I did not find the dissents compelling. True, from the strict constructionist point of view, the case is straightforward:
- Gay marriage is not explicitly enumerated in the constitution,
- The authors of the 14th amendment assumed marriage meant one woman-one man.
- The states can do what they want.
- I respectfully dissent.
Even if I disagree with strict constructivism, I could respect this point of view given two things. First, that they would not whine endlessly about it, and, oh my goodness, they do. Second, that they would at least admit there exist other legitimate ways of reading the constitution, and, oh my goodness, they do not.
Continue reading Thoughts on Obergefell v. Hodges, Part 2
Ok, let’s get the important observation out of the way: one of the most important SCOTUS rulings in our generation has a truly, awful name.
Continue reading Thoughts on Obergefell v. Hodges, Part 1
Almost everyone on both sides of the ruling in King v. Burwell thinks that it is obvious one way or the other. It is not.
Continue reading Understanding The Obamacare Ruling
The picture above is the answer to a question apparently unknown to even the most astute. On June 19 in the NYT, Paul Krugman (subscription required) listed the economic growth during the last five presidencies.
- Clinton 3.7%
- Reagan 3.4%
- Obama 2.1%
- Bush I 2.0%
- Bush II 1.6%
His point is that Republican candidates are promoting old economic policies claiming they will lead to high growth, but there is little evidence of this. He also points out that Jeb Bush’s claim to have been the source of Florida’s 4.4% growth is specious. The growth was due to the massive housing bubble that devastated Florida and the rest of the country when popped.
Continue reading Economic Growth and Presidents