NASA: Fly Over Ceres In New Video.

OBAMA’S “BULLY” PULPIT:  Obama took a cheap shot at the Supreme Court for even agreeing to hear the Obamacare subsidy case, King v. Burwell, telling reporters at a press conference in Germany “This should be an easy case” and “Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up.” Joel Gehrke over at NRO notes:

Jonathan Gruber, one of Obamacare’s architects, famously contradicted that assertion in 2012, flatly admitting that the law had been designed to withhold subsidies from those who purchased coverage through the federal exchange in an attempt to prod states to set up their own marketplaces.

“What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits — but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill,” Gruber said. Yet when asked today to say how states should prepare for the prospect of the court adopting that reading, Obama was dismissive of his opponents legal reasoning, and the idea that any well-informed jurist could be swayed by it. “I think it’s important for us to go ahead and assume that the Supreme Court is going to do what most legal scholars who have looked at this would expect them to do,” he said. “I’m optimistic that the Supreme Court will play it straight when it comes to the interpretation.”

It’s typical Obama bullying of the Court, suggesting that it would not be “play[ing] it straight” if it rules in favor of the plaintiffs and gives effect to the plain language of a law that limits subsidies to “an Exchange established by the State.” Obama similarly took to his “bully” pulpit after the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in the first big Obamacare case, NFIB v. Sebelius (2012). It’s almost like he thinks the Supreme Court is the King’s Bench or something.

#WARONWOMEN: Hillary’s ‘No Ceilings’ Project Accepted $5 Million From Sexual Abuser. But you can see why Hillary would have felt at home with this guy: “When I was there, what I do know is that he would brag about screwing all the secretaries.”

CNN: Hillary Clinton’s Real Libya Problem:

She’s already grappling with the political headaches from deleted emails and from the terror attack that left four Americans dead in Benghazi.

But she’ll face a broader challenge in what’s become of the North African country since, as secretary of state in 2011, she was the public face of the U.S. intervention to push out its longtime strongman, Moammar Gadhafi.

Libya’s lapse into the chaos of failed statehood has provided a breeding ground for terror and a haven for groups such as ISIS. Its plight is also creating an opening for Republican presidential candidates to question Clinton’s strategic acumen and to undermine her diplomatic credentials, which will be at the center of her pitch that only she has the global experience needed to be president in a turbulent time. Gathering questions over Libya also point to one of the central complications of Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic nomination, due to formally launch on Saturday: the fact that she must own a record at the State Department that lacks clear-cut diplomatic triumphs.

She was a disaster as Secretary of State, and was a major advocate of waging a war of choice that resulted in a failed state now taken over by terrorists. Worse yet, she was doing that while relying on advice from an advisor who was in bed with people who hoped to get rich of postwar investments. Basically, everything the Democrats said about Dick Cheney and Iraq is true about Hillary and Libya.

TAXPROF ROUNDUP: The IRS Scandal, Day 761.

THOMAS LIFSON: Why is the New York Times acting so guilty over the Clinton Family Foundation donation to its pet charity? “The New York Times is doing an excellent imitation of an institution with something to hide.”

FRANKLY, THE SCANDINAVIAN MODEL ISN’T DOING ALL THAT WELL IN SCANDINAVIA: Megan McArdle: U.S. Can’t Import the Scandinavian Model.

There’s reason to think that the Scandinavians may be able to pair their high levels of government spending with a decent growth rate precisely because the U.S. does not follow their lead.

Let me explain. In the simplest terms, economic growth is population growth, plus productivity growth. How do nations get more productive? Well, one way is to find a lot of lucrative fossil fuel deposits in the North Sea. But let’s accept that this is not going to be a widespread ticket to prosperity. Most of the way we get more productive is to innovate in some way (and indeed, the technology that discovered and recovered the Norwegian oil is itself an innovation.)

Where does innovation mostly come from? Daron Acemoglu, James Robinson and Thierry Verdier, the academics whom Drezner cites, argue that it disproportionately comes from economies where “incentives for workers and entrepreneurs results in greater inequality and greater poverty” . . . i.e., the United States. Those innovations, however, don’t make just us more productive; they filter out to the rest of the world.

Now, you can quarrel with the academics’ model, and indeed, many people have. But even if you think they are wrong about needing inequality-producing incentives to drive innovation, there remains a kernel of truth: When it comes to growth, Scandinavia’s economic policy simply doesn’t matter as much as U.S. economic policy, so it’s hard to draw good lessons from it for other, larger countries.

True.

THE NEXT ASSAULT ON FREE SPEECH: The WSJ editors perspicaciously predict the “Return of the Speech Police” in the 2016 presidential election:

[A] behind-the-scenes effort is under way to lobby the Federal Election Commission and Justice Department to stifle free political speech the way the Internal Revenue Service did in 2012. Don’t be surprised if the subpoenas hit Republican candidates at crucial political moments.

In late May the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 asked the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to investigate former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and his Right to Rise Super PAC for violating campaign-finance law. According to the letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, “If Bush is raising and spending money as a candidate, he is a candidate under the law, whether or not he declares himself to be one.”

The theory behind this accusation is campaign “coordination,” the new favorite tool of the anti-speech political left. Earlier this year the Justice Department invited such complaints with a public statement that it would “aggressively pursue coordination offenses at every appropriate opportunity.” . . .

Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer says Mr. Bush should be considered a candidate who is illegally coordinating because if you asked “100 ordinary Americans” if he is a candidate, they will say yes. What a bracing legal standard. What would the same 100 Americans have said about Hillary Clinton in 2013, or Ted Cruz in high school? Where is the limiting principle?

There is no limiting principle–just ask conservatives in Wisconsin who supported Scott Walker’s efforts to reform public sector unions.  The point isn’t so much that liberals/progressives think they will ultimately win when these efforts are inevitably challenged in court. The point is that merely investigating conservatives on shadowy “coordination” allegations is sufficient to chill conservatives’ speech, sending supporters (and their funds) elsewhere.

CALMLY AND WITHOUT BIGOTRY WOULD BE NICE: Michael Walsh: Open Carry Is The New Normal, So How Should Folks React?

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!

ELIANA JOHNSON: The Obama Administration’s Newly Political Approach to FOIAs. “Though the Freedom of Information Act is intended to be a force for transparency insulated from politics, career FOIA attorneys say ‘sensitive review’ introduced explicitly political considerations into the process. In internal documents obtained exclusively by National Review, career officials voiced their discomfort and dismay with the new, unorthodox treatment of FOIAs.”

FIRST THE TRAFFIC TICKETS, NOW THE REVELATION THAT HE BOUGHT A SPEEDBOAT: NY Times (Clinton Opposition Research?) Goes After Rubio’s Personal Finances. “Actually the Democratic Party paper of record describes someone just like most of us, someone who probably understands what the rest of us are going through, someone who to this day is not rich like the Clintons.”

THAT MIDAS TOUCH: How State Exchanges Are Faring Under Obamacare. “All eyes are on the federal and state health insurance exchanges in anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case King v. Burwell. In anticipation of the ruling, a Daily Signal analysis of the 17 exchanges originally established by states and the District of Columbia found that more than half are struggling after facing technological troubles and low enrollment during their first two years of existence.”

ASHE SCHOW: Anti-discrimination law is being used to discriminate.

Author Jessica Gavora has a great Wall Street Journal article detailing how the anti-discrimination law known as Title IX is used to discriminate.

Title IX was first passed 43 years ago as a way to increase the number of women athletes on college campuses. But Title IX has since been expanded to force colleges and universities to play investigator, judge and jury for accusations of sexual assault. The law has been reinterpreted to consider sexual assault a form of gender discrimination — even when the accuser and accused are of the same gender — that must therefore be handled by the university.

Gavora explained that liberals have only been upset about the law’s expansiveness since one of their own — Laura Kipnis — found herself ensnared in its grasp. Kipnis was accused of violating Title IX over an article she wrote criticizing the way it was being used to accuse anyone and everyone of assault for various comments and sleights (yes, the accusation was that absurd). . . .

First male athletes were targeted, and now male students in general, as well as the academics who criticize the practice, are in the cross hairs. Gavora asks: “Who will be next?”

That worry is why even campus lefties are suddenly concerned.

SO MY CONTRIBUTION TO THE TENNESSEE LAW REVIEW’S THIRD AMENDMENT SYMPOSIUM IS NOW ONLINE (As always, your downloads are highly appreciated!) In it I discuss whether the Third Amendment might limit government intrusiveness into domestic affairs in areas as diverse as computer spyware, “affirmative consent” laws, and childrearing. The piece is here. (Bumped).

I AGREE: Campus carry offers protection: Texas is far from the first state to allow firearms on college campuses.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Poor Grades From The Public.

As far as parents are concerned, the days of college being a place to focus on learning are over.

A national poll released by the Robert Morris University Polling Institute Monday found that only a little more than half of respondents viewed the college selection process favorably and less than half thought colleges were doing enough to help graduates find jobs. Those involved with the poll said the results indicated a need for institutions to keep up with the changing view of higher education as a way to find employment rather than earn a degree.

Indeed. And yes, all is proceeding as I have foreseen.

TSA CAN’T SPOT ORDINARY GUNS. SO WHAT’S THE RESPONSE? The Hill: Dems move to ban plastic guns.

Congressional Democrats are proposing to ban plastic guns following reports of major security lapses at the nation’s airports

Plastic guns that fire real bullets can be even more dangerous as traditional firearms, because they’re harder to detect, says Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.).

The Undectectable Firearms Modernization Act, backed by Israel and several other Democrats, would prohibit the manufacture of entirely plastic guns. The legislation would require a major component of every gun to contain enough traces of metal to be detected.

Israel plans to unveil the legislation Tuesday during a press conference at LaGuardia Airport in New York City, where he will draw a connection between his bill and recent high-profile airport security lapses.

The Transportation Security Administration failed a recent sting operation in which undercover agents snuck fake explosives and weapons through airport security in 67 out of 70 tests, or about 95 percent of the time.

Many of America’s busiest airports failed the tests.

In one test, a federal agent was able to sneak a fake bomb that was strapped to his back through security, even after he was subjected to a pat down.

The massive security failure led to the ouster last week of TSA acting administrator Melvin Carraway.

In light of the TSA security lapses, Israel and other Democrats say it is even more important to ban plastic guns.

They’re choosing this response so that they can claim they’re doing something while not imperiling the unionized, Democrat-voting jobs of incompetent federal employees.

Related: My piece on 3D-printed guns in Popular Mechanics.

The Liberator can be identified at security checkpoints because it contains a chunk of metal—in fact, that component’s only function is to set off metal detectors. This is required by a federal statute, renewed late last year, that bans guns that are undetectable. (Wilson’s gun was a prominent talking point in discussions of the bill.) Nonetheless, it would be possible for someone to manufacture a 3D-printed plastic gun that lacked that part. Such a gun would violate the law, and it wouldn’t be caught by a metal detector.

Well, actually, it probably would. That’s because while the gun might be all-plastic, the ammunition contains metal. Popular Mechanics researchers contacted the TSA, the FBI, and several ammunition and metal-detector companies trying to find out just how much metal it takes to set off an alarm at airport security. No one would cite a figure, but the sensitivity thresholds on the machines are set high enough (to avoid false alarms over zippers or metal buttons) that a single cartridge wouldn’t do it. A magazine containing, say, eight or more cartridges probably would.

And, of course, metal detectors aren’t the last word. In airports, at least, they’re kind of obsolete these days. More modern detectors, such as backscatter-X-ray or millimeter-wave-radar imagers—which look beneath people’s clothes—would detect a plastic gun regardless. So, for that matter, would a simple pat-down.

Well, assuming it were performed competently, which seems as if it’s not to be taken for granted. That — TSA incompetence — is the real problem, and the Democrats are just trying to distract from that. That’s the real story about this bill.

Related: Terror Links Found to 73 Workers in Secure U.S. Airport Jobs. “Investigators found 73 people were cleared by the Transportation Security Administration to work in sensitive jobs at U.S. airports despite possible links to terrorism in their backgrounds, according to a government report made public on Monday.”

Banning plastic guns won’t fix that either. But the Dems in Congress hope it may at least distract from it.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: In America, Building A New Dark Age Mind. “An American could speak his mind more freely in 1970 than now. Many in the United States had naively believed that the Enlightenment, the U.S. Constitution, and over two centuries of American customs and traditions had guaranteed that Americans could always take for granted free speech and unfettered inquiry. That is an ahistorical assumption. The wish to silence, censor, and impede thought is just as strong a human emotion as the desire for free expression — especially when censorship is cloaked in rhetoric about fairness, equality, justice, and all the other euphemisms for not allowing the free promulgation of ideas.”

RICK MORAN: The McKinney, Texas, Pool Party: The Rest of the Story.

THE DEMOCRATS’ FRESH BLOOD: Martin O’Malley’s Candidacy Relies on Veterans of Gary Hart’s 1984 Campaign.

I’D LIKE TO SEE MORE UNIVERSITIES STANDING UP TO THESE FRIVOLOUS COMPLAINTS: Mary Washington President Says Feminist Group’s Title IX Complaint Is Reckless, Misinformed. And he’s right.

University of Mary Washington president Richard Hurley had harsh words for the national feminist legal organization sponsoring a Title IX complaint against the university. The complaint is based on “unsubstantiated claims and misinformation,” wrote Hurley in a blunt and harshly condemning open letter.

A small UMW campus organization, Feminists United on Campus, filed the complaint with the help of the Feminist Majority Foundation, a national advocacy group. They allege that the university failed to protect members of FUC from harassment and cyberbullying—particularly anonymous threats made using the social media app, Yik Yak. One of the members of the group, Grace Mann, was tragically murdered in her off-campus home a few weeks ago. Her apparent killer, roommate Steven Vander Briel, was apprehended immediately.

The complaint implicitly draws a connection between FUC’s anti-sexism activism—which targeted the rugby team because a few members engaged in nonspecifically offensive chanting at a party—the threats made against the group, and Mann’s eventual death. (Vander Briel, an on-again, off-again student who had recently re-enrolled, was a former member of the rugby team, though there is no record of him having played a game for nearly the last decade, and the current members of the team didn’t know him.)

I previously wrote that the complaint was baseless; there’s no evidence that the rugby team, or the Yik Yak comments (which are constitutionally-protected speech), had anything to do with Mann’s death. Furthermore, the university did everything it could for FUC. Administrators, including Hurley himself, met with FUC constantly to assuage its concerns.

Given all that, Hurley’s criticism of FUC and FMF is well-deserved.

As I’ve said, these “activists” aren’t well-meaning people who sometimes go a little overboard. They’re nasty, awful people abusing legal channels to exercise tyranny over those who don’t follow orders. And they hate Yik Yak on campus because it lets people end-run the censors.

FOIA GOLD: Oh, look: It’s federal Obama education officials covering their asses on Rolling Stone fakery.

TAMARA TABO: Clarence Thomas Stands Alone.