Category Archives: Rule of Law

Court unanimously finds against McMaster

31 Replies

Kathryn, to whom I think the topic is near and dear, brings this to my attention:

Former state Attorney General Henry McMaster on Monday lost his legal challenge as a landlord of Columbia’s law that barred students from creating mini-dormitories in residential neighborhoods.

In a 5-0 vote, the S.C. Supreme Court rejected McMaster’s argument that the city’s zoning ordinance capping at three the number of unrelated people who may share a residence. McMaster, through his PJM Properties, contends the ordinance violated the state constitution’s due process clause…

For those who wish to delve deeper, here’s a copy of the actual decision.

He’s right — a lot of people won’t believe it

11 Replies

That’s all I had to say when I read that Rod Blagojevich was “unbelievably sorry” for getting caught… I mean, for what he’s done:

His voice somber and sometimes cracking with emotion, Rod Blagojevich began his plea for a lighter sentence with a round of apologies to the judge, to the jurors who convicted him, to the public, to his family, and on and on.

“I’m here convicted of crimes. The jury decided I was guilty. I am accepting of it. I acknowledge it, and I of course am unbelievably sorry for it,” Blagojevich said.

“I want to apologize to the people of Illinois, to the court, for the mistakes I have made…I never set out to break the law. I never set out to cross lines.”

How about you? You believe it? If not, it may be because you remember…

Blagojevich spoke for less than 19 minutes, and it was a very different man than the one who rambled for nearly an hour at his Senate impeachment trial two years ago lecturing lawmakers on why they were flatly wrong to try and boot him from office.

You know what I can’t believe? How long it took to get to where he was behind bars. Back when all this started, I still had a newspaper job.

Interesting contrast there. One day, my publisher calls me in, and ba-da-bing! I’ve got less than two weeks to clean out my office. And yet we’re still being subjected to hearing about this Blago guy…

Not only South Carolinians subordinate the law to games

Leave a reply

As a followup to the posts in which Dick Harpootlian is engaged in legal shenanigans with Stephen Colbert, I offer this item, brought to my attention by alert reader Bryan Caskey…

But perhaps I will be alone in thinking this a bit much. I was deeply impressed by how much y’all seem to know about how the bowl system works…

Occupy Columbia: Charges against 19 dismissed

12 Replies

Just got this:

Charges Against Occupy Columbia’s Nineteen Protesters Dismissed
Occupy Columbia to Hold Press Conference

ACTION ALERT: It our great pleasure to inform those concerned as well as all parties involved, that all charges against the nineteen protesters that were arrested on November 16th of 2011 have been -dismissed.  These charges were dismissed last night, Wednesday November 30th, 2011.

It is to our great pleasure to annouce as well, today at 1:30PM Occupy Columbia is to hold a Press Conference to discuss the dismissal of the case that would have convicted the nineteen protesters.

Occupy Columbia, Protesters, as well Supporters are ecstatic to start this month of Holidays off right: trully this is the Season to be Thankful and Merry!

Get up-to-the-minute updates from our twitter account: @OccupyColumbia.

Sincerely
Occupy Columbia
www.OccupyColumbiaSC.org

I pass it on FYI; I don’t think I’ll make it to the presser. But when I learn more, I’ll share it.

The Ariail cartoon that plumb tickled them ol’ fancy-pants NLRB lawyers

5 Replies

Here’s the Robert Ariail cartoon that the smart-a__ Yankee NLRB attorneys were passing around and giggling about:

WASHINGTON — Lawyers for the federal labor agency fighting Boeing’s new factory in North Charleston, N.C., repeatedly joked among themselves about the dispute and exchanged a political cartoon portraying S.C. Sen. Glenn McConnell as a crass-speaking confederate soldier, according to internal documents released Wednesday.

They enjoyed it as much as they could, but we can take satisfaction from knowing that they couldn’t possibly have enjoyed it on the deeper, convoluted levels of meaning that are accessible to us, the cognoscenti.

Sorry, boys, but I’m with the feds on this one

7 Replies

This just in from our friend Wesley Donehue on behalf of the SC Senate Republicans:

SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE AND SENATE MAJORITY LEADER ISSUE JOINT STATEMENT ON U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S INJUNCTION AGAINST S.C. IMMIGRATION LAW

MCCONNELL AND PEELER: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FORCES THE STATES TO ACT ON IMMIGRATION BUT SHOOT THEM DOWN WHEN THEY DO

Columbia, SC – November 2, 2011 – This week, the United States Justice Department challenged South Carolina’s new immigration law, preventing it from going into effect. The Justice Department argues that the new law preempts the federal government’s overview of immigration. Both Senator Glenn McConnell and Senator Harvey Peeler believe that the federal government would be the perfect governing body in the country to initiate immigration policy, but for years it has been failing to act.

Senator McConnell said, “I wish that the federal government was as vigilant in protecting the country’s borders and enforcing our nation’s immigration laws as they are in attacking states like South Carolina that try to step up to the plate and act because the federal government refuses to do so. South Carolina has a duty to protect our citizens and our budgets from the problems caused by unfettered illegal immigration and I believe that we have done so in a lawful manner. But if the federal government wants us to quit acting in this area, the solution is simple – do your job.”

“The federal government’s inaction on this issue has forced states across the nation to react to the growing problem of illegal immigration. However, when the states pass laws that address this problem, the federal government rushes in to stop them. It’s time for Washington to stop focusing their energies on those trying to solve the problem and start addressing the real problem of illegal immigration on a national level,” Senator Peeler said.

It has been over half a decade since the United States passed a broad immigration law. Since then, immigration has continued to be a problem for states. In response, states across the nation have enacted immigration laws to help combat this problem in our country. These laws vary, but the federal government has thus far seemed intent on removing key enforcement provisions through federal court cases, rendering the laws ineffective.

Senator McConnell and Senator Peeler have always been strong supporters of legal immigration. They believe illegal immigration cheapens the value for all immigrants who come to the United States through legal means. South Carolina’s immigration law will help provide one more disincentive for those looking to illegally immigrate to the U.S.

“Immigration has been part of our nation’s heritage from the beginning. However, the federal government’s inaction is tarnishing this national tradition. If those in Washington are unwilling to act, they must support states in their efforts to do what is best for their citizens,” Peeler continued.

###

Sorry, boys, but I’m with the federales on this one.

Chalk it up to my Catholicism. Last night, after E.J. Dionne’s lecture, a few of us went to Yesterday’s to talk religion and politics and other stuff polite folks don’t talk about.

At one point E.J. invoked our Mass readings from Sunday before last:

“You shall not molest or oppress an alien,
for you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt.
You shall not wrong any widow or orphan.
If ever you wrong them and they cry out to me,
I will surely hear their cry…”

Note that it doesn’t say, “… as long as they have the proper documentation.”

Now, before Doug gets on his high horse about legality… Folks, I want immigration laws enforced, too — but I also want just immigration laws that recognize economic realities and that are consistent with our being a nation of immigrants, a nation of people who welcome the stranger.

And the popular pressure for South Carolina to usurp federal powers on this issue arises from a very different impulse.

SC Atty. Gen. Alan Wilson at Rotary today…

11 Replies

“Ironically, I tend to look left,” said SC Atty. Gen. Alan Wilson at the Columbia Rotary Club today. “That’s a joke.”

He said that because he had already gotten a big laugh, unintentionally. Worried about his time, he had turned to tell our president that he was just going to speak a minute-and-a-half about Yucca Mountain before going to questions. Except that our president, Rodger Stroup, was on his right, and he turned the other way and said it to David Kunz, who was seated up there to do Health and Happiness. The laugh came when David said, very enthusiastically, “All right by me!”

But the rest of his speech went pretty well. Crawford Clarkson turned to me afterward to say it was one of the best speakers he’d heard at Rotary. And Crawford’s been in Rotary approximately forever. I said I didn’t know about that, but I thought he did well.

He did well because he spoke as something other than what detractors of his Dad might expect. Sure, he started out sounding a lot like Joe, looking around the room and recognizing his many friends. But that was cool. I’ve always liked that about Joe. He’s very sincere about it, and so was Alan. Alan was a bit cooler about it, in fact. Joe tends to be rather manic in his extreme excitement to be there as a congressman.

Anyway, as I said, some would like to think that Alan is another Charlie Condon. (Charlie, who is a perfectly reasonable human being in person out of the limelight, turned into a sort of pandering monster as A.G., pursuing one issue after another that seemed fabricated to further his political career.) But I haven’t seen that yet, and there was none of that in the presentation we got today. Charlie would have worked in the “electric couch” somewhere, but not Alan.

Wilson spent a large portion of his time simply talking about the routine work that the A.G.’s office does in the course of meeting its statutory and constitutional obligations — handling civil litigation, criminal prosecution, post-conviction relief, criminal domestic violence, etc. That he chose to do so, to explain his office in such professional terms rather than political ones, is to me worthy of praise. Perhaps because I’m always on the lookout for another Charlie. (Fellow Rotarian Henry McMaster was a welcome change from Charlie — and it should be pointed out, Henry was largely responsible for the emphasis on CDV. I’m glad to see Wilson is continuing to be interested in that.)

Then he got onto the controversial issues — the NLRB/Boeing thing (although in SC, that’s hardly controversial), the health care mandate, Yucca Mountain — and he fought his corner well on these. His point on each was that he approached them according to the law as he read it. Of course, I’m less likely to disbelieve him than some, since I see the first and third ones the way he does. I disagree strongly with him on the middle one (and the idea that he could be successful in pursuing severability appalls me), although I fear he may be right that in the end it will be settled by a 5-4 SCOTUS decision, one way or the other.

In supporting his assertion that for him it’s about the law and not political advantage, he cited the Cornell Arms case, in which a security guard shot and killed an unarmed man who he said he thought was threatening him. Wilson said some told him that “You’ll take heat” from 2nd Amendment advocates for supporting the government’s prosecution of the guard. But in his account, he said, “That’s irrelevant.” The man had served five years, and would have been released by the state Supreme Court had Wilson not filed for a rehearing. As John Monk (happy birthday, John!) reported after the meeting:

“This has nothing to do with the right to carry (guns), nothing to do with the gun issue,” Wilson said. “The defense has the right to appeal at each level of litigation, and the state has a right to ask the court to reconsider their decision.”

A  good example for the point the A.G. was making. But whether you agree that he’s always representing the law rather than serving politics, I was impressed that he took no opportunity to posture before Rotary. There was no ideological cant about “big government” or, to cite something his predecessor sank to in trying to run for governor, about promising to protect us from Obama and his Washington “vultures.” He opposes the mandate and sees it as constitutionally unsound. Fine. I just disagree. At least he expresses himself like someone who respects the law, rather than an ideological ranter.

And that counts for a lot. Now, to be perfectly frank, his website seems a tad more self-promotional than his speech today (I went there to get y’all a link to look up more about these issues and his involvement with them). But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good speech. That it was, and well received.

I love one of his children, but not the other

20 Replies

My sons gave me birthday gift cards for Barnes and Noble, my favorite place for hanging out aimlessly and browsing, and I’m there now, contemplating a dilemma.

A couple of days ago, I saw the review in the WSJ about this new biography of James Madison by Richard Brookhiser, and they have it here. Since college — when I took so many electives (to some extent concentrating on that period) that I ended up getting a second major in history when I hadn’t planned to — I’ve been drawn to that period, and the Founders. Particularly the Framers.

But do I really want to use one of my cards for that? The publisher overpriced it a bit, for a book with such large type and so few pages. Nowhere near the heft of McCullough’s John Adams. I could get several paperbacks for this price.

Also… I’m still reading, and fascinated by, Charles Mann’s exploration of the Americas and the world pre- and post-1492.

Do I really want to delve into my mixed attitudes toward Madison right now (I inadvertently typed “Jefferson” just then, a pre-Freudian slip)?

The thing is, I revere the man as the Father of our Constitution, a political achievement I honor as much as any in human history.

But… he’s also the father (note the lower case) of a bastard child — American partisan politics. Or one of the main fathers, anyway (the mother was indiscriminate). Certainly the most successful one. The Federalists (which, if I had to pick a party, would have been my preference then) faded away, but Madison’s Democratic Republicans remain vital, although in different form, under truncated name. (And no, for those who don’t follow such things, it’s not the Republicans, a later invention.)

I love one of his children, but the other is the bane of my life as a political writer.

Another reason to hesitate, and wait until this, too, is marked down or in paperback… I have yet to read the book about his chief rival, the one by Ron Chernow, that Fritz Hollings recommended to me several years ago. Fritz thought it was great, and I asked one of my kids for it for birthday or Christmas, and it sits on my shelf yet.

Of course, if anything, my attitudes toward Hamilton lean even more toward the jaded. Despite my Federalist leanings (which is really more of a reaction to the Democratic Republicans than a love of the Federalists), and despite my great admiration for the role that he, too, played in the Constitution, there’s that nasty partisanship thing.

While Adams and Jefferson were conducting themselves more or less above the fray, Hamilton and Madison were carrying out the nastiest sort of partisan warfare in their behalfs. But at least Madison served Jefferson well in so doing. One thing I respect about Adams is that he truly hated party politics, as much as I do, and his own party worked against him perhaps more than it supported him (to name but one example, there’s the way they blackened his legacy with the Alien and Sedition Acts). Jefferson was more affected in his nonpartisanship, and carried it off well, while Madison more smoothly conducted his dirty work.

As for my decision — oh, I’ll have to read the book at some point. I just haven’t decided whether to get it now. I’ll browse a bit more first…

‘Obama: A disaster for civil liberties’… Really?

28 Replies

On my way back to the office from Rotary today, I heard this guy Jonathan Turley on NPR going on and on about how Barack Obama is — gasp — “worse than Bush” on civil liberties (or words to that effect; I wasn’t taking notes while driving).

Conveniently, he wrote out his thoughts on this in an op-ed piece in The Los Angeles Times recently. An excerpt:

Civil libertarians have long had a dysfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party, which treats them as a captive voting bloc with nowhere else to turn in elections. Not even this history, however, prepared civil libertarians for Obama. After the George W. Bush years, they were ready to fight to regain ground lost after Sept. 11. Historically, this country has tended to correct periods of heightened police powers with a pendulum swing back toward greater individual rights. Many were questioning the extreme measures taken by the Bush administration, especially after the disclosure of abuses and illegalities. Candidate Obama capitalized on this swing and portrayed himself as the champion of civil liberties.

However, President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them. The earliest, and most startling, move came quickly. Soon after his election, various military and political figures reported that Obama reportedly promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. In his first year, Obama made good on that promise, announcing that no CIA employee would be prosecuted for torture. Later, his administration refused to prosecute any of the Bush officials responsible for ordering or justifying the program and embraced the “just following orders” defense for other officials, the very defense rejected by the United States at the Nuremberg trials after World War II.

Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised. He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.

But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama’s personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush. Indeed, only a few days after he took office, the Nobel committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize without his having a single accomplishment to his credit beyond being elected. Many Democrats were, and remain, enraptured…

As you know, I have commented upon the same phenomenon myself, only not as a bad thing. From my endorsement of his tough talk about Pakistan in 2007 to my praise of his national security continuity right after the election, through my noting the end of the “Kent State Syndrome,” I’ve been pretty laudatory.

What’s really amazing about Obama is that he managed to persuade people before the election, and many after, that he’s this antiwar guy who was going to undo all the supposedly wicked deeds of the Bush administration. I wasn’t hearing that.

But even I was unprepared for how much further Obama would take things than Bush. I guess he’s able to do it because he has the political permission within his own party. Sort of like it took Nixon to go to China, Obama is allowed the latitude to more aggressively pursue the (I’m going to use the term that his base avoids) global War on Terror. As you recall, I made the analogy earlier that Bush was like Sonny Corleone (the blusterer who had trouble getting the job done), and Obama is Michael (who speaks softly and convinces everyone he’s the peaceful don, but wipes out his enemies efficiently without a word of warning). Of course, I don’t see them as heading a criminal enterprise. Others disagree.

It really does put Democrats in a weird place. Some of my most reasonable Democratic friends used to make these extravagant claims about how George W. Bush had trashed the Constitution. They really seemed to believe it. They are quieter now.

The anti-U.S. lawsuit brought by a “conservative watchdog group”

14 Replies

All I have to say for the moment is that I agree completely with the government on this one:

(AP) WASHINGTON – Public disclosure of graphic photos and video taken of Osama bin Laden after U.S. commandos killed him would damage national security and lead to attacks on American property and personnel, the Obama administration contends in court documents.

Here’s the lame argument for releasing the images:

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, accused the Obama administration of making a “political decision” to keep the bin Laden imagery secret. “We shouldn’t throw out our transparency laws because complying with them might offend terrorists,” Fitton said in a statement. “The historical record of Osama bin Laden’s death should be released to the American people as the law requires.”

As you’ll recall, I disagreed with Lindsey Graham about this subject earlier. He was right at the Abu Ghraib pictures, but wrong about this.

And while the AP is just doing its job as it sees it, I believe its own request should be denied as well:

The Associated Press has filed Freedom of Information Act requests to review a range of materials, such as contingency plans for bin Laden’s capture, reports on the performance of equipment during the assault on his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and copies of DNA tests confirming the al Qaeda leader’s identity. The AP also has asked for video and photographs taken from the mission, including photos made of bin Laden after he was killed.

The Obama administration refused AP’s request to consider quickly its request for the records. AP appealed the decision, arguing that unnecessary bureaucratic delays harm the public interest and allow anonymous U.S. officials to selectively leak details of the mission. Without expedited processing, requests for sensitive materials can be delayed for months and even years. The AP submitted its request to the Pentagon less than one day after bin Laden’s death.

OK, maybe not denied. I think a delay of maybe 25 years would be about right. Leave it to historians. Ones with strong stomachs.

A lot of people — including a lot of this administration’s strongest supporters — don’t believe there is such a thing as information that should be withheld for national security reasons. They are wrong. One can have arguments about what should be classified and what should not, but the fact remains that some things should be.

The end (almost) of violence

16 Replies

In my previous post, I referred to the “peaceful times” in which we live. That’s counterintuitive for many people, for two reasons: First, modern communications make them aware of far more, and more widely spread, instances of violence than they would have known of in previous eras. And second, those things grab our attention — indeed, they are reported in the first place — because they stand out as exceptions to the peaceful rule.

There’s a very good piece in The Wall Street Journal today (there are always so many wonderful pieces in that paper on Saturdays — the only day I take now, after my subscription price more than doubled) taking the long view, and explaining why “we may be living in the most peaceable era in human existence.” None of what it says is surprising or new — except perhaps for the statistics — but it’s nice when someone takes a moment and pulls it all together.

In “Violence Vanquished,” Steven Pinker describes six major declines in violence through human history. The first is one that our friends who believe that government is the worst plague ever visited upon mankind should contemplate:

The first was a process of pacification: the transition from the anarchy of the hunting, gathering and horticultural societies in which our species spent most of its evolutionary history to the first agricultural civilizations, with cities and governments, starting about 5,000 years ago.

For centuries, social theorists like Hobbes and Rousseau speculated from their armchairs about what life was like in a “state of nature.” Nowadays we can do better. Forensic archeology—a kind of “CSI: Paleolithic”—can estimate rates of violence from the proportion of skeletons in ancient sites with bashed-in skulls, decapitations or arrowheads embedded in bones. And ethnographers can tally the causes of death in tribal peoples that have recently lived outside of state control.

These investigations show that, on average, about 15% of people in prestate eras died violently, compared to about 3% of the citizens of the earliest states. Tribal violence commonly subsides when a state or empire imposes control over a territory, leading to the various “paxes” (Romana, Islamica, Brittanica and so on) that are familiar to readers of history…

Since those days, violent death has shrunk to less than 1 percent, even if you factor in war-caused disease and famine. Oh, and we’re not just talking about good or benevolent government. Even the plunder economy of the Romans had its positive effect:

It’s not that the first kings had a benevolent interest in the welfare of their citizens. Just as a farmer tries to prevent his livestock from killing one another, so a ruler will try to keep his subjects from cycles of raiding and feuding. From his point of view, such squabbling is a dead loss—forgone opportunities to extract taxes, tributes, soldiers and slaves…

And this is not just about pointing out how wrong the Tea Party is (although deeply wrong it certainly is). Some of our other friends on the left view commerce as though the taking of profit itself were inherently evil and destructive to mankind. Quite  the contrary; it is a civilizing force just as is a well-ordered government (which is why the haters of government and the socialists are both wrong):

Another pacifying force has been commerce, a game in which everybody can win. As technological progress allows the exchange of goods and ideas over longer distances and among larger groups of trading partners, other people become more valuable alive than dead. They switch from being targets of demonization and dehumanization to potential partners in reciprocal altruism.

Finally, back to that matter of perception. If you wish to be simplistic, you can say it’s “the media’s fault,” for always telling you about the bad things rather than the good. If you ever spent, say, a month having to make decisions for a media outlet, you would realize how foolish that is. Even when times were flush, a newspaper’s or television station’s resources, and claim on your time, were finite. If you’re a town crier, your job is to tell people about the one house that’s on fire, so they can rise up and do something about it. You are useless if you instead say, “99.9 percent of the houses in the village are fine.”

That’s not to say I don’t decry the effect. In the grand scheme, media have had a devastating effect on society simply by playing their rightful role as government watchdogs. Over time, readers have come to the shockingly erroneous conclusion that government is nothing but crooks and waste, and the ability of government to be that civilizing force has been seriously weakened. As for violence — one of the most distressing developments of recent years in media is the rise of 24/7 TV news, which creates unlimited time that has to be filled. Consequently, violent crimes that would have been purely local stories 30 years ago are now thrown in the faces of the world constantly. There’s always something bad happening somewhere. This type of coverage creates the impression that it’s happening everywhere all the time.

If you can gain access to the full piece, it’s worth reading. So might be Mr. Pinker’s book, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.

Perhaps they could get Byron as a marriage counselor

13 Replies

Bryan Caskey brings our attention to this line in a Costa Pleicones dissent:

In my opinion, public policy does not require parties live in separate residences in order to bring a separate maintenance and support suit. Instead, I would allow such a suit where the parties no longer have a ‘romantic’ relationship.

Bryan doesn’t like it — he prefers a “bright line” — but I do. I appreciate thoughtfulness and creativity in a judge, up to a point. And as you know, I don’t think everything in the world can be quantified; sometimes we actually have to use judgment. (Also, I’ve never had much trouble with the “I know it when I see it” ruled for obscenity.)

Of course, it could get me in trouble at home. I feel like J and I have more of a Mark Twain kind of marriage than the James Fenimore Cooper kind.

Oh, but wait: I am into tales of chivalry and seafaring, so I guess that’s how I do my part to keep things going. I’m sure she appreciates it.

This voter ID thing is just never, ever going to end, is it? (Please tell me I’m wrong.)

28 Replies

First, for those of you who are new to this blog (and you’re out there, I know, going by my growing readership numbers), I have no truck with either of the two major political parties. And even less with the minor parties that you’ve heard of (the Libertarian Party, for instance, makes the Dems and Repubs look like the soul of reasonableness. Or used to. You can count on less and less, these days).

So when you see me mock a fund-raising press release from the Democrats, do not assume that I’m a Republican. And when I criticize Nikki Haley’s latest madness on Voter ID, do not assume that I’m a Democrat (not that you would, in her case, since she infuriates so many Republicans — although on that issue, they are perfectly in sync with her). When you do those thing, you tick me off, of course — which is why some of you do it on purpose, to get a rise. But more to the point, you find yourself misunderstanding, and following a path that will cause you to to fail to follow other things that you read here.

So it is that, after marveling at the foolish sequence of statements and actions into which her advocacy of Voter ID has led our governess, I now complain at having received yet another communication from the Democrats on the same subject.

As I’ve said over and over, this is an issue that exists purely as something for Democrats and Republicans to fight over. It has no bearing on reality. There are no elections to point to in which significant amounts of fraud occurred, nor elections in which lots of people who followed basic procedures were denied the opportunity to vote. This issue will not affect the outcomes of elections.

But… the Democrats and Republicans believe it will, and that the effect will be manifest along partisan lines. They both believe that it will keep poor black people (and other demographic groups sharing certain characteristics) from voting. The Republicans welcome that anticipated development; the Democrats fear it.

And because of that, day, weeks, even years of legislative time has been wasted on “debate” over this non-issue. It really ticks off the Democrats and Republicans when I say this, because they are both PASSIONATELY devoted to the principles they see at stake — and even more so to the electoral advantage they see as being at stake. You will see a great deal of solemn, deadly serious pronouncements on this subject.

I have lamented every moment wasted on this subject that could have been spent on something else, so I wanted it either to pass or be decisively defeated, so we could move on. Eventually, it passed in South Carolina, and the governor eagerly signed it, and Republicans hailed it as the greatest thing ever, and Democrats wailed and rent their garments, or whatever the modern equivalent is.

For my part, I was glad that it was over. Oh, foolish optimism! Because of course, Republicans are doing all sorts of foolish things to try to ameliorate the perceived harm they have done, and Democrats are getting more and more indignant as days go by, such as in this release I got today:

My Fellow South Carolinians,

My first political memory is sitting on the floor in front of the television watching the results of the 1984 Presidential election with my grandfather. I asked him hundreds of questions about the candidates, the White House, and past Presidents, and in his loving way, my grandfather  attempted to answer each question to the best of his abilities.

Society would have classified my grandfather  as a simple but  hard-working man, a product of the segregated south.  He didn’t have much money, he didn’t have much education, and he didn’t have a fancy job. But what he had and cherished was his dignity, his family, and his right to vote.  It was a right that he didn’t always have — and sometimes didn’t even exercise. Nonetheless he felt it was a right that could not and would not be taken away from him.

The South Carolina Voter ID bill that was passed with GOP support and signed into law by Governor Haley, disenfranchised more than 180,000 South Carolina citizens, and if my grandfather was still alive it would have disenfranchised him as well (after having his leg amputated he no longer had a government issued Driver’s license).

Thanks to the efforts of the Democratic members of the Senate and House, the SC Progressive Network and others to oppose the bill on the grounds that it discriminates against minorities and seniors, the Department of Justice is asking for more information about the legislation.

As Americans, not as Democrats, nor as Republicans, but as Americans, we must keep the pressure on the DOJ, in the 60-day window we have to make sure the SC Voter ID bill is finally struck down.  This bill not only affects our state but others across this nation, who are facing the same efforts to suppress voter participation….

And so on. Pretty moving, passionate stuff, huh? (Although I wish he hadn’t spoken of the extremely recent year of 1984 as though it were olden times, sitting at his grandpa’s knee. I was in my 30s and had already had three kids of my own then.) Yeah, this stuff just isn’t going away.

It’s not that I don’t see merit in what the Dems are complaining about. While I don’t think the new law imposes a significant burden (anyone can find a ride to the DMV SOMEtime during the two-year stretch between elections), I do find the motives of the Republicans off-putting.

Off-putting, but not as horrible as the Democrats think. Because I can see merit in the GOP position to this extent: I don’t believe “easier” is necessarily a good goal when it comes to voting. That runs against something deep in the soul of a Democrat, but there it is. I think this country is full of people — left, right, and middle — who don’t take voting seriously enough. This is why I oppose early voting, and virtual voting, and just about anything other than heading down to the polls and standing in line with all your neighbors on Election Day, being a part of something you are all doing together as citizens. I believe you should have to take some trouble to do it. Not unreasonable amounts of trouble, just some.

We’re expected to deplore low turnout, and I used to dutifully do so. But then I thought, and quit deploring it quite so vehemently. Because when I look at some of the horrible decisions that voters have made because they didn’t think hard enough, and I think of all those people who didn’t care enough even to take the trouble to vote, the last thing we need is to induce those apathetic souls to come out and add their thoughtless votes to the total. We don’t need more voters; we need better votes.

I digress. Back to the topic: Have Voter ID or don’t have it. But let’s not talk about it any more…

“Let them sue.” Amen to that, Warren

7 Replies

Meant to post this yesterday, before the city council’s action. But I’m going to post it anyway, because I agree so strongly with what Warren Bolton had to say in his column Tuesday morning:

Let them sue

By Warren Bolton – Associate Editor

WHILE SOME Columbia officials understandably are concerned about a possible legal challenge, that’s not reason enough for City Council to shun a permanent teen curfew in Five Points.

There’s too much at stake in terms of controlling violence and ensuring overall community safety, particularly the safety and welfare of our children. It would be disappointing for City Council to allow the temporary curfew that’s been in place for about two months to sunset as if all is well. It is not.

This community needs to make a clear, strong statement that it is not acceptable for youngsters to hang out late at night and into the wee hours in bar districts that cater to adults. Nothing good happens there — or anywhere else — for children out during those hours. Children out late at night are just as likely to be victims as perpetrators…

The NAACP and ACLU have threatened to sue if a curfew is enacted.

Let them sue.

… (A) lawsuit might be the best thing that could happen, because this community needs a curfew, and once and for all, we would get a definitive answer…

Amen to that, Warren. Yes, there are those who may sue. Let them bring it on.

If an elected official or administrator is to refrain from responsible action whenever the ACLU threatens to sue, then he or she should resign and let someone with some sand take over. That’s what the ACLU does (I’m not sure what the NAACP does these does other than pursue a boycott that seems designed to have the opposite of the stated effect). That’s what the ACLU will always do. You have to go ahead and govern responsibly anyway.

To extend this point a bit: I also get frustrated when legislative bodies shrink back from doing the right thing because someone may filibuster. Whenever that happens, I say, “Let them.” Allow the filibustering party to make a spectacle of itself. Allow the issues to be aired completely, openly. Let it become obvious who is obstructing effective action. And then, man up and invoke cloture (something senators tend to have a horror of). But if you can’t get the votes to do that, just let the spectacle continue, until either you eventually prevail or the opposing party has burned up every grain of public goodwill it may once have enjoyed. And then try again.

The obstructionists will always do what they do. When you’re trying to do the right and responsible thing, it is your job, your obligation, to overcome their opposition — not be intimidated by it.

The emergency curfew in Five Points

116 Replies

I was thinking about writing something about the “emergency” curfew that Columbia City Council enacted this morning for Five Points, but hey, I wasn’t at the meeting, and I noticed Kathryn saying she was, so why shouldn’t she write it? (Since I first became an editor supervising reporters in 1980, my mind runs that way — why shouldn’t other people go to the meetings and do the work?)

She was kind enough to share this — and quickly, too:

City Council held a “work session” at 8 AM this morning, to accommodate the schedule of at least one council member, to discuss and possibly enact an emergency curfew in Five Points. The recent severe assault and robbery of 18-year-old Carter Strange was determined by the city attorney to be sufficient to justify the measures under a Fourth Circuit case involving a similar curfew in Charlottesville, VA. Council waived the attorney-client privilege that would have necessitated executive session and excluded non-council members from the meeting.

Council heard from both City Attorney Ken Gaines and a municipal attorney from Newberry whose name I do not recall who was engaged for a second opinion. Both said that there was probably sufficient evidence of juvenile involvement in and victimization from crime in the Five Points area to justify the curfew, but cautioned that lawsuits could certainly result. There is no legal requirement to carry an ID and you can’t have ID checkpoints, but if a cop has sufficient belief that someone appears to be under 17, he can detain the person. If no parent or other suitable relative can be found by the end of the curfew period (6 AM), the child would be taken into emergency protective custody by DSS, but NOT DJJ — the kid cannot be held in jail or handcuffs. Parents can be cited, as well.  A lot of discussion about these procedures ensued, as well as discussion of alternative entertainment options in city parks for juveniles–Assistant City Manager and former parks head Allison Baker said that three city parks offer alternatives, with widely varying degrees of juvenile participation. There are no entertainment options open to juveniles in Five Points– Mayor Benjamin pointed out that there are no arcades, ice cream parlors, or movie theaters in Five Points.

Council informally determined to use $450,000 of hospitality taxes to fund a specially trained hospitality zone police team.

Attorney Gaines read additional “whereas” clauses with additional crimes that would justify the enactment of the curfew. Council voted unanimously to enact the 60 day curfew, effective tonight.

My initial reaction to the action by council was, “It’s about time.” Man, but they have dithered over this. Yeah, I know they’ve got all kinds of sound, lawyerly reasons not to act (and are they lawyered up or what?) — one can always find lots of those. But it’s about time.

Are we starting to see a geologic shift between left and right on national security?

32 Replies

This is something I’ve been thinking about the last few days, and I haven’t written about it because it’s complicated and I haven’t had time to do something pulling all the threads together. But when I saw this development, I decided I’d better go ahead and throw out the general idea and get the discussion started:

Obama Says War Powers Act Doesn’t Apply to Libya Mission

White House maintains that the president doesn’t need lawmakers’ permission for U.S. role in NATO-led effort.

The White House on Wednesday told skeptical lawmakers that President Obama doesn’t need their permission to continue the nation’s involvement in the NATO-led mission in Libya because U.S. forces are playing only a supporting role there.

Administration lawyers made their case as part of a larger report sent to Congress responding to complaints that the president had yet to provide a sufficient rationale for continuing the Libya campaign, the New York Times reports.

“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” State Department lawyer Harold Koh told the paper. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”…

OK, digest that. Here’s the NYT version, and here’s the WashPost. And then consider some of the other things I’ve been noticing lately:

  • The fact that, in the GOP debate the other night, we heard some Republicans moving more toward the “get out of Afghanistan ASAP” line. Ron Paul, treated as an outcast for saying such things four years ago, got cheered by the Fox News crowd.
  • The bold way Obama decided to go in and GET bin Laden, without any of that multilateral consult-the-allies (as in, tell the Pakistanis we’re attacking in the heart of their country) touchy-feely stuff. No fooling around.
  • The way the administration is playing on having stunned the world with the bin Laden thing to get its way elsewhere. That prompted me to write that the difference between Bush and Obama is that Bush was Sonny, while Obama is the far-deadlier (that is, more effective) Michael.
  • The way Obama is taking advantage of chaos in Yemen to just GO AFTER terrorists there, without asking Congress or the UN, or presenting arguments about the War Powers Act, or anything like that. Read this, and this.

This has been building ever since the election, with a lot of Obama’s antiwar base feeling pretty disoriented (wait — is this who we elected?), and people like me being reassured by his steady pragmatism.

But lately, the process has seemed to be accelerating. Obama still talks a good war-as-last-resort, multilateral, we-don’t-want-to-be-a-bully line for the base… but watch what happens. (And how about the way he threw everybody off-balance on Libya, letting the FRENCH of all people take the lead, while still managing to get in there and go after the bad guys? That enabled him to have it both ways. The allies couldn’t do it without us, but it came across looking like we were a reluctant junior partner, which bought Obama some support for the move among liberals.)

And I find myself wondering, is anyone else noticing? I mean, while the Republicans get more timid about the U.S. role abroad (in some ways) and obsess more and more about domestic issues (because that’s what the Tea Party cares about), Obama is out there going all JFK and LBJ. He’s going Old School. He’s defining Democratic presidential leadership back to where it was before Vietnam.

Are the parties moving toward switching places?

This is a fascinating development. I think it has the potential to completely realign the country politically, and on more than national security.

Anybody else noticing this?

Thirty-two to zero? That’s what gets me

13 Replies

This release came in last night; I just noticed it:

COLUMBIA, S.C., June 14, 2011 — In a 32-0 vote, the South Carolina Senate today passed a measure halting the use of video cameras in the enforcement of speed limits.  Passage of S.336 came after months of debate in both the House and Senate. The Town of Ridgeland had placed automatic cameras along I-95, issuing thousands of camera-assisted traffic citations in the process.

“This is a hard-fought win for liberty, and a well-deserved loss for Big Brother,” says Senator Larry Grooms, Chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee and author of the bill.  “Good riddance to what was nothing more than a small-town money grab and a menace to motorists.”

The bill now heads to the Governor.

###

Remember when I wrote about this before? (My headline was, “Everything that’s wrong with the SC Legislature.”) OK, I get it that some people, infected with all this nonsensical fear of Big Brother (and as you know, I love Big Brother, and hope he knows it), would object to the perfectly commonsense idea of using cameras to enforce the speed laws.

I can even see rational objections to the practice. For instance, if the speeder doesn’t get stopped, and doesn’t even see a cop car, there is no immediate deterrent effect. Sure, you can post the fact that the speed is monitored by cameras, but does that work as well. (The obvious presence of police is a more effective deterrent, affecting more drivers, than the actual issuance of tickets.)

But what I have trouble processing is that NO ONE in the Senate would object to this, yet another case of the bullying General Assembly stepping on the throats of local governments. Yeah, I know that once all the discussion has occurred, things tend to pass unanimously in the Senate — which is another thing — but sheesh.

In case you didn’t notice, the Legislature is NOT in session today…

68 Replies

Having a busy workday today, and don’t really have time a lot of time to dwell on the SC Supreme Court’s sensible decision in stopping Nikki Haley from violating the separation of powers. The salient part:

Chief Justice Jean Toal and justices Donald Beatty and Kaye Hearn voted to block Haley’s order to call lawmakers back at 10 a.m. Tuesday, writing that the General Assembly “has not adjourned … and, therefore, is still in its annual session. Under these specific facts, respondent (Gov. Nikki Haley) cannot convene an ‘extra’ session of the General Assembly since it is currently in session. To do so would interrupt the annual session and would violate the General Assembly’s authority to set its calendar and agenda and would constitute a violation of the separation of powers provision.”

That was the thing. My good friend Kevin Hall (the governor’s attorney) had stated rather forcefully that the governor has the authority to call back lawmakers. Yeah. But she can’t call them BACK when they’re still in session (although in recess), and already have a defined agenda, and tell them have a whole other session in the middle of this one, and use it to do what I want. As I’ve said before, I am for having a much stronger governor in South Carolina (which is why I agree with the gov on three of the four things she wants). But I want a chief executive with more power to run the executive branch, not dictate legislative matters to a coequal branch.

A perceptive friend who doesn’t follow this stuff as obsessively as I do said, after reading The State‘s story, that Glenn McConnell doesn’t seem to think much of the governor. Well, to be fair, Glenn McConnell doesn’t think much of any governor, although they’re all right in his book as long as they know their place.

After saying in his courtly way that he would be happy to support amending the agenda when lawmakers come back as planned so as to allow them to take up the matters that concern the governor, he said this:

“I support the bills, and we’ll vote (on whether) to put them in the sine die,” McConnell said Monday, referring to the resolution that lays out the bills that senators can consider when they return. “But I’m only one of 46 senators. If (Haley) will use as much energy to get votes as she did to run over the Constitution, she’ll make it. She needs to get out and get the votes. The ball is in her court.”

I was busy laughing at the Senate president pro tem’s statement that “I’m only one of 46 senators” (he is such a wacky cutup) but when I got to the next sentence, I was like, “Whoa! Sen. McConnell is not amused…”

The free market at work in the SC General Assembly

8 Replies

A couple of weeks ago, I appeared on Cynthia Hardy’s TV show to talk about tort reform. Because I was asked. Which just goes to show, if asked, I will talk about pretty much anything. Seriously, though… I forgot to mention it to y’all at the time, but as far as my comments are concerned, you didn’t miss much. My position on the issue is what it’s been for years — I’m not convinced on caps, and I think punitive damages (that is to say, those damages above and beyond what it takes to make the winning plaintiff whole) should go to the state — just like other punitive fines for criminal offenses. Basically, you would actually punish people who might otherwise write off lesser damages as the cost of doing business, but you remove the incentive for individuals and their attorneys to use the tort system as some sort of lottery.

For more, you can look at The State‘s editorial from earlier this year, and Cindi’s column from last year. I generally agree.

Beyond that, I’ve sort of lost track of the debate this year. I do that sometimes when neither side is pushing the position I would go for, and I have other things to do.

Seems that, according to Wesley Donehue (who works for the Senate Republicans) things are coming to a head today:

Wesley Donehue
Watching the trial lawyers in the SC Senate block tort reform.

36 minutes ago via Twitter for iPhone

Hmmm. Well, I don’t suppose anyone can argue with that. I mean, it’s the free market at work, with each individual selfishly protecting his own economic interests. The Tea Party types and Sanfordistas should be thrilled. And the trial lawyers should certainly be happy.

But come to think of it, not too great for the Chamber of Commerce, or the legislative leadership. Or for the rest of us. But then, unless the legislation has changed considerably since the last time I looked at it, I’m not sure our interests would have been all that well served either way…