Category Archives: Law

Law, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Technology and Society

My Lawsuit

11 Comments

Yes, there has been a ruling, over two years after argument in the appeals court. I’ll have a comment after discussing with counsel.

[Update a few minutes later]

For what it’s worth, here’s Mark Steyn’s take.

[Update a while later]

Here are the official statements from CEI and counsel:

Statement from CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman:

Today’s ruling simply means this case will proceed and the Superior Court will now consider the merits of both sides’ arguments. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a staunch defender of free speech and open, public debate, and we are confident we’ll prevail on the merits as this case goes back to Court. As a public figure with his own history of harshly attacking those who disagree with him, Michael Mann must now show that CEI’s commentary met some very stringent standards of malice. It did not, and we will continue to fight against those who seek to punish and harass groups and individuals who speak out on controversial issues.

Statement from Andrew Grossman, CEI’s attorney and partner at BakerHostetler:

T​oday’s decision throws out half of Michael Mann’s claims against the Competitive Enterprise Institute and sends the others back to the Superior Court for further consideration. We are confident that Dr. Mann’s remaining claims will ultimately fail, because they attempt to shut down speech and debate that is absolutely protected by the First Amendment. Today’s decision only draws out Dr. Mann’s years-long effort to wage “lawfare” against his opponents instead of engaging in public debate.

So, on we go.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here‘s the story from Buzzfeed, FWIW.

[Noon update]

Thoughts from Jonathan Adler.

[Friday update]

National Review‘s formal response to the ruling.

History, Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The Electoral College

41 Comments

Did the NYT care about this before the Democrats lost power?

No, it’s not “antiquated.” It is part of the Constitution of the United STATES of America. It’s part of the separation of powers. The Founders never intended that the president be popularly elected, with good reason. The people are represented by the House. The president is elected by the states. What they’re really saying is that they hate federalism in general (which is ironic, considering that states like California are considering seceding in the wake of the loss).

[Update a while later]

[Update a while later]

[Update Wednesday morning]

The electoral college is actually awesome:

Unlike governors, whose state governments have total sovereignty within their borders, the presidency governs over states with their own sovereignty under the Constitution. The role of the presidency is at least somewhat limited to foreign policy and questions that are at least loosely connected to interstate issues and enforcement of other provisions of the Constitution. For that reason, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the president would have the greatest consensus among the sovereign states themselves, while still including representation based on population.

That is why each state gets the same number of electors as they have seats in the House and the Senate. It reduces the advantage that larger states have, but hardly eliminates it entirely; California has 55 electors while Wyoming has only three, to use the Times’ comparison. Rather than being an “antiquated system,” as they write, it’s an elegant system that helps balance power between sovereign states with national popular intent, and it forces presidential contenders to appeal to a broader range of populations.

[Via Stephen Green, who has more]

[Bumped]

[Update a while later]

Wow, the electoral college is so awesome, that it’s thwarting our ability to defeat global warming.

[Update a few minutes later]

That NYT editorial attacking the Electoral College is garbage.

You don’t say:

The process of protecting smaller states from the whims of the larger, more populous states is precisely why the electoral college exists. Contrary to what the editors of the New York Times think, we are not one large nation where the federal government reigns supreme. We are a republic made up of semi-sovereign states. That sovereignty is what protects states like Wyoming and Montana from states such as New York and California. The people living in these different states both have their sets of values. The electoral college protects a state like Wyoming (the minority) from a state like California (the majority) in that the country is not governed by the say-so of the most populous states in the union. Under the electoral college, all states have a voice.

These people hate the United STATES of America. They worship the State.

[Update a few minutes later]

The DoJ/FBI refuse to investigate crimes against the Electoral College. Well of course they do; a Republican won.

Business, Law, Political Commentary

The IRS

5 Comments

No, this isn’t about their war on conservatives. I got a shocking notice in the mail for my Subchapter S that said I owed three thousand dollars, even though there were no taxes due. It was a late-filing penalty. I had requested an extension in March, and filed in October, as I’d done for the past couple years, since I started the new company, and passed all the profit through to myself as sole owner. But they claimed that I hadn’t filed for the extension, so it was six months late (they counted the four days from when I mailed on October 15th as another month) and they charged me $195 per month times two, claiming that there were two shareholders, even though it was addressed to me as sole owner. I looked into my options, and while there are ways out for individuals, they’re a lot harder on S corps.

Fortunately, the woman I talked to on the phone was reasonable, and I managed to get her to accept that I had filed for the extension (she recognized that my actions would have made no sense if I hadn’t, and my past history was to do so), and convinced her that I was the only shareholder (which they should have known by looking at my K-1), so she knocked it down to two months from when I was supposed to file in September (yes, I did screw that up) for one shareholder, to get the bill down to $390. But it’s still annoying to be fined for a late filing in which no taxes were owed. Clearly, they want to be harsh on late filers regardless.

Business, Economics, Law, Mathematics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Technology and Society

The Global Warming Movement

19 Comments

Is it on the verge of collapse?

We can only hope so.

[Afternoon update]

The latest climate conspiracy theory. Tough words from Professor Curry:

Get over it, your side lost. Changes of Presidential administrations occur every 4 or 8 years, often with changes in political parties.

Get busy and shore up your scientific arguments; I suspect that argument from consensus won’t sway many minds in the Trump administration.

Overt activism and climate policy advocacy by climate scientists will not help your ’cause’; leave such advocacy to the environmental groups.

Behave like a scientist, and don’t build elaborate conspiracy theories based on conflicting signals from the Trump administration. Stop embarrassing yourselves; wait for the evidence.

Be flexible; if funding priorities change, and you desire federal research funding, work on different problems. The days of needing to sell all research in terms of AGW are arguably over.

I repeat: We can only hope so. But “behave like a scientist” seems to be beyond many of them.

Business, Economics, Health, Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Repeal, Delay, Replace

12 Comments

That’s the Republicans’ plan to undo the legislative atrocity that is ObamaCare.

[Update a few minutes later]

Democrats plan a fight to save ObamaCare. I agree with Stephen Green:

If you — or GOP lawmakers — aren’t mentally prepared for the howls, the accusations of racism/sexism/etc, the tales of woe, and the panic-mongering, then you don’t understand how Democrats play this game.

The ugliness hasn’t even begun to begin.

Sadly true.

Business, Economics, Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

Trump’s Federalist Revival

15 Comments

I hope that Kim Strassel is right:

President Obama never held much with laws, because he failed at making them. After his first two years in office, he never could convince the Congress to pass another signature initiative. His response—and the enduring theme of his presidency—was therefore to ignore Congress and statutes, go around the partnership framework, and give his agencies authority to dictate policy from Washington. The states were demoted from partners to indentured servants. So too were any rival federal agencies that got in the EPA’s way. Example: The EPA’s pre-emptive veto of Alaska’s proposed Pebble Mine, in which it usurped Army Corps of Engineers authority.

One revealing illustration from EPA world. Under the Clean Air Act, states are allowed to craft their own implementation plans. If the EPA disapproves of a state plan, it is empowered to impose a federal one—one of the most aggressive actions the agency can take against a state, since it is the equivalent of a seizure of authority. In the entirety of the presidencies of George H.W. Bush,Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the EPA imposed five federal implementation plans on states. By last count, the Obama administration has imposed at least 56.

Much of Mr. Pruitt’s tenure as Oklahoma’s AG was about trying to stuff federal agencies back into their legal boxes. Most of the press either never understood this, or never wanted to. When the media wrote about state lawsuits against ObamaCare or the Clean Power Plan or the Water of the United States rule, the suggestion usually was that this litigation was ideologically motivated, and a naked attempt to do what a Republican Congress could not—tank the president’s agenda.

The basis of nearly every one of these lawsuits was in fact violations of states’ constitutional and statutory rights—and it is why so many of the cases were successful. It was all a valiant attempt to force the federal government to follow the law. And it has been a singular Pruitt pursuit.

It will be refreshing to have someone rein in the EPA by running it, instead of having to continually take it to court.

[Update a while later]

Will Trump finally provide an opportunity to sell “progressives” on the virtues of federalism?

“Turnabout is fair play” is a deeply human sentiment. In politics, it’s both tedious and fun, because while reciprocity is satisfying, hypocrisy is annoying.

For instance, when Republicans take control of the Senate, Democrats instantly become sticklers for procedure, precedent, and constitutionalism. When Republicans lose the Senate, it’s “Democrats, start your steamrollers.”

While “You did it, so now we can too” is a perfectly natural attitude, it encourages cynicism precisely because it renders principles into arguments of convenience. When President Obama was testing — and exceeding — the limits of his constitutional powers, liberals grabbed their pom-poms and cheered. Now that Donald Trump is in power, they’re rediscovering that constitutional safeguards are there for everybody.

When Obama grew the deficit, Republicans and tea partiers insisted there was a debt crisis. Now, the president-elect says we must “prime the pump” with up to $1 trillion in deficit spending, and the former deficit hawks slumber in their nests. Regardless, that excerpt from A Man for All Seasons is not intended to imply that Trump is the devil — or that Obama is. Suffice it to say that one partisan’s devil is another partisan’s angel. I’m more interested in breaking the cycle and seizing an opportunity.

I’m looking forward to it. Who knows, maybe even Trump can be convinced.

[Update a while later]

Trump is putting together the most business-friendly cabinet in decades:

Conservatives had expressed considerable reservations about Trump’s professions of conservatism, during both the primary and general-election campaigns. In the days after the election, Trump’s meetings with Obama on the ACA and with Al Gore on climate change prompted renewed concerns about Trump’s true direction. Even while the first few nominations got announced, some wondered whether they reflected vice-president-elect Mike Pence more than Trump, and when other shoes would begin to drop.

So far, though, Trump seems intent on creating the most conservative and business-oriented Cabinet in decades. If Horowitz was correct and “personnel is policy,” then conservatives should find themselves pleasantly surprised and encouraged thus far with a 180-degree change of direction these key appointments promise. The inauguration on January 20th marks the date in which conservatives might find their own version of hope and change.

Unfortunately, what we really need is a market-friendly one.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Trump’s selections indicate that massive deregulation moves are coming. Well, we need it, after all the unconstitutional and unlawful overreach of the past eight years.

[Update a while later]

Getting back to the original post topic, Trump has nominated a powerful defender of states rights.

Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The Hard Left’s Violent Tantrums

3 Comments

Comey’s FBI should investigate them.

True. But then, there are other things that Comey’s FBI should have properly investigated, like Hillary Clinton’s and her aide’s felonies and corruption.

[Update a while later]

Related: The Left’s coming counterattack:

We sent our offspring to them for an education, and they sent them back to us, spitting with hatred for the way of life that enabled their ease. “You dare defy us? Our soldiers are your own flesh and blood!”

They threw them at us like grenades – warped, misguided and misinformed, filled with explosive fury and lit by an impossibly short fuse. Wave after wave, they sent them into the streets to burn, to riot, and to cloak their debauchery of liberty with the fresh face of a new generation.

And we backed down, knowing we had been gravely molested but unwilling to challenge the perpetrators for fear of ensnaring our own children in the fray.

We held elections. We elected majorities who then refused to fight. We listened to our “leaders,” who told us to appease the gnashing beast because the world was changing and we had to remain “relevant.”

Now, after a great while and innumerable offenses, we have elected someone who sees no value in the bureaucrat’s mantra of “that’s the way we’ve always done it.” We explored unfamiliar electoral terrain and found someone who respects the origin of our ideals as embodied in our founding documents. A man who brusquely (and entertainingly!) dismissed the circus-mirror image of America peddled by the left and their fawning, complicit media. Tired of being beaten about the head and shoulders while those we elected to defend us stood by holding the coats of our abusers, we elected a brawler of our own.

I wish that he “respects the origin of our ideals as embodied in our founding documents,” but I continue to see no evidence that he’s ever even read them. But one goes to war with the army one has.

Business, Economics, Health, Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Trump Chooses A Physician

1 Comment

…to heal the health-care disaster the Democrats gave us:

While some Republicans have attacked the Affordable Care Act without proposing an alternative, Mr. Price has introduced bills offering a detailed, comprehensive replacement plan in every Congress since 2009, when Democrats started work on the legislation. Many of his ideas are included in the “Better Way” agenda issued several months ago by House Republicans.

In debate on the Affordable Care Act in 2009, Mr. Price railed against “a stifling and oppressive federal government,” a theme that pervades his politics. His most frequent objection to the law is that it interferes with the ability of patients and doctors to make medical decisions — a concern he will surely take with him if he wins Senate confirmation.

“The practicing physician and the patient could not have a better friend in that office than Tom Price,” said Representative Michael C. Burgess, Republican of Texas, who is also a physician.

That’s “Dr. Price,” to you, New York Times.

I’m sure that the Dems will fight tooth and nail to prevent his confirmation, but Harry Reid screwed them with his nuclear option. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here’s how Trump’s HHS pick wants to replace Obamacare:

I wrote about the most recent version of Price’s plan in detail when it came out last year, but here’s how it would basically work.

It would repeal the text of Obamacare, and replace it with a system that would provide tax credits to individuals based on age. Though previous versions had varied the credits based on income, doing so by age is easier to administer (HHS won’t get into the problems it’s had with Obamacare in terms of verifying income for the purposes of the subsidies) and it also provides more money to those who have to pay more for insurance. In addition, there would be a one-time tax credit to put in a health savings account for routine medical expenses.

Unlike previous incarnations of GOP reform proposals, the plan only modestly meddles with the tax bias in favor of employer insurance, and also encourages small businesses to band together to purchase insurance through trade associations and allows for the sale of insurance across state lines. He also calls for providing grants to states to cover those with pre-existing conditions (one way Trump may square his promises to repeal Obamacare while offering something to those with such illnesses).

It’s got some problems, but it would be a huge improvement over the current Charlie Foxtrot. But then, almost anything would.

Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

Flag-Burning Laws

2 Comments

Yes, Trump’s tweet (as are many of his tweets) was stupid, but most of his critics have no ground to stand on:

I mean, pretty much the entire Democratic party supports overturning Citizens United — a case in which a filmmaker faced punishment for criticizing Hillary Clinton — so what free speech principles are they invoking now?

If it weren’t for double standards, they’d have none at all.

[Update a few minutes later]

Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Technology and Society

The Recount Circus

37 Comments

It should effectively be over, because Michigan has certified for Trump. Even if Wisconsin hadn’t rejected the request for a hand recount, and Pennsylvania would allow one, Trump would still (absent faithless electors) have a majority of the Electoral College which (I don’t know why the ignorant continue to whine about the popular vote — Oh, wait, yes I do) is how we elect presidents in the United STATES of America. But it will continue, because it has nothing to do with the “integrity of the vote,” and everything to do with Green Party fundraising, and continuing chaos.