YES. NEXT QUESTION? Do Prosecutors Have Too Much Power?

JOHN FONTE: The Conservative Populist Breakout.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IT’S FROM GM: 2016 Cadillac CTS-V Way More Affordable than M5, E63 AMG.

AT AMAZON, gift cards for Mother’s Day. You can also send flowers.

Plus, take 20% off sandals, for men, women & kids. Summer is coming.

HEH: Don Surber: Bernie Sanders brings wealth of 19th century ideas to Democratic presidential sweepstakes. “Senator Sanders brings a wealth of ideas from the 19th century including voting rights for women, a graduated income tax, and free public schools. He also favors the prohibition of alcohol, an end to paper money, and diapers on horses.”

Monty Burns’ commie brother!

SHOCKING: ANOTHER FOOD FAD THAT ISN’T BACKED BY SCIENCE. People love chickens that are “vegetarian fed.” Here’s why that’s bad for the birds.

Many of the largest U.S. sellers of organic eggs boast that their hens are vegetarian, and for an increasingly food-curious public, this may be great advertising. . . .

Yet for the chickens, who are natural omnivores that readily devour bugs and small animals when they’re available, the forced vegetarianism can be a disaster.

Chickens on an unsupplemented vegetarian diet typically fall short of an essential protein-based amino acid known as methionine, and without it, they fall ill. Worse, the birds will also turn on each other, seeking nutrients by pecking at each other, and these incidents can escalate into a henhouse bloodbath, farmers say.

“They’re really like little raptors – they want meat,” said Blake Alexandre, the owner of a 30,000 chicken operation in far northern California that keeps its birds on pasture. “The idea that they ought to be vegetarians is ridiculous.”

“This is one of those problems caused by the fact that most Americans are so far removed from their food supply,” said Tracy Favre, a farmer and organic inspector who serves on the federal advisory board for organic products. “When I see eggs in the supermarket being advertised as vegetarian this and that, I cringe.”

I hope the eggs are at least gluten-free.

HMM. IF I WERE GOING TO STAGE A ROBBERY, OR A RIOT, I’D HACK THEM AND THEN SET THEM ALL OFF AT ONCE: Soon, new cars in Europe will automatically call police in a crash.

HILLARY CLINTON: CONGENITAL RULE-BREAKER:  Ron Fournier over at National Journal excoriates Hillary for her history of being above the law.   Fourier’s opening salvo:

Hillary Clinton doesn’t play by the rules.

That’s not a partisan attack. It’s not a talking point. It’s not a fantasy. It’s a fact—an agonizing truth to people like me who admire Clinton and her husband, who remember how Bill Clinton rose from a backwater governorship to the presidency on a simple promise: He would fight for people who “work hard and play by the rules.”

The evidence is overwhelming and metastasizing: To co-opt a William Safire line, Hillary Clinton is a congenital rule-breaker.

Ouch.  Read the whole thing.

YET ANOTHER REASON TO BE SKEPTICAL OF THE “INTERNET OF THINGS.” “Attacks that take down websites by flooding them with traffic have been popular among computer criminals for years. Traditionally, such assaults are launched using PCs infected with malware. But two security companies say they have seen the emergence of a worrying new tactic: home routers, Internet-connected printers, and even webcams being used to knock targeted sites offline. In a report released last week, Chinese security company NSFocus said that it had seen a significant increase in the use of networked home and office devices in so-called denial-of-service attacks.” Not surprising, as the security on these devices is often poor.

HOW TO STOP KILLER ASTEROIDS: Only vigilance and ingenuity stand between Earth and oblivion.

I had an idea for a science fiction story: Man travels back in time to prevent assassination of Franz Ferdinand, and successfully prevents World War I, and, by extension, World War II. The result is a century of peace and prosperity, but somewhat slower technological development, so that in 2038 we’re just seeing the earliest beginnings of a space age — as a killer asteroid, unstoppable, appears and wipes out civilization.

NEWS YOU CAN USE: How To Make Tires Last 10 Years. Really?

ED MORRISSEY: The Stagnant Economy Spells Trouble for Democrats. “The parallels between Hillary Clinton and George H. W. Bush already exist, especially since her appeal to Democrats will be her ability to lock in the policies begun by Barack Obama. Her age and her long history in Washington DC make her the establishment candidate, with Republican candidates claiming youth and outside-the-Beltway credentials. If Democrats nominate her for the presidency as expected, the argument for her election would be continuity – to ‘stay the course,’ as Reagan himself put it, on the route that Obama created. That makes Democrats especially dependent on not just the reality of a strong economy, but the perception of economic strength as well.”

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Nick Gillespie: College Kids Are Human Veal: Abetted by idiot administrators, today’s students seem incapable of living in the real world. “But really, what the fuck is wrong with kids these days and, more important, the supposed adults who look after them? They act as if they are raising human veal that cannot even stand on their own legs or face the sunlight without having their eyeballs burned out and their hearts broken by a single deep breath or uncomfortable moment. I’m just waiting for stories of college deans carrying students from class to class on their backs. . . . It’s as if college presidents, deans, and the ever-increasing number of bureaucrats and administrators and residence-life muckety-mucks walked away from Animal House firmly believing that Dean Wormer was not only the hero of movie but a role model. At all costs, order must be enforced and no space for free play or discord can be allowed!”

TEXAS TO MONITOR US MILITARY EXERCISE:  Governor Greg Abbott announced that he has ordered the Texas State Guard to monitor U.S. military as it conducts an upcoming two-month, 1,200 troop training exercise in the State.  Abbott ordered monitoring to assuage concerns of Texans that the exercise will provide a platform for U.S. military occupation of,  and imposition of martial law on, Texas.  Abbott explained in a letter to the Commander of the Texas State Guard, Major General Jake Betty:

“During the training operation, it is important that Texans know their safety, constitutional rights, private property rights and civil liberties will not be infringed.  By monitoring the Operation on a continual basis, the State Guard will facilitate communications between my office and the commanders of the Operation to ensure that adequate measures are in place to protect Texans.”

This is why I love Texans.  And kudos to Abbott for doing what he thinks is right, knowing the onslaught of mainstream media criticism to come.  A healthy dose of suspicion is warranted, especially with this Administration.

TAXPROF ROUNDUP: The IRS Scandal, Day 721.

ARE ELECTED JUDGES POLITICIANS?:  According to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision yesterday in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, the answer is “no.”  The Court’s 5-4 split is itself worth noting:  Chief Justice John Roberts– in a classic move he made in the case upholding Obamacare, NFIB v. Sebelius–joined the Court’s four liberal Justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor) and wrote the majority opinion.  Eight Justices (all of them except Ginsburg) agreed that a Florida ban on judges soliciting campaign contributions was a presumptively unconstitutional violation of free speech under the First Amendment and subject to “strict scrutiny.”

Roberts’ majority concluded that banning judges’ solicitation of campaign contributions survived strict scrutiny because it furthered the compelling government interest in protecting judicial integrity and the public’s confidence therein, and was narrowly tailored to serve that interest. This integrity is essential, said the Roberts’ majority, because “judges are not politicians,” even when they are elected, and the public needs to have confidence that judges will decide cases impartially, without regard to who has given contributions to them.

But is this really true?  Judges in 39 states are elected in some manner.  In 30 of these states, elected judges are banned from soliciting direct campaign contributions.  In the Williams-Yulee case, for example, Ms. Williams-Yulee (who ran for a county court in Florida, but lost) sent out a mass mailing to potential supporters, signed it, and then posted the same letter on her website.  This triggered disciplinary proceedings by the Florida Bar, which resulted in her reprimand and payment of court costs of almost $2,000, which was affirmed by the Florida Supreme Court.

When we elect our judges, do we really think they aren’t politicians?  What is a “politician,” if not someone who is elected (and hence, politically accountable) to the people via elections?  I’m sure we all agree that judges (elected or not) should be impartial, and apply the law rather than make it up themselves.  But that aside, if we choose to elect our state judges (federal judges are constitutionally required to be appointed for life), doesn’t that mean that they are politicians, and that we want them to be politically accountable to us for their behavior while on the bench?

If elected judges are “politicians” in this sense, then why shouldn’t they have a robust First Amendment right to ask for campaign money, the same as elected members of the executive and legislative branches?  Indeed, under most states’ judicial solicitation bans, judges cannot even ask for campaign contributions from their own family members, though they can set up “campaign committees” that issue contribution solicitations indirectly.  They can even write personal “thank you” notes when such committees receive contributions.  As Adam Liptak observed in his New York Times summary, “Under Wednesday’s ruling, then, judicial candidates can say thank you, but they may not say please.”

Moreover, in most states, judicial candidates and judges can ask lawyers for other benefits, such as tickets to a football game, but they cannot ask for a $1.00 campaign donation.  These gaps and inconsistencies in judicial solicitation bans led Justice Samuel Alito to observe, in dissent, that Florida’s law was “about as narrowly tailored as a burlap bag.”

The four, dissenting conservative Justices in Williams-Yulee have a point:  The liberal Justices (plus Chief Justice Roberts) just don’t seem to like judicial elections very much, and seem to paternalistically justify protecting the “Brotherhood of the Robe” by claiming that citizens will somehow think elected judges raising money like other politicians will make them less partial than they otherwise would be.  Maybe this is because, when judges are elected, they tend to vote more conservatively.

Here in Florida, where our appellate judges are subject to retention elections, I assume simultaneously that judges are both “politicians” (politically accountable via elections) but also “impartial,” as the Code of Judicial Ethics requires them to be.  If I received a letter in the mail from some judge (or candidate) asking me for money, I would probably just chuckle and throw it in the trash.  If I gave money, it would be because I knew the person and believed him/her to be a good judge (or potential judge).  I certainly wouldn’t think I could “buy” a judge for the limited contribution allowed of $1,000- $3,000.

If contribution limits are accepted as an appropriate means for preventing members of the legislative and executive branches from being “bought,” then why aren’t they similarly accepted for elected judges?  According to the Williams-Yulee Court, it’s because judges are just “different.”  I don’t see how this distinction is supported by the First Amendment.

IT’S THE FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY of the fall of Saigon. Sadly, a lot of our elites think the good guys won that day.

But some related thoughts are here.

SPACE: Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin soars into space from West Texas. “Powered by a BE-3 engine, the spacecraft flew to 307,000 feet, the edge of space, and returned smoothly to the ground. The company said it was able to recover the reusable spacecraft.”

JEFFREY ROSEN: The Dangers of a Constitutional ‘Right to Dignity:’ It may provide support for same-sex marriage, but it also empowers judges to decide whose ‘dignity’ they wish to prioritize. Well, yes. Open-ended judicial standards do that.

AT AMAZON, fresh deals on bestselling products, updated every hour.

Also, coupons galore in Grocery & Gourmet Food.

Plus, Kindle Daily Deals.

And, Today’s Featured Digital Deal. The deals are brand new every day, so browse and save!

THE FUTURE OF MARKETING? Getting rich off of social-justice-warrior outrage.

UPDATE: Why Protein World is reaping the rewards from its ‘genuine integrity.’

WHAT I’VE NOTICED IS THAT THERE’S ALWAYS AN EXCUSE: After U.S. economy slows to crawl, analysts hope the reason is the season.

What IowaHawk has noticed is that the same people who are telling us that the economic slowdown is because of the extraordinarily cold winter are also telling us that this is the hottest year on record.

UPDATE: From the comments: “The Soviets blamed the weather for 75 consecutive poor wheat harvests; it seems churlish to deny this excuse to the Obama administration after just 7 years.” Fair point!

WELL, YES: Ted Cruz: Obama has enflamed race relations.

Sen. Ted Cruz on Wednesday asserted that President Obama has irresponsibly enflamed race relations in the United States and wasted a unique opportunity to heal old wounds and bring Americans together.

The Texas Republican, a candidate for president in 2016, made those comments during an appearance in Washington hosted by the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, in the midst of continuing unrest between African-Americans and the police in Baltimore. Like Obama, whose mother was Caucasian and father an African from Kenya, Cruz is biracial — the son of a white mother and Hispanic father who was born and raised in Cuba.

During a question and answer session with USHCC President and CEO Javier Palomarez, Cruz alluded to his belief that Obama has been a racially divisive president. Asked by CNN’s Dana Bash in a short news conference that followed if that’s what he meant, Cruz didn’t back down.

“I think he has not used his role as president to bring us together. He has exacerbated racial misunderstandings, racial tensions, from back at the beer summit to a series of efforts to pit Americans against each other. And, part of the problem is the way he advocates for any given plan, is to build a straw man of the opposition and then to vilify their position. So that, in the president’s telling, anyone who opposes Obamacare wants people to be denied healthcare and to get sick and pass away. That’s the only reason someone could oppose Obamacare, is because you malevolently want people to suffer,” Cruz said. “When you come to the Iran deal, anyone that opposes this terrible Iran deal, must be because they want war. Dividing us over and over and over again is a dangerous approach for a president. It’s an irresponsible approach for a president. I think we need to be looking to unity.”

He’s been an irresponsible President.