Miers Withdraws

SHAZZAM!!!

Current events

Could someone explain or summarize this Wilson/Plame/CIA debacle to/for me? Trying to jump in now is like starting Robert Jordan at book 7.

Gay Marriage

Thanks for that post, Stanya. Those were two of the more thoughtful, honest pieces I've read about the issue. Admittedly, though, I have not paid much attention to the debate for a couple years.

Personally, I would oppose gay marriage. I won't defend this position fully, now, but I will say that government certainly has a legitimate interest in marriage considering the effects of out-of-wedlock births and welfare policy. The last thirty-some years have been a failed experiment in undermining marriage, the family, and empirically beneficial social mores for the sake of feminism, sexual liberation, and radical individualism amounting to license. We have increasingly undermined the legitimacy of social moral pressures, obliterating any notion that our freedoms carry corresponding duties and responsibilities to our families, communities, and society. I think it possible that activist homosexuals, not homosexuality per se, have contributed to this. I don't know for sure that gay marriage will further undermine the social fabric, but I am skeptical of those that are pushing for it.

If those in favor of gay marriage can sell it to legislatures, they have that right, and I don't begrudge it. Perhaps they will prevail and it will prove not to harm marriage substantially or even prove to be beneficial in some way. If allowed and proved harmful, hopefully, it may be reconsidered or repealed.

What I do find intolerable, however, are courts extracting the issue from the political process as was the case in Massachusetts. The Constitution certainly does not speak to the issue despite judges' wrangling to impose 'enlightened' views on the rest of us. States may make laws with the impetus of moral dissapproval. That motive aside, they certainly should be able to make laws concerning marriage and social welfare considering the costs arrangements such as out-of-wedlock births and other sexual/marriage-related issues impose on society.

Who wants to get queer-hitched?

Just to switch things up a bit, here is an incredibly thoughtful piece by Cathy Young on marriage, Maggie Gallagher and the issue of same-sex marriage. Another great piece I found last year (from Jane Galt) provides the strongest argument (in my opinion) against same-sex marriage that I have yet to see/hear. Most everything anti-SSM is simply "its tradition!" and not an actual argument (my dad tried to make this argument to me, in addition to the slippery slope "what if a man wants to marry his dog?" argument, both of which are easily refuted). In no does this mean that I want to end the property discussion either, I just need to think on that some more. Also, we had pancakes.

New Fed Chairman

The President's pick to succeed Greenspan after January 31 .

Lunar real estate....

Here is an article about Dennis Hope, the aforementioned kooky guy:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040202.html

Sadly...

...Cornel West was a no-show for his engagement here at W&L. Harvard had the good sense to let him go, but, alas, good ol' Princeton was there to snatch him back. Go here for a more critical take on this icon of academia.

Oh, yeah...you can check out his album here.

Takings continued...

The case, for anyone who is interested, I alluded to in my previous post is Berman v. Parker in 1954. Here the Court allowed DC to condemn slum--real slums, not like Kelo's house, areas with the eminent domain power. DC sold the land they condemned to private developers. So, there is the 'landmark' precedent in silly journalist speak (Lawrence v. Texas is the 'landmark' in this link if you have a slow connection like me and don't want to take it).

I think 'landmark' makes a good euphemism for bad decision or departure from the Constitution. The press cheers, "the Court is advancing our social causes, yippie! This'll be a landmark to guide judges in the future." And all along I thought the Constitution should be the judge's guide. Call me a reactionary...

You can't own property, man

I have to say that I tend to agree with Eric's last post. I would be less likely to agree that our times are more enlightened, especially as to property (this is another debate altogether). As wonderful as libertarians like Stanya think think things would be without eminent domain, it was provided for by the takings clause. Historically, there probably has never been a functional understanding of property more libertarian than in the US. That being said, you own your property only with the government's consent or protection. So, a libertarian ideal, while economically good, can only be realized by force or by political persuasion, meaning requiring the government through our political processes to protect property. Therefore, it is probably wrong to say you have a right to your property beyond which you cannot enforce it yourself. It would be good if government functioned on the proposition that there is a natural right to property, but natural rights don't enforce themselves.

The definition of 'public use' in precedent, like much else, expanded over time. Legitimate definitions might be the obvious, government buildings, schools, roads, etc. Eventually public use came to include common carriers such as railroads, so that if it was something available for all the public to use, it qualified. These have always been pretty uncontroversial. Recent precedent, though, has changed public use to public benefit, clearly a huge expansion of qualifying exuses to use eminent domain. The important case slips my mind at the moment, I believe it was in the early sixties, began this expansion of what was a public use. A bad example to me was Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff in 1984, thus pre-Scalia and Thomas. O'Connor wrote the opinion (though, she did dissent in Kelo) saying Hawaii could transfer a bunch of property from lessors to lessees because so much property was concentrated in so few owners' hands. The claim was this caused property prices to be extraordinarily high, and difficult to acquire. The court voted 8-0!!!! So that, now, as I mentioned, if there is any conceivable public benefit (tax revenue, aesthetic value might even qualify), the taking will be ok'd by the courts. The only caveat was Justice Kennedy's concurrence (since he was the fifth vote) suggesting the gain must be rational and substantial to some minimal extent.

Finally, to scare you Stanya, State and local governments may take property or regulate it so as to destroy some of its value as long as there is a legitimate police power reason without compensation as you and I talked about with zoning laws.

Property

Dr. Vaughan once taught a whole seminar on theories of property, but I didn't get to take it. I heard it was pretty interesting, though. I seem to remember Locke (Second Treatise) defining property as something like nature (land, plants, rocks) invested with labor (a garden, tomato sauce, horseshoes), which makes it "mine." I totally buy that notion, but history (at least the people in it) doesn't really seem to (see "slavery," "conquest," "colonialism," and the like).

Property or ownership is partly nominal, as in "I claim this land for the King of France" or a deed to a house. But I think the real essence of property is physical force. If someone resists the King of France's claim to ownership, he will be arrested or killed. Having seen this transaction, the next guy who wants to resist will respect the King's speech act of claiming property. The same thing seems to be going on in our more enlightened times, as well. Say I have a deed to a house, and everyone (government, contractors, tenants, neighbors) agree the property is "mine." Rather than killing each other, we settle any disputes through legal proceedings. However, all of our laws are only meaningful insofar as they imply a threat to person or property: if you break the law, you will lose "your" stuff or be locked up. Sure, the threat is more humane than rape and murder has been more or less agreed on by the participants in the society, but it is a threat all the same. The difference, then, between Alexander's plundering Persia, my buying a car, and the government's claim of eminent domain is one of degree, not kind.

I was reminded of issues like these when I saw the guy who owns the moon on Conan O'Brien (I'll try to find a link to his website later). He found a loophole in all of the existing laws regarding ownership of stellar bodies, and has laid legitimate, legal claim to the Moon, Mars, and other planets. He makes a fortune selling lunar real estate (lots of celebrities buy, but hotel chains are some of his biggest customers). Right now, he is just a kooky fella who has found a scam, and The Man lets him have his fun. However, if the Moon ever actually becomes easy to get to or needed for some military installation, that guy will have no chance whatsoever of resisting the King's claim.

So, it seems to me that, as awful as it sounds, all property is simply on loan from whoever has the strength to take it away, whether it is barbarian invaders, Medieval Crusaders, my mortgage lender, the State of Ohio, or Uncle Freakin' Sam.

Question for the big fancy lawyer-man

Actually a serious series of questions. What does the precedent say about eminent domain? What did the Court allow prior to Kelo? The takings clause was something I hadn't thought about all that much until this summer. What was the definition of "public use" as defined by the Court? Personally, I don't support any sort of eminent domain; property is property. If the gov't can take the property (regardless of whether they pay me or not) then it is not property; it is just on loan from the gov't. Anyway, thoughts/comments on the meaning/defintion of property are welcome.

Stanya out.

Revisiting Kelo

Having now studied some of the precedent, the Kelo decision was no suprise. It was no less wrong, however.

The test used by the Court for the public use requirement is merely a rational relation to any conceivable public benefit. Justice Thomas's dissent nicely pointed out the silliness of this approach.

The upside to Kelo...Many states will now make it more difficult to exercise eminent domain. To put it in perspective, prior to the Court incorporating the Takings Clause through the 14th Amendment, it did not apply to the States anyway. So now property will be more legally protected even though our society values its protection much less than it did in the 19th century.

Don't know much about science...

...but thought I should contribute something about that part of our blog's title.

...Okay, so I'm not really contributing, but passing it along from someone who was passing it along.

Postrel's hotness...or should it be "heat?"

She's not ugly, but at least she's not anorexic like Ann Coulter. Cripes, somebody give that woman a cheese burger.

About "original intentions"....

Speaking of soundbyte lingo to be sick of hearing, let's talk about "original intentions" a bit. Everybody who has an opinion on the Constitution claims their view best reflects "the intentions of our founders." The problem is all of the primary and secondary texts admissible as evidence must be interpreted and are just as easily pimped for the service of ideology. Also, why should I necessarily care what the founders intended? They are dead and I live with the Constitution in 2005. Even if some right-wing wacko makes a compelling case that, say, they really intended for America to be a Protestant-fundamentalist-theocratic-police state, or if some left-wing loon can show evidence they would have wanted to protect the rights of gay children to marry multiple animals of the same sex and bill the taxpayers for the tuxedo rental, what makes them right? It's not like the "founders" were never wrong about anything. As far as I can tell, the difference between "activism" and "constructionism" is whether you or I am doing it. WEAK-MINDED DOGMATIST DISCLAIMER: the preceding statement is not a plug for Constitutional relativism, as some may be tempted to assert. I think "right" and "wrong" are meaningful categories, but instead want to point out the inconsistency (even hypocrisy) with which the terms are used, which makes meaningful, truth-seeking discourse impossible.

Supreme Court. Also I think I have a crush on Virginia Postrel

The Supreme Court should be composed of the best legal minds of the country. Harriet Miers is not that. This president is totally squandering a chance to restore the primacy of the Constitution in our nation. I was never really "with" Bush (although I would have voted him had it been close in AK; my hatred of Edwards and respect for Cheney were enough to shore that up). He clearly is not particularly concerned with how he leaves this country when he's done. His concern is his legacy in the "War Against Terror." Screw domestic policy!
My personal choice for a new Justice was most definitely Janice Brown. Not because she's black or a woman but because she be havin' a crazy, badass libertarian-conservative-STRICT constructionist view of the Constitution. She'd slap Scalia if he got out of line. Breyer and Souter would be afraid of her. She'd cuss out Ginsberg fo' bein' a "natty ho." She'd impress the Cheif Justice with the junk in her trunk too. I say the Court needs her sass.
Finally, I am sick and tired of hearing about "judicial activism" and precedent. If precedent is WRONG it needs to be reversed which requires activity. Roe v. Wade, regardless of your thoughts on abortion is stupid, stupid Constitutional law. Activism is necessary (within the sphere of the actual text of the Constitution) in order to restore the Constitution to its original meaning/intentions. Stop treating precedence as the end-all, be-all.
Finally, here is an interesting article on the state of cloning science in Canada (hint, things are MUCH worse there) by Virginia Postrel, whom, I find out, is actually pretty hot.

Re: The President

Wow. Those are words I never thought I'd hear from you, Jarrod. I look forward to your elaboration.

Though it does little to add my voice to the symphony, this Supreme Court nominee strikes me are particularly weak, and perhaps indicative of the contempt that the President may hold for his own supporters, and the nation as a whole. At best, it is ill-concieved favoritism. I don't trust this President or the people he has around him to withdraw the nomination, so I hold to hope that it meets quick demise in the Senate. I am worried, however, that the Democrats are emboldened by the chaos this nomination is causing in Republican circles and will support her in the hopes of splintering GOP control. Likewise I'm worried that a sizable portion of the Republican majority are still under the President's spell and will support her. These two groups, combined, may be enough to get her through. There is always a deficit of spinal fortitude in the Senate.

The President

I am done with this President. Five years now have I looked the other way while he massively increased federal spending, expanded and strengthend the bureaucracy, and ignored any kind of foreign policy development that wasn't related to the war on terror. So now, clinging to the hope of a Supreme Court that would finally respect the constitution and the ideals by which it was created, that I believe can only be done with what we call "conservative" jurisprudence. For him to nominate someone so awful as Harriet Miers, for him to have the audacity to tell me to "trust him" which is something we simply cannot do for Supreme Court nominees, and for all the ridiculous arguments and flaking coming from the White House these days, I simply can no longer support him. He will destroy conservative power in America softly and he has proven to be much more destructive in a domestic policy sense than Clinton ever was. The prospects for a truly conservative nominee in 2008 are slim also, and I blame a large portion of that sentiment on the failure of this President to govern when the opportunity was presented to him. A second term often allows a President to reveal himself and this President has done that to great disappointment. I'll share more thoughts later when my breakage becomes complete.

Intelligent Design

I did not compare evolution to creation. I did not advocate the instruction of creationism in a scientific classroom. Your assumptions about my own motivations or thought are astonishing.
First, it doesn't matter if I believe a big invisible man created the Earth in six days, because religious text and meaning have nothing to do with science, particuraly in this case where they seem to be diametrically opposed. Obviously, it is impossible to explain a creation theory by scientific standards because such a theory would not hold to accepted scienctific methods. I argue that evolution theory does not hold to scientifc standards either. Therefore, a scientific hole in a religious argument doesn't mean much because the entire text is supernatural to begin with. However, a scientific hole in a scientifc theory is critical that is why I mention it. Secondly, I have a great respect for the natural teachings and knowledge that hard science can provide, and I have said as much. Generally, I only opppose basic scientific thought or action in two areas, one is regarding teaching evolution, which I regard as shaky at best, especially with the decline of Darwinian teachings and the convoluted and often incomplete teachings that make it into textbooks these days. The second is when science departments demand my tax dollars to perform possibly immoral acts and then complain about government restriction when a popular uprising ensues. Unfortunately, both of those issues have come up on this blog, perhaps clouded your view of my opinion of science. Thirdly, I take exception to your assertion that I have an uneducated view of science. I have invested many hours studying the history, nature and discoveries scientists have given mankind throughout the centuries. This includes big names like Newton, Einstein and Hawking to the lessers like Pascal and Keplar. For them I have great appreciation. In any case, simply because I point out a inconsistency in a scientific theory, and because there may be a similar inconsistency in a religious idea doesn't really matter in regards to the argument I was making. I was offering an opinion on intelligent design in the classroom, which I think should not be there, and I added a corollary that evolution should also be excluded for its questionable nature. What that has to do with any problems you have with views I might hold on a subject marginally related is curious. Perhaps we can run through and identify a series of contradictions in my views, but for the purposes of this blogging subject, I don't see the relevance to my asserted contradictions to evolution teaching in the classroom. Fourthly, I don't make these assertions because I want to see science destroyed or marginalized, but because I want science to make stay true to it roots and purpose. I believe that the dipping of science into ideology, as I think evolution has become, will permanently weaken the pursuit of natural knowledge in the accepted academic sense. Lastly, simply because the periodic table was incomplete at its first conception and is now accepted as law doesn't speak to this issue because evolution is entirely entirely different. By that reasoning every bogus or thinly evidenced scientific hypothesis should be taught in a classroom because further research "might" reveal it to be true. Let me tell you about the virtues of spontaneous combustion then, or perhaps, spontaneous generation. Besides, the periodic table wasn't accepted as law or doctrine until after it was completed or at least fashioned into a convincing and viable form. Evolution has not yet met that standard, but yet it is presented and taught as if it had. That isn't science, that is ideology and I don't want classrooms puporting to teach objective and naturally revealed truth stocked with ideolouges. My point here is very simple, but your rebuttal has both uneccesarily expanded the discussion and introduced unrelated analogies in an attempt to complicate my argument. Therefore, to keep it simple I reiterate that I do not think ID should be taught in classrooms, similarly because evolution does not readily appear to meet scientific standard by my estimation, it should also be excluded from the classroom. Religion is fine for religion class, and I have never said otherwise.

For a good laugh...

...go here.

New James Bond

Daniel Craig will star in the 21st Bond film, based on Ian Fleming's first book Casino Royale.

"Craig has said he does not like the fact that the films are more about gadgets than feelings."

Evidently it is going to take some work to get into character.

George Will....

...makes much sense. However, why would it not be "obstructionist" for "Republicans to put up some resistance?" Wasn't that what we call it whenever a Republican steps out of line with the party orthodoxy? Are we supposed to trust Our Leader or not?

Re; Speaking of judges

um...what?

Bert, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, although I am thoroughly impressed with your fancy lawyer speak.

Speaking of judges...

Mark Steyn encapsulates Breyer's attempt to legitimize his anti-constitutional jurisprudence (also known as a lack thereof):

"Stephen Breyer, one of the nine Supreme Court justices, dislikes the term ‘judicial activism’ and prefers to see what he does as part of a ‘democratic conversation’ that’s good for the health of the republic. The Right, not unreasonably, thinks the democratic conversation was held earlier, during the election and then in the legislature and that, having passed a law forbidding, say, partial-birth abortion, they shouldn’t then see it overturned because Justice Breyer wants to have the last word in the ‘democratic conversation’. "

Breyer actually says judges are partaking in a 'democratic conversation' especially in the context of consulting foreign law.

Bork...

...shared his disappoinment with Tucker Carlson.

George Will...

...hammers the President on the Miers nomination. I have to say, I don't understand this nomination at all. It is a let down. I'm hoping enough Republicans put up some resistance.

On another note....

Does anybody else watch Lost on ABC? If not, I utterly recommend it. However, I wouldn't suggest you dive in now without renting season one--the plot is fairly intricate.

Eminent domain

Thought this was an interesting follow up.

ID and science

I'll just go ahead and jump on the bandwagon here and say that in no way shape or form would I constitue ID as classroom worthy science. I would calssify it as more of a religion...or a joke. Go flying spaghetti monster!
On a different note, I'd like to ask JB why the "gaping holes" in the theory of evolution are so terrible. The periodic table, which I seem to recall you saying you would never question, had about 70% of the spaces blank when it was first designed. When Mendeleev first drew the table, it was missing a tremendous number of elements. But he rightly concluded that scienctists had yet to discover the missing links. He didn't simply assume that science was wrong because it didn't immediately have the answers or because most of his table was missing (which seems to be what you're doing with the Theory of Evolution). Instead, he used basic scientific and mathematic principles to infer (he did this correctly, for the most part) the general physical properties of the missing elements (which seems to be what the dreaded SCIENCE does with evolution - that's why it is a theory and not a law - there isn't enough scientific proof). Infact, it was Mendeleev's speculation with the table that led to the discovery of several more elements as chemists and physicists quested to fill those gaps. Incidentally, as a side note, I'd direct you to the Webster's definitions of "theory" and ask how one, if not all of them, doesn't apply to science's "THEORY" of evolution.
I maintain that you have a surprisingly narrow and uneducated view of what science is and how it works based upon your posts. You are suprisingly quick to point out a vacuum in scientific knowledge for someone so dedicated to the idea that a great, big invisible man created everything in 6 days. I hold your devotion to religion and criticisms of science to be hypocritical in the most fundamental of senses; you find fault with the gaps in science and label them as something to be frowned upon while you embrace gaps in religious theory as a testament to your faith. Further, I would think that you ignore a tremendous amount of evidence by simply writing off the idea of evolution because you find it to not coexist with what you read in the Bible. I would argue that there is sufficient evidence for a THEORY of evolution and that, from that aspect, the THEORY should be taught in schools as it is a fairly good modern means by which students can begin to see how to try to fit data together to begin to answer very complex and intricate questions. My elemental science class in high school spent several days putting together a periodic table based on the data that Mendeleev had (the periodic table was only a theory when he did it) and I don't see why the same couldn't be done with evolution. It is a theory that can be debated both ways and the ability to look at a problem from every possible angle and discount nothing until it is proven wrong is an essential quality that any pursuer of "science" must possess. I think there is an excellent parallel between the development of the periodic table and that of the theory of evolution. Perhaps, in time, science will fill those gaps with evidence, much as the gaps in the periodic table were filled.

On ID....

Interesting comparison here....
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-barash27sep27,1,4928180.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

Tim Burton...

...has made a funny little, family-friendly film. No necrophilia here, just clay-mation and song. Corpse Bride was entertaining and I recommend it to you.

Squid

Just wanted to make sure everyone caught this in the article.

"In 2003, New Zealand marine biologists laid a sex trap.
They ground up some squid gonads, believing that the scent would drive male giant squids wild as the creatures migrated through New Zealand waters.
The hope was that a camera would squirt out the pureed genitals and a passing squid, driven into a sexual frenzy, would then mate with the lens -- a project that, some may be relieved to hear, never came to fruition."

Scary indeed!