Sotomayor's Confirmation Is In Sight But...

This week there was a perfect storm of bad news for the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor. First, on Monday, the now infamous Ricci case was decided by the Supreme Court. The Ricci case, again, is the now famous case in which test results for firefighters were thrown out because not enough minorities scored high enough. The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to overturn Sotomayor's ruling. Of course, as Stuart Taylor pointed out, even those that sided with Sotomayor didn't agree with her judicial logic.

Unlike some of my predictions, this one proved out. In fact, even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's 39-page dissent for the four more liberal justices quietly but unmistakably rejected the Sotomayor-endorsed position that disparate racial results alone justified New Haven's decision to dump the promotional exam without even inquiring into whether it was fair and job-related.

Justice Ginsburg also suggested clearly -- as did the Obama Justice Department, in a friend-of-the-court brief -- that the Sotomayor panel erred in upholding summary judgment for the city. Ginsburg said that the lower courts should have ordered a jury trial to weigh the evidence that the city's claimed motive -- fear of losing a disparate impact suit by low-scoring black firefighters if it proceeded with the promotions -- was a pretext. The jury's job would have been to consider evidence that the city's main motive had been to placate black political leaders who were part of Mayor John DeStefano's political base.

As such, even those that ultimately decided the case for Destefano, like Sotomayor, totally rejected Sotomayor's reasoning for her decision. There can be no greater indictment of her judicial reasoning than that.

Then, yesterday, documents were released by Latino Justice PRLDEF from 1980-1992, the years that Sotomayor served on its board. These documents revealed the group's ties to the radical group ACORN. It also revealed the group's involvement in a lawsuit in favor of a group of Hispanic police officers that challenged the validity of an entrance exam for New York police officer, arguing the exam was discriminatory. This latest revelation, along with her now infamous "wise Latina" comment, and the decision in Ricci form a pattern of an individual that sees the court in racial terms.

Finally, there was this troubling poll from Rasmussen Reports. For the first time, a plurality is now against the nomination. No longer is the narrative about her tremendous life story. Instead, the narrative has shifted to the controversy surrounding the Ricci case and her "wise Latina" comment. The Republicans have effectively defined the nominee. While they may not derail her, the Republicans have done a good job of turning the nomination into a negative for the president. Furthermore, they'll set a marker for the next nominee.

It doesn't appear as though the Republicans will try and orchestrated a filibuster, and the Democrats have more than enough votes to carry the nomination. That said, we have about two weeks until the hearings. Her nomination is losing favor daily. By the time the nomination ends, I have no doubt the nomination will be even less favorable. As such, while Sotomayor may go through, it will be yet another Obama policy that will be viewed unfavorably by the public at large. In fact, by November of 2010, the president will be hard pressed to find any of his policies that will have public support.

Council Submissions

The Council Submissions are up.

Council Submissions
The Provocateur - The Libertarians Downfall: Conspiracy Theories
Right Truth - LIFE
The Razor - Settlement
Rhymes With Right - How A Real President Responds
Joshuapundit - Masquerade In iran
The Glittering Eye - Affording Everything
Mere Rhetoric - Shh… Massachusetts Proves Mandate-Based Health Reform Will Be A Disaster
Wolf Howling - Politicized Science
Soccer Dad - Diehl me out
Bookworm Room - All violence is equal, but some violence is more equal than others
Non-Council Submissions
Submitted By: Right Truth – American Daughter - Religion and Politics Don’t Mix
Submitted By: The Provocateur – Washington Post – George Will - On Race, The Slog Goes On
Submitted By: The Watcher – Forbes.com – Karl Gaard - Waxman-Markey Flunks Math
Submitted By: The Razor – Financial Times - Obama is Choosing to be Weak
Submitted By: Rhymes With Right – Delaware Liberal - Should Sanford Resign?
Submitted By: Joshuapundit – Diana West - “Role of Women in Iran Protest Kindles Hope”…OF WHAT?
Submitted By: The Glittering Eye – The League of Ordinary Gentlemen - Iraq June 30th
Submitted By: Mere Rhetoric – Kaplan / Washington Post - Iran’s Struggle, and Ours
Submitted By: Wolf Howling – EU Referendum - Rigging The Debate
Submitted By: Soccer Dad – Fausta’s Blog - Responses to “Coup in Honduras – Correction: This is NOT a coup”
Submitted By: Bookworm Room – Christina Hoff Sommers - Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship

Video, Quote, and Word of the Day

penury

extreme poverty

Most of the change we think we see in life is due to truths being in and out of favor.
Robert Frost

Tom Friedman's Curious Defense of Cap and Trade

Imagine a defense that starts like this.

There is much in the House cap-and-trade energy bill that just passed that I absolutely hate. It is too weak in key areas and way too complicated in others. A simple, straightforward carbon tax would have made much more sense than this Rube Goldberg contraption. It is pathetic that we couldn’t do better. It is appalling that so much had to be given away to polluters. It stinks. It’s a mess. I detest it.

It's hard to imagine that the author of this piece would still want said bill to pass. Yet, that's exactly what Tom Friedman is saying. If this is how Friedman endorses a bill, I can't wait to read a piece about a bill he doesn't endorse. Furthermore, his defense of passing cap and trade comes down to three paragraphs. The rest of the piece is spent telling supporters how to make sure it doesn't get even worse.

Why? Because, for all its flaws, this bill is the first comprehensive attempt by America to mitigate climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions. Rejecting this bill would have been read in the world as America voting against the reality and urgency of climate change and would have undermined clean energy initiatives everywhere.

More important, my gut tells me that if the U.S. government puts a price on carbon, even a weak one, it will usher in a new mind-set among consumers, investors, farmers, innovators and entrepreneurs that in time will make a big difference — much like the first warnings that cigarettes could cause cancer. The morning after that warning no one ever looked at smoking the same again.

Ditto if this bill passes. Henceforth, every investment decision made in America — about how homes are built, products manufactured or electricity generated — will look for the least-cost low-carbon option. And weaving carbon emissions into every business decision will drive innovation and deployment of clean technologies to a whole new level and make energy efficiency much more affordable. That ain’t beanbag.

Get that. We all need to pass this because Tom Friedman's gut says things will work out if we do. If he were a cop telling us about a murder suspect, I might feel good about his gut. Though, even then, I'd hope there was hard evidence besides his gut.

Here, though, Friedman would like us to believe that a new era of carbon less energy will be ushered in because of a plan he himself admits is terribly complicated, full of holes, and full of giveaways.

The idea that the rest of the world will follow suit because we have shown leadership on this issue is nonsense. Most of the rest of the world have long ago been much more draconian regarding carbon. Beyond that though, it isn't much of the rest of the world we need to worry about. It's China and India. They are the two big polluters. Does anyone really think either country would follow suit. It's the opposite. Seeing an opening, China and India would do everything they could to welcome the so called polluters onto their own shores. China and India would see cap and trade as an economic opportunity.

Essentially, what Friedman would have us believe is that we should support a terrible bill, full of giveaways and complicated schemes because his gut says it will ultimately lead to good things. I know I am convinced.

The Worst Thing About the Bruhaha Over the New Palin Hit Piece

The worst thing is that it gives this long, tedious, very poorly written hatchet job publicity it doesn't deserve. At about 9000 words, it's almost a chapter in a book. The piece is full of unsupported accusations, digs by unnamed sources, as well as leaps made frankly out of the clear blue sky. The first paragraph is a sign of things to come.

Despite her disastrous performance in the 2008 election, Sarah Palin is still the sexiest brand in Republican politics, with a lucrative book contract for her story. But what Alaska’s charismatic governor wants the public to know about herself doesn’t always jibe with reality. As John McCain’s top campaign officials talk more candidly than ever before about the meltdown of his vice-presidential pick, the author tracks the signs—political and personal—that Palin was big trouble, and checks the forecast for her future.

How exactly does Purdum measure "disastrous"? Is it by the crowds she attracted, the fundraising she created, or the new excitement that surrounded McCain's campaign following her selection? She had several disastrous interviews but that doesn't make her entire selection disastrous.

The piece is full of these types of accusations. They aren't really supported. Worse than that, the accusations are often those with no context. As such, they are almost entirely done as nothing more than a salacious attack on Palin. My favorite part, if you will, was this.

More than once in my travels in Alaska, people brought up, without prompting, the question of Palin’s extravagant self-regard. Several told me, independently of one another, that they had consulted the definition of ‘narcissistic personality disorder’ in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders--’a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy’--and thought it fit her perfectly.

Is Pardum serious? Does he really expect the readers to believe that layman use such clinical terms? Does he really expect us to believe that non psychiatrists consulted the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders"? Pardum's piece is another in a long line of pieces that can't seem to find one person in all of Alaska that could say a nice thing about her despite the fact that she's still overwhelmingly popular there. There it is. The article is 9000 words more or less like those I quoted. The New York Times published a similar hit piece during the campaign. That received scant coverage. I wish this had wound up the same.

The difference with this article is that it also quoted former McCain staffers, who anonymously attacked Palin. The most infamous attack insinuates that Palin had post partum depression.

Some top aides worried about her mental state: was it possible that she was experiencing postpartum depression?

There was several attacks like this one, though this has received the most attention. Of course, not one of the people that attacked Palin for this piece would put their name behind the attack. That's for good reason. If they did, they'd never work for any Republican ever again. Redstate once identified Nichole Wallace as the author of one previous anonymous Palin attack. Wallace now works for the liberal online publication, the Daily Beast. It's likely that's the sort of employment Wallace can expect going forward.

The worst part about all of this is that the piece once again makes the absurd allegation that Palin cost McCain the election. It's one of many things that anonymous sources told Pardum. Of course, that's absurd, and frankly, even if true, exactly whose fault would it have been if not the very folks making the accusation?

McCain lost the election the minute the economy tanked. He didn't help himself when he claimed the economy was on steady ground. He put the final nail in his coffin when in the debate he came out in favor of the bailout. None of that had anything to do with Palin. The only time the McCain campaign had any steam was in the weeks following her selection. When the economy tanked, that became the issue.

Her initial interviews were in fact disastrous. Of course, whose fault is that? Why would the campaign have her sit down with the MSM first? Wouldn't it have been much better if Palin was first rolled out with several friendly media? Furthermore, why did they cut her off after a few bad interviews? Wouldn't that have reinforced her image? A lot of the blame for the bad interviews of course goes to Palin herself but some go to these very anonymous advisers now attacking her.

Frankly, it's high time we stop rehashing the 2008 campaign. It's worse yet, when doing so, gives unneeded publicity to a terrible hit piece.

Did Kim Blink?

Last week I surmised that President Obama blinked when he pronounced that he would not board the North Korean ship that the USS John McCain had been tailing unless asked. (which wouldn't have happened) Meanwhile, the USS John McCain was continuing to tail the North Korea ship which appeared to be headed for Myanmar. Then, all of a sudden last night, the North Korean ship reversed course and appears headed back home.

A North Korean ship monitored for more than a week by the U.S. Navy has changed course and is heading back the way it came, U.S. officials said, as Pyongyang warned Wednesday it will take military action if anyone attempts to search its vessels.

The Kang Nam 1 — originally believed to be bound for Myanmar with suspicious cargo on board, possibly illicit weapons — turned around and headed back north on Sunday, two U.S. officials said on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence.

The U.S. officials, speaking in Washington on Tuesday, said they do not know where the ship is going. But it was some 250 miles (400 kilometers) south of Hong Kong on Tuesday and heading north, one official said.

Initially, it looked as though President Obama was blinking in the face of confrontation. At the same time, he quietly kept the USS John McCain tailing this ship and that appears to have finally spooked Kim Jong Il who turned his own ship around.

Regulating "Fine Print"

As part of the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, President Obama wants to focus on regulating the so called "fine print".

The Consumer Financial Protection Agency would be in charge of regulating those products in the same way other government agencies regulate the safety of drugs, food and toys

Obama said Americans are demanding it.

"Those ridiculous contracts with pages of fine print that no one can figure out—those things will be a thing of the past," the president said in a statement accompanying the 152-page draft bill. "And enforcement will be the rule, not the exception."

The CFPA is part of Obama's broader plan to increase oversight of the financial industry and eliminate regulatory gaps believed to have contributed to the economic crisis.

The agency would be dedicated to protecting consumers when buying mortgages, using credit cards and taking out high-rate "payday loans." It also would monitor terms set on savings, checking and debit card accounts, including overdraft charges.

The problem here is that the Obama administration assumes that all that "fine print" was created by banks and credit cards simply to fool the consumer. Of course, that's not the reality. Most of the so called fine print was created to meet one regulation or another.

Let't take the mortgage process. The longest document, up to fifteen pages, is the Mortgage itself. The Mortgage gets recorded with the County in which the property is located. So, it's up to fifteen pages in order to satisfy the requirements of the County. Why is it so many pages? It explains such mundane things as what happens in case of fire damage, what chemicals can and can't be used in the home, etc. Without those situations addressed, the County wouldn't record the Mortgage?

The Promissory Note is the document that lays out the terms of the loan and the conditions for repayment. Since a loan can be either a fixed rate, variable, or even a negative amortization loan, all of that must be listed on the Note. Payment due dates and the amortization schedule also must be listed. It's also the document that is used during foreclosures. As such, if the Note is incomplete or inaccurate, the bank won't be able to foreclose. So, the so called "fine print" is the manner in which banks word the document to make sure it holds up to a foreclosure proceeding. Now, the president wants to regulate the very same fine print.

Let's look at another document, the Net Tangible Benefits disclosure. This is a fairly new disclosure. This has recently become nationalized. This document discloses the purpose of the loan in a refinance: be it to lower the rate, the payment, fix the payment, or get cash. So, how will a regulator regulate the fine print when the fine print was only created because of a different regulation?

That's the reality of mortgage documents. The reason there's so much fine print is because there's already so many regulations. Now, the president wants to create a new regulator to make sure there isn't so much fine print even though it's only there because of other regulations. You can see how this process would likely become troublesome. The problem of fine print is that there are already too many regulations. Now, the president wants a regulator to regulate the fine print that responds to all of those regulations.

The president says this.

Those ridiculous contracts with pages of fine print that no one can figure out—those things will be a thing of the past," the president said in a statement accompanying the 152-page draft bill. "And enforcement will be the rule, not the exception."

How can those contracts be a thing of the past when they are the way they are to stand up to the scrutiny of our current regulatory framework?