Michigan Permit Holder Erred In Bank Robbery Foil

Recently, a holder of a concealed gun permit foiled a bank robbery in Michigan. The facts: Suspect walked into a bank and told the teller he wants money and he has a bomb. Another teller communicated to the permit holder that there is a robbery in progress. The permit holder pulled his gun and confronted the suspect. The permit holder told the suspect he is a cop, after the suspect had asked. The permit holder held the suspect until the police arrived.

My reading is that this was not a case in which it was justified to pull a gun. There was no danger to the permit holder and others in the bank. Of course, there could have been a bomb, and the suspect could have detonated it deliberately or accidentally. The action taken by the permit holder seemed to me that it could have caused the man to detonate the bomb accidentally or deliberately. A conclusion is that the permit holder escalated a situation of which he could have lost control, and the result could have been deaths or injuries. The permit holder appeared on FOX on June 19, and said he would not have shot the suspect. Conventional wisdom has been that one must not pull a gun unless one is prepared to shoot.

The permit holder should not have taken any action, other than make mental notes of the suspect in terms of description, but be ready to pull his gun to protect his life, or if he chooses, the lives of others in the bank.

Gun Rights Will Have At Least Five Votes in DC v. Heller

In a 5 to 4 decision on June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay can challenge their detention in federal civilian courts. In other words, five justices conferred constitutional rights upon non-citizen illegal combatants. The constitution does not even contemplate such an interpretation, but yet, Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and Stevens found that right in the document.

Very soon, the court will rule in DC v. Heller, the case dealing with the District of Columbia gun ban. If the five justice above can find a right in the constitution that was not even contemplated, then surely, they must find an individual right to arms in the Second Amendment. You see, the Second Amendment does talk about the right of the people, and since Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and Stevens seem to have an affinity for “erring” on the side of creating rights for individuals, it is going to be difficult for them to rule for the District.

Senator Obama in Black and White

The candidacy of Senator Obama and his string of victories have spawned many new words, but apart from adding to our vocabulary, the movement that is “Obamamania” yields more than a few implications informed by race and some of its various appendages.

Why is Mr. Obama black, or perhaps more precisely, why do some see him as black? The answers lies in the belief constructed by whites that being white is pure and superior, and thus anyone born to a white parent and a non-white parent cannot possibly be white. Blacks who view Obama as being black are legitimizing the white superior belief, and whites who see Mr. Obama as Black betray their belief in the superiority of whiteness. Mr. Obama is no more black than he is white, since he is the product of a black and white marriage.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the current social structure that assigns blackness to Mr. Obama, since the dominating class gets to dictate the rules. If Blacks were dominant, the offspring of a black/white marriage would be tagged white.

What is perplexing is that even among the most militant of Blacks, those who look askance at the structure of white America use its vocabulary because they see Mr. Obama as black, as is reflected in the pride with which they glow because White America appears willing to nominate a “black” to run for president

The share number of the white votes Mr. Obama has been garnering is driving the glow of pride among a wide swath of the black population, but that pride appears to be a manifestation of a longing for white unequivocal approval and acceptance that many Blacks have long sought. In fact, some have hypothesized that the yearning of Blacks for white acceptance and approval has hobbled their progress. To see this, one only need to look at the reaction of some Blacks when a white American behaves in a manner that could be interpreted as anti-black. If time is spent being offended, that is time spent not being productive. Further, seeking approval or acceptance from a group implicitly assigns master status to that group, a holding which might be subconsciously crippling

Several callers to WMAL radio in Washington said they voted for Mr. Obama because they want to deny the Democratic nomination to Senator Clinton. The callers said they will vote for the Republican nominee in the general election. The callers’ decision to vote as they did raises two possibilities. First, is the belief that Mr. Obama would make a much weaker candidate than Mrs. Clinton in the general election. This belief may well be derived from the notion that a black man could not now be elected president. The second has no negative racial tone, and that is, the callers would rather have an Obama presidency over a Clinton presidency, if the preferred Republican nominee loses the general election.

It is conceivable that a significant fraction of the white vote for Mr. Obama falls in the category of the callers to WMAL, but it would be foolish to say that only an insignificant fraction of the white vote is genuinely for Mr. Obama, given the fervor of the crowds we see surrounding Mr. Obama.

Assuming that the majority of the white vote for Mr. Obama is genuine, the case can be made persuasively that America has largely become an equal opportunity country, a development that effectively neuters the race hustlers who have operated on both sides of the racial divide. There are the Blacks who have blamed virtually all pathologies among Blacks on white racism, and there are the white liberals who have cheered them on.

If Mr. Obama gets the Democratic Party nomination, and goes on to win the presidency, any further claim by race hustlers that America has not yet solved its race problem will become increasing difficult make and to defend. Comedienne Wanda best captures the problem an Obama presidency would pose for the race hustlers. In an appearance February 28, 2008 on the Jay Leno Show, Wanda said Blacks would no longer be able to blame the Man for their problems because the Man would now be in charge, and he is Black!

Adults View of the Second Amendment

June 03, 2008 05:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time

Does the Second Amendment Provide the Right to Bear Arms? U.S. Adults Think So

However, Public Still Favors Stricter Gun Control

ROCHESTER, N.Y.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--In anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning the Second Amendment expected at some point this month, The Harris Poll^® finds that by a margin of over two to one, more U.S. adults believe that the Second Amendment supports an individual’s right to bear arms. Furthermore, the survey also finds that more of the U.S. public continues to favor stricter gun control. However, concerning the impact on the election, the public seems to be split on which presidential candidate would do a better job handling gun control.

These are the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 2,602 U.S. adults surveyed online by Harris Interactive^® between May 5 and 12, 2008.

In the next few weeks the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide D.C. v. Heller, which concerns whether the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The question that the Supreme Court will be answering is whether the Second Amendment actually provides an individual with the right to own a gun or whether it provides the state the ability to form a militia.

The Harris Poll showed wording from the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to the survey’s sample and asked whether U.S. adults think the Second Amendment supports an individual’s right to bear arms or a state’s right to form a militia, the same question the Supreme Court will be answering this month. The Poll found:

• By 41 percent to 17 percent, a two to one plurality believes that the Second Amendment supports an individual’s right to bear arms. Interestingly, almost three in ten (29%) feel the Amendment supports both and 5 percent say neither;
• Furthermore, by political party affiliation Republicans by 51 percent to 9 percent believe the Second Amendment supports individuals’ right to bear arms. Democrats also agree, though by a closer 41 percent to 22 percent margin. Independents are even more closely divided with 31 percent to 22 percent thinking that the Amendment supports and individuals’ right to bear arms.

And with regard to gun control:

• A relative majority of U.S. adults – 49 percent – favor stricter gun control, with 20 percent wanting less strict gun control and 21 percent wanting no change. Since 2004, these sentiments have changed slightly with the number favoring stricter gun control going down from 52 percent. Since 1998, however, this has dropped significantly as ten years ago, 69 percent favored stricter gun control;
• By 54 percent to 18 percent a majority favors stricter laws relating to the control of hand guns and another 18 percent want no change. These opinions have not changed much since 2004 when a similar 57 percent to 18 percent also favored stricter control of handguns. Again, a decade makes a larger difference as in 1998, a 76 percent to 19 percent majority favored stricter laws relating to the control of hand guns.

2008 Presidential Campaign

Concerning the three major candidates – John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama – the public is split on which individual would do a good job in handling the gun control issue if elected president:

• By 36 percent to 34 percent John McCain receives slightly higher positive marks than either Democrat. Conversely, Barack Obama receives a 42 percent to 30 percent negative rating as does Hillary Clinton with 40 percent to 30 percent;
• By approximately three in ten, the public is not sure about whether any of the candidates would do a good job.

So What?

Even though many U.S. adults believe the Second Amendment does support an individual’s right to bear arms, the public does not feel this right should be achieved without some gun control. Many U.S. adults still favor stricter gun control, although for the first time in 10 years, this is not a majority. The candidates have not yet made any major policy statements concerning gun control, which is one reason so many are not sure about how they would handle the issue if elected. However, once the U.S. Supreme Court rules, the candidates may be forced to give their opinion and gun control could become an issue in the general election.

Methodology

The Harris Poll^® was conducted online within the United States May 5 and 12, 2008, among 2,602 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated. A full methodology and data tables are available at www.harrisinteractive.com.

A Sober View On Going To War Against Terror

Recent news out of Iraq and Afghanistan seems to indicate the wars being waged in both nations have reached a point where it will be only a matter of time before the Taliban in Afghanistan and the insurgents in Iraq are vanquished.

That good must eventually triumph over evil, and that there are sometimes high costs, is a notion that many obviously have found foreign. Among those many are people who belong to the American Left and prominent leaders in the American Democratic Party.

Presidents Bush decided to wage war, and from the start, there was not only opposition, but attempts to undermine the war effort. Leaders of the opposition at some point shared Mr. Bush’s rationale for waging war, but suddenly those leaders appeared to have forgotten what they had said or believed.

The sustained undermining of the war by some Americans may have prolonged the war by enabling the resistance. Indeed, a study by two Harvard researchers found that attacks by insurgents in Iraq increased 5 to 10% following intense criticism by the US media and the American public. You can read the study here.

How many of us remember that the Democrat, President Clinton, signed on October 13, 1998, the Iraq Liberation Act, which called for a forced change of regime in Iraq. The House passed the legislation on October 6, 1998, and the vote was 360 (202 Republicans and 157 Democrats) to 38. Thirty-six members did not vote. On October 7, the Senate passed the legislation by Unanimous Consent.

Soon after the attacks on September 11, the chorus was that President Bush had known about the planned attacks and did nothing. Sure, there was some intelligence, but it was not actionable, to use a bureaucratic term.

Intelligence led President Bush to believe that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. These two beliefs helped to sell the war but were not the rationale for the war. Suppose President Bush did not act as he did on the Iraq intelligence, and Iraq later attacked American interests, the chorus would have been that President Bush again had intelligence but failed to act.

Reagan's Influence Lives On In U.S. Courts

By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY

May 11/12, 2008

WASHINGTON — They became the first judges in more than a half-century to say the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns. They took the lead in ruling against affirmative action and other race-conscious policies. And they upheld bans on an abortion procedure called "partial birth" before it reached the Supreme Court.

They are prominent appeals court judges appointed by President Reagan in the 1980s — the products of an unprecedented, meticulous and often controversial screening process that transformed the politics of judicial nominations.

Named to an influential set of 13 regional courts, they were, as a group, young, brainy and bold. They became the legal vanguard of the Reagan agenda to lessen federal control — and protections — in American life.

WHO'S WHO: Prominent Reagan appointees to the appeals courts

Now, nearly 20 years after Reagan left office, many of them are at the height of their power. Their opinions routinely draw national attention. Eight are the chief judges of their circuit courts and in key positions on the U.S. judiciary's policymaking committee. Many are superstars of the conservative movement, appearing as speakers at meetings of the arch-conservative Federalist Society and, in past years, landing on GOP presidents' short lists for Supreme Court appointments.

Their influence is a testament to Reagan's promise to set a new course for the nation's law — a promise reverberating in the presidential race today. His lawyers sought nominees who would not try to solve society's problems and who would reverse the trend of judicial involvement in school integration, prison problems and the environment.

Reagan's enduring legacy shows the power a president has in shaping the law — not just at the Supreme Court, which gets so much attention, but also in the midlevel appeals courts. Republican John McCain has pledged to appoint judges on the right, as Reagan did. Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton would try to reverse Reagan's legacy.

William Taylor, chairman of the Washington-based Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, says Reagan's judges were "out front, ahead of what became an increasingly conservative Supreme Court." Taylor, whose group monitors federal programs affecting voting, housing and affirmative action, was an early advocate on the left to complain that Reagan was "packing the courts" with judges who would undermine individual liberties.

Washington lawyer Charles Cooper, who helped in judicial selections during Reagan's two terms, says the Reagan judges' "influence now is born of 20 years … of intellectual, analytical work" and adds: "I can't imagine that there is a historic parallel for an effort like this playing out as well."

Many Reagan nominees were law professors, such as Frank Easterbrook, Richard Posner and J. Harvie Wilkinson,or GOP insiders, including Edith Jones, Alex Kozinski and Laurence Silberman. The impact of their appointments is evident throughout the law and on the high court's docket:

•A case before the Supreme Court that will determine the Second Amendment's scopearose after Silberman, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, wrote that it gives individuals the right to bear arms. Silberman's opinion bucked a series of lower-court rulings that said the Second Amendment applied only to a collective right of state militias.

•A dispute involving a black employee who sued the Cracker Barrel restaurant chain for discrimination was taken up by the high court after an attention-getting dissent in the case by Easterbrook, chief judge of the Chicago-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

Lower courts had broadly interpreted a section of the 1866 Civil Rights Act to cover individuals who faced retaliation after claiming discrimination. Easterbrook disagreed and said the 7th Circuit majority, which followed that pattern, was ignoring a "sea change" in the high court's interpretation of the law. Oral arguments in the case suggested the justices may endorse parts of his dissent.

•When the justices recently upheld an Indiana voter-identification law requiring people to show a government-issued photo ID before casting a ballot, they affirmed a 7th Circuit opinion by Posner. The Indiana law "will deter some people from voting," Posner wrote. But he said that does not override Indiana's legitimate concern about potential in-person voter fraud.

High-profile Supreme Court cases such as these generate headlines, yet appeals courts judges have the last word in the vast majority of disputes in federal courts. The justices hear fewer than 1% of appeals, and have taken even fewer in recent years: about 75 per annual term, down from about 150 during the mid-1980s.

Although bound by high-court precedent, appeals judges have latitude in their interpretations. The decline in cases has bolstered the impact of appeals court judges — including the Reagan class.

Remaking the appeals courts

Reagan's influence on the appeals courts surpasses his successors'in terms of sheer numbers.

From 1981-89, he appointed 83 appeals court judges — 66 of whom still hear cases today. The first President Bush appointed 42 during his single term. During two terms, President Clinton appointed 66, and President George W. Bush has appointed 58.

Within Reagan's group of appointees, there also are more judges with prominent profiles. Among them is Antonin Scalia, an fiery conservative whom Reagan put on the appeals court in Washington, D.C., in 1982 and elevated to the high court in 1986.

Yet Reagan's broader judicial juggernaut was not an unqualified success. In 1987, the Senate rejected one of his most celebrated appeals court appointees: Robert Bork, who joined the D.C. Circuit six years earlier. His nomination fight came to symbolize partisan rancor over judicial appointments.

President George H.W. Bush had two Supreme Court appointments; President George W. Bush also has had two. Each considered several of Reagan's appeals court judges. None was chosen, however — the result of several factors, possibly including the controversial paper trails these men and women had created while on the bench.

The first President Bush interviewed Edith Jones, a 1985 Reagan appointee to the southwestern 5th Circuit, for the seat vacated when liberal Justice William Brennan retired. Jones came under fire from defense lawyers for her blunt criticism of lengthy appeals in death penalty cases. Bush ended up choosing David Souter in 1990, who has disappointed conservatives by usually voting with the high court's more liberal justices.

Reagan broke the prior White House pattern of accepting senators' preferences for appeals court seats and put in place a sophisticated screening of candidates run by Department of Justice and White House lawyers. American University law professor Herman Schwartz, who has written extensively on Reagan's judges, contends that good people were passed over because they were not ideologues.

In the years since Reagan left office, several of his judges have remained on the front lines of the nation's most contentious disputes.

Wilkinson, 63, now on the Mid-Atlantic 4th Circuit, was a member of the selection team in the Reagan Justice Department. "There was a great deal of excitement about it," Wilkinson recalls, and a hope of appointing "those who respected more fully the role of the democratic branches of government and need for judicial restraint."

In 1984, after Wilkinson returned to teaching at the University of Virginia, Reagan nominated him for the appeals court.

On the 4th Circuit, Wilkinson wrote an opinion striking down a Richmond city policy directing 30% of public contracts to minority-run businesses. Two years later, the high court affirmed that decision.

In 2003, Wilkinson wrote a decision in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen captured in Afghanistan fighting with the Taliban. The Bush administration sought to hold Hamdi without charges or a hearing. Wilkinson approved that. The high court reversed his ruling.

On the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, now-Chief Judge Danny Boggs opposed the University of Michigan's affirmative action plan at the law school. In 2002, he wrote, "Its admissions officers have swapped tailor's sheers for a chain saw."

The Bush administration cited Boggs' dissent as it urged the justices to void Michigan practices. The court by a single vote allowed the law school policy; it rejected an undergraduate race-based program that it found too rigid.

Reagan judges, including Easterbrook, also approved bans on the abortion procedure known by its opponents as "partial birth." The high court in 2000 struck down bans in a case from Nebraska. After Sandra Day O'Connor, the key vote on the case, was succeeded by Samuel Alito in 2006, the court changed course. It upheld a U.S. ban similar to the state prohibitions.

And now what?

President Clinton failed to seriously undercut the Reagan conservatism on the bench. He put a priority on diversity and set records for the percentages of appointees who were women and minorities. Of his appeals court appointments, 50.8% were women or minorities, says Sheldon Goldman, a University of Massachusetts Amherst, political science professor.

Clinton did not choose prominent liberal academics to counter the conservative lightning rods on the federal bench. "President Clinton did not wish to expend major political capital with his court appointments," Goldman says.

President Bush has tried to reinforce Reagan's legacy and tapped young conservative thinkers. Goldman says that has turned into "a major success story for Bush."

Yet Bush's appointees may remain for years in the shadow of Reagan's prominent jurists. Some, including Easterbrook and Kozinski, are still in their 50s. Their impact and Reagan's final legacy will be shaped by what happens next.

Says Eleanor Acheson, an assistant attorney general for Clinton who oversaw judicial selection, "The whole name of the game is who will be the next president."

The Left Loves The High Price Of Gas

The current run up in gas prices, Bush/Cheney leading the country and both are said to be the friendly with oil interest, are ingredients for what should be the Second World War of politics. Why is there not a relentless barrage of attacks on President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the oil companies? Where are the daily pronouncements of the Democratic operatives, newspapers editorials, liberal websites, network news and Democratic politicians linking Bush/Cheney and the oil companies to the high price of gas? What would be happening if the commodity were milk instead of oil?

The explanation is simple. The high price of oil serves the interest of the American Left, and from its point of view, high gas price will discourage fuel consumption, and that reduces greenhouse gas emission. The Left has always been for low prices on staples, but when the choice is between reducing greenhouse gases and securing low prices, the Left sides with the former.