Check the Courts

Judicial Activism -- the usurpation of legislative powers by the judiciary -- is in my opinion one of the biggest problems facing our country. It threatens to undermine democracy be replacing the rule of the people through their elected officials with the rule of judges through judicial fiat. Anyway I've written about this fairly extensively here, here, and here.

The question arises, "what do we do to keep the courts in check?" Lawyers at the corner have had an extensive debate about the practicality of impeaching judges. Glenn Reynolds has also added his own suggestions. Among them are term limits for judges and having a super-majority override of judicial decisions.

I find both of these options lacking.

Term limits may make the politicians more accountable, but to whom? Probably to the political majority. A step like this would only further the main problem we have with the judiciary: its politicization. Courts are supposed to tell the majority to "take a hike" when it is running roughshod over the constitutionally enumerated rights of the minority. Term limits would -- if judges can be reapointed -- only make them more mindful of the political ramifications of their decisions. But judges should mind only the law and constitution.

I have no problem with a super majority override of court decisions, though I don't think It would really change much. We already have a super majority way of checking the courts through amending the constitution, but this is largely impracticable. Any attempt is denounced as "playing politics with the constitution." Perhaps if a supper majority can override the court without changing the constitution, it would help in a PR campaign but I doubt it would provide the strong check need on the judicary. I'm told in Canada the parliament has as super majority override, and that whenever its use is even considered, the media goes wild with accusations of "the parliament infringing upon the independent judiciary" -- even though such a law is, by design, supposed to infringe upon the judiciary.

I think -- though I'm not positive-- that requiring a court to have some sort of super majority for any constitutional ruling may be appropriate. Then, if a ruling is reached that is widely unpopular, and based on statutory law, the legislature can change the ruling by changing the statute with a simple majority. Courts could still make decisions based on the constitution, but there would have to be enough of a consensus to convince 2/3rds or even 3/4ths of the judges. I think this would make constitutional judicial activism very rare. one problem is that standing opinions, which were inapropriately based on the constitution, e.g., Rove v. Wade, would be near imposible to overturn.

I'm not 100% sure this is a foolproof answer, but it seems to me like it may be a good fix.

Are you a South Park conservative?

Coulter on the food fight here; my previous thoughts here.

Take a virtual tour of a lego church, and genographics here.

Take That Lobsterbacks!

From the corner:

HEY, I LOVE THE BRITISH [Jonah Goldberg]
But this guy doesn't. From a reader:
I think I'll sleep a bit better tonight knowing that al-Qaeda's master poisoner thinks that the best way to kill large numbers of Britons is to target the toothbrushes.
Isn't it possible that this plan was designed to occur simultaneously with 9/11 but nobody in Britain has bought a toothbrush since then?

Laugh Out Loud

There was a bunch of stuff I found interesting and funny in Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus today.
Here are some of my favorites:

You may have missed that Judge Guido Calabresi has been admonished by a judicial panel. Why was he admonished? Last June, he urged the defeat of President Bush. And in the bargain, Calabresi — a former dean of Yale Law School, and a Clinton appointee — compared Bush’s actions in the 2000 election to the machinations of Hitler and Mussolini. You betcha. (A story on the matter is here.) Calabresi was speaking before a left-wing group, cutely named the American Constitution Society. Have a sample of the judge’s thought: “Like Mussolini, [Bush] has exercised extraordinary power. One of the things that is at stake is the assertion by the democracy that when that has happened it is important to put that person out.”

Frankly, I sort of like it when Democrats speak their minds, à la Calabresi. Good for him. Comparisons of Bush to evil dictators are routine in liberal circles, such as the judge inhabits. (In truth, Bush is a bringer-down of evil dictators.) Why keep these beliefs hidden? Why pretend that Calabresi has ever been any other kind of thinker?

Chalk up one more example of liberal lunacy -- and add it to electing Howard Dean head of the DNC, allowing Al Sharpton to speak at the Democratic convention, embracing Michael Moore, etc.

The Washington Post’s Richard Cohen is an honest writer, basically. He wears his hates on his sleeve. In his 4/7 column, he wrote, “. . . I knew that the most alarming case against Saddam Hussein — that he was an imminent threat to the United States — was a lie.”

Please note that word “imminent” — and recall what President Bush said in his State of the Union address, before he went to war against Saddam: “Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations will come too late.”

And more, this last line had me laughing quite heartilly:

Bear in mind that Charles Rangel is not some street-corner ranter. He is a member of the U.S. Congress, and the ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. If his party wins a majority next year, he will be chairman.

Rangel gave a speech about Social Security before black retired workers outside New York’s City Hall. Meghan Clyne of the New York Sun reports:

. . . For black Americans, the congressman added, the struggle against the proposed changes in the entitlement system was “not only a civil-rights fight, but a fight for America.” Mr. Rangel called on African-Americans to continue their “missionary” work against the Social Security proposals and likened the effort to his marching with Martin Luther King Jr. from Selma to Montgomery.

“We have to get rid of the bums that are trying to take it away from us,” Mr. Rangel said of the Social Security system, referring to Republicans in Washington and City Hall — “people who sleep with Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the rest of them.”

A member of the City Council from Brooklyn, Charles Barron, joined Mr. Rangel in urging African-Americans to stand against alterations to the system. “It’s bad enough they won’t pay us our reparations,” Mr. Barron, who for a time was seeking the Democratic mayoral nomination, said. “Now they’re trying to take away our Social Security!”

Neither Mr. Barron nor Mr. Rangel detailed at the meeting why the president’s proposals were harmful to the black community. When asked for specifics by The New York Sun after the event, Mr. Rangel said, “The progressive nature of being able to get returns means that lower-income people benefit more than higher-income people” from the Social Security system. Since members of minority groups disproportionately constitute the lower income brackets, the congressman said, they stand to lose the most from Mr. Bush’s efforts — which the congressman labeled “fraud” and an “impeachable offense.”

I’m trying to figure out which is most interesting: that Rangel considers opposition to Social Security reform a civil-rights stance; that he regards reform as an “impeachable offense”; or that he saw fit to invoke the name of Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy secretary of defense, in a speech demonizing Social Security reform.

Anything to get that name out, I guess — a name that, as Mark Steyn says, begins with a scary animal and ends Jewishly.

You should read the whole thing; well worth it.

Correction

The Factcheck write-up on the specious Social Security calculator was actually written the same day as my post, and theirs was probably actually posted early. Drat. I guess now I can only take comfort in the fact that my debunking was more thorough: Including the false notions of a "cap" on how much money could be contributed to private accounts, as well as calling the money diverted from Social Security a loan, instead of what it actually is; an opportunity cost.

It's a Conspiracy I Tell Ya!

Michelle Malkin playfully prods the left and their conspiracy-theory mongering.

Judicial Activism

From GlennReynolds.com (a.k.a. Instapundit):

Judicial activism in the Terri Schiavo case. Here, I think the complaint is just off-base. Congress passed a procedural statute, and was disappointed that it didn't get the substantive result that it wanted.

This I have a hard time understanding. The de novo review passed for Terri was a procedural law, true. But those of us who are upset about what the courts did are arguing that Terri was denied the procedural review afforded her by this law. (we didn't get the results we wanted, but we're not holding the courts responsible for that) Perhaps this complaint goes to the heart of the question: What is a de novo review? On the surface, it seems that the review Judge Greer gave Terri was not in fact the de novo review that congress had in mind.

I'm So Proud...

Of myself! I was all over this bogus Social Security Calculator before everyone else. Now factcheck.org has debunked it as well. Remember your read it here first! I wrote:

the return on the [personal] account [assumed by the Democrats]was only 3 percent -- dismally low compared to the stock market average of about 7 percent (accounting for inflation).

Now Factcheck writes:

One thing we found is that the calculator systematically underestimates the likely returns of investments. It says "The calculator assumes that your investments get a rate of return of 3 percent above inflation ," a figure most financial advisers would find absurdly low. As we've pointed out before , the stock market has averaged 6.8 percent above inflation for the past century.

and in regards to fixing solvency, I wrote:

But there is one other problem -- the Dem's calculation compare the (deeply flawed) "numbers" from "Bush's plan" with today's promised benefits. The problem? How will we pay for those benefits? Raise taxes? Since personal account and cutting benefits are off the table raising taxes is all that's left. And If we do, well have less than three people paying for every retiree! Payroll taxes will have to be very high in order for that to work -- very high indeed.

So once again there are your choices; really high taxes or personal accounts -- take your pick.

And Factcheck writes:

Both the ad and the calculator use benefits promised under current law as their basis for comparison, but they fail to mention that current tax rates can't support those benefit levels beyond 2041. According to the latest projection of the Social Security trustees, benefits would then have to be cut 26 percent at that time, and that reduction would grow every year thereafter. Compared to the actual level of benefits that can be supported by the current system, Bush's supposed "cuts" would be much smaller.

Put another way, maintaining benefit growth at the level assumed by the calculator and the ad would require a tax increase, something not mentioned.

So in short, factcheck.org's article today finds the same errors, and reaches more of less the same conclusions as my post from yesterday. In other words -- I've scooped fact check!

Calculator Mischief

I put up a link to that Social Security calculator yesterday saying that I suspected something fishy. I then took a look at the assumptions the calculator used, and indeed there was much going on in the way of deception, with a corresponding dirth of transparency.

The assumptions where these: Future benefits would be indexed to wages with four percent personal retirement accounts (fair enough so far), but then, the accounts would have a contribution limit of 1000 dollars per year -- the cap increasing every year by 100 dollars plus an adjustment for inflation. Huh? No such thing has been proposed by the Bush administration so where did this come from? In addition the return on the account was only 3 percent -- dismally low compared to the stock market average of about 7 percent (accounting for inflation).

These assumption produce seriously flawed results. If you make 50,000 dollars annually, Bush's real plan would allow you to invest two thousand of those dollars, twice as much as what this calculator has allowed for. On top of that you would receive a much higher rate of return, probably at least 5% if you're a very conservative investor -- even higher if you're not.

They do have one point; indexing Social Security benefits to inflation will produce lower returns on your money that is still in the old Social Security system. The problem is the that they inappropriately put far to much money into that old system and give much to small of returns on the money in the new personal accounts. That means money that would actually be earning a fairly good return, is, under the Dem's assumptions, earning a negative return -- and that screws things up significantly enough to make a good deal look bad. Nevertheless, the personal accounts -- even under the democrats assumption -- have higher rates of return than the current Social Security system now has. (though they don't point that out)

If you look at the assumption there are other things that tell you something is not right. For instance, personal account are called a "loan" from Social Security to invest. Well that's nonsense. You earned that money not the government; and the money is for your retirement. Its not a loan its what economists call and opportunity cost -- that is the cost to you of choosing one use of your capitol over another. The classic economics example is a person who has two job offers. Job X offers 30,000 a year, job Y 40,000. The opportunity cost for picking job Y is 30,000 dollars. THAT'S NOT A 30,000 DOLLAR LOAN, ITS AN OPPORTUNITY COST! Calling personal accounts a loan shows you how these liberals think. If you keep your own money and invest it (at a rate higher than what Social Security promises you --even they admit that) well you've incurred a debt. Nonsense, what you've done is turn a bad investment in the government into a good investment in the private sector.

But there is one other problem -- the Dem's calculation compare the (deeply flawed) "numbers" from "Bush's plan" with today's promised benefits. The problem? How will we pay for those benefits? Raise taxes? Since personal account and cutting benefits are off the table raising taxes is all that's left. And If we do, we'll have less than three people paying for every retiree! Payroll taxes will have to be very high in order for that to work -- very high indeed.

So once again there are your choices; really high taxes or personal accounts -- take your pick.

P.S. More here by Michael Tanner about mortality rates and annuities, probably not taken into account (the fact that the calculator does not ask for your sex is a dead giveaway). Here is a calculator by Cato that takes mortality rates into account.

Hitchens Debunked

Christopher Hitchens, who I do like, has, unfortunately, jumped on the Ohio conspiracy bandwagon. Redstate.org has, I think, fairly succinctly debunked this conspiracy nonsense.

This..

Doesn't look right to me.. I'll get back to you on this.

Kerry Screws Up Big

John Kerry, reading from a statement reveals the name of the under-cover officer, previously refered to as "Mr. Smith."

Die Bush Die!

No, that's pronounced Dee Bush Dee; it's German. Well, it looks as though Senator Biden may have to come up with such an excuse for -- one presumes inadvertantly -- refering to the pope's funeral as the president's funeral.

Conspiracy Theory

Acording to John Kerry, many voters were kept from the polls by "intimidation" and other dirty (Republican) tricks. The story notes:

Kerry has never disputed the outcome of election, saying voting irregularities did not involve enough votes to change the result. Bush won the pivotal state of Ohio by 118,000 votes, giving him enough electoral votes to win re-election.

Ok, but what exactly is Kerry saying then? That his party's voters are stupid?

"Leaflets are handed out saying Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday. People are told in telephone calls that if you've ever had a parking ticket, you're not allowed to vote," he said.

If you're not smart enought to know what day to go to the polls, then perhaps you shouldn't be voting.

Ryan Sager

I'm starting to really like this Ryan Sager guy. He has a piece here about what's going on at Columbia University. He also has a blog thats worth checking out here.