Via Roger Clegg on The Corner blog:

Obama Administration Files Brief Supporting Racial Preferences in University Admissions   [Roger Clegg]

On Friday, the Obama administration filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, supporting the use of racial preferences by the University of Texas in its undergraduate admissions. The brief is a full-throated endorsement of such discrimination, and it goes out of its way to say that the administration will support it at the K-12 level, too, as well as throughout university admissions: “In view of the importance of diversity in educational institutions, the United States, through the Departments of Education and Justice, supports the efforts of school systems and post-secondary educational institutions that wish to develop admissions policies that endeavor to achieve the educational benefits of diversity in accordance with [the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision upholding the use of preferences by the University of Michigan law school].”

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmFiNWJkNDk4ZDliNjRmMTZiMjMyYzEyNTg5MWQwN2E=

The Case for Full Disclosure

Advocating for the enemy is a modern anomaly. Andrew C. McCarthy on why Americans have the right to know what positions government lawyers have taken.

By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

While Attorney General Eric Holder was in private practice, he had signed an amicus brief in the controversial District of Columbia v. Heller case, in which the Supreme Court invalidated the District of Columbia's ban on firearms in 2008. Mr. Holder had supported the ban.

When Mr. Holder was nominated to lead the Obama Justice Department, letters of support and opposition poured into the Senate from law-enforcement groups and gun-rights advocates, respectively. The commentariat, including several Holder admirers from the Republican establishment, debated his argument that the Constitution guaranteed only a "collective" right to gun ownership, not an individual one. At his confirmation hearing, senators closely questioned Mr. Holder on the views espoused in the brief, gauging whether, as attorney general, he'd be able to follow the contrary Heller ruling.

Opinions varied about what Mr. Holder's amicus brief portended for firearms enforcement policy. Everyone, however, agreed on one point: The brief was highly relevant. Mr. Holder, after all, was a volunteer. He did not participate in the Heller litigation because he had to, but because he wanted to. There are countless causes that an attorney, looking to donate his skills, can support. When he chooses one, it matters. It very likely indicates the direction in which he'd like to take the law.

Until a couple of weeks ago, this was not a controversial proposition. It is now because of a television ad aired by a conservative group, Keep America Safe. The spot pressured the Obama administration, which has famously promised unprecedented transparency, to disclose the names of seven Justice Department political appointees who, while in private practice, voluntarily represented detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The Justice Department had stonewalled Republican lawmakers on this information for months. Then the Keep America Safe ad riveted public attention with the succinct but explosive question: "Who are the al Qaeda Seven?"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704131404575117613313731980.html

Rep. Paul Ryan on what real health reform should look like

By Paul Ryan

Monday, March 15, 2010

Today, the House Budget Committee is to mark up a "reconciliation" vehicle, initiating the greatest expansion in government and entitlement spending in a generation through a partisan process to push "health-care reform" across the finish line.

Despite claims of transparency and calls for a "simple up-or-down vote," there is nothing simple about this process. This convoluted legislative charade demonstrates how far the Democratic majority has wandered from real health-care reform and cost control, employing any means to achieve political victory.

Through any analytical lens, the legislation will not address the central problem of skyrocketing health-care costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that families' premiums could rise 10 to 13 percent; private-sector actuarial estimates top these already high numbers. The higher costs are driven by federalizing the regulation of insurance, narrowing consumers' options and reducing competition among providers. The health-care market would be dominated by government programs and the largest insurance companies, operating as de facto government utilities.

Rather than tackle the drivers of health inflation, the legislation chases the ever-increasing premiums with huge new subsidies. Already, Washington has no idea how to pay for the unfunded promises in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security -- and creating this new entitlement would accelerate our path to fiscal ruin. When you strip away the double-counting, expose the hidden costs that must be funded and look at the price tag when the legislation is fully implemented, the claims of deficit reduction are as hollow as claims of cost containment.

This legislation includes a range of job-killing tax hikes and controls on all Americans -- to fund this new entitlement and to penalize employers and individuals who don't play by Washington's new rules. The CBO said last July that "requiring employers to offer health insurance, or pay a fee if they do not, is likely to reduce employment." The mix of mandates and higher costs will drive Americans into government exchanges, with an ever-enlarging number reliant upon taxpayer subsidies for their care. The architecture is designed to give the government greater control over what kind of insurance is available, how much health care is enough and which treatments are worth paying for.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/14/AR2010031401388.html

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It's not every day you hear a sentence like this on the House floor: "Madam Speaker…they are hiding behind blooming algae as they twist arms and try to work their backroom deals."

Those words were spoken by Rep. David Dreier, the ranking Republican on the House Rules Committee, and they were true. As the House Democratic leadership struggled to come up with a procedural shortcut to pass the unpopular national health care proposal, they scheduled the House floor to discuss the "Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Research and Control Amendments Act of 2010."  However important algal blooms and hypoxia research might be, Dreier was pointing out that the water bill was simply cover, something for the House to do while, the powers in the Democratic party devised a plan to push the Obamacare bill through the House without Democrats having to take a public, roll-call vote on the measure.

As Dreier spoke, Democrats were refining plans to use something called a "self-executing rule" to pass the bill approved by the Senate last December 24 on a party-line vote.  The House must pass that bill, as is, for Obamacare to become law.  But since the bill contains the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, Gator Aid, and other special deals, House Democrats are wary -- no, terrified -- of voting for it, even if they pass a separate bill "fixing" the Senate bill's problems.  That's where the self-executing rule -- sometimes called the "Slaughter solution" or the "Slaughter sleight-of-hand," after House Rules Committee chairwoman Louise Slaughter -- comes in.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Democrats-arent-suicidal--Theyre-self-executing-87641422.html

Via Weasel Zippers:

GOP to use amendments as tactic

Seek to dash health reform by forcing difficult votes

By Jennifer Haberkorn

Capitol Hill Republicans are crafting hundreds of amendments in hopes of tripping up the health care overhaul if Democrats scrape up the votes needed to resuscitate the long-stalled measure by week's end.

Even though Democratic leaders on Sunday conceded they didn't yet have the votes to pass President Obama's overhaul out of the House, Senate Republicans are threatening to put up hundreds of amendments — one of the few weapons in their limited arsenal — to force Democrats to take difficult votes on politically sensitive subjects.

Amendments don't have to be relevant to the subject matter under the controversial tactic Democrats are using to avoid a filibuster, so Republicans can force Democrats to take tough votes on any number of matters, such as closing the detention facility for terrorism suspects at the U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

But they won't reveal any details ahead of time.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/15/republicans-to-use-amendments-as-a-tactic/

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leaving the door open on using a controversial procedure to move healthcare through the House.

The process would allow the House to “deem” the Senate bill passed when it votes on a package of changes to that legislation, perhaps as early as this weekend.

The procedure involves crafting a rule allowing for consideration of a reconciliation “fixers” bill that deems the Senate bill already approved by the House. Aides to the Speaker said the option is “under consideration.”

Republicans on Monday criticized the move, and said it would allow Democrats to avoid taking a tough vote on the Senate healthcare bill, which is under attack from the anti-abortion rights Democrats as well as Hispanic members and liberals.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/86857-pelosi-says-use-of-controversial-tactic-an-option-on-healthcare

Rahm Wants to Be Mayor After All: Report

Openly communicates that desire with Mayor Daley, according to the New York Times

By STEVE BRYANT

Updated 5:27 PM CDT, Sun, Mar 14, 2010

Rahm wants to be mayor after all.

So says a piece on Obama's chief of staff in the New York Times Magazine pubbed last Thursday citing information which apparently comes from William Daley, Mayor Richard Daley's brother and Emanuel's close friend.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/Rahm-Wants-to-Be-Mayor-Report-87621457.html

The Air is Getting Cleaner: But the Media are Nowhere to be Seen

On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) quietly released their annual report on air quality trends.  You would never know it from picking up a newspaper or reading news websites, but the report contains great news. Air quality in the United States has dramatically improved and, according to all indicators, it will continue to improve.

The Good News—the Air is Getting Cleaner

The report can be summed up with this graphic from EPA:

...

GDP, vehicle miles traveled, population, and energy consumption have all increased since 1990. But despite the fact that more people are using more energy to produce more goods and services, air pollution emissions have decreased.

EPA reports that air quality has improved for the six main air pollutants:

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2010/03/12/the-air-is-getting-cleaner-but-the-media-are-nowhere-to-be-seen/

Would Supreme Court rule unconstitutional law passed with Slaughter Solution?

By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
03/15/10 4:21 PM EDT

Democrats in Congress might want to re-read the 1998 Supreme Court decision Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 before moving forward with the Slaughter Solution to pass President Obama's health care reform bill. That decision is chiefly remembered today for holding a federal version of the line-item veto as unconstitutional.

The reason, according to Amy Ridenour at the National Center Blog, is that the Justice John Paul Stevens articulated in the majority opinion the precise rationale for a similar ruling against legislation passed using the Slaughter Solution.

Ridenour notes that Stevens wrote:

"...our decision rests on the narrow ground that the procedures authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not authorized by the Constitution. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became 'Public Law 105--33' after three procedural steps were taken:

"(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may 'become a law.' Art. I, Section 7.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Would-Supreme-Court-rule-unconstitutional-law-passed-with-Slaughter-Solution-87685887.html

Via Jim Gerahty:

There was evidence the White House and Democratic leadership were making headway in their lobbying. Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., who supported strict abortion limits when the bill cleared the first time, said he was prepared to vote for the revised measure even though the same limitations will not be included.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9EF77F03

THE Lockerbie bomber was at the centre of a fresh row last night after it emerged he is taking a cancer-busting drug that could keep him alive for FIVE more years.

Terminally ill Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi was prescribed chemotherapy treatment Taxotere after returning to Libya.

But yesterday reports claimed Megrahi wasn't given the drug while he was in Greenock prison - amid claims he could have been kept behind bars if he had taken the medication.

Last night Tory justice spokesman Bill Aitken demanded answers from Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2892333/Terminally-ill-Lockerbie-bomber-could-live-for-another-five-years.html

A key Democrat in upstate New York is considering switching his vote to yes on the healthcare bill.

Rep. Scott Murphy (D-N.Y.) is telling local media that he is keeping an open mind, and he sounds optimistic that the high costs that concerned him in the House bill in November may be mitigated.

"That’s why I’m spending the time to read the bill, to get into the details, and if, at the end of the day, I think it’s going to make the system better for people in my district, I’m going to vote for it," Murphy told the Oneonta Daily Star.

Murphy, who won a special election a year ago this month, could face a tough reelection battle. He voted against the House healthcare bill when it was approved by that chamber on Nov. 7.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/86699-rep-scott-murphy-open-to-yes-vote