hispanics and independent voters generally, assuming that the attacks aren’t backed up with considerable substance.

Yep, elections count. Republicans lost. The President gets to seat anyone he wants on the Court, and he chose someone that both baits Republicans to oppose her and simultaneously hurts us if we do. I think it's a lesser loss to highlight the shortcomings of her philosophy but let her sail through mostly unopposed.

(HT: Ilya Somin, Ann Althouse.)

Details of Randy Barnett's idea to restore America to its federalistic roots via Constitutional convention. Without having yet heard contrary arguments I'm generally in favor of Barnett's formulation.

Instapundit has the best line so far on the anger California politicians are feeling for the voters who turned down the massive tax hikes the politicians needed to continue funneling taxpayer money to the public employee unions.

IN CALIFORNIA, BLAMING THE VOTERS. Stupid voters. Can’t we import better ones from Mexico or something?

It's funny because it's sad. I haven't written much about the ongoing crisis in my home state for just that reason: it's depressing to see a place you love go down the tubes.

So what about California? A reader asks. Ummm, that's a tough one. No, wait, it's not: California is completely, totally, irreparably hosed. And not a little garden hose. More like this. Their outflow is bigger than their inflow. You can blame Republicans who won't pass a budget, or Democrats who spend every single cent of tax money that comes in during the booms, borrow some more, and then act all surprised when revenues, in a totally unprecedented, inexplicable, and unforeseaable chain of events, fall during a recession. You can blame the initiative process, and the uneducated voters who try to vote themselves rich by picking their own pockets. Whoever is to blame, the state was bound to go broke one day, and hey, today's that day!

Unfortunately, I think she's right. That's part of why I left the state in 2006.

Guantanamo Bay detention center to remain open. Hope and change!

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said closing the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, was a “hasty decision,” in his daily press briefing with reporters.

Here's the video:

Even if President Obama does end up closing Camp Gitmo he's still going to hold detainees indefinitely without trials -- but on US soil! Hope and change!

The administration's internal deliberations on how to deal with Guantanamo detainees are continuing, as the White House wrestles with how to fulfill the president's promise to shutter the controversial prison. But some elements of the plans are emerging as the administration consults with key members of Congress, as well as with military officials, about what to do with Guantanamo detainees.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who met this week with White House Counsel Greg Craig to discuss the administration's plans, said among the proposals being studied is seeking authority for indefinite detentions, with the imprimatur of some type of national-security court. ...

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, at a hearing last month, hinted at the administration's deliberations, saying that there were "50 to 100 [detainees] probably in that ballpark who we cannot release and cannot trust, either in Article 3 [civilian] courts or military commissions."

Wow, it's almost like all of Obama's criticisms from the campaign were a load of crap and he's now recognizing that President Bush was right about a lot of things all along.

Director Blue explains that the government, corporations, and the media have got us surrounded and that the fix is in for socialized medicine.

Immelt, a member of Mr. Obama's economic recovery advisory board, went on to say that, "The intersection of government and business will be changed, maybe for a generation." Put simply, Marxism is on the way and GE is positioning itself to profit.

The business case behind Healthymagination hinges on nationalization of the health care industry. Computerization of health care records is not only a vaunted component of the Obama stimulus package, it is also a $75 to $100 billion business over the next ten years.

Fortunately, Healthymagination just happens to be building a health care record management system.

And with Obama's buddy Tom Daschle in tow, Healthymagination is certain to get some nice fat contracts out of the deal.

Oh, and did I mention NBC? It's involved, too. Health Imaging reports that the GE-owned media conglomerate -- something out of the movie Rollerball -- will do its part.

• NBC Universal and NBC News will air more than 5,000 televised reports annually on health and wellness.

• MSNBC will launch a new, daily program dedicated solely to health information... in addition to medical issues it will also examine health policy.

Put simply, the media will broadcast the propaganda; government will enact policy "by popular demand"; and the chosen corporation will profit at taxpayer expense.

I'm starting to feel like a sucker for choosing the losing team. If only the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy were as well-coordinated.

(HT: Instapundit.)

From the "If a Republican Said This" department: Michelle Obama says we all need a personal staff.

First lady Michelle Obama called her "current life" in the White House "a very blessed situation, because I have what most families don't have -- tons of support all around, not just my mother, but staff and administration. I have a chief of staff and a personal assistant, and everyone needs that."

"Everyone should have a chief of staff and a set of personal assistants," Obama said with a laugh as she spoke before a crowd of business executives meeting today during a "Corporate Voices for Working Families" conference at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington.

If a white male Republican said "Everyone should have a chief of staff and a set of personal assistants" in front of a bunch of rich executives and the room burst out with laughter he'd be pilloried.

Jim Durbin does his best to explain Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill's Bermuda tax shelters.

At odds are several statements Claire McCaskill has made about her holdings in Bermuda.

1) In the debate with Jim Talent in 2006, McCaskill said "There is absolutely no tax sheltering that is occurring that is not part of a tax code that Senator Talent embraces.” (Kansas City Star, October 18, 2006). This is a pretty straightforward admission that tax sheltering is occurring.

2) In this KY3 video from this year, McCaskill says the reinsurance company is located in Bermuda because most reinsurance companies are located there in order to sell insurance to all 50 states on the secondary market. In that video, she also claims that her investments are not a tax shelter, and have never been a tax shelter. Now, that contradicts what she said in 2006, but this video is important, because it suggests a high degree of familiarity with how reinsurance works. It's not true that most reinsurance companies are in Bermuda, but there are quite a few, and some of the biggest incorporate there. I'll expain why later. It's not the reason McCaskill gives.

3) The company at question is the Rural Reinsurance Company International LTD. The name comes from McCaskill's 2008 financial disclosure, available here at Legistorm.com. Curious, I went back and looked at the 2007 disclosure, and saw something curious. In the 2007 filing, there is no Rural Reinsurance Company International. There is an entry for the Rural Housing Re-Insurance Co Of America, LTD. Now, I'm not a tax lawyer, but it does seem that the company is different. It now seems to brand itself as selling internationally, as oppposed to selling just in the US. It could be the same company, but official name changes and DBA's matter. The investment has also increased in value, moving from the $250-500k bracket to the $500K-$1,000,000 bracket. Dividend income remains the same $0-$201 a year (which sounds like a pretty poor investment if you're planning on living off those dividends). The lack of dividend income is a sure sign of tax advantages. Those files have a lot of dividends that pay $0-$201.

That's just the set-up. If you're interested in details of how Senator McCaskill is using "loopholes" to pay as little in taxes as possible, read the whole thing. It doesn't seem that she's doing anything illegal, but her tax manipulations appear unsavory for a Democrat in these days of evil corporations and greedy "speculators".

(But hey, maybe she's angling for a Cabinet post!)

From the moment Timothy Geithner was confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury it was inevitable, but nonetheless it's shocking to hear "Taxcheat Tim" lecture the world about tax evasion:

Obama and his treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, said it's long past time for Washington to straighten out a tax code that makes it more expensive for American companies to hire employees in the United States than in other countries.

At a May 4 announcement at the White House, Geithner began by saying the Obama administration believes that it's time to bring fairness to the U.S. tax code.

"Today we are taking another important step toward those goals by ending indefensible tax breaks and loopholes which allow some companies and some well-off citizens to evade the rules that the rest of America lives by," Geithner said.

The transcript doesn't indicate whether or not Taxcheat Tim blushed as he issued the statement.

Larry Kudlow reminds us of this gem from the Geithner confirmation hearings:

Let’s take a look back at Geithner’s “non-answer” answer to a simple question posed by Sen. Jim Bunning during Geithner’s confirmation hearing.

SEN. BUNNING: Would you have paid your 2001 and 2002 tax had you not been nominated to be the treasury secretary?

GEITHNER: Senator, as I said initially, I should have asked more questions when I concluded that audit at the time, and I didn’t. When I think back on that, I regret not having done that. But I should have done it at that point.

Translation: "no".

Via Gateway Pundit, the video:

Courtesy of reader Mark Polege here are some more pictures of the Tea Partiers who greeted President Obama in Arnold, Missouri last week.

Not the ~10,000 who were at the Tax Day Tea Party a couple of weeks ago, but we conservatives tend to have to work for a living.

Because of Senate procedures that require at least one minority party member to agree to move a nominee out of committee, Arlen Specter's defection to the Democrats may hinder Obama's ability to nominate an extreme leftist to the Supreme Court.

When Obama nominates a replacement for retiring pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice David Souter, that nomination will head to the Senate Judiciary Committee for hearings and a vote.

The committee requires the consent of at least one Republican to end debate and move a nominee to the full Senate for a vote.

Specter, the former ranking minority member of the Republican Party on the committee, would have been the most likely GOP lawmaker to sign off on Obama's nomination.

Without his presence and vote, the rest of the members of the GOP on the panel could band together to oppose a pro-abortion nominee and prevent the confirmation process from moving ahead. In such a case, Democrats would likely have to present a motion to change the Senate's rules to block the option of the minority to exercise its opposition -- a move that could result in significant political fallout.

As the majority party the Democrats can change the procedural rules of the Senate, but they may not be eager to open that can of worms.

(HT: RB.)

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice answers some questions about "torture" from students at Stanford and instructs them in recent history.

(HT: Jamie Allman.)

Now that Republican-In-Name-Only Senator Specter has finally jumped parties officially, why doesn't he invite Senator Olympia Snowe (RINO-Maine) along for the ride? She's a continual embarrassment to the Republican party, and not merely for her ignorance of the Constitution.

The early positioning comes as senators are moving to influence Obama’s thinking before he unveils his choice [for his nomination to the Supreme Court]. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R[INO]-Maine) also met with Obama in a one-on-one meeting Monday, and urged him to select a woman, and the president spoke with the Senate’s newest Democrat, Specter about his thoughts.

"I urged him to consider a woman to the Supreme Court to keep Justice Ginsburg company and to represent 50 percent of the population," Snowe told POLITICO Monday evening.

a) The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a representative body. It's a judicial body. Unfortunately, Senator Snowe appears to be in the Senate representing America's idiots.

b) Anyone who urged the nomination of a male would be immediately castigated for sexism. Unless the Supreme Court has duties I am unaware of, the justices' sexual organs should not come into play.