On Super Bowl Sunday, America was treated to the most expensive political commercial in history—brought to you by Chrysler—called “It's Halftime in America.” In a series of vapid non sequiturs, Clint Eastwood's gravelly voice pinned the promise of a city—no, a nation—to government dependency, claiming that “the people of Detroit” lost almost everything but because “we” pulled together and the “Motor City is fighting again”—punching, roaring, imbued with American grit—we survived. Or, some might argue, after screwing stakeholders, discarding legal contracts, rewarding failed business models (while punishing those who employ better ones) and sticking taxpayers with the unions' fat pension tab, America got a heaping spoonful of the Obama administration's economic policy. Either way, it's odd that we didn't hear much griping about “corporatism,” oligarchies and Citizens United, though a corporate-sponsored campaign spot laid out the president's re-election narrative rather nicely. Now, I have no beef with Chrysler's running a campaign ad, but the thing is that if Obama had his way, Republicans would have a good case for banning this kind of politicking. You know, for the good of democracy. You may remember that the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision centered around the ability of a corporation to air a documentary critical of then-candidate Hillary Clinton. In her first case as solicitor general for the Obama administration, in fact, current Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan went so far as to argue that the federal government should be empowered to ban books if Washington deems that they amount to “political electioneering.” Let's just say the spirit of Voltaire is not exactly soaring in Washington these days. You may also remember that when Ford ran a TV ad praising its innovative strategy of competing without taxpayer charity (a bit of a myth itself), the White House was reportedly incensed, viewing Ford's defense of free enterprise as an attack on the president. Needless to say, upsetting this administration is bad for business, and Ford pulled the ad. What about commercials? What about commercials produced by companies that benefited (in this case, a Bush bailout supported by Obama) from policies supported by this administration? What about “It's Halftime in America”? Well, cheers all around! White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer tweeted, “Saving the (American) Auto Industry: Something Eminem and Clint Eastwood can agree on.” (Eminem apparently read a script that was written by the same people who wrote the script that Eastwood read.) Obama's campaign architect, David Axelrod, tweeted: “Powerful spot. Did Clint shoot that, or just narrate it?” Hmm. Not sure. David—if I may—maybe you could ask Clint or the agency that created the commercial, Wieden+Kennedy, because it is reportedly staffed by folks who have worked on Obama campaigns and Democratic causes for years. As for those super PACs—the main boogeyman of Citizens United— The Washington Examiner reminded me, the president once asked voters to “challenge every elected official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us (in) stopping it.” Join us? Let's start with Obama, who is going to have to challenge himself, as this week, his campaign asked top fundraisers to support his own super political action committee. Admittedly, brutes like me live under a preposterously antiquated notion. We believe that citizens should be free to support any candidate with as much money as they'd like—anonymously, if they desire. But if super PACs and corporate-sponsored politicking are really jeopardizing the very fabric of American life—Obama once claimed they were a “threat to democracy”—why would the president partake in this orgy of gruesome selfishness? It was reported that Obama had one of his internal “evolving conversations” on the issue, conversations that always seem to evolve into Obama's rationalizing whatever is best for Obama. Conversations that are educational. Because the next time the administration claims that more speech is threatening democracy—corporate speech, super PACs, Citizens United—what it really will mean is that more speech is threatening its second term. David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi. COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM Read more here: Obama’s Halftime Hypocrisy
Originally posted here:
Obama’s Halftime Hypocrisy
If you walk by the National Archives on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C. you will most likely see a line of people waiting to get just a glimpse of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. These two aged documents are browned with time and sealed under layers of a secure glass enclosure in the domed lobby of the Archives. But they still manage to impress their visitors. The inked words of the Constitution, many of them carefully penned by Gouverneur Morris over 200 years ago, are now barely visible. While some foreign visitors may struggle to make them out, we Americans know them by heart. “We the people in order to form a more perfect union…” the Constitution starts, and what follows is one of the most awe inspiring and heartfelt treatises to freedom in the history of man. After all, this one document founded the most successful country the world has ever known. Unfortunately, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn’t believe in the importance of the U.S. Constitution. Ironically, though her job is to “support the Constitution” ( Article 6, U.S. Constitution ) she instead did everything but uphold it last Wednesday. During an interview with Egyptian television network Al Hayat in Cairo, she was asked to give her opinion regarding the type of government Egypt should adopt as they try to rebuild their country following the Arab Spring. Her response? “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” Though she extolled certain parts of the U.S. Constitution, she went on to propose Egypt instead use South Africa’s Constitution as a basis for their new government. I am deeply saddened and disappointed in Justice Ginsburg’s answer. As a Supreme Court Justice who daily delves into the U.S. Constitution looking for answers to the nation’s top cases, I would hope she would have developed a love for this crucial founding document. Yet instead, she implied its irrelevancy! Why would our Constitution not be just as good a foundation for a nation’s government today as it was in 1788? The answer is that it is, and always will be, an excellent foundation for the government of any nation. It was and still is the clearest legal protection of man’s freedoms on earth. Since our founding, our country’s unparalleled success and majestic display of human freedom has been a beacon of hope to the peoples of other nations. For years, immigrants from other countries have fled their oppressive or failing governments to come to our shores because they too sensed the meaning behind the words of our Constitution. I cannot think of another document I would more highly recommend to a country looking to make a fresh start. I would ask Justice Ginsburg to rethink her answer and reconsider her position as a “supporter of the Constitution.” Better yet, I would encourage her to consider why people from all around the world line up to see the distinctly American documents of freedom every day at the National Archives. I hope that one day she will come to understand what the patriotic Americans in line at the Archives understand: the protection and freedom the founding documents offered to the American people over 200 years ago is just the sort of protection every country in the world needs.
Visit link:
Our Constitution is not Irrelevant, Justice Ginsburg
While most of us have been caught up in the brouhaha of electoral politics, liberal activists have been working indefatigably to pack the courts – the unelected branch of government – with radical statists. We might have turned over a number of congressional seats in 2010, but Obama has successfully turned over many conservative seats in our federal court system. Since taking office, Obama has appointed 125 people to federal judgeships , including 25 to appellate courts, and 2 to the Supreme Court. After three years, Obama’s mark on the federal courts is beginning to become quite potent. The Fourth Circuit appellate court used to be filled with a majority of strict constructionist judges. Now, following Obama’s appointment of five new radicals, the court has totally shifted. This once conservative court ruled in favor of the administration in upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare last year. Obama’s indelible stain on the judicial system will reverberate for years to come. While Republicans have successfully blocked some of Obama’s most extreme nominees, they have voted to confirm the vast majority of them. Many Republicans have insisted for years that anyone who is “qualified” to serve as a judge deserves to be confirmed, irrespective of their judicial philosophy or ideology. This school of thought suggests that as long as the nominee has the requisite resume and is clean of ethical violations, he/she should sail through the nomination process. That is the grim consequence of elections, they contend. Last week, in an interview with an Egyptian television station , Ruth Bader Ginsburg showed why ideology matters and why perverted judicial philosophy should indeed be a disqualifying factor for a judgeship. She told the audience –one that lives under tyranny – that the U.S. Constitution should not serve as a role model for a modern draft: “I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?” At the time of her nomination to the Supreme Court, Ginsburg had a stellar resume and excellent ratings from the American Bar Association. With that criteria in mind, every Republican except for three; Don Nickles, Bob Smith, and Jesse Helms, voted to confirm Ginsburg, a woman who has nothing but contempt for the very document that she is charged with upholding. Make no mistake about it; someone who believes that our constitution is outdated; someone who regards our constitution as a living and breathing document; someone who views the constitution of a violent third world country with higher reverence than the U.S. Constitution is indeed disqualified from serving on any court. No matter what happens in November, Obama will have another year to pack the courts. At present, there are 86 vacancies on district and appellate courts , 39 of which already have pending nominees before the Senate. We must work harder to ensure that not a single person with contempt for our Constitution is confirmed by the Senate. Republicans must understand that disrespect for the Constitution is an automatic disqualification for a judicial nominee. Perhaps, Justice Ginsburg had it right when she asserted at the end of that TV interview, “if the people don’t care, the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference.” If we continue to blithely confirm nominees who share Ginsburg’s judicial philosophy, our Constitution – which is the best in the world – certainly won’t make any difference. Cross-posted from The Madison Project
More here:
Justice Ginsburg and the Need to Oppose Radical Judicial Nominees
While most of us have been caught up in the brouhaha of electoral politics, liberal activists have been working indefatigably to pack the courts – the unelected branch of government – with radical statists. We might have turned over a number of congressional seats in 2010, but Obama has successfully turned over many conservative seats in our federal court system. Since taking office, Obama has appointed 125 people to federal judgeships , including 25 to appellate courts, and 2 to the Supreme Court. After three years, Obama’s mark on the federal courts is beginning to become quite potent. The Fourth Circuit appellate court used to be filled with a majority of strict constructionist judges. Now, following Obama’s appointment of five new radicals, the court has totally shifted. This once conservative court ruled in favor of the administration in upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare last year. Obama’s indelible stain on the judicial system will reverberate for years to come. While Republicans have successfully blocked some of Obama’s most extreme nominees, they have voted to confirm the vast majority of them. Many Republicans have insisted for years that anyone who is “qualified” to serve as a judge deserves to be confirmed, irrespective of their judicial philosophy or ideology. This school of thought suggests that as long as the nominee has the requisite resume and is clean of ethical violations, he/she should sail through the nomination process. That is the grim consequence of elections, they contend. Last week, in an interview with an Egyptian television station , Ruth Bader Ginsburg showed why ideology matters and why perverted judicial philosophy should indeed be a disqualifying factor for a judgeship. She told the audience –one that lives under tyranny – that the U.S. Constitution should not serve as a role model for a modern draft: “I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?” At the time of her nomination to the Supreme Court, Ginsburg had a stellar resume and excellent ratings from the American Bar Association. With that criteria in mind, every Republican except for three; Don Nickles, Bob Smith, and Jesse Helms, voted to confirm Ginsburg, a woman who has nothing but contempt for the very document that she is charged with upholding. Make no mistake about it; someone who believes that our constitution is outdated; someone who regards our constitution as a living and breathing document; someone who views the constitution of a violent third world country with higher reverence than the U.S. Constitution is indeed disqualified from serving on any court. No matter what happens in November, Obama will have another year to pack the courts. At present, there are 86 vacancies on district and appellate courts , 39 of which already have pending nominees before the Senate. We must work harder to ensure that not a single person with contempt for our Constitution is confirmed by the Senate. Republicans must understand that disrespect for the Constitution is an automatic disqualification for a judicial nominee. Perhaps, Justice Ginsburg had it right when she asserted at the end of that TV interview, “if the people don’t care, the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference.” If we continue to blithely confirm nominees who share Ginsburg’s judicial philosophy, our Constitution – which is the best in the world – certainly won’t make any difference. Cross-posted from The Madison Project
Read the original:
Justice Ginsburg and the Need to Oppose Radical Judicial Nominees
In a move that will shock few people, a panel of the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Proposition 8, a voter-passed California constitutional amendment affirming that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, is unconstitutional. Specifically, the court held that Prop 8 violated the Fourteenth Amendment by not offering sufficiently compelling reason for treating different classes of people differently under the law. “All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and social recognition of their committed relationships,” the decision reads. “Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.” The judges conclude: “The Constitution does not allow for ‘laws of this sort.’” The ruling purports to be narrow, addressing only the context of Proposition 8 itself (California already briefly had same-sex marriage, which this initiative reversed) and not the question of whether it could ever be constitutional to define marriage as a man and a woman under California law. This makes it more likely that Proposition 8 and the issue of same-sex marriage will come before the Supreme Court. Interestingly, the court cites the 1996 Supreme Court decision Romer v. Evans as precedent. Justice Antonin Scalia said at the time that the logic of Romer demanded same-sex marriage. The ruling also comes on the same day that Rick Santorum, the most outspoken opponent of redefining marriage, is expected to have a strong showing in three Republican nominating contests.
See more here:
Ninth Circuit Court Panel Rules Proposition 8 Unconstitutional
