Talk About What A Great, Free Country We Live In, Or I'll Send You To Jail

Apparently the irony of the above statement would be lost on Judge Littlejohn of Mississippi, who recently sent a lawyer to jail on contempt of court charges for failing to recite the pledge of allegiance.

In a just world, he'd be kicked off the bench for such an egregious decision before you could say "failure to uphold the constitution", but given the current state of our justice system, I'll just be happy if anyone bothers to call him on it.

Administration Threatens Insurers Whose Costs Contradict Administration Theory

Health and Human Services has issued a letter to the insurance industry, promising "zero tolerance" for any insurer who dares to blame the administration for rising health insurance costs. You see, the white house has models to predict what should happen, and if it doesn't turn out that way in reality, then reality is the one in the wrong:

(Courtesy of The Volokh Conspiracy)

It has come to my attention that several health insurer carriers are sending letters to their enrollees falsely blaming premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. I urge you to inform your members that there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases....

According to our analysis and those of some industry and academic experts, any potential premium impact from the new consumer protections and increased quality provisions under the Affordable Care Act will be minimal.... Any premium increases will be moderated by out-of-pocket savings resulting from the law....

Given the importance of the new protections and the facts about their impact on costs, I ask for your help in stopping misinformation and scare tactics about the Affordable Care Act. Moreover, I want AHIP’s members to be put on notice: the Administration, in partnership with states, will not tolerate unjustified rate hikes in the name of consumer protections....

Already, my Department has provided 46 states with resources to strengthen the review and transparency of proposed premiums. Later this fall, we will issue a regulation that will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers, with the justification for increases posted publicly for consumers and employers. We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014. Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections....

It is my hope we can work together to stop misinformation and misleading marketing from the start....

"Nice health insurance company ya got there. Shame if anything were to happen to it . . ."

Arrested for Videotaping Police: Round 2

This time, the man was in his own house while he recorded police officers who were "subduing" a college student outside who had allegedly pushed a police officer. The police arrested the camera operator for "disorderly conduct" for his "failure to disperse". No word on exactly where they wanted him to disperse to, since he was already in his house.

Just because what you are doing is perfectly legal doesn't mean they won't arrest you for something.

Spectacular Response by Gov. Chris Christie

New Jersey governor Chris Christie gives a spectacular, detailed smackdown to a disgruntled member of a teacher's union:



Perhaps not relevant to most people's lives outside New Jersey, but I do enjoy seeing a politician answer questions in such a straightforward manner.

A Sobering Look at the World's Financial Future

Illegally Confiscating Property and Detaining People is Okay . . .

. . . says Philadelphia's Lt. Fran Healy, as long as "officers' safety" is involved.

Nice to see Philadelphia's police force "protecting and serving" themselves at the expense of the citizens. I'm sure the city will sleep easier knowing that their police force is spending its time and resource cracking down on such miscreants as uniformed security officers carrying perfectly legal concealed weapon permits.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Chicago Handgun Ban

CNN: High Court Strikes Down Chicago Handgun Ban

In another dramatic victory for firearm owners, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional Chicago, Illinois', 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons.

A 5-4 conservative majority of justices on Monday reiterated its 2-year-old conclusion that the Constitution gives individuals equal or greater power than states on the issue of possession of certain firearms for self-protection.

"It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as states legislated in an evenhanded manner," wrote Justice Samuel Alito.

While encouraging, it isn't a complete victory. The standard used to reach this decision was not taken from the Privileges and Immunities clause of the constitution, which would have made state governments as beholden to the second amendment as the federal government, but from the Due Process clause, which simply means that the states cannot presumptively declare that a person cannot own a handgun, with no due process given.

The difference between the two standards is apparent if we use an analogy and change the amendment in question from the second to the first. Imagine Chicago had a law saying that you couldn't criticize any elected city official at any time. Also imagine, that when you went to the supreme court and challenged this law under the first amendment, they said "The first amendment really only applies to the federal government, and not to state and local government. However, we will limit them and say they can only restrict the speech of people through due process instead."

Sure, it's nice that they slapped down an obviously unconstitutional law, but at the same time they left the path wide open for other "lesser" restrictions of free speech. Instead of the "no one can ever criticize an elected city official" law, you get laws like "No convicted felon can ever criticize an elected city official" or "No one is permitted to criticize a city official in public" or "No one is permitted to use the following words when discussing a city official" and so on.

Better? yes. Fixed? Not by a long shot.