Everyday we are confronted with new ways the Left wants to make our lives better by restricting our freedoms. Always it's for our own good. Many conservatives call this the nanny state. Outlawing large sodas, forcing healthy young people to buy insurance, forcing healthy young people to buy insurance that covers things they'll never require, forcing us to participate in a government-run retirement plan.
I could go on and on. It's nice, though, that their benevolence is still restrained by their own self-interest. None other than freshman Senator Elizabeth Warren, the progressive caucus's biggest coup in the 2012 election is now foregoing the "We're doing this for your own good" mantra with regards to direct depositing Social Security checks. The argument for direct deposit is that many checks get lost in the mail leaving seniors without their deserved funds.
Elizabeth Warren, however, believes that people should have the right to choose how they receive their money. I imagine her new found respect for people's liberty has nothing to do with the paper lobby, who reside mostly in Warren's constituency, and donate extensively to her campaigns (she was the largest recipient in 2012 other than the Presidential candidates), who would stand to lose more of their already depleted customer base.
I guess in this case, what's best for most of America is not as desirable as what's good for Warren and her constituents.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Hollingsworth v. Perry - A Summary
I am dissatisfied with reporting on courte cases. What I'd like to know is more detailed than is usually provided. I'd like the arguments for each opinion. Here I provide my own summary of the Hollingsworth v. Perry decision.
Full Decision
Wonkblog Post
Brief synopsis - The people of California (not the legislature) passed an amendment to their Consitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Gay marriage advocates argued that this violated their rights so sued to have the amendment declared unconstitutional. The elected officials of California chose not to defend the amendment, and so advocates of the amendment (regular citizens) defended it. The Supreme Court ruled that the advocates didn't have standing.
Decision (Roberts, Ginsberg, Kagan, Scalia, Breyer) - Without injury, one has no standing to defend an issue in court.
Dissent (Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor) - California law provides that one can defend an issue if elected officials choose not to do so.
My thoughts
Implications - Any law that is passed, if elected officials choose not to defend it in court should it be disputed, and no one can claim a direct harm, then these types of laws will become unenforcable. This kind of defeats the purpose of popular referenda. Popular referenda will only be used when the elected officials don't want to pursue or enact them. Therefore, if they're passed, they'll be indefensible in court.
Full Decision
Wonkblog Post
Brief synopsis - The people of California (not the legislature) passed an amendment to their Consitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Gay marriage advocates argued that this violated their rights so sued to have the amendment declared unconstitutional. The elected officials of California chose not to defend the amendment, and so advocates of the amendment (regular citizens) defended it. The Supreme Court ruled that the advocates didn't have standing.
Decision (Roberts, Ginsberg, Kagan, Scalia, Breyer) - Without injury, one has no standing to defend an issue in court.
Dissent (Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor) - California law provides that one can defend an issue if elected officials choose not to do so.
My thoughts
Implications - Any law that is passed, if elected officials choose not to defend it in court should it be disputed, and no one can claim a direct harm, then these types of laws will become unenforcable. This kind of defeats the purpose of popular referenda. Popular referenda will only be used when the elected officials don't want to pursue or enact them. Therefore, if they're passed, they'll be indefensible in court.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
5-4 Decisions
The degree of polarization in the Supreme Court really scares me. I feel (without any data analysis) that there are too many five-four decisions. I also feel that many of the justices aren't deciding based on law but on their own moral judgments. If they are deciding based on morality, then I guess 5-4 decisions make sense, but I think that's bad for the country. Those who are doing so, should also freely admit that that is how they're basing their decisions.
This reminds me of a debate between Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia in which Scalia claimed that it was better to have nine historians on the Supreme Court than nine ethicists. This, I believe, gets to the real difference between how conservatives and liberal approach the court. Liberals want to rule based on their morality while conservatives want to rule based on the law. This is probably the best way to describe "Legislating from the bench" - defying or rewriting law based on your own preferences. Note that this does not mean striking down a law is necessarily legislating from the bench. It is only so when the law is struck down based on personal beliefs.
Today the court released a decision on the Voting Rights Act in which it struck down a portion of it. Liberals are extremely unhappy, but it seems as if their unhappy from the superficial idea that the court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, without really looking at the details (this is a characteristic I've noticed before from the Left).
Look at these "Best Lines from Ginsburg's Dissent." None of them really talk about whether the law is constitutional or not, they just talk about whether there is or is not discrimination. The majority doesn't deny the fact that there's discrimination, they say only that concentrating on certain areas because they were more prone to discrimination 50 years ago but not necessarily today is unconstitutitional.
Corrected: Civil Rights Act should have been Voting Rights Act
This reminds me of a debate between Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia in which Scalia claimed that it was better to have nine historians on the Supreme Court than nine ethicists. This, I believe, gets to the real difference between how conservatives and liberal approach the court. Liberals want to rule based on their morality while conservatives want to rule based on the law. This is probably the best way to describe "Legislating from the bench" - defying or rewriting law based on your own preferences. Note that this does not mean striking down a law is necessarily legislating from the bench. It is only so when the law is struck down based on personal beliefs.
Today the court released a decision on the Voting Rights Act in which it struck down a portion of it. Liberals are extremely unhappy, but it seems as if their unhappy from the superficial idea that the court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, without really looking at the details (this is a characteristic I've noticed before from the Left).
Look at these "Best Lines from Ginsburg's Dissent." None of them really talk about whether the law is constitutional or not, they just talk about whether there is or is not discrimination. The majority doesn't deny the fact that there's discrimination, they say only that concentrating on certain areas because they were more prone to discrimination 50 years ago but not necessarily today is unconstitutitional.
Corrected: Civil Rights Act should have been Voting Rights Act
Just Deserts
Greg Mankiw, the Harvard economist recently published an essay in which he defends the 1%.
Many on the left side of the aisle can be pretty anti-1%.
Harold Pollack did not like Mankiw's defense of the richest among us. Reading through his entry, though, I'm struck by the arguments he makes. They seem to lack substance or are beside the point. Let's look at each paragraph individually.
The first paragraph sets up how Pollack admires Mankiw, and he sets up how this isn't a partisan attack. Of course, after reading the first sentence, I'm bracing for criticism.
His second paragraph attempts to associate Mankiw with someone Pollack believes was actively detrimental to helping lower income people. Notice, he doesn't say anything about what Mankiw officially believes, only that Mankiw worked for someone that believes those things. This is weak evidence against him. You have no idea what part Mankiw played in those policy proposals. Of course, it's not totally negligible, it's just weak.
The third paragraph also contains no substantive argument. He talks about some economists who share the view and ends it with a quotation without discussing it at all. Does Pollack disagree with what Mankiw writes? Why? Admittedly, not having read Mankiw's original article, I can't say I see the logic, but I trust that Mankiw has provided the correct context for understanding the idea. Pollack says nothing.
Finally, we get to something useful. Pollack includes a paragraph from Mankiw. The paragraph basically says Mankiw doesn't believe his children have better opportunities than he had even though his children are much better off than he was.
Pollack counters that there's income inequality. This, of course, is entirely missing Mankiw's point. Mankiw acknowledges there's income inequality, but he argues that it doesn't cause opportunity inequality.
Then Pollack talks about the lack of wealth mobility. Next he talks about how the top schools enroll the highest income students. Here, Pollack makes a strong argument that wealthy people have more opportunities/easier access than the poor. He should have stopped here.
He goes on to ask "Why should people's market wages so strongly determine what they deserve to have in life? [Pollack's brother's] just deserts reside in his claim to equal, dignified citizenship, not his meager ability to produce goods and services."
I don't think Mankiw or most Republicans would dispute that all citizens deserve basic services such as healthcare and education. But most of the country believes that when people earn more money they should be allowed to spend it. Pollack seems to be arguing that commanding higher salaries shouldn't lead to consumption disparities, which is just socialism. Is that what he's advocating?
Many on the left side of the aisle can be pretty anti-1%.
Harold Pollack did not like Mankiw's defense of the richest among us. Reading through his entry, though, I'm struck by the arguments he makes. They seem to lack substance or are beside the point. Let's look at each paragraph individually.
The first paragraph sets up how Pollack admires Mankiw, and he sets up how this isn't a partisan attack. Of course, after reading the first sentence, I'm bracing for criticism.
His second paragraph attempts to associate Mankiw with someone Pollack believes was actively detrimental to helping lower income people. Notice, he doesn't say anything about what Mankiw officially believes, only that Mankiw worked for someone that believes those things. This is weak evidence against him. You have no idea what part Mankiw played in those policy proposals. Of course, it's not totally negligible, it's just weak.
The third paragraph also contains no substantive argument. He talks about some economists who share the view and ends it with a quotation without discussing it at all. Does Pollack disagree with what Mankiw writes? Why? Admittedly, not having read Mankiw's original article, I can't say I see the logic, but I trust that Mankiw has provided the correct context for understanding the idea. Pollack says nothing.
Finally, we get to something useful. Pollack includes a paragraph from Mankiw. The paragraph basically says Mankiw doesn't believe his children have better opportunities than he had even though his children are much better off than he was.
Pollack counters that there's income inequality. This, of course, is entirely missing Mankiw's point. Mankiw acknowledges there's income inequality, but he argues that it doesn't cause opportunity inequality.
Then Pollack talks about the lack of wealth mobility. Next he talks about how the top schools enroll the highest income students. Here, Pollack makes a strong argument that wealthy people have more opportunities/easier access than the poor. He should have stopped here.
He goes on to ask "Why should people's market wages so strongly determine what they deserve to have in life? [Pollack's brother's] just deserts reside in his claim to equal, dignified citizenship, not his meager ability to produce goods and services."
I don't think Mankiw or most Republicans would dispute that all citizens deserve basic services such as healthcare and education. But most of the country believes that when people earn more money they should be allowed to spend it. Pollack seems to be arguing that commanding higher salaries shouldn't lead to consumption disparities, which is just socialism. Is that what he's advocating?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)