The (supreme) court of public opinion
The value and content of confirmation hearings
What’s the value of transparency in a democracy? Does it serve a function, or is it simply a right of the people to hear from elected and appointed officials, holding them to account through public opinion and in the ballot box?
These and other questions loom in the distant background when Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearing to join the Supreme Court kicks off this afternoon. While widely regarded as an empty formality that can do more to derail a confirmation (see: Robert Bork) than propel one, Supreme Court confirmation hearings are one of the few opportunities most Americans have to see and hear from the only unelected, lifetime-appointed branch of our federal government.
Many legal scholars and practitioners dislike confirmation hearings, treating them merely as superfluous opportunities for political bluster or the unending debate on abortion. But a fascinating new study – the first comprehensive analysis of what has been said at confirmation hearings – suggests otherwise: Read more
(Not a) goalllllllll!!!!!!
Does soccer need better review?
For the first time since 1776, Americans can finally enjoy widespread agreement that they are on the short end of the stick. In two consecutive matches during the opening round of the 2010 FIFA World Cup soccer final, the United States had goals disallowed on dubious calls.
The first, which would have given the U.S. a win against Slovenia, was disallowed with no apparent indication from the referee as to why. The second, in the final group-stage game against Algeria, was ruled off-sides, despite television replays which suggest otherwise.
Fortunately for the U.S. squad and for their fans, the U.S. managed to score during injury time against Algeria, securing a win and a berth in the round of 16.
But the two officiating gaffes, combined with others around the tournament (including a what many consider an unjust exclusion of Brazilian star Kaka during a match against the Ivory Coast) has many urging FIFA to review how it manages matches. Read more
Voters and values
You can always count on David Brooks to bring the values. Amid some data that should be disturbing for Democrats and exciting for Republicans, this tidbit on why progressives are failing:
Bitterly and too late, Dr. Faustus saw that liberals can’t have their way and still win elections in places like North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri. Bitterly and too late, Dr. Faustus recognized that economic policies are about values. If your policies undermine personal responsibility by separating the link between effort and reward, voters will punish you for it.
While I find the point intriguing, I can’t really believe it. Voters are upset because perceived big government efforts to jump-start the economy and create jobs don’t seem to be working (at least from the perspective of the unemployed).
If the Obama administration had curtailed benefits or pursued some other economic program that more strongly linked benefits to work, it’s hard to see that voters would be any more forgiving (assuming the economy would wind up in the same place).
Economic policies are about values. No question there. But the public success of those policies is about results.
-Sam
Father knows best
The Obama administration’s new Fatherhood and Mentoring Initiative
Beginning with a speech on Father’s Day Sunday, Obama launched a new initiative on responsible fatherhood. This was a campaign issue for then-candidate Obama, and remains one of the social issues with which he shares common ground with conservatives, who frequently emphasize the role of responsible parenting and accountable fatherhood in helping to create the conditions for future economic success of low-income children.
In an email from the White House:
My own father left my family when I was two years old. I was raised by a heroic mother and wonderful grandparents who provided the support, discipline and love that helped me get to where I am today, but I still felt the weight of that absence throughout my childhood. It’s something that leaves a hole no government can fill. Studies show that children who grow up without their fathers around are more likely to drop out of high school, go to jail, or become teen fathers themselves.
The government also launched a new website, Fatherhood.gov, which includes tips for being a responsible father.
Ira Stoll, blogging at FutureofCapitalism.com, blasts the site and the Initiative: Read more
Who’s to blame?
Few institutions are as characterized by blame as marriage. Now New York State will become the final state of the union to provide no-fault divorce. A nice description of the stakes:
Social changes always involve trade-offs. Unilateral divorce increases the risk that a partner who invests in her (or more rarely, his) marriage rather than in her own earning power, and does not engage in “bad behavior,” may suffer financially as well as emotionally if the other partner unilaterally ends the marriage. When courts have not taken this sacrifice into account in dividing property, homemakers have been especially disadvantaged.
-Sam
Liability, with no end in sight
The New York Times “Room for Debate” feature, which puts together mini-op-eds from experts on breaking debates asks the question today of how to ensure that BP continues to pay for oil-related damages, even if the effects last for decades:
The economic and environmental damage can linger for decades, as was the case with the Exxon Valdez, and even much smaller spills, like the one off Cape Cod in 1969.
How do we calculate the full costs of the BP blowout, which may not be understood for 20 or 30 years? How might we ensure that the public doesn’t end up paying for future damages and recovery, as it has with Superfund sites?
This is a great question, but just as important as “how” is “should.” The Times forum features the views of a bunch of law professors and former regulators. But an equally important component of liability – especially 20-30 years down the line – will be how it is apportioned.
Is BP solely liable for all oil-related damages? What if some element of the clean-up effort, one partially managed by the government, has deleterious effects down the line? Shouldn’t responsibility for that ill be shifted partially or entirely off of BP?
In addition, fully calculating the damages requires a more sophisticated moral lens than a regulator can provide.
More public philosophy people!
-Sam
When ethics attack
When it comes to applying ethics in real life, the day-to-day realities can be daunting. Created in 2008, the Office of Congressional Ethics is an independent oversight panel for Congress. It was created by Democrats as the point of their supposed good government spear.
Not for long. Now lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are increasingly dissatisfied with what they perceive as excessive zeal:
Privately, Democratic and Republican lawmakers, and even some congressional leaders, acknowledge that there’s a strong sentiment to change rules that empower the office to publicize investigations and wreak havoc on lawmakers’ political lives.
The office – and the controversy it’s causing – raise some important questions. First, how do we formulate appropriate standards of conduct? Second, how do we apply them?
Public figures like Members of Congress are especially susceptible to the scandals that can bloom over even the threat of investigation. Should that consideration inform how they choose to govern their own conduct?
-Sam
Kagan’s consequentialism
Professor David Rose says that asking Kagan her moral framework is a relevant question in considering her fitness for the bench (particularly, is she or isn’t she a consequentialist?):
This is a timely issue. If confirmed, Ms. Kagan may hear a constitutional challenge to the mandatory insurance requirement of the new health-care law.
A nonconsequentialist judge would examine whether the Constitution empowers the federal government to require citizens to purchase a private good (health insurance) and make a ruling on that basis alone.
But a consequentialist judge would look beyond the law and consider the insurance mandate’s impact on society. Using this criterion, the consequentialist judge might see the mandate as a “benefit to public health” and a “compelling state interest.” Such thinking would lead to a loose interpretation of the Commerce Clause and an affirmation of an unprecedented loss of personal liberty in America.
What’s odd to me is not the questions Rose raised, but the fact that he is a professor of economics. Are there no moral philosophers or legal philosophers interested in this question?
-Sam
Do enemy combatants take checks?
How does cost affect where we should house suspected terrorists?
The Washington Post ran a detailed article today on the $500 million that has been invested in renovations at the Guantanamo Bay base that has housed many of the enemy combatants we’ve captured since the 9/11 attacks.
Among the more amusing expenditures:
The cost of the marquee, along with a smaller sign positioned near the airfield: $188,000. Among other odd legacies from war-on-terror spending since 2001 for the troops at Guantanamo Bay: an abandoned volleyball court for $249,000, an unused go-kart track for $296,000 and $3.5 million for 27 playgrounds that are often vacant.
It’s always easy to cherrypick seemingly useless expenses to show waste, although an abandoned go-kart track really does feel egregious. Also, I’m not sure playgrounds are as fun when you are cuffed and hooded. Or maybe slides and tunnels are a new “enhanced interrogation” technique. Ok, ok, enough bad one-liners.
The real concern is the disparity between Guantanamo’s $150 million annual operating cost and what it would likely cost to house these prisoners on U.S. soil. The Post cites a White House estimate that Guantanamo costs “double the amount for a comparable U.S. prison.”
There have been some interesting arguments about whether it would be appropriate to move suspected terrorists to a U.S.-based maximum-security prisons. The main debate was whether such a move would put American lives in danger.
But the spending issue adds a new and important perspective. There’s little question that safety arguments tend generally to trump waste arguments. If moving these prisoners to the continental U.S. really would significantly risk American lives, the best argument would be to show that keeping the prisoners in Guantanamo actually puts more lives at risk (or increased the risk level for the same number of lives).
If the risk is relatively low, the spending level (the Post estimates about $2 billion total) really does trade-off with other morally good things. Today’s Los Angeles Times reported that political pressures heading into the midterm elections have even many Democratic lawmakers leery about education and unemployment expenditures expected to be taken up by Congress.
If I were a father of four, I wouldn’t want Guantanamo-USA near my hometown. But if I’ve been unemployed for a year, I might need my unemployment check.
How should we choose?
-Sam
Flotilla folly
The startling simplicity of a tragic clash
Over the weekend, Israeli military forces raided a flotilla of Turkish activists who attempted to pass through Israel’s blockade of Gaza and provide aid to the Hamas-governed population. Some of the activists were killed in skirmishes with Israeli commandos; hundreds of others are in custody.
While the international reaction has been harsh, Israel says that the blockade is legal and defends its right to enforce it.
There is little question that any loss of life is grave and this incident underscores the importance of continuing to seek a mutually-agreeable way forward on Israeli-Palestinian relations. At the same time, we should not be surprised to hear commentators add needless complexity to an issue that, to my mind, is not that morally confusing.
For Israel, the Gaza blockade is an issue of national security. It’s no secret that it exists, and they rely, where possible and appropriate, on non-violent efforts to enforce it. Five of the six Turkish boats were stopped using a technique that interferes with rudders. The sixth was apparently too large for the technique. While an investigation is in order, early reports suggest that commandos were met with armed resistance on the sixth boat.
For activists who see a serious moral wrong occurring in Gaza and feel the need to provide aid, there is little question that they should do everything they can to deliver that aid. If they feel the moral obligation is high enough, it’s not outlandish to resort to force.
These two sides are morally opposed, but both can mount legitimate arguments for their respective positions.
This problem can only be addressed through a blockade policy that assuages the Israeli security interest and the desire for activists to see adequate humanitarian capital flowing into Gaza. If only a total blockade satisfies Israel or if activists really are after some kind of political outcome beyond the provision of necessary supplies, conflict will inevitably follow.
You can’t think your way out of that kind of dispute.
-Sam
Share us