Leave a Comment

The 99 Percent Solution
Matthew Yglesias — ... What an idiotic statement. If Sarah Palin said something so stupid, she’d be pilloried from coast to coast. As I explained months ago (when Obama used a figure of 95% for the same general proposition): ...

Bill Dyer: Obama is at least badly misleading in minimizing the number of SCOTUS "hard cases" in which judicial philosophy is determinative
Hugh Hewitt's TownHall Blog — ... that the Second Amendment is actually an individual right. I think that's the better argument. And so, I can have those kinds of discussions with a Justice without getting to the particulars of, "Is Roe versus Wade, as currently outlined, exactly what you believe?" Or "Do you agree that the D.C. gun law should have been overturned?" And I think Senator McCain, if he ends up being the nominee, could have those same conversations as well. Of this, Ed writes (links in original): As I explained months ago (when Obama used a figure of 95% for the same general proposition): As ...

Re: Obama's 99% Lie
The Corner on National Review Online — ... In other words, Yglesias contends that Obama s 99% assertion is not about Supreme Court cases, but about the total federal docket. Yglesias is mistaken. Apart from the fact that Obama s comments in the MSNBC interview were expressly in the context of Supreme Court nominations, Obama has previously made crystal-clear that he s talking about Supreme Court cases. (As I pointed out, he s previously said 95% rather than 99%). From a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer (which was in the post of mine that I linked to and which Yglesias evidently didn t read): BLITZER: You know a lot ...

Is litigation the answer to the CPSIA problem?
Overlawyered — ... ; that number is not going to grow under President Obama (who has explicitly disclaimed any need to appoint judges who merely “follow the law”) and a Democratic Senate. ...