It’s even more outrageous than we thought. And there is no accountability.
Over at USA Today, more commentary from Instapundit.
It’s even more outrageous than we thought. And there is no accountability.
Over at USA Today, more commentary from Instapundit.
…that only the “Right” believes any more.
I continue to wage war on the Left’s assault on the language. They are not liberal (or, for that matter, progressive), and never have been.
It’s not possible to overstate what a disaster this is for national security. But the media would rather talk about Confederate flags.
More opinions coming today. Follow live at (where else?) Scotusblog.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Heh. From Amy Howe: “Don’t type the phrase ‘the Ninth Circuit is affirmed’ that often. My fingers rebelled.”
[Update a couple minutes later, scrolling through]
Court ruled against the government in Horne, in favor of the raisin farmers. This is potentially huge. It could be major blow to idiotic anti-market agriculture policies dating back to the Depression.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here is Amy’s round up of today’slast week’s court action, prior to today’s rulings [oops].
[Late-morning PDT update]
Hearing that more decisions will be announced not only on Thursday, but Friday as well. Both King v. Burwell and the same-sex marriage rulings will be huge.
[Late-afternoon update]
Ilya Somin discusses the implications of the Horne ruling:
whatever one thinks about the compensation issue, the Court’s holding on the question of whether a taking has occurred is an important victory for property owners. It ensures that personal property gets the same level of protection as real property under the Takings Clause, and that the government cannot avoid takings liability by giving owners a small share of the proceeds from the disposition of their property.
The ruling also calls into question a number of other similar agricultural cartel schemes run by the federal government. In addition to property owners, consumers of agricultural products are likely to benefit from the decision, if these cartel schemes can no longer operate. Freer competition between producers in these agricultural markets will increase the amount of goods sold, and thereby lower prices. Lowered food prices are of particular benefit to poor and lower-middle class consumers, who generally spend a higher proportion of their income on food than the affluent do.
Republicans don’t emphasize enough how these market interventions by the government hurt the poor. Including minimum wages laws.
Judith Curry is attending an interesting conference in the UK, and has some formal comments:
Some people regard any engagement of a scientist with the policy process as advocacy – I disagree. The way I look at it is that advocacy involves forceful persuasion, which is consistent with the legal definition of advocacy.
In the code of ethics for lawyers, where forceful persuasion is part of their job description, they are ethically bound only not to state something that they know to be false. Lawyers are under no compunction to introduce evidence that hurts their case – that’s the other side’s job.
Unlike lawyers, scientists are supposed to search for truth, and scientific norms encourage disclosure of sources and magnitude of uncertainty. Now if you are a scientist advocating for a specific issue, uncertainty will get in the way of your forceful persuasion.
In principle, scientists can ethically and effectively advocate for an issue, provided that their statements are honest and they disclose uncertainties. In practice, too many scientists, and worse yet professional societies, are conducting their advocacy for emissions reductions in a manner that is not responsible in context of the norms of science.
Much of climate “science” abandoned science years ago, going back to Schneider.
That would be a cold day in Hell with this gang.
I think this is stupid. I’m not a huge customer, but as a result, I’ll probably start using alternatives. There are plenty of them.
In fact, one of the chains should go back to frying in tallow. It would save them money, and be in your face to nutrition quacks.
SLS behind schedule? Increase the budget. Commercial Crew behind schedule? Cut the budget.
And of course, Commercial Crew is not in fact behind schedule. If NASA is hedging its bets by buying Soyuz into 2018, that’s because, for good reason, it has no confidence that it will get the needed funding. So Congressional actions become self fulfilling.
There isn’t anything about the Iran deal that isn’t a delusion, really. The only real question is whether it’s a self delusion, or another fraud.
Trying to get through it in order to critique it, but it’s long and turgid. Really needs editing.
[Update a while later]
Anyway, the editors at National Review waded through it.