Monday, April 19, 2010

Cruising the Web

Politico notes that there are two Obamas: the one that inside-the-Beltway writers think is so successful and the one who isn't all that popular once you start looking at the rest of the country.

Matt Lewis thinks that Chris Christie's toughness in New Jersey may make Republicans seem more believable when they claim that they will cut spending. It's a nice thought, but I have no confidence in the congressional GOP despite the presence of some members whom I truly respect.

Dahlia Litwick finds that liberal law students are all frowny-faced because they just don't see any true progressives among the proposed nominees to fill Stevens' seat. What? The nomination of the "wise Latina" didn't fulfill their dreams? Who knew? Poor dears.

William Jacobson has a lot of fun with Lithwick's column.
I understand the feeling. I never recovered from Robert Bork being Borked by a Senator who left a girl to die in a watery ditch at the side of the road and never spent a day in jail, while spending the rest of his life lecturing conservatives about compassion and decency. But that's just me.

I have some alternative views as to why liberal law students are so sad:

1. Conservatives are happier than liberals in general. It's the nature of the universe.
2. Religious people are happier than non-religious people, and conservatives are more religious than liberals.
3. The Big Law model is failing, which means that liberal law students cannot do pro bono work for Gitmo detainees while getting paid $160k a year right out of law school.
4. Liberal legal heroes are not that heroic because in a law school almost everyone is liberal; it's about as hard as riding first class on a frequent flyer upgrade. By contrast, being conservative in a law school requires the right stuff, much like test pilots, the Mercury astronauts, and the people who walked on the Moon.
5. Far more people self-identify as conservative than liberal, and leaving the liberal law school cocoon sucks.
6. Law schools cannot change the first 5 reasons.
Hee hee.

Peter Baker muses in the NYT that we're about to see a sorta, kinda battle between Chief Justice Roberts and President Obama over constitutional interpretations. One Obama supporter thinks that it would be a great thing to see a debate between Barack Obama and John Roberts.
The debate between the men, by necessity, takes place in this way — indirectly, and soon through the confirmation hearing of a new nominee. Christopher Edley Jr., an Obama adviser and dean of the law school at the University of California at Berkeley, said it was a shame the two could not have at it one on one.

“Televise this chief justice and this president on stage at the Kennedy Center for three hours talking about the role of government and the future of our polity,” Mr. Edley said. “This historic clash of intellectual titans would be the most powerful civics lesson since the Federalist Papers, and we could sure use it.”
Sorry, I have seen absolutely no evidence that Obama is an intellectual titan when it comes to constitutional interpretation. It might be a great civics lesson, but it would not be an even fight. I would so place money on Roberts if we were ever to have that debate. It would be a joy to watch.

George Will explains why adopting a VAT would be such a terrible mistake.

Ed Morrissey links to this story in the NYT concerning what has happened in the state of New York due to their health insurance provisions which they have had in effect for almost a decade and which give us a model of ObamaCare. New York mandates that everyone, regardless of preexisting conditions is guaranteed health care. And the insurance companies can't charge people with poor health more than those with great health. The result is that health people have been dropping their policies since they know that they can get health care later if they should get sick. The result is that the insurance companies have had to raise prices because they have more sick people in their groups. So New York has some of the highest premiums in the country. And this is what will be coming to us. Of course, ObamaCare mandates that everyone buy health care, but the cost of the policies will still cost a lot more than the fines that will be imposed. It's awfully nice of the New York Times to let us know how disastrous these provisions have been for the state of New York after ObamaCare was passed. As Morrissey writes,
Finally, this problem has unfolded in New York for years. The premium problem in individual markets — the very kind that ObamaCare requires — were well known to the New York Times. They had almost a year to report this during the health-care debate before a vote was taken. Instead, they report it almost a month after Congress passed the bill, and stuck it in the Regional section where national readers might have missed it. Shameful.
And of course the Democrats ignored the lessons of New York just as they ignored the failures of similar programs in Massachusetts and Tennessee. We might have a system with laboratories of democracy, but that is useless if our elected representatives ignore the lessons from those laboratories.