Best of the Web Today - January 3, 2005
By JAMES TARANTO
Harry Reid's Big Dairy Error
When Congress reconvenes tomorrow, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada is set to become the leader of the Senate Democrats. Readers of this column will recall that last month we criticized Reid for calling Justice Clarence Thomas an "embarrassment" and saying Thomas's opinions are "poorly written," in contrast with those of the brilliant Antonin Scalia. We noted that Reid hadn't given an example of a poorly written Thomas opinion, and wondered if Reid's statement didn't amount to simple bigotry: stereotyping Thomas as unintelligent because he is black.
An alert reader points out that on the Dec. 26 episode of "Inside Politics," a little-watched CNN show, Reid actually did name such an opinion, at the request of host Ed Henry (we've corrected several obvious transcription errors here):
Henry: When you were asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether or not you could support Justice Thomas to be chief justice you said quote, "I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written." Could you name one of those opinions that you think is poorly written?
Reid: Oh sure, that's easy to do. You take the Hillside Dairy case. In that case you had a dissent written by Scalia and a dissent written by Thomas. There--it's like looking at an eighth-grade dissertation compared to somebody who just graduated from Harvard.
Scalia's is well reasoned. He doesn't want to turn stare decisis precedent on its head. That's what Thomas wants to do. So yes, I think he has written a very poor opinion there and he's written other opinions that are not very good.
It's interesting to learn that in Nevada eighth-graders write dissertations; we guess that explains how Harry Reid got to be as erudite as he is. He must immerse himself deeply in legal scholarship to be familiar with a case like Hillside Dairy v. Lyons, which doesn't exactly rank up there with Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade among famous Supreme court rulings.
To be honest, we'd never even heard of Hillside Dairy until we read the CNN transcript, so we went and looked it up. It turns out to be a 2003 case about California milk regulation. Here is Thomas's opinion in full:
I join Parts I and III of the Court's opinion and respectfully dissent from Part II, which holds that §144 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 7 U.S.C. §7254, "does not clearly express an intent to insulate California's pricing and pooling laws from a Commerce Clause challenge." Ante, at 6-7. Although I agree that the Court of Appeals erred in its statutory analysis, I nevertheless would affirm its judgment on this claim because "[t]he negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application," Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564, 610 (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting), and, consequently, cannot serve as a basis for striking down a state statute.
Is that written at an eighth-grade level? We report, you decide.
What about that Scalia dissent Reid found so impressive that he thought it worthy of a recent Harvard undergrad (rather a backhanded compliment, since Scalia actually graduated from Harvard Law School 45 years ago)? Here it is, quoted also in its entirety: ""
That's right, there was no Scalia dissent. Scalia joined the court's majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, as did every other justice except Thomas, and he dissented only from Part II.
Reid's substantive criticism of Thomas--if it can be dignified with such a description--turns out to be equally empty. According to Reid, Scalia "doesn't want to turn stare decisis precedent on its head," while Thomas does. Presumably this refers to Thomas's rejection of the court's "negative Commerce Clause" jurisprudence. In his Hillside Dairy opinion, as we've seen, Thomas does not elaborate on this, instead pointing the reader to his lengthy dissent in the earlier Newfound/Owatonna case--a dissent Scalia joined. In other words, Thomas and Scalia both would overturn Supreme Court precedent in this area; the only point of disagreement in Hillside Dairy was whether to address the question in this particular case.
We suppose Reid will find some staff knucklehead to take the fall for this appallingly shoddy research, but the question remains: Why is the Democratic leader of the U.S. Senate so intent on insulting the intelligence of Clarence Thomas, the only black member of the Supreme Court?
Newsmax.com reports that "the Congressional Black Caucus has told Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., that he crossed the line earlier this month when he called Justice Clarence Thomas 'an embarrassment to the Supreme Court' ":
"We wrote a letter to Sen. Reid cautioning him about his comments," incoming CBC Chairman Mel Watt, D-N.C., told radio host Steve Malzberg, who was filling in Wednesday on Bill Bennett's "Morning in America" show.
"I think all of us ought to focus more on substance and less on stereotypes and caricatures," Watt said.
When Trent Lott crossed the line two years ago, Republicans, after some hesitation, did the right thing and ousted him as their leader. If the Democrats retain Reid, it will tell us something about the party's commitment to racial equality.
Idiotarian Tidal Wave
Tsunami news got you down? The Ayn Rand Institute come to the rescue with some comic relief, an article titled "U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims" by David Holcberg:
Every cent the government spends comes from taxation. Every dollar the government hands out as foreign aid has to be extorted from an American taxpayer first. . . . The question no one asks about our politicians' "generosity" towards the world's needy is: By what right? By what right do they take our hard-earned money and give it away?
The funniest part, though, is the opening paragraph:
As the death toll mounts in the areas hit by Sunday's tsunami in southern Asia, private organizations and individuals are scrambling to send out money and goods to help the victims. Such help may be entirely proper, especially considering that most of those affected by this tragedy are suffering through no fault of their own.
Which of the tsunami victims are at fault for their suffering? That would be the Swedes, according to an outfit called the Westboro Baptist Church (motto: "God hates fags"). "Thank God for Tsunami & 2,000 dead Swedes!!!" declares a Dec. 29 news release from the group, which refers to Sweden as "land of the sodomite damned." Well, maybe every tsunami has a silver lining, but what about the 148,000-plus dead non-Swedes? Can't God do a better job of avoiding collateral damage?
To be fair, the Ayn Rand Institute takes the position that "government should not have the power to legislate morality," which would seem to be at odds with the Westboro view of homosexuality. But Sweden does have very high taxes and other socialist economic policies of which Ayn Rand definitely wouldn't approve.
What Would We Do Without Global Warming Experts?
"Global Warming Expert Says Tsunami Shows Vulnerability to Rising Sea Levels"--headline, Voice of America Web site, Jan. 3
Delusional Desmond
Newsweek's Web site carries an interview with Desmond Tutu, the Anglican archbishop emeritus of Johannesburg, South Africa, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 for his antiapartheid activities. Once a morally serious man, Tutu now is completely besotted with anti-Americanism. Most of the interview is pretty banal: He complains about the ickiness of liberating Iraq while saying not a word about Saddam Hussein's depredations; the interviewer gives him a chance to criticize "fundamentalist Islam" and he changes the subject. But this exchange is astounding:
Q: You said George Bush should admit that he made a mistake [by liberating Iraq]. Were you surprised at his re-election?
Tutu: [Laughs] I still can't believe that it really could have happened. Just look at the facts on the table: He'd gone into a war having misled people--whether deliberately or not--about why he went to war. You would think that would have knocked him out [of the race.] It didn't. Look at the number of American soldiers who have died since he claimed that the war had ended. And yet it seems this doesn't make most Americans worry too much.
I was teaching in Jacksonville, Fla., [during the election campaign] and I was shocked, because I had naively believed all these many years that Americans genuinely believed in freedom of speech. [But I] discovered there that when you made an utterance that was remotely contrary to what the White House was saying, then they attacked you. For a South African the déjà vu was frightening. They behaved exactly the same way that used to happen here [during apartheid]--vilifying those who are putting forward a slightly different view.
What Tutu is actually complaining about is the exercise of free speech; the equation of "vilifying"--i.e., criticism--to suppression is a common left-wing trope. But for Tutu, a man who has actually lived under an oppressive system, to liken free speech in America to apartheid shows just how deeply delusional the ideology of anti-Americanism has become.
The World's Smallest Violin
Debka.com's "Exclusive Middle East sources" tell the Israeli Web site that a lawyer for Saddam Hussein has described a conversation with the erstwhile Iraqi dictator:
Saddam is confined to a cell of five by three meters with no window. Sometimes he is let out to a 15 by 5 meter unroofed hall where he can see the sky. . . . The former Iraqi dictator is cut off from the outside world. Despite some reports, he has no access to newspapers, radio or television. He has received only two letters from his close family, the contents of which were mostly deleted or cut out by the censors. . . .
He had two main gripes. One was that the Americans will not let him shave his beard despite his repeated requests. He even offered to let a US military barber shave him, but they refused. His theory is that the Americans want to make sure that whenever he appears in public, as he did on June 30, 2004 before an Iraqi investigating judge, he will look confused, unkempt and too low in spirits to bother to shave.
His second complaint was against the Red Cross workers. He wanted their visits stopped because he said they are neither polite nor respectful.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Kurds, Shiites, Iraqi dissidents, Iranians and girls who caught Uday Hussein's eye are still dead.
This Just In--I
"It was a bad year for . . . Yasser Arafat"--subheadline (ellipsis in original), Guardian (London), Jan. 1
This Just In--II and III
"Democrats Split Again Over Party's Agenda"--headline, Los Angeles Times, Jan. 2
"Bigger Republican Majority Plans to Push Bush Agenda"--headline, New York Times, Jan. 2
Zero-Tolerance Watch
Here's good news of a sort from KABC-TV in Los Angeles:
When classes resume tomorrow, schools will be required to allow students to carry and use asthma inhalers, provided they have written permission from their doctors and parents or guardians.
The law, which took effect yesterday, is designed to help reduce asthma-related emergencies. . . .
Before the law's passage, school districts could ban students with asthma from carrying or self-administering medications. At some schools, that resulted in students in the throes of an attack having to seek help from a school nurse or other designated personnel.
The change is certainly welcome, but why do Californians entrust the education of their children to people who are unable or unwilling to act according to common sense unless there's a law mandating it?
Meanwhile, Fox News reports that "California schools are forbidden from telling parents when their kids leave class to seek 'confidential medical treatment'--including drug counseling and even abortion, according to the state attorney general's office."
Nut, Fruitcake Still Undecided
"Flake Comes Out for Bloomberg"--headline, Daily News (New York), Jan. 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Would We Do Without 15-Year Studies?
"15-Year Study Links Fast Food to Obesity"--headline, Guardian (London), Dec. 31
Hold the Pickles, Experts Say
"Social Security Pickle Fuels Expert Discord"--headline, Seattle Times, Jan. 3
What Would Experts Do Without Experience?
"Experts' Advice Often Based on Experience"--headline, Contra Costa (Calif.) Times, Jan. 3
It's the Numonymy, Stupid
Our item Thursday on the ubiquitous Amanda Tree prompted several readers to write us asking for an explanation of New York Times reporter Jennifer 8. Lee's middle initial, which they thought was odd. It turns out 8. is not short for 867-5309, which would be odd, but is actually even. Here's the explanation from Wikipedia.org's bio of Lee:
Her middle name was given by her parents in her teens because there are too many people named Jennifer Lee. She spells her middle name "8." on paper, but on her driver's license it is spelt as a much less dramatic "Eight." Her parents were from Taiwan and were influenced by the typically Chinese custom that sees number 8 as a symbol of prosperity.
Which we guess answers the other obvious question: No, she is not a descendant of the Confederate general Robert 8. Lee. |
