Obamacare: A Narrow Ruling Or Much Broader

Just saw Judge Napolitano on Fox and he explained that the scope of the Obamcare ruling will probably be evident according to who writes the opinion.  If it's Chief Justice Roberts, he expects a narrow ruling that strikes down the individual mandate but leaves most of the rest of the law intact, based on Roberts' own judicial philosophy.  On the other hand, if the opinion is written by Justice Kennedy he expects a broader smackdown of the entire statute.

The bad news is Kennedy wrote the Arizona opinion, which makes it quite unlikely he'd also get the Obamacare case.  It will probably be Roberts and at best we'll split the baby again, killing the mandate but leaving much of the monstrosity intact and still doing damage to the economy and jobs.

And I guarantee you the media has already written their pieces calling it a victory for Obama if that happens.

Some people on Twitter were talking about the effect of an overturn of Obamacare on the job market.  Would it suddenly spur an increase in hiring and a possible turnaround in the economy that would benefit Obama if the whole thing were to be tossed by the Supremes?  I don't think so.  Frankly, I don't see any hope of an increase in hiring until employers are sure Obama is gone.  With him still in office and willing to wield unconstitutional power against the economy, hiring and job expansion would be a tremendously risky enterprise for most businesses.

Should he lose on November 6th, however, look out.

Thursday It Will Likely Be Chief Justice Roberts Delivering the Blow to Obamacare

It's really a shame we have to wait two more days for this, but according to veteran court watchers it's looking quite likely that when the opinion comes down Chief Justice John Roberts will be delivering it and he's not likely to uphold the individual mandate.  From Forbes:

Today, we learned that the final day of the Supreme Court’s 2011-2012 session will take place at 10 a.m. on Thursday, June 28, and that Chief Justice John Roberts will most likely issue the majority opinion. (I’ll be running a live blog that day over at National Review, beginning at 9:30 a.m.) From what Roberts said at oral argument last March, it’s likely that this means that Obamacare’s individual mandate is going down, but that some of the law will remain intact. Here’s why.

We don’t know for sure that Roberts is going to write the majority opinion, but veteran court-watchers say it’s almost certain, because Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in the Arizona immigration case that was read today. The Supremes try to rotate the authorship duties around, so that everyone gets their fair share of opinion-writing. After today, Roberts is on deck.

Prior to oral argument in March, it was widely speculated that Roberts would join the majority, no matter which side won, so that he could control the actual opinion that had legal weight in the case. (As Chief Justice, he has that right.) This would mean, most likely, either a 5-4 decision against the individual mandate, or a 6-3 decision in its favor.

Roberts expressed deep skepticism of the individual mandate

However, after oral argument, it became more clear that Roberts was skeptical of the mandate’s constitutionality, and understood that the mandate is really about cross-subsidization, and not personal responsibility. “If I understand the law,” Roberts said, “the [insurance] policies that you’re requiring people to purchase must contain provision for maternity and newborn care, pediatric services, and substance use treatment. It seems to me that you cannot say that everybody is going to need substance use treatment or pediatric services, and yet that is part of what you require them to purchase…You cannot say that everybody is going to participate in the substance use market and yet you require people to purchase insurance coverage for that.”

Roberts was also skeptical that the individual mandate’s consequences could only be limited to health care, because health care is somehow constitutionally unique. “I think that would be a very significant intrusion by the Court into Congress’s power,” Roberts said. “It’s good for you in this case to say, ‘Oh, it’s just [limited to] insurance.’ But once we say that there is a market and Congress can require people to participate in it, as some would say—or as you would say, that people are already participating in it—it seems to me that we can’t say there are limitations on what Congress can do under its commerce power…all bets are off.”

Roberts also ridiculed the idea that the mandate was constitutional because it was a tax, not a penalty. “You’re telling me they thought of it as a tax,” he asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, “they defended it on the tax power. Why didn’t they say it was a tax?”

Severability is another issue. If you read on in the article you'll see that Roberts was not as adamant about severability as he was the mandate, so that one could go either way. Personally, I think the absence of a severability clause should make this cut and dried - if the mandate is unconstitutional, the whole thing should be tossed. Unfortunately, the courts don't always work that way. They often see things that aren't there and call them there anyway.  How do you think we got a right to abortion?

And, as evidenced by the Arizona Immigration ruling, you can't always count on oral arguments to tell you how the case will be decided.  We'll just have to wait it out and hope for the best.

Dick Cheney's Advice for Pat Leahy Was Right on the Money

Way back in 2004 Dick Cheney advised Senator Pat Leahy that he could "go f*** yourself".  I'd like to second the motion:

You can tell the Supreme Court is getting closer to its historic ObamaCare ruling because the left is making one last attempt to intimidate the Justices. The latest effort includes taunting Chief Justice John Roberts that if the Court overturns any of the law, he'll forever be defined as a partisan "activist."

Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy recently took the extraordinary step of publicly lobbying the Chief Justice after oral argument but before its ruling. "I trust that he will be a Chief Justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch," the Democrat declared on the Senate floor. "The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the Court."

He added that, "Given the ideological challenge to the Affordable Care Act and the extensive, supportive precedent, it would be extraordinary for the Supreme Court not to defer to Congress in this matter that so clearly affects interstate commerce."

I know a little bit about John Roberts and I think I can safely say that he doesn't really care what Leahy, or the public for that matter, thinks about him. He has a lifetime appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Leahy can't touch him. The voters can't touch him. I'll never forget his quote during his confirmation hearing:

ROBERTS: I had someone ask me in this process, I don't remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, "Are you going to be on the side of the little guy," and you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that I'll look out for particular interests; I'll be on the side of particular interests. The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that's what I would do.

As long as Roberts continues to allow the Constitution to guide his decisions, I'm not too worried about what Leahy or anyone has to say about him.

Political Quote of the Day

The quote doesn't come from a politician but from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts, but politicians should take note:

“We have repeatedly held that leveling the playing field is not a legitimate government function."

Exactly correct. There are always going to be haves and have-nots and no amount of government intervention is going to change that or somehow make it "fair".

This reminds me of something that came up during Roberts' confirmation hearings:

The Dems have this "little guy vs. big guy" thing in their minds where the little guy is always right and the big guy is always evil. John Roberts gave a brilliant answer to a question which summed up the role of the judiciary very nicely, and completely torched the Dems "the little guy should always win" view of justice. Here's what he said (h/t Rush Limbaugh):

ROBERTS: I had someone ask me in this process, I don't remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, "Are you going to be on the side of the little guy," and you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that I'll look out for particular interests; I'll be on the side of particular interests. The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that's what I would do.

Supremes: Even the Detestable Protests by The Crazy Kansas Church Are Protected Under the First Amendment

In my opinion, the Supreme Court got this one right even though I can't stand Fred Phelps and his band of inbred  morons:

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount attention-getting, anti-gay protests outside military funerals.

The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

"What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment," Roberts wrote, "and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous."

Matthew Snyder died in Iraq in 2006 and his body was returned to the United States for burial. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who have picketed military funerals for several years, decided to protest outside the Westminster, Md., church where Snyder's funeral was to be held.

The Rev. Fred Phelps and other family members who make up most of the Westboro Baptist Church have picketed many military funerals in their quest to draw attention to their incendiary view that U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for the nation's tolerance of homosexuality.

Sam Alito was the lone dissenter,stresses the value of the tort called "intentional infliction of emotional distress" (h/t Althouse):

Respondents’ outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the Court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered.

In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner.

If the First Amendment means what it says, you have to allow this kind of protest even though it's highly objectionable and offensive to most people. You can't be a strict constructionist and then try and ban speech you don't like.

While these protests can't be banned, there are ways to ensure they don't get close enough to military funerals to cause a problem.  I believe the Patriot Guard Riders have handled that by simply moving the perimeter of a funeral out far enough to keep the loons at bay.  There's nothing unconstitutional about that.

Supremes Uphold Free Speech Even If it's Disturbing

If you believe the First Amendment means what it says I think you'll have to agree with this ruling:

The Supreme Court struck down a federal law Tuesday aimed at banning videos depicting graphic violence against animals, saying that it violates the constitutional right to free speech.

Chief Justice John J. Roberts Jr., writing for an eight-member majority, said the law was overly broad and not allowed by the First Amendment. He rejected the government's argument that whether certain categories of speech deserve constitutional protection depends on balancing the value of the speech against its societal costs.

"The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits," Roberts wrote. "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it."

The law was enacted in 1999 to forbid sales of so-called crush videos, which appeal to a certain sexual fetish by depicting the torture of animals or showing them being crushed to death by women with stiletto heels or their bare feet. But the government has not prosecuted such a case. Instead, the case before the court, United States v. Stevens, came from Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was convicted and sentenced to three years in prison for videos he made about pit bull fighting.

Roberts said the federal law was so broadly written that it could include all depictions of killing animals, even hunting videos. He said the court was not passing judgment about whether "a statute limited to crush videos or other depictions of extreme animal cruelty would be constitutional."

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was the lone dissenter.

"The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes," Alito wrote.

Nobody (or at least almost nobody) is in favor of videotaping cruelty to animals, but the founders gave us a First Amendment that was broad enough to include both politically correct and incorrect speech, and along with the good will come some bad. This is not to say that reasonable restrictions can be applied, but not via broad over-reaching laws which are often an emotional reaction to a problem rather than a logical one.

And I'll bet more than a few folks are surprised that Sam Alito dissented.  After all, he was the poster boy for lefty ire after he shook his head at Obama during the State of the Union speech.

Chief Justice "Too Controversial" to Speak at College Graduation

I have a friend with ties to Butler University and I can't imagine he'll be too happy to hear this:

When John Roberts' niece graduates in May from Butler University this May, the Supreme Court chief justice may attend as a relative — but he has been deemed too controversial to take the stage as commencement speaker.

University faculty members scuttled a student-led drive to invite Roberts to speak at the May 8 ceremony, a decision that has disappointed the students and some conservatives on the Indianapolis campus.

"We try to steer clear of political divides if possible," Butler Faculty Senate President Jeanne VanTyle told the Indianapolis Star.

VanTyle says the school has made only two exceptions to its no-politicians rule in three decades: once for Democrat Evan Bayh when he was governor and last year for Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels.

"Last year, I watched half of the audience cheer and half of the audience frown," VanTyle told the Indianapolis Star. "That's not what someone's commencement ought to be."

He's the Chief Justice of the United States, not an elected politician. If the standard is going to be that no one with any particular political leanings can speak at Butler, their graduations are going to be quiet affairs.

White House Foolishly Barks Back at the Chief Justice

We may have the pettiest, most immature White House in history:

The White House fired back at Justice John Roberts Tuesday night, after the Supreme Court Chief told a crowd that he found it “very troubling” that President Barack Obama would criticize the court during his State of the Union address.

In a statement sent to reporters, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that the only troubling thing was the 5-4 ruling by the court, which said that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of money advocating on behalf of candidates in elections. Roberts leads the court.

“What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections – drowning out the voices of average Americans,” Gibbs said. “The President has long been committed to reducing the undue influence of special interests and their lobbyists over government. That is why he spoke out to condemn the decision and is working with Congress on a legislative response.”

The push back against the Supreme Court header from the White House seems almost unprecedented in its directness, though White House officials claim previous administrations expressed equally public criticisms of the court. Undoubtedly, it’s bound to spur another round of debates over what constitutes proper decorum between the two branches.

Not only will the justices stay away from next year's State of the Union, they may just rule it unconstitutional out of spite.

Chief Justice Roberts "Troubled" By the Scene at the State of the Union

I have my doubts the Chief will return for next year's event:

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama's State of the Union address was "very troubling" and the annual speech has "degenerated to a political pep rally."

Obama chided the court, with the justices seated before him in their black robes, for its decision on a campaign finance case.

Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.

"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

Breaking from tradition, Obama criticized the court's decision that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific candidates.

"With all due deference to the separation of powers the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said in January.

Justice Samuel Alito was the only justice to respond at the time, shaking his head and mouthing the words "not true" as Obama continued.

Roberts told the students he wonders whether justices should attend the speeches.

"I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.

My guess is one or two of the more liberal judges will show up next year, but I have my doubt if Roberts or Alito will make another appearance. The whole State of the Union has become a silly partisan show, with people popping up and down like the targets in a Whack-a-Mole game. It's becoming a meaningless exercise, and there's not even a Constitutional requirement for a speech. The president could simply send a report to Congress and meet the requirement, though no president is likely to do that given the opportunity to speak to the whole nation on nearly every channel.

No, Chief Justice John Roberts is Not Retiring

Yesterday RadarOnline moved a frantic story that Chief Justice John Roberts would be retiring due to health reasons. Needless to say it stirred up a little anxiety among conservatives. I didn't report on it because by the time I found out about it the story had already been retracted.

So, how did RadarOnline blow it that badly? Here's how:

We found out from a few first-year students at the Georgetown University Law Center that a criminal law professor had taught them a lesson that morning on the validity of informants not explaining their sources. Professor Peter Tague started the class by saying that he knew John Roberts would soon be retiring for health reasons, but that he could not tell his students who had told him this. Thanks to our living in the wired age, at least one student texted, g-chatted, or emailed someone outside of the class. Somehow that news made its way to someone at Radar, who jumped on the story.

Midway through the class, Professor Tague revealed that the Roberts information was not true. That he was teaching them a lesson! I'm not sure what he intended to accomplish exactly, but I doubt he wanted it to spread like wildfire through the blogosphere. Still, teaching lesson FAIL.

In this age of instant news everybody wants a scoop, but without confirmed sources this kind of stuff can and will happen. Unfortunately, depending on the nature of the story it can also have a dramatic effect on the markets and can cost people a lot of money.

Supreme Court Won't Block Gay Marriage in D.C.

Chief Justice John Roberts made the ruling:

An emergency appeal to stop a District of Columbia gay marriage law from taking effect Wednesday was denied by Chief Justice John Roberts late Tuesday afternoon.

Roberts says it is the practice of the Supreme Court to defer to the rulings of D.C. courts matters that are of local concern. He also notes that Congress with its authority to overrule D.C. laws within 30 days has refused to do so.

Roberts writes that "while these considerations are of course not determinative of the legal issues, they do weigh against granting petitioners' request for a stay..."

If the people of D.C. don't want it they can still seek a referendum to overturn the law. D.C. has a large black population and most polling shows a very strong opposition to gay marriage among black voters. They voted 70%-30% to ban gay marriage in California via Prop 8.

Justice Alito's Quiet Comment Now Shouting Down Obama's Speech

And the Democrats are helping make it the story of the night, burying anything else Obama might have said:

The political furor over President Barack Obama's high profile rebuke of a recent Supreme Court campaign finance ruling escalated Thursday as Democrats pounded the high court decision.

Democrats rallied around Obama the day after the president committed a rare breach of political etiquette, criticizing the controversial ruling in his State of the Union address as members of the high court sat only a few feet away.

The court's 5-4 decision, issued last week, removed long-established legal barriers preventing corporations from spending unlimited sums of money to influence voters in political campaigns. Democrats fear the decision has given the traditionally pro-business GOP a powerful new advantage.

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections," Obama told a packed House of Representatives chamber Wednesday night.

"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems."

Justice Samuel Alito, part of the court's conservative majority, could be seen apparently frowning and quietly mouthing the words "not true."

Supreme Court justices rarely express any hint of emotion or opinion during the president's State of the Union speech.

Alito certainly as lots of reasons to dislike Obama. After all the president voted to filibuster Alito's nomination during his brief few moments in the Senate.

Obama's comments were typical of the petulant, immature man-child that he is. If he doesn't get his way on EVERY issue, he pouts. Last night when Republicans refused to fall for an applause line he put in the speech just for them he was visibly angry. He got used to adulation and worship during the campaign and the adjustment to reality has been hard for him. This whole episode was very banana republic - trying to humiliate your political opposition in public.

Republican presidents have had plenty of disagreements with the Supreme Court, but none of them would ever have considered calling them out during a State of the Union, nor would their fellow GOP members have stood and applauded such treatment as the Democrats did last night.

It won't happen, but I would love to see Chief Justice John Roberts issue a letter to both the White House and the Congress expressing his disappointment at the antics of the president and the Democrats in Congress, and reminding them that the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of the U.S. government. A little civics lesson, not to mention a civility lesson, is needed.

And there's another reason why Obama's tirade and the Dem reaction was foolish - Justices are humans, not machines. While they may pledge their allegiance to a strict following of the law, their human emotions come into play as well and the sights and sounds from last night will stick with them - especially the next time some liberal hot button case comes before them. They may not be able to go out and make speeches denouncing their opposition, but they can stick it to them via their opinions and votes.

I wonder how many justices will appear for Obama's next State of the Union? If I were on the court I think I'd find something else to do that night.

John Roberts is Now Looking Forward to Presiding at Obama's Impeachment

The president unwisely slaps at the Supreme Court during the State of the Union speech:

With the black-robed justices of the Supreme Court sitting not far away, President Obama took aim at a recent court decision which said that corporations could spend as much as they wanted to sway voters in federal elections.

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said tonight. “Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”Yes, let's pass some other unconstitutional laws to replace the ones the Supremes threw out.

Petty, very petty.

UPDATE: Sam Alito has a "YOU LIE!" moment:

POLITICO's Kasie Hunt, who's in the House chamber, reports that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words "not true" when Obama criticized the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision.

" Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said. "Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong."

The shot of the black-robed Supreme Court justices, stone faced, was priceless.

Chuck Schumer stood up behind the justices and clapped vigorously while Alito shook his head and quietly mouthed his discontent.

Trial Lawyers Seek to Overturn the Supreme Court

Trial lawyers have lost a lot of money thanks to decisions rendered by the Supreme Court under John Roberts. They are now actively working with Democrats to overturn some of those decisions with new legislation:

A ruptured catheter. A fraudster beaten in jail. A shady cable deal. A powerful phone company. An tire-maker who might have discriminated. Between the five, there is only one thing in common: Each was recently the subject of a Supreme Court case that trial lawyers are now working to overturn.

This might be the first time anyone has tried to overturn five Supreme Court cases in a single Congress. It is a testament to just how much money the Roberts court is costing plaintiff's lawyers, and how powerful the industry believes itself to be in Democrat-controlled Washington.

For the trial lawyers, ably represented by the American Association for Justice (AAJ), now is the time to act on legislation that will expand the number of possible lawsuits and the amount of money available to sue for, settle for, and split with their clients. They collected their first scalp in late January with the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. That bill essentially abolished the statute of limitations for one particular kind of employment discrimination claim. It was named after Lilly Ledbetter, who lost her claim against Goodyear Tires in the Supreme Court after she failed to bring her case in a timely manner. President Obama considered the bill such a priority that he signed it without posting it online and waiting for five days, as he had promised to do with non-emergency legislation.

AAJ, far from resting on its laurels, has other scalps to gather. For the next 16 months, at least, they have a friendly Democratic Congress and president who owes them a lot. In just the first half of this year -- an election off-year -- employees of the top 15 plaintiffs' law firms contributed $636,000, 99 percent of it to Democrats. AAJ's PAC gave Democrats 96 percent of its additional $627,000 in contributions. As a result, the trial lawyers' lobbyists -- both their in-house staff and the guns they've hired from Washington's top firms -- command a lot of respect in the White House and on Capitol Hill. AAJ spent $2.3 million lobbying Congress in the first half of this year.

It's no wonder that Obamacare includes little or no mention of tort reform. That's the one thing that would probably have the biggest impact on health care pricing, but the Democrats don't want any part of plans that would deprive the trial lawyers of their outrageous fees.

Obama made a mention of some sort of test areas where tort reform might be tried, but I'm quite confident that will never make it in the final bill. The trial lawyers have too much invested in Democrats to allow that to happen.

Without tort reform there is no meaningful reform possible when it comes to health care costs.

The Chief Justice and The King

Powerline has the information about how future Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts tried to stop President Ronald Reagan from getting too close to the future King of Pop, Michael Jackson:

Serving in the Reagan White House as a young lawyer, future Chief Justice John Roberts showed promise as a music critic in addition to his more obvious talents: "I hate to sound like one of Mr. [Michael] Jackson's records," Roberts wrote, "constantly repeating the same refrain..."

Roberts feared sounding like a Michael Jackson record as he sought to prevent President Reagan from providing testimonial letters to be used by Jackson's public relations team. Roberts wanted to keep President Reagan from embarrassments such as this: "Your deep faith in God and adherence to traditional values are an inspiration to all of us, especially young people searching for something real to believe in."

Roberts also used a version of the lawyer's slippery slope argument against the Jackson public relations team's requests for a letter from President Reagan. Roberts warned against "the precedent that would be set by such a letter." He noted that the Washington Post was reporting that "some youngsters were turning away from Mr. Jackson in favor of a newcomer who goes by the name 'Prince,'" who was planning a Washington concert. The chief was right to be concerned, but Jackson himself was at the bottom of this particular slope.

Even back then Roberts had Jackson figured out.

Why the Rush on Sotomayor

Haste makes waste, and a hasty confirmation hearing for Sonia Sotomayor is being pushed by the Dems who are anxious to get her confirmed in time for their summer vacation:

The Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed Tuesday that Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing will begin July 13, and Republicans are none too happy about it.

The top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Alabama senator Jeff Sessions, said today that the date is too early and does not give Republicans enough time to examine Sotomayor's record.

"I'm really a bit surprised," Sessions said, according to Politico. "I don't think our side has the time to do this right. ... That's a rushed time frame, and I don't think that's necessary."

As the Associated Press reports, GOP Leader Mitch McConnell accused Democrats of threatening Senate cooperation over the nominee by setting an impractical timetable.

"An arbitrary date on this nomination, when we're not clear yet how long it's going to take to work our way through her extensive record ... strikes me as not a good way to proceed," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

And MSNBC reports that Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley says that the GOP will not go along with Leahy's timetable because he believes it does not allow for enough time to go through Sotomayor's judicial record.

Democratic Committee Chairman Pat Leahy and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, meanwhile, expressed frustration that Senate Republicans expect more time to scrutinize Sotomayor. They noted that Chief Justice John Roberts was confirmed in a matter of 72 days.

"There's no reason this can't be done," Reid said, according to Politico. "If [Republicans] want to take more time than has ever been taken in the history of this country, then something is wrong."

But Grassley and other Republicans reject the comparison between Sotomayor and Roberts.

"She has 10 times as many decisions as Roberts did," Republican Sen. John Kyl said. "It takes a long time to go through that material. We'll simply have to wait and see how that review goes. I've checked and it's not going really fast. It's hard to do."

The Senate is expected to confirm Sotomayor by August 6, before Congress leaves for summer recess. It is anticipated that she will assume her responsibilities as Supreme Court Justice when Congress resumes in September, the Miami Herald reports.

The GOP probably can't stop the date, but they can make life tough for the Senate Dems in other ways, and I assume that's just what Mitch McConnell will do.

Improperly Defining the Role of the Court

I just got this Tweet from ABC's Jake Tapper regarding a statement by Obama regarding what he's looking for in a Supreme Court nominee:

...emphasized law to next SCOTUS nominee shouldnt be "abstract legal theory" but way to improve peoples lives

This is so wrong on so many levels. It's not the job of the courts to "improve people's lives", it's their job to interpret the law according to the Constitution of the United States. And sometimes their decisions, when they properly interpret the law, may not improve people's lives. That's just the way it works.

Compare that statement to what now Chief Justice Roberts had to say at his confirmation hearing:

ROBERTS: I had someone ask me in this process, I don't remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, "Are you going to be on the side of the little guy," and you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that I'll look out for particular interests; I'll be on the side of particular interests. The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that's what I would do.

That, my friends, is how it's supposed to be done. And that's exactly what the left hates because Roberts never agreed to rule based on his "feelings" or "political correctness".

One more thing while I'm on a rant. If you go into the Supreme Court building and walk along the bench where the judges sit you'll see 9 chairs. The one in the middle is designate for the Chief Justice but there is no special designation for any of the others. They sit according to seniority, but nothing else. There is no "black" seat, or "women's" seat, or "liberal" seat, "conservative" seat or "moderate" seat. The seats are not assigned according to political philosophy, race, gender, or anything else.

When Sandra Day O'Conner retired Chuckie Schumer insisted that Bush had to appoint another moderate to replace O'Conner. Bush went with a conservative. I haven't heard Schumer insist that Obama replace Souter with another moderate-to-liberal like Souter. I guess when a Democrat is president he gets to appoint whoever he wants.

If I were president my selection criteria would be very simple. Bring me the resume's and background information on the very best candidates we can find, but delete the name, gender, race, and anything else that might put that person in a particular box. Let me look at their qualifications without the trivial stuff.

I'm gonna get the best person I can get for the job and let the special interests groups go pound sand.

Wouldn't it be nice if someone did that today?

By the way, the lefties think they're particularly clever in suggesting that Obama nominate Anita Hill, calling it "Clarence Thomas' Worst Nightmare". Hardly. Based on what I know about Clarence Thomas it wouldn't matter a bit to him if Hill was on the court.

And according to her fabricated testimony, she's the one that has something to be afraid of.

Blame Congress

When you're building the scaffolds for the public lynchings of former Bush administration officials because of their roles as promoters of waterboarding, you better add a few stalls for some members of Congress, including prominent Democrats like Nancy Pelosi:

Republicans, hoping to turn the tables on Democrats who are open to prosecuting Bush-era lawyers for justifying "enhanced" interrogation techniques, are seeking to reveal the names of those lawmakers who were briefed on the tactics as much as seven years ago.

FOX News has learned there were more than 30 meetings and briefings with members of Congress on the subject since 2002.

The first such briefing dealt with the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, the Al Qaeda operations chief who ran the training camps in Afghanistan where the Sept. 11 hijackers were trained. Sources said California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, now the speaker of the House, attended the meeting with then-Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla. (who later became CIA director), and she did not raise any objections.

The briefings were given to the chairmen and ranking members of the intelligence committees in the House and Senate until 2006. That could cover Sen. John Rockefeller, W.Va., and Rep. Jane Harman, Calif., both Democrats, as well as Sen. Pat Roberts, Kan., Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C., Sen. Richard Shelby, Ala., and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, Mich., all Republicans.

Defenders of the interrogation program note that if Congress had wanted to kill the program, all it had to do was withhold funding, which didn't happen.

Just as they did in the banking crisis, Democrats are crying "SCANDAL!" and pointing at others while trying to hide their own complicity. I personally don't believe that waterboarding is torture and this whole witchhunt is dangerous nonsense, but if we're going to investigate Bush officials then we're going to investigate the Democrats that rubber-stamped the program. If one goes to jail, they all go to jail.

UPDATE: Nancy Pelosi thinks you're stupid:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pushing back on GOP charges that she knew about waterboarding for years and did nothing.

Pelosi says she was briefed by Bush administration officials on the legal justification for using waterboarding — but that they never followed through on promises to inform her when they actually began using "enhanced" interrogation techniques

"In that or any other briefing…we were not, and I repeat, we're not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used. What they did tell us is that they had some legislative counsel ... opinions that they could be used," she told reporters today.

Nothing to see here....move along...

Strip Searching for Motrin

The Supreme Court heard a case today that tells me a little bit about how school has changed since I was a 13-year old:

Reporting from Washington -- The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing today to lawyers who were urging a rule against strip searching students at school.

Instead, most of the justices voiced concern that students could hide dangerous drugs such as crack cocaine or heroin in their clothes.

The case before the court concerns a 13-year-old Arizona girl who was strip searched in a nurse's office after a school friend said the girl, Savana Redding, had brought white pills to school. The pills were extra-strength ibuprofen, which is commonly taken for headaches and cramps.

Last year, a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the strip search of Savana Redding was unreasonable and unconstitutional since the pills were ibuprofen. And the court held that the school officials who ordered the search were liable for damages.

But in their comments and questions, most of the justices signaled they are inclined to overturn that decision.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the school officials should be shielded from being sued since the law governing school searches had not been clear. In the past, the court has said public officials cannot be held liable for damages unless they violate a "clearly established" right.

I think that zero tolerance drug policies in school have clearly gone too far. When I was 13 I had a tendency toward headaches. In fact, I spent the afternoon of my first day of 7th grade in the school nurse's office with a headache so bad I was throwing up.

After that day I started carrying a bottle of Excedrin to school with me every day. If I started to feel a headache coming on I'd take a couple of those and I'd be fine. I don't remember ever sharing the medicine with anyone else, or ever being asked too. Carrying personal medicines like that were not a problem.

Now, a student can't even bring sunscreen or any medications to school without having written authorization on file and having it dispensed by a nurse. I think the only medication a student can carry on their person is a rescue inhaler.

However, if the student becomes pregnant the school is free to obtain an abortion without parental notification or consent.

My, how school has changed.

However, getting back to the Supreme Court case, some common sense needs to be returned to our schools and we need to get off the zero tolerance silliness. I don't think blanket approval for strip searches is any better an idea than zero tolerance for Motrin.

Now is the Time for "Atlas Shrugged" On the Big Screen

Throughout the Bush Administration Hollywood couldn't get enough of anti-US/anti-war movies that nobody wanted to see. They flopped one after the other because Hollywood didn't understand that most of America did not share their values.

Now Hollywood has the chance to make a move that will resonate with a whole bunch of politically incorrect people like you and me (well, most of you anyway), and believe it or not, they just might get it done (from Risky Business blog):

Hollywood could soon be going Objectivist.

After decades in development hell, Ayn Rand’s capitalism-minded “Atlas Shrugged” is taking new steps toward the big screen — with one of the film world’s most prominent money men potentially at its center.

Ryan Kavanaugh’s Relativity Media is circling the Baldwin Entertainment project and could come aboard to finance with Lionsgate, which got involved several years ago.

Rand’s popular but polarizing book — it’s derided by many literary critics but has a huge public following — tells the story of Dagny Taggart, a railroad executive trying to keep her corporation competitive in the face of what she perceives as a lack of innovation and individual responsibility.

A number of stars have expressed serious interest in playing the lead role of Taggart. Angelina Jolie previously had been reported as a candidate to play the strong female character, but the list is growing and now includes Charlize Theron, Julia Roberts and Anne Hathaway.

Although it was written a half-century ago, producers say that the book’s themes of individualism resonate in the era of Obama, government bailouts and stimulus packages -- making this the perfect moment to bring the 1,100-page novel to the big screen.

“This couldn’t be more timely,” said Karen Baldwin, who along with husband Howard is producing, with film industry consultant John Logigian advising on the project. “It’s uncanny what Rand was able to predict — about the only things she didn’t anticipate are cell phones and the Internet.” Baldwin may be on to something -- love it or hate it, "Shrugged" is seeing a resurgence, with book sales spiking as debates rage in Washington and around the country about the government's role in a faltering free-market economy.

The author’s final novel offers an embattled railroad company as a metaphor for a society that Taggart (and Rand) sees as succumbing to socialism at the expense of individual creativity. Its backbone is a 50-page speech by the mysterious but major character John Galt in which he lays out the Rand principles of Objectivism, which argues for an aggressive free market and against government activism. Let's just say it's probably not on the president's nightstand.

With all the long speeches and with plot points often a Trojan Horse for Rand's ideas, it's not an easy writing or directing gig, but producers believe they've got the man who could do it. Randall Wallace, the writer on other crisis-era, politically themed works such as “Braveheart” and “Pearl Harbor,” has written the latest draft of the screenplay and is also interested in coming on to direct.(He would follow in the steps of "House of Sand and Fog" director Vadim Perelman, who had been attached to direct and fell off; we like Perelman, but would have been quite the transition for him.)

The project would likely land in the $50 million-budget range but could go higher depending on talent.

It'll make more than that the first weekend it's open. And depending on when it's released, it could be a game changer in 2012.