Denver Post (lack of) coverage of Colorado Supreme Court criticism draws notice, response

by CTBC Director | 11:45 pm, June 30, 2010

Clear The Bench Colorado has noted for several months now an apparent bias in the Denver Post’s coverage (more accurately, lack of coverage) of the very newsworthy fact that for the first time in over forty (40!) years (since the system of judicial retention – i.e. yes/no – elections in Colorado replaced contested – i.e. [...]

The Myth of Government Job Creation

by Rich Bratten | 11:36 pm, June 30, 2010

Government doesn’t create jobs.  Government cannot create jobs.  Anybody who says that “I want to be elected to office so that I can create jobs for the people” needs a remedial course in economics. Government is by definition a drag, a friction, an impediment to the creation of jobs, wealth, or value. Government can only [...]

Ken Buck probably won debate with Jane Norton

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 12:51 pm, June 30, 2010

When the leader in a political campaign goes virtually untouched in a debate with his strongest opponent, he wins. Ken Buck is leading Jane Norton by 10 to 16 points in credible polls. From what I’ve read, Norton didn’t touch Buck, which means he won last night. I didn’t cover the debate, and I haven’t watched videos of it. I’m neutral in this contest for the Republicans’ nomination to the U.S. Senate. The winner will take on appointed Obama Democrat Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Washington, DC).

How are we going to win?

by Al Maurer | 11:24 am, June 30, 2010

We have the answer. We are the answer. Our institutions of government are not designed to rule over us and make life care-free; our government is designed simply to free us from the mundane tasks of self-government while we pursue life, liberty and happiness. To win this struggle we have to start by remembering that. [...]

Singing about Online Education

by Eddie | 9:55 am, June 30, 2010

Last week I pointed you to some research and analysis that put the current K-12 budget cuts and proposed education jobs bailout in perspective.
Well, what are the answers then? One way is to open the doors for parents to more quality education options that aren’t as labor-intensive. One way is to let successful entrepreneurs like [...]

Wednesday morning market note: Private employment data damps bounce

by Rossputin | 7:04 am, June 30, 2010

Yesterday was a brutal day for the market, blasting through my first downside target of 10,000 on the Dow Jones Industrial Average and closing right at (just one point above) my second target of 1040 on the S&P 500. (To be clear, I didn’t come up with the 1040 number; it’s well-known as critical support in that key index.)

Early this morning, S&P 500 futures had traded up about 7 points, with Dow Jones futures trading much of the morning up about 55 points.

However, at 8:15 AM Eastern Time, ADP released its private survey of employers for June, estimating that only 13,000 private jobs had been created during the month. Bloomberg’s median estimate was 60,000 with a low estimate of 23,000.

Stock futures sold off immediately and, as I write this about half an hour before the market open (and 45 minutes after the ADP report), S&P futures are up only 50 cents and Dow futures are up 7 points.

Current futures pricing implies a “cash” S&P 500 price just under the critical 1040 level, all the more critical because so many people know about it.

Most commodities have drifted slightly lower over the last 45 minutes as well, with gold dropping about $5 and oil dropping about 50 cents.

In other words, ADP seems to have reminded early morning traders that just because the market is a lot cheaper than it was 24 hours ago does not mean it’s cheap.

To me, today seems likely to be volatile and crazy, probably with more downside risk than upside potential. It wouldn’t surprise me to see them push down through 1040 (roughly 1036 on the futures) and smack the market down a quick 100 Dow points or more, maybe 10 S&P points. We could see a little short covering and then they’ll test 1040 on the upside (though maybe not until later in the week) and that will then become a key test. My guess is that it fails the first time and that we end up in a trading range between 9300 and 9800 on the Dow for a little while.

[One quick technical note: For those of you who are unused to seeing a particular futures price imply a higher price in the actual index, i.e. 1036 in the futures roughly equaling 1040 in the cash, that is a function of “negative cost of carry” for the underlying group of stocks.  In other words, during dividend season, the dividend payments on owning the stocks exceed the interest cost of taking money out of the bank to buy the stocks – not hard to do in a near-zero interest rate environment.  Therefore, owning the stocks gives you a positive cash flow that you don’t get if you own the future, causing the future to be worth less than the stocks.  As we go through the dividend season and the companies go ex-dividend, the fair value on the futures will rise relative to the stock price, at some point actually going over the cash.  In other words, when there are no more dividends (or only very small dividends) to come before the futures expiration, then the future will be worth more than the cash.  And of course, at futures expiration, the future price and cash price converge.]

It would be interesting to me if this happens because many months ago, when we were coming off the market lows and had recovered to about 9000, I said I thought the market’s fair value was going to be about 9500 for quite some time. The market went MUCH higher in the interim than I expected – which isn’t much different from being wrong, I suppose, but if we do indeed get back to that 9500 range for a while I’ll feel somewhat vindicated. It would be better if I had made more money, however, which is more important than being right. Markets are not about egos, at least not for long because markets always win.

This is a market for traders, not investors. And again, if you want to buy something, I suggest selling out-of-the-money puts into major volatility spikes or at least covered calls which are really the same thing, except that people tend to think of selling puts as selling low strikes whereas selling covered calls involves buying stock and selling high strike calls. In either case, you’re really selling puts, just of different strikes. (There are small differences between selling puts and selling covered calls in terms of risk related to interest rates and dividend changes, but in this environment of very little change in either, those differences are negligible for relatively short-term options.)

If you sell puts, you MUST be prepared to take delivery of the stock. If that’s going to happen and you really don’t want the stock – and a lot of people are certainly scared out of taking delivery because by definition the stock has gone down – then you’ll have to buy the put back, perhaps for a loss, or else take delivery and then sell the stock out, perhaps for a loss. Alternatively, if your investment thesis for the stock is still in place, it might not be a bad plan to take the stock and then sell calls against it in what should still be a high implied volatility environment. Again, this is not a trading style for a novice or someone with very low risk tolerance, but it can be a successful approach.

CO GOP Senate Primary Debate: Ken Buck vs. Jane Norton in Colorado Springs

by elpresidente | 6:37 am, June 30, 2010

Missed the US Senate debate? PPC has you covered . . . If you enjoy the exclusive gavel-to-gavel coverage be sure to become a PPC “fan” on Facebook (at the link or through the widget in the sidebar), follow our Twitter feed @peoplespress, and tips are welcome. Thanks in advance.

Colorado political frustration

by Rossputin | 5:37 am, June 30, 2010

Is it just my jaded view or are we suffering from a serious lack of talent among those who manage Colorado political campaigns? I’m speaking in particular of the Republican side, since I don’t know the Democrats (and don’t really care to.)

What does it say about the ability of those who run Republican campaigns when probably the best campaign so far is Ken Buck’s, and most of the damage he has done to Jane Norton (whom I have endorsed) has been done by surrogates who the campaign claims have been acting totally independently?

I’m a big fan of Josh Penry’s but I fear that he’s hurting his political future in the state. Whether he likes it or not, the Buck people are successfully making the campaign to a substantial part about Josh (and to a lesser degree about Norton staffer Cinamon Watson). Yes, it’s because the direct arguments against Jane Norton are weak, but it seems to me that the Norton campaign has been doing more explaining than the Buck campaign. As one of my smartest political friends says, “if you’re explaining, you’re losing.”  Of course, it’s not unique to Josh Penry or any other high-profile campaign manager that people love a winner.  So any damage to Josh’s reputation will be inversely proportional to Jane’s electoral succcess; Jane and Josh’s political fortunes are somewhat tied at the hip now.  I hope they both succeed – I think they’re both excellent – but I’d be foolish not to be concerned right now.

On the other hand, many of Buck’s cheerleaders have been so shrill and over-the-top with bogus criticisms of Norton that I have to wonder if they will start to reflect badly on their man. (There is, to be sure, at least one particularly annoying and ineffective Norton supporter who uses an exclamation point after every sentence while spouting nonsense about secret information she has which is damaging to Ken Buck.)

Norton’s new anti-Buck radio ad, which you can hear below (if the player shows up on your web page), seems like it might be effective.

The case at issue is interesting.  Ken Buck declined to prosecute a case against a pawn shop owner who seemed to be distributing guns to criminals.  In the end, the US Attorney prosecuted anyway and only got a misdemeanor conviction, which would seem to vindicate Buck’s basic point.  However, Buck’s other actions surrounding the case really do strike me as unethical and worthy of the official reprimands he received.  From a Westword article on the case:

The Post focuses on a gun case involving a pawn shop owned by Gregory and Leonid Golyansky. Buck, who says he knew Gregory Golyansky from Republican Party events, didn’t push for charges against the brothers circa the late ’90s under U.S. Attorney Henry Solano. Moreover, when Tom Strickland, Solano’s successor, tried to revive the case, Buck reportedly recommended several attorneys who might be able to represent the Golyanskys to a third party, state senator Shawn Mitchell. He also told the one of the lawyers chosen, Stephen Peters, about a memo he’d written to a colleague, future controversy magnet Stephanie Villafuerte, suggesting that the evidence in the matter was weak.

It’s one thing for Buck to refuse to prosecute a case.  It’s another thing entirely for him to try to torpedo the government’s case when his superiors decide to go ahead with prosecution.  That’s a serious problem.

That said, it seems like Buck is routinely getting the better of the spin with the help of Walt Klein.

All in all, both campaigns strike me as relatively weak and it’s only because Senator Michael “Who?” Bennet is such a disaster that I still expect either one to be able to beat him (and I will work to help whichever of them is the nominee become the next senator from Colorado.)

Maybe I’m being a little too harsh.  Maybe it’s extremely difficult to run a campaign against an opponent whose views on policy issues are almost the same as your own candidate’s views.  But even allowing for that, it’s very hard for me to look at these campaigns and say we have a team that can and should be running one of the most important races in the nation.

And for Republicans, these two weak campaigns are the good news, at least in comparison to the GOP race between Scott McInnis and Dan Maes for the gubernatorial nomination.

McInnis, whom I’ve met with briefly, seems reasonably intelligent and personable, but also very much like a politician (in a not-too-complimentary sense of the word.)  Much more so than either Norton or Buck, and I presume more so than Maes who has never held public office.

McInnis, while not an inspiring candidate, should nevertheless have knocked Maes out of the contest weeks or months ago.  Yet somehow, the McInnis campaign allowed Maes to outmaneuver them and get a 1% victory at the assembly, giving Maes the top line on the primary ballot.  It’s truly unbelievable that a candidate with almost no name recognition and no money was able to do that against a modestly well-funded former Congressman.  It says a lot of bad things about the McInnis campaign and will end up hurting McInnis when he wins the nomination, which I still believe he will.

I’m rather surprised that Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper continues to poll so poorly against McInnis given how weak McInnis’ campaign has been.  It says a lot about how poisonous a year this is likely to be for tax-raising “Progressive” Democrats which people are coming to understand that Hickenlooper is, despite his moderate nice-guy facade.

So, like in the Senate race, I expect the Republican candidate to win the general election despite himself and his campaign.

But why is it that we have such an apparent dearth of talent here in Colorado.  One would think that Dick Wadhams, a giant-killer himself, would be able to recruit some capable operatives for this critical battleground state.

Back to Penry.  I think he’s an unbelievably smart and crafty guy, though actually running a campaign may be slightly outside his wheelhouse.  I wish he were still running for governor.  I’d work my heart out for the guy. The question is why the most important race in the state would need to hire Penry so late in the game to run the campaign.  And why does the likely nominee for the second most important race (governor) lose the assembly to a no-name, no-money wannabe?  It’s as if we’re playing in the big leagues using coaches from Double-A ball.

I hope that the people running campaigns for Ryan Frazier and Cory Gardner are better than the apparent Colorado average.  It’s easily imaginable that Ed Perlmutter and Betsey Markey can be beaten; they should be beaten, Markey perhaps more easily than Perlmutter given the heavier weighting of Republican registration in the 4th CD than the 7th CD.  These are races, however, where the opponents are going to be harder to beat than either Bennet or Hickenlooper, and therefore won’t be able to get by on the fumes of existing anti-Democrat sentiment without also running a good campaign.

To be clear, I don’t know if the talent on the Democrat side is any better.  A ham sandwich could win in 2008 running as a Democrat, and the reverse may be true in 2010.  (After all, Cary Kennedy is the political equivalent of a ham sandwich.)  It may be that their campaign-running bench is as weak as the Republicans’, but I sure wouldn’t want to bet control of the Senate or of our state government on it.

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discusses the Colorado Supreme Court, retention elections, and Chief Justice Mullarkey’s retirement at the Greeley Republican breakfast Wednesday

by CTBC Director | 4:11 am, June 30, 2010

Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold discusses the impact of Colorado Supreme Court rulings leading to a massive expansion of government power (at the expense of YOUR constitutional rights) and vastly increased taxation (such as the “Mill Levy Tax Freeze” property tax increase, the “Dirty Dozen” tax increases and of course the Colorado Car Tax (er, “vehicle [...]

Written testimony on Kagan nomination

by David Kopel | 1:19 am, June 30, 2010

(David Kopel) Available here. Co-authored with Stephen Halbrook. The oral testimony will be late July 1 or early July 2.
Copyright © 2010 This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. The use of this feed on other websites breaches copyright. If this content is not in your news reader, it makes the page you are viewing [...]

Tom Woods: Interview With A Zombie

by Chuck Moe | 11:36 pm, June 29, 2010

“A zombie sits down to interview Tom Woods on Tom’s latest book, “Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.”

Dave Kopel Defends Ken Buck in U.S. Attorney Flap

by Ari Armstrong | 11:35 pm, June 29, 2010

Senate hopeful Jane Norton’s vicious attacks on GOP rival Ken Buck regarding Buck’s service in the U.S. Attorney’s office may deeply hurt Norton’s campaign, as I have already indicated. The problem is that Norton is attacking Buck for standing up again…

Clear The Bench Colorado rebuts frivolous, groundless, and vexatious “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) complaint, moves for summary judgement and attorney’s fees

by CTBC Director | 10:55 pm, June 29, 2010

“If you can’t argue the message, attack the messenger…” (Anonymous)
Political allies of the incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices subject to a (non) retention vote this November are increasingly showing frustration at their inability to counter the message (and growing momentum) of the judicial accountability movement spearheaded by Clear The Bench Colorado.  Therefore – in the [...]

Jane Norton’s campaign gives Ken Buck an opportunity to call her a ‘racist’

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 9:11 pm, June 29, 2010

Ali Hasan, a supporter of Ken Buck and a Muslim, has taken advantage of a lousy editing job by Jane Norton’s campaign to use an old tactic of the Democratic Party. He’s calling Jane Norton a “racist” because her silly ad calling for an unlikely victory in the war on terrorism calls for a war on Islam. 
Anybody with half a brain should have edited that headline, and anybody who understands the politics of America’s war on terrorism knows that the war is against Islamic fanatics and terrorists. It’s not a war on Islam. This is even though to the trained eye, most Muslims seem to tacitly support their terroristic peers. That is a valid perception because you don’t see much of an outcry against the terrorists in Muslim countries or even among many American Muslims. Hasan is a true patriot, and he understands the politics of the war in America and in the Muslim world, but he won’t admit that Muslims have and deserve a huge PR problem in America.
Indeed, a lot of conservatives may be applauding Norton for saying we’re in a war on Islam, because that’s what it looks like to most Americans whether it should or not. Maybe Norton’s pollsters told her that Americans think we’re in a war on Islam and not just in a war on terrorism?
So Hasan, a failed candidate for Colorado Treasurer and the state House of Representatives, definitely is blowing the Norton campaign’s error out of proportion even though he has a point. The Norton campaign, as it has done in issuing press releases and making claims about Buck and the issues, has again failed to think through its attack on Obama. Sloppy staff work sinks sagging campaigns.
And Norton has managed to offend any Muslims who might have been thinking about voting for her. That’s probably a small number of Republicans.
Obviously Hasan and his family haven’t considered supporting Norton for a long time. So it seems that he  protests way too much. 
Norton’s no racist. That seems to be Hasan’s favorite word.
Hasan’s name calling is as insulting, offensive and wrong as the idea that we’re in a war against 57 Muslim countries and against Islam. That a Buck supporter is calling Norton a racist won’t help Buck in the GOP primary. 
I’m neutral in the Buck-Norton contest.

Jane Norton’s campaign gives a Ken Buck supporter an opportunity to call her a ‘racist’

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 9:11 pm, June 29, 2010

Ali Hasan, a supporter of Ken Buck and a Muslim, has taken advantage of a lousy editing job by Jane Norton’s campaign to use an old tactic of the Democratic Party. He’s calling Jane Norton a “racist” because her silly ad calling for an unlikely victory in the war on terrorism calls for a war on Islam. 
Anybody with half a brain should have edited that headline, and anybody who understands the politics of America’s war on terrorism knows that the war is against Islamic fanatics and terrorists. It’s not a war on Islam. This is even though to the trained eye, most Muslims seem to tacitly support their terroristic peers. That is a valid perception because you don’t see much of an outcry against the terrorists in Muslim countries or even among many American Muslims. Hasan is a true patriot, and he understands the politics of the war in America and in the Muslim world, but he won’t admit that Muslims have and deserve a huge PR problem in America.
Indeed, a lot of conservatives may be applauding Norton for saying we’re in a war on Islam, because that’s what it looks like to most Americans whether it should or not. Maybe Norton’s pollsters told her that Americans think we’re in a war on Islam and not just in a war on terrorism?
So Hasan, a failed candidate for Colorado Treasurer and the state House of Representatives, definitely is blowing the Norton campaign’s error out of proportion even though he has a point. The Norton campaign, as it has done in issuing press releases and making claims about Buck and the issues, has again failed to think through its attack on Obama. Sloppy staff work sinks sagging campaigns.
And Norton has managed to offend any Muslims who might have been thinking about voting for her. That’s probably a small number of Republicans.
Obviously Hasan and his family haven’t considered supporting Norton for a long time. So it seems that he  protests way too much. 
Norton’s no racist. That seems to be Hasan’s favorite word.
Hasan’s name calling is as insulting, offensive and wrong as the idea that we’re in a war against 57 Muslim countries and against Islam. That a Buck supporter is calling Norton a racist won’t help Buck in the GOP primary. 
I’m neutral in the Buck-Norton contest.

Ken Buck replies to Jane Norton’s radio ad attack

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 6:55 pm, June 29, 2010

Ken Buck smartly has posted a pretty direct reply to Jane Norton’s radio ad attack on his record as a government attorney. Read the whole thing here.

S. 3194: Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act

by Mr. Bob | 3:58 pm, June 29, 2010

#union #che #marxist #tcot #redco #teapartyDemocrats quietly launch major union takeover of all public jobs – http://tinyurl.com/337bo9jMr. Bob is a contributing author at the People’s Press Collective. Your source for Colorado Politics.

Why is Andrew Romanoff suddenly pretending to be a Bill Clinton Democrat?

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 2:29 pm, June 29, 2010

While many are wondering why President Bill Clinton has endorsed Andrew Romanoff over Obama Democrat Sen. Michael Bennet (D-DC), the real question is, why is Romanoff pretending to be a so-called centrist Clinton Democrat?
Has he suddenly realized that his hard left push for the public option in ObamaCare and union backing won’t sell in Colorado?
Is he trying to not be tied to the failing presidency of Barack Obama?
Does he think the former presdent’s endorsement is worth more than President Obama’s?
Are his union backers so upset with Obama and Bennet that they’re pushing Romanoff into a suicide pack with an impeached president?
Do Romanoff and Clinton have post primary business plans?
Or is Romanoff planning to chair Hillary’s 2012 presidential campaign in Colorado?

Bill Clinton Muddles with CO Primary, Endorses Andrew Romanoff

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 1:48 pm, June 29, 2010

His wife’s boss has rallied behind Michael Bennet, even going so far as to send his secret agents to bribe Andrew Romanoff out of the race-preemptively - but Bill Clinton isn’t falling in line.  Just this afternoon, the Romanoff campaign sent out a letter to supporters, members of the media, and others written by Bill Clinton.  It is [...]

Hickenlooper: “How do we wean ourselves off automobiles?”

by Kelly Maher | 1:20 pm, June 29, 2010

John Hickenlooper’s vision for Colorado in urban areas (and maybe beyond?) is for people to bike, walk and ride mass transit. The occasional car, of course, is needed to transport Denver Mayor Hickenlooper around the state to enlighten the rest of us.[…

What is this fight all about?

by Al Maurer | 11:36 am, June 29, 2010

A couple of Fridays ago I wrote a post entitled “Why are we doing this?“, a statement of the goals of the Tea Party movement which anyone who has attended more than one rally or is involved with a local Tea Party group understands, at its core, is fiscal responsibility on the part of a [...]

Cordoba House and the Real Feisal Abdul Rauf

by Ari Armstrong | 10:16 am, June 29, 2010

The proposed Islamic center near the World Trade Center site is called “Cordoba House,” apparently in honor of Islam’s conquest of Spain. [August 18 Update: Christopher Hitchens says the name instead invokes a period of “astonishing cultural synthesis;…

The REAL Twilight Zone: Unions, Officials Trample Teacher Options

by Eddie | 10:12 am, June 29, 2010

Talk about taking a walk into another dimension of reality. I’ve heard about those Twilight Zone episodes, but my mom won’t let me watch them yet because she says they give me nightmares. I love you, mom, but if you’re so concerned about me getting nightmares, you shouldn’t have let me watch this production from [...]

Tuesday AM market comment

by Rossputin | 8:10 am, June 29, 2010

This morning, the stock market opened very weak following a major sell-off in Chinese stocks overnight.

Just before the market’s opening, S&P 500 futures were down about 13 points, about 1.25%.

The market weakened from there, and then was hit again with the 10 AM Eastern Time release of the Conference Board’s Consumer Confidence Index. The index, which had been predicted (by a Bloomberg survey of economists) to rise to 63.3 from April’s reading of 57.9 instead came in at a dismal 52.9.

I wrote last week that I expected the Dow to break below 10,000 and then the S&P to break below 1040 (the latter being more significant). As of the moment that I’m writing this, the Dow is now 9914 and the S&P is trading around 1048.

I remain bearish on stocks and most commodities, short-term bullish on bonds because I believe they are in a bull-market bubble which will last longer than almost anyone expects before bursting.

This is no time to be a hero in the market.

If you’re looking to get long, I’d suggest taking advantage of high implied volatilities and selling out-of-the-money puts in stocks you are willing to own at lower prices. If you’re already long, you might look at selling covered calls against existing stock positions. If the market rallies, implied volatilities will probably fall so sharply that out of the money calls will decline in price in any rally that isn’t enormous.

I continue to believe that while there will at some point be a sharp short-covering rally, the medium-term upside of the market is limited by a range of factors, both economic and political, not least being the upcoming tsunami of tax hikes.

Grassroots Leaders on Colorado’s Tea Party Affinity

by elpresidente | 7:40 am, June 29, 2010

From Eli Stokols at Fox 31: A third of all registered voters in Colorado identify themselves with Tea Party groups. Of those, most are registered Republicans although 30 percent of the state’s unaffiliated voters are also in the group. Only seven percent of registered Democrats are involved. “For the average people, the Tea Party views [...]

Kagan hearings begin in earnest

by Rossputin | 6:19 am, June 29, 2010

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by the far-left Pat Leahy of Vermont and with Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as its ranking Republican, opened the hearings on confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.  Each of the 19 committee members gave a 10 minute opening speech, followed by speeches of introduction by the two Senators from Kagan’s home state of Massachusetts (heaps of praise by John Kerry for Kagan’s ability to forge compromises and bring fresh ideas to a legislative process, and more cautious words by Scott Brown.)  Kagan then gave her own opening remarks – which were not very remarkable – before Leahy adjourned the session until 9 AM Eastern Time on Tuesday.

Within the little-known world of people who think about judicial confirmations, Kagan is well known for saying that the Bork hearings served to emphasize, post-Bork, how little we learn about Supreme Court nominees before votes are taken on them.

Senate Republicans who are clearly worried about this woman’s judicial philosophy, which even Democrat Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin said was “invisible”, will push hard, asking Kagan about a few things in particular.  Those should include why she banned the military from recruiting on Harvard Law School’s campus in clear violation of the law and why she posited that decisions about free speech should include some sort of balancing test regarding the “societal cost” of that speech, a view which Chief Justice Roberts called “startling and dangerous.”

Some Republicans and Fox News talking heads seem to be buying into the possibility that Kagan could move the court marginally to the right as she would be replacing the Court’s “most liberal” member.  I’m throwing the BS flag on that one.  Kagan’s background is as a liberal activist, even having worked on the doomed Dukakis presidential campaign.  She’s a smart female (and probably gay) version of Barack Obama.  I have no doubt that any difference in “liberalism” between Kagan and Stevens or Ginsburg will be imperceptibly small.

While there has been a little talk of a Republican filibuster of Kagan, the odds of that happening strike me as less than 10%.  True, ending a filibuster would be slightly harder for the Dems with the death of Robert Byrd, but that spot will likely be filled with another Democrat soon – sooner if they need it for this vote.

Elections have consequences.  I’ve written many times that one of the perks of winning the presidency is that you get to choose Supreme Court judges; that right must be respected and a judge should not be turned down simply because he or she seems a little too liberal or a little too conservative for whichever group has a Senate majority at the time.

However, I believe Senators have an obligation under Advice and Consent to block judges whom they believe will be unable to uphold the Justices’ oaths of office, not least to protect and defend the constitution.  Kagan’s statement about balancing free speech against “societal cost” strikes me as just such a disqualifying statement and I hope someone grills her about it.

In the end, perhaps Republicans, especially those on the Senate Judiciary Committee, should save a little political capital and offer to let Kagan through without a filibuster if the Committee’s Democrats will strongly consider not approving Barack Obama’s nominee to fill a vacancy on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Robert Chatigny, a man who appears to have a soft spot in his heart for rapists and sexual predators.  Perhaps at least Chatigny can be stopped.

From what I know of Kagan today, I’d say a filibuster would be warranted, but given the long odds of keeping all Republicans on board, I think Kagan will instead be approved, perhaps by the narrowest vote in Supreme Court confirmation history.  (Sonia Sotomayor passed the Senate by a 68-31 vote.)

I would also like to comment briefly on Senator Kerry’s remarks.  He emphasized as a positive for Kagan her ability to come up with a new approach, a fresh idea, in trying to get Republicans and Democrats to reach a compromise.  And while that’s an extremely valuable skill in most circumstances, its importance is much less when it comes to judging. Indeed, it’s easy to imagine that trait being a negative.  Judging involves ruling on the basis of existing law and (for many judges, though perhaps not as many as I’d like) on the basis of original intent.  It’s very hard to bring a “new idea” to an old idea without creating what is fundamentally a new idea, such as balancing the “societal costs” of free speech.  The more Kagan talks about trying to forge compromise, the more I fear she will be a destructive force against our constitution, trying to peel off occasionally-weak “conservatives” like Anthony Kennedy with fashionable feel-good “can’t we all just work together?” arguments.

Despite Kagan’s calls for nominees to be more forthcoming in front of the Senate committee, it would be a foolish strategery for her to live by that counsel.  She will likely, like Sotomayor and most others, take up a lot of time with pretty words signifying nothing in particular.  We will end the hearings knowing little more than we know now.  And one liberal will be replaced by another, another who is perhaps even more dangerous than Stevens when it comes to protecting and defending the Constitution, something I hardly thought possible just two years ago.

McDonald v Chicago the right answer, but just barely

by Rossputin | 6:17 am, June 29, 2010

For my thoughts on why yesterday’s 5-4 decision in the McDonald gun rights case at the Supreme Court was correct but still troubling for our future, please read my article today at the American Spectator’s web site:

See “The Second Amendment, Incorporated“, Ross Kaminsky, American Spectator, 6/29/10
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/29/the-second-amendment-incorpora

“Medical homes”: good idea, or politicized boondoggle?

by Brian Schwartz | 6:00 am, June 29, 2010

David Hogberg at Investor’s Business Daily has written a nice critique of the so-called “medical homes” pushed by ObamaCare (HR 3590).  A “medical home” sounds comforting, but if politicians are forcing you, or nudging you, into one with legislation, then you should be wary. A few excerpts from the article, Medical-Homes Model Pushed By Health [...]

Clint Webb shows the true soul of a politician

by Rossputin | 5:56 am, June 29, 2010

H/T Keith D for bringing this great video to my attention

If only all our politicians were this honest…

(Start about 25 seconds in…)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_foalavjaA

Political betting: Florida Senate race update

by Rossputin | 5:00 am, June 29, 2010

Of course, people always look for reasons to defend losing ideas, especially in trading.  If they buy a stock and it goes down, far too many people look for an excuse, a reason to buy more or to stay with a loser.  And while I’m pretty good about not getting sucked into that trap in finance, I wonder if I’m doing the same thing with my political betting on the Florida Senate race.

I’ve sold some Charlie Crist “futures” on Intrade.com at an average of about 37%, basically meaning I am risking $6.30 for every $3.70 I stand to win, since if Crist were to win, the contract settles at 100%, which is $10.

As of Monday evening, they were trading around 52% after trading as high as 55% earlier in the week.

I just don’t get it.  Well, actually I get it a little bit…more on that in a second.

Crist is the ultimate self-serving flip-flopping fake-tanned politician, a man who has demonstrated beyond anyone’s rational ability to doubt that he stands for nothing but his own aggrandizement.

Republicans have all but abandoned him which means that people who think he’s going to win are betting on large Democrat turn-out to vote for the recent Republican, now Indpendent.

A Quinnipiac poll from earlier this month shows Crist slightly ahead of Rubio, 37-33 as the young Republican potential superstar seems to have lost a substantial amount of electoral momentum.

So why the Crist surge?  As Larry Kudlow said to me in a conversation we had last week, it’s “oil spill politics.”  Rubio supports offshore drilling.  Crist has flip-flopped on it and now opposes it.  Despite the obvious nature of the flip-flop, Crist has drilled into a strong sentiment in Florida where a majority now oppose more offshore drilling, in (according the poll linked above) a massive 48-point swing in public sentiment against drilling since April.

Kudlow thinks the oil spill is a potential game-changer for Florida.  While I understand the logic as Floridians worry about seeing tar balls roll up on their beautiful beaches, I still have a hard time believing that enough people will vote for a character as blatantly reprehensible and worthless as Charlie Crist.

The question now is whether I sell more Crist futures or leave well-enough alone and live with just the risk I have now.  Usually, in trading, adding to a losing position is not the best idea…

keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers