That Was Then, This Is Now

by hilzoy December 20, 2007: “1. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes? McCain: There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that … Read more

The Battle of Evermore

by Eric Martin Patrick Cockburn’s story has apparently caught the attention of some senior Bush administration officials: The United States is not seeking permanent military bases in Iraq as it negotiates legal and military agreements with the Iraqi government, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker said here today. Speaking at the State Department, Crocker … Read more

Walking The Walk

by hilzoy From the NYT: “Senator Barack Obama, as he becomes his party’s presumptive presidential nominee, is starting to exert his authority over the Democratic National Committee. A first step? New fund-raising guidelines. Mr. Obama announced today that the D.N.C. will no longer accept contributions from federal lobbyists or political action committees, which follows the … Read more

He Still Comes Reeling Through the Door

by Eric Martin Patrick Cockburn claims that details of the long term deal for maintaining US troops in Iraq sought by the Bush administration (the Security Framework agreement and associated Status of Forces Agreement) have leaked to the Independent. Similar details have emerged in Arab media in recent days as well. Nevertheless, to be taken … Read more

Pay No Attention to the 400 Pound Gorilla

by publius Today’s postmortem from the Post: In reality, Clinton lost the nomination long before May 6. The early mistakes have been well documented: a flawed message that focused too much on inevitability and not enough on change; a failure to make Clinton more appealing to Iowa voters; a strategic miscalculation about the importance of … Read more

From My Inbox

by hilzoy From Senator Clinton: “I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice … Read more

History

by hilzoy I didn’t support Barack Obama because of his race. I didn’t need to: I just thought he was the best candidate by a long ways, mostly for wonky reasons. (I started down the road to supporting Obama when I read this sentence from a Washington Monthly article: “On the campaign trail in 2004, … Read more

McCain Says The Darndest Things!

by hilzoy That’s a clip of John McCain claiming that he has voted in favor of every investigation into the levee failures after Hurricane Katrina. The only trouble is, it’s not true. Here’s one investigation he voted against; here’s another. (H/t) McCain seems to be doing this a lot. Recently, McCain said, about the Lieberman/Warner … Read more

A Small Request

by hilzoy During the next Presidential campaign, could we please, please, skip the part, in the fall before the primaries, where we are subjected to a rash of stories about whether one candidate or another is inevitable? I would have thought that the media might have figured out the stupidity of this back in 2004, … Read more

Lord, Will You Make Her a Star?

by Eric Martin I propose that we at Obsidian Wings hold a massive fundraiser.  Then I, posing as a right wing Scaife type with millions in tow (I have a killer fake moustache), will approach John McCain with an offer to pay Kathryn Jean Lopez’s entire salary if he will take her on as the … Read more

The Nominee

by publius The big story tonight is that Obama won the nomination. Clinton’s speech deserves its own post, but not right now. Tonight is Obama’s night. The primary has been so grueling that it’s easy to lose sight of the big picture. But when you take a step back to reflect on it, it’s amazing … Read more

Election Night Open Thread

by publius I just got out of a basketball game, so I missed Clinton’s speech (though the gym had on Fox News, and I suspect I’m going to be upset based on the tidbits of commentary I saw). It looks like she conceded nothing. Anyhoo, open thread. Obama’s just starting to speak now. More later. … Read more

Bad Movies

by hilzoy Over at Crooked Timber they’re having a discussion of Movies To Avoid Watching Before You Die. The discussion there leads me to three conclusions about the commenters: (1) They are, for the most part, young, as witness their focus on movies like Starship Troopers. If they were more antiquated, as I am, they … Read more

Phil Gramm: There’s More

by hilzoy

Recently, two more articles about Phil Gramm, “McCain’s Economic Brain“, have appeared. MSNBC had reported a week ago that Gramm was a paid lobbyist for UBS, one of the banks most heavily involved in the subprime scandal, until six weeks ago. Now Newsweek adds this:

“NEWSWEEK has learned that UBS is also currently the focus of congressional and Justice Department investigations into schemes that allegedly enabled wealthy Americans to evade income taxes by stashing their money in overseas havens, according to several law-enforcement and banking officials in both the United States and Europe, who all asked for anonymity when discussing ongoing investigations. In April, UBS withdrew Gramm’s lobbying registration, but one of his former congressional aides, John Savercool, is still registered to lobby legislators for UBS on numerous issues, including a bill cosponsored by Sen. Barack Obama that would crack down on foreign tax havens. “UBS is treating these investigations with the utmost seriousness and has committed substantial resources to cooperate,” a UBS spokesman told NEWSWEEK, adding that Gramm was deregistered as a lobbyist because he spends less than 20 percent of his time on such activity. Hazelbaker said the McCain campaign “will not comment on the details … of ongoing investigations and legal charges not yet proved in court.””

A new article in the Texas Monthly Observer is even more interesting, and worth reading in its entirety. It begins:

“In the early evening of Friday, December 15, 2000, with Christmas break only hours away, the U.S. Senate rushed to pass an essential, 11,000-page government reauthorization bill. In what one legal textbook would later call “a stunning departure from normal legislative practice,” the Senate tacked on a complex, 262-page amendment at the urging of Texas Sen. Phil Gramm.

There was little debate on the floor. According to the Congressional Record, Gramm promised that the amendment—also known as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act—along with other landmark legislation he had authored, would usher in a new era for the U.S. financial services industry.(…)

With the U.S. economy now battered by a tsunami of mortgage foreclosures, the $30-billion Bear Stearns Companies bailout and spiking food and energy prices, many congressional leaders and Wall Street analysts are questioning the wisdom of the radical deregulation launched by Gramm’s legislative package. Financial wizard Warren Buffett has labeled the risky new investment instruments Gramm unleashed “financial weapons of mass destruction.” They have fed the subprime mortgage crisis like an accelerant. While his distracted peers probably finalized their Christmas gift lists, Gramm created what Wall Street analysts now refer to as the “shadow banking system,” an industry that operates outside any government oversight, but, as witnessed by the Bear Stearns debacle, requiring rescue by taxpayers to avert a national economic catastrophe.”

One part of that bill was what’s called the ‘Enron Loophole’:

“The impact of the “Enron loophole” has been enormous. Since its passage, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has concluded that the loophole contributed to inflated energy prices for American consumers. In 2006, its report found credible expert estimates that the loophole—by encouraging speculation—accounted for $20 of the price of a barrel of oil, then at $70. In 2007, the same committee blamed the loophole for price manipulation of the natural gas market by a single hedge fund, Amaranth Advisors.”

But Gramm’s legislation also seems to have legalized what are known as ‘credit default swaps’:

“Prior to its passage, they say, banks underwrote mortgages and were responsible for the risks involved. Now, through the use of credit default swaps—which in theory insure the banks against bad debts—those risks are passed along to insurance companies and other investors.

Maryland law professor Greenberger believes credit default swaps “were a key factor in encouraging lenders to feel they could make loans without knowing the risks or whether the loan would be paid back. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act freed them of federal oversight.”

Before passage of the modernization act, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission was attempting to regulate the swaps market through rule-making. The modernization act, Gramm noted in his remarks on the Senate floor, provided “legal certainty” for the growing swaps market. That was necessary, Greenberger says, because at the time, “banks were doing these trades in direct violation of federal law.””

There’s a decent explanation of credit default swaps here. As I understand it, the basic idea is this:

Read more

The Hard Sell

by Eric Martin Brandon Friedman (whom I make a habit of reading on a regular basis) discusses the recent emergence of some less than ethical means that the US Army is using to bolster its sagging numbers. The latest measures involve using thinly veiled threats and intimidation to coerce inactive soldiers to reenlist (Along the … Read more

More on Primary Reform

by publius Brien Jackson has a thoughtful section-by-section reply to my post on primary election reform. Check it out. One theme expressed both there and in the (quite impressive) comment thread is that there is a place for smaller-scale retail level politics that values organizational abilities. That’s one reason for beginning with small states, and … Read more

Glimmers of Hope from Roberts and Alito

by publius

I’ve now had a chance to dig into last week’s Supreme Court opinions — CBOCs v. Humphries and Gomez-Perez v. Potter (pdfs). Both cases extended civil rights protections to claims of retaliation (I’ll explain below). What’s most interesting about the opinions is that they illustrate why Roberts and Alito are quite different from the more reactionary Scalia/Thomas wing. In fact, I think these opinions suggest that Roe v. Wade may (MAY) be safer than it appears, even under a McCain presidency.

First, some exceedingly brief background. The cases above involved two civil rights statutes — Section 1981 prohibits a certain type of racial discrimination, while the ADEA prohibits age discrimination. The precise question was whether these two statutes cover retaliation for complaining about these forms of discrimination.

For instance, if your boss says, “I’m firing you because you’re too old,” that’s clear discrimination. But let’s assume the boss had fired someone else for that same reason. And let’s say that, in response, you complained to other managers about it and they fired you for your efforts (i.e., they retaliated). In that scenario, have you been “discriminated” against “on the basis of age”?

That’s what the Court had to decide — How broadly should the statutes be construed? The upshot is that construing the text broadly would make it easier to bring discrimination claims. Construing it more narrowly, by contrast, would make it harder.

In both cases, the Court found that the statutes covered retaliation — so it was a win for the forces of good. But the alignment was interesting. The race case was 7-2, with Roberts and Alito joining the liberals. The age case was 6-3, because the majority lost Roberts (but Roberts’ dissent is still quite different from the Thomas/Scalia one).

To be grossly general for the sake of the non-lawyers, the two cases pitted textualism versus stare decisis (i.e., respect for precedent).* The textual basis for retaliation claims is fairly shaky. There are plausible readings that get you there, but it’s a very close call. There are, however, several prior cases that extend these protections to retaliation claims. The dilemma for Roberts and Alito is that they were being asked to uphold prior decisions they presumably disagreed with, ideologically speaking.

But they upheld them anyway — in doing so, they were “acting against interest.” It would have been very easy for Alito and Roberts to say “no text, no claim.” But instead, they endorsed these prior cases, warts and all (warts from a conservative perspective, that is).

Indeed, Alito endorsed this precedent in both cases. And while Roberts dissented in the age case, his dissent was rooted in the unique textual structure of that individual statute (frankly, I think he was probably right). Notably, he did not go along with Scalia and Thomas who claimed that “discrimination” never encompasses retaliation.

I think we can take a few tentative lessons from these opinions. To be sure, I don’t want to read too much into one day’s worth of decisions. These may well be outliers. But disclaimer aside, here goes:

Read more

Go Start Anew — Reforming the Nomination Process

by publius One overlooked aspect of the DNC’s admittedly clusterf***ish meeting this weekend is that things could have been far worse. Consider this — what if the meeting had actually mattered? What if the actual nomination had depended on how the DNC handled Michigan and Florida? That, my friends, would have been ugly. Really, really … Read more

Clinton’s Dangerous Liaisons

by publius This Taylor Marsh post (via Crowley) illustrates perfectly why the Clinton campaign’s public reaction to yesterday’s events matters. What’s particularly maddening is that Clinton insiders appear ready to give up the ghost rather soon. Thus, Ickes’ little temper-tantrum was basically for show. The problem, though, is that this public theater has concrete, harmful … Read more