Peter posed an interesting question to me today: Which is more important, Wisconsin recall or the presidential?
I had my own answer and reasons and he had his, but I’d be interested to hear your ideas.
Category: Politics
Preemption Enforcement Tomorrow!
To be heard in the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee. It is being offered as an amendment to a Senate Bill. To quote the Vice President, this is a big effin deal. You can find the members here.
UN Internet Treaty Opposition
Several Congress Critters have introduced a bill to help force the UN to keep it’s grubby hands off our Internets. Now if only we could get similar bipartisan support for getting Congress to keep its grubby hands off our Internets.
Quote of the Day
I received a free bumper sticker from his campaign in today’s mail: “Romney.  Believe in America.”
Believing in America is not the problem. Â Believing in Romney is.
Jacob also has some thoughts on keeping Mitt in line on the gun issue. My expectations of Romney are almost entirely placed around his short list for the Supreme Court. Some of the names I’ve seen floated would be welcome. One good thing about McDonald and Heller happening when they did is we now know a good number of “conservative” judges on the bench who are either not reliable, or outright hostile to gun rights. If the Second Amendment gets erased on Mitt’s watch, I’ll be looking to help these guys in 2016.
They Do Need a Checkbox for That
SayUncle gets jury duty, and notes that among the reasons listed for being dismissed does not include, “will judge the facts and the law.” Well, we can’t have that, the system working how it was intended to. That would lead to chaos!
I’ve written in the past, though I can’t for the life of me find it now, about my own views on nullification. It’s really one of those things they ought to teach in civics class, to whatever extent they even teach civics anymore. Juries are a check against the power of the state, and in the United States, it’s generally worked to oppose highly unpopular laws:
In the United States, jury nullification first appeared in the pre-Civil War era when juries sometimes refused to convict for violations of the Fugitive Slave Act. Later, during Prohibition, juries often nullified alcohol control laws,[23] possibly as often as 60% of the time.[24] This resistance may have contributed to the adoption of the Twenty-first amendment repealing Prohibition, the Eighteenth amendment.
Of course, the flip side of nullification is that it was also extensively used in the reconstruction era to acquit those who committed crimes against blacks, but were unambiguously guilty.
But generally speaking, I believe in the people judging the law, as well as the facts. The only caveat there is, the legal system has to work, so I would generally frown on  one person hanging a jury because they don’t agree with the law. That has to really be over a matter where there’s a general sense of the members of the jury that the law is unjust, or it’s particular application is unjust. But in order for that to happen more often, people have to know that a jury’s verdict is final.
I Thought This Was America
Apparently you can be arrested for political speech in this country that someone finds offensive, if you get a judge that out of touch and senile enough. See more here from Popehat. This is just outrageous. I don’t think that Judge should ever be allowed to try a case, or sit on the bench again. Sometimes we have to beware of tyrants in robes just as much as tyrants in business suits. Perhaps even more so.
The Problems of the Internet
Jim Geraghty links to a pretty good bit on how the Internet is making it a lot easier for crazies to find each other, and how it’s probably responsible for the emergence of the new crazy in our political discourse:
Enter the Internet. The good news is, if you really want to talk about obscure bits of history, or political issues, or sports, or pop culture, chances are, there’s some online community for you. Of course, this applies to every interest, including the bad ones — hate groups, child pornographers, extremists of every stripe.
I don’t think there’s a good way to deal with this. Public social pressure doesn’t seem to work effectively on Internet communities, because enough of them find each other they feel comfortable in lashing back at the people criticizing them. In fact, there’s probably a great deal of feeling like persecuted outsiders that probably strengthens resolve among the adherents to whatever weirdness you want to speak of.
Humans are tribal my nature, and if your a member of the crazy tribe, the Internet has allowed you to find the rest of your tribesmen.
Obama in the Primaries
According to Gateway Pundit, Obama has lost 36 Arkansas counties to a man known as John Wolfe. Who he is we don’t know. In Kentucky, however, he lost 67 counties to “uncommitted.” But hey, at least he didn’t lose them to a prison inmate, right?
As much as I’d like to joke, it’s still going to be close. This race is going to hinge on a couple of states, among them being Florida and Ohio, which are currently tossups.
The Problem of Over-Legislating Everything
In any attempt to criminalize activity, you have a real problem with trying to define the behavior that is criminals, such as this texting while walking law in Fort Lee, New Jersey:
I’m dying to see how that law is worded. How is “walking” defined? Two consecutive steps? More than two? “X or more steps in X amount of time”? Does it have to be in a forward direction, or is this like ‘traveling’ in the NBA? Can you sidestep and text at the same time?
“Not guilty, your honor. My client was texting while Riverdancing, which is clearly not prohibited by the ordinance.”
And local yo-yos are usually a lot worse about definitions than the states and feds, which is why most states generally limit the legislative power of local governments to petty crimes. Maybe we need a crime for being stupid while occupying public office. Of course, then the anarchists would have their feast, wouldn’t they?
Obama’s VA Attacking Second Amendment Rights of Veterans
A bit of propaganda from the Veterans Administration, encouraging family members to take guns away from veterans who have served our country. It’s worth noting that the Brady Campaign is fully on board with disarming our country’s veterans of their firearms, some of which would be bring backs that were paid for in their blood, and the blood of their fellow soldiers.
To me this is much like the issue of pediatricians and guns with children in the house. I don’t, as a matter of absolute principle, think it’s wrong to have the discussion. It’s the way the discussion is framed that is problematic. Certainly a family who has a loved one suffering from severe Dementia, or that has mental difficulties that make him a danger to themselves or others, would be doing the responsible thing by removing firearms (and other dangerous objects) from the home. I also don’t have an issue with the VA advising families of this, along with a discussion of other dangers someone with Dementia can face. But here’s what your tax dollars are paying for:
The presence of firearms in households has been linked to increased risk of injury or death for everyone in or around the home, usually as an impulsive act during some disagreement. This danger is increased when one of the persons in the household has dementia.
Let me translate this:
Propaganda put forward by the gun ban lobby suggests that your veteran family member, who served his country with distinction and to whom we owe our continued freedom, is likely to murder you in an argument if there’s a gun in the home. Just, if he has Dementia, he is much more likely to murder you with a gun in the home.
It continues:
Family members do not always take appropriate action to unload, secure, or remove firearms in the home. These actions should be taken regardless of the severity of dementia or whether your loved one is suffering from a behavioral problem or depression.
Translation:
You family member, who served his country and was trusted with automatic weapons, grenades, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, can’t be trusted with firearms, regardless of whether your loved one is having issues or not.
The Obama anti-gun propaganda continues to suggest that love ones may be reluctant, believing in this quaint notion of Second Amendment rights, and the perceived independence that goes along with gun ownership. But don’t let that dissuade you: the veteran loved one needs to be disarmed for his own good. It’s the right thing.
If folks were wondering what Obama meant by “under the radar” this is it. This is why he has to go in November. Your tax dollars paid for this offensive nonsense, which encourages families to infantilize and disarm our nation’s veterans, regardless of the troubles they are having. This is grossly offensive to the service they rendered our country, and the Obama Administration ought to be ashamed of themselves for ever allowing anyone to put this to print.
UPDATE: Looks like I’m two months late to this issue! Oh well, I can’t notice everything.