James Fallows regrets "5 Signs the United States is Undergoing a Coup" as the title of his attack on the Supreme Court.

It's now "5 Signs of a Radical Change in U.S. Politics."

Using "coup" in the headline implies things I don't mean. Through the past decade, there has been a radical shift in the "by any means necessary" rules of political combat, as I describe. Previous conservative administrations have nominated previous conservative Justices — but not radical partisans, happy to overthrow precedent to get to the party-politics result they want. 

Fallows' piece is embarrassingly hysterical, with or without the new title.

At the Bumble Bee Café...

... share the buzz.

"Kill this portmanteau now..."

"... Breastaurant."

ADDED: At the link at the link, there's talk of Tilted Kilt, whose CEO Rod Lynch who complains that the word breastaurant "implies that the company's success is based purely on sex appeal."

Rose Dimov, a 22-year-old waitress at Tilted Kilt, says her job is no different from any other waitressing gig; make guests feel special and ensure they have a good time. As an aspiring ballroom dancer, she also says she's not fazed by the revealing outfit that comes with the job. "Going to a restaurant should be an experience," Dimov says. "We're entertainers."

Tilted Kilt — yes, we were talking about kilts yesterday, but remember when Tilted Kilt popped up in the Wisconsin protest story?  Here's a Business Insider article from February 18, 2011.

"[O]ur Eighth Amend­ment cases are no longer tied to any objective indicia of society’s standards."

"Our Eighth Amendment case law is now entirely inward looking," writes Justice Alito, dissenting today in Miller v. Alabama — PDF — which declared it mandatory life imprisonment to be "cruel and unusual" punishment when imposed on a juvenile.

Unless our cases change course, we will continue to march toward some vision of evolutionary culmination that the Court has not yet disclosed.

Do you think the Court has a "vision of evolutionary culmination"?

So, we must wait until Thursday for the Obamacare decision.

According to SCOTUSblog's expert opinion, based on who's written the decisions already announced, "health care is almost certainly being written by CJ Roberts, perhaps in part with Justice Kennedy."

Justice Scalia "is commenting on the president's announcement about suspending deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children...."

Writes Amy Howe, covering the Supreme Court live at SCOTUSblog. Scalia is speaking in connection with his dissenting opinion in Arizona v. United States — PDF — but this new development isn't part of the case.

ADDED: Here's the relevant material from Scalia's dissenting opinion:

It has become clear that federal enforcement priorities—in the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate “scarce enforcement resources”—is [sic] not the problem here. 

After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30.

"Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant the petition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United..."

"... or, at least, its application in this case. But given the Court’s per curiam disposition, I do not see a significant possibility of reconsideration."

Writes Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, dissenting from the Supreme Court's summary reversal of the Montana Supreme Court's decision, which — as the majority put it presented the question "whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law":

There can be no serious doubt that it does. Montana’s arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.

(PDF.)

Why does the NYT have a 4000-word article about Apple Store workers only making $11.25 an hour?

"By the standards of retailing, Apple offers above average pay — well above the minimum wage of $7.25 and better than the Gap, though slightly less than Lululemon, the yoga and athletic apparel chain, where sales staff earn about $12 an hour."

So what's the problem? What's the issue? Why is this a story? The presumption seems to be that because Apple makes so much money, it ought to redistribute more of it to the people who happen to work in the stores. But why?

Much of the debate about American unemployment has focused on why companies have moved factories overseas, but only 8 percent of the American work force is in manufacturing, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Job growth has for decades been led by service-related work, and any recovery with real legs, labor experts say, will be powered and sustained by this segment of the economy.

And as the service sector has grown, the definition of a career has been reframed for millions of American workers.

“In the service sector, companies provide a little bit of training and hope their employees leave after a few years,” says Arne L. Kalleberg, a professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina. “Especially now, given the number of college kids willing to work for low wages.”

Are you seeing the issue? There's some idea that these college-kid jobs need to be turned into careers... because... people need careers?

“It’s interesting to ask why we find it offensive that Wal-Mart pays a single mother $9 an hour, but we don’t find it offensive that Apple pays a young man $12 an hour,” [said Paul Osterman, a professor at M.I.T.’s Sloan School of Management]. “For each company, the logic is the same — there is a line of people eager to take the job. In effect, we’re saying that our value judgments depend on the circumstances of the employee, not just supply and demand of the labor market.”

It's interesting that we're not offended by even more things. That's assuming that you were already offended that sales workers at Wal-Mart only get $9 an hour. But why is that offensive? I don't get Osterman at all. He's trying to shift us from thinking about which people we have empathy for to which companies we feel hostility toward.

Watching for the new Supreme Court opinions.

SCOTUSblog covers the Court live here. Announcements begin at 10 ET.

ADDED: Here's a SCOTUSblog post clearly stating the issues in the remaining cases. That post is from last Wednesday, so it includes a few cases that were decided last Thursday. There are 6 more cases to be announced, but it's unlikely that all will be announced today, even though today is the last scheduled day for announcing opinions. There will probably be another day later this week.

UPDATE: "Montana campaign is summarily reversed, five to four." So... the occasion for reconsidering Citizens United is over. [Here's some background on the Montana case, where the state supreme court had a decision which did not give adequate respect to Citizens United.]

UPDATE 2: "The Court holds that the Eighth Amendment forbids a scheme of life in prison without possibility of parole for juveniles." A 5-4 decision, written by Justice Kagan. Justice Alito writes the dissenting opinion. "[I]t is relatively rare for a Justice to read a dissent from the bench but not unheard of."

UPDATE 3: The 9th Circuit is reversed in part and affirmed in part in Arizona v. United States. "Most of the key provisions of SB1070 (3 of 4) are invalidated. One provision is held not to be proved preempted; it must be construed.... The provision that the Court says is not yet preempted is the 'check your papers' provision that commands officers to check immigration status."

How did Jonathan Turley come up with 19 as the best number of Supreme Court Justices?

We're all wound up waiting for the Supreme Court to announce its new decisions this morning, so let me while away some of the remaining minutes brooding about that WaPo article we were talking about last night. Let's talk, specifically, about Turley's homing in on the number 19.

Wikipedia has an article on the number 19, which includes mathematical info like "19 is the aliquot sum of two odd discrete semiprimes, 65 and 77 and is the base of the 19-aliquot tree." And "19 is a centered triangular number, centered hexagonal number and a Heegner number" — which looks like this:



That red dot could be John Roberts.

There's also significance to the number 19 in the religions Islam and Baha'i:

The number of angels guarding Hell ("Hellfire") according to the Qur'an: "Over it is nineteen" (74:30).

The Number of Verse and Sura together in the Qur'an which announces Jesus son of Maryam's (Mary's) birth (Qur'an 19:19).

Some people have claimed that patterns of the number 19 are present an unusual number of times in the Qur'an.

In the Bábí and Bahá'í faiths, a group of 19 is called a Váhid, a Unity (Arabic: واحد wāhid, "one"). The numerical value of this word in the Abjad numeral system is 19.

The Bahá'í calendar is structured such that a year contains 19 months of 19 days each (along with the intercalary period of Ayyám-i-Há), as well as a 19-year cycle and a 361-year (19x19) supercycle.

The Báb and his disciples formed a group of 19.

There were 19 Apostles of Bahá'u'lláh.

Not at the Wikipedia, but dredged up out of my memory: At the Million Man March, back in 1995, when Louis Farrakhan gave his long speech that bizarrely drifted into numerology, the number that he found so important was 19. He observed that the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorial are both 19 feet high, then adds 3 and 16 together — because Thomas Jefferson was the 3d President and Lincoln was the 16th — gets 19 and asked "What is so deep about this number 19?" You can go to the link and read if you want to know why 19 represents a pregnant woman + a "secret that has to be unfolded."

I don't know what put the idea of 19 into Jonathan Turley's head. It could be something mystical and nutty. Maybe he loves Adele's first album.

But I assume there's nothing mystical or artistic about Turley. I think he likes the number 19 because it's the smallest odd number that's big enough to make individual Justices inconsequential — to dilute their power to the point where they don't loom large as personalities and seem like mere humans.

Turley's last sentence says it: With 19 Justices, "the power of individual judges is diluted."

Don't like the Supreme Court's decision? Propose a Court-packing plan!

It was good enough for FDR, and it's what the Washington Post is pushing in anticipation of the Obamacare decision. Jonathan Turley writes:

The health-care decision comes 75 years after the famous “court packing” effort of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.... Roosevelt may have had the right idea for the wrong reason.

Oh, spare me the bullshit. It's the same reason. You don't like the opinions. It was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now.

Turley announces that the best number is 19:

How would we get to a court of 19? Gradually. If Congress ordered such an expansion, no president would be allowed to appoint more than two additional justices in a term. Once fully staffed, the court would have a more regular natural turnover....

Just as the philosopher and jurist Jeremy Bentham called for “the greatest good for the greatest number,” sometimes the greatest good can be found in the greater number. When it comes to the Supreme Court, that number may be 19.

If the greatest good is in the greatest number, why not 100? Why not 1000? Why not submit constitutional questions to the entire electorate to get the "greatest" answer?

(Man, that is one of the worst analogies I've ever seen. And even if it were a good as an analogy — that greatest good for the greatest number is like more is better — it would nevertheless depend on one's affection for the utilitarian theory of Jeremy Bentham. Do you want to take constitutional law advice from a Jeremy Bentham fan? Why not save yourself the trouble and throw out the Constitution altogether?)

UPDATE: I have a new post, delving into the reasons for choosing — of all numbers — 19.

UPDATE 2: "Jonathan Turley's civility bullshit about my calling 'bullshit' on his Court-packing plan."

"An economics professor has a plan for raising children: have lots of them..."

"... and don't stress about nurturing their potential."

Bryan Caplan... says that a child is helped the most if they are in a positive atmosphere.

And if they follow that step, Caplan says, parents can relax — and focus on having even more children. Caplan, who teaches at George Mason University, has three children himself — twin 8-year-olds and an infant.

Here's his book: "Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids: Why Being a Great Parent is Less Work and More Fun Than You Think." There's a big excerpt from the book at the first link, including:

Children cost far less than most parents pay, because parents overcharge themselves. You can have an independent life and still be an admirable parent. Before you decide against another child, then, you owe it to yourself to reconsider. If your sacrifice is only a fraction of what you originally thought, the kid might be a good deal after all.

"The white margin to watch: 61-39. That’s the rough break-even point."

"Obama likely needs more than 39 percent of whites to assure re-election. Romney likely needs at least 61 percent of whites to assure Obama’s defeat (or 60.5 in some scenerios). These are estimates based on an electorate that matches the diversity of 2008 or is slightly less white. It presumes the Electoral College outcome does not diverge from the winner of the popular vote (loose talk aside, it’s only happened four times in U.S. history)."

The "white margin to watch"... is that the way we talk now? I find that pretty unpleasant, and it's also odd to be talking with such specificity — 61-39! — while rejecting the powerfully specific mechanism that is the Electoral College. Once you tip to a plurality in a state, it doesn't matter how many white or nonwhite voters go this way or that (except in Maine and Nebraska). So polling that ignores the Electoral College is inherently inaccurate in a close election.

The campaigns are designed around winning the Electoral College. George Bush explained it well, when challenged about his 2000 win that lacked a popular vote majority. (Despite what it says at the link, that interview took place on Dec. 5, 2000.)

You know... had this been an election on who got the most popular votes I suspect we might have had a little different strategy. 

Typical Bush humor. Of course, he means he would have had a completely different strategy.

For example, I might have spent more time in my own home state of maximizing the vote here. One of the reasons why the Electoral College is in place, is it forces candidates like me to go and spend time in some of the smaller states that candidates might ignore. And so I-I-you know, I understand the results. But my whole strategy was based on securing enough electoral votes to become the president. 

As I wrote in a law review article on the Electoral College (“Electoral College Reform: Déjà Vu,” 95 Northwestern University Law Review 993 (2001)):

Muslim Brotherhood candidate wins the Egyptian presidency.

"... handing the Islamist group a symbolic triumph and a new weapon in its struggle for power with the ruling military council."

In Tahrir Square, where hundreds of thousands had gathered to await the result, the confirmation of Mr. Morsi’s win brought instant, rollicking celebration. Fireworks went up over the crowd, which took up a pulsing, deafening chant: “Morsi! Morsi!”...

But Mr. Morsi’s recognition as president does little to resolve the larger standoff between the generals and the Brotherhood over the balance of power over the institutions of government and the future constitution. Under the generals’ plan, Mr. Morsi, 60, will assume an office stripped of almost all authority under a military-issued interim constitution.

Having dissolved the democratically elected and Brotherhood-led Parliament on the eve of the presidential vote, the generals who seized control after Mr. Mubarak’s ouster abrogated their pledge to hand power by June 30, eliciting charges of a new military coup.

After 84 years as an often outlawed secret society struggling in the prisons and shadows of monarchs and dictators, the Brotherhood is now closer than ever to its dream of building a novel Islamist democracy....

Utilikilts.

Instapundit brings up the topic this morning, pointing to Manolo, who says he gets the idea:

You are the unconventional, free-spirited, manly-dude, who wishes to show the world that you march to the beat of your own Iron John drum circle, even as you not-so-surreptitiously air your junk out in public.

However...

Real Scottish kilt, worn properly = The Sexy.
Utilikilt, worn by you = The Dorky....

I learned the word "Utilikilt" on October 18, 2010, when Meade and I were "very politely accosted" on State Street (Madison, Wisconsin) by a young man with a spiral notebook who was getting people to write the answer to his question "What is your American dream?" I didn't write in his book, but while Meade was writing — "To live in freedom" — I interviewed him about his project and his attire:

I said I was especially interested in the subject of men in skirts...

Because I saw the potential for getting men out of shorts (which really are The Dorky)...

.... and he agreed to be photographed...

Photographs at the link...

... and introduced me to the term Utilikilt. There was some talk about its usefulness to, for example, a carpenter.

I observed that it would be a useful defense against plumber's crack (since the back isn't attached to the front beneath the legs, so there's no downward pull when you crouch), and he made the less subtle point that it wasn't good if you had to use a ladder.  

We talked to him about his project, and he said he was hitchhiking all over the country — would you pick up a man in a Utilikilt? — getting answers to his question, and naturally he had a website, which I linked to. The website was americandreamorbust.com, but I guess it went bust, because it's not there anymore.

Now, you might say, well, that's part of the American Dream. No safety net. You can win or lose. Free markets! Capitalism! He just lost. And hitchhiker in a Utilikilt soliciting entries to a spiral notebook turned out to be a loser. But he took his shot, and had his day in the sun. There's nothing to cry about.

But here's the mistake I see: He shouldn't have bought his own domain. If he'd gone with americandreamorbust.blogspot.com that website would still be there, and whatever the project was, it would be preserved. He paid to get a more-ambitious-looking URL, but then, he didn't keep it up, and the links that he got now go nowhere.

This is why I stay on Blogger. It seems weaker, perhaps, not to have one's own domain. But I think it's stronger. It's stable. It's a floor of permanence under your project. It's not vulnerable to the winds of change.

Beware the winds of change.



Especially if you're wearing a skirt.

At the AFSCME convention, "any serious consideration of a fundamental change in strategy..."

"— something that many labor and political experts say the union badly needs to win more public support."

Judging from the talk on the convention floor, one would hardly know that they had experienced a huge defeat this month in their effort to recall Wisconsin’s governor, or that they faced lawmakers and voters across the country who have grown increasingly unsympathetic to public sector workers....

At most they're saying, they lost in Wisconsin because they were outspent, says Gary Chaison, a professor of industrial relations at Clark University, but "It would have been much more encouraging if they said, ‘We lost because we are out of touch with the public.’ They don’t understand that in hard times, everyone must sacrifice."

Numerous studies have shown that wages for public sector and private sector workers are not far different. One analysis found that government workers with college degrees tend to have lower wages than private sector workers with similar educations, while those without college degrees tend to do better than their private sector counterparts.

But public employees generally have more generous health and pension plans. In a report this month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said state and local workers averaged $26.85 in wages an hour, with compensation totaling $41.16 an hour when pensions and other benefits are included.

Designing the pay package like that is a way to keep the public from seeing how generous it is. What happened in Wisconsin was a new transparency. Something most people hadn't noticed became the focal point, as Scott Walker and the GOP legislature selected, for budget cutting purposes, exactly the item that people hadn't really noticed. It wasn't about cutting salaries or firing public workers, so when they protested, they were yelling about something that looked rather lavish to other citizens... which made them sound out of touch and entitled.

“I wouldn’t write off labor unions just yet. Their obituary has been written frequently over the past 70 years,” said Harley Shaiken, a professor of labor studies at the University of California, Berkeley. However, “the status quo for them is untenable,” he said. “Unions will require imaginative, bold leadership going forward.”

But at the convention, AFSCME voted for Lee Saunders as their new president, and he's saying:

“We have to be as politically active as we can possibly be in the 2012 elections at the national, state, local, school district level because there are a lot of people out there who want to hurt this union and who want to hurt you,” he said. “We have to be organized to fight back.”

Does that sound like imaginative, bold leadership going forward?