Archive for May 2010
California’s Next AG Needs to Understand the Constitution, Not Just the Penal Code
According to LegalNewsline.com, the liberal Sacramento Bee editorial board endorsed Steve Cooley, on the apparent basis that his challenger, John Eastman, has never prosecuted a criminal case. This spurious criticism of Eastman ignores that the Attorney General is a supervisor of the state’s prosecutors—and indeed, the Bee is not particularly known for having voiced any opposition to Jerry Brown for his lack of prosecutorial experience, or any other legal experience for that matter (he apparently hadn’t practiced law before seeking the attorney general position since 1969, after about four years of private practice). But more importantly, the Attorney General represents the state and the people of California before the appellate courts—both state and federal—in major constitutional cases.
Thus, a more apt critique would be, how many constitutional appeals has Steve Cooley argued, or been involved in? Eastman is a nationally recognized constitutional law attorney. Eastman would be infinitely better equipped than Cooley in arguing the constitutionality of Obama’s health care mandate before the Supreme Court. While Cooley’s relatively narrow litigation experience in criminal prosecutions is certainly valuable, it does nothing to suggest his acumen in understanding and arguing constitutional law matters. And, as I explained in a recent Sacramento Bee op-ed, many of California’s wounds are self-inflicted (such as our unfunded pension liability) and require an Attorney General who is expert in the constitution—not just the penal code—to help redress them.
In this regard, it should be noted that it would be highly unlikely that Cooley would even bring a challenge to the constitutionality of the crippling retroactive pension increases paid to public employee unions. That is because Steve Cooley himself negotiated to receive one of lavish illegal retroactive pension packages. John Eastman, who helped launch the Orange County litigation challenging those illegal benefits, is not only the best candidate, but the only one without a clear conflict of interest in taking on the retroactive pension issue.
Conservatives vs. Progressives
Here are some interesting observations about Conservatives versus Progressives. Just taking this list on its own, one would be led to believe that members of these two camps don’t really have any coherent ideology, they just pick and choose big-sounding ideas (i.e., big government vs. free market, paternalism vs. individual choice, traditionalism vs. modernism) when it suits their needs. I don’t think that is the case for Conservatives, however. At least, not as far as my own Conservatism goes. A hint as you review this list: consider not what each side is after so much as how they mean to achieve it.
- Conservatives talk of the unsustainability of our economic and social welfare policies, and that our political systems will be crushed under their enormous weight. Progressives talk of the unsustainability of our environmental policies and that our ecosystem will soon be crushed under the weight of the trillions of pounds of human flesh we’ve irresponsibly allowed to proliferate. Conservatives and Progressives both chuckle at each other as being hot-headed alarmists.
- Conservatives complain of government growing too heavy-handed in domestic affairs. Progressives can’t seem to fathom this gripe, while they complain the government is too heavy-handed in foreign affairs. They both accuse each other of being shills for a form of governmental Leviathan.
- Conservatives wince at land use planners roping off our free choices concerning where we can live and work and what we can build, even if this means the slow decay of the traditional city. Progressives long for the hey-day of the early 20th century, which defined the ideal planning model of “walkable” cities and thriving smaller towns, even if this means middle- or lower-income families will be foreclosed from the opportunity to live in spacious houses with their own yards.
- Conservatives tout economic liberty and strong property rights, but are accused of not similarly championing privacy and personal liberty. Progressives take up these latter liberties, but think little of the individual’s right in his property or in his economic decisions.
- Conservatives fear big government because of its power to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property, because that power is of necessity wielded by men, and because, despite the best efforts of our Framers, its machinations are largely opaque. Progressives instead fear big corporations and insist that the market is not a suitable alternative reservoir for social control, for the curious reason that corporations are in cahoots with big government.
- Conservatives tout the free, unregulated market, but sometimes struggle to explain the crash of 1929. Progressives tout a tightly controlled economy that they say led to the boom of the middle class in the 1940s to around 1980, but at the same time complain that this profligate growth led to the sacking of traditional cities and the ghastly phenomenon of “suburban sprawl.”
Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine
Obama’s Trail of Tears
Here’s a helpful list of broken promises thus far. Some of my favorites:
HEALTH-CARE NEGOTIATIONS ON C-SPAN
STATEMENT: “These negotiations will be on C-SPAN, and so the public will be part of the conversation and will see the decisions that are being made.” January 20, 2008, and seven other times.
EXPIRATION DATE: Throughout the summer, fall, and winter of 2009 and 2010; when John McCain asked about it during the health-care summit February 26, Obama dismissed the issue by declaring, “the campaign is over, John.”
RAISING TAXES
STATEMENT: “No family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase.” (multiple times on the campaign trail) [TK: I was particularly fond of the “not one dime” refrain.]
EXPIRATION DATE: Broken multiple times, including the raised taxes on tobacco, a new tax on indoor tanning salons, but most prominently on February 11, 2010: “President Barack Obama said he is ‘agnostic’ about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.” [See more here. From Bloomberg: “The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said in the interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions.”. . . “What I can’t do is to set the thing up where a whole bunch of things are off the table,” Obama said. “Some would say we can’t look at entitlements. There are going to be some that say we can’t look at taxes, and pretty soon, you just can’t solve the problem.”]
. . . .
. . . .
17. “Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” Obama is 1-for-11 on this promise so far.
Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine