Universal Childhood Suffrage

James Joyner | Sunday, May 11, 2008

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry argues for abolishing the minimum voting age and letting kids vote “when they decide they want the vote.” Matt Yglesias seconds the emotion.

Gobry’s argument is long and largely defies excerpting. It boils down to:

• Setting maturity at 18 is arbitrary.

• Kids will grow up and face the consequences of current policy decisions, so should have some say over them.

• It would diminish the ability of the elderly to succeed in rent seeking behavior.

• Any argument that justifies denying the vote to children could be applied to some class of people that is now allowed to vote.

These things are all true. But, really, this argument just illustrates reductio ad absurdum.

We have a representative democracy and believe that those who will have to pay for and abide by government policies should elect those who make said policies. We also believe that those who are voting should be educated, have a stake in society, and be mentally competent to make decisions.

These goals are, however, not fully mutually achievable.

We don’t want people who are seriously insane or otherwise truly incapable of understanding what they are doing to vote even though they are nonetheless subject to the laws of society; then again, we also limit their criminal liability. As a practical matter, though, there are few enough of these people that we can decide on a case-by-case basis.

Similarly, it would be absurd to allow infants to vote. They obviously can’t communicate their ideas in a manner comprehensible to us and they have limited ability to process information. How about a 5-year-old? They can walk and talk. But so few of them have even the slightest understanding of the workaday world that it would be silly to give them the vote. At best, they’d just reinforce their parents’ choice. And, as with mentally incompetent adults, they have far less culpability under our law. They can’t sign contracts and are seldom held accountable by the state for their actions.

But, of course, we can find individual 8-year-olds who are smarter and more mature than some 18-year-olds. And, certainly, nothing magic transforms a person who is 17 years, 364 days old into a responsible human being the next day.

So, 18 is arbitrary, right? Well, no. It’s an age where we expect most people to have the requisite maturity to be responsible enough to make certain decisions. They can sign contracts and be held accountable for them. They can join the military. They can get full-time jobs. The burden is on them to demonstrate that they’re not mentally competent to be responsible for violation of the criminal code.

Could we maybe lower the age to 16? Or 15? Maybe. Certainly, I was very interested in politics and had decided preferences that I could articulate as a 14-year-old. But, frankly, most people at that age aren’t paying attention. And, while that’s true of many adults, few 15-year-olds are paying taxes or otherwise contributing to society.

The last consideration, incidentally, is something that no one has mentioned in the comment sections of Gobry’s or Yglesias’ posts, despite some pretty interesting discussions taking place there. One of the fundamental ideas of our Republic is that the right to participate in government flows from the duty to fund it. “No taxation without representation” was one of the rallying cries of our war for independence. The two were always thought to be linked.

Indeed, suffrage was once restricted to landholders on the basis that only those who were paying for government had any right to have a say about it. We ultimately democratized, coming to see that disenfranchising the poor was wrong since they faced many of the burdens of citizenship, including military service. (And the passage of the income tax rendered the issue moot, regardless.) Eventually, attainment of majority was deemed enough to satisfy the “stake in society” principle. We even lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 because we came to believe that forcing people to go to war at 18 but not allowing the to have a say over whether we sent them was wrong. (Although, oddly, we’ve since decided that we can withhold their right to drink alcoholic beverages or smoke cigarettes.)

If rights and responsibility are linked, then the voting age must also be the age of accountability. If you’re mature enough to vote, you’re mature enough to be liable for you conduct. Consideration of lowering the voting age should be made with that in mind.

Tags | James Joyner, Politics 101

Share This | | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Medicare Trustees Report

Steve Verdon | Saturday, May 10, 2008

The latest report issued by the Medicare Trustees is not good.

The HI annual cost rate is projected to increase from 3.11 percent of taxable payroll in 2007 to 11.40 percent in 2082—8.02 percent of taxable payroll more than the projected income rate for 2082. Expressed in relation to the projected Gross Domestic Product (GDP), HI cost is estimated to rise from the current level of 1.5 percent of GDP to 4.8 percent in 2082.

[…]

The financial outlook for the Medicare program continues to raise serious concerns, and a “Medicare funding warning” is triggered again by the findings of this report. Total Medicare expenditures were $432 billion in 2007 and are expected to increase in future years at a faster pace than either workers’ earnings or the economy overall. As a percentage of GDP, expenditures are projected to increase from 3.2 percent in 2007 to 10.8 percent by 2082 (based on our intermediate set of assumptions). Growth of this magnitude, if realized, would substantially increase the strain on the nation’s workers, Medicare beneficiaries, and the Federal Budget.

[…]

HI tax income and other dedicated revenues are expected to fall short of HI expenditures in 2008 and all future years. The HI trust fund does not meet our short-range test of financial adequacy, and fund assets are projected to be exhausted in 2019.

So, in 11 years the Medicare Fund assets will be exhausted. And yet the solution to this problem is to expand government programs for health care and as a result increase demand for health care resources…which will some how work some sort of magic and make everything cheaper.

In the long range, projected expenditures and scheduled tax income are substantially out of balance, and the trust fund does not meet our test of long-range close actuarial balance. Currently, this imbalance is relatively small, with dedicated revenues estimated to cover 94 percent of costs in 2008, but it will grow rapidly in the absence of changes to current law: taxes would cover 78 percent of estimated costs in 2019, and only 30 percent at the end of the long-range period. Closing deficits of this magnitude will require very substantial increases in tax revenues and/or reductions in expenditures.

In other words, the party is about over and either taxes have to go up, expenditures have to be curtailed or both. The idea that we can have more health care (i.e. universal coverage at current levels of care)¹ and lower costs is simply not an option. Anybody who says otherwise is either a liar or an idiot.

As noted previously, over the full 75-year period, the fund has a projected present value unfunded obligation of $12.4 trillion. This unfunded obligation indicates that if $12.4 trillion were added to the trust fund at the beginning of 2008, the program could meet the projected cost of current-law expenditures over the next 75 years.

Oh no problem there, our current GDP is….$14.185 trillion, we’ll simply move over an entire years worth of GDP to Medicare and there we go problem solved.
_____
¹I imagine some might not quite understand this point, I’m saying that sure we can have universal care, but that that care will have to decrease in quality if you are not to spend more money. You can’t get better care at a cheaper cost.

Tags | Government, Steve Verdon, US Politics, Health, Economics and Business

Share This | | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Girls Sports Injuries More Severe

James Joyner | Saturday, May 10, 2008

A long, anecdote-laden New York Times Magazine feature, “The Uneven Playing Field,” examines the fact that, excluding football — which girls generally aren’t allowed to play — female athletes are getting injured far more frequently and seriously than their male counterparts.

Girls and boys diverge in their physical abilities as they enter puberty and move through adolescence. Higher levels of testosterone allow boys to add muscle and, even without much effort on their part, get stronger. In turn, they become less flexible. Girls, as their estrogen levels increase, tend to add fat rather than muscle. They must train rigorously to get significantly stronger. The influence of estrogen makes girls’ ligaments lax, and they outperform boys in tests of overall body flexibility — a performance advantage in many sports, but also an injury risk when not accompanied by sufficient muscle to keep joints in stable, safe positions. Girls tend to run differently than boys — in a less-flexed, more-upright posture — which may put them at greater risk when changing directions and landing from jumps. Because of their wider hips, they are more likely to be knock-kneed — yet another suspected risk factor.

This divergence between the sexes occurs just at the moment when we increasingly ask more of young athletes, especially if they show talent: play longer, play harder, play faster, play for higher stakes. And we ask this of boys and girls equally — unmindful of physical differences. The pressure to concentrate on a “best” sport before even entering middle school — and to play it year-round — is bad for all kids. They wear down the same muscle groups day after day. They have no time to rejuvenate, let alone get stronger. By playing constantly, they multiply their risks and simply give themselves too many opportunities to get hurt.

[…]

Comprehensive statistics on total sports injuries are in short supply. The N.C.A.A. compiles the best numbers, but even these are based on just a sampling of colleges and universities. For younger athletes, the numbers are less specific and less reliable. Some studies have measured sports injuries by emergency-room visits, which usually follow traumatic events like broken bones. A.C.L. and other soft-tissue injuries often do not lead to an E.R. visit; the initial examination typically occurs at the office of a pediatrician or an orthopedic surgeon. Studies of U.S. high-school athletics indicate that, when it comes to raw numbers, boys suffer more sports injuries. But the picture is complicated by football and the fact that boys still represent a greater percentage of high-school athletes.

Girls are more likely to suffer chronic knee pain as well as shinsplints and stress fractures. Some research indicates that they are more prone to ankle sprains, as well as hip and back pain. And for all the justifiable attention paid to concussions among football players, females appear to be more prone to them in sports that the sexes play in common. A study last year by researchers at Ohio State University and Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, reported that high-school girls who play basketball suffer concussions at three times the rate of boys, and that the rate for high-school girls who play soccer is about 1.5 times the rate for boys. According to the N.C.A.A. statistics, women who play soccer suffer concussions at nearly identical rates as male football players. (The research indicates that it takes less force to cause a concussion in girls and young women, perhaps because they have smaller heads and weaker necks.)

But among all the sports injuries that afflict girls and young women, A.C.L. tears, for understandable reasons, get the most attention. No other common orthopedic injury is as debilitating and disruptive in the short term — or as likely to involve serious long-term consequences. And no other injury strikes women at such markedly higher rates or terrifies them as much.

Girls are different than boys. Pretending otherwise has had some negative consequences. Depending on the sport, it may be that the girls need different protective equipment, shorter schedules, less practice time, different rules, or more medical attention.

Tags | Gender Issues, James Joyner, Sports

Share This | | Permalink | Send TrackBack

• F3 Coalition - [Faith. Family. Freedom.]  linked with  The Democrats Uniting Priciple
• The Uniting Principle of Democrats

Working Man’s PhD

James Joyner | Saturday, May 10, 2008

In my Indiana-North Carolina postmortem, I noted my hatred for the term “working class” because “it implies that those putting in 60 hours a week at high paying jobs don’t work.”

Recently promoted full professor Dan Drezner, who is about to enjoy three months off from work (”if you don’t count editing one book, writing part of another book, prepping two grant proposals, drafting two additional articles I’ve committed to writing, and refereeing a few articles and book manuscripts”) is more blunt, calling Hillary Clinton’s linkage of “hard-working Americans” to those “who had not completed college” “complete and utter horses**t.”

He’s reminded of a scene from “Airplane” but, not being a full professor at a fancy pants elite Yankee school, I’m more in mind of an Aaron Tippin song that was popular when I was in grad school. The chorus:

Well, there ain’t no shame in a job well done
From driving a nail to driving a truck
As a matter of fact, I’d like to set things straight
A few more people should be pullin’ their weight
If you want a cram course in reality
You get yourself a working man’s PH.D.

It was funny on a whole lot of levels, not least of which that he was making a whole lot more money for singing that song than any of my professors made in their career.

Tags | Hillary Clinton, James Joyner, Campaign 2008, Economics and Business, Education

Share This | | Permalink | Send TrackBack

OTB Caption Jam^TM

Rodney Dill | Saturday, May 10, 2008

Weekend Caption Jam Linkfest. . .

• Rodney is giving CBS some competition.
• Wizbang has the Tom Sawyer whitewash defense.
• Wyatt Earp is doing a little scanning.
• Public Pondering isn’t really for school uniforms.
• Cowboy Blob thinks there is one good head between the two of ‘em.
• Willisms has the Kung Fu grip.
• Right Pundits is inspecting the troops.
• Blonde Sagacity is courting the superdelegates.
• The Gone Rick Motel spots Arsenio Hall.
• bRight and Early didn’t make the Olympic gymnastic team.
• Brainfuel reveals that Al Gores Global Warming work was plaguarized.

Other Humor:
Political Demotivation is not particularly motivated.
Icanhascheezburger welcomes you to the kitteh cult.
V the K always has the best pictures at Caption This!

To join in, start a Caption Contest at your blog, edit it to add a link to this post, and then send a TrackBack. If your blog doesn’t automatically generate one, use the Send TrackBack feature below. For more information, see this post.

Tags | Rodney Dill, Beltway Traffic Jam, Contests

Share This | | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Fox Assistant Fired for McCain Worship

James Joyner | Saturday, May 10, 2008

A young Fox News staffer was fired for telling John McCain she’d voted for him, Chris Ariens reports.

Insiders tell us the assistant, identified as Jennifer Locke, was on assignment with a camera crew to cover the entertainment angle of the event. When Sen. John McCain walked by, the assistant said, “I voted for you in the primary, you’re going to win.” McCain was overheard saying to her, “You’re not supposed to reveal that.” Locke apparently continued to explain that she is the daughter of a Vietnam veteran.

Insiders who were at the event were surprised and shocked to hear the disclosure, which was recorded on videotape. A Fox News insider called it “journalistically unacceptable.” An FNC spokesperson would not comment on the personnel matter but did confirm Locke is no longer with the company, where she’d worked for a couple of years.

Some wonder whether there’s a double standard in place. Bob Owens wonders,

So when is MSNBC going to step up to those same standards and dismiss Chris Matthews for his on-air announcement that Barack Obama caused a”thrill” up his leg? Is telling a candidate that you voted for him unacceptable, but blurting out a homo-erotic reaction to a candidate’s speech not a level of disclosure that is forbidden, even if that disclosure is merely hyperbole making the journalist’s personal attraction to the candidate equally strong?

Ken Shepherd observes, “Of course that is journalistically unacceptable, as much if not more so than the Obamania that ostensibly objective journalists at other networks have expressed.”

Paddy thinks “kick[ing] some kid to the curb over a little hero worship is just freaking wrong,” especially when “Fox talking heads that day after day do the cable version of prostitution for anyone with an R after their name.”

Most of the cases cited are analysts, who are there to give their opinions. But, as Shepherd notes, straight reporters not infrequently reveal their biases. One would think even a 24-year-old would know not to do this sort of thing, especially after two years on the job. Still, firing seems rather harsh. It’s not as if she’s on-air talent. Then again, we don’t know her history she might have been warned on previous occasions.

Tags | John McCain, James Joyner, Campaign 2008, Media

Share This | | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Obama Wants to be President of all 57 States

James Joyner | Saturday, May 10, 2008

An amusing gaffe from Barack Obama: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

Presumably, he meant to say “47 states.” Whether he was just tired, thinking of something else, or just someone who shouldn’t do math in public, I don’t know. I’m pretty sure he’s aware of the correct number, in any case.

Still, people are having fun with this. Marc Ambinder muses that, “if John McCain did this — if he mistakenly said he’d visited 57 states — the media would be all up in his grill, accusing him of a senior moment.”

DRJ does his own math:

Obama has been to “57 states.” He hasn’t been to Hawaii and Alaska - they aren’t big or important enough for any of the candidates to visit - so that’s 2 more states. And he has “one left to go” which makes 60. There you have it - 60 states - and that means Hillary is still in this race. The rest of us need to get busy updating our flags to add 10 more stars.

Donald Douglas wonders, “So, who’s losing their bearings?!!”

Tigerhawk proclaims, “Barack Obama is an imperialist! His mistake was not in counting the states properly, but in failing to say that he wants to visit 57 states. And who doesn’t?”

Somehow, I think it’s going to be a long six months to November. Or is that seven?

Tags | Barack Obama, James Joyner, Campaign 2008

Share This | | Permalink | Send TrackBack

‘Sociopaths’? Really?

Alex Knapp | Friday, May 9, 2008

I know that Andrew Sullivan is a fan of hyperbolic rhetoric (”fifth column”, anyone?), and I also know that a lot of time I enjoy his hyperbole, even when I don’t agree with it. But the past few weeks of his tirades against the Clintons have gotten tiresome, and I say that as someone who was never a fan of the Clintons to begin with. But what really takes the cake is this post from today.

The trouble is: the Clintons will create mischief wherever they are. If Obama becomes president without them they will do all they can to undermine, destroy, and polarize him. The question is how one deals with sociopaths like them. It’s not easy.

Andrew, do you honestly believe that the Clintons won’t get behind Obama once it sinks in that they can’t possibly win the nomination? Does anyone really believe that Hillary will try to undermine Obama from the Senate or Bill from the lucrative corporate speaking pulpit? Of course not. Not that they’ll always agree with him or walk in step with him, but actively undermine? I doubt it.

I also really have to object to the characterization of Bill and Hillary as “sociopaths”. This is a term that people like to bandy about loosely, but let’s not forget that sociopathy is a real psychological disorder which is defined by the profession. While I’m no psychiatrist, I’m confident in my layman’s assessment that a former President of the United States and a sitting U.S. Senator are not sociopaths. Indeed, given the nature of the disorder, I’m also pretty confident that a sociopath would be incapable of achieving either office.

The Clintons have their faults, lord knows. But sociopathy isn’t one of them.

Tags | Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Andrew Sullivan, Alex Knapp, Campaign 2008

Share This | | Permalink | Send TrackBack

• Below The Beltway  linked with  Sully Goes A Bit Off The Deep End
• Now the Clintons Are Sociopaths « Beltway Snark
• Rhymes With Right linked with How To Stop Clinton Mischief Against President Obama...

Sorenson Admits ‘Profiles in Courage’ Role

James Joyner | Friday, May 9, 2008

Ted Sorenson has finally admitted that he had a large role in writing Profiles in Courage, for which John F. Kennedy won a Pulitzer Prize as a solo author.

According to a Wall Street Journal review, Sorensen says, for the first time, that he “did a first draft of most chapters,” “helped choose the words of many of its sentences” and likely “privately boasted or indirectly hinted that I had written much of the book.”

In other words, he wrote the book, Kennedy did some very late editing, and claimed it as his own work.

Sorensen also admits that in 1957 — just after the book won a Pulitizer Prize — that Kennedy “unexpectedly and generously offered, and I happily accepted, a sum” for Sorensen’s work on the book.

It was, quite literally, the least he could do.

Tags | Politicians, James Joyner, US Politics

Share This | | Permalink | Send TrackBack

• Below The Beltway  linked with  Time To Revoke JFK’s Pulitzer Prize

Publishing the Laws is Against the Law

James Joyner | Friday, May 9, 2008

David Post , commenting on the State of Oregon’s rather perverse filing of copyright infringement notices on several websites that published the Oregon Revised Statutes,

What burns me up is that the State of Oregon would choose to assert its rather fanciful copyright claim for the purpose of making public access to the authoritative version of its laws more, rather than less, difficult. It is completely outrageous that in 2008 we do not have a complete and authoritative compendium of all of the laws of the 50 States, and the federal government, available at no cost on the net.

He incidentally doesn’t think Oregon has a very strong copyright claim, either.

There’s an old dictum that “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” It would seem that there’s a strong incentive at work to keep people ignorant.

UPDATE (Alex Knapp): I can’t comment on the merits of Oregon’s position, as I haven’t had a chance to read the full facts of the case. However, I can definitively say that this statement is crap:

It is completely outrageous that in 2008 we do not have a complete and authoritative compendium of all of the laws of the 50 States, and the federal government, available at no cost on the net.

You can find this in several places, one of which is here. It’s also worth noting that all 50 states publish their codes on the web for free, as do most municipalities.

Tags | Alex Knapp, James Joyner, Law and the Courts

Share This | | Permalink | Send TrackBack

The Next Right

James Joyner | Friday, May 9, 2008

Jon Henke, Patrick Ruffini, and Soren Dayton are launching a new initiative they’ve dubbed “The Next Right.” It’s apparently yet another attempt to create a right-of-center counterpart of the Netroots. Not yet launched, it purports to be “an online community for change-minded activists and hardcore political junkies in the conservative movement.”

All three of the founders agree that a lot has changed since 1980 and that the GOP is no longer the party of Reagan but rather, as Soren puts it, “at a transitional point.” Jon laments that the Iron Law of Oligarchy has set in and that, “Much of the DC-based infrastructure on the Right - Republican politicians, the advocacy organizations and non-profits, the massive, campaign-oriented fundraising machines that spring up in each cycle - has become the entrenched bureaucracy seeking its own promulgation.”

They also agree that the Republicans have fallen way behind the Democrats in reaching out via the Internet. As Patrick writes, “Netroots activists on the left have built critical mass around an idea that regular people on the Internet can get their hands dirty and remix Democratic politics. They not only raise money. They recruit candidates. They fund full-time investigative journalism to ambush Republicans.”

Beyond that, the three admit they have little agreement. That’s not surprising, really. Jon’s a neo-libertarian who has worked for George Allen and Fred Thompson. Pat’s a longtime Republican activist who has worked for George W. Bush and Rudy Guiliani. Soren briefly worked for John McCain.

And therein, methinks, lies the problem. While most Republican-leaning intellectuals think the party needs to change after seven years of Bush and after a GOP-majority Congress became the kings of pork and fiscal irresponsibility, there’s not a whole lot of consensus on the nature of that change.

Sure, we want leaders with a gift for communication and inspiration, as we had with Reagan. We’re tired of earmarks and “politics as usual” and all the standard complaints. But there’s not a whole lot of agreement beyond that.

• Should we continue a foreign policy of “American greatness” and trying to democratize the heathens through military power? Or should we retrench to a more traditional Realist posture?

• Should we get more serious about the social issues and improving public morality? Or should we become more libertarian, get government out of the bedroom, and focus instead on economic policy?

• What do we do about immigration? Social Security? Health care? Sustainable energy? Terrorism?

Our choices on those issues will determine the future of the party and radically impact its demographics.

The Netroots have been united by opposition to Bush, the neocons, and the war. It’s not at all apparent to me what it is that will unite the “Rightroots” (or whatever term we coin).

To the extent that The Next Right is a platform for having this discussion, it’ll be interesting. My guess, though, is that we’ll continue talking past one another, though.

Tags | James Joyner, Blogosphere, Politics 101

Share This | | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Top Expert on Al Qaeda Victim of Budget Cuts

James Joyner | Friday, May 9, 2008

Marc Lynch extols the work of Radio Free Europe analyst Daniel Kimmage “on al-Qaeda’s internet operations, including his definitive study of Iraqi insurgent media (with Kathleen Ridolfo) and his more recent report on al-Qaeda’s internet media production network. There are very few people inside or outside the government who have worked harder or thought more deeply about how jihadists use online media, drawing on the original Arabic sources rather than from second and third-hand conjecture.”

Naturally, then, he’s moving onward an upward? Alas, no, he’s been sacked, along with his whole team.

[Today], the regional specialists at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty will put out the last issue of Newsline, the daily publication that over the last 11 years helped shape the broadcasts of that station and more importantly both informed analysts in the West and served as a check on the actions of governments in the post-Soviet world.

Yesterday, the president of RFE/RL informed the analysts there that because of budgetary shortfalls, he had no choice but to fire them and thus end what has been the journal of record for developments in a part of the world that remains vitally important however much some may believe we can safely ignore it.

Lynch responds,

That’s right: the US government is cutting loose one of its best analysts of al-Qaeda’s use of the internet in order to save money which doesn’t even amount to a rounding error in the Pentagons budget. Whether it’s because of the fall of the dollar or because of the costs of Iraq, or more narrowly because of the Broadcasting Board of Governors need to pay the bills of the al-Hurra TV white elephant, this speaks volumes about both our real resource constraints and our real priorities.

Actually, my strong guess is this is just bureaucratic stupidity. Kimmage was a generalist doing big picture work on al Qaeda out of an office aimed at the Soviet successor states in Central Asia. Had he been in a counter-terror bureau or the Iran desk, he’d have been promoted. Because of where he fit on the budget line, though, he was deemed expendable.

One would presume that he’d be able to find work immediately in a different shop. After all, in addition to his regional expertise, he’s an “English-Russian bilingual” and “fluent in Arabic and reads Farsi, French, German, and Uzbek.” Then again, the interagency hiring bureaucracy isn’t all that efficient, either, set up to promote from within if they have someone even remotely competent-on-paper available, turning to outside experts only as a last resort.

Tags | Bureaucracy, al Qaeda, James Joyner

Share This | | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Still The Least Dangerous Branch

James Joyner | Friday, May 9, 2008

Anna Quindlen argues that Supreme Court appointments are the most important choices presidents make.

Congress chips away at legislation, then sends some lowest-common-denominator version to the White House, to be signed or vetoed or later redesigned by the next president to take up temporary residence in Washington. But the work of the high court has had vast systemic influence over the lives of all Americans, an effect that lasts through generations. In the tripartite tussle, it’s no contest: SCOTUS rules.

The display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings. The scope of eminent domain. The reading of rights to defendants. The ability of taxpayers to litigate against faith-based government-funded programs. School prayer. Medical marijuana. Campaign ads. And that’s before you get to desegregation, abortion, affirmative action and capital punishment. If you try to register to vote in Indiana and are turned away because you don’t have a government-issued photo ID, that’s because the Supremes just ruled, 6-3, that that’s OK.

This is sheer and utter nonsense. In each and every one of these examples, the Supreme Court was merely reacting to public policy decisions made by executives and legislators.

Public officials decided to put up the 10 Commandments where, in some cases, they remained up for decades. Only when someone took a case to court did SCOTUS rule this was impermissible. Public officials decided to push the envelope on eminent domain and SCOTUS ruled that, indeed, they could.

Who put in those faith-based programs? Keeps pushing for novel ways to have public prayer? Test the limits of previous abortion rulings? Passes laws on marijuana? In all cases, it’s decision makers. The courts come in after the fact — and only after someone brings suit — to weigh in on the rules. That’s a tertiary role, not a leading one.

The Indiana voter ID law is a perfect example of how journalists continually misrepresent the court’s role. Hoosiers don’t have to show ID “because the Supremes just ruled, 6-3, that that’s OK.” They have to do it because the state legislature mandated that they do so and the governor signed off on it.

There’s no denying that the Supreme Court plays a major role in shaping public policy. They’ve weighed in on some of the most divisive issues in our history and have changed the culture in a handful of instances by striking down age-old practices. But, frankly, nobody’s disputing that.

While the Court, thanks to a shrewdly executed power grab by John Marshall in 1803, is more powerful than Alexander Hamilton intended when he described the judiciary as “the least dangerous branch,” so, too are the other branches. And the state and local governments. And the never-envisioned bureaucracy. The courts are so powerful precisely because we have so much government.

Still, the Supreme Court can’t send our troops off to war. They can’t raise your taxes. They can’t even pass laws. In the tripartite tussle, then, it’s no contest: SCOTUS is dead last.

Tags | James Joyner, Law and the Courts

Share This | | Permalink | Send TrackBack

Former Gitmo Commander Denied Pakistan Post

James Joyner | Friday, May 9, 2008

MG Jay Hood’s appointment as the top U.S. military officer in Pakistan has been pulled owing to Pakistani complaints about a previous stop in his career as commander at Guantánamo.

When the Pentagon announced in March that Maj. Gen. Jay W. Hood would become the senior American officer based in Pakistan, it reflected the military’s aim to put a crisis-tested veteran in a critical job at a pivotal time in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan’s tribal areas. But nearly two months later, the military has quietly canceled the assignment of General Hood, a 33-year Army veteran who was excoriated in the Pakistani news media for one of his previous jobs: commander of the United States prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

During General Hood’s command from 2004 to 2006, military authorities force-fed with tubes detainees who were engaging in hunger strikes at the Guantánamo prison, a step they justified as necessary to prevent the prisoners from committing suicide to protest their indefinite confinement. Also during General Hood’s tenure, reports that an American guard may have desecrated a Koran stirred wide protests in the Islamic world.

The decision to withdraw General Hood’s assignment has not been announced, but it appears to reflect the widening shadow that the military prison at Guantánamo is casting over American foreign policy. While the United States considers Pakistan a close ally in its counterterrorism efforts, the accounts by Pakistanis who have returned to Pakistan after being held at Guantánamo Bay have added to anti-American sentiment in the country.

Several leading Pakistani military and foreign affairs commentators denounced General Hood’s selection in recent weeks, calling on their new government to block his appointment. In interviews this week, American military officials said they had reluctantly concluded that General Hood’s effectiveness could be seriously hindered, and that his personal safety might even be at risk if he were to take up the post.

Ironically, in addition to the “Koran flushing” incident having been debunked, Hood actually tried to clean up Gitmo.

General Hood, who took command of the detention center at Guantánamo Bay in March 2004, shortly before the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq broke, sought to put a more human face on it. He was credited by lawyers for the prisoners and human rights groups with having improved the treatment of detainees, and it was soon after he took over that some of the most severe interrogation methods were curtailed.

But he also had to deal with the fallout of a report in Newsweek asserting that a military inquiry was expected to find that a Koran had been flushed down a toilet at the detention center. The magazine later retracted the article, but the military inquiry concluded that a soldier had inadvertently splashed urine on a Koran. The magazine’s original assertion led to riots in Pakistan and Afghanistan that left at least 17 people dead.

Hood will get a plum assignment on the CENTCOM staff instead.