The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[RV]

Interesting take (at least for a simple non-lawyerin' fella) on the changing makeup of the court.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_myth_of_the_balanced_court

In 1980, when I clerked at the Court, the justices were, roughly from left to right, Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, Byron White, John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Potter Stewart, Warren Burger, and William Rehnquist. Believe it or not, this Court was widely thought to be conservative. But think, just for a moment, about how much would have to change in order for the Court of 2007 to look like the supposedly conservative Court of 1980.

First we would have to chop off the Court's right wing, removing Scalia and Thomas and replacing them with Marshall and Brennan. Far to the left of anyone on the Court today, Marshall and Brennan believed that the Constitution banned the death penalty in all circumstances, created a right to education, and required the government not merely to protect the right to choose but actually to fund abortions for poor women.

Next we would have to replace Kennedy with Blackmun. Blackmun was also to the left of anyone on the current Court. Fiercely protective of the right to privacy and opposed to the death penalty on constitutional grounds, Blackmun believed that the social-services agencies were constitutionally obliged to protect vulnerable children from domestic violence and that affirmative-action requirements were broadly acceptable.

Then we would have to leave Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg essentially as they are. All of a sudden, the four would be perceived as the Court's moderates rather than its liberals, operating as a group much like White, Stevens, Powell, and Stewart. (The parallel between White-Stevens-Powell and Breyer-Stevens-Souter is very close; true, Ginsburg is somewhat to the left of Stewart in many domains, but their voting patterns and general approaches are pretty close.)

Finally we would have to assume that Roberts would vote more or less like Rehnquist (which is to say, definitely to the left of Scalia and Thomas) and that Alito would vote more or less like Burger (definitely to the left of Rehnquist).

The 1980 Court was conservative relative to Courts past.  It's all where you put down your "conservative" or "liberal" yardstick, really.

I'll tell you where you can put your conservative yardstick...

Tank-mandated yardstick placement? What's next, you collectivist pig, price controls on bootstraps?

[CBStew]

She seems like a lock to be our next Supreme Court Justice, despite her not so glowing track record.

I'm pretty sure you originally thought Harriet Miers was a helluva pick.

This is pathetic.  "Not so glowing track record"?  That radical right wing line is simply nonsense.  She has written over 300 hundred decisions.  I don't know how many of those sought a hearing in the Supreme Court, but the Supremes have only taken 5 of her cases, and they upheld her in 2 of those.  That means she has apparently been right, 99% of the time.  By the way, that is a far better average than Alito.  So if she is a lightweight in the eyes of this fringe group, what does that make Alito? 

[Tank]

So very ill...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8

[Quality Start Machine]

So very ill...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8

That's Morph's ringtone.

[RV]

Unless my lizard brain is completely misunderstanding this post, we can lay the DEALER CLOSING CONSPIRACY! stuff to rest in the Vince Foster Mausoleum.

After all, there is no positive relationship whatsoever in the data on Democratic, Republican, Obama or McCain donations -- which until Singer's analysis was posted approximately 10 hours ago -- had been the focus of the dealergate hypothesis.

Predictably, this has not prevented people like Michelle Malkin and Doug Ross from claiming that Singer's data confirms their hypothesis. Of course, it does not confirm their original hypothesis, which was that donors to Republican candidates were more likely to have their dealership closed. Instead, a new hypothesis has evolved -- it's all about those dirty, rotten Clintons! -- the sole reed of evidence for which is Singer's overstated conclusion (but not really her underlying data itself).

Whenever you see a Magically Mystery Hypothesis like this one -- one which constantly transforms itself to fit the (lack of) available evidence -- you should be skpetical.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/on-moon-landings-michelle-malkin-p.html

[ChuckD]

Unless my lizard brain is completely misunderstanding this post, we can lay the DEALER CLOSING CONSPIRACY! stuff to rest in the Vince Foster Mausoleum.

After all, there is no positive relationship whatsoever in the data on Democratic, Republican, Obama or McCain donations -- which until Singer's analysis was posted approximately 10 hours ago -- had been the focus of the dealergate hypothesis.

Predictably, this has not prevented people like Michelle Malkin and Doug Ross from claiming that Singer's data confirms their hypothesis. Of course, it does not confirm their original hypothesis, which was that donors to Republican candidates were more likely to have their dealership closed. Instead, a new hypothesis has evolved -- it's all about those dirty, rotten Clintons! -- the sole reed of evidence for which is Singer's overstated conclusion (but not really her underlying data itself).

Whenever you see a Magically Mystery Hypothesis like this one -- one which constantly transforms itself to fit the (lack of) available evidence -- you should be skpetical.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/on-moon-landings-michelle-malkin-p.html

The way this data is being used is almost the same. Singer ran six sets of regression analysis: one each for Obama, McCain, Clinton, Democratic and Republican donors, and another for those dealers who had made no political contributions at all. She was therefore testing six hypotheses. If these hypothesis were independent from one another (which, to be clear, in this case they aren't), the odds that at least one of the six would return a p-value of .125 or lower are better than 50:50! Not only are false positives possible -- they are practically inevitable, particularly if you test enough hypotheses and tolerate a low enough threshold for statistical significance.

First, keep this, this, and more this in mind.

I don't have anywhere near the background of Silver, but I wouldn't be as quick to disregard the Clinton connection. No, it doesn't meet the .05 threshold, but it's definitely intriguing. Even more so given this:

Steven Rattner, the Car Czar, is married to Maureen White, one-time national finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. What does Maureen do now? From her website:

Maureen White is currently Chairman of the Board of Overseers of The International Rescue Committee (IRC), a member of the North American Advisory Board for the London School of Economics, and a National Finance Chair of the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign. (emphasis ours)

My take is that political motives and conspiracies are certainly ruled out--that's not going to surprise anyone save for a few mouthbreathing proponents of Ron Paulitics. Obama's dick is still dangling out of my mouth. But there's still a reasonable argument to be made for further investigation in to any possible personal motives of Rattner. There's no reason to not give him the benefit of the doubt, especially since nobody has been able to look over/replicate Zero Hedge's findings. However, if the numbers check out, I see no reason to not proceed with an objective inquiry. It's unlikely to happen as it it'll be Malkin and Ross leading the charge and asking for Obama's head, but I can dream.

[Tank]

Shocking.

Who would have guessed that a conspiracy theory that failed from the start to show even a modest anecdotal correlation to support it would turn out to be nothing more than wishful-thinking bullshit.

Simply shocking.

This is a pointless exercise until someone looks at the other side of the ledger. Are the dealerships of Obama donors being kept open while those owned by donors to Russ Feingold and Dick Durbin are being shut down?

Apparently the answer is a resounding "no," though I'd still like to see the p-value of donors to Feingold and Durbin.

Someone's getting railroaded here! And I won't rest until I decide who it is.

[Quality Start Machine]

In the "No Shit, Sherlock" department...

[Tank]

In the "No Shit, Sherlock" department...

Helen Thomas threatened to pour that glass of ice water down his throat if he didn't give up the goods.

[morpheus]

Verifying a voter's identity and citizenship at the time of registration?  Racist.

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2009/06/02/immigration0602.html

Matt Carrothers, a spokesman for Handel [the Georgia Secretary of State], said he could not respond to King's [the acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division] contention that minorities were more likely to be flagged because the department would not reveal its methodology.

[CBStew]

http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/asmussen/

[RV]

I know it's hard to believe that a Soetoro dong chugger like myself might disagree with a lot of what Obama's done (continuation of the Bush state secrets policy, the 'preventitive detention' proposal, suppression of detainee photos, no movement yet on Don't Ask Don't Tell, his hilarious! dismissal of pot legalization, that whole 'let's move forward' thing, to name a few) he deserves credit for this:

Obama has already ruffled the feathers of Israeli hawks by forthrightly asking for an end to the building of new settlements, and a freeze on the growth of existing ones. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is insisting that "natural growth" must be allowed in the existing settlements, but this stance is widely considered a ruse intended to allow for settlement expansion through relocating people, not just having babies. Obama is not falling for it, and continues to argue for a settlement freeze.

[CBStew]

This enables the right wing of the American Jewish population (all 14 of them) to say "I told you so".  They warned the rest of us that Obama was going to be "bad for the Jews".  However, I am in the camp of those who said that the unconfined settlement expansion was bad for Israel, and that its long term security depended upon contained, defensible borders and a stable Palestine state that had no settlers living among them to continuously stir the pot. 

[Tank]

This enables the right wing of the American Jewish population (all 14 of them) to say "I told you so".  They warned the rest of us that Obama was going to be "bad for the Jews".  However, I am in the camp of those who said that the unconfined settlement expansion was bad for Israel, and that its long term security depended upon contained, defensible borders and a stable Palestine state that had no settlers living among them to continuously stir the pot. 

How long have you been an anti-Semite, Stew?

Abe Foxman's gonna have your head on a platter.

[RV]

A reverse dutch auction? I think a double dutch rudder might realize more Medicare savings.

We agree to treat Medicare patients for a set rate, and Medicare agrees to take all of us on board, whether or not our services are needed in the city or town where we practice. As a result, doctors — in particular, specialists — flock to some parts of the country and shun others. The trouble with this is that when there are too many doctors in one area, too much money gets spent on health care.

The White House budget director, Peter Orszag, has highlighted regional variations as a key source of overspending on health care. Such wasteful spending by Medicare and by private insurance could add up to as much as $700 billion a year — enough to provide insurance for everyone who doesn't have it now.

To realize some of these savings, Medicare could use an approach called a reverse Dutch auction to set up competition for doctors in oversupplied regions.