Markets are lower this morning as ECB President Mario Draghi speaks. Bonds and MBS are flat.
The ECB will now start buying corporate bonds in an attempt to stimulate their economies. Truly an amazing time we live in.
We get some labor market data this morning, before the big jobs report tomorrow.
The ADP Employment Change report came bang in line with expectations at 173k jobs created. Tomorrow’s non-farm payroll expectation is for an increase of 160k jobs created in May. Small business led the way, adding 76k employees. Professional and business services increased the most. Manufacturing jobs fell.
Note that tomorrow’s payrolls number could be affected by the Verizon strike. Regardless. the number to focus on tomorrow is the change in average hourly earnings.
Job cuts fell to a 5 month low, according to outplacement firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas. Announced job cuts came in at just over 30k, a drop of about 50% from April. The two biggest industries in job cuts – energy and finance – appear to be slowing down the pace of headcount reduction.
Initial Jobless Claims came in at 267k last week,
Homebuilder Hovnanian reported second quarter earnings this morning. Deliveries were up 31% and revenues were up 40%. Earnings were still below expectations. The stock is down this morning
US auto sales fell in May, which is usually one of the stronger months for auto sales. Auto sales had been increasing for 6 years, pushed by a stronger economy and ridiculously cheap financing. Yield pigs may find that doing 8 year auto loans at 3.5% is a dumb trade.
Despite being disappointed by the current crop of presidential candidates, consumers still plan to buy cars and houses. Despite all the rhetoric, the economy is not doing all that badly, and there is tremendous pent-up demand for housing, especially from younger buyers. The issue for them is affordability, and tight inventory combined with a lack of building is making it hard.
Here is a new one in the world of apartment leasing: Like our facebook page, or else.
The House included language in the 2017 budget to bring Congressional oversight to the CFPB and subject it to the appropriations process. Currently, it is funded by the Fed, who really has no choice but to give them what they want. Second, the provision would replace the single director with a five-member board appointed by the President. While this is going nowhere (we haven’t had a budget since early in Obama’s Presidency), it will be fodder for the fall elections. For the moment, it appears the CFPB is directing its attention to payday lenders.
Filed under: Economy, Morning Report |
Who’s missing? And why?
LikeLike
The most depressing part of this story is that, under our inane laws, he most probably has a winning case.
http://www.newser.com/story/225964/blind-man-sues-mcdonalds-over-drive-thru-policy.html
LikeLike
“Magee’s lawyer tells the Chicago Tribune that getting fast food late at night is “a quintessentially American activity that should not be denied to someone because of their disability.””
I’m in the category, I guess, of people who believe McDonald’s should make accommodations but if they don’t, that they should be punished by loss of custom, and not have the government forcing them to accommodate said customers. Although if I were the franchise owner I might just shut down the late night window thing.
LikeLike
“Who’s missing? And why?”
Nixon. Because he was a Republican. That’s why. Also, possible, Edward Kennedy. Because he killed a girl he was canoodling with But EK was never president when advocating for some form of universal healthcare.
LikeLike
Obama was missing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well bust my britches. Obvious answer, plain as the nose on my face. Why was Obama excluded though?
LikeLike
Something change with WordPress? Looks different and the domain name doesn’t seem to resolve properly now.
LikeLike
I was just noticing that myself. The dashboard seems fine and I can see comments there, but when I try to go to the home page, I get “not available”.
LikeLike
I’m guessing the domain name expired. Although I don’t see how. Maybe something is just messed up with WordPress domain mapping? I changed it so it maps to conservaliberals.wordpress.com and that seems to solve that problem. Looks like WordPress handles the domain and it doesn’t expire until January, so I don’t know. Anyway, maybe this will fix it for now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmmmmm, I’ve had trouble with Hover trying to contact me at the old email address even though they keep contacting me at the new address as well. I went ahead and paid for another year even though it doesn’t expire until September.
I got in because Mark sent me a new link?
I can’t figure it out, but then I’m not really trying….have a lot going on here.
LikeLike
When? Do you have the account info? Login and PW?
LikeLike
It started about a month ago and I informed of the new email………again and now I get emails from them at the new one but they keep letting me know they can’t reach me at the old one.
The password is linked to the banking info I use.
LikeLike
I just verified the email change again at Hover as they said our domain name was suspended. Maybe it will work this time?
LikeLike
Clinton Foundation stuff:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2016/05/06/clinton-foundation-charity-fraud-nets-dont-report
Charles Ortel’s blog. He does a deep dive into the Clinton Foundation’s chicanery.
http://charlesortel.com
LikeLike
Scott Adams on how people’s prediction about how a president will perform (and analysis of how well they actually did perform) are all pretty much worthless:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145309172876/the-risks-of-a-trump-presidency
LikeLiked by 1 person
Baby, why you make me hit you?
“At some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign,” Liccardo said.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/03/angry-leftist-mob-physically-attack-trump-supporters-outside-california-rally/
LikeLike
Amazing.
LikeLike
McWing:
Baby, why you make me hit you?
Yeah, I saw that too. Pretty irritating.
LikeLike
One hopes at some point Trump runs an ad with this:
““Make California Mexico Again!” they chanted while waving Mexican flags”
LikeLiked by 1 person
The only politician that would have the balls to do it. He definitely should.
LikeLike
Scott Adams thinks Clinton has finally figured out how to take on Trump
LikeLiked by 1 person
Adams knows what’s what, and has a lot of great insights. Watching the PL folks blithely dismiss him (suggesting he’s misogynist because he observes that young men lusting for women is a universal characteristic of the cis-gender male seems amazingly unobservant, and that that also invalidates every other thing he says is just flawed logic even if he were a misogynist) just goes to prove, to me, that the people who find their thoughtfulness and erudition to be such fundamental characteristics are oddly narrow when they even suspect they may not agree with a person.
His argument that western democracies are matriarchies, fundamentally, seems very persuasive, even if one can quibble with details. He also observes that real patriarchies tend to give us Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan but that’s doesn’t seem to be exculpatory.
LikeLike
His linking of the threat of Islam being directly tied to whether or not women can vote is the sort of point that Nicholas Kristoff from the NYT makes all the time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good summation:
LikeLiked by 1 person
I assume the Obama administration will be all over this violation of Title IX the same way that they are with transgender access to bathrooms of their choice in North Carolina.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/public-pool-brooklyn/485489/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Baby, why you make me hit you?
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/3/1534104/-Trump-in-San-Jose-What-I-saw
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exquisite.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06/03/heres-what-happens-when-a-tea-party-darling-becomes-the-movements-enemy/#
Who cares who wins as long as it’s not her.
LikeLike
Scott Adams makes a presidential endorsement:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145456082991/my-endorsement-for-president-of-the-united-states
LikeLike
I can find no fault with his reasoning.
LikeLike
Selective defense of duly enacted laws when challenged by the Department of Justice is apparently now the new normal:
“DOJ won’t defend measure that facilitates VA firings
By Joe Davidson | Columnist June 6 at 7:00 AM”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/06/06/doj-wont-defend-measure-that-facilitates-va-firings
The hilarious, or disgusting, part of this is that the law was signed by President Obama whose administration now declines to defend it. So either he was incompetent when he signed it, or is being disingenuous now by not defending it.
LikeLike
jnc:
So either he was incompetent when he signed it, or is being disingenuous now by not defending it.
I don’t think it’s an either/or thing.
LikeLike
Interesting read in retrospect:
“The Passion of Muhammad Ali
By Leonard Shecter”
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/a45493/the-passion-of-muhammad-ali/
LikeLike
For Scott
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/trumps-jujitsu-overthrow-of-liberalism.php
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, Trump is the flip side of the left’s diversity arguments.
“When Sonia Sotomayor said that being a “wise Latina” influences her decisions for the better, that—we were told—was not merely nothing to worry about but a sign of her judicial temperament and fitness for the High Court. When Trump says being a Latino will influence this judge’s hearing of his case, he’s Hitler.”
LikeLike
FWIW, I placed more emphasis on the “a” at the end of Latina. We need more women on the Court.
LikeLike
I agree! I would like to see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_Owen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Kuhl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown
Given that Sarah Palin and Zombie Margaret Thatcher are not options, for obvious reasons.
LikeLike
Gender and ethnicity should be irrelevant when judging, assuming one is actually following the law.
Otherwise, you’ve just made Trump’s point.
LikeLike
If irrelevant, the makeup of the court should randomly reflect the distribution of America. I think the options for female judges I outlined would be great, and I support all three of them being on SCOTUS.
LikeLike
Mich:
We need more women on the Court.
Why?
LikeLike
“If irrelevant, the makeup of the court should randomly reflect the distribution of America.”
Well except for the fact that being a lawyer is typically considered a prerequisite. And as Scalia has pointed out, so in practice has graduating from Harvard & Yale.
Neither of those distributions are reflective either.
LikeLike
McWing:
For Scott
Thanks. An excellent point. For the record, I say it is not conscious/deliberate on Trump’s part. If it is, he’s a genius.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s deliberate. Perhaps he’s being buoyed by some collective necessity, some larger hive-mind or something, acting as some sort of societal balancing agent . . . I dunno. I don’t for a second believe he’s acting out of anything but a lust for battle and a belief in his own invincibility, and an innate understanding that no matter how vilified he is, his behavior will get a pass or full-throated support from many of his supporters.
His acting in any way as an illustration of the logical fruition of identity politics, or some primer as to how multiculturalism, as commonly practiced, is no more productive than old school racism and racial supremacism is pure coincidental.
LikeLike
Boys are better girl athletes than girls.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/03/high-school-boy-wins-all-state-honors-in-girls-track-and-field/
LikeLike
Man, Daily Caller as a site is such a mess. I suppose I shouldn’t be ungrateful for free opinion news, but trying to find the article amongst the ads is a pain, and my adblock does nothing. Nothing!
That being said, dude isn’t a boy. He identifies as a girl, so he is a girl. This cannot apply to bathrooms and showers and whatever but not to sports. Or women’s services, or women’s scholarships, or women’s clubs or groups or sororities. We cannot selectively say that this person is a girl, except when she’s a boy. And I’m guessing the legal precedent is going to start trending that way. “Sorry that this girl is better than the rest of the girls, be she’s definitely a girl, despite whatever gender she was originally incorrectly assigned at her birth!”
LikeLike
Tranny phobe.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, I do not self-identify as such, and you are not allowed to tell me any different.
LikeLike
A day late, but definitely worth reading:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1960/11/first-wave-at-omaha-beach/303365/
UNLIKE what happens to other great battles, the passing of the years and the retelling of the story have softened the horror of Omaha Beach on D Day.
This fluke of history is doubly ironic since no other decisive battle has ever been so thoroughly reported for the official record. While the troops were still fighting in Normandy, what had happened to each unit in the landing had become known through the eyewitness testimony of all survivors. It was this research by the field historians which first determined where each company had hit the beach and by what route it had moved inland. Owing to the fact that every unit save one had been mislanded, it took this work to show the troops where they had fought.
How they fought and what they suffered were also determined in detail during the field research. As published today, the map data showing where the troops came ashore check exactly with the work done in the field; but the accompanying narrative describing their ordeal is a sanitized version of the original field notes. This happened because the Army historians who wrote the first official book about Omaha Beach, basing it on the field notes, did a calculated job of sifting and weighting the material. So saying does not imply that their judgment was wrong. Normandy was an American victory; it was their duty to trace the twists and turns of fortune by which success was won. But to follow that rule slights the story of Omaha as an epic human tragedy which in the early hours bordered on total disaster. On this two-division front landing, only six rifle companies were relatively effective as units. They did better than others mainly because they had the luck to touch down on a less deadly section of the beach. Three times that number were shattered or foundered before they could start to fight. Several contributed not a man or bullet to the battle for the high ground. But their ordeal has gone unmarked because its detail was largely ignored by history in the first place. The worst-fated companies were overlooked, the more wretched personal experiences were toned down, and disproportionate attention was paid to the little element of courageous success in a situation which was largely characterized by tragic failure.
LikeLike
Wow! I wonder how many realized, before D-Day that they were going to the fodder for a human wave? The strategy was to overwhelm the Germans with soldiers. The tactic works but the human cost is unimaginable.
LikeLike
McWing:
It really is staggering. I just can’t imagine it.
LikeLike
And, in hindsight, it explains Ike’s decision to leave closing the ring on Berlin entirely to Zhukov, and Truman’s decision on Hiroshima. They were right to do what they did.
BTW, the decision to leave Berlin to the Soviet Army was Ike’s and when Churchill protested to FDR, FDR told Churchill the final decision lay with Eisenhower – he was Supreme Allied Commander Europe.
OTOH, I doubt Truman would have entrusted the A-bomb decision to Nimitz.
LikeLike
Absolutely. This fantasy that certain leftist’s hold that Japan was about to surrender and we just bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki (not to mention the firebombing of Tokyo) to be monsters is just insane. The record is clear that they were looking at losing a million soldiers trying to take Japan with ground troops. And the battle of Okinawa is a clear illustration of the high cost of taking Japan on the ground, as every man, woman and child would likely end up battling to the death. The cost would not have just been higher for American forces, but many more Japanese would have ultimately died. Including men, women and children, as we fought a bloody front into the heart of Japan from the outer islands.
LikeLike
Insty’s right again.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/06/06/ban-box-job-applications-college-credentialism-ivy-league-elitism-column/85447420/
LikeLike
McWing
From Reynolds:
Without relying on colleges as a foundation for credentialism, we’d have to find some other way to assess candidates. But odds are it would be something more closely associated with actual performance on the job: A competency test, for example, or an apprenticeship program.
If I am not mistaken, many places used to use IQ tests to assess candidates, but the Supreme Court made doing so legally questionable (Griggs v Duke Power, I believe). And that is one thing that led to the ubiquity of the college degree requirement. Companies were prevented from assessing the IQ of employees directly, so they relied on third parties (colleges) to do it indirectly.
LikeLike
Trump as Moonstruck
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/do-voters-adore-trump-because-they-dread-death/
LikeLike
“Five weeks before the 2004 presidential election, Americans reminded of their mortality or the events of September 11, 2001, reported that they intended to vote for President George W. Bush by an almost 3:1 margin. Americans in a control condition reported that they intended to vote for Senator John Kerry by a 4:1 margin”
This sounds questionable, as how there could be a control group not reminded of 9/11 prior to the 2004 election? What kind of super-low-information voter would that be? And that 4:1 margin for Kerry sounds ridiculous. And the entire idea that they managed to control for ideological or partisan bias . . . eh, nonsense.
LikeLike
Pretty sure Drum gets paid extra every time he uses the word racist.
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/06/california-and-myth-proposition-187
LikeLike
It’s hard to believe, but they do it for free. They do it for the pure pleasure of it.
LikeLike
Did anyone send an email to Brent with the appropriate link to the site?
I sent one to Kelly, YJ, FB, and some others. I forgot Brent and Lulu, and I assumed NoVA and JNC had it. But we should let everyone know or Brent will never write another Morning Report for us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark:
Did anyone send an email to Brent with the appropriate link to the site?
I did not. The link from my “favorites” bar still works, so I thought it still resolved itself properly. Do you want me to send one out to him? The last time I tried to e-mail lms it got bounced back to me, so I don’t have an updated e-mail for her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have a good address for lulu, I think. I have a good one for JNC, too. I now have sent both of them the info.
LikeLike
luluinca@yahoo.com
LikeLike
Hi alms!
Edit: Hi Lms!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi McWing!!! How’re you doing?
LikeLike
I’ve been trying to settle things with Hover for the last month off and on. I’m sorry it affected everyone here.
I just tried again as they said our domain name was suspended because they couldn’t reach me at the old email address, even though I entered my new one a month or so ago.
They kept telling me they couldn’t reach me when they were actually reaching me at the correct email address…………sheesh!
I’m sorry if this screwed everything up but I just changed it for the umpteenth time and maybe this time it will stick. I’ll check later to see if we’ve been unsuspended.
I haven’t checked in here like I should have………..we’re having a pretty serious health issue going on here with Walter so things have been a little chaotic and stressful lately.
I’ll try to fix it again if it hasn’t been fixed yet.
I signed in from Mark’s link in the email he sent this morning.
LikeLike
I just checked the status again and it says active now so maybe y’all can still check in the old way?
LikeLike
I’ll try a switch back to the old one. See if that works.
LikeLike
It does work! Thanks lmsinca. I will try to remember that you are the one with the power in these situations.
LikeLike
LOL, Kevin! Girls rule right?
Uhhhh, could you send me the link to the old one as I mistakenly deleted it when Mark sent me the new link this morning! MY BAD!
LikeLiked by 1 person
http://all-things-in-moderation.com
I’ll switch it so it resolves purely to that shortly.
LikeLike
Thanks lmsinca. The blog will not die today!
LikeLike
Lindsey Graham, as y’all know, is one of my favorite Senators. No irony intended.
Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, another former primary rival of Mr. Trump’s, urged Republicans who have backed Mr. Trump to rescind their endorsements, citing the remarks about Judge Curiel and Mr. Trump’s expression of doubt on Sunday that a Muslim judge could remain neutral in the same lawsuit, given Mr. Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim noncitizens entering the country.
“This is the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy,” Mr. Graham said. “If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it,” he added. “There’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.”
LikeLike
Mark:
“There’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.”
It is precisely love of country that makes me so wary of Hillary in the first place. I am not at all sure that Trumps attitude towards “Mexican” and Muslim judges is any more of a danger to the country I love than is the obvious disdain of the constitution that is the hallmark not only of the administration of which Hillary was such a large part, but indeed of the larger political movement of the left for which she seeks to be the standard bearer.
BTW, why does The Wise Latina (and implicitly Obama) get a pass for explicitly proclaiming that her ethnicity will influence the way she judges, but Trump is in so much trouble for taking her at her word and assuming it applies to others?
LikeLike
I swore I would never vote for Hillary, she’s not someone I want in charge, but guess what I voted for her today and will probably vote for her in November…………..Trump is a loose cannon as far as I’m concerned and better the enemy I know than the one I don’t!
LikeLike
I’m good, thank you. I hope all is well.
LikeLike
More or less McWing, more or less!
LikeLike
This is logical, and I’m assuming a lot of people who might not have voted for Hillary if Jeb! were the candidate or Kasich will vote for Hillary because it’s Trump. Thus, I do think Hillary is likely to win (but still say it’s by no means guaranteed). What’s more, I expect a Hillary victory in 2016 makes the Democrats much more vulnerable than they will ever believe in 2020 (this is natural, and happens to both parties over time), at which point they may well lose big. Especially if the business cycle takes a big dip around 2020, because human beings irrationally attribute present economic performance to the current occupant of the Whitehouse, and politicians themselves encourage that view—so, live by the sword, die by the sword.
My sense is that Hillary is likely to be more of a hawk and more likely to get us militarily engaged in other battles (NATO lead or something, of course) than Trump. Belligerence aside, I don’t see Trump actually wanting more military quagmires on his watch, or a lot of military KIAs. This is speculative but I’d bet money on it.
As for the rest, who knows? Likely anything he doesn’t care much about, which might be a lot, gets handed over to Republican leadership to control, such as SCOTUS appointees amongst other things. And I think we could have worse than a loose cannon, but I just don’t see Trump winning in November with Gary Johnson running. Although I also just don’t see a landslide victory for Clinton.
This is a year where both sides could have used a deeper bench to draw on.
LikeLike
I want Trump on the left of Hillary on trade deals and hammer away at it, it fractures the D’s.
LikeLike
I don’t give her a pass.
I also think, from context, that her statement didn’t carry the import you gave it, but it does carry some weight with me and that weight is a negative.
Many judicial scholars have argued that “who you are” influences your view of a fact set, in ways that are not motivated by partisan politics. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to support this. As an example, in the local practice, divorce lawyers opposing an alleged alcoholic spouse try to get hearings before the judge known to be actively in recovery, and a meeting goer at AA.
But a Supreme Court justice is often called upon to announce the policy of the law, because appellate court justices have disagreed on it in good faith. And that is distinct from one’s view of a fact set.
So it is somewhat confusing and a cause for question when a nominee for the high court suggests she has special wisdom by reason of gender and ethnic heritage, because she might not be talking about “fact sets”.
When I talk about fact set distinctions, based on “who you are”, as an example I think at the Supreme Court level that it is typical for formerly active prosecutors like Alito, Kennedy, and Garland to be very “law and order”. They have come, over time, to usually trust the forces of the police and distrust the accuseds.
For a former defense attorney who has seen many cases of police abuse of authority, those experiences might well lead her to see the fact set in a criminal case from a different vantage point. And lawyers who never dealt with crime at the trial level have a more “theoretical” view of fact sets in those cases.
Was she talking about fact set viewpoint? Was she talking about some sort of ethnic superiority/racism? The chance of the latter is strong enough to make your question legitimate and the chance of the former is enough for me to give her a bit of leeway. That she never should have said what she did is clear.
Let us distinguish Trump’s situation here. Trump has the absolute right to have his case heard by a fair tribunal. Were there a ruling that smacked of bias or “interest” in his case his lawyers could move that the judge recuse himself and they could take that Motion to the conference and to the Circuit.
That has not been done because there has been no such ruling.
Thus Trump’s outburst clearly had nothing to do with the suit, but only his apparent contempt for parentage of some native born Americans. Where was Trump’s grandfather born? It wasn’t Atlantic City.
I would be tempted as a federal judge, if he were a party in my court, to gag order him to refrain from commenting on the litigation outside the courtroom during its pendency, and I would issue the same gag order to his lawyers and the prosecution, as well. But I probably would not do it, in the face of a presidential campaign where the man will be questioned about the litigation. I think the gag order would NOT survive an appeal.
LikeLike
Mark:
Here is The Wise Latina’s speech, from 2009. You can judge for yourself exactly what she meant.
I think this passage is particularly relevant.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
Note that there were no specific facts pertinent to her claim. Simply that in deciding unspecified and generic “cases”, she “hopes” (and almost certainly expects) that a wise Latina women will reach a better conclusion than a white male, because of the nature of being a Latina woman. A “better” conclusion. Because of her racial and sexual identity. Could a white man possibly say such a thing about white men and hope of getting even a whiff of the Supreme Court? More likely he’d be hounded from whatever office he already held, no matter how low.
LikeLike
How is her belief in her racial superiority not, in itself, completely disqualifying?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I cut her some slack, as I wrote below, but I would have felt justified as a Senator to examine her closely enough that if I thought she was arguing for ethnic/gender superiority rather than the noted differences in looking at fact sets, then I would have voted against her nomination.
To belabor a point with actual examples, differences in fact set views based on life or professional experiences often raise their head on the Court. The Supremes have messed up the state of dual/multiple state taxation in commerce in large part because none of them are tax lawyers and they did not understand the effect of their pronouncements, which were based on understanding the legislative intent incorrectly. Unanimously, in the worst cases. When a poor woman in a southern state was denied a free lawyer as her child was being taken away she appealed all the way to the Supremes, claiming denial of a fundamental right. All the then 7 male justices originally were set in the notion that there was no legal right to free counsel in a civil case. The two women, SDO’C and RBG, immediately pointed to case law that made parenting a fundamental right that could not be taken without due process, and that fundamental rights deserved fundamental protections. They eventually won over most of their brethren. Seems like law, but everyone was correct on the law – only civil cases that could lead to incarceration had ever raised right to counsel outside the criminal law domain, and the Court had also often lauded parent/child relationship as “fundamental”.
So just how fundamental was it? Was it as fundamental as government caused loss of liberty or only as fundamental as government caused loss of property? Well, the women thought the facts made it more like a liberty case, because in takings cases the poor litigant could get a lawyer to work on a contingent fee. Property cases have market protections and thus much less [or no] need for extension of the 6th Amendment right to a free lawyer to give equal protection and due process to the poor litigant. So it was fact situation based reasoning.
I’m now out of here for the day. Hope Brent publishes!
LikeLike
Mark:
…if I thought she was arguing for ethnic/gender superiority rather than the noted differences in looking at fact sets, then I would have voted against her nomination.
It is difficult for me to construe a generic claim that a “wise latina” would more often than not reach a “better” conclusion than a “white male” to indicate anything other than ethnic/gender superiority. What else could she possibly have been saying?
LikeLike
McWing:
How is her belief in her racial superiority not, in itself, completely disqualifying?
It’s an excellent question.
LikeLike
I see no way in which saying that is any different from saying, “Second, I would hope that a wise white man with the richest of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusions that a Latina woman who hasn’t live that life.”
I’d like to see how that played, had that been in John Robert’s record.
LikeLike
Or what about “Second, I would hope that a wise Christian man with the richness of their faith would more often than not reach a better conclusion than an atheist or agnostic who hasn’t truly lived in faith.”
I could think of a lot of ways where the same implication would be completely disqualifying.
LikeLike
Is the site working okay again for sure? I can’t tell because I’m using the link that Mark sent me yesterday and don’t have the old one. I don’t see the dashboard or anything.
I just want to make sure everything is fixed!
LikeLike
All seems well. Thank you so much!
LikeLike
Great!
LikeLike
Thanks LMS.
LikeLike
Of course McWing. Good thing Mark sent me that email or I wouldn’t have known it wasn’t working…..LOL
I’ll try to check in more frequently, but I always say that and then don’t, even though my intentions are good! 🙂
LikeLike
On a positive note, Rene Elmers lost her primary.
LikeLike