A Tangled Web

El Presidente Obama cranks up the spin cycle, preparing for the possible demise of ObamaCare at the hands of the Supreme Court:

"I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said on Monday. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

Let's digest that statement:

"I'm confident

We're off to a bad start already. Confidence is negatively correlated with competence.

Wait. What did I just say? You heard me. The more incompetent you are, the more likely you are to be confident in your abilities. Completely confident.

Let's see what La Wik has to say about confidence:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which the unskilled suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

Actual competence may weaken self-confidence, as competent individuals may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. As Kruger and Dunning conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others" (p. 1127).

Source: Dunning-Kruger Effect and Unskilled and Unaware

Returning to our regularly scheduled program:

that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law

Unprecedented? Really? The Supreme Court has been striking down legislation as unconstitutional since the early days of the Republic United States. While the SCOTUS has been eerily deferential to Congress when it comes to Commerce Clause jurisprudence since the days of the New Deal, striking down laws for exceeding constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce is hardly unprecedented. Unusual, perhaps. But not unprecedented.

What is unprecedented is the claim that Congress may dictate that a free human being can be compelled to purchase a product as a condition of living. Now that's a radical assertion.

Let's continue, shall we?

that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,"

In the Senate, the bill passed by a party-line vote of 60–39 on December 24, 2009, with one senator (Jim Bunning) not voting.

It passed by a slim margin in the House of Representatives: 219 to 212 on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.

I'm not sure how a brilliant constitutional professor of President Obama's caliber can call that a strong majority. Perhaps he's implying that only Democrats are democratically elected.

Moving right along...

Obama said on Monday. "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism

Judicial activism is legislating from the bench (making up new laws.) Overturning laws that exceed constitutional authority is what the court is supposed to do.

Let's continue!

or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.

What does he mean by 'duly constituted?' The Court's job is to determine whether the law passes constitutional muster -- whether the law is an exercise of valid, delegated, enumerated power contained within the Constitution, based on the merits of the arguments and evidence presented.

The Commerce Clause is not, and cannot be, a blank check that gives Congress unlimited power to control peoples' lives, despite the bogus jurisprudence since the New Deal. The Supreme Court has recently begun to prune back that tangled mess. Much more is yet to come.

If the Commerce Clause means what President Obama and much of Congress asserts it means, then our federal government has unlimited power to dictate the daily lives of Americans, and the entire Bill of Rights is meaningless. Is it?

Let's finish up. I'm getting hungry.

Well, this is a good example.

No, it's not. It's a crappy example.

And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

There he goes again: he's "pretty confident" -- well, at least he's not completely confident. And that's a good thing.

And having said all that, I suspect that he's merely doing what he does best of late: spinning things in order to gain maximum sympathy votes from his core constituency should the massively bogus ObeyMeCare legislation be struck down.

Questions, Questions

Lucy... you got some 'splainin to do:

A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.

[...]

"Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?" Judge Jerry Smith asked at the hearing.

Well, well... looks like we have a minor battle between the branches here.

Smith ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.

Looks like someone got a remedial homework assignment courtesy of the judicial branch.

Here's another in a long and growing list of reasons why baring all on Facebook is a bad idea.

SEATTLE (AP) -- When Justin Bassett interviewed for a new job, he expected the usual questions about experience and references. So he was astonished when the interviewer asked for something else: his Facebook username and password.
Bassett, a New York City statistician, had just finished answering a few character questions when the interviewer turned to her computer to search for his Facebook page. But she couldn't see his private profile. She turned back and asked him to hand over his login information. More...

Everything you say and do online is public. It's like putting stuff on a supermarket bulletin board, only worse: it's accessible in real time, from anywhere. It was only a matter of time before this kind of crap started. I've always thought people who post personal information to sites like Facebook are asking for trouble, and now we're starting to see just what kind of trouble they were asking for.

As a rule, I'd suggest that you treat online conversations (written under your real name or traceable back to you) this way: Would you like to have that read aloud in a court case? How would it sound to the jury? Remember: Everything you say can and will be used against you.

Here's a great interview with Peter Schweizer, author of Throw Them All Out, talking about congressional insider trading, the hypocrisy of Warren Buffett, and the socialism enjoyed by the privileged classes.

Have a listen.

They think they own you.

They think they have a right to take part of what you've earned. Take a part of what you've built. And they get to decide how much they will take–and for what purposes.

It's no surprise. You've known this for a long time. But you may not have understood why.

It's because of a bit of wishful thinking. An imaginary thing known as the “social compact”. Simply put, it goes something like this: "Everyone benefits from being part of society. Therefore, everyone owes something to that society, and it is justifiable to take what is owed by force."

They think they helped you. They want to take credit for your hard work. They think all their help interference in the marketplace was at least partially responsible for your success. Nay, they think that your success was impossible without them. And that you ought to be much more grateful.

They think they own a piece of you, and your output. They think they have an open, indisputable claim they can cash in whenever they want.

Don't believe me? Read on...

All your factories are belong to us

Here's Elizabeth Warren’s rant from a recent campaign appearance.

She lays out the belief system as plain as day. Right out there for everyone to see. And she's getting a hearty round of applause for it.

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

This is how they think, and this is why you are not free–and never will be.

Now you see the nature of the trap. The trap baited with "free" benefits–education, roads, police, fire departments, etc. Because there is a large and growing class of people who see those shared benefits–which none of us had any choice but accept–and only some of us asked for–as a claim on your productivity, your creativity, your spirit, or any other tasty morsel they see laying about.

This raises a few questions: How hard should you work for people who hold these beliefs? Why should you continue working hard for them? At what point do you throw in the towel and just let them rot? Because, as you can see, you're not working for your benefit. You're working for theirs. You owe them.

This is why you must be supremely wary when someone promises public benefits or other programs paid for with the public purse. And this is why you need to stop letting the government throw these "benefits" at you. This is why you need to stop wanting those benefits– and why you need to stop asking for or accepting them. You need to stop voting for, supporting, or electing politicians who promise you goodies.

The greater the perceived benefit from public spending, the more you owe to society. At least that's how some people, like Ms. Warren, see it–and that group is large and growing.

This is why you should stop believing in the lie of the benevolent government, government as benefactor and government as helping hand.

Because the hand that helps is also the hand that plucks the wallet from your pocket. The hand that helps is also the hand that can slip on shackles.

Addendum

Can you imagine how they'll act once they're "providing" everyone's health care?

Do you get the picture yet?

Link Love-In

Linked at Silicon Graybeard's most excellent exposition on who pays more than their fare share of taxes. Thanks!

Update1

Seems the blogosphere has spawned a rather nice collection of snarky responses to Warren's "we own your ass" meme. Go read it!