Joan McCarter covers Claire McCasklil's political gimmickry on the budget (I think it is stupid politics on her part, but who knows?). While Joan details how awful the proposal is on substance, I was struck by the brazen attempt to use a procedure that the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional. Here's is the plan:

Enforcing Spending Caps[.] If federal spending is projected to exceed the CAP Act designated amount for that year, the OMB is required to sequester funds such that it brings federal spending back to the CAP Act mandated levels. [. . .] This concept is based in part on the sequestration requirements of the current PAYGO law and its predecessor, the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act.

The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Act and Emergency Deficit Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Bowsher v. Synar. Obviously this proposal is nothing but a political gimmick, with no chance of passage. Similar gimmicks which have been declared unconstitutional like the line item veto are also still trotted out. Is it too much to ask of our pols that they present better thought out gimmicks?

Speaking for me only

Ezra Klein writes:

If the Affordable Care Act isn't as stable as it could be, every state will want the power to modify the plan so it'll work better for them. Some will take advantage of that power by adding an individual mandate. Some will try out various conservative theories of how best to structure the bill. Some, like Vermont, will try to push towards single payer. And those that do nothing will act as a control group to a grand health-care policy experiment -- though not, I think, to the benefit of their residents. [. . .] the practical effect will be of making the legislation very similar to the federalist ideas I mentioned earlier in the week.

There is political merit in this approach. Consider this from The Hill:

Matt Miller:

"Good afternoon, I'm Brian Williams reporting from Washington, where it looks like October 26, 2017, will be a day that truly goes down in history. In a few moments, at a table not far from where I now stand, President Hillary Clinton will sign into law the universal health-care legislation - "Medicare for All," as she calls it - that completes a journey Mrs. Clinton began nearly 25 years ago. [. . .] Who would have thought then - or later, when President Barack Obama's big health reform was overturned by the Supreme Court in a controversial 5 to 4 ruling in 2012 - that today's bipartisan bill would be the result? For some perspective on the twists and turns of history, we're joined by NBC's David Gregory. David, health reform seemed dead in the water in 2012. How did we get from that Supreme Court ruling to today?"

If life were only like this. As DemfromCt says, "Anyone else want what he's smoking?"

Speaking for me only

The Wall Street Journal has ingenuous coverage of the latest jobless claims report:

The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for unemployment benefits dropped sharply last week, reversing the previous week's spike and confirming the gradual improvement in the jobs market. [. . .] Initial jobless claims fell 42,000 to 415,000 in the week ended Jan. 29, the Labor Department said Thursday in its weekly report. The previous week's figures, which were distorted by snow that hit four Southern states, were revised to 457,000 from 454,000.

(Emphasis supplied.) So if the higher number for the previous week was "distorted," how can we know that the employment situation is "gradually improving?" To be sure, the 415k claims number this week is bad under any circumstance. More . . .

A recommended dkos diary asks why Democrats are defending it. Earlier, I asked a similar question.

Yet, I've spent the past few days defending the constitutionality of the mandate. Why am I doing that? Beyond the fact that the mandate is in fact constitutional, I think there is a larger issue at stake - the radical right wing drive to delegitimize and "deconstitutionalize" government action.

Similarly, when Kelo v.New London was decided, the kneejerk "progressive" response was to excoriate the decision. I argued that not only was the decision correct, it was also progressive:

[The dissent] simply has no support in the jurisprudence or in common sense. Indeed, it is the heart of the dangerous jurisprudence of the narrow readings of the civil rights amendments and laws by the Conservative wing of the Court. Always these Conservatives demand "findings" of past institutional discrimination by the state. Always, the Conservatives seek to limit the power of the State to act for the public good. This is more of the same. It is bad stuff. I believe that the Majority properly applied existing jurisprudence in a principled AND properly progressive way.

"First principles" matter. Not everything is sui generis.

Speaking for me only

J is unavailable today. I should be around.

Open thread.

Today is National Signing Day for college football recruits. In the only news that matters, new Florida coach Will Muschamp is doing decently in holding the recruits Urban Meyer had lines up, but is not adding much to the class. Probably a Top 15 class. Next year is when you can judge Muschamp on recruiting.

Open thread.

In an editorial yesterday extolling Judge Vinson's decision striking down the health bill, the Wall Street Journal wrote:

Judge Vinson introduces ObamaCare to Madison and Marshall.

[. . .] Federal Judge Roger Vinson opens his decision declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional with that citation from Federalist No. 51, written by James Madison in 1788. His exhaustive and erudite opinion is an important moment for American liberty, and yesterday may well stand as the moment the political branches were obliged to return to the government of limited and enumerated powers that the framers envisioned.

Perhaps the Wall Street Journal needs an introduction to James Madison. From Federalist 44:

Discussing Judge Vinson's ruling on the health bill, Orin Kerr writes:

If you are an originalist, [. . . i]f you’re a libertarian [Judge Vinson's ruling] is [. . .] very appealing [. . .]. But there’s a technical problem here that I want to draw out: Judge Vinson is only a District Court judge. Under the principle of vertical stare decisis, he is bound by Supreme Court precedent. See, e.g, Winslow v. F.E.R.C., 587 F.3d 1133. 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Kavanaugh, J.) (“Vertical stare decisis — both in letter and in spirit — is a critical aspect of our hierarchical Judiciary headed by ‘one supreme Court.’”) (citing U.S. Const. art. III, § 1). [. . . T]he judge has to apply the doctrine established by the Supreme Court and has to ignore the original meaning.

[. . . Y]ou have to confront the doctrinal test that the U.S. Supreme Court offered in a majority opinion just a few months ago in United States v. Comstock:

[I]n determining whether the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative authority to enact a particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power.

[W]hen the Supreme Court says that this is what “we look to see” when determining if a power falls within the Constitution, then that is a doctrinal test to which a trial judge is bound under the principle of stare decisis.

More . . .

Atrios writes:

I'm Not Sure What Judicial Activism Is

Even when their side does "it," I still think it's a very poor term which most of the time means "rulings I don't like." There are judges who are more or less deferential to the other branches, and there are judges who are total hacks who will contradict themselves across rulings, or make absurdly stupid arguments, in order to achieve whatever political/policy ends they want to achieve, but "judicial activism" is a bad frame which suggests that it's somehow illegitimate for the judiciary to act. Call out the hacks for being what they are, but don't call them "activists."

(Emphasis supplied.) I'm sympathetic intellectually to Atrios' point. but the context of the historic use of the term "judicial activist" as a pejorative, which arose in response to the Warren Court's series of decisions on individual liberty, makes the phrase a potent political weapon for progressives attempting to hold back the attempted radical conservative judicial counterrevolution. It would be naive for progressives to discard it now. More . . .

The military commission trials at Guantanamo are gearing up. Next up: Feb. 14, United States vs. Noor Uthman.

Media reservation requests should be e-mailed to Tanya.bradsher-at-osd.mil. All requests must be received by 5 p.m. EST, February 4, 2011. Due to a limited number of seats aboard the flight and limited accommodations at Guantanamo Bay, media travel is not guaranteed.

One more day of 20 below weather and I might volunteer (Except I probably don't have the necessary security clearance.) No matter, Carole Rosenburg of the Miami Herald will be there and she does a great job of both reporting long style and tweeting the essential updates.

You can read about Noor Uthman's case here.

Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh has announced he won't run for another term.

"No extension, no inheritance, no resetting the clock," he said, making reference to ruling party proposals to institute term limits that had been seen as allowing him to run again.

His announcement comes a day before planned protests, called "A Day of Rage" are scheduled. Yemen has been on the edge of failing for a while. As I wrote a year ago:

Yemen will become a failed state without aid. Between the rebel tribes in the north, the secessionists in the south and al-Qaida, the Government is out-matched. Add to that its dwindling oil reserves, critical lack of water and horrendous prison system that just breeds more terrorists, and it's a certainty Yemen can't fix its problems on its own.

It sounds like a series of domino effects is in play: Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan and now Yemen. What's next? Sudan? Or Algeria or Syria?