Even after last year's service cuts and a 17 percent fare increase on 30-day MetroCards, the nation's largest mass transit system is still imperiled by chronic budget problems. A $500 million deficit is project for next year and in four years deficits will grow to $1.5 billion.
It's every-day New Yorkers that usually bear the burden of these budget gaps. Naturally, voters want to know: which candidate for governor will finally bring the MTA's finances under control?
Unfortunately, all they've heard from the Democratic and Republican candidates is outdated rhetoric. Cuomo has said he would roll back the mobility tax, a source of $1.5 billion in annual transit revenue, while Paladino has pledged to "take apart" the transit authority "piece by piece." But does anyone have a plan to put the MTA back together again?
Both Cuomo and Paladino have made reform of Albany the central message of their campaigns. When it comes to transit, Albany certainly needs reform, but it shouldn't come via baseball bat. And threatening to end the mobility tax tells voters that racking up political points matters more than making the tough choices necessary to save mass transit.
The last thing New York needs is a continuation of the policies that have led to the MTA's grim situation: starving the transit system of vital revenue and then blaming MTA executives and MTA employees for service cuts. The fact is, the governor and state legislature are most responsible for the MTA's finances.
Recently the state legislature has gone so far as to take $160 million in dedicated revenue from transit, a decision that led to last year's service cuts. For the sake of New York's economy, and for the 2.3 million New Yorkers that rely on mass transit every day to get to work, Albany's neglect of mass transit must end.
Real reform means making smart investments in the transit system that will drive economic growth, create good jobs, boost the state's competitiveness, and save taxpayers money in the long-term. Albany's mismanagement of MTA finances has saddled the authority with a $31 billion debt burden. This excessive borrowing comes at a cost. This year the MTA will pay $1.8 billion just for past borrowing, and this figure will grow to $2.7 billion a year by 2017.
Earlier this month, the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy and Transportation Alternatives released a five-step plan to help the next governor put the MTA on sound financial footing. One recommended step in the plan is fully embracing congestion pricing or bridge tolls to fund mass transit. After all, drivers greatly benefit from the congestion reduction that transit provides. Without transit, there would be 8.5 million more car trips on the region's roads every day.
Another recommended step for the next governor is to partner with New York's congressional delegation to secure more federal funding for transit. Transit is a top priority for the Obama administration and an important new transportation bill will be introduced next year. After vigorous campaigning by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles will receive a $540 million federal loan for transit. The next governor of New York should make a case in Washington for more federal funds for state transit projects. After all, the New York City metro region produces $1.2 trillion in economic activity every year. But there is no indication yet that the candidates would expend as much energy on transit as other national leaders.
Instead, there is a knee-jerk fixation on cost-cutting to solve the MTA's budget mess. It won't work. MTA chief Jay Walder has already found $700 million in annual savings through cost-cutting and other efficiencies and has plans to find more. But no amount of cost cutting will fill the $9 billion hole in the MTA's capital budget, or pay down the $31 billion in debt.
There will be no easy answers. But one thing is clear: The state's greatest revenue generator, New York City, depends on transit. And communities upstate will look for new transit options as gasoline gets more expensive. Other cities across the globe are ambitiously building transit systems with the intent of supplanting New York's dominance. The next governor cannot create a competitive twenty-first century transit system via cuts and quick fixes. Reinvestment is crucial.
John Petro is an urban policy analyst at the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. Noah Budnick is deputy director at Transportation Alternatives.
74 Comments
»
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
bench craft company
Tonino Lamborghini Spyder Series Luxury Mobile Phones | iTech <b>News</b> <b>...</b>
Following CULV notebooks, Tonino Lamborghini releases in Hong Kong its Spyder line of luxury mobile phones. There are six models, S-600, S-610, S-620,
For Fox <b>News</b>, Most Viewers Ever for a Midterm Election - NYTimes.com
Fox News, a favorite of Republicans, averaged 6.96 million viewers in prime time on Tuesday, according to ratings results from the Nielsen Company. Fox more than doubled CNN's numbers, which averaged 2.42 million viewers, and more than ...
<b>News</b> - Blake Lively, Leonardo DiCaprio Go Out for Dinner - Movies <b>...</b>
Home | News | Style & Beauty | Moms & Babies | Movies, TV & Music | Healthy Lifestyle | Celebrities � Photos | Video. Subscribe: Magazine | Newsletter | RSS � Subscriber Services | Media Kit | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use ...
bench craft company
Even after last year's service cuts and a 17 percent fare increase on 30-day MetroCards, the nation's largest mass transit system is still imperiled by chronic budget problems. A $500 million deficit is project for next year and in four years deficits will grow to $1.5 billion.
It's every-day New Yorkers that usually bear the burden of these budget gaps. Naturally, voters want to know: which candidate for governor will finally bring the MTA's finances under control?
Unfortunately, all they've heard from the Democratic and Republican candidates is outdated rhetoric. Cuomo has said he would roll back the mobility tax, a source of $1.5 billion in annual transit revenue, while Paladino has pledged to "take apart" the transit authority "piece by piece." But does anyone have a plan to put the MTA back together again?
Both Cuomo and Paladino have made reform of Albany the central message of their campaigns. When it comes to transit, Albany certainly needs reform, but it shouldn't come via baseball bat. And threatening to end the mobility tax tells voters that racking up political points matters more than making the tough choices necessary to save mass transit.
The last thing New York needs is a continuation of the policies that have led to the MTA's grim situation: starving the transit system of vital revenue and then blaming MTA executives and MTA employees for service cuts. The fact is, the governor and state legislature are most responsible for the MTA's finances.
Recently the state legislature has gone so far as to take $160 million in dedicated revenue from transit, a decision that led to last year's service cuts. For the sake of New York's economy, and for the 2.3 million New Yorkers that rely on mass transit every day to get to work, Albany's neglect of mass transit must end.
Real reform means making smart investments in the transit system that will drive economic growth, create good jobs, boost the state's competitiveness, and save taxpayers money in the long-term. Albany's mismanagement of MTA finances has saddled the authority with a $31 billion debt burden. This excessive borrowing comes at a cost. This year the MTA will pay $1.8 billion just for past borrowing, and this figure will grow to $2.7 billion a year by 2017.
Earlier this month, the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy and Transportation Alternatives released a five-step plan to help the next governor put the MTA on sound financial footing. One recommended step in the plan is fully embracing congestion pricing or bridge tolls to fund mass transit. After all, drivers greatly benefit from the congestion reduction that transit provides. Without transit, there would be 8.5 million more car trips on the region's roads every day.
Another recommended step for the next governor is to partner with New York's congressional delegation to secure more federal funding for transit. Transit is a top priority for the Obama administration and an important new transportation bill will be introduced next year. After vigorous campaigning by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles will receive a $540 million federal loan for transit. The next governor of New York should make a case in Washington for more federal funds for state transit projects. After all, the New York City metro region produces $1.2 trillion in economic activity every year. But there is no indication yet that the candidates would expend as much energy on transit as other national leaders.
Instead, there is a knee-jerk fixation on cost-cutting to solve the MTA's budget mess. It won't work. MTA chief Jay Walder has already found $700 million in annual savings through cost-cutting and other efficiencies and has plans to find more. But no amount of cost cutting will fill the $9 billion hole in the MTA's capital budget, or pay down the $31 billion in debt.
There will be no easy answers. But one thing is clear: The state's greatest revenue generator, New York City, depends on transit. And communities upstate will look for new transit options as gasoline gets more expensive. Other cities across the globe are ambitiously building transit systems with the intent of supplanting New York's dominance. The next governor cannot create a competitive twenty-first century transit system via cuts and quick fixes. Reinvestment is crucial.
John Petro is an urban policy analyst at the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. Noah Budnick is deputy director at Transportation Alternatives.
74 Comments
»
-
When national special interest groups flood huge sums of money into a tiny state for the express purpose of defeating judges so that judges elsewhere will be intimidated… it’s sorta not very America I think.
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 4:33 pm
-
it’s an if the shoe were on the other foot thing I think
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 4:37 pm
-
Legislating from the bench is not very America I sorta think.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/3/2010 @ 4:37 pm
-
your offended sensibilities would carry more gravitas if they weren’t so selective in what they are sensitive to, feet.
Comment by redc1c4 — 11/3/2010 @ 4:38 pm
-
hah.
I don’t do gravitas Mr. red, and I agree Mr. daley, legislating from the bench is not very America. But I don’t like these tactics what they used and honestly I think it’s disappointing how I was assured the midterms were about the spendings spendings spendings and I wake up this morning to find out it was an awesome validation of the Sacred Definition praise Jesus hallelujah.
Made me downright grumpy it did.
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 4:42 pm
-
Were huge sums of money flooding into Iowa for those retention questions? Is he defining special interest groups as anyone who thinks gay marriage is wrong? Is he in some parallel universe?
Comment by Gerald A — 11/3/2010 @ 4:43 pm
-
The phrase “special interest groups” is pathognomonic. Every political group is a special
interest group. But the left tends to use the phrase disparagingly. The SEIU, the NAACP,
the Brady bunch are simply concerned citizens exercising their political rights.
Corporations, anti-SSM groups, the NRA … “special interest groups.”Sorry, the midterms proved that halloween is over, and people are not frightened by
old catch-phrases anymore. Except maybe in California.
Comment by great unknown — 11/3/2010 @ 4:44 pm
-
I’m not in a … jeez how could I be typing the comments if I was in a different universe silly
brb
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 4:44 pm
-
You’re physically in this one.
Comment by Gerald A — 11/3/2010 @ 4:47 pm
-
Groups that wanted the justices ousted poured more than $650,000 into their effort, with heavy support from out-of-state conservative and religious groups. Campaigns that supported the justices and the current state court system spent more than $200,000.
The retention challenge triggered a battle never seen in Iowa’s judicial history. Television, radio and Internet ads portrayed the justices as both activists and referees. Robo-calls urged a “no” vote. U.S. Rep. Steve King embarked on a statewide bus tour to rally “no” voters.
The decision is expected to echo to courts throughout the country, as conservative activists had hoped.*
I kinda rearranged that so you could see what I mean about how the tactics are not very America
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 4:48 pm
-
Odd, what could be more american than a ballot?
Comment by SPQR — 11/3/2010 @ 4:55 pm
-
a form of jury nullification on a minor scale
Comment by great unknown — 11/3/2010 @ 4:56 pm
-
I kinda rearranged that so you could see what I mean about how the tactics are not very America
Sounds like a standard political campaign to me. Running ads etc. is not very America?
Comment by Gerald A — 11/3/2010 @ 4:56 pm
-
happy
right, we should take their usurpations without a complaint.
I am sorry, but isn’t this EXACTLY what a retention election is SUPPOSED to do? it gives the people a chance to put a check on their power.
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 11/3/2010 @ 4:57 pm
-
Sounds perfectly American to me, twinkle-toes; I mean, free speech and all that.
Comment by Old Coot — 11/3/2010 @ 4:58 pm
-
ok but it’s very easy to manipulate down-ballot races with outside monies cause they only get a fraction of the votes the top-ticket races get – I didn’t even get to vote for judges cause I printed out Mr. patterico’s recommendations but I left them on my desk
I’m perfectly content for this to be a ymmv thing – I just think these tactics are sorta thuggy.
plus I think it should be noted in parallel but still in the same universe that the Team R candidates what were most anti-gay all lost lost lost – Ken “homosexuality is a disease like alcoholism” Buck… Christine “no actually it’s an identity disorder” O’Donnell… Sharon “don’t want your dirty gay money” Angle… and Carl “Hi I’m Carl Paladino” Paladino.
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 5:06 pm
-
happyfeet,
I infer from your posts on this subject the idea that opposition to gay marriage is a minority view. So therefore the races were “manipulated”. I think the result would have been the same if spending had been equal.
Calling this thuggish is nonsense. If they had personal attacks on the justices then thuggish might apply.
Comment by Gerald A — 11/3/2010 @ 5:25 pm
-
The constitution usurping judges shoulda raised more money and gotten more votes. Simple.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/3/2010 @ 5:35 pm
-
It’s not nonsense Mr. A not like jabberwocky nonsense or Steely Dan. Maybe I am not explaining myself good.
On the one hand the social cons want these issues to be left up to the states. Okey dokey. Then they want to send large amounts of monies to the smaller states to gank a few judges to make sure the judges in the other states fall in line if they know what’s good for them. I don’t think it’s nonsense to call that thuggish.
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 5:36 pm
-
The constitution usurping judges shoulda raised more money and gotten more votes. Simple.
indeed Mr. daley it is simplicity itself… but my concern is the idea that this campaign was aimed as much at other judges – judges who may have yet to hear a single gay marriage case at all – as it was aimed at our hapless cornhusker friends.
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 5:39 pm
-
“as it was aimed at our hapless cornhusker friends.”
Mr. Feets – Not to be picky, but the cornhuskers are the ones with the big “N” for Nowledge on their helmets in Nebraska.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/3/2010 @ 5:43 pm
-
happy
> indeed Mr. daley it is simplicity itself… but my concern is the idea that this campaign was aimed as much at other judges – judges who may have yet to hear a single gay marriage case at all – as it was aimed at our hapless cornhusker friends.
You say that like its a bad thing. The fact is that campaigning against someone and voting him or her out of office is not thuggery. its called democracy. So unless you think the people should just have no vote at all…
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 11/3/2010 @ 5:43 pm
-
oh. right.
um… hawkeyes?
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 5:43 pm
-
no if my alternative is no vote at all I should definitely prefer the votings
I got a sticker!
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 5:44 pm
-
The sad and sorry thing is that the Slaanesh-worshippers could have about 98% of what they say they want…if they backed down on the word marriage!
A lot of people are afraid, with good reason (there’s precedent for this sort of thing) that if “gay marriage” becomes legal, their churches will be forced to accomodate these ceremonies, even if the church/religion in question strongly opposes homosexuality, on the basis of “equal accomodations.”
Call it a “civil union,” OTOH, and make it something you pick up at the courthouse or city hall, and almost all opposition not based in mindless anti-gay feeling (which is much rarer than you might think; there’s reasons why Fred Phelps’ church is no bigger than it is) goes away. Unfortunately, the “gay community” is cursed with “leaders” who’re committed to pushing the envelope endlessly, heedless of the thought that this might, just might, provoke one almighty backlash.
Comment by Technomad — 11/3/2010 @ 5:58 pm
-
We tried to send a similar message to Rose Byrd and the other anti-death penalty judges out here in California a long time ago. How’d that work out for us?
Comment by gahrie — 11/3/2010 @ 6:01 pm
-
Yes, Hawkeyes.
I agree feets that the ideal American way is a “meet you at high noon with all of our cards on the table” (to mix metaphors). However, in few debates does it seem that the side that is ahead (logistically, tactically, or strategically) stops to give other views the opportunity to present their own case in its strongest terms. So when one group trying to outmaneuver the will of the people complains about being outsmarted by someone else, I see it as sour grapes and nothing more, certainly nothing of a principled moral highground.
In short, you stupid plebes are going to ruin our activism at this rate.- AW
I think that is a great summary of the judges’ comments. I’m sure King George and his advisors had similar feelings 200+ years ago.
While I am certain there are drawbacks about the retention approach, in some ways I think every elected official, at least on the fed level, be subject to at least one, say 1/4 to 1/2 through their term of office. I think it would cut down on the saying on thing at election time then doing something else, then trying to CYA at next election time.
I think representative democracy, like the law, works great when educated people of good character with similar resources come together to decide on a matter. Often we’re left wishing for any one of the three.
Comment by MD in Philly — 11/3/2010 @ 6:06 pm
-
“Odd, what could be more american than a ballot?”
- SPQR
The preservation of inalienable rights?
Comment by Leviticus — 11/3/2010 @ 6:11 pm
-
Changing the definition of words is an inalienable right.
Comment by JD — 11/3/2010 @ 6:20 pm
-
Is he in some parallel universe?
No, but as a card-carrying liberal, his reasoning capacities operate in a place with different physical laws…
Comment by IgotBupkis — 11/3/2010 @ 6:28 pm
-
Just as in CA when we kicked out CJ Rose Bird, and two of her “usual suspects”, every now and then, the electorate has to take a 2×4 to the head of the judicial class to get their attention (the Real Missouri system).
Well Done, IA!
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 11/3/2010 @ 6:31 pm
-
I’m not a liberal at all I’m a staunch conservative my favorite part is cutting the spendings
what’s your favorite part?
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 6:35 pm
-
groups that wanted the justices ousted poured more than $650,000 into their effort, with heavy support from out-of-state conservative and religious groups. Campaigns that supported the justices and the current state court system spent more than $200,000.
Although Iowa is probably a fairly inexpensive state to spend money on in this manner, this kind of outlay is positively nada, bupkis, the big zero. If that was all it took to push the ledger the other way on this issue, then one could make a case that the electorate was none too thrilled with the judges usurping their input in the first place, and were itching to make their feelings known. I can’t imagine that an expenditure of this size made that much of a difference – this is still Iowa we’re talking about, despite Mr. GI Joe combat flier (aka war hero/liar) Senator Harkin.
Comment by Dmac — 11/3/2010 @ 6:47 pm
-
All right, pikachu tell me five programs you’d cut or outright zero out.
Comment by ian cormac — 11/3/2010 @ 6:49 pm
-
I’m not a liberal at all I’m a staunch conservative my favorite part is cutting the spendings
what’s your favorite part?
Then get ready to fall in love with Jim Demint – that guy’s already telling the MSM what he’s going to do to the budget ASAP. And if teh One doesn’t like it, here comes the shutdown of DC – and this time, no one among the populace will give a damn.
Comment by Dmac — 11/3/2010 @ 6:50 pm
-
$650,000 is a lotta corn… but Mr. Dmac I see what you’re saying – so what then is the threshhold of unseemlyness?
Cutting spending!
1.) The Post Office. Get rid of it. All they do is bring me Ralph’s fliers and I have to keep checking it in case they send a jury summons. How annoying is that? That’s cool about the 1.99 tri-tip though – we didn’t have tri-tips in texas.
2.) Obamacare. Get rid of it. It’s way gayer than gay marriage.
3.) Federal employees. They can’t unionize plus all their pay gets cut 10% across the board I don’t care who you are. And that’s just a start we’ll be back later to cut more so don’t go buying a new car, loser.
4.) Monies for the regulation of ephedra. Stop it. Ephedra is now legal and Meghan’s pitiful sad useless daddy will just have to deal with it.
5.) The Angeles National Forest. Cut that bitch down. happy wants a sweet 2-bedroom condo for $160,000 and we’re gonna need lots of room to grow for that to happen.
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 6:59 pm
-
*threshold*
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 7:05 pm
-
but Mr. Dmac I see what you’re saying – so what then is the threshhold of unseemlyness?
I honestly don’t know, but I’ve seen that amount spent on the silly little Aldermanic races here in my hood. So it can’t be that much, I don’t think.
Comment by Dmac — 11/3/2010 @ 7:06 pm
-
Ephedra, feets? I took that stuff way back when it was only found in granola health food stores in the late 80s. After a few doses in which my heart almost exploded, I threw the bottle away.
Comment by Dmac — 11/3/2010 @ 7:07 pm
-
we have to know how much a 30 second ad costs in Des Moines and a few other markets like the Cedar Rapids … here are the people for that… I can’t think how else to find out except for calling stations
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 7:09 pm
-
I think ephedra is real different from person to person … for me it was … days with were better than days without
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 7:10 pm
-
Are you sure you threw it away?
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 7:11 pm
-
The next time the justices issue an equal protection decision, maybe they should REALLY define equal protection by the standards of the current generation. (Varnum v. Brien)
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 11/3/2010 @ 7:17 pm
-
can we just get it out of the way that instead of gay marriage it should be called bisexual marriage cause Rupert Everett banged a chick once for reals and he liked it and also [insert Plato quote here]
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 7:31 pm
-
This thread is funny. BTW, did you know Ricky Martin is homosexual?
Comment by JD — 11/3/2010 @ 7:37 pm
-
plus he’s a dad I think … I don’t know how many kids he has exactly
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 7:41 pm
-
Ricky Martin and Anne Heche and Rupert throw a wrench in the genetic inalienable immutable argument.
Comment by JD — 11/3/2010 @ 7:44 pm
-
excuse me but I heard Ricky Martin was here throwing wrenches
Comment by tom cruise — 11/3/2010 @ 7:47 pm
-
ok but it’s very easy to manipulate down-ballot races with outside monies
You know, one thing I note about liberals — they are allllll in favor of replacing the nation’s Consitutionally intended Republicanism with complete warm-body Democracy… they want EVERYONE to have a vote, no matter how incompetent, evil, “foreign” (They think Europeans and people in Beijing ought to have a say) or otherwise and generally unlikely-to-properly-exercise-the-right-of-franchise said voter may be.
Yet anytime they get the chance, they actually demonstrate how little faith they have in said voter to be anything but a totally incompetent, first-rate idiot in their exercise of franchise.
In this case, to wit, apparently the voters are utterly at the whim of monies spent to sway their votes. They can’t be trusted to really, really vote for themselves, after all — they’ll always vote for whoever spends the most money.
That’s complete BS, of course — the Dems, for example, spent FAR MORE money this term than the GOP.
Comment by IgotBupkis — 11/3/2010 @ 8:03 pm
-
IgotBupkis, I don’t know about the overall numbers, but there is wide variance from race to race – Meg Whitman spent 5x as much as Jerry Brown did, for example.
Comment by aphrael — 11/3/2010 @ 8:07 pm
-
but my concern is the idea that this campaign was aimed as much at other judges – judges who may have yet to hear a single gay marriage case at all – as it was aimed at our hapless cornhusker friends.
Indeed. This is all part and parcel of a representative democracy. We elect representatives to resist the whimsical nature of voters, but when enough voters express themselves in this manner, it makes it clear it’s not a mere whim, and that they must then actually make a moral choice between remaining in office vs. doing what they believe should be done for as long as they can, so that the voters have time to re-think their position which they, the representative, believe is so clearly wrong.
And yes, judges, in this sense, are “representatives” — esp. when they are attempting to rule on interpretation of the law.
They are acting as representatives of the will of the people — not their own beliefs, but the belief of The People as to what is Right and what is Wrong. When they ignore clear signals as to the will of the people, then they ought to be choosing to lose their position as a result. This forces them to reconsider their own determination that they, not the people, are Right.
Comment by IgotBupkis — 11/3/2010 @ 8:16 pm
-
____________________________________
can we just get it out of the way that instead of gay marriage it should be called bisexual marriage cause Rupert Everett banged a chick once for reals and he liked it and also [insert Plato quote here]
Hey, happyfeet, I post the following in honor of you or anyone else who takes opposition to same-sex marriage as though it’s almost a personal slap in the face. Who believe such a stance is similar to, say, assuming a guy who’s 5’2″ automatically should or shouldn’t be able to play in the NBA.
[Famed British actor] Rupert Everett, whose autobiography will be released next month, admitted to an `on-off affair’ with Bob Geldof’s late wife Paula Yates.
The gay British actor Everett, 47, said he had a sexual relationship with Yates while he was married to Geldof.
He has also admitted to sexual encounters with actresses Susan Sarandon and Beatrice Dalle:
“I am mystified by my heterosexual affairs – but then I am mystified by most of my relationships.
(I won’t say anything about Marlon Brando who was both a notorious womanizer and fan of same-sex activity with actors like Wally Cox — which Brando publicly admitted to in the late 1960s, no less — and even fell in love with the guy.) IOW, AC/DC.
Comment by Mark — 11/3/2010 @ 8:30 pm
-
Soooo it’s not OK for “big government” to interfere with local governance but it IS ok for some non-local group with a bunch of money and an ideological axe to grind to interfere with local governance.
Does this mean that people on this blog are going to stop whining about George Soros and liberal rich dude whomever who are using their riches to fund groups that interfere with local decisions? Coz that’s perfectly OK right?
Comment by EdWood — 11/3/2010 @ 8:32 pm
-
“Monies for the regulation of ephedra.”
I used to have to con pharmacists into believing I had asthma so I could buy that back in the 1970s as a substitute for speed so I could drink more. They didn’t put it on the counters and you had to ask them to sell it to you.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/3/2010 @ 8:34 pm
-
EdWood – Answer your own straw man question.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/3/2010 @ 8:36 pm
-
Why does Ed like to construct strawpeople?
Comment by JD — 11/3/2010 @ 8:38 pm
-
I don’t understand why when Iowa put in the equal protection clause and there were anti-sodomy laws on the books how these judges came up with the thought that the equal protection clause would allow SSM. If the Iowa equal protection clause allowed SSM, why weren’t the anti-sodomy laws immediately over turned?
The money spent to told the voters what the judges did. As long as it wasn’t a lie, shouldn’t the voters make their own decision on how to vote? Or are the voters to stupid to make their own decision and need an elite class of people to rule over them and vote for them?
Please answer my first question.
Comment by Tanny O'Haley — 11/3/2010 @ 8:54 pm
-
Was that a straw man Daleyrocks? I’ll try again.
So what AW is saying is that it is OK for a non-local organization/individual etc. to use their money to influence local governance.
If that is so, then principled persons commenting here have no problem with organizations/individuals they don’t agree with doing the same thing.
Comment by EdWood — 11/3/2010 @ 10:25 pm
-
#57 Yeah it would seem to me that the best way out of the whole SSM thing would be for the state to only issue “civil union” contracts to homo or hetero couples giving them all the same rights and privileges. Then “marriages” would be strictly between the couples, their church, and their God.
I see your point about people, even outsiders funding “education” about some judge or politician’s record, seems reasonable enough.
Do you think that the people being “educated” should have the right to know who is putting up the money to fund their “education” and exactly what state or city the organization/individual putting up the money is from (the actual people/organization fronting the money, not the location of the post office box or empty building that is the “headquarters” for some dummy organization)? I do. That way locals can also decide for themselves whether or not they are being educated or just manipulated by outsiders who are shoving their noses and cash into a local issue that is none of their business.
Comment by EdWood — 11/3/2010 @ 10:41 pm
-
ephedra is regulated because it can be used as a precursor for the manufacture of methamphetamine…
IOW, you’re not going to see its regulation end any time soon.
Comment by redc1c4 — 11/3/2010 @ 11:58 pm
-
IgotBupkis, I don’t know about the overall numbers, but there is wide variance from race to race – Meg Whitman spent 5x as much as Jerry Brown did, for example.
I’d like to see you cite where that figure came from… The LA Times, perhaps?
As you ought to know from prior entries here at Patterico there are one hell of a lot of whoppers floating around in regards to this whole deal.
And I’ll particularly point you to this one:
L.A. Times Headlines Perpetrate Outrageous Distortion of Campaign Finance Figures in California Gubernatorial Election
I look forward to your sputtered denials of the real truth enhanced clarification of my understanding of the reliable sources fro whence your statistic came from…
Comment by IgotBupkis — 11/4/2010 @ 5:29 am
-
excuse me but I heard Ricky Martin was here throwing wrenches
A mistake in hearing or speaking…
He was in here looking to throw wenches, now that they’ve outlawed dwarf tossing and all…
Comment by IgotBupkis — 11/4/2010 @ 5:33 am
-
Shorter Iowa Supreme Court: “we’re smarter than you Iowans and the people who wrote the constitution, so we are going to do our own thing!” It’s good to see politics removed from the issue.
I love how this post as to resort to the use of “in other words” several times. It allows AW to insert words into the judges’ mouths. AW can’t take on their arguments legally, so he gets out the “judicial activism” stamp and assumes that the judges actually believed that their decisions were against the Constitution. Strawman much?
It’s kind of embarrassing when a lawyer invokes the phrase “judicial activism” simply because he doesn’t like the outcome of a case. Laymen can be excused; they’re not expected to know better. But trained lawyers ought to be able to understand the legal arguments, even of those they disagree with, and not simply assume that the outcome was the result of judges’ “activist agenda”.
That said, isn’t it just possible — possible — that judges actually DO more about equal protection than, say, the typical Iowa voter?
Comment by Kman — 11/4/2010 @ 6:48 am
-
Why is it that the leftists trot out that it is not judicial activism when it so obviously is? Makes the rest of your temper tantrum seem disingenuous, when you lead with a falsehood, kmart.
Comment by JD — 11/4/2010 @ 7:05 am
-
KMan, the judge’s own words in their “official statement” make clear AW’s condensed version. Whether or not the legal arguments in the case were brilliant and forceful, it seems clear that their statement after losing in the election is saying, “You folks made a mistake by not retaining us, hopefully you’ll be smart enough not to make the same mistake again.”
Comment by MD in Philly — 11/4/2010 @ 8:26 am
-
kman
When you say that the meaning of EP has changed all on its own, you are basically admitting to judicial activism.
> But trained lawyers ought to be able to understand the legal arguments
Except it is not really a legal argument, so much as lawless policy making only thinly disguised as law.
> That said, isn’t it just possible — possible — that judges actually DO more about equal protection than, say, the typical Iowa voter?
and, according to the iowa supreme court, more than the framers of the constitution itself.
If you want to argue that they are more enlightened than both the people and the framers of the constitution, well, knock yourself out. but that does not allow them to amend the constitution all on their own. But they are not even pretending to follow the constitution as written. This isn’t the result of greater expertise, but a conviction that both the people and the framers of the constitution were too backwards to be obeyed.
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 11/4/2010 @ 8:28 am
-
…but that does not allow them to amend the constitution all on their own. But they are not even pretending to follow the constitution as written.
We don’t know what the framers of the constitution would have thought about many of our modern day issues. We only know the principles that they lay down.
So when judges say that the first amendment’s protection of “free speech” applies to corporations giving political donations — even though the framers of the first amendment don’t SAY that — we understand that the judges are applying an expansive view of the PRINCIPLES of what the framers wrote. You don’t have a problem with that, but that’s only because you like the outcome.
The same goes for equal protection in the 14th amendment. But, being a hack, you call that “judicial activism”.
Really, it’s beneath someone trained in law.
Comment by Kman — 11/4/2010 @ 9:12 am
-
This condescending superior than thou affectation by kmart is soooooooooooooooooooooooo cute.
Comment by JD — 11/4/2010 @ 9:30 am
-
Why is the Iowa Court’s decision merely a ‘local or state’ issue?
Doesn’t the ‘Full Faith and Credit’ clause make this a legitimate National issue?
In the event the ‘married in Iowa’ same gender folks move to another state won’t they expect their ‘marriage’ to be legally enforceable?
Comment by Old Bob — 11/4/2010 @ 9:54 am
-
This just in: kmart is a law expert and knows more than all of you, including the poor, benighted host. Need proof? Just listen, he’ll tell you all about it. His beclowning continues apace.
Comment by Dmac — 11/4/2010 @ 10:01 am
-
Kman: The First Amendment says only “Freedom of speech and of the Press”. It doesn’t “SAY anything” about broadcast radio, broadcast television, cable television, telephones, or the Internet.
Therefore it would be perfectly Constitutional to make it criminal to emit any statement whatever about any officeholder or candidate for office by these mediums without the explict previous approval of a “Fair Election Commission” appointed by the President. Right?
Citizens United struck down a law made by Congress clearly “abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”. A more precise application of the 1st Amendment is hard to conceive.
Varnum v. Brien (the SCoI) decision which got those Justices dumped cited the very general term “equal protection” to require that a fundamental social institution be radically changed in a manner completely without precedent in human history.
There is a fairly simple 3-part test for judicial activism. A ruling is JA if:
1) the ruling imposes or requires a drastic change in law or policy, overriding the expressed intent of the legislature or the people, or usurping the authority of the legislature.
2) the ruling has no clear basis in or may even be contradicted by the explicit Constitutional or statutory language cited.
3) the ruling reflects the personal preference of the judge or judges who issued it.
Varnum passes all three parts.
Citizens may pass only the third. It cannot be said to impose a radical change in law, since the language struck down was novel and had not yet been enforced.
Comment by Rich Rostrom — 11/4/2010 @ 10:22 am
-
Old Bob
Why is the Iowa Court’s decision merely a ‘local or state’ issue?
Doesn’t the ‘Full Faith and Credit’ clause make this a legitimate National issue?
In the event the ‘married in Iowa’ same gender folks move to another state won’t they expect their ‘marriage’ to be legally enforceable?
I agree with your concern and that was the reason for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), to protect states who don’t recognize SSM. Unfortunately DOMA was just recently declared unconstitutional which I believe makes the “Full Faith and Credit” clause a problem for states that don’t recognize SSM. All states will have to recognize SSM if DOMA is not held as constitutional.
For you legal scholars out there who believe in SSM (or don’t), can you reconcile the decision of the Iowa supreme court saying that the equal protection clause of the Iowa state constitution supports SSM when there were anti-sodomy laws in Iowa at the time EP was put in the Iowa state constitution?
If the Iowa equal protection clause created a “right” to SSM, why weren’t the anti-sodomy laws immediately made null and void?
I’ve asked this question on other posts and have yet to get an answer. Anyone???
Comment by Tanny O'Haley — 11/4/2010 @ 10:35 am
-
There is a fairly simple 3-part test for judicial activism. A ruling is JA if:
1) the ruling imposes or requires a drastic change in law or policy, overriding the expressed intent of the legislature or the people, or usurping the authority of the legislature.
2) the ruling has no clear basis in or may even be contradicted by the explicit Constitutional or statutory language cited.
3) the ruling reflects the personal preference of the judge or judges who issued it.
There’s nothing “simple” about that test, since it is mostly subjective:
(1) What counts as a “drastic” change? Who decides that? And given that most bills come about as the result of compromise, how can one define “the expressed intent of the legislature” on statutes? What is the “expressed intent of the people” (note we just had an election and you can’t find two “experts” who agree on what the people were “saying”)
(2) I have yet to see a ruling, even one that I strongly disagree with it that has absolute NO — zero, zip, nada — basis in explicit Constitutional or statutory language. Judges write opinions — you can read their “basis” within those opinions. You may not agree with the basis of their opinions, but to say that the basis doesn’t exist at all? That’s either hackery or stupidity.
(3) And how do you show the “personal preference” of the judge or judges who issue opinions you don’t like? Who among us is psychic?
Sorry, friend. “Judicial activism” — whether used on the right or the left — is just subtle code for “I don’t like this outcome and I couldn’t care less about (or don’t understand) the rationale for it”
Comment by Kman — 11/4/2010 @ 10:44 am
-
kman, can you answer any of my questions in comment 72?
Comment by Tanny O'Haley — 11/4/2010 @ 10:49 am
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
bench craft company
Tonino Lamborghini Spyder Series Luxury Mobile Phones | iTech <b>News</b> <b>...</b>
Following CULV notebooks, Tonino Lamborghini releases in Hong Kong its Spyder line of luxury mobile phones. There are six models, S-600, S-610, S-620,
For Fox <b>News</b>, Most Viewers Ever for a Midterm Election - NYTimes.com
Fox News, a favorite of Republicans, averaged 6.96 million viewers in prime time on Tuesday, according to ratings results from the Nielsen Company. Fox more than doubled CNN's numbers, which averaged 2.42 million viewers, and more than ...
<b>News</b> - Blake Lively, Leonardo DiCaprio Go Out for Dinner - Movies <b>...</b>
Home | News | Style & Beauty | Moms & Babies | Movies, TV & Music | Healthy Lifestyle | Celebrities � Photos | Video. Subscribe: Magazine | Newsletter | RSS � Subscriber Services | Media Kit | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use ...
bench craft company
bench craft company
bench craft company
Tonino Lamborghini Spyder Series Luxury Mobile Phones | iTech <b>News</b> <b>...</b>
Following CULV notebooks, Tonino Lamborghini releases in Hong Kong its Spyder line of luxury mobile phones. There are six models, S-600, S-610, S-620,
For Fox <b>News</b>, Most Viewers Ever for a Midterm Election - NYTimes.com
Fox News, a favorite of Republicans, averaged 6.96 million viewers in prime time on Tuesday, according to ratings results from the Nielsen Company. Fox more than doubled CNN's numbers, which averaged 2.42 million viewers, and more than ...
<b>News</b> - Blake Lively, Leonardo DiCaprio Go Out for Dinner - Movies <b>...</b>
Home | News | Style & Beauty | Moms & Babies | Movies, TV & Music | Healthy Lifestyle | Celebrities � Photos | Video. Subscribe: Magazine | Newsletter | RSS � Subscriber Services | Media Kit | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use ...
bench craft company
Even after last year's service cuts and a 17 percent fare increase on 30-day MetroCards, the nation's largest mass transit system is still imperiled by chronic budget problems. A $500 million deficit is project for next year and in four years deficits will grow to $1.5 billion.
It's every-day New Yorkers that usually bear the burden of these budget gaps. Naturally, voters want to know: which candidate for governor will finally bring the MTA's finances under control?
Unfortunately, all they've heard from the Democratic and Republican candidates is outdated rhetoric. Cuomo has said he would roll back the mobility tax, a source of $1.5 billion in annual transit revenue, while Paladino has pledged to "take apart" the transit authority "piece by piece." But does anyone have a plan to put the MTA back together again?
Both Cuomo and Paladino have made reform of Albany the central message of their campaigns. When it comes to transit, Albany certainly needs reform, but it shouldn't come via baseball bat. And threatening to end the mobility tax tells voters that racking up political points matters more than making the tough choices necessary to save mass transit.
The last thing New York needs is a continuation of the policies that have led to the MTA's grim situation: starving the transit system of vital revenue and then blaming MTA executives and MTA employees for service cuts. The fact is, the governor and state legislature are most responsible for the MTA's finances.
Recently the state legislature has gone so far as to take $160 million in dedicated revenue from transit, a decision that led to last year's service cuts. For the sake of New York's economy, and for the 2.3 million New Yorkers that rely on mass transit every day to get to work, Albany's neglect of mass transit must end.
Real reform means making smart investments in the transit system that will drive economic growth, create good jobs, boost the state's competitiveness, and save taxpayers money in the long-term. Albany's mismanagement of MTA finances has saddled the authority with a $31 billion debt burden. This excessive borrowing comes at a cost. This year the MTA will pay $1.8 billion just for past borrowing, and this figure will grow to $2.7 billion a year by 2017.
Earlier this month, the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy and Transportation Alternatives released a five-step plan to help the next governor put the MTA on sound financial footing. One recommended step in the plan is fully embracing congestion pricing or bridge tolls to fund mass transit. After all, drivers greatly benefit from the congestion reduction that transit provides. Without transit, there would be 8.5 million more car trips on the region's roads every day.
Another recommended step for the next governor is to partner with New York's congressional delegation to secure more federal funding for transit. Transit is a top priority for the Obama administration and an important new transportation bill will be introduced next year. After vigorous campaigning by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles will receive a $540 million federal loan for transit. The next governor of New York should make a case in Washington for more federal funds for state transit projects. After all, the New York City metro region produces $1.2 trillion in economic activity every year. But there is no indication yet that the candidates would expend as much energy on transit as other national leaders.
Instead, there is a knee-jerk fixation on cost-cutting to solve the MTA's budget mess. It won't work. MTA chief Jay Walder has already found $700 million in annual savings through cost-cutting and other efficiencies and has plans to find more. But no amount of cost cutting will fill the $9 billion hole in the MTA's capital budget, or pay down the $31 billion in debt.
There will be no easy answers. But one thing is clear: The state's greatest revenue generator, New York City, depends on transit. And communities upstate will look for new transit options as gasoline gets more expensive. Other cities across the globe are ambitiously building transit systems with the intent of supplanting New York's dominance. The next governor cannot create a competitive twenty-first century transit system via cuts and quick fixes. Reinvestment is crucial.
John Petro is an urban policy analyst at the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. Noah Budnick is deputy director at Transportation Alternatives.
74 Comments
»
-
When national special interest groups flood huge sums of money into a tiny state for the express purpose of defeating judges so that judges elsewhere will be intimidated… it’s sorta not very America I think.
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 4:33 pm
-
it’s an if the shoe were on the other foot thing I think
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 4:37 pm
-
Legislating from the bench is not very America I sorta think.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/3/2010 @ 4:37 pm
-
your offended sensibilities would carry more gravitas if they weren’t so selective in what they are sensitive to, feet.
Comment by redc1c4 — 11/3/2010 @ 4:38 pm
-
hah.
I don’t do gravitas Mr. red, and I agree Mr. daley, legislating from the bench is not very America. But I don’t like these tactics what they used and honestly I think it’s disappointing how I was assured the midterms were about the spendings spendings spendings and I wake up this morning to find out it was an awesome validation of the Sacred Definition praise Jesus hallelujah.
Made me downright grumpy it did.
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 4:42 pm
-
Were huge sums of money flooding into Iowa for those retention questions? Is he defining special interest groups as anyone who thinks gay marriage is wrong? Is he in some parallel universe?
Comment by Gerald A — 11/3/2010 @ 4:43 pm
-
The phrase “special interest groups” is pathognomonic. Every political group is a special
interest group. But the left tends to use the phrase disparagingly. The SEIU, the NAACP,
the Brady bunch are simply concerned citizens exercising their political rights.
Corporations, anti-SSM groups, the NRA … “special interest groups.”Sorry, the midterms proved that halloween is over, and people are not frightened by
old catch-phrases anymore. Except maybe in California.
Comment by great unknown — 11/3/2010 @ 4:44 pm
-
I’m not in a … jeez how could I be typing the comments if I was in a different universe silly
brb
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 4:44 pm
-
You’re physically in this one.
Comment by Gerald A — 11/3/2010 @ 4:47 pm
-
Groups that wanted the justices ousted poured more than $650,000 into their effort, with heavy support from out-of-state conservative and religious groups. Campaigns that supported the justices and the current state court system spent more than $200,000.
The retention challenge triggered a battle never seen in Iowa’s judicial history. Television, radio and Internet ads portrayed the justices as both activists and referees. Robo-calls urged a “no” vote. U.S. Rep. Steve King embarked on a statewide bus tour to rally “no” voters.
The decision is expected to echo to courts throughout the country, as conservative activists had hoped.*
I kinda rearranged that so you could see what I mean about how the tactics are not very America
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 4:48 pm
-
Odd, what could be more american than a ballot?
Comment by SPQR — 11/3/2010 @ 4:55 pm
-
a form of jury nullification on a minor scale
Comment by great unknown — 11/3/2010 @ 4:56 pm
-
I kinda rearranged that so you could see what I mean about how the tactics are not very America
Sounds like a standard political campaign to me. Running ads etc. is not very America?
Comment by Gerald A — 11/3/2010 @ 4:56 pm
-
happy
right, we should take their usurpations without a complaint.
I am sorry, but isn’t this EXACTLY what a retention election is SUPPOSED to do? it gives the people a chance to put a check on their power.
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 11/3/2010 @ 4:57 pm
-
Sounds perfectly American to me, twinkle-toes; I mean, free speech and all that.
Comment by Old Coot — 11/3/2010 @ 4:58 pm
-
ok but it’s very easy to manipulate down-ballot races with outside monies cause they only get a fraction of the votes the top-ticket races get – I didn’t even get to vote for judges cause I printed out Mr. patterico’s recommendations but I left them on my desk
I’m perfectly content for this to be a ymmv thing – I just think these tactics are sorta thuggy.
plus I think it should be noted in parallel but still in the same universe that the Team R candidates what were most anti-gay all lost lost lost – Ken “homosexuality is a disease like alcoholism” Buck… Christine “no actually it’s an identity disorder” O’Donnell… Sharon “don’t want your dirty gay money” Angle… and Carl “Hi I’m Carl Paladino” Paladino.
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 5:06 pm
-
happyfeet,
I infer from your posts on this subject the idea that opposition to gay marriage is a minority view. So therefore the races were “manipulated”. I think the result would have been the same if spending had been equal.
Calling this thuggish is nonsense. If they had personal attacks on the justices then thuggish might apply.
Comment by Gerald A — 11/3/2010 @ 5:25 pm
-
The constitution usurping judges shoulda raised more money and gotten more votes. Simple.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/3/2010 @ 5:35 pm
-
It’s not nonsense Mr. A not like jabberwocky nonsense or Steely Dan. Maybe I am not explaining myself good.
On the one hand the social cons want these issues to be left up to the states. Okey dokey. Then they want to send large amounts of monies to the smaller states to gank a few judges to make sure the judges in the other states fall in line if they know what’s good for them. I don’t think it’s nonsense to call that thuggish.
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 5:36 pm
-
The constitution usurping judges shoulda raised more money and gotten more votes. Simple.
indeed Mr. daley it is simplicity itself… but my concern is the idea that this campaign was aimed as much at other judges – judges who may have yet to hear a single gay marriage case at all – as it was aimed at our hapless cornhusker friends.
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 5:39 pm
-
“as it was aimed at our hapless cornhusker friends.”
Mr. Feets – Not to be picky, but the cornhuskers are the ones with the big “N” for Nowledge on their helmets in Nebraska.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/3/2010 @ 5:43 pm
-
happy
> indeed Mr. daley it is simplicity itself… but my concern is the idea that this campaign was aimed as much at other judges – judges who may have yet to hear a single gay marriage case at all – as it was aimed at our hapless cornhusker friends.
You say that like its a bad thing. The fact is that campaigning against someone and voting him or her out of office is not thuggery. its called democracy. So unless you think the people should just have no vote at all…
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 11/3/2010 @ 5:43 pm
-
oh. right.
um… hawkeyes?
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 5:43 pm
-
no if my alternative is no vote at all I should definitely prefer the votings
I got a sticker!
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 5:44 pm
-
The sad and sorry thing is that the Slaanesh-worshippers could have about 98% of what they say they want…if they backed down on the word marriage!
A lot of people are afraid, with good reason (there’s precedent for this sort of thing) that if “gay marriage” becomes legal, their churches will be forced to accomodate these ceremonies, even if the church/religion in question strongly opposes homosexuality, on the basis of “equal accomodations.”
Call it a “civil union,” OTOH, and make it something you pick up at the courthouse or city hall, and almost all opposition not based in mindless anti-gay feeling (which is much rarer than you might think; there’s reasons why Fred Phelps’ church is no bigger than it is) goes away. Unfortunately, the “gay community” is cursed with “leaders” who’re committed to pushing the envelope endlessly, heedless of the thought that this might, just might, provoke one almighty backlash.
Comment by Technomad — 11/3/2010 @ 5:58 pm
-
We tried to send a similar message to Rose Byrd and the other anti-death penalty judges out here in California a long time ago. How’d that work out for us?
Comment by gahrie — 11/3/2010 @ 6:01 pm
-
Yes, Hawkeyes.
I agree feets that the ideal American way is a “meet you at high noon with all of our cards on the table” (to mix metaphors). However, in few debates does it seem that the side that is ahead (logistically, tactically, or strategically) stops to give other views the opportunity to present their own case in its strongest terms. So when one group trying to outmaneuver the will of the people complains about being outsmarted by someone else, I see it as sour grapes and nothing more, certainly nothing of a principled moral highground.
In short, you stupid plebes are going to ruin our activism at this rate.- AW
I think that is a great summary of the judges’ comments. I’m sure King George and his advisors had similar feelings 200+ years ago.
While I am certain there are drawbacks about the retention approach, in some ways I think every elected official, at least on the fed level, be subject to at least one, say 1/4 to 1/2 through their term of office. I think it would cut down on the saying on thing at election time then doing something else, then trying to CYA at next election time.
I think representative democracy, like the law, works great when educated people of good character with similar resources come together to decide on a matter. Often we’re left wishing for any one of the three.
Comment by MD in Philly — 11/3/2010 @ 6:06 pm
-
“Odd, what could be more american than a ballot?”
- SPQR
The preservation of inalienable rights?
Comment by Leviticus — 11/3/2010 @ 6:11 pm
-
Changing the definition of words is an inalienable right.
Comment by JD — 11/3/2010 @ 6:20 pm
-
Is he in some parallel universe?
No, but as a card-carrying liberal, his reasoning capacities operate in a place with different physical laws…
Comment by IgotBupkis — 11/3/2010 @ 6:28 pm
-
Just as in CA when we kicked out CJ Rose Bird, and two of her “usual suspects”, every now and then, the electorate has to take a 2×4 to the head of the judicial class to get their attention (the Real Missouri system).
Well Done, IA!
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 11/3/2010 @ 6:31 pm
-
I’m not a liberal at all I’m a staunch conservative my favorite part is cutting the spendings
what’s your favorite part?
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 6:35 pm
-
groups that wanted the justices ousted poured more than $650,000 into their effort, with heavy support from out-of-state conservative and religious groups. Campaigns that supported the justices and the current state court system spent more than $200,000.
Although Iowa is probably a fairly inexpensive state to spend money on in this manner, this kind of outlay is positively nada, bupkis, the big zero. If that was all it took to push the ledger the other way on this issue, then one could make a case that the electorate was none too thrilled with the judges usurping their input in the first place, and were itching to make their feelings known. I can’t imagine that an expenditure of this size made that much of a difference – this is still Iowa we’re talking about, despite Mr. GI Joe combat flier (aka war hero/liar) Senator Harkin.
Comment by Dmac — 11/3/2010 @ 6:47 pm
-
All right, pikachu tell me five programs you’d cut or outright zero out.
Comment by ian cormac — 11/3/2010 @ 6:49 pm
-
I’m not a liberal at all I’m a staunch conservative my favorite part is cutting the spendings
what’s your favorite part?
Then get ready to fall in love with Jim Demint – that guy’s already telling the MSM what he’s going to do to the budget ASAP. And if teh One doesn’t like it, here comes the shutdown of DC – and this time, no one among the populace will give a damn.
Comment by Dmac — 11/3/2010 @ 6:50 pm
-
$650,000 is a lotta corn… but Mr. Dmac I see what you’re saying – so what then is the threshhold of unseemlyness?
Cutting spending!
1.) The Post Office. Get rid of it. All they do is bring me Ralph’s fliers and I have to keep checking it in case they send a jury summons. How annoying is that? That’s cool about the 1.99 tri-tip though – we didn’t have tri-tips in texas.
2.) Obamacare. Get rid of it. It’s way gayer than gay marriage.
3.) Federal employees. They can’t unionize plus all their pay gets cut 10% across the board I don’t care who you are. And that’s just a start we’ll be back later to cut more so don’t go buying a new car, loser.
4.) Monies for the regulation of ephedra. Stop it. Ephedra is now legal and Meghan’s pitiful sad useless daddy will just have to deal with it.
5.) The Angeles National Forest. Cut that bitch down. happy wants a sweet 2-bedroom condo for $160,000 and we’re gonna need lots of room to grow for that to happen.
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 6:59 pm
-
*threshold*
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 7:05 pm
-
but Mr. Dmac I see what you’re saying – so what then is the threshhold of unseemlyness?
I honestly don’t know, but I’ve seen that amount spent on the silly little Aldermanic races here in my hood. So it can’t be that much, I don’t think.
Comment by Dmac — 11/3/2010 @ 7:06 pm
-
Ephedra, feets? I took that stuff way back when it was only found in granola health food stores in the late 80s. After a few doses in which my heart almost exploded, I threw the bottle away.
Comment by Dmac — 11/3/2010 @ 7:07 pm
-
we have to know how much a 30 second ad costs in Des Moines and a few other markets like the Cedar Rapids … here are the people for that… I can’t think how else to find out except for calling stations
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 7:09 pm
-
I think ephedra is real different from person to person … for me it was … days with were better than days without
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 7:10 pm
-
Are you sure you threw it away?
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 7:11 pm
-
The next time the justices issue an equal protection decision, maybe they should REALLY define equal protection by the standards of the current generation. (Varnum v. Brien)
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 11/3/2010 @ 7:17 pm
-
can we just get it out of the way that instead of gay marriage it should be called bisexual marriage cause Rupert Everett banged a chick once for reals and he liked it and also [insert Plato quote here]
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 7:31 pm
-
This thread is funny. BTW, did you know Ricky Martin is homosexual?
Comment by JD — 11/3/2010 @ 7:37 pm
-
plus he’s a dad I think … I don’t know how many kids he has exactly
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 7:41 pm
-
Ricky Martin and Anne Heche and Rupert throw a wrench in the genetic inalienable immutable argument.
Comment by JD — 11/3/2010 @ 7:44 pm
-
excuse me but I heard Ricky Martin was here throwing wrenches
Comment by tom cruise — 11/3/2010 @ 7:47 pm
-
ok but it’s very easy to manipulate down-ballot races with outside monies
You know, one thing I note about liberals — they are allllll in favor of replacing the nation’s Consitutionally intended Republicanism with complete warm-body Democracy… they want EVERYONE to have a vote, no matter how incompetent, evil, “foreign” (They think Europeans and people in Beijing ought to have a say) or otherwise and generally unlikely-to-properly-exercise-the-right-of-franchise said voter may be.
Yet anytime they get the chance, they actually demonstrate how little faith they have in said voter to be anything but a totally incompetent, first-rate idiot in their exercise of franchise.
In this case, to wit, apparently the voters are utterly at the whim of monies spent to sway their votes. They can’t be trusted to really, really vote for themselves, after all — they’ll always vote for whoever spends the most money.
That’s complete BS, of course — the Dems, for example, spent FAR MORE money this term than the GOP.
Comment by IgotBupkis — 11/3/2010 @ 8:03 pm
-
IgotBupkis, I don’t know about the overall numbers, but there is wide variance from race to race – Meg Whitman spent 5x as much as Jerry Brown did, for example.
Comment by aphrael — 11/3/2010 @ 8:07 pm
-
but my concern is the idea that this campaign was aimed as much at other judges – judges who may have yet to hear a single gay marriage case at all – as it was aimed at our hapless cornhusker friends.
Indeed. This is all part and parcel of a representative democracy. We elect representatives to resist the whimsical nature of voters, but when enough voters express themselves in this manner, it makes it clear it’s not a mere whim, and that they must then actually make a moral choice between remaining in office vs. doing what they believe should be done for as long as they can, so that the voters have time to re-think their position which they, the representative, believe is so clearly wrong.
And yes, judges, in this sense, are “representatives” — esp. when they are attempting to rule on interpretation of the law.
They are acting as representatives of the will of the people — not their own beliefs, but the belief of The People as to what is Right and what is Wrong. When they ignore clear signals as to the will of the people, then they ought to be choosing to lose their position as a result. This forces them to reconsider their own determination that they, not the people, are Right.
Comment by IgotBupkis — 11/3/2010 @ 8:16 pm
-
____________________________________
can we just get it out of the way that instead of gay marriage it should be called bisexual marriage cause Rupert Everett banged a chick once for reals and he liked it and also [insert Plato quote here]
Hey, happyfeet, I post the following in honor of you or anyone else who takes opposition to same-sex marriage as though it’s almost a personal slap in the face. Who believe such a stance is similar to, say, assuming a guy who’s 5’2″ automatically should or shouldn’t be able to play in the NBA.
[Famed British actor] Rupert Everett, whose autobiography will be released next month, admitted to an `on-off affair’ with Bob Geldof’s late wife Paula Yates.
The gay British actor Everett, 47, said he had a sexual relationship with Yates while he was married to Geldof.
He has also admitted to sexual encounters with actresses Susan Sarandon and Beatrice Dalle:
“I am mystified by my heterosexual affairs – but then I am mystified by most of my relationships.
(I won’t say anything about Marlon Brando who was both a notorious womanizer and fan of same-sex activity with actors like Wally Cox — which Brando publicly admitted to in the late 1960s, no less — and even fell in love with the guy.) IOW, AC/DC.
Comment by Mark — 11/3/2010 @ 8:30 pm
-
Soooo it’s not OK for “big government” to interfere with local governance but it IS ok for some non-local group with a bunch of money and an ideological axe to grind to interfere with local governance.
Does this mean that people on this blog are going to stop whining about George Soros and liberal rich dude whomever who are using their riches to fund groups that interfere with local decisions? Coz that’s perfectly OK right?
Comment by EdWood — 11/3/2010 @ 8:32 pm
-
“Monies for the regulation of ephedra.”
I used to have to con pharmacists into believing I had asthma so I could buy that back in the 1970s as a substitute for speed so I could drink more. They didn’t put it on the counters and you had to ask them to sell it to you.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/3/2010 @ 8:34 pm
-
EdWood – Answer your own straw man question.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/3/2010 @ 8:36 pm
-
Why does Ed like to construct strawpeople?
Comment by JD — 11/3/2010 @ 8:38 pm
-
I don’t understand why when Iowa put in the equal protection clause and there were anti-sodomy laws on the books how these judges came up with the thought that the equal protection clause would allow SSM. If the Iowa equal protection clause allowed SSM, why weren’t the anti-sodomy laws immediately over turned?
The money spent to told the voters what the judges did. As long as it wasn’t a lie, shouldn’t the voters make their own decision on how to vote? Or are the voters to stupid to make their own decision and need an elite class of people to rule over them and vote for them?
Please answer my first question.
Comment by Tanny O'Haley — 11/3/2010 @ 8:54 pm
-
Was that a straw man Daleyrocks? I’ll try again.
So what AW is saying is that it is OK for a non-local organization/individual etc. to use their money to influence local governance.
If that is so, then principled persons commenting here have no problem with organizations/individuals they don’t agree with doing the same thing.
Comment by EdWood — 11/3/2010 @ 10:25 pm
-
#57 Yeah it would seem to me that the best way out of the whole SSM thing would be for the state to only issue “civil union” contracts to homo or hetero couples giving them all the same rights and privileges. Then “marriages” would be strictly between the couples, their church, and their God.
I see your point about people, even outsiders funding “education” about some judge or politician’s record, seems reasonable enough.
Do you think that the people being “educated” should have the right to know who is putting up the money to fund their “education” and exactly what state or city the organization/individual putting up the money is from (the actual people/organization fronting the money, not the location of the post office box or empty building that is the “headquarters” for some dummy organization)? I do. That way locals can also decide for themselves whether or not they are being educated or just manipulated by outsiders who are shoving their noses and cash into a local issue that is none of their business.
Comment by EdWood — 11/3/2010 @ 10:41 pm
-
ephedra is regulated because it can be used as a precursor for the manufacture of methamphetamine…
IOW, you’re not going to see its regulation end any time soon.
Comment by redc1c4 — 11/3/2010 @ 11:58 pm
-
IgotBupkis, I don’t know about the overall numbers, but there is wide variance from race to race – Meg Whitman spent 5x as much as Jerry Brown did, for example.
I’d like to see you cite where that figure came from… The LA Times, perhaps?
As you ought to know from prior entries here at Patterico there are one hell of a lot of whoppers floating around in regards to this whole deal.
And I’ll particularly point you to this one:
L.A. Times Headlines Perpetrate Outrageous Distortion of Campaign Finance Figures in California Gubernatorial Election
I look forward to your sputtered denials of the real truth enhanced clarification of my understanding of the reliable sources fro whence your statistic came from…
Comment by IgotBupkis — 11/4/2010 @ 5:29 am
-
excuse me but I heard Ricky Martin was here throwing wrenches
A mistake in hearing or speaking…
He was in here looking to throw wenches, now that they’ve outlawed dwarf tossing and all…
Comment by IgotBupkis — 11/4/2010 @ 5:33 am
-
Shorter Iowa Supreme Court: “we’re smarter than you Iowans and the people who wrote the constitution, so we are going to do our own thing!” It’s good to see politics removed from the issue.
I love how this post as to resort to the use of “in other words” several times. It allows AW to insert words into the judges’ mouths. AW can’t take on their arguments legally, so he gets out the “judicial activism” stamp and assumes that the judges actually believed that their decisions were against the Constitution. Strawman much?
It’s kind of embarrassing when a lawyer invokes the phrase “judicial activism” simply because he doesn’t like the outcome of a case. Laymen can be excused; they’re not expected to know better. But trained lawyers ought to be able to understand the legal arguments, even of those they disagree with, and not simply assume that the outcome was the result of judges’ “activist agenda”.
That said, isn’t it just possible — possible — that judges actually DO more about equal protection than, say, the typical Iowa voter?
Comment by Kman — 11/4/2010 @ 6:48 am
-
Why is it that the leftists trot out that it is not judicial activism when it so obviously is? Makes the rest of your temper tantrum seem disingenuous, when you lead with a falsehood, kmart.
Comment by JD — 11/4/2010 @ 7:05 am
-
KMan, the judge’s own words in their “official statement” make clear AW’s condensed version. Whether or not the legal arguments in the case were brilliant and forceful, it seems clear that their statement after losing in the election is saying, “You folks made a mistake by not retaining us, hopefully you’ll be smart enough not to make the same mistake again.”
Comment by MD in Philly — 11/4/2010 @ 8:26 am
-
kman
When you say that the meaning of EP has changed all on its own, you are basically admitting to judicial activism.
> But trained lawyers ought to be able to understand the legal arguments
Except it is not really a legal argument, so much as lawless policy making only thinly disguised as law.
> That said, isn’t it just possible — possible — that judges actually DO more about equal protection than, say, the typical Iowa voter?
and, according to the iowa supreme court, more than the framers of the constitution itself.
If you want to argue that they are more enlightened than both the people and the framers of the constitution, well, knock yourself out. but that does not allow them to amend the constitution all on their own. But they are not even pretending to follow the constitution as written. This isn’t the result of greater expertise, but a conviction that both the people and the framers of the constitution were too backwards to be obeyed.
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 11/4/2010 @ 8:28 am
-
…but that does not allow them to amend the constitution all on their own. But they are not even pretending to follow the constitution as written.
We don’t know what the framers of the constitution would have thought about many of our modern day issues. We only know the principles that they lay down.
So when judges say that the first amendment’s protection of “free speech” applies to corporations giving political donations — even though the framers of the first amendment don’t SAY that — we understand that the judges are applying an expansive view of the PRINCIPLES of what the framers wrote. You don’t have a problem with that, but that’s only because you like the outcome.
The same goes for equal protection in the 14th amendment. But, being a hack, you call that “judicial activism”.
Really, it’s beneath someone trained in law.
Comment by Kman — 11/4/2010 @ 9:12 am
-
This condescending superior than thou affectation by kmart is soooooooooooooooooooooooo cute.
Comment by JD — 11/4/2010 @ 9:30 am
-
Why is the Iowa Court’s decision merely a ‘local or state’ issue?
Doesn’t the ‘Full Faith and Credit’ clause make this a legitimate National issue?
In the event the ‘married in Iowa’ same gender folks move to another state won’t they expect their ‘marriage’ to be legally enforceable?
Comment by Old Bob — 11/4/2010 @ 9:54 am
-
This just in: kmart is a law expert and knows more than all of you, including the poor, benighted host. Need proof? Just listen, he’ll tell you all about it. His beclowning continues apace.
Comment by Dmac — 11/4/2010 @ 10:01 am
-
Kman: The First Amendment says only “Freedom of speech and of the Press”. It doesn’t “SAY anything” about broadcast radio, broadcast television, cable television, telephones, or the Internet.
Therefore it would be perfectly Constitutional to make it criminal to emit any statement whatever about any officeholder or candidate for office by these mediums without the explict previous approval of a “Fair Election Commission” appointed by the President. Right?
Citizens United struck down a law made by Congress clearly “abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”. A more precise application of the 1st Amendment is hard to conceive.
Varnum v. Brien (the SCoI) decision which got those Justices dumped cited the very general term “equal protection” to require that a fundamental social institution be radically changed in a manner completely without precedent in human history.
There is a fairly simple 3-part test for judicial activism. A ruling is JA if:
1) the ruling imposes or requires a drastic change in law or policy, overriding the expressed intent of the legislature or the people, or usurping the authority of the legislature.
2) the ruling has no clear basis in or may even be contradicted by the explicit Constitutional or statutory language cited.
3) the ruling reflects the personal preference of the judge or judges who issued it.
Varnum passes all three parts.
Citizens may pass only the third. It cannot be said to impose a radical change in law, since the language struck down was novel and had not yet been enforced.
Comment by Rich Rostrom — 11/4/2010 @ 10:22 am
-
Old Bob
Why is the Iowa Court’s decision merely a ‘local or state’ issue?
Doesn’t the ‘Full Faith and Credit’ clause make this a legitimate National issue?
In the event the ‘married in Iowa’ same gender folks move to another state won’t they expect their ‘marriage’ to be legally enforceable?
I agree with your concern and that was the reason for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), to protect states who don’t recognize SSM. Unfortunately DOMA was just recently declared unconstitutional which I believe makes the “Full Faith and Credit” clause a problem for states that don’t recognize SSM. All states will have to recognize SSM if DOMA is not held as constitutional.
For you legal scholars out there who believe in SSM (or don’t), can you reconcile the decision of the Iowa supreme court saying that the equal protection clause of the Iowa state constitution supports SSM when there were anti-sodomy laws in Iowa at the time EP was put in the Iowa state constitution?
If the Iowa equal protection clause created a “right” to SSM, why weren’t the anti-sodomy laws immediately made null and void?
I’ve asked this question on other posts and have yet to get an answer. Anyone???
Comment by Tanny O'Haley — 11/4/2010 @ 10:35 am
-
There is a fairly simple 3-part test for judicial activism. A ruling is JA if:
1) the ruling imposes or requires a drastic change in law or policy, overriding the expressed intent of the legislature or the people, or usurping the authority of the legislature.
2) the ruling has no clear basis in or may even be contradicted by the explicit Constitutional or statutory language cited.
3) the ruling reflects the personal preference of the judge or judges who issued it.
There’s nothing “simple” about that test, since it is mostly subjective:
(1) What counts as a “drastic” change? Who decides that? And given that most bills come about as the result of compromise, how can one define “the expressed intent of the legislature” on statutes? What is the “expressed intent of the people” (note we just had an election and you can’t find two “experts” who agree on what the people were “saying”)
(2) I have yet to see a ruling, even one that I strongly disagree with it that has absolute NO — zero, zip, nada — basis in explicit Constitutional or statutory language. Judges write opinions — you can read their “basis” within those opinions. You may not agree with the basis of their opinions, but to say that the basis doesn’t exist at all? That’s either hackery or stupidity.
(3) And how do you show the “personal preference” of the judge or judges who issue opinions you don’t like? Who among us is psychic?
Sorry, friend. “Judicial activism” — whether used on the right or the left — is just subtle code for “I don’t like this outcome and I couldn’t care less about (or don’t understand) the rationale for it”
Comment by Kman — 11/4/2010 @ 10:44 am
-
kman, can you answer any of my questions in comment 72?
Comment by Tanny O'Haley — 11/4/2010 @ 10:49 am
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
bench craft company
bench craft company
Tonino Lamborghini Spyder Series Luxury Mobile Phones | iTech <b>News</b> <b>...</b>
Following CULV notebooks, Tonino Lamborghini releases in Hong Kong its Spyder line of luxury mobile phones. There are six models, S-600, S-610, S-620,
For Fox <b>News</b>, Most Viewers Ever for a Midterm Election - NYTimes.com
Fox News, a favorite of Republicans, averaged 6.96 million viewers in prime time on Tuesday, according to ratings results from the Nielsen Company. Fox more than doubled CNN's numbers, which averaged 2.42 million viewers, and more than ...
<b>News</b> - Blake Lively, Leonardo DiCaprio Go Out for Dinner - Movies <b>...</b>
Home | News | Style & Beauty | Moms & Babies | Movies, TV & Music | Healthy Lifestyle | Celebrities � Photos | Video. Subscribe: Magazine | Newsletter | RSS � Subscriber Services | Media Kit | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use ...
bench craft company
bench craft company
Tonino Lamborghini Spyder Series Luxury Mobile Phones | iTech <b>News</b> <b>...</b>
Following CULV notebooks, Tonino Lamborghini releases in Hong Kong its Spyder line of luxury mobile phones. There are six models, S-600, S-610, S-620,
For Fox <b>News</b>, Most Viewers Ever for a Midterm Election - NYTimes.com
Fox News, a favorite of Republicans, averaged 6.96 million viewers in prime time on Tuesday, according to ratings results from the Nielsen Company. Fox more than doubled CNN's numbers, which averaged 2.42 million viewers, and more than ...
<b>News</b> - Blake Lively, Leonardo DiCaprio Go Out for Dinner - Movies <b>...</b>
Home | News | Style & Beauty | Moms & Babies | Movies, TV & Music | Healthy Lifestyle | Celebrities � Photos | Video. Subscribe: Magazine | Newsletter | RSS � Subscriber Services | Media Kit | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use ...
bench craft company
Tonino Lamborghini Spyder Series Luxury Mobile Phones | iTech <b>News</b> <b>...</b>
Following CULV notebooks, Tonino Lamborghini releases in Hong Kong its Spyder line of luxury mobile phones. There are six models, S-600, S-610, S-620,
For Fox <b>News</b>, Most Viewers Ever for a Midterm Election - NYTimes.com
Fox News, a favorite of Republicans, averaged 6.96 million viewers in prime time on Tuesday, according to ratings results from the Nielsen Company. Fox more than doubled CNN's numbers, which averaged 2.42 million viewers, and more than ...
<b>News</b> - Blake Lively, Leonardo DiCaprio Go Out for Dinner - Movies <b>...</b>
Home | News | Style & Beauty | Moms & Babies | Movies, TV & Music | Healthy Lifestyle | Celebrities � Photos | Video. Subscribe: Magazine | Newsletter | RSS � Subscriber Services | Media Kit | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use ...
bench craft company
Tonino Lamborghini Spyder Series Luxury Mobile Phones | iTech <b>News</b> <b>...</b>
Following CULV notebooks, Tonino Lamborghini releases in Hong Kong its Spyder line of luxury mobile phones. There are six models, S-600, S-610, S-620,
For Fox <b>News</b>, Most Viewers Ever for a Midterm Election - NYTimes.com
Fox News, a favorite of Republicans, averaged 6.96 million viewers in prime time on Tuesday, according to ratings results from the Nielsen Company. Fox more than doubled CNN's numbers, which averaged 2.42 million viewers, and more than ...
<b>News</b> - Blake Lively, Leonardo DiCaprio Go Out for Dinner - Movies <b>...</b>
Home | News | Style & Beauty | Moms & Babies | Movies, TV & Music | Healthy Lifestyle | Celebrities � Photos | Video. Subscribe: Magazine | Newsletter | RSS � Subscriber Services | Media Kit | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use ...
bench craft company bench craft company
bench craft company
bench craft company
bench craft company
Tonino Lamborghini Spyder Series Luxury Mobile Phones | iTech <b>News</b> <b>...</b>
Following CULV notebooks, Tonino Lamborghini releases in Hong Kong its Spyder line of luxury mobile phones. There are six models, S-600, S-610, S-620,
For Fox <b>News</b>, Most Viewers Ever for a Midterm Election - NYTimes.com
Fox News, a favorite of Republicans, averaged 6.96 million viewers in prime time on Tuesday, according to ratings results from the Nielsen Company. Fox more than doubled CNN's numbers, which averaged 2.42 million viewers, and more than ...
<b>News</b> - Blake Lively, Leonardo DiCaprio Go Out for Dinner - Movies <b>...</b>
Home | News | Style & Beauty | Moms & Babies | Movies, TV & Music | Healthy Lifestyle | Celebrities � Photos | Video. Subscribe: Magazine | Newsletter | RSS � Subscriber Services | Media Kit | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use ...
benchcraft company portland or
If laughter is, as they say, the best medicine, then I think the doctor might prescribe a Terry Pratchett book from time to time, at least if the doctor is a cynic who thinks it particularly healthy to laugh at the foibles of this world through the lens of a snarky imaginary one. Unfortunately, doctors today are too busy prescribing expensive patented pharmaceuticals, guaranteed effective by the salesman who takes them golfing.
Pratchett's Discworld is a carnival fun house mirror image of our own, but with fairytale creatures like dwarves, golems, and Igors (yes, that's plural) thrown in for good measure.
Making Money(Harper, October 2007) is typical Discworld fare in which Moist von Lipwig, "an honest soul with a fine criminal mind," follows on his success with reinvigorating the Post Office (in Going Postal), becomes the head of the Royal Mint and invents paper money. He also inherits the guardianship of the Chairman of the Royal Bank of Ankh-Morpork, and takes him for walkies every day (the Chairman is a dog).
Anyone in control of the money supply is naturally a bit of a target, so it must come as no surprise that complications ensue. Among other threats, the board of the bank is composed of a hereditarily wealthy family, the Lavishes, who are not exactly pleasant sorts.
The family's default leader seems to be Cosmo Lavish, who, like many of those born into the upper classes, has been trained by the Assassin's Guild. He also has an unhealthy admiration for Ankh-Morpork's ruthless, but sometimes beneficent dictator, Lord Vetinari. The chief cashier of the bank, Mr. Bent, is forbidding, ominous, and dull, and there may be something quite unnatural about him. It seems some sort of plot is afoot against von Lipwig and the Chairman.
A year ago, before this was published, I might have questioned the timely relevance of a satire about taking a banking system off the gold standard. That was a done deal long ago, and would seem to be mostly uncontroversial. With recent scares within the banking industry, however, an examination of the value on which our money is based, if any, seems timely. It's also much more palatable with tongue firmly planted in cheek, and preferably stuck there with toffee. It may even be fair to say, as Pratchett does, that "whole new theories of money were growing here like mushrooms, in the dark and based on bullshit."
Crazy as Pratchett's Discworld might be, it does ring frighteningly true. I ask you, who hasn't encountered a banker much like Moist von Lipwig?
" 'Well, I'm going to do my best to get my hands on your money!' he promised.
This got a cheer. Moist wasn't surprised. Tell someone you were going to rob them and all that happened was that you got a reputation as a truthful man."
If you haven't yet encountered Pratchett's Discworld series, I recommend it as light, enjoyable reading that will sometimes make you laugh out loud. I wouldn't rate Making Money as one of his best, but it's possible that's because I've now read several of his books and maybe the humor doesn't seem quite as fresh to me now. It must be extremely difficult to keep writing novels that deliver laughs on every page.
His earlier Witches Abroad, a delightful send-up of fairytales, which proposes that perhaps it's not always good for the heroine to marry the prince, is one of my favorites in the series. (The Discworld series does not need to be read in any particular order.)
Making Money is still well worth reading if you want a good chuckle at just how shaky the financial industry really is, or if you want to laugh in the face of possibly losing your shirt. With the economy seeming more uncertain every day, at least we can find some humor in it.
Making Money is currently available in hardcover from bookstores and all of the major online booksellers. It is due to come out in a mass-market paperback edition in October, and that can be pre-ordered now.
Sad note: In the course of writing this review, I discovered that Mr. Pratchett has been diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's. You can read his speech to the Alzheimer's Research Trust Conference in the UK here. I hope that if you like his books, you'll consider a donation to the Alzheimer's Association, to help fund Alzheimer's research.
Previously published on my blog.
When national special interest groups flood huge sums of money into a tiny state for the express purpose of defeating judges so that judges elsewhere will be intimidated… it’s sorta not very America I think.
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 4:33 pm
it’s an if the shoe were on the other foot thing I think
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 4:37 pm
Legislating from the bench is not very America I sorta think.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/3/2010 @ 4:37 pm
your offended sensibilities would carry more gravitas if they weren’t so selective in what they are sensitive to, feet.
Comment by redc1c4 — 11/3/2010 @ 4:38 pm
hah.
I don’t do gravitas Mr. red, and I agree Mr. daley, legislating from the bench is not very America. But I don’t like these tactics what they used and honestly I think it’s disappointing how I was assured the midterms were about the spendings spendings spendings and I wake up this morning to find out it was an awesome validation of the Sacred Definition praise Jesus hallelujah.
Made me downright grumpy it did.
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 4:42 pm
Were huge sums of money flooding into Iowa for those retention questions? Is he defining special interest groups as anyone who thinks gay marriage is wrong? Is he in some parallel universe?
Comment by Gerald A — 11/3/2010 @ 4:43 pm
The phrase “special interest groups” is pathognomonic. Every political group is a special
interest group. But the left tends to use the phrase disparagingly. The SEIU, the NAACP,
the Brady bunch are simply concerned citizens exercising their political rights.
Corporations, anti-SSM groups, the NRA … “special interest groups.”
Sorry, the midterms proved that halloween is over, and people are not frightened by
old catch-phrases anymore. Except maybe in California.
Comment by great unknown — 11/3/2010 @ 4:44 pm
I’m not in a … jeez how could I be typing the comments if I was in a different universe silly
brb
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 4:44 pm
You’re physically in this one.
Comment by Gerald A — 11/3/2010 @ 4:47 pm
I kinda rearranged that so you could see what I mean about how the tactics are not very America
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 4:48 pm
Odd, what could be more american than a ballot?
Comment by SPQR — 11/3/2010 @ 4:55 pm
a form of jury nullification on a minor scale
Comment by great unknown — 11/3/2010 @ 4:56 pm
I kinda rearranged that so you could see what I mean about how the tactics are not very America
Sounds like a standard political campaign to me. Running ads etc. is not very America?
Comment by Gerald A — 11/3/2010 @ 4:56 pm
happy
right, we should take their usurpations without a complaint.
I am sorry, but isn’t this EXACTLY what a retention election is SUPPOSED to do? it gives the people a chance to put a check on their power.
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 11/3/2010 @ 4:57 pm
Sounds perfectly American to me, twinkle-toes; I mean, free speech and all that.
Comment by Old Coot — 11/3/2010 @ 4:58 pm
ok but it’s very easy to manipulate down-ballot races with outside monies cause they only get a fraction of the votes the top-ticket races get – I didn’t even get to vote for judges cause I printed out Mr. patterico’s recommendations but I left them on my desk
I’m perfectly content for this to be a ymmv thing – I just think these tactics are sorta thuggy.
plus I think it should be noted in parallel but still in the same universe that the Team R candidates what were most anti-gay all lost lost lost – Ken “homosexuality is a disease like alcoholism” Buck… Christine “no actually it’s an identity disorder” O’Donnell… Sharon “don’t want your dirty gay money” Angle… and Carl “Hi I’m Carl Paladino” Paladino.
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 5:06 pm
happyfeet,
I infer from your posts on this subject the idea that opposition to gay marriage is a minority view. So therefore the races were “manipulated”. I think the result would have been the same if spending had been equal.
Calling this thuggish is nonsense. If they had personal attacks on the justices then thuggish might apply.
Comment by Gerald A — 11/3/2010 @ 5:25 pm
The constitution usurping judges shoulda raised more money and gotten more votes. Simple.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/3/2010 @ 5:35 pm
It’s not nonsense Mr. A not like jabberwocky nonsense or Steely Dan. Maybe I am not explaining myself good.
On the one hand the social cons want these issues to be left up to the states. Okey dokey. Then they want to send large amounts of monies to the smaller states to gank a few judges to make sure the judges in the other states fall in line if they know what’s good for them. I don’t think it’s nonsense to call that thuggish.
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 5:36 pm
The constitution usurping judges shoulda raised more money and gotten more votes. Simple.
indeed Mr. daley it is simplicity itself… but my concern is the idea that this campaign was aimed as much at other judges – judges who may have yet to hear a single gay marriage case at all – as it was aimed at our hapless cornhusker friends.
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 5:39 pm
“as it was aimed at our hapless cornhusker friends.”
Mr. Feets – Not to be picky, but the cornhuskers are the ones with the big “N” for Nowledge on their helmets in Nebraska.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/3/2010 @ 5:43 pm
happy
> indeed Mr. daley it is simplicity itself… but my concern is the idea that this campaign was aimed as much at other judges – judges who may have yet to hear a single gay marriage case at all – as it was aimed at our hapless cornhusker friends.
You say that like its a bad thing. The fact is that campaigning against someone and voting him or her out of office is not thuggery. its called democracy. So unless you think the people should just have no vote at all…
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 11/3/2010 @ 5:43 pm
oh. right.
um… hawkeyes?
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 5:43 pm
no if my alternative is no vote at all I should definitely prefer the votings
I got a sticker!
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 5:44 pm
The sad and sorry thing is that the Slaanesh-worshippers could have about 98% of what they say they want…if they backed down on the word marriage!
A lot of people are afraid, with good reason (there’s precedent for this sort of thing) that if “gay marriage” becomes legal, their churches will be forced to accomodate these ceremonies, even if the church/religion in question strongly opposes homosexuality, on the basis of “equal accomodations.”
Call it a “civil union,” OTOH, and make it something you pick up at the courthouse or city hall, and almost all opposition not based in mindless anti-gay feeling (which is much rarer than you might think; there’s reasons why Fred Phelps’ church is no bigger than it is) goes away. Unfortunately, the “gay community” is cursed with “leaders” who’re committed to pushing the envelope endlessly, heedless of the thought that this might, just might, provoke one almighty backlash.
Comment by Technomad — 11/3/2010 @ 5:58 pm
We tried to send a similar message to Rose Byrd and the other anti-death penalty judges out here in California a long time ago. How’d that work out for us?
Comment by gahrie — 11/3/2010 @ 6:01 pm
Yes, Hawkeyes.
I agree feets that the ideal American way is a “meet you at high noon with all of our cards on the table” (to mix metaphors). However, in few debates does it seem that the side that is ahead (logistically, tactically, or strategically) stops to give other views the opportunity to present their own case in its strongest terms. So when one group trying to outmaneuver the will of the people complains about being outsmarted by someone else, I see it as sour grapes and nothing more, certainly nothing of a principled moral highground.
In short, you stupid plebes are going to ruin our activism at this rate.- AW
I think that is a great summary of the judges’ comments. I’m sure King George and his advisors had similar feelings 200+ years ago.
While I am certain there are drawbacks about the retention approach, in some ways I think every elected official, at least on the fed level, be subject to at least one, say 1/4 to 1/2 through their term of office. I think it would cut down on the saying on thing at election time then doing something else, then trying to CYA at next election time.
I think representative democracy, like the law, works great when educated people of good character with similar resources come together to decide on a matter. Often we’re left wishing for any one of the three.
Comment by MD in Philly — 11/3/2010 @ 6:06 pm
“Odd, what could be more american than a ballot?”
- SPQR
The preservation of inalienable rights?
Comment by Leviticus — 11/3/2010 @ 6:11 pm
Changing the definition of words is an inalienable right.
Comment by JD — 11/3/2010 @ 6:20 pm
No, but as a card-carrying liberal, his reasoning capacities operate in a place with different physical laws…
Comment by IgotBupkis — 11/3/2010 @ 6:28 pm
Just as in CA when we kicked out CJ Rose Bird, and two of her “usual suspects”, every now and then, the electorate has to take a 2×4 to the head of the judicial class to get their attention (the Real Missouri system).
Well Done, IA!
Comment by AD-RtR/OS! — 11/3/2010 @ 6:31 pm
I’m not a liberal at all I’m a staunch conservative my favorite part is cutting the spendings
what’s your favorite part?
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 6:35 pm
groups that wanted the justices ousted poured more than $650,000 into their effort, with heavy support from out-of-state conservative and religious groups. Campaigns that supported the justices and the current state court system spent more than $200,000.
Although Iowa is probably a fairly inexpensive state to spend money on in this manner, this kind of outlay is positively nada, bupkis, the big zero. If that was all it took to push the ledger the other way on this issue, then one could make a case that the electorate was none too thrilled with the judges usurping their input in the first place, and were itching to make their feelings known. I can’t imagine that an expenditure of this size made that much of a difference – this is still Iowa we’re talking about, despite Mr. GI Joe combat flier (aka war hero/liar) Senator Harkin.
Comment by Dmac — 11/3/2010 @ 6:47 pm
All right, pikachu tell me five programs you’d cut or outright zero out.
Comment by ian cormac — 11/3/2010 @ 6:49 pm
I’m not a liberal at all I’m a staunch conservative my favorite part is cutting the spendings
what’s your favorite part?
Then get ready to fall in love with Jim Demint – that guy’s already telling the MSM what he’s going to do to the budget ASAP. And if teh One doesn’t like it, here comes the shutdown of DC – and this time, no one among the populace will give a damn.
Comment by Dmac — 11/3/2010 @ 6:50 pm
$650,000 is a lotta corn… but Mr. Dmac I see what you’re saying – so what then is the threshhold of unseemlyness?
Cutting spending!
1.) The Post Office. Get rid of it. All they do is bring me Ralph’s fliers and I have to keep checking it in case they send a jury summons. How annoying is that? That’s cool about the 1.99 tri-tip though – we didn’t have tri-tips in texas.
2.) Obamacare. Get rid of it. It’s way gayer than gay marriage.
3.) Federal employees. They can’t unionize plus all their pay gets cut 10% across the board I don’t care who you are. And that’s just a start we’ll be back later to cut more so don’t go buying a new car, loser.
4.) Monies for the regulation of ephedra. Stop it. Ephedra is now legal and Meghan’s pitiful sad useless daddy will just have to deal with it.
5.) The Angeles National Forest. Cut that bitch down. happy wants a sweet 2-bedroom condo for $160,000 and we’re gonna need lots of room to grow for that to happen.
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 6:59 pm
*threshold*
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 7:05 pm
but Mr. Dmac I see what you’re saying – so what then is the threshhold of unseemlyness?
I honestly don’t know, but I’ve seen that amount spent on the silly little Aldermanic races here in my hood. So it can’t be that much, I don’t think.
Comment by Dmac — 11/3/2010 @ 7:06 pm
Ephedra, feets? I took that stuff way back when it was only found in granola health food stores in the late 80s. After a few doses in which my heart almost exploded, I threw the bottle away.
Comment by Dmac — 11/3/2010 @ 7:07 pm
we have to know how much a 30 second ad costs in Des Moines and a few other markets like the Cedar Rapids … here are the people for that… I can’t think how else to find out except for calling stations
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 7:09 pm
I think ephedra is real different from person to person … for me it was … days with were better than days without
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 7:10 pm
Are you sure you threw it away?
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 7:11 pm
The next time the justices issue an equal protection decision, maybe they should REALLY define equal protection by the standards of the current generation. (Varnum v. Brien)
Comment by Michael Ejercito — 11/3/2010 @ 7:17 pm
can we just get it out of the way that instead of gay marriage it should be called bisexual marriage cause Rupert Everett banged a chick once for reals and he liked it and also [insert Plato quote here]
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 7:31 pm
This thread is funny. BTW, did you know Ricky Martin is homosexual?
Comment by JD — 11/3/2010 @ 7:37 pm
plus he’s a dad I think … I don’t know how many kids he has exactly
Comment by happyfeet — 11/3/2010 @ 7:41 pm
Ricky Martin and Anne Heche and Rupert throw a wrench in the genetic inalienable immutable argument.
Comment by JD — 11/3/2010 @ 7:44 pm
excuse me but I heard Ricky Martin was here throwing wrenches
Comment by tom cruise — 11/3/2010 @ 7:47 pm
You know, one thing I note about liberals — they are allllll in favor of replacing the nation’s Consitutionally intended Republicanism with complete warm-body Democracy… they want EVERYONE to have a vote, no matter how incompetent, evil, “foreign” (They think Europeans and people in Beijing ought to have a say) or otherwise and generally unlikely-to-properly-exercise-the-right-of-franchise said voter may be.
Yet anytime they get the chance, they actually demonstrate how little faith they have in said voter to be anything but a totally incompetent, first-rate idiot in their exercise of franchise.
In this case, to wit, apparently the voters are utterly at the whim of monies spent to sway their votes. They can’t be trusted to really, really vote for themselves, after all — they’ll always vote for whoever spends the most money.
That’s complete BS, of course — the Dems, for example, spent FAR MORE money this term than the GOP.
Comment by IgotBupkis — 11/3/2010 @ 8:03 pm
IgotBupkis, I don’t know about the overall numbers, but there is wide variance from race to race – Meg Whitman spent 5x as much as Jerry Brown did, for example.
Comment by aphrael — 11/3/2010 @ 8:07 pm
Indeed. This is all part and parcel of a representative democracy. We elect representatives to resist the whimsical nature of voters, but when enough voters express themselves in this manner, it makes it clear it’s not a mere whim, and that they must then actually make a moral choice between remaining in office vs. doing what they believe should be done for as long as they can, so that the voters have time to re-think their position which they, the representative, believe is so clearly wrong.
And yes, judges, in this sense, are “representatives” — esp. when they are attempting to rule on interpretation of the law.
They are acting as representatives of the will of the people — not their own beliefs, but the belief of The People as to what is Right and what is Wrong. When they ignore clear signals as to the will of the people, then they ought to be choosing to lose their position as a result. This forces them to reconsider their own determination that they, not the people, are Right.
Comment by IgotBupkis — 11/3/2010 @ 8:16 pm
____________________________________
can we just get it out of the way that instead of gay marriage it should be called bisexual marriage cause Rupert Everett banged a chick once for reals and he liked it and also [insert Plato quote here]
Hey, happyfeet, I post the following in honor of you or anyone else who takes opposition to same-sex marriage as though it’s almost a personal slap in the face. Who believe such a stance is similar to, say, assuming a guy who’s 5’2″ automatically should or shouldn’t be able to play in the NBA.
(I won’t say anything about Marlon Brando who was both a notorious womanizer and fan of same-sex activity with actors like Wally Cox — which Brando publicly admitted to in the late 1960s, no less — and even fell in love with the guy.) IOW, AC/DC.
Comment by Mark — 11/3/2010 @ 8:30 pm
Soooo it’s not OK for “big government” to interfere with local governance but it IS ok for some non-local group with a bunch of money and an ideological axe to grind to interfere with local governance.
Does this mean that people on this blog are going to stop whining about George Soros and liberal rich dude whomever who are using their riches to fund groups that interfere with local decisions? Coz that’s perfectly OK right?
Comment by EdWood — 11/3/2010 @ 8:32 pm
“Monies for the regulation of ephedra.”
I used to have to con pharmacists into believing I had asthma so I could buy that back in the 1970s as a substitute for speed so I could drink more. They didn’t put it on the counters and you had to ask them to sell it to you.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/3/2010 @ 8:34 pm
EdWood – Answer your own straw man question.
Comment by daleyrocks — 11/3/2010 @ 8:36 pm
Why does Ed like to construct strawpeople?
Comment by JD — 11/3/2010 @ 8:38 pm
I don’t understand why when Iowa put in the equal protection clause and there were anti-sodomy laws on the books how these judges came up with the thought that the equal protection clause would allow SSM. If the Iowa equal protection clause allowed SSM, why weren’t the anti-sodomy laws immediately over turned?
The money spent to told the voters what the judges did. As long as it wasn’t a lie, shouldn’t the voters make their own decision on how to vote? Or are the voters to stupid to make their own decision and need an elite class of people to rule over them and vote for them?
Please answer my first question.
Comment by Tanny O'Haley — 11/3/2010 @ 8:54 pm
Was that a straw man Daleyrocks? I’ll try again.
So what AW is saying is that it is OK for a non-local organization/individual etc. to use their money to influence local governance.
If that is so, then principled persons commenting here have no problem with organizations/individuals they don’t agree with doing the same thing.
Comment by EdWood — 11/3/2010 @ 10:25 pm
#57 Yeah it would seem to me that the best way out of the whole SSM thing would be for the state to only issue “civil union” contracts to homo or hetero couples giving them all the same rights and privileges. Then “marriages” would be strictly between the couples, their church, and their God.
I see your point about people, even outsiders funding “education” about some judge or politician’s record, seems reasonable enough.
Do you think that the people being “educated” should have the right to know who is putting up the money to fund their “education” and exactly what state or city the organization/individual putting up the money is from (the actual people/organization fronting the money, not the location of the post office box or empty building that is the “headquarters” for some dummy organization)? I do. That way locals can also decide for themselves whether or not they are being educated or just manipulated by outsiders who are shoving their noses and cash into a local issue that is none of their business.
Comment by EdWood — 11/3/2010 @ 10:41 pm
ephedra is regulated because it can be used as a precursor for the manufacture of methamphetamine…
IOW, you’re not going to see its regulation end any time soon.
Comment by redc1c4 — 11/3/2010 @ 11:58 pm
I’d like to see you cite where that figure came from… The LA Times, perhaps?
As you ought to know from prior entries here at Patterico there are one hell of a lot of whoppers floating around in regards to this whole deal.
And I’ll particularly point you to this one:
L.A. Times Headlines Perpetrate Outrageous Distortion of Campaign Finance Figures in California Gubernatorial Election
I look forward to your sputtered denials of the real truth enhanced clarification of my understanding of the reliable sources fro whence your statistic came from…
Comment by IgotBupkis — 11/4/2010 @ 5:29 am
A mistake in hearing or speaking…
He was in here looking to throw wenches, now that they’ve outlawed dwarf tossing and all…
Comment by IgotBupkis — 11/4/2010 @ 5:33 am
I love how this post as to resort to the use of “in other words” several times. It allows AW to insert words into the judges’ mouths. AW can’t take on their arguments legally, so he gets out the “judicial activism” stamp and assumes that the judges actually believed that their decisions were against the Constitution. Strawman much?
It’s kind of embarrassing when a lawyer invokes the phrase “judicial activism” simply because he doesn’t like the outcome of a case. Laymen can be excused; they’re not expected to know better. But trained lawyers ought to be able to understand the legal arguments, even of those they disagree with, and not simply assume that the outcome was the result of judges’ “activist agenda”.
That said, isn’t it just possible — possible — that judges actually DO more about equal protection than, say, the typical Iowa voter?
Comment by Kman — 11/4/2010 @ 6:48 am
Why is it that the leftists trot out that it is not judicial activism when it so obviously is? Makes the rest of your temper tantrum seem disingenuous, when you lead with a falsehood, kmart.
Comment by JD — 11/4/2010 @ 7:05 am
KMan, the judge’s own words in their “official statement” make clear AW’s condensed version. Whether or not the legal arguments in the case were brilliant and forceful, it seems clear that their statement after losing in the election is saying, “You folks made a mistake by not retaining us, hopefully you’ll be smart enough not to make the same mistake again.”
Comment by MD in Philly — 11/4/2010 @ 8:26 am
kman
When you say that the meaning of EP has changed all on its own, you are basically admitting to judicial activism.
> But trained lawyers ought to be able to understand the legal arguments
Except it is not really a legal argument, so much as lawless policy making only thinly disguised as law.
> That said, isn’t it just possible — possible — that judges actually DO more about equal protection than, say, the typical Iowa voter?
and, according to the iowa supreme court, more than the framers of the constitution itself.
If you want to argue that they are more enlightened than both the people and the framers of the constitution, well, knock yourself out. but that does not allow them to amend the constitution all on their own. But they are not even pretending to follow the constitution as written. This isn’t the result of greater expertise, but a conviction that both the people and the framers of the constitution were too backwards to be obeyed.
Comment by Aaron Worthing — 11/4/2010 @ 8:28 am
We don’t know what the framers of the constitution would have thought about many of our modern day issues. We only know the principles that they lay down.
So when judges say that the first amendment’s protection of “free speech” applies to corporations giving political donations — even though the framers of the first amendment don’t SAY that — we understand that the judges are applying an expansive view of the PRINCIPLES of what the framers wrote. You don’t have a problem with that, but that’s only because you like the outcome.
The same goes for equal protection in the 14th amendment. But, being a hack, you call that “judicial activism”.
Really, it’s beneath someone trained in law.
Comment by Kman — 11/4/2010 @ 9:12 am
This condescending superior than thou affectation by kmart is soooooooooooooooooooooooo cute.
Comment by JD — 11/4/2010 @ 9:30 am
Why is the Iowa Court’s decision merely a ‘local or state’ issue?
Doesn’t the ‘Full Faith and Credit’ clause make this a legitimate National issue?
In the event the ‘married in Iowa’ same gender folks move to another state won’t they expect their ‘marriage’ to be legally enforceable?
Comment by Old Bob — 11/4/2010 @ 9:54 am
This just in: kmart is a law expert and knows more than all of you, including the poor, benighted host. Need proof? Just listen, he’ll tell you all about it. His beclowning continues apace.
Comment by Dmac — 11/4/2010 @ 10:01 am
Kman: The First Amendment says only “Freedom of speech and of the Press”. It doesn’t “SAY anything” about broadcast radio, broadcast television, cable television, telephones, or the Internet.
Therefore it would be perfectly Constitutional to make it criminal to emit any statement whatever about any officeholder or candidate for office by these mediums without the explict previous approval of a “Fair Election Commission” appointed by the President. Right?
Citizens United struck down a law made by Congress clearly “abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”. A more precise application of the 1st Amendment is hard to conceive.
Varnum v. Brien (the SCoI) decision which got those Justices dumped cited the very general term “equal protection” to require that a fundamental social institution be radically changed in a manner completely without precedent in human history.
There is a fairly simple 3-part test for judicial activism. A ruling is JA if:
1) the ruling imposes or requires a drastic change in law or policy, overriding the expressed intent of the legislature or the people, or usurping the authority of the legislature.
2) the ruling has no clear basis in or may even be contradicted by the explicit Constitutional or statutory language cited.
3) the ruling reflects the personal preference of the judge or judges who issued it.
Varnum passes all three parts.
Citizens may pass only the third. It cannot be said to impose a radical change in law, since the language struck down was novel and had not yet been enforced.
Comment by Rich Rostrom — 11/4/2010 @ 10:22 am
Old Bob
I agree with your concern and that was the reason for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), to protect states who don’t recognize SSM. Unfortunately DOMA was just recently declared unconstitutional which I believe makes the “Full Faith and Credit” clause a problem for states that don’t recognize SSM. All states will have to recognize SSM if DOMA is not held as constitutional.
For you legal scholars out there who believe in SSM (or don’t), can you reconcile the decision of the Iowa supreme court saying that the equal protection clause of the Iowa state constitution supports SSM when there were anti-sodomy laws in Iowa at the time EP was put in the Iowa state constitution?
If the Iowa equal protection clause created a “right” to SSM, why weren’t the anti-sodomy laws immediately made null and void?
I’ve asked this question on other posts and have yet to get an answer. Anyone???
Comment by Tanny O'Haley — 11/4/2010 @ 10:35 am
There’s nothing “simple” about that test, since it is mostly subjective:
(1) What counts as a “drastic” change? Who decides that? And given that most bills come about as the result of compromise, how can one define “the expressed intent of the legislature” on statutes? What is the “expressed intent of the people” (note we just had an election and you can’t find two “experts” who agree on what the people were “saying”)
(2) I have yet to see a ruling, even one that I strongly disagree with it that has absolute NO — zero, zip, nada — basis in explicit Constitutional or statutory language. Judges write opinions — you can read their “basis” within those opinions. You may not agree with the basis of their opinions, but to say that the basis doesn’t exist at all? That’s either hackery or stupidity.
(3) And how do you show the “personal preference” of the judge or judges who issue opinions you don’t like? Who among us is psychic?
Sorry, friend. “Judicial activism” — whether used on the right or the left — is just subtle code for “I don’t like this outcome and I couldn’t care less about (or don’t understand) the rationale for it”
Comment by Kman — 11/4/2010 @ 10:44 am
kman, can you answer any of my questions in comment 72?
Comment by Tanny O'Haley — 11/4/2010 @ 10:49 am