Hmmm… last time around, the Dems were upset because the Repubs wouldn’t support campaign finance. So the Repubs came around, passed campaign finance, and the Dems shoved it up their ass by putting all their fundraising into the Section 527 corporations. Now, some Repubs strike back, with vengeance. And then some. As the orchard keeper said, “howdya like dem apples?”
Want to see some crooked ass reporting? Here you go. This is basically a recycled story from the Wash Post. The theme is Bush administration doesn’t know what to do – it’s Christian friends are battling its business buddies over booze.
This is the most fucked up possible reading of the court case in question. It’s simply about internet wine sales. The sellers in State A have convinced the State A legislature to prevent out of state wholesalers from State B from selling State B wine within the borders of State A.
The question is a rather simple two part-er. (1) Does the “dormant commerce clause” – that implication of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause that forbids undue state restrictions on interstate trade – forbid a state law that is prejudicial against out-of-state businesses? Or (2) Does the 21st Amendment, which repealed prohibition and largely reserved liquor regulation to the states, count as a subsequent modification to the Constitution that overrides the Commerce Clause within the context of liquor sales? My prediction is that the Court will hold that the Commerce Clause, being structural, would require express overruling. But I could be wrong, and if the Court really sticks it to the Dormant Commerce Clause, you could get all sorts of state restrictions on out-of-state internet sales. This will happen because state level trade associations will get laws passed to protect them from out-of-state competition – that’s how we wound up with the internet wine sale ban, you know.
And where do the Christians fit in? Well, a group of them filed an Amicus Brief, a friend of the Court brief. So did some school principals. So did a bunch of booze wholesalers. The fact that the Administration did not file a brief is basically irrelevant. While the Dormant Commerce clause is endlessly fascinating to some attorneys – yours truly included – it isn’t exactly high on the radar screen of the fed gov. They have other things they are thinking about right now, I’m told.
So the effort to turn this into a “Bush is being run by the Christian fundamentalists” story, is basically pretty pathetic, and dishonest.
Phil Carter, once again. Here he is at Slate, going off on the Gitmo detainees and how they should “have their day in court” rather than face administrative hearings that are sufficient under the Geneva Conventions. This will end badly – once the courts get hold of these most violent and nasty of POWs… well, let’s just say that the government is fucked and these bloodthirsty, insane religious zealots, captured on the battlefield, will go free to kill infidels another day.
I haven’t figured out whether ol’ Phil is that pissed off at not making major, or if he’s so dumb he can’t see that far ahead, but his turn from diffident law student blogger into seething liberal Slate columnist doesn’t wear well on him. It just goes to show you though – if you are in a particular demographic and you cut against stereotype, the libs will be fascinated with you. If you are a black conservative, it’s going to be Uncle Tom articles. If you are an ex-military officer, you’ll be a hero if you have an anti-military ax to grind. Phil is going to go far, I predict…
The NY Times apologizes, sorta, for misleading people on the story about the date of the intel information that the terror warnings are based on. Turns out, yes indeed some of the surveillance material is three to four years old. Also turns out, the AQ operational planning cycle is 4 -5 years, and that this material has been updated recently. Also turns out, they had other sources to indicate an attack was about to be triggered. Or as Chief Ray Kelly put it, “chilling information.”
Oh well, NY Times. Don’t be blue. You can always question the timing of this disclosure…