The other other Publius describes the way in which the categories of persons subject to denial of due process rights in the War on Terror has regularly and rapidly expanded over the last 9 years.  We are perilously close, suggests Publius, to making it official policy to deny due process rights to American citizens detained on American soil whenever an accusation of ill-defined “terrorism” is brought up.

Transplanted Lawyer wonders where the outrage is over the recent claim by the Obama Administration that it has the authority to assassinate US citizens believed to be terrorist participants, noting that this is an even more remarkable assertion than anything Bush ever claimed.  He further states: [Read more →]

I go back and forth on what I think about the propriety of the filibuster for legislative purposes, although I’m inclined towards the view that the filibuster is on the whole a good thing under those circumstances.

The announcement by Sen. Ben Nelson that he would not only oppose but filibuster Obama’s nominee for the National Labor Relations Board, however, provides an opportunity to discuss an area where I think the filibuster is not only inappropriate but also undermines the spirit, though perhaps not the letter, of the Constitution.

In circumstances such as executive and judicial nominations, the filibuster is to my mind utterly inappropriate and even outright toxic.  The power to nominate and appoint federal executive and judicial officers is Constitutionally vested in the President under Article II, although certain appointments are to be made with the “advice and consent” of the Senate.  [Read more →]

Add this to the list of studies showing that beer, in moderation, is good for your health.  That, in and of itself, is unremarkable.  What is remarkable, however, is that we finally have undeniable scientific proof that hoppier beers really are better.

That we continue to take Sarah Palin seriously?

Daniel Larison makes a point that should be blindingly obvious were it not for the need for our talking heads to turn every single election into a referendum on the talking heads’ own framing of the President’s agenda:

“What we have been seeing in all of the elections over the last year is a readiness on the part of the electorate to oust the parties that have traditionally held sway in the district or state in question….The candidates that could best address the local concerns of voters prevailed. Those identified with distrusted political establishments or discredited national parties failed.”

I assure you, the average New Jerseyan is smart enough to recognize that their state governor has approximately no relevance to the President of the United States.  I am quite certain that the foibles of the New Jersey state Democratic Party and of former Governor Corzine, and the state’s own economic problems had about 1000 times more to do with why there is a Republican in the Governor’s Mansion right now than anything related to President Obama or Democrats in Congress.  As early as March or April of last year, Democrats in this state were already certain that Corzine would lose.  Indeed, Christie led in every single poll taken between January and September of last year, almost always well outside the margin of error.   Even casting aside that this was a governor’s race, it seems rather unlikely that New Jersey voters were already looking forward to sending President Obama a message a week after he was sworn, and less than 3 months after they had overwhelmingly voted him into office. 

 It was only in September and October, when it became clear that Christie was just another establishment Republican, that Corzine caught up in the polls and turned it into a meaningful race again.  Ultimately, Christie pulled it out by four points, but this was a far cry from the 10-15 point leads he was consistently polling in July and August.  For anyone who had actually been following this race, the shocking thing wasn’t that the People’s Republic of New Jersey elected a Republican; it was that a Republican with a reputation for fighting political corruption almost blew an opportunity to rout a Democratic Party and administration known primarily for its corruption and incompetence.  Yet somehow the meme that came out was something along the lines of “New Jersey Voters Send Obama a Message.”

But most importantly, as Larison points out, when times are tough, voters blame incumbents.  They don’t just blame the party in power in Washington – they blame the people who are supposed to represent them, they seek out more competent candidates, or they savage the establishment of whatever party is most relevant.  That’s what happened in NJ, it’s what happened in NY-23 (both with respect to Hoffman’s destruction of Scozzafava and the Dems’ ultimate victory), and it’s at least arguably a big part of what happened in Massachusetts, where angry voters combined with a terrible Dem candidate and a very good Republican candidate to create a perfect storm. 

To the extent voters are sending a message to Washington, it’s simply this: It’s not all about you.

Ross Douthat’s piece on Paul Ryan’s position within the Republican Party is almost as worthwhile as the Ezra Klein interview I linked earlier.  I know that we’re rapidly reaching overkill on Paul Ryan this week, but I couldn’t let this dose of reality pass, coming as it does from a GOP politician: [Read more →]

This discussion/interview between Ezra Klein and Rep. Paul Ryan is the best thing I’ve seen in the health care debate in months.  Given Ryan’s position as a GOP point man on health care reform, his comments on Wyden-Bennett ought to give hope that maybe it could get enough GOP support to pass if the Dem leadership were willing to push it.  Regardless, the entire back-and-forth is interesting on both sides.  Even if you disagree with Ryan, I think you’ll also find it refreshing to hear a semi-prominent GOP politician speak knowledgeably and seriously about health care reform.

A hot topic the last few months here at the League has been the issue of government accountability reform, and how best to loosen the grip of narrow interest groups over the federal government.  In connection with that discussion, I had the good fortune to get in touch with regular League reader Paul Fidalgo, who is currently the communications director for FairVote, a non-partisan think tank dedicated to electoral reforms whose Board of Directors includes personalities ranging from former GOP Congressman and third-party Presidential candidate John Anderson to former Nirvana bassist/activist/author/Washington state politician Krist Novoselic, who was appointed the chairman of FairVote in January 2008.

One of FairVote’s principal initiatives is the National Popular Vote (NPV), which seeks to convince states to give their electoral votes to whichever Presidential candidate wins the popular vote.  NPV legislation would not become binding until states representing a majority of electoral votes passed it.  Paul was kind enough to answer some questions about why the NPV represents an important piece of the accountability puzzle.

Mark: Let’s start with the basics.  What is the National Popular Vote initiative, and why is it important?

Paul Fidalgo: Let me answer the second point first. It is commonly understood that the Electoral College is a little bit odd. No matter who you supported in 2000, it can’t sit well with folks that we have a system in which the guy who got fewer votes than his opponent gets to be president. Plenty of well-meaning people see a lot of good in the Electoral College system, but its all theoretical and academic, and primarily ideological (not in the red-blue sense but in the states’ rights sense). 

Von at Obsidian Wings:

Today’s outrage is the fact that Rahm Emanuel called some of President Obama’s supporters “f-cking retarded.”  Sarah Palin wants him to step down.  That’s not unexpected, coming from her.  Sarah Palin is an expert on quitting, particularly when the going gets tough.  Why not recommend it to Emanuel? 

The rest of Von’s post is also well worth a read.

It would seem that among his other grievances against the American Left, James O’Keefe has also adopted the long-standing charge that American academia is dominated by left-wing relativists, etc., specifically charging that this was true of the Rutgers University Philosophy Department, where he majored. [Read more →]

In addition to the continued absurdity of escalating the War on Drugs Meth Sniffles by requiring a prescription for basic cold medicine, I’m pretty sure that this is a really good way of ensuring our health care costs go through the roof even more.   So now, in order to treat one’s otherwise [Read more →]