• Pinboard Links

    Flap’s Links and Comments for April 25th on 17:30

    April 25, 2011 /

    These are my links for April 25th from 17:30 to 17:32:

    • Mitch Daniels: I would have backed Haley Barbour – In a statement sure to stoke speculation about his presidential intentions, Mitch Daniels said Monday that he would have backed Haley Barbour had the Mississippi governor not opted out of a White House bid.

      “Haley Barbour is a great citizen; he’d have made a great president," Daniels, the Indiana governor, said in a statement. "I’d have been proud to try to help him had he chosen to run."

      Continue Reading
      Daniels, who first became friends with Barbour when they served together as 30-somethings in the Reagan White House added: "The Barbours have been close and true friends to the Daniels family, and we will always be 100 percent supportive of any decision they believe is best for them.”

      Daniels has said in the past that he would likely not run if Barbour is in the race.

      =====

      Now, will Haley Barbour reciprocate?

    • Motion to Vacate Judge Walker’s Anti-Prop 8 Judgment for Failure to Recuse – It is important to emphasize at the outset that we are not suggesting that a gay or lesbian judge could not sit on this case.  Rather, our submission is grounded in the fundamental principle, reiterated in the governing statute, that no judge “is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.”  Surely, no one would suggest that Chief Judge Walker could issue an injunction directing a state official to issue a marriage license to him.  Yet on this record, it must be presumed that that is precisely what has occurred.  At a bare minimum, “[r]ecusal is required” because former Chief Judge Walker’s long-term committed relationship, his failure to disclose that relationship at the outset of the case, his failure to disclose whether he has any interest in marriage should his injunction be affirmed, and his actions over the course of this lawsuit give rise to “a genuine question concerning [his] impartiality.” 

      We deeply regret the necessity of this motion.  But as the Supreme Court emphasized earlier in this very case, “[b]y insisting that courts comply with the law, parties vindicate not only the rights they assert but also the law’s own insistence on neutrality and fidelity to principle.…  If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well.”  The “regular procedure” here requires adherence to the principles that a judge may not sit on a case when “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), and certainly not when he has an “interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding,” 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4).  Proponents ask only that these principles be applied faithfully and neutrally here as in any other case.

      ======

      The failure to disclose will doom this case

  • Pinboard Links

    Flap’s Links and Comments for April 25th on 15:13

    April 25, 2011 /

    These are my links for April 25th from 15:13 to 15:45:

    • President 2012: Karl Rove warns candidates about late start – For a long time, it's been the cool-candidate thing to take your time coming to a 2012 decision.

      Casualness may soon be a casualty, Karl Rove said today on Fox.

      "There gets to be a point at which you don't have enough time to raise the money you need, and you don't have enough time to get organized as deeply as you need to be organized for these contests.

      That period is probably sometime in June or July."

      =====

      No later than Memorial Day.

      BTW Ron Paul is announcing tomorrow in Iowa.

    • Online Sales Tax a Bad Deal for California – In California there are 25,000 thriving small businesses known as “affiliate marketers” and right now the very existence of this industry is being threatened by misguided legislation; in these economic times can California afford to lose 25,000 more businesses?

      The supposition of AB 153 (Skinner) and SB 234 (Hancock) is that by implementing an “affiliate nexus” tax, California will collect additional sales tax revenue.  That is simply not true.

      What is true is that if these bills pass, California affiliate marketers will have their incomes devastated, and the state will collect no new sales tax dollars.

      Affiliate marketers are California companies that earn income from ads placed on their websites. In 2009, California affiliate marketers earned $1.6 billion and paid $124 million in state income taxes (plus business taxes, employment taxes, etc).  Legislation such as AB 153 and SB 234 guarantees elimination of these fiscal contributions.

      Proponents allege that because out-of-state retailers place ads on California-owned websites they should collect sales tax. But placing an ad on a website does not constitute a “nexus,” nor does it obligate out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax in California.

      This holds true for California retailers that advertise in other states – they are not obligated to collect sales tax in states simply because they advertise there.

      =====

      Read it all.

      And, it is a very bad idea.

  • Labor Unions,  Public Employee Unions,  Saul Alinsky

    Video: Union Leaders Teach Advanced Thug Tactics in University of Missouri Labor Courses

    April 25, 2011 /

    If you ever wondered if today’s LEFTIST union leaders ever read Saul Alinsky, now you know.

    The University of Missouri has an expansive $1.9 billion enterprise with an operating budget of $500 million which, according to its website, 37%  comes through state appropriations. While the University’s Institute of Labor Studies may only be a small fraction of its budget, one must wonder why tax dollars are being used to fund a program that espouses Communism, teaches tactics in industrial sabotage (including stalking CEOs, using members to insinuate sabotage, as well as the killing of cats), and convincing union members that their “group goals” are more important than their individual goals.

    The videos you are about to see [via BigGovernment] are of two “educators” holding courses via video conference through the University of Missouri-St. Louis (UMSL) and the University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC). The courses are an Introduction to Labor Studies and Labor Politics and Society.  The instructors are Judy Ancel, Director of UMKC’s Institute of Labor Studies and Don Giljum, a self-described Communist and Business Manager of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 148.

    Watch the videos and understand why companies like Boeing Corporation are moving their manufacturing facilities to Right to Work states.

    Video #2:

    After watching both videos, do you now understand the Wisconsin public employee protests at the State Capitol and the various intimidation tactics used against Governor Scott Walker and GOP legislators?

    Exit question: In light of this knowledge, of how the unions create chaos as a bargaining tactic, do Americans really want public employee unions collectively bargaining with the government?

  • Amazon Tax,  eBay,  Internet Sales Taxes

    eBay Says Let’s Make a Deal to California’s Internet Sales Tax Legislation

    April 25, 2011 /

    Amazon.com et. al. should not feel bad – after all it is just business, right?

    “Yes, I’ve met with eBay quite a lot,” said Assembly member Nancy Skinner (D), who introduced the bill. Skinner told Tax Analysts that eBay is concerned about the proposal’s impact on lower-volume sellers, and the two sides have discussed raising the $10,000 threshold.

    Internet auction giant eBay Inc. is negotiating language in a proposed California “Amazon” law (AB 153) in hopes of reducing the number of its sellers that could be required to collect sales taxes.

    The click-through nexus legislation would require remote sellers to collect state sales taxes if they make $10,000 or more in annual sales through California affiliates that receive a commission. Much of the attention has centered on Amazon.com, but eBay — a California-based company — also receives commissions from its sellers, who could then be required to remit California sales taxes.

    “We hope to come to a threshold that they feel good about,” Skinner said. “But I’m certainly not going to be making the law ineffectual.”

    This entire exercise which will lose California jobs and provide NO new measurable tax revenue is looking more and more like a “JUICE BILL.”

    The divide and conquer of business interests, the campaign contributions, the never ending amendments and tweaks to the bills. My God, no wonder American business is so fed up with the political process – particularly the Democrats in the California Legislature.

    So, the legislation will linger on and Assemblywoman will have all the attention and PAC money the business interest will provide.

    In the meantime, the Amazon.com and other business sales affiliates will sweat out whether they will have a job or not.

    How disgraceful…..

    Previous:

    Democrat Senator Dick Duban to Introduce Bill to Tax Internet Sales

    Poll Watch: 63 Per Cent Oppose Taxing Online Transactions

    Video: California and the Amazon Internet Sales Tax

    Video: How Amazon Internet Sales Tax Legislation Hurts California Small Business

    Overstock.Com Threatens to Terminate California-Based Affiliates Should Internet Tax Legislation – AB 153 Passes

    Amazon Internet Sales Tax WILL Require Super Majority in California Legislature

    Video: California Board of Equalization Casts Doubt on Amazon Internet Sales Tax Legislation

    The Amazon Tax Returns to California

  • Haley Barbour,  Mitch Daniels,  President 2012

    President 2012: Haley Barbour is OUT – Is Mitch Daniels IN?

    April 25, 2011 /

    Governor Haley and Marsha Barbour – Governor Mitch and Cheri Daniels

    Republican Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour has withdrawn from an exploratory campaign for the Presidency. His statement is here.

    “I will not be a candidate for president next year. This has been a difficult, personal decision, and I am very grateful to my family for their total support of my going forward, had that been what I decided.

    “Hundreds of people have encouraged me to run and offered both to give and raise money for a presidential campaign.  Many volunteers have organized events in support of my pursuing the race.  Some have dedicated virtually full time to setting up preliminary organizations in critical, early states and to helping plan what has been several months of intensive activity.

    “I greatly appreciate each and every one of them and all their outstanding efforts.  If I have disappointed any of them in this decision, I sincerely regret it.

    “A candidate for president today is embracing a ten-year commitment to an all-consuming effort, to the virtual exclusion of all else.  His (or her) supporters expect and deserve no less than absolute fire in the belly from their candidate.  I cannot offer that with certainty, and total certainty is required.

    “This decision means I will continue my job as Governor of Mississippi, my role in the Republican Governors Association and my efforts to elect a new Republican president in 2012, as the stakes for the nation require that effort to be successful.”

    Haley Barbour has not been polling particularly well and as a Republican operative of the highest order can read the handwriting on the wall. But, now does this open the path for Barbour’s good personal friend Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels to run?

    Daniels has kept his decision close to the vest and will not announce one way or another until the Indiana Legislative session is over. The session ends this Friday. And, as Daniels has said, “It’s time to cut bait.”

    So, is this a convenient withdrawal?

    Stay tuned…..

  • Pinboard Links

    Flap’s Links and Comments for April 25th on 10:15

    April 25, 2011 /

    These are my links for April 25th from 10:15 to 10:36:

    • Boeing and the Wages of Subsidy – Is Boeing to Dependent Upon Obama to Fight? – Is Boeing too compromised by its dependence on Obama administration subsidies to fight a ruling by the administration’s National Labor Relations Board telling it where to build the 787? …  Even if you heroically assume the NLRB is independent of political influence, that doesn’t mean the administration couldn’t retaliate elsewhere if Boeing fights the NLRB too vigorously. Boeing has recently gotten $15 billion in loan guarantees from the Export-Import Bank. Is the Ex-Im Bank insulated from political influence too? The Washington Examiner rightly points out that it was just assumed–not even a scandal, no surprise at all–that banks receiving TARP funds were inhibited when it came to contesting their treatment as creditors in the administration’s auto bailout. 

      =====

      If Boeing knuckles under, then you have your answer. But, my bet is that they fight.

    • Supreme Court turns down Va.’s request to expedite review of health-care law – ObamaCare – The Supreme Court on Monday turned down Virginia’s request that it rule immediately on the constitutionality of the nation’s health-care overhaul.

      The decision to reject Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II’s request for expedited review, announced routinely without elaboration or noted dissent, is not surprising. The court rarely takes up issues that have not received a full review in the nation’s appeals courts.

      ======

      Perfect…. SCOTUS will take up the matter in the middle of the 2012 Presidential campaign.

      Let the repeal begin…..

    • Rep. Dan Lungren on King and Spalding’s ‘Insult to the Legal Profession’ – California Republican Dan Lungren is chairman of the House Committee on House Administration. He just issued this statement regarding King and Spalding and Paul Clement:

       “I want to express my gratitude to former Solicitor General Clement.  I admire his unwavering commitment to his clients and his dedication to uphold the law – qualities that appear to be inconsequential at King and Spalding where politics and profit now appear to come first.

      “King and Spalding’s cut and run approach is inexcusable and an insult to the legal profession.  Less than one week after the contract was approved engaging the firm, they buckled under political pressure and bailed with little regard for their ethical and legal obligations. Fortunately, Clement does not share the same principles. I’m confident that with him at the helm, we will fight to ensure the courts – not the President – determine DOMA’s constitutionality.”

      =======

      Paul Clement has resigned from King and Spalding and now has joined the firm Bancroft PLLC. He will continue to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) for the House

    • DOMA’s Erstwhile Defenders – News reports this morning indicate that King & Spalding — the law firm whose partner, former solicitor general Paul Clement, was slated to defend the Defense of Marriage Act — has decided to withdraw. This follows a campaign of intimidation with threats from law schools and activist groups that retribution would follow if the firm continued to defend the law. This tantrum and its seeming success tell us that many on the left believe they have a veto on the principle that everybody deserves to be represented in court. It also suggests that there are few limits on what gay marriage supporters will do to marginalize those with whom they disagree. It’s worth remembering, as Maggie Gallagher says, that this is what “marriage equality” means. Paul Clement’s principled stand, which Kathryn has noted, is a much-needed grown-up decision and a very powerful rebuke to the intimidators.

      ======

      Intimidation worked for the firm but not attorney Paul Clement who has resigned.

    • Paul Clement law firm drops DOMA case because of protests – In a real victory for supporters of same-sex marriage — and marking what seems like real marginalization for its foes — a major law firm has reversed course and will refuse to represent the House of Representatives in defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

      King and Spalding Chairman Robert D. Hays, Jr., whose partner Paul Clement was to lead the defense, said in a statement through a spokesman, Les Zuke:

      Today the firm filed a motion to withdraw from its engagement to represent the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives on the constitutional issues regarding Section III of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Last week we worked diligently through the process required for withdrawal.

      In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate. Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created.

      The statement is silent on the reasons for the decision, but the firm faced protests at its Atlanta office and a national campaign against it. And now the House majority may have to find a new lawyer.

      =====

      Of course, Paul Clement has now resigned from the firm.

      I thought law firms were to represent the innocent and guilty or disparate interests?

      Guess expedience is OK with King and Spalding

  • Donald Trump,  Michele Bachmann,  Mike Huckabee,  Mitt Romney,  Newt Gingrich,  Polling,  President 2012,  Sarah Palin

    President 2012 South Carolina GOP Poll Watch: Huckabee 20% Romney 18% Trump 13% Palin 10%

    April 25, 2011 /

    According to the latest ARG Poll.

    • Mike Huckabee – 20%
    • Mitt Romney – 18%
    • Newt Gingrich – 9%
    • Donald Trump – 13%
    • Sarah Palin – 10%
    • Michele Bachmann – 5%

    Sample Size: 600 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of likely Republican primary voters living in South Carolina (453 Republicans, 144 independents, and 3 Democrats).

    Sample Dates: April 18-23, 2011

    Margin of Error: ± 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.

    So, the race is on in South Carolina, should Mike Huckabee decide to run for the Presidency.

    Exit question: Where will Huck’s votes go if he decides NOT to run? How about Sarah Palins?