BuckeyeBlog

I recorded a Buckeye Voices podcast with Case Western Reserve University Law Professor Jonathan Adler today. He and his wife, Christina, provide an in-depth analysis of the Ohio Supreme Court’s recent evolution in this new paper recently published by the Federalist Society.

The Adlers make a persuasive case that the Ohio Supreme Court has dramatically improved over the last decade, due in large part to activist justices retiring and voters replacing them with justices who exercise restraint from the bench.

There is a lot of talk in liberal circles about instituting universal pre-school. It’s touted as a way to help kids improve their education skills (or, if you’re cynical, it’s a way for government bureaucrats to get their hands on your kids a few years earlier), but it will cost a lot of tax money. As someone who went to pre-school and hated it, I am skeptical about the need to expand it, but perhaps I’m letting my personal preferences get in the way of social engineering.

The Buckeye Institute’s Beth Lear wrote about the push for universal pre-school in Ohio here. Reason magazine recently produced a short video tackling the subject:

Jonah Goldberg’s book detailing the secret (or better, ‘ignored’) history of the American Left, “Liberal Fascism” is a facinating read.

Goldberg’s analysis puts into context the effort by the Obama campaign to intimidate people like John McCain and George Voinovich into silence over the First Amendment right to a vote undiminished by fraudulent and inelibile voting.

As Heritage’s Hans von Spakovsky notes:

The Obama campaign’s Stalinist-style demand that a special prosecutor at the Department of Justice criminally prosecute any candidates, party officials or congressmen who discussed their concerns over voter fraud is an outrageous attempt to use the power of the federal government to intimidate and persecute political opponents. It is almost as if Senator Obama wants to reinstitute the Alien and Sedition Acts and it brings into sharp focus the issue of whether he understands the protections of the First Amendment and the importance of fair and secure elections.

Could have called this Judgment Journalism, too, because it certainly is: “McCain ignores loss of Powell”

What’s a journalist or an editor to do? McCain spoke at an event in Westerville; McCain’s running for president. McCain believes all kinds of things, A, B and C. You’d think there’s lots of news to write about there, wouldn’t you?

But by golly, why write about what’s right in front of you, when you can write about what you just know, dammit, is the biggest news story since, well, since, gosh, ever? Even Republican Colin Powell supports Obama! Must take deep breath! Must take deep breath! (Boy, John McCain must really miss the days when it was “Even Republican John McCain thinks George Bush stinks.” Maybe he should call George Voinovich.)

Never mind that everybody and their brother is already writing about this, never mind that it’s not the thing in front of you, never mind that it might be worthwhile to think about why you’re so excited by that story and not excited about a story that says, say, Iraq is a great success, or, say, the government, not the market, played the biggest role in the economic whirly-girl.

No, just fix the problem at hand. “McCain ignores loss of Powell” will do nicely, and it fits your beliefs much better than “McCain ignores open source software” and “McCain ignores GASB Concept Statement No. 3″.

It seems that free speech, like free markets, is under attack in this country. Buckeye Institute Board member Brad Smith discusses the war on free speech under the guise of campaign finance reform in this Reason TV video:

Yesterday, the Columbus Dispatch ran interesting pro and con columns on the likely impact the presidential election will have on the United States Supreme Court. Bradley Smith, a Capital University law professor and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, as well as a long-time Buckeye Institute advisor and board member, wrote an excellent op-ed explaining the dangers of Obama’s philosophy on judges. He described Obama’s approach as giving judges a license to “substitute their political preferences” in place of applying the law in a neutral fashion. Under this approach, the Constitution means whatever a majority of the Supreme Court says it means.

In contrast, Smith pointed out that McCain favors justices like Chief Justice John Roberts, who has led the court toward:

a moderate course marked by an appropriate reluctance to wade into questions best left to elected representatives, careful adherence to the written Constitution and opinions that focus on the immediate case rather than relying on the judges’ hearts to make grand social change from the bench.”

The opposing point of view was presented in a column written by Dan Kobil, who is also a law professor at Capital University. Kobil claimed that Obama would favor justices like John Paul Stevens who is the court’s “staunchest advocate for individual liberties.” However, what Kobil really means is that Obama favors justices who will pick and choose which individual liberties deserve protection based, not on the text of the Constitution, but on the justices’ personal philosophies and political preferences. For example, Kobil’s model justice - Stevens - wrote a dissenting opinion in Heller vs. the District of Columbia, in which he argued in favor of upholding Washington D.C.’s ban on possessing handguns. Stevens’ dissenting opinion, however, does not adequately address the language of the Second Amendment which provides “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So much for the court’s “staunchest advocate for individual rights.” While gun rights - which are clearly protected by the text of the Second Amendment - are not protected from infringement under Stevens’ interpretation of the Constitution, Kobil praises Stevens for his support for abortion rights, even though abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

Bradley Smith appropriately described this “living Constitution” approach espoused by Kobil, Stevens and Obama as “a recipe for inconsistency, politics, and favoritism that undermine justice.”

Today, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion unanimously overturning a directive from Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner instructing county boards of elections to reject absentee ballot applications that have an unmarked check box next to the applicant’s statement that the person is a qualified elector. One of the people bringing the case (the relator) had her absentee ballot rejected because she did not mark the box on the McCain application form next to the statement that she is a qualified elector. Apparently, many registered Ohio voters did not check the box when filling out the absentee ballot applications distributed by the McCain campaign. The applications were otherwise accurate, complete and signed by the applicant. According to the Ohio Supreme Court, more than 3,500 absentee-ballot applications have been rejected by certain boards of elections because of the applicants’ failure to check the box next to their qualified-elector statements. Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton and Maureen O’Connor did not participate in the case as they are both up for reelection in the November 4 election. Two appellate court judges participated in their place.

The court held:

No vital purpose or public interest is served by rejecting electors’ applications for absentee ballots because of an unmarked check box next to a qualified-elector statement. There is no evidence of fraud. As relators persuasively assert, the ‘only reason to complete the form was to obtain an absentee ballot for the November 4, 2008 election,’ and signing it necessarily indicated that the applicant represented, ‘I am a qualified elector and would like to receive an Absentee Ballot for the November 4, 2008 General Election,’ regardless of whether the box next to the statement was marked.”

It is interesting that Secretary Brunner favored a liberal interpretation of Ohio law to permit early voting but chose to direct boards of elections to reject absentee ballot applications for not having a box checked even though there is no evidence of fraud involved. Could it be because the applications were from likely McCain voters?

A couple days ago blogger and radio host Maggie Thurber put up an excellent post analyzing Issue 5, which is seeking to overturn the legislation banning payday lending. It’s a must-read for anyone looking at what the legislation actually contained. Her basic point, though, can be summed up with these questions:

Since when is it the role of the government to track what you borrow, when and how much? Since when is it the role of government to tell you how you can use the money you borrow? Since when is it the role of the government to decide whether or not you need or should take a class in finances? Since when did Ohioans think it was okay to grant government this kind of intrusion into our daily lives?

Exactly. I couldn’t have said it better myself. So I didn’t. You’ll be a better informed voter if you read her post.

Economist Arnold Kling, who used to work at Freddie Mac, discusses the problems with the financial sector bailout:

In a time when most pundits merely parrot banal talking points in support of their political party or make wild accusations in order to get media attention, George Will stands increasingly alone. He is erudite, well-read, and isn’t afraid to disagree with his party when it stops living up to its ideals. Case in point: his column today, where he exposes the anti-market actions of both John McCain and George W. Bush. God bless you, Mr. Will:

In any case, McCain’s smear — that [SEC Chairman Chris] Cox “betrayed the public’s trust” — is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are “corrupt” or “betray the public’s trust,” two categories that seem to be exhaustive — there are no other people. McCain’s Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold law’s restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict campaign giving and spending….

The political left always aims to expand the permeation of economic life by politics. Today, the efficient means to that end is government control of capital. So, is not McCain’s party now conducting the most leftist administration in American history? The New Deal never acted so precipitously on such a scale. Treasury Secretary Paulson, asked about conservative complaints that his rescue program amounts to socialism, said, essentially: This is not socialism, this is necessary. That non sequitur might be politically necessary, but remember that government control of capital is government control of capitalism. Does McCain have qualms about this, or only quarrels?