CALIFORNIA:  Nothing makes me want to vote to break California into three states more than being told by the California Supreme Court that I can’t vote to break California into three states.

THE TRANSGENDER POSSE COMES FOR SCARLETT JOHANSSON:  In fairness, she must be used to these posses by now.

Related (From Ed): With Johansson having backed out of starring as a trans man, it’s quite possible that project is about to be shelved. But as this article, written before she caved to the outrage mob notes, the character that Johansson would have played was, well, quite a character: The Amazing life of transgender gangster Mr. Gill.

THE CHAPPAQUIDDICK INCIDENT:  On this day in 1969, Sen. Ted Kennedy drove his car (and with it his Presidential aspirations) off a bridge.  Forty years later in 2009, on the occasion of Kennedy’s death, Mark Steyn wrote Speaking Ill of the Ted.  It’s still a good read (so good that part of it was incorporated into the script of the Chappaquiddick movie).

BLAME THE MESSENGER: A large, longitudinal, randomized, controlled study recently found that Tennessee’s pre-kindergarten program for low-income children had modestly NEGATIVE effects on academic achievement once the children were in the third grade. The program participants also had more disciplinary problems than non-participants, most of whom had stayed at home that year rather than participating in some other program. This is, of course, disappointing, especially since the study had found positive effects when measured at the end of the pre-kindergarten year. But those effects faded over time and turned negative.

There are several different, plausible explanations for these results. I will leave it to you to read the study or its summary for that. Instead, I want to draw your attention to yet another case of bullying researchers who get politically incorrect results. Authors Dale Farran and Mark Lipsey commented on the vitriol to which they have been subjected:

[Our] findings were not welcome.  So much so that it has been difficult to get the results published.  Our first attempt was reviewed by pre-k advocates who had disparaged our findings when they first came out in a working paper – we know that because their reviews repeated word-for-word criticisms made in their prior blogs and commentary.  We are grateful for an open-minded editor who allowed our recent paper summarizing the results of this study to be published (after, we should note, a very thorough peer review and 17 single-spaced pages of responses to questions raised by reviewers).  We are also appreciative of the objective assessment and attention to detail represented in the Straight Talk review.

It is, of course, understandable that people are skeptical of results that do not confirm the prevailing wisdom, but the vitriol with which our work has been greeted is beyond mere scientific concern.  Social science research can only be helpful to policy makers if it presents findings openly and objectively, even when unwelcome.

We share with our colleagues a commitment to the goal of providing a better life for poor children.  Blind commitment to one avenue for attaining that goal, however, is unnecessarily limiting.  If pre-k is not working as hoped and intended, we need to roll up our sleeves and figure out what will work, with solid research to guide that effort.

Here’s a question worth knowing the answer to: How much of the vitriol was coming from individuals with a financial stake in the continuation of government-subsidized pre-kindergarten programs for low-income children?  As always, the more that gets spent on any government program, the harder it is to turn the spigot off.

By the way, as one might guess, there is similar vitriol aimed at researchers—like UCLA’s Richard Sander—who question the effectiveness of race-preferential admissions at increasing the number of minority professionals.  Some of it comes from people whose jobs depend on maintaining the status quo.

IT’S NOT JUST FEINSTEIN:  Democrats are dumping moderates.

NOT YOUR GRANDFATHER’S CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY: As a result of California’s “jungle primary” system, the two candidates for U.S. Senator on the November ballot—Dianne Feinstein and Kevin de León—are both Democrats. The L.A. Times reports that last night, the Democratic Party’s Executive Committee voted to endorse De León over long-time incumbent Feinstein. The vote was a smack down for Feinstein—65% for De León, 7% for Feinstein and 28% for no endorsement.

Democratic activists are no mood for Feinstein’s reputation for pragmatism (and many have said so).  They want a real leftist like the 51-year-old De León.  And (surprise!) they want someone younger than the 85-year-old Feinstein.

So far at least, California voters have a different view. The latest poll (June 29) shows Feinstein ahead of De León 46% to 24%.

HOW THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION MADE IT TOUGH FOR TEACHERS TO MAINTAIN ORDER IN THE CLASSROOM:  Over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

ON THIS DAY IN 1890, WYOMING BECAME A STATE:  There’s an interesting backstory here:  The Wyoming Territory’s constitution had been the first to guarantee women the right to vote.  But when Wyoming initially applied for statehood, this created controversy.  Fearing that women in long-established states would be emboldened by Wyoming’s example, some Members of Congress initially insisted that Wyoming withdraw women’s right to vote. But the Wyoming legislature stood its ground and cabled back to Congressional leaders, “We will remain out of the Union one hundred years rather than come in without the women.”

Congress eventually relented, and before the turn of the century, there were four women’s suffrage states–Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and Idaho.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SHOULD CONDUCT A “DISPARATE IMPACT INVENTORY”: In Ricci v. DeStefano (2009), a Title VII case that concerned the tension between liability for intentional discrimination and liability for disparate impact liability, Justice Scalia began his concurrence this way:

I join in the Court’s opinion in full, but write separately to observe that its resolution of this dispute merely postpones the evil day on which the Court will have to confront the question: Whether, or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?

I gave a talk at the Federalist Society’s Executive Branch Review a couple of months ago entitled It’s Time for the Executive Branch to Conduct a “Disparate Impact Inventory” (The link is to a written version of the talk w/ a few footnotes added). Essentially, I said that Scalia’s doubts about the constitutionality of disparate impact liability need to be taken seriously.  The Trump Administration should begin evaluating the issue for each of the anti-discrimination laws and policies that use disparate impact liability. Does that use violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection or not?  (More here.)

WHY SHOULD A SINGLE FEDERAL JUDGE BE ABLE TO MAKE LAW FOR THE WHOLE COUNTRY?:  Funny you should ask, since Justice Thomas recently asked that same question.

LOW UNEMPLOYMENT & RISING WAGES?  THAT’S HORRIBLE!!:  Or at least that’s what CNBC thinks.

THE SUPREME COURT SWEEPSTAKES:  Jonathan Adler discusses the top candidates … or at least the candidates that somebody said were at the top.

UPDATE:  Paul Mirengoff discusses the same four.

TOXIC MASCULINITY, THAI-STYLE:  The ultimate sacrifice.   (Update on rescue operation here.)

ALL THINGS VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE:  Dr. Bastiat on Ricochet goes to get a haircut and learns of the small businesses that never were.

The damage wrought by excessive red tape for business start ups is mostly unseen.  Even would-be small business owners never know how things would have turned out if they had been allowed to follow their dreams.

IS THAT A RECORD?:  Sessions withdrew 24 guidances on Tuesday, the vast majority from the Obama Era.

There are more that need to go–including the school discipline guidance.  But Tuesday’s action looks like real progress.

THE PATRIOTISM GAP:  Democrats, college grads, and young people are not so high on America.  And it’s getting worse.

CALVIN COOLIDGE WAS A YANKEE DOODLE DANDY:  Born on the Fourth of July, 1872.  Read his entire Independence Day speech (delivered in Philadelphia, July 5, 1926).  Or if you only have time for the best paragraph, read it here.

INDEPENDENCE DAY, 1863:  On this day, Lincoln received news of the victories at both Gettysburg and Vicksburg.

EVERYBODY HAS A SCOTUS FAVORITE:  Steve Cortes makes the case for Amy Coney Barrett.

THIS MORNING’S WALL STREET JOURNAL WAS CORRECT:  What it predicted has already come to pass.  That was fast.

APPRENTICESHIPS ON THE RISE?: The rising popularity of apprenticeships usually goes under the radar. But in the last few weeks we’ve seen a poll of U.K. teens showing an increase in the popularity of the idea. And there’s bits of news from Kentucky and Chicago. And don’t forget Idaho.

But don’t start thinking the USA can replicate the German system, where more than half of young people serve at least one apprenticeship. As I wrote about in Apprenticeships: Useful Alternative, Tough to Implement, the German system depends for its success on strong national unions and complex licensing requirements.  The German model would be quite unpopular here.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO RESCIND THE OBAMA-ERA GUIDELINES ON RACE IN COLLEGE ADMISSIONS?:  The Wall Street Journal is reporting that it will do so soon.  If so, it is good news.  Those guidelines encouraged, rather than discouraged, race discrimination.

Unlike the Supreme Court, which in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) stated, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today,” the Obama Administration’s policy was apparently “racial preferences now, racial preferences tomorrow, and racial preferences forever.”

Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder was explicit about this.  In an interview at Columbia University, he said:  “I can’t actually imagine a time in which the need for more diversity would ever cease. … why should we shy away from the fact that we are going to have race as a factor to consider in what a student body is going to look like? … The question is not when does it end, but when does it begin. … When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?”

(As always, I include here a link to an article explaining why race-preferential admissions are not in the interest of their supposed beneficiaries.)

THIS DAY IN HISTORY: Pickett’s Charge. It … uh … didn’t work.

THE POLITICS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS:  Would Amul Thakar make the most sense from the standpoint of politics?  John Fund makes the case.

IF FIRST YOU DON’T SUCCEED: A few days ago, the Commission voted to re-open its investigation into conditions at immigration detention facilities. As I pointed out in my Dissenting Statement, the original report failed to uncover the “egregious human rights and constitutional violations” that the then-Chairman of the Commission predicted. The Commission will keep trying …