Matthew Franck has a post up discussing whether or not Henry Reid and the Senate Democrats have the constitutional authority to reject Governor Rod Blagojevich’s appointment of Roland Burris to fill President-elect Obama’s Senate seat.  Eugene Volokh also tackles the issue.  Both commentators say no based on the 1969 decision of Powell v. McCormack.  What I find interesting is that both seem to rely on the Supreme Court case, but do not fully tackle the issue of whether or not the Constitution actually permits the Senate not to seat Burris.  In fact Franck states that he thinks the Powell case was wrongly decided.

So we’re confronted with a number of issues.  Was Powell correctly decided?  If not, should the Senate in effect ignore the precedent and do what it is constitutionally permitted to do?  Even if it is constitutionally permitted to block Burris’s appointment, should it?

On the first question, I have no opinion because I haven’t read the case, and don’t really have the time to skim it now.  On the third question, I think anything or anybody associated with Blagojevich is so tainted that the Senate ought to block the appointment.  As for the constitutional issue, on it’s face I think that the Senate has a leg to stand on.  Here is the relevant passages from Article I, Section 5: (more…)

“What gross deception and fatal delusion! Although very considerable benefit might be derived from strengthening the hands of Congress, so as to enable them to regulate commerce, and counteract the adverse restrictions of other nations, which would meet with the concurrence of all persons; yet this benefit, is accompanied in the new constitution with the scourge of despotic power, that will render the citizens of America tenants at will of every species of property, of every enjoyment, and make them the mere drudges of government. The gilded bait conceals corrosives that will eat up their whole substance.”

 I’m sure we’re going to be the best of friends.

Ed Whelan argues that the sky has not fallen on NRO today.  What say you all?

Real Clear Politics has a great breakdown of the polling data from all the Senate Races. It comes down to the Senate races in Tennessee, Missouri, Montana, Virginia, and Maryland. The Dems need to gain 6 seats for control and assuming they get Pennsylvania, Ohio and Rhode Island then they need three from the toss-up/leans Republican list. Needless to say its close, real close. It should make Tuesday very interesting.

The data for the house races can be found here.

A pretty good ad from MD Republican Senate candidate Michael Steele

” . . . and I’ll show you who you are,” goes the old maxim. While SA (according to its search engine) hasn’t thus far covered the race here in Connecticut between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont for the Democrat nomination to the U.S. Senate, I think its time to start paying attention. And to start supporting Joe Lieberman.

Last week Ned Lamont, who hails from my hometown of Greenwich, accepted the endorsement of and appeared alongside Michael Schiavo. Yeah, that Schiavo.

According to this Associated Press story, the Lamont campaign embraced Schiavo because, “‘he represents the feelings of a lot of people that feel the federal government is getting too intrusive,” said Liz Dupont-Diehl, Lamont’s campaign spokeswoman. ‘This is a way to point out a very real difference between Ned and Senator Lieberman.’ Lamont has criticized Lieberman for supporting a bill that allowed a federal court to consider reinserting a feeding tube used by Terri Schiavo, a 39-year-old Florida woman who had been in a vegetative state since 1990.”

Lieberman, on the other hand, according to a 2003 interview, supported the Florida legislature’s attempt to give Gov. Jeb Bush the authority to order Schiavo’s feeding tube reinserted, saying “I believe that certainly in cases where there is not a living will … I feel very strongly that we ought to honor life and we ought not to create a system where people are being deprived of nutrition or hydration in a way that ends their lives.”

As if that’s not bad enough, today’s local newspaper, the Greenwich Time, leads with the headline, “Jackson, Sharpton to back Lamont“. Which raises the question of whether Ned Lamont is an anti-Semite. Consider the following:

- According to the linked Greenwich Time article, Lamont was a member of the uber-exclusive Round Hill [Country] Club for 16 years, and only resigned earlier this year in order to pursue Lieberman’s Senate seat. Lamont himself cited Round Hill’s “lack of diversity” as his reason for leaving. “Lack of diversity”, of course, is code for “no blacks or Jews”, a situation which Lamont apparently enjoyed and supported for the entirety of his membership. Has Lamont pledged not to rejoin the Round Hill Club should his campaign not be successful, or, if he loses, will he return to its lily-white environs?

- Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are two of the most vicious anti-Semites on the American political scene. For the young (or those with short memories), here is the Washington Post’s pithy re-cap of the Jesse Jackson “Hymietown” incident:

Rev. Jesse Jackson referred to Jews as “Hymies” and to New York City as “Hymietown” in January 1984 during a conversation with a black Washington Post reporter, Milton Coleman. Jackson had assumed the references would not be printed because of his racial bond with Coleman, but several weeks later Coleman permitted the slurs to be included far down in an article by another Post reporter on Jackson’s rocky relations with American Jews.

A storm of protest erupted, and Jackson at first denied the remarks, then accused Jews of conspiring to defeat him. The Nation of Islam’s radical leader Louis Farrakhan, an aggressive anti-Semite and old Jackson ally, made a difficult situation worse by threatening Coleman in a radio broadcast and issuing a public warning to Jews, made in Jackson’s presence: “If you harm this brother [Jackson], it will be the last one you harm.”

Finally, Jackson doused the fires in late February with an emotional speech admitting guilt and seeking atonement before national Jewish leaders in a Manchester, New Hampshire synagogue. Yet Jackson refused to denounce Farrakhan, and lingering, deeply rooted suspicions have led to an enduring split between Jackson and many Jews. The frenzy also heightened tensions between Jackson and the mostly white establishment press.

Al Sharpton’s Jew-hating credentials derive from his long career as a New York City race hustler. This article from the Jewish Post details Sharpton’s involvement with the 1995 arson and murders at Freddy’s Fashion Mart, a Jewish-owned clothing store in Harlem which had been targeted by Sharpton’s affiliates for harassment and, ultimately, destruction. Eight people died in a blaze set by a man inspired by Sharpton’s rhetoric. “We will not stand by,” Sharpton was quoted as saying, “and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.” (emphasis added) More on the Freddy’s Fashion Mart incident here, here and here. Four years before Freddy’s, Sharpton had helped incite another murder. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby tells the story:

1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights section accidentally kills Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, and antisemitic riots erupt. Sharpton races to pour gasoline on the fire. At Gavin’s funeral he rails against the “diamond merchants” — code for Jews — with “the blood of innocent babies” on their hands. He mobilizes hundreds of demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, “No justice, no peace.” A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, is surrounded by a mob shouting “Kill the Jews!” and stabbed to death.

Oh, by the way; Joe Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew.

- The timing. The Greenwich Time article says, “Lamont and Lieberman have focused their recent efforts on turning out the urban vote, with both candidates visiting Bridgeport last weekend. Lieberman was accompanied by Sen. Ken Salazar, a Mexican-American senator from Colorado, in the Park City, while Lamont campaigned with black California Congresswoman Maxine Waters.” (emphasis added) Given Mel Gibson’s weekend escapades in Malibu (not to mention Israel’s ongoing war against HezbAllah), anti-Semitism has “top of mind” awareness among the general populace. I question whether Lamont, in choosing this week to bring Sharpton and Jackson to the centers of Connecticut’s black population, is not trying to send the message that a vote for him is a vote against Lieberman the Jew.

It would be interesting if a major Connecticut media outlet asked Lamont about these issues. But I won’t hold my breath.

That’s Peter Kirsanow’s opinion of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act.

I don’t know all the ins and outs of the “Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act” that is set for U.S. Senate action this week, but I can tell you that quite a few conservative commentators are arguing that it is a very, very bad idea — “race-based government,” in fact.  (K-Lo has collected more links, here.)

And, to make matters worse, Congressional Republicans are mostly asleep at the switch or actively involved in pushing the bill, and the White House has chosen to remain on the sidelines.  In other words, don’t expect the President to reach for his veto pen (there is one — really there is!) on this one.  Once again we’re looking at principle taking a back seat to expediency with this Administration.

What the heck — I’ll go out on a limb here:  Read the authors I’ve linked above, and consider emailing your Senators on this issue.  It couldn’t hurt.

Lee at A Bama Blog has written the definitive response to Dana Milbank’s shabby attack on Senator Jeff Sessions (R.-Ala.)  It ends with this:

Back in 2004, Dana Milbank co-authored a column with David Broder entitled “Hopes for Civility in Washington are Dashed.” To quote the Instapundit…”Indeed.” Perhaps Mr. Milbank should re-read his own material from time to time.

Read the whole thing.

With Mississippi’s (my state of birth) primaries coming up on June 6th, I figured I would provide a round up of the various races. First up, the Senate race.

The Candidates:
(R) Trent Lott (Incumbent)
(D) Bill Bowlin
(D) Erik Fleming
(D) James O’Keefe
(D) Catherine Starr
(L) Harold Taylor

Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott is looking for re-election to a fourth term and faces no opposition for the Republican nomination. He’ll face one of the four Democrats battling for their party’s nomination as well as a Libertarian.

There was much speculation several months ago on whether he would run for re-election or retire to venture into the private sector to earn some money after Hurricane Katrina destroyed his home. He opted for another run since he believes that the state needs his clout in Washington due to Katrina.

Lott has generally amassed a conservative voting record (American Conservative Union lifetime rating of 93 out of 100), but really tends to be a Pork-a-saurus, and even brags about it:

“Lott recently told Roll Call that after 30 years as a U.S. senator, he has learned how to work around pesky do-gooders like Coburn. ‘I fold [pork projects] into bills where you can’t find them,” Lott boasted. ‘I’ve been around here long enough to know how to bury it.’”

And he sneered a few months ago in reference to Instapundit’s and N.Z. Bear’s “PorkBusters“:

“I’ll just say this about the so-called porkbusters. I’m getting damn tired of hearing from them. They have been nothing but trouble ever since Katrina. We in Mississippi have not asked for more than we deserve. We’ve been very reasonable.”

I don’t think that you could call a 700 million dollar federally funded plan to rip up a recently restored rail road line and move it to put in a highway in the Katrina devastated MS Gulf Coast “reasonable”.

It would have been nice for a real conservative to challenge Lott in a primary. At the very least, he would feel some heat for his free spending ways. But given Lott’s entrenchment in the state GOP and relative popularity in Mississippi, nobody who had a thought of having a future in the MS Republican Party entered.

Lott and all four Republican candidates for the four House seat are not facing any opposition for party nominations so there isn’t any Republican primaries going on. But it’s a different story for the Democrats.

Vying for the chance to face Lott in the general election are a quartet of Democrats: business consultant Bill Bowlin, State Representative Erik Fleming, business owner James O’Keefe, and peace activist Catherine Starr.

Bill Bowlin ran for the 1st Congressional District in 1990 as a Republican, but lost to incumbent Democrat Jamie Whitten. Now, he’s a bit of a rare bird in Mississippi politics in that he has switched from the Republican party to the Democrats. Among the reasons for the switch, Bowlin states “We certainly can do better as far as managing what’s taking place in our economy. We can also do better serving our elderly and disadvantaged by giving them programs that would serve their needs”. Bowlin’s site doesn’t have much on where he specifically stands on issues, other then general statements on public service and leadership.

Next in alphabetical order of the Democrat candidates is Erik Fleming. Representative Fleming gained some attention on the Internet after Politics1 highlighted Fleming’s very close ties to periennial presidential candidate and conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche. The post linked to a transcript on LaRouche’s site of Fleming’s introduction of the aforementioned candidate at a campaign rally. Plus, that post linked to this endorsement of LaRouche by Fleming which ends thusly:

“Lyndon LaRouche, right now, at this time, is the best candidate running for President of the United States of America. He is a man of great character and strong moral fiber. He is clearly the most prepared candidate for the position. I hope that the rest of the nation is afforded the chance that I have had in getting to know Lyn. I strongly believe that if allowed the same audience as the other candidates, the voters of America will come to the same conclusion I have. Oh, how exciting that possibility would be.”

After Politics1 published that post, Fleming responded with this letter (scroll down) where he states that he is own man, not a LaRouche flunkie, that voters should evaluate his characther, etc. But keep in mind that Fleming doesn’t apologize for his association with LaRouche, though he admits that it could hurt him in the campaign.

Ties to kooky political candidates aside, here’s some of his political stances. He’s against privativization of Social Security, Opposed to drilling in ANWR, but for it in the Mississippi Gulf Coast “as long as issues dealing with the natural habitat are not compromised.” And he’s opposed to school vouchers, but supports “tax credits for private school tuition, home schooling, and tutorial services.”

Continuing on, the next candidate is James O’Keefe. He’s been a pastor, entrepeteur, and he’s the son of former Biloxi mayor, Jerry O’Keefe. On the issues, he’s pro-life, anti-free trade, in favor of stricter border enforcement, and concerning Iraq, he says:

“Our President has budgeted and spent almost a half a trillion dollars on a war in Iraq that has destroyed thousands of lives. Saddam Hussein is out of business and it is time we get out of Iraq. We must leave these people to their own way of life and let them determine the kind of government they desire. Our country has been notorious for setting up puppet governments for financial gain and world domination. Our constitution does not support this style of rule, we are not to be the police of the world, and we are not to be the rulers of the earth. The Preamble to the United States Constitution plainly spells out our quest.”

The last Democrat in the race is peace activist Catherine Starr and there’s not much of anything that I can find out about her.

And finally, there’s Harold Taylor of the Libertarian Party. He spent twenty years in the US Air Force and is currently the manager of Knox Painting Company. Taylor ran in 2002 race in the 1st Congressional District and was recently the chairman of the state Libertarian Party. According to Project Vote Smart, he holds the standard Libertarian views.

Conclusion: I’m not a huge fan of Lott’s; for my taste, he’s too much a pork barrel spending establishmentarian with a huge sense of entitlement to the perks and power of his office. That said, given his popularity and lack of a prominent Democrat to oppose him, like former state AG Mike Moore or former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, he’ll probably easily win re-election.

Yesterday the Federal Trade Commission released its study of gasoline price fluctuations during and after the Katrina disaster, and Chairman Majoras testified before the Senate Commerce Committee to summarize the report’s findings, which include:

*  No evidence to suggest that refiners manipulated prices through any means, including running their refineries below full productive capacity to restrict supply, altering their refinery output to produce less gasoline, or diverting gasoline from markets in the United States to less lucrative foreign markets. The evidence indicated that these firms produced as much gasoline as they economically could, using computer models to determine their most profitable slate of products.

*  No evidence to suggest that refinery expansion decisions over the past 20 years resulted from either unilateral or coordinated attempts to manipulate prices. Rather, the pace of capacity growth resulted from competitive market forces.

*  No evidence to suggest that petroleum pipeline companies made rate or expansion decisions in order to manipulate gasoline prices.

*  No evidence to suggest that oil companies reduced inventory to increase or manipulate prices or exacerbate the effects of price spikes generally, or due to hurricane-related supply disruptions in particular. Inventory levels have declined, but the decline represents a decades-long trend to lower costs that is consistent with other manufacturing industries. In setting inventory levels, companies try to plan for unexpected supply disruptions by examining supply needs from past disruptions.

*  No situations that might allow one firm – or a small collusive group – to manipulate gasoline futures prices by using storage assets to restrict gasoline movements into New York Harbor, the key delivery point for gasoline futures contracts.

The FTC report also throws cold water on the Congressional enthusiasm for a federal price-gouging statute, by 

describing the challenges of crafting a price gouging statute and the difficulty of distinguishing “gougers” from those who are reacting in an economically rational manner to the temporary gasoline shortages resulting from an emergency such as a hurricane. After discussing the critical role of prices in market-based economies, the policy section concludes that if natural price signals are distorted by price controls, consumers ultimately might be worse off, as gasoline shortages could result.

These results come as no suprise to anyone who knows anything about the long history of antitrust investigations of this industry, and you might think the FTC study would settle the issue — but, alas, you’d be wrong: 

“The FTC ignored the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, contending that the agency ignored subtle manipulation by the oil companies. “The oil companies engage in price leadership — setting prices higher than what real competition would merit.”

Quick show of hands:  Who would prefer that Senator Schumer and his peers run the U.S. petroleum industry instead of the current crop of industry executives? 

You could use this absolutely mind-boggling post of Hugh Hewitt’s this afternoon.  Just go read it. 

From the NYTimes yesterday:

The Senate approved a $109 billion spending bill today to pay for the Iraq war and Gulf Coast recovery, ignoring a veto threat from President Bush and setting the stage for bitter negotiations with the House.

The Senate’s 78-to-20 approval of the bill at a level far in excess of the president’s request put the Senate at odds with the House, where the Republican leadership has taken an increasingly hard line against add-ons in the measure.

…The 20 senators who voted against the measure are all Republicans. Thirty-four Republicans voted for it. Although the 78 “yes” votes would be 11 more than needed to override a veto, it is probably too soon to speculate on a showdown between the White House and Senate. First, there will be a big showdown between the Senate and House.

Me: Richard Shelby (R-AL), my Senator, somehow found it necessary to be one of 34 RINOs to cast a “yea” vote for this spending bill. You can see here if your Senator made the same mistake. Does anyone really have any confidence at this point that President Bush is actually going to make good on his veto threat? I don’t. Obviously Shelby doesn’t either.

If you missed Tuesday’s WSJ editorial, you missed a lot. A sample:

Few things are less becoming in a political party than desperation, as Republicans are now demonstrating as they panic over rising oil and gas prices. If blaming private industry for Congress’s own energy mistakes is the best the GOP can do, no wonder its voters may sit out the November election.

. . .

There’s been unconscionable behavior all right, most of it on Capitol Hill. A decent portion of the latest run-up in gas prices–and the entire cause of recent spot shortages–is the direct result of the energy bill Congress passed last summer. That self-serving legislation handed Congress’s friends in the ethanol lobby a mandate that forces drivers to use 7.5 billion gallons annually of that oxygenate by 2012.

At the same time, Congress refused to provide liability protection to the makers of MTBE, a rival oxygenate getting hit with lawsuits. So MTBE makers are leaving the market in a rush, while overstretched ethanol producers (despite their promises) are in no way equipped to compensate for the loss of MTBE in the fuel supply. Ethanol is also difficult to ship and store outside of the Midwest, which is causing supply headaches and spot gas shortages along the East Coast and Texas.

These columns warned Republicans this would happen. As recently as last year, ethanol was selling for $1.45 a gallon. By December it had reached $2 and is now going for $2.77. So refiners are now having to buy both oil and ethanol at sky-high prices. In short, the only market manipulation has been by politicians.

Oh, and the idea of a “windfall tax” on oil companies . . . I’m sure that wouldn’t be passed on to consumers.

“Preparing returns too taxing for some members of Congress”

 The History New Network has up excerpts from the testimony of John Dean, former White House Counsel to President Nixon, on possible censure of Dubya relating to improper electronic surveillance of Americans and other alleged abuses of power.  Here is the conclusion of his remarks: 

In short, I implore the Senate to undertake not a partisan action, but a strong institutional action. I recall a morning – and it was just about this time in the morning and it was exactly this time of the year – March 21, 1973 – that I tried to warn a president of the consequences of staying his course. I failed to convince President Nixon that morning, and the rest, as they say, is history. I certainly do not claim to be prescient. Then or now. But actions have consequences, and to ignore them is merely denial. Today, it is very obvious that history is repeating itself. It is for that reason I have crossed the country to visit with you, and that I hope that the collective wisdom of this committee will prevail, and you will not place the president above the law by inaction. As I was gathering my thoughts yesterday to respond to the hasty invitation, it occurred to me that had the Senate or House, or both, censured or somehow warned Richard Nixon, the tragedy of Watergate might have been prevented. Hopefully the Senate will not sit by while even more serious abuses unfold before it…

The Senate Judiciary Committee has proffered a broad immigration bill that will now head to the full Senate. I’ll not comment on the details, but it’s going to be an interesting coming debate.

If this scenario comes to pass, you can bet the dems’ obstructionaist tactics re: President Bush’s judicial nominations will only worsen.

Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL)

Senator Jim “I am for a culture of life until it might hurt me politically” Talent (R-MO)

Here’s the roll call on “Motion to Invoke Cloture On The Nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. of New Jersey, To Be An Associate Justice Of The Supreme Court.”

Yesterday, I received the latest edition of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy and was delighted to see that sometime-SA blogger Adam White has an article entitled “Toward the Framers’ Understanding of ‘Advice and Consent’:  A Historical and Textual Inquiry.”  I’ve yet to read the entire article but it looks excellent.  Given the individuals listed as providing helpful comments, I’m sure there’s no way it’s not excellent.

Typical dem.

Now, that’s the John McCain I used to like.

Not that I’ve forgotten about this, mind you.

Here’s the first paragraph of the Miami Herald’s story:

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Tuesday he’ll vote against Judge Samuel Alito Jr.’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying he believes the jurist would “tilt the scales of justice in favor of big government over the average person.”

Is this just some kind of code phrase for overruling Roe that I’m not familiar with? If it’s not, does anyone believe Nelson’s explanation for his vote? How convincing do you suppose Nelson thinks his explanation will be to Florida voters?

Reuters has this report.

And when Judge Alito is confirmed, you know what that will mean, right?

Every American will be speaking Latin and eating fish on Friday before too long. :) 

The man has absolutely no shame whatsoever.

“Supreme Chaos,” by Judge Charles Pickering. Here’s a snippet from the publisher’s description of the book:

In Supreme Chaos, Judge Pickering, who faced unprecedented use of the filibuster by Senate Democrats, provides an insightful assessment of the situation and argues that we must find a way out of the quagmire for the sake of the judiciary, our children and grandchildren, and the rights of all Americans. Pickering’s vision of a repaired confirmation process offers hope that order can be restored from the chaos—that justice under the rule of law as established in the Constitution will prevail.

Well, surprise, surprise! Guess whooooooooooooooo’s a big fat hypocrite?

Sen. Lott announced today that he’ll be running for a 4th term in the US Senate.  With that, I really don’t look for any A-List Democrats (like former AG Mike Moore or former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove) to be entering the race.