Missouri River update Going back
ArchPundit
Missouri River update
Going back to this story Talent forgets to mention John Thune’s opposition to much of the Corps work on the Missouri.
Uncategorized
Exactly what productive purpose do
Exactly what productive purpose do law profs serve anyway
In a typical orgy of self-congragulatory masturbation by law professors, Volokh argues that John Dean is right on the 17th amendment. The argument is based in defending the Supreme Court’s decisions rolling back federalism.
Too bad that the deciding factor for the Court is ideology and not federalism or Volokh and Dean would have a case. But, as usual, neither has done a serious review of the literature with one of the better pieces available in Publius Summer 2000:
Federalism Outcomes and Ideological Preferences: The U.S. Supreme Court and Preemption Cases
William R. Lowry and Brady Baybeck
Law professors are notoriously unable to handle the scientific method so this shouldn’t be a surprise. Or to look outside their narrow fields in the law for evidence. The authors demonstrate that the federalism cases are decided on by right-left ideology and that when one controls for that, federalism as an issue is not significant. Who’d a thunk it?
Volokh also makes the insinuation that moving Senatorial selection back to the state legislatures would solve campaign finance problems is amazingly divorced from reality. States, with a few notable exceptions, are far worse in monitoring campaign cash. The actual effect would be more likely to create insider candidates that are more beholden to organized interests. Peter Fitzgerald could never happen in such a system. Neither could Russ Feingold or John McCain or any other independent thinker in the Senate. If one wants to improve party discipline this is a good idea. However, it wouldn’t necessarily make the system any more friendly to states except in the awarding of pork. Mike Madigan, your US Senator—WOOOOOHOOOOOO!
Of course, given Mississippi has Democratic chambers, it would be a convenient way to dispose of Lott and Cochran.
Now to the core of the argument all one has to consider (which was done in while passing the 17th amendment) is what influences state legislators? Reelection and in achieving that they would seek to please organized interests. What a big improvement that would be! Maybe we can just start sponsoring the Midwestern Senators by ADM and add NASCAR like patches to their suits. Direct election at least provides an election to check the influence of organized interests. We see this rather frequently in Senatorial elections especially. This is why we generally see the Senate also take a middle road more often than the House. Electing Senators in State Legislatures ties them much closer to organized interests.
Much of the argument rests on what the framers originally wanted and little analysis is given to what such an institutional arrangement would produce in today’s environment. This is typical of right wing law professors. They simply don’t have the rigorous training of social scientists and historians. Instead they try and argue about the number angels on the head of a pin when they should be doing serious institutional analysis of reforms. Senators approximate the average of a state and so are center oriented for their state on average. State legislatures would not produce the same result generally, instead choosing candidates from the center of the party in power.
State legislature selection of Senators would also result in greater ties to interest groups because the average person doesn’t have a lobbyist, but the average organized interest does. It is great to argue pluralism will take care of this, but small disorganized groups are less likely to be potential swing votes, and hence less likely to have attention paid to them.
Finally, it is very doubtful that such a change would lead to more respect for federalism. State legislatures aren’t going to choose based on views of federalism, they are going to choose on what gets them reelected and that is how well the Senator is going to bring back pork for his or her supporters.
Rendellism Definition of Rendellism: Blunt
Rendellism
Definition of Rendellism: Blunt honesty about a subject most people aren’t talking about, especially by a party leader.
Example. Rendell gave Clinton more headaches, but they were all dead on. Perhaps he can smack Al over the head some more and it will sink in.
Site Update I’ll be adding
Site Update
I’ll be adding headlines to some of the articles.
Instapundit has nice words for
Instapundit has nice words for Counterspin Central’s Hesiod. The question I have is about this comment:
“That puts him head and shoulders above most of the anti-war critics. And most of the anti-war Democrats in Congress.”
But what serious critics is Glen talking about? Chomsky and gang can hardly be called serious. Congress has been largely avoiding the issue and I’m always confused by the strange notion that those opposed to the war are a monolith. I’m for the war, but most of the discussions I see breakdown into several categories; the looney left of people like Cockburn, skeptics of the truthfullness and timing of the administration, deterrence advocates, and multilateralists who aren’t even necessarily anti-war, but for going slow getting there. Of the four categories, Cockburn, Chomsky and the other fruitcakes are the smallest group and the least influential.
It seems many of the warbloggers are arguing against boogeymen most of the time that aren’t the real resistance out there. Zell Miller has voiced this the best by describing the discussions he had at home with some generally pretty conservative folks who are skeptical of this upcoming war. The real resistance isn’t the loony left, but people in the heartland who need to be convinced it is necessary. They are maybe not the best informed of us, but their skepticism is the same skepticism that the Founders had regarding overseas entanglements. The evidence of this is those who are voicing concerns. Jim Leach, Mark Kirk and other moderate Republicans are concerned about what is going on and not because they are wimps or leftist fruitcakes, but because their constituents are concerned.
Darth Vader suggest Harbour could
Darth Vader suggest Harbour could run for Mississippi. Let me remind everyone of one of the funniest Congressional Hearings ever:
SEN. FRED THOMPSON: But when you?re sitting on a boat in the Hong Kong harbor, talking to a gentleman, who?s a citizen of Taiwan, I mean, that does raise certain other potential implications in terms of appearances, but it?s an appearance business that we?re both in, isn?t it?
Vader encourages the circular firing
Vader encourages the circular firing squad with this tidbit:
Privatized Social Security?
The party leadership’s advice to Republican House candidates to avoid the issue of Social Security privatization has angered conservative theoreticians who fear a long delay in changing the system.
Rep. Tom Davis, the House Republican campaign chairman, has called on the party’s candidates to stay away from the issue, and especially the word ”privatize.” Steven Moore, chairman of the supply-side Club for Growth, said in a memo to Davis, ”Republicans must run ON the issue of creating Social Security private investment account options, not AWAY from it.”
A footnote: The latest Republican candidate to avoid the issue is Elizabeth Dole, who forced the withdrawal of a Democratic ad putting her on record for private accounts. Dole enjoys a big lead over former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles for the open Senate seat in North Carolina.
I love the Chicago Tribune,
I love the Chicago Tribune, but this vendetta against the Madigans is a bit much. Birkett isn’t any cleaner and the more reasonable media outlets have covered his problems with taking money from lawyers in DuPage that regularly do business with him.
Ryan needs to get a
Ryan needs to get a clue. While the entire system has problems and Devine and Daley should be taken to task, Ryan’s abuses in the Cruz case are horrific. In general, I see Ryan as a not-to bad guy, but that case was a travesty of justice and it was his fault.
Ummm.can Harvard get its acceptance
Ummm.can Harvard get its acceptance letter back.