Category Archives: Law

Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Technology and Society

Our Petition For Rehearing

8 Comments

We’ve requested a rehearing en banc (that is, the full court) by the DC court of appeals on the mistaken ruling in December of a division of that court. Amici (and I’d expect at least as many as the last time) have another week to file.

[Late-morning update]

Cato has filed an amicus brief:

Political thinkers would certainly like to believe that historical analogies are integral to expressing their views on important political choices. Just in the last year, one candidate for office has been compared to Hitler, 21 Hitler, 22 Hitler, 23 Hitler, 24 and Mussolini. 25 Indeed, that public figure was so annoyed by this criticism that he threatened to “open up the libel laws” to prevent such speech in the future. Luckily for him, the division’s decision has done this work for him.

I don’t think they realize what a can of worms they opened.

[Later-afternoon update]

National Review has also filed a petition.

Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Obama’s “Scandal-Free Administration”

10 Comments

As regular readers here know, it’s a myth:

All of these scandals were accompanied by a lack of transparency so severe that 47 of Mr. Obama’s 73 inspectors general signed an open letter in 2014 decrying the administration’s stonewalling of their investigations.

One reason for Mr. Obama’s penchant for secrecy is his habit of breaking rules—from not informing Congress of the dubious prisoner swap involving Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and the Taliban, to violating restrictions on cash transfers to Iran as part of a hostage-release deal.

The president’s journalistic allies are happily echoing the “scandal-free” myth.

If it was “scandal free,” it was only because the anointed media refused to report it honestly.

Business, Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Technology and Society

Obama’s Drilling Ban

15 Comments

Trump should immediately rescind it.

Yes. I hope he spends his first week doing nothing except reversing all these unlawful unconstitutional executive orders.

[Friday-afternoon update]

Obama’s midnight-regulation express:

Any action that is rushed is likely to be shoddy, especially if it’s from the federal government. The point is for Mr. Obama to have his way and to swamp the Trump administration with a dizzying array of new rules to have to undo. That diverts manpower from bigger and better priorities.

President Obama is hoping this work will prove too much and his rules will stand. He’d be making a good bet. George W. Bush promised to undo last-minute Clinton regulations. Yet a paper done in 2005 by Jason M. Loring and Liam R. Roth in Wake Forest Law Review found that a whopping 82% were left to stand.

Then again, a Republican Congress seems ready and willing to invoke the Congressional Review Act, which allows legislators to reject rule-making. More important, Mr. Trump and his team seem to understand that Americans are angry at Mr. Obama’s tendency to rule like an autocrat. They also surely know how damaging many of these Obama parting gifts (particularly energy rules) will prove to their own agenda.

A Trump administration could send a powerful message to future presidents and build public support by highlighting the “midnight regulation” phenomenon and then making it a priority to ax every final Obama order. Single them out. Make a public list. Celebrate every repeal. That would be as profound a rebuke to the Obama legacy—a legacy based on abuse of power—as any other.

Also a reminder that the Bush administration was terrible on regulations and small government. I don’t see why undoing all those would require much “manpower.” Getting rid of them would be a good start to “draining the swamp.”

Law, Political Commentary, Science And Society, Technology and Society

My Lawsuit

11 Comments

Yes, there has been a ruling, over two years after argument in the appeals court. I’ll have a comment after discussing with counsel.

[Update a few minutes later]

For what it’s worth, here’s Mark Steyn’s take.

[Update a while later]

Here are the official statements from CEI and counsel:

Statement from CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman:

Today’s ruling simply means this case will proceed and the Superior Court will now consider the merits of both sides’ arguments. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a staunch defender of free speech and open, public debate, and we are confident we’ll prevail on the merits as this case goes back to Court. As a public figure with his own history of harshly attacking those who disagree with him, Michael Mann must now show that CEI’s commentary met some very stringent standards of malice. It did not, and we will continue to fight against those who seek to punish and harass groups and individuals who speak out on controversial issues.

Statement from Andrew Grossman, CEI’s attorney and partner at BakerHostetler:

T​oday’s decision throws out half of Michael Mann’s claims against the Competitive Enterprise Institute and sends the others back to the Superior Court for further consideration. We are confident that Dr. Mann’s remaining claims will ultimately fail, because they attempt to shut down speech and debate that is absolutely protected by the First Amendment. Today’s decision only draws out Dr. Mann’s years-long effort to wage “lawfare” against his opponents instead of engaging in public debate.

So, on we go.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here‘s the story from Buzzfeed, FWIW.

[Noon update]

Thoughts from Jonathan Adler.

[Friday update]

National Review‘s formal response to the ruling.

History, Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The Electoral College

41 Comments

Did the NYT care about this before the Democrats lost power?

No, it’s not “antiquated.” It is part of the Constitution of the United STATES of America. It’s part of the separation of powers. The Founders never intended that the president be popularly elected, with good reason. The people are represented by the House. The president is elected by the states. What they’re really saying is that they hate federalism in general (which is ironic, considering that states like California are considering seceding in the wake of the loss).

[Update a while later]

[Update a while later]

[Update Wednesday morning]

The electoral college is actually awesome:

Unlike governors, whose state governments have total sovereignty within their borders, the presidency governs over states with their own sovereignty under the Constitution. The role of the presidency is at least somewhat limited to foreign policy and questions that are at least loosely connected to interstate issues and enforcement of other provisions of the Constitution. For that reason, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the president would have the greatest consensus among the sovereign states themselves, while still including representation based on population.

That is why each state gets the same number of electors as they have seats in the House and the Senate. It reduces the advantage that larger states have, but hardly eliminates it entirely; California has 55 electors while Wyoming has only three, to use the Times’ comparison. Rather than being an “antiquated system,” as they write, it’s an elegant system that helps balance power between sovereign states with national popular intent, and it forces presidential contenders to appeal to a broader range of populations.

[Via Stephen Green, who has more]

[Bumped]

[Update a while later]

Wow, the electoral college is so awesome, that it’s thwarting our ability to defeat global warming.

[Update a few minutes later]

That NYT editorial attacking the Electoral College is garbage.

You don’t say:

The process of protecting smaller states from the whims of the larger, more populous states is precisely why the electoral college exists. Contrary to what the editors of the New York Times think, we are not one large nation where the federal government reigns supreme. We are a republic made up of semi-sovereign states. That sovereignty is what protects states like Wyoming and Montana from states such as New York and California. The people living in these different states both have their sets of values. The electoral college protects a state like Wyoming (the minority) from a state like California (the majority) in that the country is not governed by the say-so of the most populous states in the union. Under the electoral college, all states have a voice.

These people hate the United STATES of America. They worship the State.

[Update a few minutes later]

The DoJ/FBI refuse to investigate crimes against the Electoral College. Well of course they do; a Republican won.

Business, Law, Political Commentary

The IRS

5 Comments

No, this isn’t about their war on conservatives. I got a shocking notice in the mail for my Subchapter S that said I owed three thousand dollars, even though there were no taxes due. It was a late-filing penalty. I had requested an extension in March, and filed in October, as I’d done for the past couple years, since I started the new company, and passed all the profit through to myself as sole owner. But they claimed that I hadn’t filed for the extension, so it was six months late (they counted the four days from when I mailed on October 15th as another month) and they charged me $195 per month times two, claiming that there were two shareholders, even though it was addressed to me as sole owner. I looked into my options, and while there are ways out for individuals, they’re a lot harder on S corps.

Fortunately, the woman I talked to on the phone was reasonable, and I managed to get her to accept that I had filed for the extension (she recognized that my actions would have made no sense if I hadn’t, and my past history was to do so), and convinced her that I was the only shareholder (which they should have known by looking at my K-1), so she knocked it down to two months from when I was supposed to file in September (yes, I did screw that up) for one shareholder, to get the bill down to $390. But it’s still annoying to be fined for a late filing in which no taxes were owed. Clearly, they want to be harsh on late filers regardless.