Jim Lindgren at the Volokh Conspiracy brings us the latest Rasmussen results that show that president Obama’s approval ratings are down even more, and that the percentage of those who “strongly disapprove” of Obama is the same as those who felt the same about Bush when he left office.
When George Bush left office he was deeply unpopular: in Bush’s last month, according to Rasmussen 43% strongly disapproved of the job Bush was doing, while only 13% strongly approved, for a staggering negative rating of –30%. Rasmussen’s Thursday release shows that after 14 months in office President Barack Obama has achieved Bush’s 43% of the people strongly disapproving of his performance, but Obama is still 10% ahead of Bush in those who strongly approve (23% v. 13% for Bush).
Lindgren also asks a very good question: What would Obama’s approval look like if the media treated him the way they treated Bush?
Last Thursday, the Eleventh Circuit handed down a Fourth Amendment case, Rehberg v. Paulk, that takes a very narrow view of how the Fourth Amendment applies to e-mail. The Eleventh Circuit held that constitutional protection in stored copies of e-mail held by third parties disappears as soon as any copy of the communication is delivered. Under this new decision, if the government wants get your e-mails, the Fourth Amendment lets the government go to your ISP, wait the seconds it normally takes for the e-mail to be delivered, and then run off copies of your messages.
In this post, I want to explain why the Eleventh Circuit’s position is wrong. I’ll start by explaining the argument’s origins in postal mail cases; I’ll turn next to Rehberg; I’ll then explain why I think the decision is based on a conceptual error; and I’ll conclude with some final thoughts.
An interesting analysis for anyone who is curious about law or privacy protections. Read the whole thing here.
Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy questions why socialism retains its appeal, despite obvious flaws in its theoretical assumptions. Somin references economist Bryan Caplain, who points out that socialism ignores basic human nature and offers poor incentives to work and produce. A number of communes here in America went defunct for that very reason – freeloading overtaxed the system. Read more…
Lindsay Lohan is suing the financial company E-Trade, insisting that a boyfriend-stealing, “milkaholic” baby in its latest commercial — who happens to be named Lindsay — was modeled after her. And she wants $100 million for her pain and suffering, The Post has learned.
The actress filed a lawsuit yesterday in Nassau County Supreme Court over the commercial that debuted during the Super Bowl this year.
The ad — part of a series starring babies who play the stock market — features a boy apologizing to his girlfriend via video chat for not calling her the night before. Read more…
In a seemingly brilliant turnabout, the State of Utah is setting itself up to use eminent domain toseize land owned by the federal government.
Long frustrated by Washington’s control over much of their state, Utah legislators are proposing a novel way to deal with federal land — seize it and develop it.
The Utah House of Representatives last week passed a bill allowing the state to use eminent domain to take land the federal government owns and has long protected from development. Read more…
David Post at the Volokh Conspiracy brings us this tidbit from 15 years ago (1995 was 15 years ago? Holy crap!) in which Clifford Stoll at Newsweek predicts that the internet will fail.
While I think it could be argued that the popular culture that the internets has spawned could be seen as Fail, the internet as a whole is very obviously going strong. Some of Stoll’s funnier bits: Read more…
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the McDonald case, in which it will decide if the Second Amendment actually applies to the States. Unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, which has been acknowledged to be incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment, the Second Amendment has not had such recognition, so left-wing politcians and activists have seen fit to infringe the right to bear arms as they please, usually by resorting to spurious arguments and fabricated data.
In the McDonald case, Chicago’s somplete ban on owning firearms is being challenged. In light of the overturning of a similar ban in Washington DC, prospects for this ban being overturned look good. Read more…
Ted Balaker at Reason Magazine interviews Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy on gun rights, free expression, and the welfare state. Volokh is a law professor who immigrated from the Soviet Union, so his take on socialism and government control is particularly interesting to me.
Find out what Volokh thinks the biggest threats to free expression are, and whether today’s muzzlers come mostly from the left or right. Volokh also explains what the landmark Supreme Court case, DC vs. Heller, has done to gun control and whether he agrees with the “more guns, less crime” thesis.
A Republican and a Heretic, in multiple senses of both words. A small L libertarian conservative in the Midwest, concerned with limiting the size and power of government and halting the growth of the paternalistic progressive aristocracy. Interested in history, religion, and law, and policies dealing with the aforementioned. Will feature comments on stories or articles I find interesting, whether related to politics or anything else that catches my eye.
Tip Jar
If you think I'm doing a good job, and you have the means, a little cash in the tip jar would be much appreciated. Even five bucks every so often would help a lot.
