The legal left sounds like Newt Gingrich?

A Wall Street Journal editorial says:

[T]he left has taken to mau-mauing the Justices by saying that if they overturn the [Obamacare] mandate they'll be acting like political partisans. The High Court's very "legitimacy" will be in question, as one editorial put it—a view repeated across the liberal commentariat....

Overturn any part of the law, the Justices are being told, and your reputations will be trashed. The invitations from Harvard and other precincts of the liberal establishment will dry up. And, by the way, you'll show you hate sick people—as if the Court's job is to determine health-care policy.

This is the left's echo of Newt Gingrich's threat earlier in the primary season to haul judges before Congress when it dislikes their rulings. Remember the political outrage over that one?

Well, there's a big difference between vigorous criticism of judges in the press and at the law schools — which is debate in the marketplace of ideas — and dragging them in person into the halls of Congress to berate them. But what exactly did Gingrich say? The WSJ provides no link or exact quote, but I Googled it for you.

"You always get them… ask any serving officer who has ever closed a road."

"The upper class snobs who believe that access is their right…and that my sole intention in closing the road was to provide an inconvenience in their lives."

These people seem to think that telling me that “I pay your wages” will suddenly part the cones and allow them to drive their executive saloon unimpeded through the scene of the accident. One of them actually called me a fascist, and threatened to have my job if I didn’t let them through. They have no comprehension that roads only get closed for a very good reason. A short diversion does not justify elitist abuse from every member of the would-be aristocracy that cannot bear the prospect of being five minutes late for their dinner party. 

They have little, if any, concept of real life, and the tragedies that occur outside their electric gates and see the Police as no more than a necessary evil that should only interact with the lower classes or come running with bowed heads and doffed caps when someone pinches their staddle stones.

None of them knew what I had just gone through – I knew that. But regardless, I wished that some would give me a little more respect. We do what we do for a reason, and there is so much more to our job than most will ever know, or could ever imagine.

Via Metafilter.

"I am facing a recall by the big-government public employee unions and their minions..."

"... who are threatened by the voters actually being in charge of where their tax dollars are being spent."

That's the way Governor Walker speaks in email soliciting campaign contributions. From a "Dear Conservative" email I received this morning, quoted in full after the jump.

The optical illusion that is Mitt Romney.

Seeing Romney in person yesterday — from a distance of about 30 feet — I was struck by how tiny he looked. And yet, on line, his height is listed as 6'2". He looks tall in lots of pictures, like this one. Why did he seem so small in person? Is it an optical illusion? You'd think you'd get the most correct measure of a man when he's right there in the flesh.

I think Henry, in the comments last night, has the answer:

It's because he has a big head.

Yes! I did notice his head was huge. He was wearing a white shirt and blue jeans, not the business suit he always wore for the debates. A suit jacket enlarges the shoulders and the upper chest, making a very large-headed man seem to have more average proportions. But the head itself, unbalanced by a shoulder-padded suit jacket, fools the eye into seeing the body as small.

Mitt Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan.

At the town hall meeting in Middleton, Wisconsin this evening, there was a big crowd:



With an overflow room:



I was surprised how short Romney is. On line, I see his height listed as 6'2". In person, he looked about 5'9".

Anyway... the team of Romney and Ryan was excellent. They answered questions from people as equal partners — some deference to Romney, but basically equals. Ryan is a terrific speaker, and he got more applause than Romney a couple times. Hearing them answer the same question, one after the other, I kept thinking Ryan is the stronger of the 2. And that's not to say Romney was unappealing, just less intense.

Surely, Romney will pick Ryan as his VP. Right?

I had the feeling there were 2 future Presidents in the room.

IN THE COMMENTS: chickenlittle says "Head size is an ongoing theme at Althouse" and links to this old post where I quote Tina Brown:

The heads of world-class celebrities literally seem to enlarge. Hillary Clinton's, for instance, has grown enormously since she was the mere wife of the governor of Arkansas. It nods when she talks to you like a balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade. The years of limelight so inflated the circumference of Jackie O's cranium, it seemed her real face must be concealed by an oversized Halloween mask. If you looked into her eyes, you could see her in there somewhere, screaming.

Do you care about Congress's limited, enumerated powers and the idea of judicially enforceable federalism?

Or do you think that's all a lot of conservative bull that we shouldn't have to pay attention to? — I ask Bob Wright, who asserts a belief in "legal realism," which I ask him to define... and help him to define:



Click "continue" to hear me defend Bush v. Gore.

Santorum "plans to bowl at at 3:15 p.m. at Pla-Mor Lanes in Chilton..."

... and he'll end the day with a rally at the National Railroad Museum in Green Bay.

Meanwhile, closer to Madison: "Romney is scheduled to return to the area for a 'town hall meeting' at 5:10 p.m. Sunday at the Madison Marriott West Hotel, 1313 John Q. Hammons Drive in Middleton."

Paul Ryan: "I really misspoke."

"I didn’t mean to make that kind of an impression. So, I was clumsy in how I was describing the point I was trying to make."

He's saying that today about something he said on Thursday, which was: "I think there is a lot of budget smoke and mirrors in the (administration's) Pentagon budget, which is not really a true, honest and accurate budget. When you confront military experts — retired or active — they concede these things to us."

So what was the point, put unclumsily?

"What I was attempting to say is, President Obama put out his budget number for the Pentagon first, $500 billion cut, and then they began the strategy review to conform the budget to meet that number... We think it should have been the other way around."

49% to 38% — voters trust Republicans over Democrats on the economy (which they consider the most important issue).

According to a new Rasmussen poll.

Back in January, Republicans had the edge by 47% to 40%, so that's a 2 point shift toward Republicans, the highest since last October. Voters have favored Republicans over Democrats on the economy since June 2009.

"The government will be able to monitor the calls, emails, texts and website visits of everyone..."

"... in the UK under new legislation set to be announced soon. Internet firms will be required to give intelligence agency GCHQ access to communications on demand, in real time."

But Conservative MP and former shadow home secretary David Davis said... "What this is talking about doing is not focusing on terrorists or criminals, it's absolutely everybody's emails, phone calls, web access...

"All that's got to be recorded for two years and the government will be able to get at it with no by or leave from anybody."

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi...

... wins a seat in parliament in Myanmar.

"I feel like crying when I talk about Daw Aung San Suu Kyi... It felt so good to vote for her party — only Daw Aung San Suu Kyi can save us from deep poverty.”

Nostalgia for "the romance of neurosis, as well as its physical embodiment..."

"... a restless, grumbling, needy presence that once functioned in the collective mind as an early warning system, an inner voice that hedged against excessive optimism."

Yes, why was that character ever charming and compelling? Is it because we were drawn into the literary, imaginative theories of Freud and now we just have symptoms that indicate which drug to prescribe?

Are we better off now?

Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson endorses Mitt Romney.

On this morning's "Meet the Press."

... Johnson says Romney is the only candidate with a realistic chance of getting the necessary number of delegates to win the nomination.

Johnson also says the candidates have had “a spirited debate” but he thinks it’s time “to end this” and prepare for the campaign against Obama.

I like the way everything is climaxing in Wisconsin.

ADDED: Meanwhile, Governor Scott Walker is not doing an endorsement.

Walker’s campaign spokeswoman said he’s not picking a favorite because his full attention is on defending himself against a recall election scheduled for June. But some political scientists say that’s only part of the story.

My commenters will say "why are you talking to that horrible man?"

"I'll kick their ass in the comments for you, okay, Bob?"

Why liberals were complacent and are now panicking.

I'm analyzing the breakup of the major media monopoly and the phony neutrality of liberal voices in the political culture:



IN THE COMMENTS: Ron said:

Your remarks about media's relationship to liberalism makes it seem like the media is a kind of Nessus Shirt for liberalism; they think it makes them invulnerable, but the shirt itself is toxic.

ALSO IN THE COMMENTS: Saint Croix said:

I could never call up NPR because then I would have to do the NPR voice.

Maybe they're all medicated?

I don't know who's worse, the screaming crazy madman liberals, or the NPR voice. The NPR voice is definitely spookier.

"We are in control. Everything is fine. Listen to my voice. There is no need for excitement. Remain calm."

The NPR voice often reminds me of HAL from 2001.

"Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over."

The anti-democratic exploitation of the Trayvon Martin.

"To make a big deal out of the Trayvon Martin case is anti-democratic?" Bob Wright challenges me, and I respond.



Here's the whole 11+-minute discussion of the case: