What Have You Done With My Supreme Court?

The New Yorker's Jeffrey Toobin is, by leaps and bounds, one of the best chroniclers of the Supreme Court that we have or have had for awhile. His latest piece in the May 21, 2012 issue of the New Yorker is a fascinating recounting of the intrigues surrounding the precedent upending Citizens United ruling, which once again allowed unfettered corporate money to stream into elections. As Toobin mentions at the end of the piece, there is a direct line from Citizens United to the one billionaire backing one candidate (Adelson/Gingrich; Friess/Santorum) GOP primary we just witnessed.

I am planning two much longer posts on Citizens United, once I finish reading the decision (and you are welcome faithful readers... it's a doozy), and on how the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate decision should go IMHO, but suffice it to say that I agree with a lot of what Toobin states in the article. I know it's a long one but please do yourself a favor and read it. I try to stay up with the doings of the Supreme Court as much as possible but Mr. Toobin enlightened me. Be similarly enlightened. DO IT NOW. You woonnn'tttt.

Image: The New Yorker

Dimon's in the Rough

See what I did there in the title? With the mixed metaphors and play on words and such? SO clever. Anywwaaayyy, JP Morgan Chase, the formerly venerable white shoe investment banking institution, reported a $2 billion trading loss yesterday afternoon. Not so surprisingly, Jamie Dimon managed to continue to sound like a giant doucher while attempting to show some sort of facsimile of contrition. While admitting to immense risk management failures, he managed to contend that oversight of the banking industry was still a ridiculous idea. Here are two actual quotes (well a quote and a paraphrase) from the same call to analysts:

"There were many errors, sloppiness and bad judgment," Dimon said. "These were grievous mistakes, they were self-inflicted."

 followed by...

Dimon said yesterday that the timing of the trading blunders "plays right into the hands of a bunch of pundits out there" who want a strict proprietary trading ban, the Volker Rule, named for former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.

I mean... wow. Only a wanna-be pugnacious solipsist like Jamie Dimon could somehow claim that his firm's catastrophic failure in self-oversight somehow indicates that the Volcker Rule is a bad idea. Listen, I'm no class warrior. While sympathetic to a couple of Occupy Wall Streets complaints (when they enumerated them), I'm not marching for the 99%. But people like Dimon and some of his cohorts need to get their shit together and realize that while such rules will definitely be bad for their bottom line, it'll probably be good for the health of the world economy as a whole. While this is really for another, longer, post I've been thinking about for awhile... many commentators seem reluctant to assert is that the Volcker Rule, formerly known as the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, worked pretty well for 6 decades. Enacted in the turmoil of the Great Depression, Glass-Steagall, among other things, separate commercial banking from investment banking. Lo and behold, there were no serious shocks to the banking system anywhere approaching the same scale of the Great Depression. Our current Great Recession then occurs after it was essentially repealed in 1999 (Good call Billy) and the Volcker Rule hopes to re-institute a weaker version. Now, clearly one cannot directly correlate the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Great Recession, but why not bring back a rule that worked so well for over half a century? I've not really heard any compelling reasons, that hold any water, from folks like JD... who's firm bears little resemblance to the old JP Morgan & Co. that once ruled Wall Street (read this fantastic book for more. Seriously, Ron Chernow is the MAN).

To make a long story not any longer than the above, I hope Jamie stops spewing BS until the time he can put forth a reasonable argument for why the provisions of the Dodd Frank Act, including the Volcker Rule, would be bad for anyone aside from him, his cohorts, and their respective bottom lines.

Nobody Likes The Color Purple Anymore, And We Ain't Talking Oprah

Dick Lugar, a six-term Republican Senator from Indiana, just recently lost a primary battle to new Tea Party (side note: I thought that whole thing had run it's course...) darling Richard Mourdock. Many supporters of this move, as Teabaggers are wont to do, state that Lugar has simply been part of the Washington establishment too long, is in the District more than he is in Indiana, and has lost touch with his constituents. Certainly, there is more than a small kernel of truth to this. However, the responses of many more, not least of which was Mr. Mourdock, lent credence to the idea that Lugar actually lost because he was not properly awash in the glorious flames of ideological purity and had the audacity to reach his hand across the aisle to attempt to deal with the other party. According to Mr. Mourdock, the opposite day definition of bi-partisanship, and the only way that he would be involved, was when Dems had the good sense to come to whatever crazy ass position he decided to grab a hold of. Additionally, as Jonathan Chait points out in the above linked article, one of Lugar's sins was voting for the very qualified Justices Sotomayor and Kagan after President Obama nominated them. As Chait points out that, outside of extreme circumstances, the practice of voting for the other party's Supreme Court nomination, much like votes to raise the debt ceiling, was quite commonplace until very recently. 

This primary, however, is just a symptom of a much larger and a much scarier ailment that is oft discussed, but without any serious worry about the future repercussions... the increasing partisanship acrimony between the parties. Lugar's end is one of many recent examples of relatively more moderate (cannot stress relatively more) Republican Senators getting labeled Republicans In Name Only, or RINOs, and then getting attacked by the fringier parts of the GOP. In fairness, there are also the pols formerly known as Blue Dog Dems Democrats In Name Only, or DINOs (RINOs and DINOs... totes cute, amiriight?), who are also getting weeded out, but to a much lesser degree. This level of polarization will increasingly become a problem if it continues. During the debt ceiling debates, the US' credit rating was threatened because people around the world are starting to think our political process is too dysfunctional to get anything done. And they are not far off. This whole development, which seems unique to the aughts in my mind, makes me more and more worried about the future each time it rears its ugly head. One can almost picture a post-apocalyptic political future where there are literally two America's with the Red team having a firm grip on the amber waves of grain, the Blue team holding it down from sea to shining "whatever demarcates the end of each coast," and not a majestic purple mountain to be seen because, as everyone knows, red and blue don't mix.

Such a future makes me sick to my stomach so I can only hope that those representing us wise the hell up and realize that the only litmus test that truly matters is if they are doing what is best for their country. Though many who hold similar political beliefs as me gripe about President Obama being too moderate or even GASP a bit conservative for a Democrat, I hope he continues to let his Purple freak flag fly. Pretty soon he might be the only one left.

Yes We Can!... Eventually.

President Obama, certified master of the long view (Andrew Sullivan (c) 2011), put forth his not so unequivocal support of the right of gay marriage. I've seen a lot of opinions already on this with many saying it is rank political opportunism, from both sides, and some on the left saying that he was not full-throated enough because of his support for federalism on the subject. I'm sympathetic to both views and, as always, the truth falls somewhere in the middle. I do not think that the POTUS truly believes, in his heart of hearts, that the states should be the ones to legislate on this issues, especially as a Constitutional law scholar (but, then again, what the fuck do I know about what is in his heart of hearts). His whole "I personally believe, but y'all do what you want" stance certainly seems to take some power (slash political liability) from this interview. I also believe that there is just as much risk as potential reward in coming out in support considering the disgustingly unnecessary passing of Amendment 1 in North Carolina and, in the same vein, articles like this.

But, bottom line, who the hell cares about the various calculations behind the decision or the fact that it was not perfect in everyone's minds. It was important. Momentous even. One of my great complaints about President Obama was not enough movement on Guantanamo, his absolutely ridiculous turn on his pledge regarding war on drugs/medical marijuana and support of the civil rights of the gay community. One out of three with just under 6 months to the election ain't bad. Not to mention that, by painting such a stark picture between himself and Mitt on this issue (see the Grenell fiasco) turns this election into a mini-referendum on the issue. We got to take this for what it is, be proud of this step, and appreciate the slow build that will eventually lead to real change.

And, as always, keep in mind the famous never said words of President Obama...

Music Video Mondays

And will try to be better about staying around...

Donald Trump to Provide Voice to Romney Robocalls...

As reported by ABC news. I have nothing to add to that, apparently, non-joke. Paraphrasing the POTUS, good luck with that...


Image from: NY Post, via Google Images.

F@#k Yoo (and Bolton Too)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

John Yoo and John Bolton, enthusiastic torture supporters and haters of general Constitutional freedoms, wrote in aOp-ed in today's NY Times criticizing POTUS for agreeing to comply with a European code of conduct for space and thus, in their demented little minds, circumventing a Constitutional requirement that the Senate ratify any treaties. I don't even know where to begin with the hubris of it all so I will not say much. The fact that either of them are passing any judgment on Constitutionality is laughable. Even more hilarious is the fact that their analysis is borderline mentally handicapped. 

The Obama administration recently declared that America would follow, though not sign, a European Union code of conduct for outer space — a transparent end run around the constitutional requirement that the Senate ratify all treaties. This code, drafted by Europeans who do not bear America’s global responsibilities, restricts military activities in space as well as some peaceful dual-use technologies, like the multistage rockets used to launch commercial satellites.

Soooo, the President is NOT signing the treaty and agreeing to abide by its term and thus setting foreign policy? That is not in his purview since when exactly? And the fact that he is not signing, and thus committing, this course can be changed at any time. What the hell are they arguing? They attempt to address this point by baldly claiming to know the inner minds and objectives of the administration because of what some unnamed administration officials "loudly proclaimed" while in academia.

Really, an unbelievable piece of argument. My head is spinning with the stupidity. Good lord I hate them.