Reasons Not to Want Romney as President

They were all over Obama for his lack of leadership and failure to keep his grand promises. Well let's hope that if elected Romney be equally feckless on certain of his policy prescriptions, because from what we've been hearing, we can expect the following from a Romney Administration:

• Dramatically lower tax rates amidst one of the lowest revenue streams the Federal government has ever seen. Sure he promises to eliminate loopholes at the same time, but at a time when nearly all the income is being earned by the wealthiest, lowering marginal tax rates is almost surely going to dampen any tax gains we get out of a growing economy (if it even grows)
• Greater hostility toward the Russian Federation, as we have been assured that Mitt views Russia as a foe. We can expect that Russia will jealously guard it's "sphere of influence" and perhaps seek to expand it (and run little incursions into ours) should Washington start rattling its sabers. But we have no true ideological beef with Russia (discounting our childlike wish for all people to live in freedom and democracy). As competing nuclear powers, we should shake hands and agree to respect each other's spheres while agreeing to recognize our neighbors' sovereignty.
• Continued destabilization and undermining of sovereign governments. The mess that Obama is making of the Mideast would presumably continue under Romney, as he has not uttered a word of criticism other than to hint that he would be even more aggressive in overthrowing stable regimes.
• High potential for outright war. Romney seems fully signed on with the Neo-Con insistence that no greater threat to America exists (perhaps has ever existed) than Iran's nuclear program. America's complicity in Israeli bombing of Iran would look very bad - should we actually take part - well, that would make us pariahs - unworthy of trust.
• Even more hubris on Wall Street. Mitt now seems to be Wall Street's man in this election (Obama was their man last go around). Not that Obama has caused them much of a problem, but that stupid Barney Frank bill is not quite their cup of tea. Mitt, being a Wall Streeter himself and damn proud of it, is unlikely to bring them any grief.
• Much more "free trade". Our trading policies seem to have a consistent result - less work for American men, and more profits for corporations. I'm not sure what the solution is, but racking up tens of $billions in trade deficits month-after month-after month doesn't quite support the contentions of the free-trade cheerleaders that free trade makes us all better off.
• Immigration "reform" might just get passed under Romney. If he pushes it, he will probably get a rather rude awakening from his own party like Bush got - but there's a chance the loyal opposition has grown weary of the fight, and won't be able to muster up a fight against their own president.

On the other hand, with the current conservative members of the Supreme Court not getting any younger, there is one (or maybe it's two) good reasons to want Romney to win, which I feel trumps all the above:

OK So It's Not a Tax

It seems clear from the SCOTUS arguments that the "individual mandate" is not a "tax". So therefore it is a mandate - meaning the federal government is indeed requiring U.S. citizens to do something. This is, outside of conscription, wholly unprecedented. And since our recent experience with precedent is that it will inevitably lead to extreme policies, then it must be nullified.

There simply is no basis for exempting this particular mandate from any other mandate that congress may in the future dream up. How about requiring everyone to to go to college? Or get a physical every year? Or attend a Diversity Training course? Why not? What could possibly stop Congress from mandating such activities? Nothing. Only the understood constitutional limit on federal power that forbids Congress from requiring people to do anything other than pay taxes, serve on juries and join the army prevents it. If we lift that last constraint, there will be no limit to Congress's intrusion into our lives.

Let's hope Justice Kennedy remains steadfast in the face of Comrade Obama's Stalinist admonishments.

The Individual Mandate

Just what is this "Individual Mandate" (IM) anyway? It's really hard to find any specifics on it. It kind of reminds me of the incandescent light bulb controversy, where a straight answer was really hard to come by. I'm still not sure, but it seems that only the 100-watt incandescent bulb was affected. Had the proponents of the ban been more out front with that info, a lot of pain might have been avoided. No one ever said "You'll still have your precious 60-watt light bulbs and halogens when you need bright light - you just won't have 100-watt incandescent bulbs - and who uses those monsters anyway?" Instead they get all huffy about Global Warming.

My initial assumption about how the IM would be implemented was that, being obviously unconstitutional, there would be declare a "health-care tax" from which individuals could be exempt by having health insurance. And when it was bandied about that it would be enforced by the IRS, it seemed that was indeed the case. But I don't hear anyone defending Obamacare that way. If I were defending the IM's constitutionality, I would say something like "Look, of course it would be unconstitutional for the Federal government to require someone to purchase a product. But this doesn't do that - it simply assesses a tax, and you can get an exemption if you have health care. But there's nothing requiring you to buy health care - you can simply pay the tax." But instead the defenders get all aggressive about the Commerce Clause and federal power, simply insisting Congress can do anything it wants. Which leads me to suspect my understanding of the mandate is not quite right. Did the drafters of the law screw up? Hopefully we'll know more from Supreme Court arguments next week.

So-somayor

Is Sonia Sotomayor "brilliant"? Is she exceptionally intelligent? I have my doubts.

The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen broached the topic in early May in an obvious attempt to encourage Obama to seek a more impressive liberal jurist, but to no avail. Rosen, of course, has been pilloried for his reporting (he had the nerve to use "anonymous sources"!). This paragraph from Rosen's article seems to sum up the issue well:

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."

The WSJ printed an excerpt from the oral arguments from the Ricci reverse-discrimination case where Sotomayor aggressively questions the lawyer for Ricci (via Steve Sailer):

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: Counsel ... we're not suggesting that unqualified people be hired. The city's not suggesting that. All right? But there is a difference between where you score on the test and how many openings you have. And to the extent that there's an adverse impact on one group over the other, so that the first seven who are going to be hired only because of the vagrancies [sic] of the vacancies at that moment, not because you're unqualified--the pass rate is the pass rate--all right? But if your test is always going to put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they're never ever going to be promoted, and there is a fair test that could be devised that measures knowledge in a more substantive way, then why shouldn't the city have an opportunity to try and look and see if it can develop that?

Ok, so it's off the cuff so we're not exactly expecting the Gettysburg Address. But that "vagrancies" - that's a bit of a red flag, no?

Some hint at her limitations can be gleaned from reading between the lines of a fawning NY Times analysis of Sotomayor's written opinions by Adam Liptak. He notes that her opinions "reveal no larger vision, seldom appeal to history and consistently avoid quotable language." As Steve Sailer has noted, Obama himself is a master at "avoiding quotable language," the better to confound those who would use such quotes against him, and this worked out well as little of the race-obsessed worlview he propounded in Dreams ever made the news. Would a judge though wish to avoid quotable language in her opinions? Isn't that the currency of fame and respect in the legal profession - to have one's opinions be referenced and quoted? Could she be so clever that she would avoid quotable language as a strategy to avoid confirmation controversies should she be nominated to the big show?

Liptak goes on: "Judge Sotomayor’s decisions are, instead, almost always technical, incremental and exhaustive, considering all of the relevant precedents and supporting even completely uncontroversial propositions with elaborate footnotes." Another way to phrase it would be that her opinions are an uninspired, haphazard mash of precedent and citation, however remotely relevant, that fail to form a coherent legal theory to support her decision. And the part about "supporting even completely uncontroversial propositions with elaborate footnotes" suggests that she is heavily reliant on her clerks' drafts - and the lack of a "larger vision" suggests she does little more than compile her staff's labors rather than synthesing their research into a more comprehensive opinion.

Now I have no doubt that she is "smart" in any conventionally understood definition of the term. She was valedictorian of her high school class - granted, a parochial school in the Bronx. She also graduated Summa cum Laude from Princeton - again, granted, as a history major in a school also graduating physics majors. (I can find no evidence she graduated "second in her class" as many - including Obama's press secretary - have claimed.) So I do accept that she is "smart," but given that both these achievements can easily result from a combination of smart and conscientiousness, I'm seeing no evidence of "brilliant" or "highly intelligent."

What about the Pyne Prize she received at Princeton, which has been touted as evidence of her superior intellect?. Here's the article from the Princetonian announcing the winners of the Pyne Prize in 1976, which she shared with another student that year.

Regarding her co-winner, David Germany*, the Princetonian dwells on his academic excellence. "The Pyne Prize is not the first recognition of Germany's scholarship-he has won both the Freshman First Year Honor Prize for the highest grades during freshman year and the Class of 1939 Princeton Scholar Prize for the highest academic standing prior to senior year...Today, his transcript shows 21 A+s and 9 A's...An economics major, Germany has been employed as a teaching assistant in upper-level economics courses."

But regarding Sotomayer, the article only obliquely discusses her academics. "Sotomayor, a history major, has maintained almost straight A's for the last two years, but is especially known for her extracurricular activities." Any remaining notions that the Pyne Prize is solely (or even predominantly) awarded on academic excellence should be disabused by Princeton's president's own description of the prize:

President Bown said the selection process is a detailed one, involving interviews with department chairmen, faculty and students who have had contact with nominees. 'We try our best to find people who excel,' he said. There are no set criteria for the prize, Bown added, saying, 'There are many ways to contribute-sometimes not through any organized method.'

Again - I'm not saying she's not smart, but Rosen's article appears to me well justified. She will look foolish attempting to go toe-to-toe with Scalia (or Roberts and Alito, for that matter - see this comparison of Sotomayor's vs. Alito's "lawyers' evaluations") and may well embarrass liberals with her off-target questioning. Her strident manner seems unlikely to endear her to Justice Kennedy - I'd say the opposite is more likely. Conservatives should be relieved that a more imposing candidate was not nominated - and if that question quoted above is any indication, we just might be treated to some amusing little malaprops from the bench to keep us entertained over the next couple decades.

* Mr. Germany apparently parlayed his academic success into a lucrative career as a big-time money manager.