Saturday, October 23, 2004
Regarding Stuart Benjamin's post below, the study he cites is just one example of the broader problem of political ignorance, well-documented by my colleague Ilya Somin. Since, as I recall, studies show that conservatives are overall better-informed than are liberals, I suspect that the study Stuart cites is an artifact of two factors: (1)Bush supporters are inclined to think well of Bush, Kerry supporters are not. Part of thinking well of Bush is to think that people around the world think well of him and his actions; part of disliking Bush is the opposite. So, when pollsters ask Americans whether they think most of the world supports Bush and his actions, most Bush supporters and most Kerry supporters, being politically ignorant, won't know. The Bush supporters will guess "yes," the Kerry supporters "no." If I'm correct, this is not a reflection of greater ignorance on the part of Bush supporters, just worse guessing. (2) Most people have no idea what global climate treaties, land mine treaties, the International Criminal Court, etc., involve. But they all sound good to an ignorant voter. So, if an ignorant Bush supporter is asked whether Bush supports these treaties, he will likely say yes. That doesn't mean that the Bush supporter has any idea of what these things are, or whether he would actually support these things if he knew about them. Rather, the average Bush voter is as (or perhaps more) rationally ignorant about the content of these international agreements as he is about whether his candidate supports them.
The fact that people tend to be much more knowledgeable about things that they can actually affect as individuals than they are about presidential politics is one good reason for limiting the size and scope of the federal government.
UPDATE: Kaimi Wenger, I've just learned, posted a similar analysis on the Tutissima Cassis blog yesterday.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Bush Supporters' Misperceptions:
I just ran across a poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland (a group that calls itself nonpartisan, that apparently is regarded as nonpartisan, and whose board contains both Republicans and Democrats). I find its results stunning. Rather than summarize them, I'll just quote from their press release. The full study (which is fascinating) is available here.
Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.
Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions.
Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree." Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Equally large majorities of Kerry supporters hear the Bush administration expressing these views--73% say the Bush administration is saying Iraq had WMD (11% a major program) and 74% that Iraq was substantially supporting al Qaeda.
Steven Kull adds, "Another reason that Bush supporters may hold to these beliefs is that they have not accepted the idea that it does not matter whether Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda. Here too they are in agreement with Kerry supporters." Asked whether the US should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the President would not have. Kull continues, "To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar Iraq."
This tendency of Bush supporters to ignore dissonant information extends to other realms as well. Despite an abundance of evidence--including polls conducted by Gallup International in 38 countries, and more recently by a consortium of leading newspapers in 10 major countries--only 31% of Bush supporters recognize that the majority of people in the world oppose the US having gone to war with Iraq. Forty-two percent assume that views are evenly divided, and 26% assume that the majority approves. Among Kerry supporters, 74% assume that the majority of the world is opposed.
Similarly, 57% of Bush supporters assume that the majority of people in the world would favor Bush's reelection; 33% assumed that views are evenly divided and only 9% assumed that Kerry would be preferred. A recent poll by GlobeScan and PIPA of 35 of the major countries around the world found that in 30, a majority or plurality favored Kerry, while in just 3 Bush was favored. On average, Kerry was preferred more than two to one.
Bush supporters also have numerous misperceptions about Bush's international policy positions. Majorities incorrectly assume that Bush supports multilateral approaches to various international issues--the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the treaty banning land mines (72%)--and for addressing the problem of global warming: 51% incorrectly assume he favors US participation in the Kyoto treaty. After he denounced the International Criminal Court in the debates, the perception that he favored it dropped from 66%, but still 53% continue to believe that he favors it. An overwhelming 74% incorrectly assumes that he favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. In all these cases, majorities of Bush supporters favor the positions they impute to Bush. Kerry supporters are much more accurate in their perceptions of his positions on these issues.
Hold aside for a moment the implications of this poll for the Bush administration. Isn't it disappointing for so many supporters of any presidential candidate to have such misperceptions on issues as central as these?
Reader Sean Starke writes:
I just got some confirmation that New Jersey will actually be competitive this year: we just got a phone call from the Monmouth County GOP inviting us to a rally tomorrow that Rudy Giuliani will be speaking at here in town (my town, Middletown, lost a lot of people in the WTC). There is no way that they would waste a big gun like him here unless they seriously thought they had a chance to take Joisey...
I don't know how accurate the political estimation is (either my correspondent's or the Republicans'), but I pass it along for whatever it's worth.
Putting Endnotes before Index in Word:
I'm using Word 2002, and my file contains both endnotes — which have to go near the end of the book, not after each chapter — and an index. I'd like, though, to put the endnotes as the second-to-last item, and the index after them as the last. Does anyone have any suggestions for that, other than "switch away from Word"? If you do, please let me know at volokh at law.ucla.edu. Many thanks!
UPDATE: Forgot to mention this, but I can't use the "put endnotes at the end of the section" feature, and then have the body of the book be one section and the Index be a separate one -- I already have each chapter as a separate section, and I need to stick with that.
"Abortion is Homicide" Sweatshirt:
An administrator at Culpeper County High School pulled [14-year-old Ellen Sonifrank] out of her second block class [on Sept. 27] and took her to see Principal Eric Porter. The principal asked the freshman to remove a sweatshirt displaying a message that upset one of her classmates.
The front of Ellen's black, hooded sweatshirt reads, "Abortion is homicide." The back reads, "You will not silence my message/You will not mock my God/You will stop killing my generation."
After Dr. Porter expressed concern about the harshness of the word "homicide," Ellen reluctantly complied with his request. . . . But the outspoken teen reconsidered the situation and wrote a letter that The Star-Exponent published Tuesday, Oct. 12, defending her right to display the message. . . .
The high school principal said he must weigh the students' First Amendment right to free speech against the responsibility to provide an environment free of disruption.
"What is school for?" Dr. Porter reflected. "Is it where you come to express yourself, or where you come to gather as much information as you can to prepare yourself for the future?" . . .
If school officials continue to prohibit Ellen's anti-abortion message, the teen said she [may file suit] . . . . "I'm going to take them to court for taking away my freedom of speech," the teenager said. . . .
I appreciate Dr. Porter's concern, but the Supreme Court's answer (right or wrong) is pretty clear: Kids are allowed to express their political views, so long as they do it without profanity, until there's concrete reason to think that the expression would cause material disruption. The benchmark is set by Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. School. Dist (1969)
, which upheld students' rights to wear black armbands as an anti-Vietnam-War protest, even though the armbands apparently caused some distraction and upset.
Given that, there'd have to be some pretty significant evidence that this sweatshirt actually caused more disruption than that — for instance, fights or some such — or at least seems very likely to cause such disruption. I doubt that there is such evidence, and in any event the news story doesn't mention any such evidence.
Thanks to Becky Dale for the pointer.
Stranger Takes Over Woman's House:
You'll have to read it to believe it. (Hat tip: Talkleft.)
A reader asks, apropos the post on last week's Supreme Court decisions, what a "CVSG" is. "CVSG" means "Call for the Views of the Solicitor General." If the Justices are considering whether to grant a petition for certiorari (i.e., to agree to hear a case), and they think the case raises issues on which the views of the federal government might be relevant -- but the federal government is not a party, and hasn't filed a friend of the court brief itself -- they may invite the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the U.S. government's views. This invitation is naturally treated as a command by the Solicitor General (who is often just called the SG).
More Odd Talk of "Moral Relativism":
Those who read the posts below will note that I criticize Cal State Long Beach Prof. Clifton Snider; in that, I agree with Prof. Mike Adams, and appreciate his having brought up Prof. Snider's conduct. And yet this argument by Prof. Adams strikes me as mistaken:
You have a serious problem on your hands, Clifton. The problem originates with your apparent adoption of a philosophy of moral relativism. Like your hero Oscar Wilde, who said "I never approve, or disapprove, of anything now" you think that your brand of "tolerance" makes you better than others. But you fail to see the logical contradiction in your position.
Oscar Wilde also said this about making moral judgments: "It is an absurd attitude to take towards life. We are not sent into the world to air our moral prejudices. I never take any notice of what common people say, and I never interfere with what charming people do."
Oscar Wilde wasn't bright enough to recognize that calling something "absurd" and labeling some people as "common" and others as "charming" are forms of moral judgment. Nor do you seem to possess the intellectual firepower to recognize that referring to my opinions (on "your" website) as "vindictive, rude, unprofessional, inappropriate, unauthorized, and illogical" means that you are engaging in moral disapproval. Whether you like it or not, you have made a series of moral judgments. . . .
This argument that the Leftist excesses in the academy stem from "moral relativism" is one I've heard often — but I wonder why we should think that moral relativism is the problem. In fact, as Prof. Adams points out, Prof. Snider's error is that he's too morally dogmatic: He's so wedded to his position being morally right that he blinds himself to the possibilities that (1) he's mistaken, (2) even if he's correct, others may disagree with him without being bigoted or foolish, (3) in any event, it may be wrong for him to use his English class to spread his moral views about the Bush Administration or whatever else.
Nothing that I've seen in Prof. Snider's e-mails to Prof. Adams, as Prof. Adams has quoted them, or on Prof. Snider's site, suggests that "moral relativism" is the cause of Prof. Snider's mistakes. (He has indeed written about Oscar Wilde, but that doesn't tell one much, it seems to me.) As I've discussed in my GlennReynolds.com "moral relativism" post, I don't find much reason to think that "moral relativism" is at the root of the errors of liberalism. Likewise, while the academic Left might embrace moral relativism more often than the rest of the liberal and Left movement (I'm not sure of this, but that's my sense), I don't think that the intolerance of some on the academic Left "originates with [their] apparent adoption of a philosophy of moral relativism." In any case, I see no evidence of such a connection here.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education,
an organization whose work in fighting campus speech codes I have long admired, writes: "Thanks to a profoundly generous $100,000 challenge grant from the John Templeton Foundation, your gift will be matched in our campaign to restore the core American value of freedom of speech to our nation's colleges and universities." If you'd like to donate, go here; for details, including tax deductibility, see here.
Best Notation on Junk Mail:
Written in red on an envelope I found in my Gags file, sent by Leonard Davis at the Davis Insurance Agency:
If you throw this in your waste-
basket unopened, a capsule
of water inside will break,
spilling onto a dehydrated
gorilla. He will then jump out
of the envelope and hug you
Playboy's new strategy for exciting readers:
quoting law school casebooks. Matt Rudary reports that p. 59 of the November 2004 issue of Playboy quotes (or, to be precise, paraphrases, but using quotation marks) a problem from the 2004 Supplement to my First Amendment textbook. I had blogged about it here, and I think the magazine picked it up from the blog. Unsurprisingly, this was an obscenity problem (though I hasten to say not an obscene one).
Cal State Long Beach Professor Snider, the subject of the posts below, also makes the following claim on the page that describes the papers he wants his students to write
. Recall that the papers are supposed to contain well-reasoned argument supported by the evidence:
Dr. Clifton Snider
California State University, Long Beach
Notice to my students: someone has published illegally in what purports to be an "article" material from my web site, that is, portions of my assignments. The article, among many misrepresentations, implies I require that you write about certain topics. As you know, you have always had a wide choice of topics to write about in your papers. The same is true for the Argument Paper. I believe in and practice academic freedom.*
. . .
*According to university policy, passed by the Academic Senate on 28 February 2000, the "primary responsibility [of professors] to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it." As far as academic freedom goes, "the special nature of universities protects professors from being question[ed] about their lectures" (CSULB web site).
Let's look at Prof. Snider's use of evidence here. I searched for the quote he gave, and I did find it on a "CSULB web site": It's "The special nature of universities protects professors from being questions about their lectures," and it's at a page labeled "Lecture Notes: Academic Freedom." My guess, from the URL of the page (http://www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/41acfre.html
), is that it's maintained by Prof. Craig Smith. I'd imagine that a typical reader seeing the notation "CSULB web site" would assume that Prof. Snider is referring to an official CSULB web site (did you assume that when reading it?), not the opinions of another professor, no matter how respected he might be. It would seem to me more accurate to cite it as "Prof. Smith's web page," not "CSULB web site." (My apologies if Prof. Snider is pointing to some other site, but the page I describe below is the only one I found, and Prof. Snider certainly didn't link to any other page.)
But much more importantly, consider the context in which Prof. Smith makes this statement:
II. The special nature of universities protects professors from being questions about their lectures.Sweezy
Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) the Court was faced with the question of whether the Attorney General of New Hampshire could prosecute an individual for refusal to answer questions about a lecture delivered at the state university concerning the Progressive Party of the United States. In holding for the teacher, the Court stressed the "essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities," and warned against "imposing any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities."
did hold that university professors have some immunity from being coercively questioned by government bodies
. Sweezy was, after all, prosecuted for refusing to answer questions that he was ordered to answer by a state legislative committee.
Rendering this as "the special nature of universities protects professors from being question[ed] about their lectures," in the process of protesting criticism by nongovernmental critics, strikes me as quoting out of context. Sweezy did not say anything about professors' being questioned by TownHall columnists, or by their students; as Prof. Smith's Web page points out, it spoke of a rather different sort of "question[ing]" — coercive questioning by the government, with the threat of legal punishment for silence. To press the "protects professors from being question[ed]" language into the very different context of questioning by columnists, without any acknowledgment that the quote originated in a very different context, strikes me as improper use of evidence. I would expect that Prof. Snider would mark down any paper that quoted material out of context that way.
Finally, even setting aside the use of evidence, does Prof. Snider really believe that academic freedom protects academics from being questioned — which is to say, criticized — for what they teach? Wouldn't Prof. Snider's critic (as it happens, himself an academic) himself have a First Amendment right to criticize Prof. Snider? Free speech is speech free of government restraint, not free of others' exercise of their own freedom to criticize. I would have thought that Prof. Snider, with his asserted respect for freedom, would appreciate this.
"Civilized, rational debate":
Apropos the post below about Snider vs. Adams, check out Prof. Snider's guidelines for student papers in his Cal State Long Beach class (Adams also points out other problems with Snider's guidelines, but I want to stick to this):
I. Purpose: to persuade or at least to create tolerance for your point of view on a controversial issue; also to acknowledge the opposing side of the issue. . . .
Subjects to Avoid . . .
4. Topics on which there is, in my opinion, no other side apart from chauvinistic, religious, or bigoted opinions and pseudo-science (for example, female circumcision, prayer in public schools, same-sex marriage, the so-called faith-based initiative, abortion, hate crime laws, the existence of the Holocaust, and so-called creationism). For example, see Terrence McNally's "Just a Love Story," Los Angeles Times, 13 February 2004: B15. McNally correctly concludes that those who oppose same-sex marriage do so for one reason: homophobia. "Homophobia," as Robert Goss points out, "is the socialized state of fear, threat, aversion, prejudice, and irrational hatred of the feelings of same-sex attraction" (Jesus Acted Up: A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto, New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993: 1). In other words, homophobia is to gays and lesbians what racism is to people of color. Neither homophobia nor racism can be tolerated in civilized, rational debate; therefore, I will not accept either as arguments, however disguised, in your papers.
So in other words, the following arguments are inherently "chauvinistic, religious, or bigoted" -- not just mistaken or incomplete (necessarily, since they're short summaries), but chauvinistic, religious, or bigoted:
"Hate crimes laws are counterproductive, because they reinforce identity politics, and make racial groups more aggrieved at each other rather than less. They are also morally misguided, because assault or murder should be treated the same whether it's motivated by racism or sadism. Finally, they risk unduly interfering with people's free speech because they will often require prosecutors to comb through defendants' political statements and associations."
"Faith-based social programs should be entitled to be treated on an equal footing with non-faith-based social programs. If government money is spent on drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and a religiously themed program seems likely to do a good job at providing such rehabilitation, then it should get rehab funds just like a secular program should."
"Abortion should be opposed, because I believe -- together with liberal atheist Nat Hentoff that there is something to the argument that '[b]ecause abortion had become legal and easily available, . . . infanticide would eventually become openly permissible, to be followed by euthanasia for infirm, expensive senior citizens.'"
"In the last several decades, we've been experimenting a great deal with longstanding family institutions. We've liberalized divorce laws, destigmatized illegitimacy, destigmatized premarital sex, and more. Some of these changes may have been good, others may not have been but we ought to be cautious about implementing more such changes."
"Religion is a useful and important means of social control. Prayer in public schools helps teach students to be more obedient and moral, whether or not God exists."
"The Establishment Clause has been badly misread by the courts; it should never have been interpreted to apply to state and local governments. Local majorities should thus be entirely free to implement prayer in public schools, should they wish to, so long as students aren't legally punished for not participating."
I could add more examples, but are they really needed? I stress again that the point isn't that all these arguments are persuasive -- I don't agree with all of them myself. Rather, the point is that a professor who holds the "opinion [that there is] no other side apart from chauvinistic, religious, or bigoted opinions and pseudo-science [on these topics]" either
is strikingly intolerant of reasonable, thoughtful, civilized argument that expresses viewpoints with which he disagrees, or
has not given much serious thought to the subjects.
Neither is a quality we should much appreciate in our university professors.
Complaint About Fisking:
Duncan Frissell points to an interesting controversy:
Your reposting of the Law of Fisking coincided with an actual threat to sue for copyright infringement in a Fisking situation involving one of your fellow California profs from CSU Long Beach. Mike Adams — a criminal justice prof from North Carolina and a conservative columnist — has been going back and forth with a guy at CSULB named Clifton Snider.
In the first post, Adams extensively quotes research paper guidelines from Snider's composition class . . . .
In the second post, Snider sends Adams a demand letter as follows:
. . . Dear Mike S. Adams,
On your web site you are using my copyrighted material from my web site (and misrepresenting it) without my permission. The material is meant for my professional work only. Stop using it now.
Clifton Snider, Ph.D.
Then Adams follows up . . . .
I'm pretty sure that Adams' actions in quoting Snider's post are solidly fair use: He's quoting material in order to criticize it, and he's doing it in a way that has no effect on the market value of Snider's Web site (which is nil). And though Adams is using a good deal of Snider's text, such use is necessary in order to make Adams' critical point.
Adams' actions in quoting Snider's e-mail are a little closer to the line; the unpublished nature of Snider's e-mail (unpublished, that is, by Snider) cuts against fair use. Nonetheless, on balance I think the critical (as well as news reporting) nature of Adams' use, and the shortness of Snider's unpublished e-mail, cut in favor of fair use as well.
In any event, from what I see on Adams' site, Snider has no case, and Adams is entirely within his rights in ignoring Snider's demands.
Crime-Facilitating Speech Talk at Stanford:
I'll be giving a talk about my Crime-Facilitating Speech article at Stanford Law School this coming Monday (the 25th), 12:30 to 1:30 pm, in room 180. It's open to the public, and they'll even be serving lunch.
UPDATE: Just to be clear, it's a (Crime-Facilitating Speech) talk, not a crime-facilitating (speech talk).
Paperback Edition of You Can't Say That!
The paperback edition of my You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws—the Cato Institute's all-time best-seller*
—will officially be released on Monday, but you can already get it from Amazon for a mere $10.36, or from one of Amazon's Marketplace dealers for under nine bucks. If you already have a copy, I'm sure you have friends and relatives who don't (Christmas is just around the corner), not to mention that you may want to donate a copy tolocal libraries whose book budgets have been cut because of Bush's tax cuts for the rich.**
*With the exception of the U.S. Constitution. Cato has sold millions of copies of its edition of the Constitution.
**O.k., I made that last part up.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Last week's Supreme Court cases:
It's a bit late, but I thought I'd pass along the always amusing Supreme Court summary, from Mark Stancil at Baker Botts. It's funny and actually pretty informative:
Hoping to put the "win" back in Erwin, Professor Erwin Chemerinsky (formerly of USC, now slinging fed. courts and con. law at Duke) scored his second grant of the Term with Van Orden v. Perry, Gov. of Texas (03-1500). The question presented is whether a large monument, six feet high and three feet wide (eight cubic cubits for our Biblical scholars), presenting the Ten Commandments, located on government property between the Texas State Capitol and the Texas Supreme Court, is an impermissible establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. The Fifth Circuit descended on Chemerinksy's argument like a plague of locusts, concluding that the display advanced a valid secular purpose and "would look nice with a gun rack, too." If you believe what you read on the Internet (and, when you're as lazy as I am, you have no choice) this is the Court's first foray into the Commandments game in 20-plus years.
Complementing Van Orden (but not consolidated with it), the Court granted cert. in McCreary County, KY v. ACLU of Kentucky (03-1693), which asks: (1) whether the Establishment Clause is violated by a privately donated display on government property that includes eleven equal size frames containing an explanation of the display along with nine historical documents and symbols that played a role in the development of American law and government where only one of the framed documents is the Ten Commandments and the remaining documents and symbols are secular; (2) whether a prior display by the government in a courthouse containing the Ten Commandments that was enjoined by the court permanently taints and thereby precludes any future display by the same government when the subsequent display articulates a secular purpose and where the Ten Commandments is a minority among numerous other secular historical documents and symbols; (3) whether the Lemon test should be overruled since the test is unworkable and has fostered excessive confusion in Establishment Clause jurisprudence; (4) whether a new test for Establishment Clause purposes should be set forth by this Court when the government displays or recognizes historical expressions of religion. The Sixth Circuit found the display unconstitutional, but it's tough to see the Court affirming here without sandblasting Moses and the Commandments off the frieze in the Court's argument chamber.
Appropriately, these two cases are likely to be resolved in accordance with I Kings 3:16-28. ("And [O'Connor] said: 'Fetch me a sword.' And they brought a sword before [O'Connor]. And [O'Connor] said: 'Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.'").
Rounding out the day's Establishment Clause action is Cutter v. Wilkinson, Dir. Ohio D.O.C. (03-9877) - Whether the institutionalized-persons provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1, are valid under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. As relevant here, RLUIPA addresses the religious accommodations required for prison inmates.
Orff v. United States (03-1566) involves the slightly less exciting dispute over whose salmon was gored when a federal irrigation project was cut back to accommodate the Endangered Species Act. The Ninth Circuit concluded that petitioners, farmers who preferred that water flow to their crops rather than frisky fish, are not entitled to sue under the agreement governing the federal irrigation district. The question presented is whether the farmers are "intended" third-party beneficiaries of their irrigation district's water service and repayment contracts with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and therefore entitled to sue for breach thereof, or whether they are merely "incidental" third-party beneficiaries and therefore not so entitled?
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. (03-1696) comes to us from the Third Circuit and asks the age-old question: May the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars lower federal courts from conducting de facto appellate review of decisions by state courts, be expansively interpreted to additionally incorporate preclusion principles and divest federal courts of jurisdiction solely because a pending state-court proceeding presents identical issues, notwithstanding the long-established system of dual federal and state jurisdiction? There is nothing particularly funny to say about the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
In Exxon Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. (04-70) and Maria Del Rosario Ortega v. Star-Kist Foods, Inc. (04-79) (consolidated for 90 minutes of oral argument), the Court granted cert. only on the question whether the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, authorizes federal courts with diversity jurisdiction over the individual claims of named plaintiffs to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of absent class members that do not satisfy the minimum amount-in-controversy requirement? (Exxon had also asked the Court to determine whether Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the certification of a multi-state class action where individual reliance by each class member is at issue and where the predominance of common issues can be established only by distorting the law of the applicable states.)
Lingle, Gov. of Hawaii v. Chevron U.S.A. (04-163) will be a nice companion to last week's grant in Kelo v. New London (04-108) (does condemnation of slums to allow high-end development meet the public purpose prong of the Takings Clause?). At issue here is a state law capping rents that oil companies can charge gas station lessees, which ostensibly was designed to keep retail fuel prices low. The Ninth Circuit struck down the law, finding it does not substantially advance the state's asserted public interest. The questions presented are: (1) Whether the Just Compensation Clause authorizes a court to invalidate state economic legislation on its face and enjoin enforcement of the law on the basis that the legislation does not substantially advance a legitimate state interest, without regard to whether the challenged law diminishes the economic value or usefulness of the property. (2) Whether a court, in determining under the Just Compensation Clause whether state economic legislation substantially advances a legitimate state interest, should apply a deferential standard of review equivalent to that traditionally applied to economic legislation under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, or may instead substitute its judgment for that of the legislature by determining de novo, by a preponderance of the evidence at trial, whether the legislation will be effective in achieving its goals.
The Court CVSG'd in three cases:
Bank of China, NY Branch v. NBM L.L.C. (03-1559) - (1) Did the Second Circuit err when it held, contrary to its own previous holding and the holdings of the First, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, that civil RICO plaintiffs alleging mail and wire fraud as predicate acts must establish a "reasonable reliance" under 18 U.S.C. § 1964? (2) Did the Second Circuit err when it held, for the first time ever by any court, that civil RICO plaintiffs alleging bank fraud as predicate acts must establish "reasonable reliance" under 18 U.S.C. 1964(c)?
McFarling v. Monsanto Co. (04-31) - (1) May a patent holder lawfully prohibit farmers from saving and replanting seed as a condition to the purchase of patented technology? (2) Does obtaining patents on products which are the subject of licensing agreements afford an absolute defense to any claim that the licensing agreements violate the Sherman Act?
Comstock Resources v. Kennard (04-165) - Whether, under the False Claims Act, individuals who possess no personal, firsthand knowledge of any aspect of an alleged fraud have the requisite "direct and independent knowledge" to qualify as an "original source" under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4).
Little-known fact — Indiana Code sec. 33-43-1-3 (and similar laws or professional oaths in Alabama, George, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Washington) states that
An attorney shall . . . [a]bstain from all offensive personality . . . .
Some of them even require lawyers to abstain from all offensive personalities.
UPDATE: Many thanks to reader Josh Dale, who pointed out that a similar California statute, which I originally cited, has been repealed (I was working off an old printout that I'd found in my files). I've updated the post to reflect the other, still-existing statutes.
Oh, this does not look good:
Slate's Election Scorecard projects — and, yes, who knows how it will come out on November 2? — Bush 271, Kerry 267. Close electoral vote + likely close popular votes in many states + the experience of 2000 = likely major nastiness come November 3. Yes, I know this has always appeared possible, but polls just remind us of it.
UPDATE: I forgot to link to Rick Hasen's piece on possible election disasters -- much worth reading it.
Coherence and the Supreme Court:
Stephen Bainbridge has some thoughts on why we can't expect complete coherence from Supreme Court decisions, responding to Charles Fried's op-ed criticizing the Court for incoherence in recent cases, and also citing Jack Balkin's response to Fried's op-ed. (For citations to Fried and Balkin, go to Bainbridge's site.)
My friend Steve Kurtz had an odd idea: Photograph various amusing businesses named Steve's, and put the photos, together with various anecdotes, in a book. Sounds like a fun gift for people named Steve (though we Eugenes are still waiting for our volume).
Reason asks "Who's Getting Your Vote?"
Various people, including John Perry Barlow, Drew Carey, Nat Hentoff, P.J. O'Rourke, Glenn Reynolds, Nobel Prize winner Vernon Smith, various Reasoners, and yours truly, answer.
Cathy Seipp on "Upperclass Twit of the Year,"
specifically as to the Guardian (U.K.) campaign of persuading Ohio voters to vote for Bush, out of sheer revulsion at British strangers' attempts to patronize them into voting for Kerry.
Accessing blogs from libraries:
Eric Muller (IsThatLegal?) writes:
IsThatLegal? Why, No. It's Not.
A reader informs me that this blog has been blocked by the Seminole(Fla.) County Public Library.
It's hard to know what got me on the banned blogs list. Perhaps the librarian is a big fan of Duran Duran. Or of Siegfried and Roy.
Or maybe it's the dog.
Seriously, this seems like an odd censorship policy to me. There could be a story here. Drop by your public library and see whether you can reach the blogs you like to read. (Unless they're, uh, you know, not safe for work.) If you can't reach some of them, ask your librarian why not, and leave a comment here.
Sounds like a good idea -- and maybe it turns out that some off-the-shelf filtering software blocks some blogs, which suggests that messages to the filter producer (once it's identified) might help get them unblocked wholesale.
More on Duke University:
Duke University welcomes to its campus a non-academic conference sponsored and attended by supporters of Palestinian terrorism, offering to foot the bills for security. Questionable judgment, but I'd have to know more about Duke's policies on such conferences to reach a conclusion. If Duke would be similarly hospitable to a conference of fundamentalist Christians and Jews who wish to expel all Palestinians from the "Land of Israel" in preparation for the coming/return of the Messiah, then I will grant that this is solely an issue of freedom of speech. Can't believe that the fundamentalist conference would be welcomed at Duke? Neither can I.
Regardless, Jewish community activists warned that the venomous views of the conference organizers would inevitably cause a deterioration in the comfort-level and status of the Jewish community at Duke. Lo and behold, as soon as the conference ended, one of Duke's star students, a recipient of a full tuition merit scholarship and a journalism award, penned a blatantly anti-Semitic article for the school newspaper. (I explain the broader political significance of this article at the end of this post.)
Duke President Richard H. Brodhead, somehow unable to demonstrate the famed sensitivity of university administrators to anything that smacks of "racism," knows who the biggest victim of this fiasco is: himself. He writes:
In the weeks before the conference, I received many reasoned expressions of concern, but also some attacks on Duke's decision that were astonishing in their virulence. Poor baby.
Among the things I found troubling in these messages was the tendency to think of the conference's supporters in this way: You, Duke student, can be thought of as belonging to a group that contains terrorists and terrorist supporters. Therefore, you are indistinguishable from terrorists and deserve as little opportunity to exercise your rights as they do.
One can understand the passion that underlies such a thought, but that does not prevent it from being highly dangerous. This is the disindividuating, dehumanizing logic of prejudice. It says, I already know you because I know your type—more truthfully, your stereotype.
Brodhead then goes on to analogize the anti-Semitic rantings of the Duke student to the slightly (but only slightly) overdrawn conclusion that individuals who belong to a group that they know "contains terrorists and terrorist supporters," and give support to that group, are morally culpable for terrorism. Because you see, anti-Semitic stereotypes regarding Jews, and "stereotyping" those who belong to pro-terrorist organizations as being, well, pro-terrorist, are exactly the same thing, because they are both based on "the dehumanizing logic of prejudice." The sorry state of intellectual discourse at Duke obviously starts at the top.
(1) There's an interesting interview with Neal Stephenson on Slashdot.
(2) I recently finished reading his The System of the World and much liked it. The three books -- Quicksilver, The Confusion, and The System of the World -- are not as good as Cryptonomicon (at least on first reading). But I liked them a lot, and even Quicksilver, which I liked least of the three (though I still enjoyed it), is better in retrospect, now that I've read the other two. I'm looking forward to rereading all three in a few years.
(3) Reading the interview reminded me of one thing (though far from the most important thing) that I like about the triology and about Cryptonomicon: They aren't just engaging books about ideas, but their core topics are chiefly how science affects society, commerce, war, and politics, and vice versa. As it happens, I'm a math-computer science undergraduate major and computer programmer who went into law and public policy commentary; one of the topics I write about is law and technology. Many readers of this blog -- and many of my friends who have enjoyed Cryptonomicon -- are lawyers with a technological bent, and many others are technologists who are interested in law or public policy.
It's no surprise, I think, that "my kind of people," the tribe I belong to, would find the books so engaging. And this is especially because such books -- books that not only are well-written and have well-crafted characters and plots, but which also discuss these themes, themes that are as central to modern human existence as are love, grief, and the other overwritten topics -- are so rare.
And Where was John?
In all the extraordinary hubbub surrounding the well-deserved defeat -- nay, the humiliation -- of the Yankees last night in the Bronx, I'm surprised that there hasn't been much talk about why we didn't see Kerry at any of the games. He's the junior senator from Massachusetts; he's got a bona fide reason to snap his fingers, get the front row seats, put on his sox cap and jacket, and root like an ordinary human being. What, he doesn't want the national TV exposure?? Was he worried about alienating Yankee fans? I guess one shouldn't make too much of what is "just a ballgame," but really: to his constituents, this is the most important thing going on at the moment; he's lived and worked in Massachusetts all his life; is he the only person in that category who wouldn't take free tickets to see these games? I honestly don't get it, and it does make me wonder about the guy. I know he's off rallying the faithful somewhere -- but if Kerry thinks (or his advisors think) that rallies in swing states, at which he outlines yet again his plans for social security reform or health care or whatever, win over more voters than having half of the country seeing him doing something that everyone can identify with -- i.e. rooting for the home team, engaged in an epic battle for its very soul -- I think they're very, very wrong.
New record, I think:
We had 35,000 unique visits yesterday according to eXTREMe Tracking, and 45,000 according to SiteMeter. Many thanks to InstaPundit for the link that brought the great majority (and of course for the Supreme Court nomination . . .).
Anti-semitism in the 1930s.--
David Bernstein asks in passing about politics
in the US in the 1930s. I just analyzed some 1938 Gallup data that are among the more than 100 databases that I have on my laptop.
A spring 1938 Gallup Poll asked: "Do you think the persecution of Jews in Europe has been their own fault?
FDR voters: 12.1% entirely; 51.9% partly; and 36.0% not at all.
Landon voters: 9.7% entirely; 57.5% partly; and 32.8% not at all.
Dem voters for Congress: 11.5% entirely; 52.1% partly; and 36.4% not at all.
Repub voters for Congress: 9.7% entirely; 56.8% partly; and 33.5% not at all.
The poll also asked: "Would you support" "a widespread campaign against the Jews in this country"?
FDR voters: 13.0% yes.
Landon voters: 9.5% yes.
Dem voters for Congress: 14.7% yes.
Repub voters for Congress: 9.8% yes.
So on blaming the Jews for their persecution, both Republicans and Democrats were similarly highly anti-semitic (no significant differences).
But on favoring a campaign against Jews in the US, Democrats were significantly more anti-semitic.
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Columbia University has an endowment of approximately $4 billion (that's billion). Jewish and Israeli students in the Middle Eastern Studies Department report being harassed and harangued by their professors. Columbia, implicitly acknowledging problems with the department, and having already taken money from an evil Middle Eastern dictatorship for a chair named after the late Egyptian "Palestinian" propagandist and terror advocate Edward Said, decides to add a chair in Israel Studies to the department. But not yet. First the university has to raise money for the chair. Ahem. I can't speak to whether the Israel Studies chair is an appropriate step or not (don't know enough about why this is perceived as a good solution, but I'm skeptical that the way to deal with a disfunctional department is to try to add "balance"; why not instead start by punishing professors who, for example, refuse to answer questions from Israeli students?), but I'm pretty confident of this: if Columbia had been faced with serious claims of discriminatory harassment by professors against women or members of other minority groups (including Arabs), and the university establishment felt that a professorship would help resolve the situation, the university would dip into its $4 billion endowment and not wait until it raised additional money to try to rectify the situation. Instead, the university seems to expect that the Jewish community (who else?) will foot the bill for a new Israel Studies fellowship, paying for the privilege of having Columbia's Middle Eastern Studies Department perhaps become slightly more balanced. Kind of like the old days, when czars and other monarchs would tax the Jewish community to pay for their "protection" from the monarchs' own forces. Pathetic.
Lithwick v. Lithwick:
Dahlia Lithwick has a new article up at Slate, Supremely Scary:
The Sudden Outbreak of Supreme Court Horror Stories
, much of which pokes fun at op-ed writers who argue that the outcome of the Presidential election will have a profound impact on the future of the Supreme Court. Lithwick makes the point that while Bush and Kerry would try to appoint very different Justices, there are important reasons not to overstate the influence of the election on the Court. She notes that no one knows how many seats will open up; that confirmation battles would impose serious constraints on any president's choices; and that Justices, once confirmed, can be unpredictable.
All three are strong points, and I'm glad she made them. If you'll allow me a slightly snarky aside, however, I'm not entirely sure how to reconcile that with what Lithwick herself wrote for the New York Times
on August 29th:
. . . [Y]ou'll be picking the next Supreme Court with your vote come November. We forget that appointing judges may be the single most important thing a president does. . . .
Trust me, beneath [the Supreme Court Justices'] sunblock, and their duck hats, sit the nine most powerful, secretive public officials in this land. And whether you can name them or not is immaterial. Because after November, that president whose soul you've come to know so well is going to start naming a whole lot of their successors.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Ashcroft v. Raich Briefs Now Available On Line:
Now you can read the briefs for Respondents in Ashcroft v. Raich
. I am very excited about our brief and am looking forward to the oral argument in the Supreme Court on November 29th. We are also supported by some very thoughtful and powerfully argued amicus briefs. The attorneys in the Solicitor General's Office now have their work cut out for them in writing their reply, which is due just 11 days before the oral argument.
Merits Brief for the Respondents
[this is the brief I co-authored]
Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents from Constitutional Law Scholars
[co-authored by law professors Ernie Young (Texas), Charles Fried (Harvard), David L. Shapir (Harvard), Steven G. Calabresi (Northwestern), Ilya Somin (George Mason), and Douglas Laycock (Texas)]
Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents from the Institute for Justice
[co-authored by Professor Richard Epstein (Chicago)]
Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents from the Cato Institute
[co-authored by Professor Doug Kmiec (Pepperdine) who served Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush during 1985-89 as constitutional legal counsel (Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice).]
Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents from the States of California, Washington, and Maryland
[brief by three states who have authorized medical cannabis]
Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents from the States of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi
[brief by three states where medical cannabis is still prohibited]
Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents from the Reason Foundation
[brief explaining how Californial medical cannabis laws work]
Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents from the Marijuana Policy Project and Rick Doblin, Ph.D
[brief describing how the federal government impedes scientific research into the medical benefits of cannabis.]
Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents from Lymphoma Foundation of America; HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America; American Medical Students Association; Dr. Barbara Roberts; and Irvin Rosenfeld
Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents from the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; Pain Relief Network; California Medical Association; AIDS Action Council; Compassion in Dying Federation; End-of-Life Choices; National Women's Health Network; Global Lawyers and Physicians; and AUTONOMY, Inc.
Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents from the California Nurses Association and DKT Liberty Project
Amici Curiae Brief in Support of Respondents from the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML); The NORML Foundation; the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; and Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association
Previous briefs by and for the government can be found here
Healy on Marriage:
Kieran Healy has an interesting non-snarky post on what the data on May-December marriages tell us, with an interesting comments section beneath it. Kieran doesn't point out, but I will, that the data
confirm support my original observation: that the common wisdom that men are more likely than women to prefer younger mates and to put a high premium on looks, and that women are more likely to prefer mates with good financial prospects, is no mere stereotype. Kieran does discuss an issue beyond the scope of my original post--whether these preferences are a matter of nature or nurture.
Kerry and 14th Amendment, section 3:
Is John Kerry disqualified from being President by section 3 of the 14th Amendment? Several readers — starting with Pierce Wetter, with whom I've corresponded on the subject, and who has just blogged about it, referring partly to our correspondence — have e-mailed me to ask this question, and I noticed more chatter about it on the Web. And the question turns out to be more interesting than it at first seems (though I think the answer ends up being pretty clear).
Here's what section 3 says:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Kerry, the argument goes, gave "aid or comfort" to the North Vietnamese by opposing the war, and by apparently meeting with a North Vietnamese peace delegation in Paris in 1971. One or both of these things (probably the former much more than the latter) may have emboldened our enemies and sapped our soldiers' morale, thus giving the enemy aid or comfort. Kerry had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution when an officer of the United States (military officers, including lieutenants, definitely count). The Presidency is an "office" (see, e.g., art. II, sec. 1, cl. 5.) Therefore, the argument concludes, Kerry is disqualified.
1. The bottom line: I think this argument is unsound, because section 3 can't possibly apply to all people whose actions end up helping the enemy. During the Civil War itself, for instance, which prompted section 3, many government officials spoke out in favor of the North's agreeing to peace on terms that are favorable to the South. That too would have aided the South — quite possibly much more than Kerry's statements, if the speaker was a prominent Northern politician. But I'm fairly certain that section 3 wasn't understood as disqualifying them; "aid or comfort" must have been understood to mean actions intended to help the enemy that actually gave it aid, and not simply actions that had the effect of helping the enemy but that were motivated solely by a sincere desire to help the United States save lives or prevent the United States from acting immorally, rather than by a desire to help the enemy win.
That is certainly the way that modern treason law operates: As I explained here, quoting the Supreme Court, "[A] citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy — making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength — but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason." And this is true even if the actor knew his actions would help the enemy: The test is purpose, not knowledge of likely (or even certain) effects.
Now some might argue that Kerry's actions might have been more reprehensible than the actions of the Northern politician I describe above. Perhaps they were too intemperate, or perhaps his statements were inaccurate, or whatever else. (I haven't followed the exact factual allegations closely enough to make a definitive judgment, but for these purposes I don't need to.)
But for the purposes of the Treason Clause, and I suspect of section 3, the test isn't simply whether the actions help the enemy, or help the enemy through improper means, or help the enemy through improper means with the knowledge that they will help the enemy. If Kerry's purpose was not to help the North Vietnamese, but to help the United States or to help maintain U.S. compliance with its own laws and policies related to military conduct, then he's not covered. And I have no reason to think that Kerry's purpose was indeed anything other than to help the United States, whether or not his actions in pursuit of that purpose may have been misguided or excessive.
So that's my bottom line, and I want to stress it up front: Section 3 should not be read as disqualifying Kerry. That's the only sensible way of interpreting the provision, and I think the only way of interpreting it that's faithful to its likely original meaning.
But it turns out that under a purely textual analysis, the matter is a lot more complex. The section 3 argument against Kerry is, for the reasons, I gave above, a loser, but it's far from the harebrained theory that it might at first appear to be. And analyzing the text closely provides a fascinating example of the troubles we run into when analyzing constitutional provisions that were, after all, written many decades ago, by drafters who had experience with different situations than we do now.
2. Omission of "adhering to their Enemies": Let's start with the textual objection to the point I made above: First, "aid or comfort" literally means any aid or comfort, intentional or not. But good textualism doesn't just look at the literal English meaning of an isolated phrase; it also looks to the legal meaning of the phrase, and to other provisions of the Constitution. And the closest provision to this one in the Constitution is the Treason Clause itself, which defines treason to cover "only . . . levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." I don't think the "and" / "or" difference is that relevant here. But note that section 3 does not include the "adhering to their Enemies" language.
And the Supreme Court's treason precedents that stress that treason includes only intentional aid rely on the "adhering to their Enemies" language as the source of the intent requirement. (See, for instance, the Court decision I quote three paragraphs above.) In the Court's mostly 20th-century understanding, "aid and comfort" means help to the enemy, and "adhering to their Enemies" qualifies this to require intent to help the enemy.
So if one reads the text of section 3 literally, perhaps "aid or comfort" would mean all actions that help the enemy, even if the actor doesn't "adher[e] to [the] Enem[y]" by intending to help the enemy. I suspect this is not how the section was understood by those who ratified; I suspect they understood it as tracking the Treason Clause. But literally, it might indeed cover Kerry's actions.
3. Speech as aid or comfort: It's also pretty clear that speech can be treated by the law as providing aid or comfort. Decisions by Congress shortly before section 3 was enacted, under a loyalty oath regime that as I understand it section 3 was meant to clearly validate, took the view that publishing a pro-rebellion newspaper or letters qualified as aid or comfort, see Christy and Wimpy, Rowell's Digest of Contested Election Cases 725 (1901); Smith v. Brown, id. at 220; Switzler v. Anderson, id. at 219-20. (I have not had the time to check the original reports, in volume 2 of the Bartlett compilation, which Rowell's purports to condense.)
Modern treason law takes the same view: For instance, spreading Axis propaganda was found to be treason (see here). The main barrier to applying the section to antiwar speech lies in the intent requirement; but antiwar speech whose purpose was to help rebels would, I think, be disqualifying under section 3. (Whether the First Amendment would be a barrier to that is a difficult question that turns both on the scope of First Amendment rights for speech whose purpose is to aid the enemy, and on complex questions related to repeals by implication; I will set them aside here.)
4. Application beyond the Civil War: But wait, you may ask: Obviously this provision was just meant to deal with rebels during the Civil War. Isn't it a dead letter?
I don't think so. The provision was enacted because of the Civil War, but its language is broad enough to cover other wars. The drafters could have chosen more focused language, but they didn't. As the Court held in Perry v. United States (1935), when dealing with section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which confirmed the federal government's obligations to pay the federal debt, "While this provision was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the government issued during the Civil War, its language indicates a broader connotation." Likewise with the language here; it clearly applies at least to all domestic rebellions.
5. Helping foreign enemies: Does section 3 even apply to people who help foreign enemies, rather than domestic ones? The answer to this might seem to obviously be yes, but note that the language is "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." The first half specifically doesn't cover people who fight in a foreign war against the U.S. (unlike the Treason Clause, which covers all enemies).
One can argue that the second half should be read as referring back to the first half, and thus covering only people who gave aid or comfort to enemies who were themselves engaging in insurrection or rebellion. And if that's so, then none of this could possibly apply to Kerry. (I set aside claims that he was present at some meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War at which there was talk of assassination. Even if he was present, a matter that is disputed, I think mere talk of assassination isn't enough to qualify as insurrection or rebellion, and mere presence at mere talk is likewise not enough to qualify as aid or comfort to insurrection or rebellion.)
I think that on balance the provision should be read as covering aid and comfort to all enemies who are fighting the U.S., whether they're fighting it overseas or whether they're rebelling against it here. "Enemies" is broad enough to cover both, and it's hard to see why the provision would have been understood, when enacted, as treating those who help enemy foreign armies better than those who help enemy domestic armies. Yet this isn't obvious: There's a powerful textual argument for treating the second clause ("enemies") as being linked to the first (enemies "engaged in insurrection or rebellion").
6. Congressional removal of disability: I don't think Congress has "remove[d] such disability by a vote of two-thirds of each House." The 1872 Amnesty Act, ch. 193, 17 Stat. 142, provided that:
all political disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth [amendment] . . . are hereby removed from all persons whomsoever, except Senators and Representatives of the thirty-sixth [1859-61] and thirty-seventh [1861-63] Congresses, officers in the judicial, military, and navel service of the United States, heads of departments, and foreign ministers of the United States.
An 1898 Act, ch. 389, 30 Stat. 432, provided that:
the disability imposed by section three of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . heretofore incurred is hereby removed.
The second Act clearly applies only to disqualifications for pre-1898 conduct ("heretofore incurred"). The first doesn't limit itself so explicitly, but it stands to reason that "disabilities . . . are hereby removed" likewise refers to disabilities that had already been incurred, rather than disabilities for future misconduct, the nature of which Congress wouldn't have even known.
7. Automatic disqualification? Is disqualification automatic, or does it require some statute to implement it (e.g., a statute that says that everyone who did this-and-such during this-and-such war is hereby stripped of office)? In re Griffin, 11 F. Cas. 7 (C.C. Va. 1869), a lower court case, suggests that disqualification happens only if there's a statute providing for such disqualification. But this is only a lower court case (written by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, riding circuit, but not endorsed by the Supreme Court). And it's in any event not clear that its logic would apply to federal Senators and Representatives, as to whose qualifications Congress traditionally acts not through legislation but through direct examination of a candidate's qualifications (see below), or to the President, whose qualifications Congress likewise probably has the power to directly test when counting the electoral votes (see below).
8. Who decides? Who decides whether whether the provision applies — would it be a court, Congress, or someone else? I would assume that it would be Congress, which is the body that is supposed to count the electoral votes; presumably this includes the power to reject votes that are cast for ineligible candidates (whatever the cause of the eligibility). But who knows?
9. The Presidency as different: Finally, one could argue that the Presidency is outside the scope of section 3's purpose. Section 3 was justified by the fear that voters in one state or district might elect candidates who are disloyal to the country as a whole. But when the electorate is national, as it is for the President and the Vice-President, we needn't worry about that: The judgment as to whether the person can be trusted to be loyal to the United States can be safely left in the national electorate's hands. I think this is a good policy argument; but a textualist would quickly reject it, because the text of section 3 covers all "office[s] . . . under the United States," which includes the Presidency, and our guess as to the purpose of section 3 cannot modify that.
* * *
I've gone on at such length partly because of a compulsive and likely unhealthy professional desire to be relatively complete, and partly because exploring these mostly forgotten constitutional provisions reminds us how complex the supposedly simple act of reading a sentence and applying it to the facts can be. I stress again that, for the reasons I gave in item 1, section 3 doesn't and shouldn't bar Kerry's candidacy. But the issue is considerably more complex than one might at first think.
Related Posts (on one page):
- "Enemies" and declarations of war:
- Kerry and 14th Amendment, section 3:
Martha Stewart update:
The New York Post, citing an unnamed inmate at the Alderson, W.Va., minimum-security prison camp for women, reported that the guru of good living spent some time last week picking crab apples from trees on the camp grounds and used them to cook up sweet jelly.
"The normal person would get punished for that, but the prison guards managed not to see her," the inmate was quoted as saying.
Here is the full story.
Republicans and Jews, Part II:
I have received many e-mails purporting to explain why Jews tend to despise Republicans
. Most of these emails (and this blog post
) instead give plausible reasons why Jews may prefer to vote for Democrats instead of Republicans. What I was referring to, however, is the kind of visceral discussed [update: sic--disgust; that's what I get for using voice recognition software] that, for example, once led a couple that was sitting next to my parents at a post-services reception in a synagogue to leave and walk to another table when my parents mentioned that they are Republicans. The kind of disgust that makes it hard for Republican Jewish young men (who seem to wildly outnumber Republican Jewish young women) to get dates.
I did receive two plausible explanations. The first is that the WASP Republican establishment overlapped significantly with the group of bankers, university officials, insurance executives, elite attorneys, etc., that created a glass ceiling for Jewish success for many decades, and leading to lingering resentment. However, it's not all clear why Jews decided to take the wrath out on Republicans, as such, and not on, say, Episcopalians and Presbyterians, as such. (And I somehow doubt that Harvard officials in the early 1950's, when it still had anti-Jewish quotas, were primarily Republicans. )
My colleague Ilya Somin, suggests that (and here I'm elaborating somewhat on his comments) we know that American Jews have always had left-wing tendencies, inherited in part from Eastern European socialism but, like all other groups, most Jews are and have been rationally ignorant about politics and related social issues. Thus, it is easy for them to imagine against both historical evidence and current data, that anti-Semitism in the United States primarily emanates from Republican constituencies. This rings true to me, because I've had so many Jewish acquaintances tell me how anti-Semitic evangelical Christians are, despite the data to the contrary, while never mentioning the anti-Semitism that emanates from the left wing constituencies with which they have natural ideological sympathy.
One correspondent noted that while evangelicals may be OK with Jews they
lack respect are perceived as lacking respect for the Jewish religion, which they see as superceded by Christianity. I will grant this, but note that Jewish hostility to Republicans well predates the Republican love affair with evangelicals. Indeed, Jews hated Republicans when, pre-Reagan, evangelical Christians were a core Democratic constituency. Moreover, pre-Vatican II, the most influential religious group that denied the validity of Judaism was Catholicism, and Catholics were the Democrats' most important northern constituency. This did [update: NOT] prevent Jews from being the Democrats' most reliable northern voters. (Update: I'm no expert, but my understanding is that Vatican II changed Catholic doctrine to acknowledge that the Jewish covenant with God remains valid even after the coming of Jesus, whereas before Vatican II Judaism was seen as an invalid faith superseded by the New Testament. Several other mainstream Protestant groups have also adopted this position, but evangelical groups have not).
UPDATE: Several readers suggest that Jewish disdain for the Republicans may date back to the pre-World War II era, when the leading isolationists were Republicans, and their isolationism was often tinged with anti-Semitism. Moreover, Republicans may not have been more anti-Semitic than Democrats in those days (update: Jim Lindgren points out that in 1938 Republicans in fact were less likely to be extremely anti-Semitic than were Democrats) but those who vocally opposed anti-Semitism were far more likely to be Democrats. And FDR himself took the unprecedented step of appointing many Jews to high-level government positions, a sign that the Democrats and not the Republicans were the Party that first welcomed Jews into the American mainstream.
Another reader notes that American Jews' most significant traditional enemy was right-wing Eastern Europeans, who, in the wake of the Cold War, were largely identified with the Republicans. This reader notes that even today, right-wing Eastern European emigres are well over-represented among anti-Semites in the United States.
Yet another reader suggests that ideology is genetically determined, and that Ashkenazic Jews, who do in fact have many distinct genetic traits (susceptibility to certain diseases, disproportionate representation among those with "perfect pitch," etc.) because of their small numbers of ancestors and isolation from the general European gene pool, may be naturally inclined to be liberals. I'll keep that in mind when I write my long-promised post on why Jews are so liberal, but I think it's a separate issue from why they tend to dislike Republicans.
Meanwhile, this article from the Duke student newspaper (Update: the author is one of Duke's purported best and brightest, a recipient of a four-year, full tuition scholarship; update: and, get this, winner of Duke's annual journalism award)reveals an increasingly prevalent view on the far left: we will only be tolerant of Jews so long as they toe the left-wing line, including on Middle East policy. If they abandon us for the right, we will stir up anti-Semitism, especially among blacks, by pointing out how successful Jews are in the United States (and attributing this success to their ability to claim "white privilege" while also claiming victim status via the "holocaust industry"), by arguing that their claims of victimization are phony or exaggerated (and without victim status, you are held in contempt by the far left), and via claims of dual loyalty to Israel. This sort of blackmail used to be subtle, but with even left-wing Jews generally refusing to join the anti-Iraq War movement because of its anti-Israel and often anti-Semitic subtext, the subtlety is gradually diminishing. (Update: And the fact that a few Jews had the temerity to join the Bush Administration as foreign policy advisors has already unleashed a flood of left-wing anti-Semitism related to the alleged Jewish cabal that led America to war with Iraq and wants to do the same with Iran.) The good news is that this sort of thing is likely to push Jews away from the far left (as has already happened in much of the rest of the world), and without a substantial Jewish intellectual and financial presence in the next generation, the American far left, which has long had a very substantial Jewish presence, will have lost much of its power.
More on Slate, movie stars, and left-wing dictators:
Friday, I criticized this statement in a Slate review of Trey Parker's and Matt Stone's Team America: World Police
Leftist actors learned from Vietnam not to cozy up to dictators: Jane Fonda, one of the best actresses of her generation, hasn't worked in more than a decade.
I asked the following question:
Jane Fonda worked quite a bit in the aftermath of the Vietnam war, when you'd think her sympathies with the North Vietnamese would have hurt her most, and then during the Reagan Administration. She then apparently did nothing until the forthcoming Monster-in-Law — including through the Clinton era. Is it really that plausible that Fonda's not working in the 1990s, while having worked through the 1970s and 1980s, stems from her pro-North Vietnam activities?
Yesterday, Slate's reviewer
It was a time-warp reaction. Fonda dropped out of acting for awhile in the '80s and made a great return with The Morning After, in which she played a blackout drunk. But the culture under Reagan had changed. Vietnam vets, once culturally ostracized, had become deservedly more sympathetic in the eyes of the media, and everything countercultural was now unhip—or worse. I was staying near Waterbury, Conn., when Fonda was filming Stanley and Iris there in the late '80s. I read that the vets were picketing the production and surrounding the set with signs that read, "Get out Hanoi Jane!" I drove over to see for myself and, yeah, it was pretty ugly. There were signs all over town and trucks honking and people shouting. ... Fonda reportedly tried to meet with the vets and came away devastated; and after the movie (a humanist stinker in which she taught Robert DeNiro to read) flopped, she decided to drop out of show business. (She didn't need the money—she was married to a billionaire.) A blacklist? No. But a big fat delayed-reaction shaming.
Hmm. It's an interesting theory, but I wonder how much sense it makes. Say that Jane Fonda "reportedly" is devastated by the criticism from Vietnam vets — even though she surely must have heard plenty about such criticism in the 1970s, and wasn't troubled. So as a result, she "decide[s] to drop out of show business." (The reviewer is indeed suggesting a causal connection, since that was his original claim: "Leftist actors learned from Vietnam not to cozy up to dictators: Jane Fonda, one of the best actresses of her generation, hasn't worked in more than a decade.")
Why? I can see why being devastated at the hostility that one's past activism has caused might make one cautious about activism. Jane Fonda did indeed become somewhat less politically vocal in the 1990s, though she continued to do various publicly visible charitable work. Early this decade, she was also involved in protests against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. So she hasn't lost even her taste for activism.
But why would harsh criticism by veterans lead one to quit show business? It seems to me somewhat more likely that she'd quit because she married Ted Turner, or moved to Atlanta, or felt she was getting too old for the roles she preferred, or just got bored with something that she'd been doing for decades. I find it hard to see how there's any causal relationship between her not working in show biz and "learn[ing] from Vietnam not to cozy up to dictators."
I also asked these questions: "Have leftist actors not been cozying up to Fidel Castro? Or is he not a dictator?" Here's the reviewer's response to what seem to have been similar questions from other correspondents:
Oh, it's so fun to get letters from angry right-wingers: They're so cute when they preach at me that politics don't belong in movie reviews (because, of course, movies have absolutely nothing to do with the real world and do absolutely nothing to shape peoples' attitudes about anything). And I love it when they twitter about a couple of left-wing Hollywood types consorting with that syphilitic blowhard homophobic human-rights abuser Fidel Castro (because, of course, Republicans have never had anything to do with human-rights-abusing authoritarian regimes, ever).
But this is entirely unresponsive, it seems to me. The reviewer's claim was that "Leftist actors learned from Vietnam not to cozy up to dictators." His correspondents point out that leftist actors do cozy up to Castro. The reviewer's response: Some Republicans (probably not actors) have cozied up to other dictators. Huh? How does this support his original claim, or rebut his critics' arguments?
So it seems to me that the reviewer erred in his original claim. People called him on it (some perhaps in intemperate ways, others not, but they were right and he was mistaken). And instead of admitting the error, he starts his column with snideness and condescension, and proceeds to change the subject. Not Slate
's finest hour, it seems to me.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Al Qaeda's Next Move:
Let's assume that Al Qaeda is planning attacks in the United States in the next few weeks
to coincide with the U.S. election and the holy month of Ramadan
. We all hope that is not true, of course, but let's assume, somewhat morbidly, that it is. What kind of attacks might be planned?
I don't have any particular expertise in this area, but given its importance I thought I would offer some amateurish speculation. First, I think it's somewhat less likely than it used to be that Al Qaeda would try attacks focused on killing lots of people or destroying symbolic targets. The U.S. response to 9/11 taught that the U.S. isn't going to back off its policies in response to that sort of attack. Violence perceived as a general "attack on America" boosts morale among those who hate the U.S., but it only stiffens U.S. resolve.
I think the more likely Al Qaeda move would be to try to destabilize the U.S. political system. A weakened United States government might mean a government less likely to pressure Iran, more likely to withdraw from Iraq, and less able to help Israel. I don't think Al Qaeda leaders care very much whether Bush or Kerry wins; to Al Qaeda, Bush and Kerry probably look pretty similar. The more likely goal would be to get in the way of the government's functioning regardless of which party it helps in the short term.
What would this mean? One possibility would be attacks (or at least Al Qaeda statements announcing the possibility of attacks) on voting locations on Nov. 2. Fears of attacks at polling places in the U.S. might discourage people from voting; low and uneven turnout could foster a sense that whoever is declared the winner was "Al Qaeda's candidate" rather than the legitimate winner. Assassination attempts on key politicians and other efforts to target the government (cf. this story
) might also be undertaken to try to destabilize the government in other ways.
Of course, this is just uninformed speculation. In the meantime, let's hope and pray for a safe and quiet election season.
Adviser vs. advisor:
Both are perfectly valid, but I wanted to use the more common one, since I have no personal preference. A google smackdown helps out: Advisor wins, by about a factor of four. I love modern linguistic research tools . . . .
Please join me in welcoming AntitrustProf Blog
, hosted by lawprof Shubha Ghosh. (Hat tip: Larry Solum
Some day, there will be groups of law professor blogs covering every specialty area. If you want to see the latest ideas coming from the legal academy, you will start by reading blogs, not law reviews. For now, however, every new lawprof blog is something of an event (at least to other lawprof bloggers).
Staffing the Justice Department:
"The objective in staffing is never to assemble the best possible team. It is to assemble the best possible team that supports the president."
-- an unnamed former Bush Administration official, explaining why the White House vetoed some of Deputy Attorney General James Comey's staff picks and why Comey himself "has erred too much on the side of neutrality and independence" to be named Attorney General if Bush is reelected. As quoted in Vanessa Blum, "For Next AG, Don't Look to Deputy," Legal Times, October 18, 2004.
Virtual Crime, Virtual Deterrence:
A new draft of mine was posted on SSRN today; it is a short symposium essay called Virtual Crime, Virtual Deterrence: A Skeptical View of Self-Help, Architecture, and Civil Liability
. (To download it, click on the link and scroll down to the "download" button.) The essay is forthcoming in the inaugural issue of the Journal of Law, Economics & Policy
. Here is the abstract:
This essay offers a skeptical view of recent proposals to deter cybercrime by imposing civil liability on ISPs, permitting self-help, and architecting cyberspace. It contends that these proposals reflect in varying degrees a common conceptual mistake: overreliance on the metaphor of the Internet as a virtual place. The overreliance on virtual metaphors incorporates assumptions valid in the physical world that break down when applied to the Internet.
To approach computer crime in a realistic way, commentators should focus on the physical reality of how the Internet works. Both virtual and physical perspectives of the Internet can offer important lessons, but any strategy to deter computer crime must look viable given the physical reality of the network. Strategies that rely too heavily on the virtual metaphors of cyberspace are likely to rely on assumptions drawn from the physical world that do not apply to the Internet; the process of importing concepts from physical space to the virtual world of cyberspace will introduce errors. Overreliance on virtual metaphors will often misrepresent how online crime occurs and thus how it can be deterred. Where virtual metaphors govern, proposals to deter computer crime through civil liability and social norms will prove less effective in practice than they may first appear in theory.
The essay begins by exploring the tension within Internet law between modeling the Internet using virtual reality and physical reality, with a special emphasis on what this tension means for developing arguments about deterrence and computer crime. The analysis explains that a physical description of the Internet differs dramatically from a virtual description of Internet applications, and argues that any effective model for deterring computer crime must be rooted in the former rather than the latter. This insight is then applied to three prominent proposals. It begins with offensive self-help, focusing on Michael O'Neill's article Old Crime in New Bottles: Sanctioning Cybercrime; turns next to architecture regulation, focusing on Neal Katyal's essay Digital Architecture as Crime Control; and concludes by studying the myriad proposals in favor of civil liability for third-party computer operators.
The essay builds on an earlier article of mine that addresses how the difference between virtual reality and physical reality defines many disputes in the area of Internet law. The final version of that article is available here
The Guardian's Letters to Clark County, Ohio.--
When the Guardian Newspaper in the UK lamented that citizens around the world couldn't vote
in the US election, Oz blogger Tim Blair suggested
that they write letters to voters
in swing states.
Without giving Tim Blair credit
for the idea, the Guardian has been encouraging just such a letter-writing campaign
, distributing the addresses of voters in Clark County, Ohio, a swing county in a swing state. Blair then started an email-writing campaign
, writing to Guardian editors.
Various aspects of this have been mentioned by Reynolds,
, the AP
, and a slew
of Ohio papers
that require registration
Today, Mark Steyn discusses
one of the more condescending letters from intellectual Brits, a letter from Richard Dawkins, a "professor of the public understanding of science" at Oxford University. Here is an excerpt from Dawkins's letter
Don't be so ashamed of your president: the majority of you didn't vote for him. If Bush is finally elected properly, that will be the time for Americans travelling abroad to simulate a Canadian accent. Please don't let it come to that. Vote against Bin Laden's dream candidate. Vote to send Bush packing.
Before 9/11 gave him his big break - the neo-cons' Pearl Harbor - Bush was written off as an amiable idiot, certain to serve only one term. An idiot he may be, but he is also sly, mendacious and vindictive; and the thuggish ideologues who surround him are dangerous. 9/11 gave America a free gift of goodwill, and it poured in from all around the world. Bush took it as a free gift to the warmongers of his party, a licence to attack an irrelevant country which, however nasty its dictator, had no connection with 9/11. The consequence is that all the worldwide goodwill has vanished. Bush's America is on the way to becoming a pariah state. And Bush's Iraq has become a beacon for terrorists. . . .
Now that all other justifications for the war are known to be lies, the warmongers are thrown back on one, endlessly repeated: the world is a better place without Saddam. No doubt it is. But that's the Tony Martin school of foreign policy [Added by Guardian: Martin was a householder who shot dead a burglar who had broken into his house in 1999]. It's not how civilised countries, who follow the rule of law, behave. The world would be a better place without George Bush, but that doesn't justify an assassination attempt. The proper way to get rid of that smirking gunslinger is to vote him out. . . .
Steyn ends his editorial on the Guardian's campaign
Linda Rosicka, director of the county's Board of Elections, thinks the rampaging Brits will have little effect. "The American Revolution was fought for a reason," she remarked drily. That's the spirit.
Rosicka's comment reminds me of something that Dan Polsby (now on George Mason's faculty) said on my first day at work at the Northwestern Law School in 1996. Princess Diana was in the building that day and almost everyone was excited to try to catch a glimpse of her. I would have shaken her hand if introduced, but I saw no reason to figure out where she was to get to see or meet her. Polsby was asked by an administrator if he had seen Diana and he replied, "Didn't we fight a war to be rid of these people?" Indeed!
I find it hard to believe that condescending letters from professors of the public understanding of science at Oxford University will carry much weight with Ohio voters, nor will posts from professor-bloggers. The frustration of foreign elites is perhaps understandable. Yet there are a lot better reasons than a letter from the UK to vote for or against George Bush.
Why do we have a vaccine shortage?--
Kevin Drum has a thoughtful post on the vaccine shortage, plausibly speculating that the restrictive FDA process is the likeliest culprit (tip Reynolds). Drum reviews seven possible explanations, noting:
[W]ith two exceptions, all of these explanations apply to every country in the world — but the United States is the only one with a problem. So most of them don't actually explain anything.
That leaves the two exceptions, and only one of them seems to hold water. Explanation #7, liability costs, is certainly something that could be unique to the United States, but liability costs wouldn't drive companies out of the flu vaccine market unless liability insurance were unavailable, and this must not be the case since both Chiron and Aventis presumably have liability insurance. It might be expensive, and therefore drive prices up, but it wouldn't force companies out of the market. (It would — potentially — be a big problem if the price of the vaccine were capped, but while that's the case for some vaccines, flu vaccine is not price capped.)
That leaves explanation #5, [the FDA,] and at first glance it seems the most likely to be the real deal. The FDA has a famously tight regulatory regime, made even tighter in the late 90s, and as a result the United States has only two approved manufacturers of flu vaccine while Britain has half a dozen. (Although, ironically, it's worth noting that a breakdown of the regulatory regime seems to be a more likely explanation for Chiron's immediate problem.) The bottom line is that there are other flu vaccine manufacturers besides Chiron and Aventis, but they don't sell into the U.S. market because the cost of complying with FDA regulations is higher than the narrow profits they could expect to make from selling flu vaccine.
Russell Roberts also points his finger at regulation.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Crack for Votes:
The problem with giving people crack cocaine in exchange for registering voters is that you just can't trust crackheads to follow the rules. Details here.
WINE WARS AVAILABLE ON-LINE:
My series of Wine War posts is now available on line to be downloaded. You can find it here.
DEMS SPAM TOO:
In response to my gripe about campaign spam from the Bush-Cheney Campaign, I received confirmation that apparently campaign spam is bipartisan this go-around:
Over the last week, I have:
4 directly from from Kerry Edwards campaign
1 from Terry McAuliffe
1 from Howard Dean
2 from Democratic Party
1 from Al Gore
Not to mention two from Move On and its cohorts, and five or six from the local Democratic party. The Move On ones are residue from the impeachment hearings....
Isn't it just wonderful how the Internet has "revolutionized" politics?
Only a few more weeks to go ...
Who will win--Bush or Kerry? --
I have been surprised by the betting consensus at www.Tradesports.com (inconsistent link) and elsewhere that Bush is more likely to win the election. Kaus notes that this belief in a Bush victory, which shows up in opinion polls, might cause people to "go with the winner." I don't understand why both the bettors and the general public believe that Bush will win.
Whether this belief in a Bush victory helps Bush or not, I think it unwarranted. I am aware that there will probably be an unpredictable swing one way or the other that will erase the current situation, such that predictions today are little more than speculations.
Nonetheless, as things stand right now, I would guess that Kerry is more likely to win Ohio than Bush (Kerry slightly leads in 3 of the last 4 polls, though within the margin of error). Further, Kerry leads slightly (within the margin of error) in polls in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, New Hampshire, Maine, and Oregon--and leads probably outside the margin of error in most polls in New Jersey and Michigan. I understand that there may be a very slight move in Bush's favor right now, but I expect that to stop or reverse.
First, as in 2000, I expect a last minute swing toward the Democrats. I think that Bush might lose a couple percent in the last two weeks, whether it is from any late surprise (like Bush's DUI in 2000), or the incredible automated phone calling that occurred last time (which because of the messages tended to help the Democrats), or the latest theme of the week (this week, I think that will be tying Bush to the third rail of politics: social security reform). Further, the conventional wisdom is that undecideds tend to break against the incumbent.
Second, I expect a massive voter turnout from people who want to stop Bush at all costs. There were hints of this in the primary turnouts.
Third, my impression is that the Democrats signed up many more new voters than the Republicans.
On the other side (favoring a Bush win) is any Republican last minute surprise. Second is a phenomenon that KerrySpot noted a few days ago--that particularly in 2002 election, the opinion polls underestimated Republican vote shares, probably because of a slight realignment since 9/11.
The wild card is the action of Al Qaeda. If they step up their attacks in Iraq or pull off a major attack in the US a few days before the election, it is hard to predict what the American public would do. They might turn to Bush because there have been no major attacks in the US in the 3 years since 9/11 (an outcome that I wouldn't have given more than a 5% chance to 3 years ago) and because (rightly or wrongly) Americans trust Bush more than Kerry on the War on Terror. On the other hand, if the attack is in the US and comes from one of the sources that Kerry quite rightly hammered Bush on in the first debate (ship containers or the cargo holds of US planes), then the electorate might turn to Kerry. Further, who knows how emotions can turn people's minds? Perhaps a new horror will make people long for a time when terrorism was just a nuisance and see Kerry as the man who shares their view of the world.
I don't disagree that the election is too close to call. What I do think is that, if the election were held today, it is slightly more likely that Kerry would win than Bush.
But then the election will not be held today.
Some bloggers have made their predictions on the outcome, some confident, some highly qualified. Most bloggers that I read have not made predictions.
I'm curious about what other bloggers think about the likely winner (and why). At least by the evening before the election, I hope that people will weigh in with their opinions.
More on Wikipedia (Plus Updates):
Eugene's excellent post on Wikipedia below
led me to look through Wikipedia for its entries on some topics that I think I know pretty well. My very tentative conclusion, based on a just few sample queries, is that I hope no one relies on Wikipedia for anything very important. Its entries seem to be a strange mix of accurate statements and egregious errors.
Consider Wikipedia's overview of the Patriot Act
This law provides for indefinite imprisonment without trial of non-U.S. citizens whom the Attorney General has determined to be a threat to national security. (At least two U.S. citizens, Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla, have also been designated "enemy combatants" and imprisoned without trial). The government is not required to provide detainees with counsel, nor is it required to make any announcement or statement regarding the arrest. The law allows a wiretap to be issued against an individual instead of a specific telephone number. It permits law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant and search a residence without immediately informing the occupants, if the Attorney General has determined this to be an issue of national security. (For example, State University of New York - Buffalo art professor Steven Kurtz was indicted based on evidence seized during a search for bioterrorism-related materials conducted under the provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Artist Ensared by PATRIOT Act (PDF) (http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/images/AiAfrontpage09_04.pdf). The act also allows intelligence gathering at religious events. With a few exceptions, provisions of the act are due to expire on December 31, 2005.
Pardon me for being a stickler, but there is very little in this description that is factually true. The Patriot Act does not provide for indefinite imprisonment of anyone; the detentions of Hamdi and Padilla had nothing to do with the Patriot Act; the Patriot Act has nothing to do with detention without counsel; the Act does not allow intelligence gathering at religious events; the act does not allow surreptitious warrants to be obtained on the Attorney General's approval; and very few of the provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire in 2005.
Wikipedia is a cool idea, but I agree with Eugene that it's something judges and lawyers shouldn't rely on very much.
UDPATE: A few readers write in to ask, "If the entry for the Patriot Act is so bad, why don't you just correct it?" The main reason is that I suspect that as soon as I correct it, someone else will come along and "correct it back."
If I understand accurately how Wikipedia works — a big "if," I should point out-- my views of what is in the Patriot Act are no more and no less valued by Wikipedia than the views of any other Internet user. Given the widespread misperceptions about what is in the Patriot Act, some one else is likely to come across my corrected entry and think, "What idiot wrote this? This is totally wrong!" They will then erase my entry and re-enter all the mistakes that I corrected. The "genius" of Wikipedia is that no one is there to resolve the disagreement: the loudest voice eventually wins. Unless I am willing to monitor Wikipedia's Patriot Act entry on a regular basis, there isn't much that can be done to correct the errors over the long term.
If there are any Wikipedia experts out there who have thoughts on this problem, please send them in to orinkerr at yahoo.com.
UPDATE #2: This site
suggests that sabotaging Wikipedia entries to advance ideological agendas is not uncommon. That makes sense, I suppose: If you are an activist and you want people to believe in your view of something, why not rewrite the Wikipedia entries on the issues that you care about along the lines of your views?
UPDATE #3: A reader writes in to note that Wikipedia's Patriot Act entry has already been changed. The paragraph noted above has been deleted, and replaced with the following:
The law enhances the surveillance capabilities of the government (by increasing its ability to conduct electronic surveillance, tracking finances, and requesting DNA information), takes other measures to arrest international money laundering, reorganizes some priorities in regard to immigration, authorizes rewards for those citizens who help combat terrorism, provides for the appointment of an individual to monitor civil rights abuses.
If any one else wants to work more on the entry, I would start by rewriting the discussion of what supporters say about the Patriot Act. The current version says that supporters argue that civil liberties abuses are okay. That is just bizarre; in three years of debating the Patriot Act, I don't think I have ever heard any supporter say that. Rather, supporters say that most of the claims about what is in the Patriot Act are simply false, and that the great majority of the Patriot Act was an uncontroversial update to preexisting privacy laws in response to technological change.
While I'm at it, may I be so bold as to suggest that the Patriot Act is not historically similar to the Reichstag Fire Decree and the Alien and Sedition Acts (currently the #1 and #2 entries in the list of historically similar laws)? Also, most of the "alleged abuses" listed in the Wikipedia entry do not actually involve the Patriot Act.
Related Posts (on one page):
- More on Wikipedia (Plus Updates):
- Wikipedia cited in court opinions:
Wikipedia cited in court opinions:
The Eleventh Circuit case that struck down mandatory metal detectors for protest attendees (cited by Orin Kerr below) is noteworthy for one reason besides its important and likely controversial holding: It cites Wikipedia, a free online collaborative encyclopedia, for information on the Department of Homeland Security Advisory System. It is one of only two cases I've found that cite Wikipedia, the other being Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr., 471 Mich. 411 (2004), a Michigan Supreme Court case, which cites Wikipedia for information on positional asphyxia.
Now I much admire the Wikipedia project, and my hat would be off to Larry Sanger and Jimmy Wales, its cofounders, if I wore a hat. The concept of an encyclopedia that is cowritten by lots of people, each of whom has the power to edit any of its pages — with the main screening mechanism being the possibility of correction by others — sounds odd. But it seems to work pretty well; and of course the real question isn't whether the work is perfectly reliable, but (1) how reliable it is compared to the alternatives, (2) whether that's good enough for the particular use you're making of it (e.g., casual attempts to satisfy curiosity rather than decisions where someone's life or even a lot of money is on the line), and (3) whether the work's advantages in thoroughness, currency, convenience, and low cost exceed the possible reliability disadvantages. (Here, by the way, is the Wikipedia response to the arguments that free editing may make the encyclopedia too unreliable.)
Still, I wonder whether it's good for court opinions, which not only resolve disputes between parties but also effectively create law that governs future disputes, to rely on something that at least has the potential to be so easily compromised, whether as part of a deliberate strategy or not. Of course, court opinions can likewise screw up by citing to the many erroneous portions of Michael Bellesiles' work (which some have done); seemingly reputable work by a noted professor or by an established reference-work-producing organization may be mistaken, too. And I suspect the main source of error in court opinions isn't relying on simply mistaken information but rather relying on one source that says one thing when a dozen other more reliable sources that the court hasn't found say the opposite, and more persuasively. Maybe on balance Wikipedia is good enough, especially when the information that the court is drawing from it is likely to be pretty uncontroversial. Nonetheless, it strikes me as something that judges and law clerks should be cautious about using.
Incidentally, a quick search through WESTLAW's BRIEFS database, which contains a subset (but likely a very small subset) of all recent briefs filed in appellate court cases, reveals two briefs where the lawyers likewise cited Wikipedia. On the one hand, that's especially dangerous for a lawyer: If a judge or the judge's clerk knows about Wikipedia's collaborative model, and therefore doubts Wikipedia's reliability, then the citation may (fairly or not) undermine the brief's credibility. And that's especially so if the judge or the clerk looks into it more closely and finds that the Wikipedia article is indeed mistaken.
On the other hand, lawyers, even more than appellate judges, have to work quickly, and often have to cut corners on research. So maybe for some fairly tangential point, a cite to Wikipedia might be seen as the most efficient solution (though subject to the credibility loss concerns that I mention above, which may be present even if the Wikipedia entry proves to be entirely accurate).
Related Posts (on one page):
- More on Wikipedia (Plus Updates):
- Wikipedia cited in court opinions:
Double Jeopardy and Judicial Verdicts:
It's not every day that you read a news story on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29
, but here's one from today's Boston Globe
. (Hat tip: Howard
.) Rule 29 allows a trial judge to find a criminal defendant not guilty as a matter of law; as long as the judge makes clear that she is making the finding based on her view of the evidence, she does not need to state a reason and the decision is unreviewable by courts of appeal under the Double Jeopardy clause even if it is "based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation."Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962)
As the Globe story suggests, Rule 29 is a pretty controversial rule. Some prosecutors see the unreviewability of Rule 29 acquittals as an invitation for trial judges to get rid of cases that they don't like for reasons that have nothing to do with their merits. On the other hand, defense attorneys generally see Rule 29 as an important safety valve on overzealous prosecutions. It's relatively rare for Rule 29 to make the news, though: because acquittals under the Rule can't be appealed, its workings tend to fly under the radar screen.
In December, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing oral argument in a case that addresses one aspect of the Double Jeopardy limits on Rule 29 and related state rules: if a judge enters a judgment of acquittal under Rule 29 or a related state rule, but then soon after changes her mind, can she reinstate the charges? Or does the Double Jeopardy clause block the judge from reinstating the charges as soon as the Rule 29 acquittal is announced? The case is Smith v. Commonwealth, 03-8661
Jews and Republicans:
Instapundit points to this very perceptive analysis of John Kerry's policies and attitudes toward Israel by Martin Peretz.
But Peretz also begins his piece with this puzzling but accurate statement: "Like many American Jews, I was brought up to believe that if I pulled the Republican lever on the election machine my right hand would wither and, as the Psalmist says, my tongue would cleave to the roof of my mouth." I have never understood why Jews are so hostile to Republicans, as such. It is not as though the Republican Party has exactly led pogroms against the Jews over the years. Indeed, throughout the 20th-century, the most prominent anti-Semites--southern racists like Theodore Bilbo, Catholic fascists like Father Coughlin, and black demagogues like Al Sharpton--were [update: sic, tended to be; I haven't forgotten about Pat Buchanan, among others] Democrats. For that matter, the most anti-Semitic demographic groups, ranging from urban Catholics and rural fundamentalists in the early 20th-century to poorly educated and just plain poor whites, African-Americans, and Latinos today, have, and continue to be among the Democrats' primary constituencies. (The Republicans primary constituency today, evangelicals, are no more anti-Semitic than the population as a whole.). And of course, it was beloved Democrat Franklin Roosevelt who stifled most efforts to rescue Jews from the Shoah.
I've often heard Jews say it was the Democrats' commitment to civil rights that made Jews hostile to Republicans. But until 1964, Republican politicians overall were more sympathetic to civil rights legislation than were Democrats, and the period that this was true was also the period during which Jews were most hostile to Republicans (if I'm not mistaken, Reagan and Nixon received higher percentages of the Jewish vote than did Eisenhower, Dewey, or Wilkie; Milton Friedman received much more flak for being a Republican around 1960 than any similarly-situated prominent Jewish intellectual would receive today; Peretz grew up in an era when the racist South was still a dominant force in the Democratic Party). Conclusion: The reflexive antipathy of Jews to Republicans per se (as opposed to specific policies pursued by Republicans) has been, and continues to be, irrational.
John Fund's sobering warning.--
John Fund has a sobering warning about election problems, particularly those related to provisional ballots:
It's a safe bet you will hear more about provisional ballots before Election Day--and a lot more if the election goes into overtime again. The provisional ballot could become this year's equivalent of Florida's infamous punch-card ballot, and it could decide who wins the presidency.
This is the first election held under the Help America Vote Act of 2002. One of its key provisions is a requirement that people in all 50 states whose names aren't on voter registration rolls be given a provisional, or conditional, ballot that will then be cross-checked with public records after the polls close to see if it is valid. "If I had to pick the one thing that will stir up anger and lawsuits on Election Day, it will be provisional voting," says Doug Chapin, executive director of the nonpartisan Electionline.org.
UPDATE: At Slate, election law expert Rick Hasen goes through 5 nightmare scenarios of what might go wrong, though he sees the chances of a disaster as small:
The chances of post-election litigation affecting the outcome of this election are in fact small—probably well under 10 percent. It is not that Election Day problems are unlikely—I think they are guaranteed—but they would have to occur in a place where the resolution of the problem could affect the outcome of the election. Think battleground states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Colorado. We should hardly find that statistic comforting: Even a small probability of a big disaster is worth concern. Here I consider five nightmare scenarios for how the election could remain in doubt after Nov. 2 and how all of them raise the possibility of court intervention. Ironically, the Florida debacle and our reactions to it have increased, not decreased, the chances of a post-election problem.
"Biggest Iraqi City" Outside Iraq:
This article from the Guardian contains what (I think is) a whopper: that "Detroit is the largest Iraqi City outside of Iraq." I couldn't find exact statistics, but I am fairly certain that Ramat Gan, Israel (where my Iraqi-Jewish wife is from) has many more Iraqis than does Detroit. The vast majority of the 100,000 plus Jews expelled from Iraq between 1949 and 1951 settled in Ramat Gan (a suburb of Tel Aviv), and the town is still sufficiently Iraqi that when I tell Israelis that my wife is Iraqi they ask, "so, she's from Ramat Gan?" The Jews of Iraq had substantial wealth, were well-integrated in Iraqi society before their expulsion, and their presence in Iraq dated back 2,500 years, when "Iraq" was still "Babylonia," giving the Jews a stronger claim to Iraqi identity than the Arab "newcomers."
(UPDATE: This link, sent by a reader, states that the entire Detroit area contains approximately 60,000 Iraqis, clearly far fewer Iraqis than are present in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area).
I mention this because of the consistent blindness of the news media and punditocracy, especially left-wing sources like the Guardian, to the fact that Israel's War of Independence created two groups of refugees, one Jewish, one Arab, of approximately the same size. The Jewish refugees were forced out by their governments in many Arab countries simply because they were Jews, and this was a politically expedient response to local anger about the establishment of Israel. The Arab refugees were forced out, orin many cases fled voluntarily, because their community was engaged in a war of annihilation against the emerging Jewish state. The Middle Eastern Jewish refugees were resettled by an Israel dominated by Ashkenazim, who had a different linguistic and cultural background, at great economic sacrifice to both the Ashkenazim and the Middle Eastern Jews, who were almost as numerous as the Jews already in Israel. The Arab refugees, who mostly fled only a few miles and were linguistically and culturally largely indistinguishable from their Arab neighbors, were herded by Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt into refugee camps, and forced to remain there to serve as political tools to use against Israel. The Jewish refugees received a bit of charity from the world Jewish community, and were otherwise left to their own devices (my wife's late mother went from living in a mansion in Iraq to living in a tent for several years in Israel). The Arab refugees have been the world's greatest welfare recipients, absorbing more aid per capita than any other population group in the world (funny how the libertarians who claim to be pro-Palestinian only because Israel relies too much on American taxpayer aid never seem to notice that the U.S. is and has been by far the largest contributor to UNRWA; at least with regard to Israel the U.S. is giving money to a friendly government and population!).
The mistreatment of Jews by their Arab homelands continues to reverberate in Israeli politics: Jews of Middle Eastern origin tend to be much more hawkish, and less trusting of Arab intentions, than are Jews of European background.
Next time someone talks about their sympathy with "refugees" from the Arab-Israeli conflict, ask them which refugees they are referring to, Jews or Arabs.
No, Not That Orin:
Here's one to put in the "things you find when for some strange reason you decide to google your first name
Orin is a nonphysical entity that I connect with through conscious channeling. I experience Orin as a being of great love, wisdom, and compassion. He never tells people what to do or how to live their lives. When asked, Orin will offer suggestions and ideas to assist people in seeing more choices. He has a constant message: that the universe is friendly, that it is unlimited in its abundance, that everything is happening perfectly for our good although we may not always understand why, and that we can choose to grow through joy rather than through struggle. Orin encourages you to accept only the ideas presented in the books and tapes that seem true to the deepest part of your being, and to set aside any that do not.
Orin tells me he is a Being of Light. He says he is working with us at this time because humanity is going through a major transition and awakening. Orin has lived an earth life and is aware of the many challenges of living on the earth plane. He says that he now "lives" on the soul plane and in even higher realms. One of his purposes is to serve humanity. Part of his service is to offer people a path of spiritual growth and to assist people in reaching their higher self and soul. He tells me he is here to help people find their spiritual power, open their hearts, and create more happiness and peace in their lives. His work is to assist people in transforming their emotions and personalities, so that they can evolve to a higher consciousness during these transformative times.
For more, see here
Some VC readers know about Memeorandum, but in case you don't, you should. The site is a very cool idea: it gathers links to major news stories along with links to blogospheric coverage of those stories collected from a politically diverse set of blogs. Check it out.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Sex, Voting, and John Kerry.--
I am old enough to remember being at demonstrations and at concerts where people were chanting "Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll." The odder thing (in retrospect) is that all three were not generally thought of as simply hedonism, but rather as routes to enlightenment!
Apparently, any new chant would involve sex and voting. The Washington Post (tip Betsy's Page) has a fascinating article on the movement to encourage voting for Kerry by being cool, and sometimes, apparently, using sex:
"On election night," Julie Binder says. "You wanna get laid on election night?"
"Oh, I've heard of you guys," says Brian Lin, relieved this is not some freaky hooker encounter. "Orgasmo or something, right?"
Actually, Votergasm. A group that wants you to pledge to withhold sex from nonvoters for a week after the election ("Citizen" level), or have sex with a voter ("Patriot"). Make love not war, updated for this giddy, hipster, woke-up-to-politics-yesterday club scene that is the protest left in the 2004 election.
"Is there like a screening process?" Lin asks, because now he wants in. So he follows her into the back room of the bar to the clipboards: ("Pledge-fulfilling sex must be consensual, legal and generous. And safe. And hot.") Behind him wait two guys arguing about Michael Moore and whether "George got his [butt] whupped" at the debate. Def Leppard is on, the beer is free, the beer pong is into its 25th round, and one Columbia frosh is getting some sugar from two seriously hot babes....
When publicist Michelle Collins announces at the bar that Votergasm.org is on a mission to "get young people to vote and have sex," it seems to this college crowd like a perfectly natural combination.
"Vote, [expletive] yeah" yells a guy from one table.
His friend adds: "Sex is awesome."
And then everyone resumes feeling righteous and having a good time. Everyone except Holden Caulfield over there in the corner (real name: Casey Amstacher), a pale kid with shaggy black hair. "I'll have sex when I want to have sex," he says. "But sex is not like a motive for me to vote. It's silly to mix up all this sex and oh, we drink beer and we're cool and we vote for John Kerry stuff. I vote because I'm adamant about voting."
Poor Amstacher. That brand of sobriety is so 1995.
What Bills or Laws John Kerry got passed.--
FactCheck.org has an entry assessing John Kerry's legislative record (tip LGF):
At the final presidential debate, Bush said Kerry had passed only five bills during his career, and Kerry said he had passed 56. Actually, we found eleven measures authored by Kerry have been signed into law, including a save-the-dolphins law, a law naming a federal building, a law giving a posthumous award to Jackie Robinson last year, and laws declaring "world population awareness weeks" in 1989 and 1991.
Bush counted only measures technically defined as "bills," leaving out four "joint resolutions" that also have the force of law, and he also omitted two laws whose House versions were adopted in a form nearly identical to Senate versions authored by Kerry.
When Kerry said "I've actually passed 56 individual bills that I've personally written" he was counting everything that had passed the Senate, whether or not it cleared the House. He also counts 24 resolutions that have no force of law.
Whatever the precise numbers, the actual bill list is not too impressive:
The Bush campaign's backup lists five bills, which we verified:
S.791: Authorizes $53 million over four years to provide grants to woman-owned small businesses. (1999)
S.1206: Names a federal building in Waltham, Massachusetts after Frederick C. Murphy, who was killed in action during World War II and awarded (posthumously) the Medal of Honor. (1994)
S.1636: A save-the-dolphins measure aiming "to improve the program to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations." (1994)
S.1563: Funding the National Sea Grant College Program, which supports university-based research, public education, and other projects "to promote better understanding, conservation and use of America's coastal resources." (1991)
S.423: Granting a visa and admission to the U.S. as a permanent resident to Kil Joon Yu Callahan. (1987)
The Bush campaign left out two bills authored by Kerry which passed the Senate and later became law in a slightly different form approved by the House, under the same titles and mostly same substance. (This occurs when House and Senate versions differ so slightly that one house adopts the other's version rather than go to the trouble of a House-Senate conference to work out a compromise.) The citations were provided by the Kerry campaign, and we verified them:
H.R.1900 (S.300): Awarded a congressional gold medal to Jackie Robinson (posthumously), and called for a national day of recognition. (2003)
H.R.1860 (S.856): Increased the maximum research grants for small businesses from $500,000 to $750,000 under the Small Business Technology Transfer Program. (2001)
In a related article in January we quoted an Associated Press article that turned up only eight laws that bear Kerry's name. The AP's count omits these two House measures which technically don't bear Kerry's name and a private law (S.423) granting a visa and permanent residency to Kil Joon Yu Callahan that we are including in our count of 11.
We've also included — as did The AP — four "joint resolutions" that are not technically "bills" but which have the same force when passed by both houses and are signed into law by the president. All four created national events:
S.J.Res.158: To make the week of Oct. 22 - Oct. 28, 1989 "World Population Awareness Week." (1989)
S.J.Res.160: To renew "World Population Awareness Week" for 1991. (1991)
S.J.Res.318: To make Nov. 13, 1992 "Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day." (1992)
S.J.Res.337: To make Sept. 18, 1992 "National POW/MIA Recognition Day." (1992)
Ever Hear of "Revealed Preferences?"
An article in my alma mater's (Brandeis University) newspaper, The Justice explains that two Brandeis Women's Studies professors argue that (surprise!) what most of us think of as gender (or, some would say, "sex") differences are actually mere stereotypes. Maybe it's unfair for me to comment without reading the professors' entire book, not to mention the numerous studies on which they claim to rely. But I was struck by this: "Barnett said their findings revealed that men and women value kindness, understanding and intelligence other [sic? rather?] than financial prospects. She said this counters stereotypes that men prefer young females who are good looking and women prefer men with good financial prospects." I know people are likely to say they prefer kindess, etc. to looks (for men) and financial success (for women), but (1) surely there is no contradiction between wanting a kind, understanding, and intelligent mate and wanting that mate to also be either "good looking" or "financially sucess[ful]"--factors which may become less important once you get to know someone but may strongly influence who one is willing to date to begin with; and (2) I do wonder whether the authers considered the revealed preferences that seem blatantly obvious to those of us who merely observe human behavior (and maybe even look at the statistics, e.g., on which sex the Mays and Decembers tend to be in May-December relationships).
As an important aside, Professor Shulamit Reinharz, director of Brandeis's Women's Studies Center (and wife of university president Jehuda Reinharz) told the reporter that "Brandeis stands for excellence and social justice. [Gender equality] is a question of social justice." Brandeis "stands for social justce"???? Maybe I'm a little old-fashioned, but aren't universities supposed to stand for the pursuit of truth, "even unto its
innermost parts" (Brandeis's motto). What if the truth conflicts with Professor Reinharz's notions of "social justice?" Will a faculty member who pursues such truth get hired to teach Women's Studies? Will a student who pursues such truth get a good grade?
I recently received some alumni communications that also stressed Brandeis as an institution committed to "social justice." I had attributed this slogan to an overzealous (and overly ideological) alumni office employee, but apparently this is a meme being encouraged at the highest levels of Brandeis. Brandeis has always been a lefty place, but it never in my experience (I graduated in 1988) had the chutzpah to suggest as official policy that only politically correct views are acceptable, or that the encouragement of left-wing activism, rather than scholarship, was the school's mission.
UPDATE: Ted Frank of Overlawyered.com sends me this link to Brandeis' mission statement, which is about as I remember it and says nothing about "social justice" (which, I should point out, is something conservatives may believe in, despite Hayek's claim that there is no such thing, but which in practical terms is a code phrase for the left-wing political goals). However, the powers-that-be at Brandeis apparently think that this mission statement is no longer sufficient, and the web page with the mission statement is headlined by a quote in VERY LARGE letters from President Reinharz stating: "Brandeis has a clear and unambiguous identity that rests on four solid pillars: dedication to academic excellence, non sectarianism, a commitment to social action, and continuous sponsorship by the Jewish community." Nothing about the pursuit of truth, much less to its innermost parts. How sad. (Update: Contrary to an email I just received, the statement by President Reinharz is quite clearly from his inaugural address, and is not a part of the mission statement, though the relevant web page seems to have been set up to intentially cause precisely that confusion.)
Saddened (or outraged) members of the greater Brandeis community may contact
Professor Reinharz [update: I mean, President Reinharz, who seems to be the ultimate guilty party with regard to defining Brandeis's mission as including politics] at jreinhar at sign brandeis.edu.
Further UPDATE: Kieran Healy shows his commitment to the pursuit of truth by intentionally cutting off a quotation from my post exactly at a point where doing so makes me look bad, implying that I was critiquing an entire book based on one quotation from the authors. It's clear from my entire post, however, that I was critiquing the substance of the quotation itself (that certain readily observable sex/gender differences are mere stereotypes, and the implication that e.g., if men are more likely than women to value youth and beauty that means they don't value anything else) while acknowledging that in their book the authors may make a more subtle point not reflected the quotation. Kieran, how about lowering the volume on the snarkiness and actually commenting on the substance of my post?
Profile of W.:
Ron Suskind offers this very critical analysis of the President's decisionmaking style in today's New York Times Sunday magazine. For some commentary, check out Kevin Drum. If anyone has blogged a good defense of Bush in response to Suskind's story, e-mail me the link at orinkerr at yahoo.com.
UPDATE: Bush supporters respond to the article here and here.
Olson on RFK, Jr.:
Wally Olson reviews Kennedy's Crimes Against Nature. Money quote:"In his media-criticism chapter, he has the nerve to blast the press for its absorption with celebrity culture. Yet this book, like Kennedy's entire career, is nothing if not an artifact of that culture. It would never have been acquired by a major publisher, or sent out in quantity to bookstores or reviewed in this newspaper today, if its author's name were Robert F. Snicklethwaite, Jr."
Arab Conspiracy Theories About Israel:
How deep and irrational is the Arab world's hatred and suspicion of Israel? Consider this. The Jerusalem Post reports that Hafez Hafi, an Israeli Arab man from Lod, a mixed Arab-Jewish neigbhorhood, was killed in the Sinai bombings. The victim's family is well-integrated into Israeli society, owning successful businesses and having many Jewish friends. Who do his sisters blame for the bombings? "'People say it was al-Qaida,' says Muna Hafi, 40, Hafez's sister. 'I don't believe it. I think this was done by Jewish people.'.... Muna's sister Yasmin agrees with her." The theory is that the Israeli government did it to try to encourage tourists to go to Eilat instead of Sinai. The author tries to put a positive spin on all this, noting that Muna ultimately concedes that Muslims "may" have been responsible for the bombings. I take cold comfort in this "concession." If even well-integrated Israeli Arabs are inclined to believe the wildlest conspiracy theories about the Israel government, and are so disinclined to acknowledge Arab and Muslim responsibility for terrorism, one can barely imagine how much worse the situation must be in the rest of the Arab/Muslim world, and how dim the hopes are for peace for Israel, or the rest of us for that matter.
Bush shows slight improvement in recent polls.--
There are hints of a very slight move toward Bush in recent polls. As usual, RealClearPolitics.com is a good place to follow trends. At the moment they show recent polls averaging 49.0% for Bush, 45.2% for Kerry among likely voters. This is influenced by the latest Gallup poll, showing 52% for Bush, 44% for Kerry. Given Gallup's wide swings in the last month, it is hard to credit that poll too much.
Although the 3.8% average difference is within the margin of error for one poll, it is probably just outside the margin of error if one were to combine these polls using meta-analytic techniques.
This local TV News site reviews a few newspaper endorsements
. Kerry gets the New York Times, Boston Globe, and Minneapolis "Strib". Bush gets the Chicago Tribune, Omaha World Herald, and Rocky Mountain News.
For me, the big surprise in this group is the Chicago Tribune (disclosure: the Tribune is a former client of mine). Although most people nationally still think of the Tribune as a conservative newspaper, its political orientation is much like any other paper. My unsystematic impression is that its news side has been pretty pro-Kerry in the last month (my daughter subscribes but I don't read it much beyond sports). In 2000 the Tribune endorsed Gore (the Chicago Sun-Times endorsed Bush in 2000), so the Chicago Tribune's going for Bush this time is a reversal.
[CORRECTION: Kevin Drum from Calpundit (and Washington Monthly) emailed me, pointing out that Lexis/Nexis conflicts with my memory. The Chicago Tribune endorsed Bush in 2000. I apologize for my error.]
Of course, these endorsements of highly salient candidates mean very little to voters, the chief effect being to provide fodder for campaign spots. Indeed, I wonder whether that is part of the explanation for the uncharacteristically extremely worded NY Times criticism of Bush as part of its endorsement of Kerry.
Limited Government and Bush vs. Kerry:
I haven't posted for a while, because I have become increasingly disenchanted with the current administration and have not wanted to start writing angry or petulant posts about how President Bush has betrayed the principles of limited government, but at the same time the election has been at the forefront of my thoughts and is the most important issue we face these days. Anyway, I've decided to post on the issue of the election to highlight a few points that have not (as far as I have seen) received as much attention as they should.
I can understand why social conservatives would support President Bush, but in my view those of us who think of ourselves as libertarians, or economic conservatives and social liberals, or believers in small government, or 19th century liberals, etc. (all of which I'm lumping into the category of "limited-government types") should vote for John Kerry.
1) First, on the issue of this President's policies, many commentators have ably pointed out the myriad ways in which this President has been a disaster for those who believe in limited government. (Two that come to mind are Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute and Robert George, formerly on Newt Gingrich's staff, but there are many more; in fact, Doonesbury ran a series this week of not very funny cartoons containing links to conservatives who are disappointed in Bush.) A few of these commentators have listed Bush's tax cuts as the one bright spot for libertarians/conservatives/limited-government types, but tax cuts without spending cuts (or, as it turns out, with massive spending increases) aren't small government - they're big government combined with borrowing. The government reduces your taxes but takes out a big loan in the name of you and your family. Brad DeLong says we should call this a tax shift rather than a tax cut. He's right, although I would also call it mandated mortgaging.
What about the "starve the beast" hypothesis (i.e., that reductions in taxes will force reductions in spending)? Two big problems: first, as long as we are running up deficits (i.e., until the beast really is starved), then the government is still taking out loans in our name. Second, "starve the beast" is a nice theory, but in reality it has never happened. In fact, William Niskanen of the Cato Institute has shown that decreases in taxes are associated with increases in spending, and vice-versa.
2) "Fine," some libertarian friends have said to me, "I admit that Bush has been bad for limited government, but won't electing Kerry be worse for our interests?" As for the short- and medium-term, the great likelihood is that the answer is no. Unless something truly disastrous happens to the Republican party (e.g., finding out that Osama Bin Laden received money from the RNC), it is going to retain control of the House of Representatives. Indeed, it is very likely that it will gain seats in the House, as it starts from a big presumptive gain resulting from the redistricting in Texas. As for the Senate, it is conceivable that the Democrats could regain control, but just about everything would have to break their way. The bottom line is that Republicans will almost certainly control one chamber, and likely will control both. This means that a President Kerry is going to be dealing with a hostile Congress - and Tom Delay is not going to roll over. In other words, we are likely to get the same sort of gridlock that we had from 1995 to 2000, with no significant new spending and no significant new tax cuts - greater fiscal sanity and a smaller government. Again, this is not just pie in the sky. Niskanen also showed that divided government is associated with lower government spending.
3) But what about the long-term interests of those who want a limited government? Here we come to the most important point that many have overlooked: if limited-government types vote for Bush and he is reelected, then the obvious conclusion for any savvy political strategist is that Republicans can take these voters for granted and thus ignore their interests. The reality of politics is that you are always working at the margins - trying to increase turnout of your base or add swing voters. If I am a political strategist who knows that a group of voters will stick with my candidate no matter what, I'd be foolish to recommend that he respond to their concerns in any way. What's the point of doing that, as a matter of political strategy? If I were Karl Rove (or whomever) and Bush won in 2004, I would tell any future Republican candidate that he can do anything he wants on the size of government, because Bush proved that limited-government types will still vote Republican.
The only way to send a message to future Republican candidates is for Bush to lose in part because of the defection of limited-government types. And, if we don't send that message, I fear that we will be in the political wilderness for a long time.
The bottom line, in my view, is that people who believe in the old Republican credo of limited government had better vote for John Kerry.
Washington Post Looks Into Vanity Fair Story on Bush v. Gore:
Today's Washington Post has a detailed story by Charles Lane looking into the controversy of the OT 2000 Supreme Court law clerks who disclosed details of Bush v. Gore to Vanity Fair. The article includes a few strong hints (and two disclosures) of the identities of some of the former clerks involved.
Harsh Treatment at Guantanamo.--
The NY Times is revisiting Guantanamo Bay and finding harsher treatment of prisoners than the military was claiming:
Many detainees at Guantanamo Bay were regularly subjected to harsh and coercive treatment, several people who worked in the prison said in recent interviews, despite longstanding assertions by military officials that such treatment had not occurred except in some isolated cases.
The people, military guards, intelligence agents and others, described in interviews with The New York Times a range of procedures that included treatment they said was highly abusive occurring over a long period of time, as well as rewards for prisoners who cooperated with interrogators.
One regular procedure that was described by people who worked at Camp Delta, the main prison facility at the naval base in Cuba, was making uncooperative prisoners strip to their underwear, having them sit in a chair while shackled hand and foot to a bolt in the floor, and forcing them to endure strobe lights and screamingly loud rock and rap music played through two close loudspeakers, while the air-conditioning was turned up to maximum levels, said one military official who witnessed the procedure. The official said that was intended to make the detainees uncomfortable, as they were accustomed to high temperatures both in their native countries and their cells.
Such sessions could last up to 14 hours with breaks, said the official, who described the treatment after being contacted by The Times.
New York Times Endorses John Kerry for President.--
The New York Times has endorsed John Kerry for president. After some perfunctory praise of Kerry, the Times launches into a scathing attack on Bush:
There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure. Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right.
Mr. Bush installed John Ashcroft, a favorite of the far right with a history of insensitivity to civil liberties, as attorney general. He sent the Senate one ideological, activist judicial nominee after another. He moved quickly to implement a far-reaching anti-choice agenda including censorship of government Web sites and a clampdown on embryonic stem cell research. He threw the government's weight against efforts by the University of Michigan to give minority students an edge in admission, as it did for students from rural areas or the offspring of alumni.
When the nation fell into recession, the president remained fixated not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the right wing's war against taxing the wealthy. As a result, money that could have been used to strengthen Social Security evaporated, as did the chance to provide adequate funding for programs the president himself had backed. No Child Left Behind, his signature domestic program, imposed higher standards on local school systems without providing enough money to meet them.
If Mr. Bush had wanted to make a mark on an issue on which Republicans and Democrats have long made common cause, he could have picked the environment. Christie Whitman, the former New Jersey governor chosen to run the Environmental Protection Agency, came from that bipartisan tradition. Yet she left after three years of futile struggle against the ideologues and industry lobbyists Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had installed in every other important environmental post. The result has been a systematic weakening of regulatory safeguards across the entire spectrum of environmental issues, from clean air to wilderness protection. . . .
Like the tax cuts, Mr. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein seemed closer to zealotry than mere policy. He sold the war to the American people, and to Congress, as an antiterrorist campaign even though Iraq had no known working relationship with Al Qaeda. His most frightening allegation was that Saddam Hussein was close to getting nuclear weapons. It was based on two pieces of evidence. One was a story about attempts to purchase critical materials from Niger, and it was the product of rumor and forgery. The other evidence, the purchase of aluminum tubes that the administration said were meant for a nuclear centrifuge, was concocted by one low-level analyst and had been thoroughly debunked by administration investigators and international vetting. Top members of the administration knew this, but the selling went on anyway. None of the president's chief advisers have ever been held accountable for their misrepresentations to the American people or for their mismanagement of the war that followed.
The international outrage over the American invasion is now joined by a sense of disdain for the incompetence of the effort. Moderate Arab leaders who have attempted to introduce a modicum of democracy are tainted by their connection to an administration that is now radioactive in the Muslim world. Heads of rogue states, including Iran and North Korea, have been taught decisively that the best protection against a pre-emptive American strike is to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.
We have specific fears about what would happen in a second Bush term, particularly regarding the Supreme Court. The record so far gives us plenty of cause for worry. Thanks to Mr. Bush, Jay Bybee, the author of an infamous Justice Department memo justifying the use of torture as an interrogation technique, is now a federal appeals court judge. Another Bush selection, J. Leon Holmes, a federal judge in Arkansas, has written that wives must be subordinate to their husbands and compared abortion rights activists to Nazis. . . .