Supreme Court upholds portion of SB 1070; Obama takes ball, goes home.

On Monday the Supreme Court handed out two decisions: One, that life sentences without parole for minors was unconstitutional. Two, that the portion of the Arizona immigration law (aka, SB 1070) that allowed officers to check the immigration status of those they arrest for other crimes was Constitutional. The two provisions that added fines and additional illegality for being an illegal immigrant in Arizona and job searching were struck down. This preserved the most controversial portion of the law, which was that the police could essentially demand to "see your papers" if you were arrested, and verify your legality to be in the country.

Naturally, Obama's administration deferred to the authority of the Judicial branch of government when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, and went about the job of administering the nation.

Just kidding. He actually proceeded to pout and kick his feet. He then put out the following official position of the Executive branch:

From the Washington Times:

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Essentially, the immigration strategy here is to "ignore the problem until it goes away". While this strategy is effective for nearly every other problem, I think perhaps immigration may require a slightly more thought out response.

 Jan Brewer is the Governor of Arizona and is, based on the photographic evidence, quite possibly the Wicked Witch of the West.

I'm not saying she definitely is, I'm just saying she may want to avoid large bodies of water.

Needless to say, she was less than pleased to hear about the administration's reaction.

Brewer told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren on Monday that she was “shocked” and “outraged” to learn of the move.

“This is politics at its best,” she said. “It’s just unconscionable. What they said to Arizona is, ‘Drop dead, Arizona. Drop dead and go away. We’re going to ignore you."

At the end of the day, I consider this a victory. Many people consider this a step towards some barbed wire police state, crying that this will encourage racial profiling and saying how unreasonable it is for the police to check immigration status. The problem is, illegal immigration is a crime, just like driving without a driver's license. When a cop pulls someone over, he demands they show him proof that they are allowed to be driving and that the vehicle is theirs (License and registration, ma'am). How is a green card any different?

Besides, we already allow the police to check on things only tangentially related to the original charge when they arrest someone. For instance, imagine the cop pulls you over for speeding. He then detects the odor of marijuana, so he searches the vehicle. In your trunk he finds a dead hooker and ten pounds of coke, as well as some Ron Paul campaign stickers.

What started out as a routine traffic stop turned into a murder and drug charge, because the police checked up on other possible crimes while he was at it. That's known as "good police work" when it catches murderers, rapists, and drug inhaling libertarians. How is it suddenly evil when we round up illegal immigrants?

Many officers have expressed concerns that they could be vulnerable to lawsuits for racial profiling for enforcing this law. There is a super easy solution to that: Check the immigration status of every single person you arrest.

Bam. No more profiling.

Upcoming SCOTUS decisions and my predictions

 The Supreme Court has five more decisions left to hand out, most notably on the Arizona immigration case and the Obamacare issue. Monday is the last day they are scheduled to hand out decisions, but it seems like a foregone conclusion that they'll have at least one more day after that. Naturally, any showman worth his salt saves the best for last, and I expect that we won't be hearing the decision on Obamacare until the last possible moment.

In case you haven't been hanging on every word to come out of the SCOTUS lately, here's a summary of what's to come this week.

1: United States v. Alvarez

What it is: Alvarez is the scumbug...I mean...alleged scumbag...Who erroneously claimed to have earned the Medal of Honor and was prosecuted under the Stolen Valor act, which criminalizes false claims of military honor. (Side note: Why the MoH? If you're going to claim a false medal, do something a tad less flashy, like a DSC or a silver star. Both very respectable medals without the blatant "Only ten people have earned that in the last few wars there, jackass" angle). The contention here is that lying about receiving medals is protected speech under the 1st amendment. The counter argument is that while some forms of lying are beneath the notice of the law (for example, claiming you are a doctor in order to get laid), military honors and the benefits, both tangible and intangible, are a kind of "trademark" of the government, and therefore the 1st amendment does not apply.

Actual lawyer analysis here.

Why it matters: This is the first law to test the Constitutionality of said law. Should it be overturned, Congress will likely respond with an already drafted amended version of the same law that will bring it in line with the Justice's opinions.

My guess: The court will uphold the law, but make an extremely fine distinction between lying to obtain government sanctioned benefits and lying to get a woman to sleep with you. 5-4.


2: Miller v. Alabama and Jackson v. Hobbs

What it is: Two cases are being reviewed where convicted murderers have been sentenced to life without parole. In one case the convict broke into a motor home, stole $350 worth of baseball cards, then beat the homeowner unconscious with a baseball bat (This guy really likes baseball), and then set the motor home on fire with the homeowner still inside.

The other case was a bit less baseball centered and more mundane. Guy walks into a store with a shotgun. Demands money. Clerk says "I ain't got no money" and dude blasts him away.

The argument is whether a sentence of life without parole is "cruel and unusual" and a violation of their 8th amendment rights.

Why it matters: Did I mention both convicts were 14 years old at the time of the murder? That's right: When I was still running around pretending to be the best Ninja Turtle (Donatello, obviously), these two kids were setting people on fire over baseball cards. The convictions aren't contested, only that a life sentence without parole is excessive for a minor. The defense wants the "without parole" part removed.

My guess: The court will overturn the without parole part of the sentencing, which is in line with previous decisions regarding punishments in non-homicidal and/or setting people on fire cases. 6-3

3: First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards

What it is: Some discussion on whether companies can enter into kickback agreements or something.

Why it matters: It doesn't.

My guess: 15-2, Orioles lose.

Who cares: Nobody, least of all me. Moving on.  

4: Arizona v. United States

What it is: Read my blog about it here. Basically, the question is can the State of Arizona round up illegal immigrants by requiring anyone arrested for anything, regardless of race, be checked for citizenship status. Anyone found to be in the country illegally would then be referred to the Feds.

Why it matters: This case determines how tough a state can get on immigration. It is not contested that immigration is clearly the Federal government's job (one it does remarkably poorly, of course). What is contested is how far a State can go to put illegals into the government's hands.

My guess:  Arizona comes out triumphant, and the States win over the Feds for once. 5-4.

5: HHS v. Florida, Florida v. HHS, and NFIB v. Sebelius (AKA Obamacare)


What it is: If you just asked that question, please punch yourself in the face. Hard. Then read my blog about it here.

Why it matters: This will determine the scope of the Federal government's authority to regulate healthcare. Big questions include: Can they create commerce in order to regulate it? Is the lack of commerce also commerce? Can the government FORCE you to buy healthcare, or face a fine if you do not?

My guess: ...is as good as yours. Constitutional lawyers and SCOTUS clerks think the mandate is dead. The public wants the law gone. I pretty sure the mandate is done for, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say they'll strike the whole law down, with the opinion making it clear they did so because the mandate was so central to the proper functioning of the law and a failure to strike the whole thing would be tantamount to legislating from the bench. 5-4.

"It's not my fault I'm fat, evolution made me do it!"

Last week His Majesty Bloomberg, King of New York City announced a planned ban on normal sized overly large sugary drinks in an effort to combat obesity. His plan is to block the sale of any sugary drink over 16 ounces (Unless it's a milkshake, fruit juice, diet soda, or simply a refill on the first 16 oz sale. Or if the soda is sold in a grocery store. Then it's A-okay) throughout the city, in order to bring down the approximately 50% obesity rate in his city.

“Obesity is a nationwide problem, and all over the United States, public health officials are wringing their hands saying, ‘Oh, this is terrible,’ ” Mr. Bloomberg said in an interview on Wednesday in City Hall’s sprawling Governor’s Room.

“New York City is not about wringing your hands; it’s about doing something,” he said. “I think that’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”

If you're curious how much of the "public" the mayor is referring to supports his plan, check out this poll at the Huffington post. Even at the good ol' HuffPo, this measure only garners a 31% approval rating. Clearly such an unpopular measure that unequivocally slices into the consumer freedoms of New Yorkers should not stand, right?

"Not so fast!" shouts Dr. Daniel Lieberman, professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University. He claims that coercive action taken by the government is not just necessary, it's natural.

Lessons from evolutionary biology support the mayor’s plan: when it comes to limiting sugar in our food, some kinds of coercive action are not only necessary but also consistent with how we used to live.

Obesity’s fundamental cause is long-term energy imbalance — ingesting more calories than you spend over weeks, months and years. Of the many contributors to energy imbalance today, plentiful sugar may be the worst.

Since sugar is a basic form of energy in food, a sweet tooth was adaptive in ancient times, when food was limited. However, excessive sugar in the bloodstream is toxic, so our bodies also evolved to rapidly convert digested sugar in the bloodstream into fat.

Simply put, humans evolved to crave sugar, store it and then use it. For millions of years, our cravings and digestive systems were exquisitely balanced because sugar was rare. Apart from honey, most of the foods our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate were no sweeter than a carrot. The invention of farming made starchy foods more abundant, but it wasn’t until very recently that technology made pure sugar bountiful.

Who is to blame, then? Is it people unable to control their base urges? Don't be silly! It's those evil corporations!

The food industry has made a fortune because we retain Stone Age bodies that crave sugar but live in a Space Age world in which sugar is cheap and plentiful. Sip by sip and nibble by nibble, more of us gain weight because we can’t control normal, deeply rooted urges for a valuable, tasty and once limited resource.

That's right. They are taking advantage of you, taking advantage of the fact that your great^100th grandfather didn't have enough honey is his diet. Those bastards.

How do we fix this? Not by doing nothing or through education, he says.

The final option is to collectively restore our diets to a more natural state through regulations. Until recently, all humans had no choice but to eat a healthy diet with modest portions of food that were low in sugar, saturated fat and salt, but high in fiber. They also had no choice but to walk and sometimes run an average of 5 to 10 miles a day. Mr. Bloomberg’s paternalistic plan is not an aberrant form of coercion but a very small step toward restoring a natural part of our environment. 

We humans did not evolve to eat healthily and go to the gym; until recently, we didn’t have to make such choices. But we did evolve to cooperate to help one another survive and thrive. Circumstances have changed, but we still need one another’s help as much as we ever did. For this reason, we need government on our side, not on the side of those who wish to make money by stoking our cravings and profiting from them. We have evolved to need coercion.

Basically, his argument runs like this:

1. Humans evolved to really like sugar since we didn't have access to delicious Dr. Pepper in the past, and even if we did, we would have had to chase it down through the tundra and beat it with a stick before we could drink it.
2. Now that we've advanced to the point where we don't have trouble getting sugar, we no longer have the natural limitation to its intake, allowing us to practically bathe in the sugary goodness of Dr. Pepper.
3. Since there is no natural limitation, our craving for the 23 flavors of absolute perfection must be curbed by Big Brother.

 The biggest problem here is that this argument places the blame for a person's poor eating decisions not on themselves, but instead solely on evolutionary factors. Unfortunately there are all kinds of things that make evolutionary sense that we expect people to handle on their own.

Having sex with other people when you're in a committed relationship is generally frowned upon. Despite the fact that it makes evolutionary sense, we expect people to resist this urge on their own.

Also, I doubt very much that ancient man, while hunting down his elusive prey of Haagen Daz, had much to train him for handling credit card debt. If someone defaults on their loans due to their own incompetence (as opposed to, say, a medical disaster or something of that nature) we rightfully place the blame on them and expect them to handle it.

Then again, maybe the Mayor and Dr. Lieberman are both right.

Perhaps these overweight New Yorkers are just..."Too Big to Fail" .