Archive for 2011

DALLAS MORNING NEWS: Eric Holder’s continued obfuscation on Fast and Furious. “You’ve seen people who did it and didn’t in your life. Is this how an innocent person behaves? Is it plausible that the attorney general of the United States had no idea what was going on in Arizona within his own shifting time parameters? . . . At some point, one might think, Holder becomes more of a liability to the Obama re-election campaign than a 50-50 incumbent can stand.”

WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: Doha: Dead As The Dodo, Dead As Kyoto. “The Doha Round is dying for some of the same reasons the green negotiations are going nowhere: the agreements cover so many countries and so many subjects that the process is breaking down under the weight of complexity and competing interests. There are too many parties negotiating too many topics that touch too deeply on too many domestic interests for agreement to be easy to find. . . . Worse, the low hanging fruit have been picked. The easy win-win agreements were reached in earlier trade rounds; the topics left are mostly contentious and the gains in some cases are less dramatic than in the past.” We’re long past the point of diminishing returns on international organizations generally.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: Gingrich Takes Aim At Legal System.

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich came out swinging Saturday against the nation’s legal system, pledging if elected to defy Supreme Court rulings with which he disagrees and declaring that a 200-year-old principle of American government, judicial review to ensure that the political branches obey the Constitution, had been “grossly overstated.”

Courts “are forcing us into a constitutional crisis because of their arrogant overreach,” Mr. Gingrich told reporters in a Saturday conference call. He repeatedly blasted federal judges for imposing “elitist opinion” on the rest of the country.

FDR could get away with this because he was much more popular than the Supreme Court. No politician or official today is more popular than the Supreme Court. I doubt a President Gingrich will be either.

WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Conservatives should think twice about Newt – Part II.

Three weeks ago, when we warned in this space that conservatives should think twice before succumbing to the sudden appeal of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, we were, quite frankly, out on a limb. For all his faults, Gingrich occupies a special place in the Republican pantheon, thanks to the electoral success made possible by the Contract with America in 1994. But with his surge in popularity as an alternative to Mitt Romney, we believed it important to speak up. Essentially, our warning was that his flaws “make it difficult not to view Gingrich as an exemplar of Washington’s professional Republican politicians who talk the talk to get elected, but often don’t walk it once in office.”

A lot has happened since that Nov. 29 editorial appeared. As Gingrich built a double-digit lead over Romney, it appeared that perhaps our warning came too late. But last week it became evident that a lot of people — including many of our media colleagues on the Right and, more importantly, conservative Republican primary voters in Iowa and across the nation — were indeed thinking twice about the former speaker.

I don’t think his latest initiatives will help.

THE HILL: Keystone climbdown Leaves Obama Supporters Scratching Heads. “He was the most detached person from this process of any of the major players.”

Plus: “He looks at things the way a college professor would.” Well, maybe one who never had to attend faculty meetings. . . .

UPDATE: Reader Liz Wickham writes: “Impressive! He’s found a way for a president to vote ‘present.'”

THANKS TO EVERYONE WHO’S BEEN SHOPPING VIA THE AMAZON LINKS ON THIS PAGE, or the search box in the right sidebar. By doing so you support this blog at no cost to yourself. Your support is much appreciated!

LEGAL EDUCATION UPDATE: For Law Schools, A Price To Play The ABA’s Way.

If you want a diploma blessed by the A.B.A. — and you don’t have rich parents, a plum scholarship or an in-state public law school with lots of taxpayer support — you are pretty much out of luck. And that is not just a problem for would-be attorneys. The lack of affordable law school options, scholars say, helps explain why so many Americans don’t hire lawyers.

“People like to say there are too many lawyers,” says Prof. Andrew Morriss of the University of Alabama School of Law. “There are too many lawyers who charge $300 an hour. There aren’t too many lawyers who will handle a divorce at a reasonable rate, or handle a bankruptcy at a reasonable rate. But there is no way to be that lawyer and service $150,000 worth of debt.”

Well, it’s a cartel, and those tend to raise costs.

UPDATE: Thoughts from Larry Ribstein.

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY editorializes against a cellphone ban.

First, regulating cellphone use is not a federal responsibility, even on federal roads. This is not an issue that Washington has the authority to address.

Second, there’s no compelling reason for it. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that 3,092 traffic deaths last year involved distracted drivers. But using a cell phone is only one of many driver distractions. Eating and drinking while behind the wheel are two others, and they are far more dangerous than yapping on a phone.

In fact, a 2009 NHTSA study found that 80% of all car wrecks are caused by drivers eating or drinking — not cellphone use — with coffee-guzzling the top offender.

Then there’s this. According to federal data, traffic deaths have fallen from 2.1 per 100 million vehicle miles in 1990, when virtually no one had a cellphone, to 1.1 in 2009, when almost everyone does.

Nice to see people picking up on this.

MICHAEL BARONE: WaPo’s Marcus: marriage gap produces income gap. “Lower-income people aren’t marrying nearly as often as higher-income people or, to put it another way, income disparities are to a large extent the result of decisions people make in their personal lives.” Plus the impact of assortative mating.

THE CHICAGO EXPULSION ACT OF 2011:

‘Why would anyone want to live in Illinois?” So muses Curt Wooters, who works for the state and helps his dad run the family’s sporting-goods store in Findlay, 200 miles south of Chicago. Imagine California without the sunshine, New York without the cultural elan, New Jersey without Chris Christie. That’s Illinois.

Mr. Wooters has another five years before he can retire, but he’s advising his kids to leave the state after college. He’s also talked with his dad about closing their shop because it costs too much to run a business in Illinois these days. Plus, “the customers are leaving town.”

Now two downstate Republican lawmakers think that they’ve found a solution for Mr. Wooters and other disgruntled Illinoisans who want to escape but can’t: Cut off the pesky tail that’s wagging the dog—separate Chicago from the rest of the state.

That’s the legislative initiative of State Reps. Adam Brown and Bill Mitchell, who think politicians from the Windy City have blown the state too far left. “At every town-hall meeting I hear, ‘Can’t we separate from Chicago?'” says Mr. Mitchell.

Plus this:

Mr. Wooters knows several people who are leaving the state. His neighbors are moving to Kentucky, his best friend to Tennessee. Another friend, who owns a chain of agricultural-supply stores, has moved to Florida and is expanding operations in other states. Most of the state’s business class appears bearish about their own future. In a Chicago Tribune survey of 45 chief executives of large, publicly held Illinois businesses, only two said they expected the state’s economic condition to improve in the next year.

If you want to come to Tennessee, fine. Just don’t come here and then vote for the same policies, and clowns, that ruined the state you came from.