This week's National Journal Poll of political bloggers asked "Do you agree with President Obama's decision to take General Motors to bankruptcy court?" One hundred percent of the Left, and 54% of the Right said "yes."
I was in the majority, albeit with a qualification: "Even better would have been bankruptcy according to established legal rules, rather than the Peron-style expropriation of money from the senior bondholders for the benefit of the UAW."
Question 2 was "Regarding the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, what will be the political impact on your party?" On the Left, 94% thought it would help their party, and on the Right, 67% thought it would hurt their party.
My answer was idiosyncratic. Although it's listed under "minor harm," I had voted for "minor help." I explained: "As a Democrat, I think it will help the party by mollifying some of the Hispanics who will be upset by Obama's inability to pass an amnesty program for illegal aliens. The nomination may also benefit Republicans, if Republican senators raise serious objections about some of Sotomayor's unpopular and legally weak decisions, such as Ricci, Maloney and Village of Port Chester."
Bloggers Agree: GM Bankruptcy Good; Sotom. Helps Ds, Hurts Rs:
scotusblog
Dems in more urbanized areas tend to support gun control laws, of course, and this may be the majority of Dems. But I don't think that you will find a meaningful difference between RKBA support between D's in the rural south and rural non-coastal west.
If Republicans start trying to get into the legal pros and cons of her decisions, then they've lost the public.
Does this sound to anyone like the sort of substantive critique you'd expect from an intelligent and informed person? Why no mention of "Chicago-style politics"?
Absent any indication, let alone proof, that bondholders would have gotten more money out of a liquidation "according to established legal rules", this is just a pointless rant. If anything it is expropriation of taxpayers money to UAW.
Why let get facts get in the way of opinions?
Methinks you are discounting how many get riled up the issues of affirmative action and reverse discrimination.
In Hedgeworth, the policies leading to the girl's arrest had already been changed, and the only genuine issue at stake was how much the City of Washington, D.C. was going to pay to settle the Hedgeworth family's lawsuit.
The Ricci case will eventually set the legal rules under which decisions on promotions and hiring will be made for civil servants nationwide. Hundreds of thousands of people's livelihoods and income will be affected.
Bit of a difference politically.
Personally, I hope nothing derails the wise Latina's confirmation. At least she appears to be a First Amendment hawk. The potential replacements are more likely to disagree with her on that than any other substantive legal issue.
You'd think the conservatives on the Court would be content to leave the rule-writing to Congress, but it doesn't seem to work that way, does it?
Anyway, of course there are people who get hyped up over affirmative action, but it's a serious miscalculation to think that the country is in the same place on racial issues as it was in the 80s and early 90s. Heck, even Jeremiah Wright inspired a collective shrug from the electorate. It's a different country and a different populace than it once was.
Or some priestly robes and a life-like doll dressed up in the GM logo.
I can only conclude that Kopel is engaged in some of contest about who can make the cattiest snark, because there's really no intellectual value in these blurbs.
"Anyway, of course there are people who get hyped up over affirmative action, but it's a serious miscalculation to think that the country is in the same place on racial issues as it was in the 80s and early 90s. Heck, even Jeremiah Wright inspired a collective shrug from the electorate. It's a different country and a different populace than it once was."
Steve, I think the way you're framing the issue may be wishful thinking.
Standardized testing was one of the linchpins of the 20th Century Progressive/Liberal alliance. Rational Liberals loved how it emphasized what you know over who you know. Egalitarian Progressives loved how it lessened the influence of who you know over what you know. Whichever way one looks at it, standardized tests were a great promoter of social mobility and meritocracy.
From inside the education establishment, I can attest that that alliance, at least on the issue of standardized testing, is under great strain, a strain perhaps obscured by the overweening dominance of Progressives, but very much there nonetheless. The silence of liberals and the few remaining conservatives should not be mistaken for acquiescence, and outside the academy, where Progressives enjoy less power, considerable blowback is already building.
To mistake it for racism is to misapprehend its origin.
Indeed.
The result was that major decisions were and are being made by car industry and financial amateurs, and likely more likely would have been made by professionals, if the government had not intervened.
BTW, these may be important bloggers, but I really didn't recognize most of them.
Many of those liberal bloggers who thought that it would help the D's, I think, are either looking at things in the (very) short run, or ignoring the likely negative effects of how it is being done.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.