From the “some pigs are more equal than others” file: Perhaps the most striking thing about the Disclose Act is that, while the Supreme Court overturned limits on spending by both corporations and unions, Disclose seeks to reimpose them only on corporations. Well, in fairness to Schumer, corporations are evil, and unions are good. So what’s not to like? As a bonus, media exemptions under the proposed bill will extend

Reason’s Jacob Sullum on the Supreme Court’s upholding of preventive detention: Opponents of preventive detention for convicts who have served their time argue that it violates the right to due process, the guarantee against double jeopardy, and the ban on ex post facto laws. Although a 1997 decision upholding a Kansas civil commitment law suggests the Supreme Court is not receptive to such arguments, this week’s ruling did not address

Reason’s Jacob Sullum on the Supreme Court’s upholding of preventive detention: Opponents of preventive detention for convicts who have served their time argue that it violates the right to due process, the guarantee against double jeopardy, and the ban on ex post facto laws. Although a 1997 decision upholding a Kansas civil commitment law suggests the Supreme Court is not receptive to such arguments, this week’s ruling did not address

Michael Barone to the GOP: “Republicans can’t take for granted in 2010 tradition-minded Democrats who are sour on Obama and/or his policies. They may just not vote.” protein wisdom to the GOP: “Seems nobody much likes you either.” To repeat: A hunter. In a hat. Carrying a rabbit gun and a sack. Think about it.

Oh. So like, a wet dream. Now I get it.

Oh. So like, a wet dream. Now I get it.

That’s how the Washington Post frames it, at least: In the legal battle over Arizona’s new immigration law, an ironic subtext has emerged: whether a Bush-era legal opinion complicates a potential Obama administration lawsuit against Arizona. The document, written in 2002 by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that state police officers have “inherent power” to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating federal law. It was issued by Jay

That’s how the Washington Post frames it, at least: In the legal battle over Arizona’s new immigration law, an ironic subtext has emerged: whether a Bush-era legal opinion complicates a potential Obama administration lawsuit against Arizona. The document, written in 2002 by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that state police officers have “inherent power” to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating federal law. It was issued by Jay

Wait, so if you try to finesse self-interested rogue regimes from a position of weakness — and let’s face it, taking certain military responses off the table is hardly the kind of preemptive strike that anyone outside of Susan Sarandon’s bedroom is likely to find diplomatically effective — the message those regimes may take from that is that you are, in fact, weak? Wow. Who could have seen that coming.

Robert Romano, ALG: So, despite the political catastrophe of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and the bailouts of Fannie, Freddie, AIG, GM, and Chrysler all under a Republican administration, the Senate — with the help of a “handful of GOP members” reported by the [Washington] Post — is now poised to institutionalize that authority for all time. Too big for too big to fail? The GOP seems to think so.