Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

November 2014

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 04, 2014 5 Comments
Yesterday was oral argument at the Supreme Court in a lawsuit over whether Congress had the power to designate Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel on passports. The case is Zivotofsky v. Kerry, and the issue is a fight between Congress and the Executive Branch, Via Scotus Blog:
Issue: Whether a federal statute that directs the Secretary of State, on request, to record the birthplace of an American citizen born in Jerusalem as born in "Israel" on a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and on a United States passport is unconstitutional on the ground that the statute "impermissibly infringes on the President's exercise of the recognition power reposing exclusively in him."
Prof. Eugene Kontorovich points out that legally the issue is not the same as the political issue of recognition of Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. Most observers of the oral argument believe it it will be a 5-4 split, most likely in favor of the Executive Branch. But oral arguments are not necessarily accurate predictors of ultimate outcome, so who knows. Regardless of the legal technicalities, the media and public perception is that this is a political issue regarding Jerusalem, particularly in light of hostile and threatening statements made by the Obama administration over Israeli exercise of sovereignty over "East Jerusalem" (the part of Jerusalem illegally occupied by Jordan from 1949-1967). Via Mirabelle from Israelly Cool:
Some of Obama’s biggest recent grievances in that relationship [between Obama and Netanyahu] seem to have been over Jews living in various neighborhoods in Jerusalem. In the past few weeks, Obama or his spokespeople have expressed their displeasure with Jews moving into homes they legally purchased in Silwan, planned construction of mixed Jewish and Arab housing in Givat Hamatos, or Monday’s announcement of homes in Har Homa and Ramat Shlomo. Rather than go on a lengthy rant about my complete and utter disappointment at my own President, I though we’d just take a trip in the Wayback Machine, to 2008 . . .
In 2008, Obama pledged that Israel could keep its undivided Capital of Jerusalem, if it likes it. That was then. This is now:

Posted by Leslie Eastman on November 04, 2014 2 Comments
Dave Weigel is worried about what is happening at the state legislative level, as the media is focused on the U.S. Senate, A wave of GOP wins in the states could radically transform the country:
Remember the number: 69. That's how many state legislative bodies Republicans are trying to win this year, out of 99, up from the 60 they control right now. (Nebraska has a unicameral legislature, composed entirely of senators, a bit like Rome but with fewer coups.) That would give them a "state legislature supermajority," and allow them to push through the sort of policy reforms that will be quickly gummed up in a Washington that—let's be honest—will spend six or seven months passing bills before everyone gets excited about 2016. "We're on offense this year," says Jill Bader, a spokeswoman for the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee. "We're confident in the path not just to a supermajority, but in a more diverse group of elected Republicans."
That's good news for the country, but what is a Californian like me to do today? As the rest of the country is poised to refudiate Democratic Party policies and the Obama Administration's incompetence and arrogance, we are set to re-elect Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown (courtesy of Latino voters). I could drown my many sorrows in the craft beer that San Diego is becoming famous for, but I would rather celebrate good victories -- especially in local elections where independent conservatives can really make a difference. One race I am following closely is that of Town Clerk in DeWitt, NY. That may not seem like an important race, but these local victories add up, and provide our future statewide and federal team members. The Republican nominee is Karen Beseth, better known by many Legal Insurrection fans as popular conservative blogger The Lonely Conservative. I had a chance to talk with her about transitioning from opining to campaigning last week on Canto Talk:

Posted by Mike LaChance on November 04, 2014 20 Comments
On this important election day let us not forget that Lena Dunham, who once described herself as the voice of her generation, wants everyone to Rock the Vote. And you can be sure it's not for Republicans. She didn't vote in the last midterm election but what does that matter? Hunter Schwarz of the Washington Post reported:
A lot of the celebrities who appeared in the midterm Rock The Vote PSA didn’t actually vote in the last midterm Celebrities are less likely to vote in midterm elections, just like us! Rock The Vote released a public service announcement last month with a parody of Lil Jon's "Turn Down For What" that featured public figures who explained why they planned to vote in the midterm elections, but according to public records, a number of them didn't vote in the last midterm election. At least five who appeared in the PSA — "Girls" actress Lena Dunham, comedian Whoopi Goldberg, "Orange is the New Black" actress Natasha Lyonne, "Rich Kids of Beverly Hills" star E.J. Johnson, and actor Darren Criss — did not vote in the last midterm, records from Los Angeles County and New York City show.
Of course, Ms. Dunham has bigger things to worry about at the moment. Kevin Williamson of National Review and Bradford Thomas of Truth Revolt had the audacity to review Lena Dunham's new book and (gasp) quote her. It's pretty creepy stuff. Thomas noted the passage where Dunham describes exploring her baby sister's genitals at the age of seven:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 04, 2014 10 Comments
Tom Blumer from BizzyBlog sends this video:
It's about getting informed, getting involved, and voting. It's about getting informed, getting involved, and (obviously most relevant to tomorrow) voting: "It Matters" - Several who have seen it have said it "brought me to tears" — and I originally thought I was the only one. I am VERY worried that those who need to turn out tomorrow won't. I sense way too much complacency. We can't afford any of that. Perhaps the video can influence that — if it's seen.
Steve Hayes at The Weekly Standard elaborates on why it matters, An Election About Everything:
It’s about the size and scope of government. It’s about the rule of law. It’s about the security of the citizenry.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on November 03, 2014 19 Comments
Hilarious. (Unless of course you're Mark Udall, desperately trying to hang on to your Colorado Senate seat.) Paul Lewis of The Guardian has the scoop:
Mark Udall had been looking confident, just moments earlier, when he climbed down the steps of his campaign bus and began addressing what should have been an audience of the party faithful. These were people who had given up their Sunday afternoon to knock on doors in Centennial, in the southern suburbs of Denver, in search of votes for Udall. In a populist, energising speech, Udall mocked the “plutocrat” Koch brothers, who bankrolled TV ads for his Republican rival Cory Gardner, and praised “the clipboard army” who were about to begin knocking on doors. “I know you can do it. We’re surging. Ignore the polls.” The crowd cheered and autumn leaves fluttered about the senator like confetti.
Autumn leaf confetti sounds delightful! But let's pause here for just a moment. Because, fact check. Surge? I'm not sure where he's getting "surge." Real Clear Politics seems to indicate exactly the opposite, which is probably why Udall is imploring his faithful supporters to ignore the polls: Corey Gardner Mark Udall Heckled Colorado Senate Polling But now for the best part (emphasis added to highlight hilarity):

Posted by Amy Miller on November 03, 2014 16 Comments
Texas is bursting at the seams with conservative fervor: Rick Perry has been building momentum for his yet-unannounced Presidential campaign, Greg Abbott is set to trounce Democratic darling Wendy Davis in Tuesday's gubernatorial race, and the Republican ground game so far this cycle has sent groups like Battleground Texas running for the hills. Obviously, then, it's time for prosecutors to renew their attacks on Governor Rick Perry, just in time for election day. Governor Perry has spent much of the late summer battling back what most consider to be a show indictment accusing the Governor of abusing his power during his efforts to oust famously-drunk Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg. Now, prosecutors are crying foul over the Perry legal team's aggressive tactics aimed at getting the indictment dismissed. Via Bloomberg:
“The defendant’s own words have instilled a concern for all persons who participated in the grand jury investigation,” Michael McCrum, Perry’s special prosecutor, said in a filing made public today, asking a state judge to deny the governor’s request for grand jury transcripts. Perry, 64, Texas’s longest-serving governor and a presumed candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, faces two criminal counts of abusing his office by threatening to veto funding for a state ethics task force if the county prosecutor in charge of the program didn’t resign following a drunken driving conviction.
So, what's all the fuss about?
He held a press conference the day after his Aug. 15 indictment saying: “This farce of a prosecution will be revealed for what it is, and those responsible will be held accountable.” “This comment struck many listeners as a threat against the members of the grand jury and all of those associated with the grand jury process,” McCrum said. “The state has a good faith basis to protect witnesses who appeared before the grand jury, who would similarly be in the category of those who would be ‘held accountable’ by the governor.”
What is this? 1L year on the JV moot court team?

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on November 03, 2014 11 Comments
Embattled Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is steadily outpacing Democratic challenger Mary Burke in all of the latest polls---so of course that means a swastika ad is the only logical option left for Team Burke. The ad released by the Burke campaign is inside baseball-ish in that if you haven't been following the intricacies of the race, it's hard to understand why anything disclosed is significant. Picked up by and reported by the Washington Post, the ad shows Scott Walker with "donor and campaign worker, Gary Ellerman." The ad then drops its one and only bomb: "Ellerman posts pictures like this on his Facebook page." Scott Walker Nazi Mary Burke Swastika Ad Evidently, Ellerman was fired from Trek (the consumer is supposed to know what Trek is and why it's important). Mary Burke was also employed by Trek. Ellerman went on to share his account of Burke's time with the company, an account Burke disputes. Avner Zarmi of PJ Media provides the background:

Posted by Amy Miller on November 03, 2014 11 Comments
The battle over voter ID has been thrust into the forefront of this election cycle's news coverage, and advocates on both sides of the issue have been working hard to win the hearts and minds of voters, even as most politicos are focused on getting whatever votes they can to win on Tuesday. North Carolina is one of many states in the U.S. where no documentation is required to vote; and in this last ambush video from James O'Keefe, a series of encounters with North Carolina election officials shows just how easy it can be for an imposter to cast multiple votes. Project Veritas Action released the video exclusively to MailOnline:
By this time in 2016, the state government hopes, naysayers who see the voter ID law as a barrier to minorities and the poor will see hundreds of thousands of new, zero-cost IDs coming out of voters' wallets and purses. For now, though, O'Keefe is using North Carolina as a proxy for the other 42 states – and the District of Columbia – which don't require voters to show a photo ID. His crew used publicly available election rolls to identify 'inactive' voters and then chose 30-year-old men for him to impersonate. The final footage shows election officials, over and over, accepting O'Keefe's claim that he was one of those people. 'With almost three-quarters-of-a-million inactive voters and no voter ID law in place, we could have turned the election results for most major candidates in the state,' he claimed Monday. 'What we uncovered in this video illustrates how easy it would be for a well-orchestrated campaign with no regard for the law to change the outcome of a major election. Voter laws across the country need to be changed immediately to prevent this sort of potential voter fraud.'
Watch:

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on November 03, 2014 12 Comments
Outgoing Democratic Iowa Senator Harkin made some shall we say, "interesting" remarks about Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst.
"Joni Ernst, she's really attractive and she sounds nice. I don't care if she's as good looking as Taylor Swift or as nice as Mr. Rodgers, but if she votes like Michelle Bachmann, she's wrong for the state of Iowa."
Ernst was not impressed by Harkin's apparent crush on her saying, "I was very offended that Senator Harking would say that. I think it's unfortunate that he and many in their party believe that you can't be a real woman if you're Conservative and you're female. Again, I am greatly offended about that." Was the late disclosure of the Harkin comments a dirty trick? Too bad, Harkin is front and center in Bruce Braley's final messaging:

Posted by David Gerstman on November 03, 2014 11 Comments
As the election comes down to the wire in Maryland in two days, I spent some time driving around my neighborhood looking for campaign signs. My neighborhood isn't the best bellwether for Maryland election results. If my neighborhood were representative, Bob Ehrlich would have won a second term in 2006  ... with about 80% of the vote. Instead he lost to current governor, Martin O'Malley, despite Ehrlich's maintaining an approval rating that exceeded 50%. In any case lately these "Vote for the Democrats" (see the featured image above) signs have been popping up. I guess in Maryland you vote for Democrats as a matter of faith. After all Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown wouldn't have a chance if the election turned on his competence. But Maryland Republicans have an effective comeback. One sign right next a Larry Hogan (for governor)  asks if you've had enough tax increases under the O'Malley-Brown administration. 20141102_141129_Republicans_No_Taxes O'Malley intent on being the Democratic nominee in 2016, used his two terms in office to turn Maryland into a Democratic paradise. In 2007 and 2012, O'Malley convened special sessions of the Democratic controlled legislature to raise taxes. (In 2007, the special session was called to address a $1.9 billion "structural deficit" out of a total budget of some $37.3 billion of spending, which amounted to roughly 5% of the budget.) Perhaps the Democrats' tendency to hike taxes as a first resort turned off a lot of unaffiliated voters. I'm guessing that the Republican message is gaining some traction. But the other thing that I thought was remarkable was the relative lack of Brown signs. Even many homes and businesses, which had signs promoting local Democratic candidates didn't have Brown signs. Like at the house below.

Posted by Amy Miller on November 03, 2014 9 Comments
Gallup's latest gun rights-themed poll shows that by and large, Americans haven't been swayed by high-profile shootings into ceding their Second Amendment rights. In the wake of the 2012 shootings at Newtown, 58% of Americans polled said they favored stricter laws governing gun ownership; since then, however, that number has dropped to 47%. Via Gallup:
The percentage favoring stricter gun sale laws in the two years since Newtown occurred has declined despite steady and tragic high-profile shootings in the U.S at schools, malls and businesses. This past week, shootings occurred at a Seattle-area school and of police officers in Sacramento and Placer County, California. Amidst events like these in 2014, and the resulting calls for stricter gun sale laws, the 47% who favor stricter laws is just above the historical low of 43% measured in 2011. Ten years ago, three in five Americans (60%) said they favored stricter laws regulating the sale of firearms, but support fell to 44% in 2009 and remained at that level in polls conducted in the next two years. Days after the Newtown shooting, support for stricter gun sale laws swelled. Since 2012, however, Americans have retreated from those stronger attitudes about the need for more gun control, and the percentage of Americans who say the laws should be less strict -- although still low -- has edged up.
Numbers reflecting the percentage of Americans who favor a law banning the private ownership of handguns is also low, with only around 26% supporting a ban: 9byfbvyise22kwqz5zbcaq

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 02, 2014 33 Comments
Some people. The first image is an  Anti-Scott Walker protester who, along with a friend, locked her head to State Capitol railing in June 2011 in a budget protest, via JSOnline.  The police broke the lock and released her.  At the time we noted there was a simpler solution:
Turn out the lights, lock the doors, and go home. And leave them there.
Wisconsin State Capitol head lock The second image is from the anti-Israel "Block the Boat" protest in Tampa this weekend, via Twitter account Global Revolution TV.  Presumably, she too was unlocked by police: Tampa Block the Boat Head Locked Here's the view from another angle, via Twitter user RadicalMedia_:

Posted by Mike LaChance on November 02, 2014 5 Comments
In a turn of events, the GOP is now slamming Democrats for their sexist criticisms of Republican women. A new video featuring some nasty moments from the 2014 campaign was released Friday. The Washington Free Beacon reported:
New GOP Video Slams Offensive Democrat Attacks on Women A new GOP ad highlights the Democrat Party’s tendency this cycle to degrade women, especially if they represent the Republican Party. “Democrats sure like to insult Republican women,” the ad says. A series of clips features women and political commentators responding to various Democratic attacks against Republican woman during the current campaign cycle. Democrat Vincent Sheheen referred to Republican incumbent Gov. Nikki Haley as a “whore” during a stump speech in the South Carolina gubernatorial campaign and couldn’t contain his laughter after the offensive slip of the tongue.
Take a look:

Posted by Amy Miller on November 02, 2014 8 Comments
American Commitment president Phil Kerpen recently caught The Charlotte Observer dumping an article laying out North Carolina Democrat Kay Hagan's connection to potentially serious mishandling of stimulus funds. From the cached version of the article:
State officials say a stimulus grant given to a company run by Kay Hagan's husband needs "further legal review." WBTV obtained a memo written by the Department of Energy and Natural Resources which includes a letter to the state's auditor from last month. The memo states that NCDENR is looking into potential conflict of interest claims involving Senator Kay Hagan. NCDENR says they have reviewed grant records and found conflict of issue claims warranted further legal review. Kay Hagan's husband manages one of the companies in question, who received an energy efficiency grant money in 2010. According to the NC Department of Energy and Natural Resources, the grant agreement included provisions prohibiting family members from receiving incentive payments, “these rules require, among other things, that no one with direct lineal relations may receive incentive payment. For example, the mother, father, brother, sister, son or daughter or a contractor working in this Program cannot receive Awards, contracts and subcontracts.” The federal Department of Energy Assistance grant agreement had similar regulations that included members of the immediate family, partners, or people who has a financial interest in the firm selected for the grant.
The current version of the same page offers a 404 error, and the Observer has not offered an explanation for the article's removal. Real Clear Politics currently has Senate incumbent Hagan up by a razor thin margin over challenger Thom Tillis, which may or may not explain why the Observer chose to jettison the damaging article---and why the paper had previously failed to give the story any real attention.

Posted by Amy Miller on November 02, 2014 12 Comments
In Washington State, the burden of proof of consent in a sexual assault case has traditionally fallen not on the alleged rape victim, but on the accused. A recent decision by the Washington Supreme Court, however, has changed the standard, and given hope to due process advocates:
The court in its 6-3 ruling reversed earlier decisions that forced an alleged rapist to establish a preponderance of evidence that a victim consented to sex. The court said such a burden violated constitutionally protected rights and also wrongly interpreted precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court. "When a defense necessarily negates an element of the crime charged, the State may not shift the burden of proving that defense onto the defendant," the ruling said. "Requiring a defendant to do more than raise a reasonable doubt is inconsistent with due process principles," Justice Debra Stephens wrote, adding that doing so raises "a very real possibility of wrongful convictions."
The media has predictably framed this ruling as one that "could make it more difficult for rape victims to get justice":
"There's another person whose rights need to be taken into consideration, and that's the victim." Six of the nine justices agreed to reduce the rape defendant's burden, saying that 25 years of earlier rulings were incorrect and harmful to the constitutional presumption of innocence. "The prosecutors are going to have to spend much more time describing to the jury and presenting evidence to the jury regarding how the victim responded to those threats, what their body language is, what kind of noises they made, how quickly did they capitulate to the demand that they say that they wanted it." When we talked with YWCA sex assault victim advocate Emily Cordo, she was fearful of the ruling's impact, because now prosecutors will have to prove forcible rape victims did not consent. "Victims have to worry about whether they're going to be treated with respect, and whether they're going to be believed." The three justices in the minority agreed, writing that the majority ruling retreats "to the archaic focus on a rape victim's actions."
MORE POSTS
Accessibility by WAH