Daily Archives: February 13, 2010

Obama the Marxist

And the obligatory “I told you so…”  See video of one of his contemporaries in college, done by B cast, through Gateway Pundit.

(B Cast interviewed John Doe, too, doncha know.)

Unions are killing us

Doug Ross has a great article about the crushing cost of union pensions in New Jersey.  Here’s one example of a union member in New Jersey, under his subtitle “How’s this for an investment”:  “You pay a total of $124,000 into your pension plan and, upon retiring at age 49, you receive $3.3 million in pension payments and $500,000 in health care benefits. You receive $3.8 million in total on a $124,000 investment.”

Great deal if you can get it.  But it’s a huge pyramid or ponzi scheme.  It can’t keep working because it will bankrupt [fill in blank, corporation, state, federal government]. 

Facebook has recently made me think about this issue. I’ve re-connected with friends and relatives from Michigan.  Many union members my age (just over fifty) are freakin retired, drawing a pension, and already working full time at new jobs.   I don’t know all the details, but many get a large percentage of the salary that they were earning while working.  

I don’t begrudge them all that money, because the unions bargained for it, and they worked thirty years to get it, but that is why Michigan is the state with the highest unemployment. And a big reason why taxpayers had to bail out G.M. and Chrysler.  So the Federal Government takes taxes from me, who has diddly squat for a retirement fund and who will have to work until I die, to bail out companies that are bankrupt in large part due to paying my contemporaries exhorbitant retirement and medical benefits.  Come to think of it, I do begrudge those bastards getting all that money.  

p.s. Great news!  Governments are becoming more and more unionized all the time.  BOHICA!

Report: U of Texas in talks to join the Big Ten

Fox news, h/t The Bayou.  I can see why the Big Ten would want the Longhorns, but I can’t see why UT would want the Big Ten.

Race & Gender of Judges Makes Enormous Difference in Federal Racial Harrassment Cases

From the ABA Journal:  “In federal racial harassment cases, one study (PDF) found that plaintiffs lost just 54 percent of the time when the judge handling the case was an African-American. Yet plaintiffs lost 81 percent of the time when the judge was Hispanic, 79 percent when the judge was white, and 67 percent of the time when the judge was Asian American.” 

Obviously, if those numbers are correct and the sample is large enough, that is too great of a statistical anomaly to qualify as chance.

A possible partial explanation is that blacks in general are more liberal than whites, so it stands to reason that black judges as a group tend to be more liberal.  And we’ve known since eternity that judges see things differently depending upon their philosophical background.  Liberal judges as a general rule will find for the plaintiff more often than their conservative colleagues.  That is why lawyers are famous for “forum shopping.” When they have a choice they want to determine which judge and which type of jury they have for their case. 

It is ironic that statistics show apparent bias in the system. Courts after all have held that employers can be held liable for bias if statistics show that they are not employing enough minorities, or if they give tests that disqualify an inordinate amount of minorities, then courts have determined that their is a “disparate impact” and the test must be scrapped.  Physician, heal thyself.  Or what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  How about a lawsuit charging the Federal judiciary with discrimination?  Oh, no, wait, judges are immune from being sued.  Just shut up and do as they say, not as they do. 

Another irony is that federal law prohibits striking jurors on the basis of sex or race.  Lawyers know damn well that women and men, and the various racial and ethnic groups as a general rule will be more or less favorable to the lawyers’ case, and so they traditionally struck jurors in the disfavored sex or race.  Of course, that was terribly unfair, especially in race.  Say for instance a black man was suing a white woman in a location where a majority of the jurors are black.  The first thing his attorney would do is strike as many whites as possible to ensure a black majority on the juror.  But the courts long ago ruled that is illegal and rightly so, in my opinion.  But now we see that judges are biased, just like we’ve always known jurors are biased, and we can’t do much about that, either.   

illustration from here.

Constitutional Law 101: simple basics that every citizen shold know


Signing the Constitution

How you analyze a particular issue and how you arrive at your conclusion is more important than the issue itself.  Modern liberals allow the ends to justify the means when they are interpreting the Constitution.  They allow their desire to “do good” to over-ride actually following the Constitution. 

That seems like a great idea at first glance.  Don’t like states outlawing sales of contraceptives, abortion, or homosexual acts between consenting adults?  The modern liberals just snap their fingers and claim that the Constitution forbids states from outlawing such behavior. It doesn’t, really, it is not even a close call, but liberals do it anyway because they can. [1]   And due to our ignorance of the Constitution we have allowed it to happen. 

Because liberals want to interpret the Constitution any way that they choose, they reject the doctrine of “Original Intent.”  That doctrine basically states that the first issue to be determined when analyzing whether the Constitution authorizes or forbids a certain act by the government is: “What was the “original intent” of the Founding Fathers when the Constitution was written.”   In other words, if it is a “separation of Church and State issue” then you first must determine what did the Founders mean by “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof”? [2]   Liberals skip the part about what the Founders intended and instead try to determine the best policy for today.

The problem that arises when liberals reject “original intent” is that then the Constitution no longer means what it says, it means what a majority of the Supreme Court says it means at a particular time.  The Constitution that was adopted by the consent of the majority becomes something totally different.  For instance, twenty-four years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not bar states from prohibiting homosexual behavior in private between consenting adults; thirteen years later they changed their minds and said it did. 

Clearly, the Constitution did not change, and the “original intent” of the Founders did not change in those few years, only the philosophical make-up of the Supreme Court changed in those few years.  Instead of analyzing how the Court arrived at its decision proponents simply take sides with which side “won” or “lost.”  Libertarian or pro-homosexual rights? Then you loved the second one and hated the first one, etc. 

This is why the court is so publicized.  Instead of just interpreting the Constitution and applying the law to the facts, the Court makes up the law willy-nilly.  Conservatives decry the fact that liberal activist judges trample on the constitution and upset centuries and decades of precedent.  Then they start fighting back, un-doing as many of the liberal precedents as they can when they are in power.  Citizens have no choice but to vigorously oppose those with opposing views, and to support like-minded nominees. Continue reading