I Can’t Think Up A Witty Title.

Well, it’s September.  I haven’t posted in a while because there’s been nothing going on.  August was hot.  Congress wasn’t in session.  The Tigers’ season has been over for a while now.  And I’ve been waiting for football to start.

But NOW, we’re officially into football and election season.  WOO-HOO!  While I could talk about football forever, this is not a football blog, and I’m not starting one now.  This is primarily a political blog, and it’s a political time of year.  And I can’t remember an election cycle that has been potentially more important than this one.  Let’s review:

The economy still sucks.  In fact, it’s worse then it was the last time I posted.  Unemployment is up to 9.6%; we’ve lost another 54,000 jobs; and Christina Romer, one of Barry’s chief economic “experts” who is leaving the administration, has recently let all of us know that they’ve had absolutely no idea what they’ve been doing re: the economy.

She had no idea how bad the economic collapse would be. She still doesn’t understand exactly why it was so bad. The response to the collapse was inadequate. And she doesn’t have much of an idea about how to fix things.

That’s disheartening…and also completely obvious.  Labor Secretary Hilda Solis has taken to authoring op-eds in the USA Today to try and convince America that the Democrat’s handling of the economy doesn’t resemble a monkey with a rubic’s cube. 

The Recovery Act saved millions of American jobs — keeping health care providers in hospitals, teachers in classrooms, and police and firefighters on the beat. But the benefits weren’t just in the public sector. During the past eight months, the economy has averaged 95,000 new private sector jobs.

While I’d love to see her support for that last sentence, it doesn’t really matter.  Unemployment will continue to go up until new jobs exceed 120,000/month (population increase).  More importantly, there is no doubt that the economy is slowly getting worse.  

The ”summer of recovery” is followed by the ”autumn of reality.”  Let’s face it: if the Dems had any idea what to do about the economy, they would have done it by now.

B.O. has recently begun getting rid of the “drove it into a ditch” meme, and replaced it with “it’s taken us 10 years to get into this mess, so it’s unreasonable to think we could get out of the mess in 18 months” nonsense.  Did it take us 10 years to get into this?  I don’t know.  I suppose one could reasonably argue it took one year, or even thirty-three years (the Community Reinvestment Act, which gave birth to the housing boom and bust, was enacted in 1977).  I also don’t care how long it took us to get here.  What I do care about is what is the current Administration doing about it?  Well, it’s been 18 months and the answer is: spent a lot of money for nothing.  Things haven’t improved, and the Dems are out of ideas.

So what should be done?  Well, first and foremost, vote against the Dems in November.  I know, I know…you don’t like the republicans either!  O.k.  Then go vote for the Green Party and pat yourself on the back for being ”principled.”  After that you can have your juice box and sandwich with the crusts cut off and take a nap.  For the rest of us adults, we’ll choose a candidate with a chance of winning. 

Simply put, there is job-creating capital out there waiting to be invested.  It’s not being invested because no one has any idea what’s coming from this administration.  For example, if you were a business owner with money, would you be spending it to reinvest or hire new employees if you thought your taxes were going to go up in January?  Of course not.  Doing something as simple as throwing the Dems out of the House would improve the fragile psyche of the economy.

But simply voting Republican isn’t enough.  Pressure needs to be applied to those we vote for to do things like extending the Bush tax cuts for everyone.  Other taxes need to be cut…payroll and capital gains, for example.  Enact legislation which gives people the option to opt out of the slush fund that is Social Security.  Limit Medicare to those that need it; not simply those that are old enough to get it.  Significantly amend Obamacare and gut Fannie and Freddie. 

Until we get the economy back on-track, nothing else matters.  And there’s a lot going on that needs to be addressed beyond the economy…like why we’re ignoring Iran’s getting all nuclear and stuff.

It’s September…the kids are back in school, I get to drink new seasonal beer, and I get to watch football.  More important, however, is the election coming up.  We need to vote the Dems out…and then get ready for 2012, when we can vote out the guy who looks silly riding his bike.  And don’t worry…I’ll be posting a lot more than I did in August in an effort to get you through these tough times.

Court strikes down Prop 8 without actually addressing real issue

To marry next?

What is marriage?  That’s the question of utmost importance that was completely ignored by the District Court of Northern California judge when he ruled on whether Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.  Quick recap: Prop 8 was passed in California as an amendment to the California constitution.  The essence of it was to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thereby not allowing gays to marry.  The California Supreme Court found it to comply with the California constitution because, well, it was a part of the California constitution.  So, some gay people who wanted to get married filed suit in federal court, arguing that the amendment violated the federal Constitution.  Got it?  Good.

In a 132 page opinion, the judge ruled that the amendment violated the federal Constitution because it denied gay people the fundamental right to get married without a good reason.  For many, this was a “no duh” ruling.  It apparently was for the presiding judge as well.  The problem with the judge’s ruling, which ultimately will be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, is that he utterly failed to determine what constitutes “marriage. ” In fact, he didn’t even give it the old college try.

Why does this matter?  Well, everyone agrees that marriage is a fundamental right.  Thus, the proponents of Prop 8 will need to make some factual showing that the government of California has a compelling state interest in keeping gays from getting hitched, which will never happen.  However, what is marriage?  Does any two people wanting to get married constitute marriage?  What if I want to marry my sister?  We’re both consenting adults.  What if I want to have multiple wives?  We’re all consenting adults.  Using the court’s reasoning, the government would need to have a compelling reason to keep me from doing either of the above.  And since the District Court expressly stated procreation doesn’t have any impact on who can marry, the possibility of having a baby that looks like Chunk’s friend in the Goonies shouldn’t stop me from making my sister the ol’ ball n chain.

The fact is, “marriage” actually has a definition in the history of both this nation and others, and it isn’t just two people who want to get “married.”  I have to imagine the Supreme Court will want to determine what marriage is, before determining whether it’s unconstitutional to keep two homosexuals from walking down the aisle.

Well, what comes next?  The case will be appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which will most certainly affirm the District Court’s ruling.  Why?  Because the Ninth Circuit is without question the most liberal circuit in the country, and it would probably allow me to marry my cat while lighting up a joint next to the church I accidentally lit on fire because my lighter wasn’t sufficiently cat-proof.  After that, it will go the Supreme Court, where I expect it will likely be affirmed again.  Then I will file my lawsuit asking the court to recognize my right to marry a mail order bride from every country in eastern europe.

WhiteHouse.Gov Blogger Knows Just Enough to be Dangerous

Looks like a great idea.

Why would the White House, if it was so certain about its position on the constitutionality of the healthcare bill, have Stephanie Cutter, Assistant to the President for Special Projects (huh?) blog about the ruling in Virginia that I wrote about here yesterday? I’m not sure, but reading Ms. Cutter’s post is similar to listening to progressive talk radio; it’s full of over-generalized statements of certainty with no underlying support.

Having failed in the legislative arena, opponents of reform are now turning to the courts in an attempt to overturn the work of the democratically elected branches of government.

That’s the Obama Administration’s shout-out to those annoying courts.  How dare they function as the third branch of government?  Who do they think they are evaluating legislation for its constitutionality?  Stupid Constitution.

Today’s decision merely said that the Virginia Attorney General has standing to challenge the lawsuit – which means that the court has jurisdiction to hear further arguments.

The assertion that the court merely ruled that the Virginia Attorney General has standing to challenge the legislation (not the lawsuit, as Cutter incorrectly states) is what we, in the fancy, smarty-pants legal world refer to as a lie.  Standing was only one basis for the government’s motion to dismiss Virginia’s complaint.  A second, and far more important reason, was the government’s assertion that Virginia didn’t state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted.   In other words, the federal government argued that Virginia’s complaint failed, as a matter of law, because Congress could clearly do what it was trying to do.  The court, rightfully so, said it isn’t clear that Congress can do what it is trying to do, i.e., force citizens to purchase a product on the private market or face a penalty.

The fact is, all of this liberal meme about how the healthcare law being supported by long-standing and well-established legal precedents is complete garbage.  Ask any person making this assertion to provide one such example of Supreme Court precedent and you know what you’ll get?  Crickets.  That’s because there isn’t any.

Now that this preliminary stage has ended, the government fully expects to prevail on the merits.   The Affordable Care Act falls well within Congress’s power to regulate under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the General Welfare Clause.   As President Reagan’s Solicitor General Charles Fried recently wrote, ‘the health care law’s enemies have no ally in the Constitution.’

Sigh.  Well if a Reagan Solicitor General who is a Harvard law professor thinks so then it must be true!  Look, contrary to what many like to say nowadays, Reagan was not some conservative god.  Yes, he was better than our last four presidents (and certainly the mental midget that came immediately before him), but is that really saying much?  Simply put, Charles Fried is an unabashed Obama supporter, and the arguments he sets forth in his Boston Globe Op-Ed make me think I could be a professor at Harvard.  Fried’s absolutely certain that Congress can force people to buy health insurance because it can regulate interstate commerce.  Unfortunately, he jumps right over the fact that telling someone that they can’t sell something is a lot different then forcing them to buy something.  It must be his Harvard intelligence.

After all, over 70 years of settled law is on the side of the Affordable Care Act.

Where?  Can anyone tell me where?  Look, I’m aware that the Supreme Court has rarely limited Congress’s authority under the commerce clause.  But all of those cases share one thing in common: they involve Congress regulating an economic activity, not compelling people to take part in an economic activity.  The Supreme Court may go along with the Obama Administration on this one, but it’ll have to use some serious White-Out on Webster’s dictionary to do it.

The remaining portion of the White House blog doesn’t analyze the law.  It explains why the mandatory buy-in is necessary for the healthcare law to work.  That’s mostly window dressing as far as the case goes.  The central issue is whether Congress has the constitutional authority under the commerce clause to compel people to purchase insurance, and if they don’t, to penalize them.  That’s it.  Considering the fact that the current Administration and its cohorts believe the healthcare law is so clearly constitutional, it’s more than a little disingenuous to call the Virginia court’s denial of their motion to dismiss due to a lack of such clarity just a procedural step.

And Stephanie Cutter should stick to Special Projects.

Obamacare Challenge Still Alive in Virginia

Ah checks and balances.  Like many states throughout this nation, Virginia filed an action challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare.  Specifically, the action challenged whether the requirement that everyone purchase health insurance was appropriate.  The federal government recently filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, basically arguing that the mandate constituted a tax, and therefore, could be levied by Congress.  This argument made sense…if you’re either retarded or a lawyer.  Anyone with a little bit of common sense and a fifth grade grasp of the english language recognizes the difference between a tax and a mandate to purchase a product on the private market.  Well, I’m glad to say that a Virginia judge proved he’s neither retarded nor a lawyer.

‘The congressional enactment under review — the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision — literally forges new ground and extends (the U.S. Constitution’s) Commerce Clause powers beyond its current high watermark,’ [Judge] Hudson said in a 32-page ruling.

I’m not going to lie; I feel a little vindicated here.  I know, I know, it’s just one judge and the matter still needs to go to trial, but at least Judge Hudson agrees with me that Obamacare’s mandate is unprecedented.  I’ve heard from some people for months that it’s just another tax or it’s clearly within Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause.  Well, it appears as though I’m not the only one who thinks Congress has ventured into uncharted waters here.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the ruling rejecting the Obama administration’s motion to dismiss the case was a procedural step and that the passage of the healthcare reform law has ‘full constitutional backing.’

“Full constitutional backing?”  Well that’s a relief.  And no Ms. Sebelius, the denial wasn’t simply a procedural step.  In fact, I’ll go so far as to say it means the Virginia court will deem the law unconstitutional.  That’s just my gut talking though, so we’ll see.  In any event, I’ll be shocked if this issue is not ultimately taken up by the Supreme Court at some point.

Now, why does this matter?  It’s only one provision you say?  Well, it matters because without the mandate, Obamacare is dead.  Without everyone being required to purchase insurance, Obamacare will be even more expensive than it is now (yes it is possible), which wouldn’t fly with a Congress that was barely able to pass the monstrosity in its current form and is looking likely to move a lot more to the right come November.

Dems to try and destroy America during lame-duck session?

Sherman’s March to the Sea?  It appears that the Dems may attempt the legislative equivalent on their way out of Washington.  Many are predicting the Dems will lose the House in this November’s election, which would rid us all of Nancy “I represent the views of .001% of America but dictate national policy” Pelosi and force the president’s move to the center, much like Clinton had to do after the 1994 mid-term elections (no, he wasn’t always a moderate).

But the Wall Street Journal reports that a dastardly plan is being hatched: pushing through legislation that the Dems don’t have the guts to push now, during the “lame-duck” period between the actual election and the transfer of power (a few months).   Card-check, new taxes, additional environmental regulations?  Would the House Dems really work so hard to force policies down the throats of Americans who don’t want them?  Of course they would!  See, for example, the healthcare bill.

Now, should we all panic like some are doing?  I don’t think so.  This “lame duck” session strategy really only applies to the House, because as we all know, any law requires ratification by both houses of Congress (see below).  As long as the Republicans in the Senate remain committed to using the filibuster, as they have been so far, all of the unpopular laws passed by the House will die in the Senate.  So, instead of taking Pelosi’s threats as a bad thing, remember that the only reason the lame-duck route is being thrown out there is because she’s very concerned about losing her majority in November.

Judge Blocks Obama Drilling Moratorium — Actual Breaking News!

United States District Judge Martin Feldman has blocked the President’s Gulf Offshore oil moratorium.

Feldman says in his ruling that the Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium. He says it seems to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger.

That’s right Judge.  Obama’s reasoning behind the moratorium was completely illogical and unjustified.

Likely more on this later, as the liberals scream about activist judges.

Many seem confused about the Evangelicals being pro-amnesty

Religious conservatives want immigration reform

Apparently a group of evangelical leaders are in Washington D.C. meeting with Nancy Pelosi to discuss a position they share: amnesty for illegals.  Some are confused about the pro-amnesty position of so-called “conservative” evangelicals, including one of my favorite bloggers Allahpundit at Hot Air. He states,

I’m fascinated by the prospect of this blowing up into a running doctrinal debate among prominent Christian conservatives, with border enforcers on one side and holier-than-thou amnesty shills on the other trying to the answer the WWJD question.

Except … are there any prominent Christian conservative pols who oppose a “path to citizenship”?

Well A.P., while I may not be prominent (yet), I am a Christian conservative who is against amnesty.  There is some confusion out there about why Evangelicals would be pro-amnesty.  I have two potential answers.  First, the confusion can be found in the over-use of the term “Evangelical.”  It has come to describe far too many Christian denominations.  Second (and this answer/opinion will likely offend some) modern evangelicals are more interested in getting butts in the pews then they are delivering actual doctrine (that may offend someone).  It’s no coincidence that the mega-church movement has largely marched in lock-step with the rise of modern evangelicals.  Also, while evangelicals may be conservative politically, they are not necessarily conservative doctrinally.

Simply put, the Bible teaches us to follow the law of the person whom God has placed in a position of authority (with some obvious exceptions).  While I really don’t like playing the “W.W.J.D.” game, I’m willing to bet a nickel on non-citizens obeying the law and having to stand in line.  In any event, at the end of the day, Leith Anderson, president of the National Evangelical Association, has the same interest in the illegals that the politicians do: they constitute numbers.

Wallis asks “W.W.J.D.?” about Libertarianism.

How Christian Is Tea Party Libertarianism?

Before we begin what is always a contentious issue (combining both religion and politics), let’s get a few things out of the way.  Yes, I do read the Huffington Post, sometimes.  Yes, I am a Christian.  Yes, I do believe every Christian should bring their Christianity into every segment of their life.  No, I don’t know who Jim Wallis is.  Yes, I think Mr. Wallis is doing a disservice to Christianity with his article.

With all of that being said, let’s get started.

Mr. Wallis posted an opinion piece on the Huffington Post website a few days ago.  The topic was whether libertarianism is consistent with Christianity.  When I first examined the piece, I said to myself, “self, libertarianism is obviously not consistent with Christianity.  But then again, neither are any of the other political philosophies.”  At this point, I wasn’t going to write this post, but then I realized that Mr. Wallis wasn’t just arguing against libertarianism being considered “Christian,” but was advocating that liberalism was a decidedly more Christian perspective.  When I read something this stupid, I feel compelled to respond.

Mr. Wallis examines five “points” of libertarian thought, and tries to analyze them in a sort of “What Would Jesus Do?” fashion.  Two thoughts immediately came to mind. First, I haven’t heard anybody actually advocate that libertarianism was consistent with Christianity, so what’s the point of his post?  Second, I have never been a fan of the W.W.J.D. fad, because I consider it to be unnecessarily manufactured religion.  Also, since we are all imperfect beings, no one can actually answer the question with any amount of certainty.

I’m not going to examine Mr. Wallis’ five points in the manner that he presents them, i.e. is libertarianism consistent with Christianity.  Instead, I’m going to address a liberal assertion he makes in each of his points, and compare it to Christian principles.

1.  Loving your neighbor is a better Christian response than telling your neighbor to leave you alone. Both compassion and social justice are fundamental Christian commitments, and while the Christian community is responsible for living out both, government is also held accountable to the requirements of justice and mercy.

An important point to be made about government: it is not, and I would argue cannot, be “Christian.”  Why?  First of all, the United States government is secular.  Second, it is a man-made construct whose goal is to keep people from stepping on each other; not dispense “social justice,” whatever that liberal phrase means.

Now, Wallis’ point about loving one’s neighbor being “better” than telling one’s neighbor to leave them alone may be a more Christian position.  It’s true that, as Christians, we are called to “love our neighbor as ourselves.”  We are not called, however, to “love our neighbor” at gun point.  Government cannot compel me to love my neighbor.  Instead, government simply keeps me from killing my neighbor, or vice versa.  One should certainly not be filing their taxes with the warm and fuzzy feeling that they “helped their neighbor (although Joe Biden might).”

2.  In Romans 13, the apostle Paul (not the Kentucky Senate candidate) describes the role and vocation of government; in addition to the church, government also plays a role in God’s plan and purposes. Preserving the social order, punishing evil and rewarding good, and protecting the common good are all prescribed; we are even instructed to pay taxes for those purposes!

Wallis is correct when he says God commands Christians to respect the authority of political leaders because their authority was given them by God.  Wallis’ assertion that we pay taxes to protect the common good, however, is a fiction, at least as set forth in Romans 13.  Paul did state, at Romans 13:6, that we are to pay taxes to the governing authority.  However, the only purpose taxes serve, at least as set forth in Romans 13, is to pay politician salaries, as they “give their full time to governing.” There is no mention of public welfare.  Also, the article he links to doesn’t even mention the Bible.

As an aside, Wallis uses this opportunity to incorrectly associate libertarians with a belief they don’t actually hold.  It’s the same belief I hear associated with conservatives in general, from time to time.

To disparage government per se — to see government as the central problem in society — is simply not a biblical position.

When did small government advocates suddenly become anarchists?  Neither libertarians, nor those slightly less conservative, “disparage government per se.”  Instead, they/we disparage an unnecessarily large and intrusive government, which consists not of leaders whose interests are the people, but of leaders whose only interests are establishing and maintaining their power over the people.

3.  Libertarians seem to believe in the myth of the sinless market and that the self-interest of business owners or corporations will serve the interests of society; and if they don’t, it’s not government’s role to correct it.

This is an example of why I don’t like “W.W.J.D.?”  I have no idea what Jesus would think about the free market.  I’m guessing he wouldn’t like it, since its motivating factor is greed, but what do I know?  Sensing the same difficulty, Wallis quickly dumps the religious analysis, and moves on to analyze the free market vs. “practical issues that the public sector has to solve.”  As a practical issue, there is no question the free market is a significant improvement over a more socialized economy.  One need only look at history to figure that out.  Some government regulation is obviously necessary, but how much?  Obviously a balance must be struck, but I fail to see a “this much regulation is more biblically-based than that much” answer.

4.  “Leave me alone to make my own choices and spend my own money” is a political philosophy that puts those who need help at a real disadvantage. And those who need help are central to any Christian evaluation of political philosophy.

This is my most-despised liberal argument made to Christians because it seeks to take advantage of our beliefs.  The “aren’t you called to help the poor” nonsense.  This line of reasoning actually works on a lot of Christians, and the “social justice” argument has caught hold in some denominations.  The argument is incorrect though, because it misses a huge point. Christians are called to help the poor, or those in need generally, freely.  In other words, we do it voluntarily, for the express purpose of helping someone.  I said this earlier, but it bears repeating.  Paying  your taxes does not constitute charitable giving.  Why?  Because it’s forced.  I’ve always found it ironic to hear liberals, or Europeans, criticize this country for its lack of compassion, when this country is the most charitable nation in the world.

It is incorrect to argue that “those who need help are central to any Christian evaluation of political philosophy.”  As indicated earlier, the central issue to a “Christian evaluation of political philosophy” is whether the leaders are acting with justice and mercy; not whether the elderly receive medicare.

5. Finally, I am just going to say it. There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white.’

In my humble opinion, Wallis ruins any sort of credibility that he may have had prior to this point.  It’s the liberal meme of “the Tea Partiers hate Obama because he’s black, and so they’re all racists, and they marry their cousins, etc.”  Wallis takes it a step further though, by arguing that, because they’re all racists, their political positions must be non-biblical.  There are so many half-assed assumptions and simple untruths in this point that it’s difficult to even focus a response.  I guess I’ll leave it simply at this: racism is non-biblical, and not all of the Tea Partiers, or libertarians, or conservatives, are racist.  Plus, “racism” isn’t a political party or ideology, so I’m not sure why it reared its ugly head here.

Conclusion: None of the political parties are biblically based.  They are, instead, human constructs formed for the practical purpose of running a government.  Nothing more, nothing less.  I would caution Wallis on one thing, however.  The minute you start throwing stones about biblically based political ideologies, be prepared to absorb them yourself.  Life starting at any time other than the moment of conception is not biblically based.  A woman’s right to choose an abortion is not biblically based.  The right to cheat on your spouse is not biblically based.  Finally, the right to gay marriage is not bibically based.  Therefore, if our government is biblically based, all of the foregoing should be made illegal.  I won’t hold my breath.

America, Welcome to the Chicago Way, Courtesy of your President

White House Used Bill Clinton to Ask Sestak to Drop Out of Race

"Barry, let's use Willy!"

So, in case you missed it, here’s the story.  President Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel asked Bill Clinton to ask Pennsylvania Democrat Joe Sestak to drop out of the Dem primary against Arlen “I luv the Senate” Specter.  No, this isn’t a fifth grade date being set up.  It’s the Chicago Way of getting things done (other than “suicide”).  In return for dropping out, Sestak would be given a “prominent, but unpaid” position in the White House.  Sestak told slick Willy to go scratch, and now is the Dem candidate after beating Mr. “maybe I’ll join the Green Party” Specter.

Now, some, maybe even many, in the media and Washington are reacting to this purported bribery as if it’s no big deal.  “Happens all the time.”  That may be, but the bribee doesn’t usually go blabbing about the bribe to the press.  Even more unusual is the briber admitting it.  In defense of the alleged impropriety, White House counsel Robert Bauer wrote in a memo released by the White House today:

“There have been numerous, reported instances in the past when prior administrations – both Democratic and Republican, and motivated by the same goals – discussed alternative paths to service for qualified individuals also considering campaigns for public office,” he wrote. “Such discussions are fully consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.”

Several facts make Mr. Bauer’s claim that everything was on the up and up seem a bit dubious.  First, Sestak wasn’t “considering” running; he was in full-fledged campaign mode.  Second, if the President offering a position to Sestak was really no problem, why not just have Rahm do it?  Why the junior high hi-jinks of using Clinton as a buffer?  The reality is, offering Sestak the position in exchange for him dropping out isn’t as open and shut as Mr. Bauer claims.

Federal law makes it a crime for anyone “who directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or any other benefit” to someone else “as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office.” It is also illegal for a government official to use “his official authority for the purpose of interfering with, or affecting, the nomination or the election of any candidate” for Senate.

Strike that.  If Rahm had Clinton offer a position to Sestak in exchange for him dropping out of the race, it is open and shut; it was illegal.  Some are focusing on the fact that the position was unpaid.  Notwithstanding the fact that I find it difficult to believe Sestak would voluntarily take a truly unpaid position, as the statute above indicates, the receipt of any “benefit” is sufficient.   This “prominent position” would presumably be considered of some benefit to Sestak.

The issue isn’t whether the offer of employment to Sestak was illegal; it clearly was.  The issue is whether anything will be done about it.  Being that the Obama Administration is in charge of the White House, and both Houses of Congress are dominated by Democrats, it seems unlikely.  The New York Times reported today that neither the Department of Justice nor the Office of Special Counsel are even looking into it.

Again, is this typical of Washington?  I don’t know.  I do know, however, that it’s the sort of corruption our esteemed President promised to change.  But then again, he is from Chicago.

Supreme Court watch: Graham v. Florida

In the matter of Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court considered whether a state can sentence a juvenile to life in prison, with no possibility of parole, when the crime convicted of did not involve homicide.  In a decision that overruled the law of 37 states, the majority found that sentencing such an individual to life in prison without the possibility of parole violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against Cruel and Unusual Punishment.  In doing so, Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, made clear that, at the end of the day, their opinion that the sentence was too harsh was all that was needed to trump the rights of 37 states.

Facts

Terrance Graham was 16 in 2003, when he, and two other youths, attempted to rob a barbeque restaurant.  During the commission of the crime, one of the youths struck the manager in the back of head with a metal bar (he required stitches).  The youths then ran away, and Graham was arrested.  He was subsequently charged as an adult with armed burglary with assault or battery, a first-degree felony carrying a maximum penalty of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and attempted armed-robbery, a second-degree felony carrying a maximum penalty of 15 years’ imprisonment.

Graham pleaded guilty to both counts, and entered into a plea agreement.  He also wrote a letter to the court, stating that he would not get in trouble again.  The trial court accepted the plea agreement. The court withheld adjudication of guilt as to both charges and sentenced Graham to concurrent 3-year terms of probation. Graham was required to spend the first 12 months of his probation in the county jail, but he received credit for the time he had served awaiting trial, and was released on June 25, 2004.

Less than six months later, Graham was again arrested, this time for allegedly participating in a home invasion robbery.  During the invasion, Graham held a gun to the homeowner’s chest while his accomplices ransacked the home for thirty minutes.  Later that same evening, the three allegedly attempted a second robbery.  During the robbery, one of Graham’s accomplices was shot.  As Graham was dropping him off at the hospital, a police officer told Graham to pull over.  Graham then proceeded to lead a high speed chase, until he crashed into a telephone pole.  While Graham denied his involvement in the robberies, he admitted that he violated his probation.  The court sentenced Graham to life in prison.  Florida does not allow for parole.  Graham was 17 when he was convicted.

Law

The case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that life without parole, for a juvenile who hadn’t killed anyone, constituted cruel and unusual punishment.  The Court’s decision is interesting because its cited legal support is seemingly contradicted by other portions of the case.  For example, the Court began its analysis by examining the relevant “national consensus.”  In other words, what is the majority of the nation doing?  Well, according to the Court, 37 states, the District of Columbia, and Federal law all allow for life without parole for a juvenile, involving a non-homicide crime.  Apparently the Court didn’t like that answer, because, after stating the national consensus was relevant, it then completely disregarded it.  Instead, the Court inexplicably looked to how many juveniles were currently in prison without the opportunity of parole, for non-homicide crimes.  The answer,

According to a recent study, nationwide there are only 109 juvenile offenders serving sentences of life without parole for nonhomicide offenses.

The Court presumably used the small number to support the notion that actually sentencing juveniles to life in prison without parole for non-homicide crimes wasn’t the national consensus.  I find this rationale odd for two reasons.  First, by this logic, practically every crime would not fall within the “national consensus,” because there are far fewer people in prison then there in the population generally; and there are likely far fewer murderers in prison then there are drug-dealers.  Second, the small number actually offers support for the conviction as a practical matter, because it evidences restraint on the part of courts.  In other words, Graham’s sentence is the exception, not the rule.

After seemingly satisfying itself with the outcome of the “national consensus” argument, the Court moved on to the “life without parole for a juvenile who didn’t kill anybody is really mean” argument.

[the sentence] “means denial of hope; it means that good behavior and character improvement are immaterial; it means that whatever the future might hold in store for the mind and spirit of [the convict], he will remain in prison for the rest of his days.”

I’m deeply moved by the Court’s sentiment.

Next, the Court talks about the importance of penal goals for a sentence.  The Court runs down four recognized goals of punishment: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.  Which goal is chosen is “within a legislature’s discretion,” and any one of these can provide legitimate justification for a sentence.  The Court runs through all four, but the analysis that caught my eye was incapacitation.  The Court stated,

Incapacitation, a third legitimate reason for imprisonment, does not justify the life without parole sentence in question here. Recidivism is a serious risk to public safety, and so incapacitation is an important goal. (citation omitted) (statistics show 67 percent of former inmates released from state prisons are charged with at least one serious new crime within three years).

After providing actual facts to support its finding that incapacitation is a legitimate goal (high recidivism rate), the Court puts on its “let’s make some arbitrary law” hat.

But while incapacitation may be a legitimate penological goal sufficient to justify life without parole in other contexts, it is inadequate to justify that punishment for juveniles who did not commit homicide. To justify life without parole on the assumption that the juvenile offender forever will be a danger to society requires the sentencer to make a judgment that the juvenile is incorrigible.

Apparently the majority, who very likely never laid eyes on Graham, did not think he was incorrigible.  The Court then agreed that Graham “deserved to be separated from society for some time in order to prevent what the trial court described as an “escalating pattern of criminal conduct…” but…

…it does not follow that he would be a risk to society for the rest of his life.  A life without parole sentence improperly denies the juvenile offender a chance to demonstrate growth and maturity. Incapacitation cannot override all other considerations, lest the Eighth Amendment ’s rule against disproportionate sentences be a nullity.

After reading the Court’s opinion up until this point, I’m wondering what “other considerations” are overriding Florida’s right to throw away the key.

What the State must do, however, is give defendants like Graham some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. It is for the State, in the first instance, to explore the means and mechanisms for compliance.

Oh, there’s the overriding consideration.  The arbitrary determination that criminal “like Graham” should be given a chance at parole.  This case is the very definition of judicial activism.  The sentencing of Graham is a state’s rights issue, unless it violates the Eighth Amendment.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say life without parole for a juvenile who didn’t kill anyone constituted cruel and unusual punishment.  Thus, the Court made it up.  Even more egregious however, was the Court’s failure to apply its own analysis for what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.  Instead of giving some deference to the sentencing judge, the majority, from its ivory tower, decided to manufacture some Constitutional law.

Any liberal complaining about the conservative court should be given this case.