How many recess appointments would a recess appointer appoint if a recess appointer could re-recess appoint recess appointees?

With no pro forma session in this recess, the President should immediately issue an order re-recess appointing all of his current recess appointments. That way if the Supreme Court were to invalidate his currently serving recess appointees in the Noel Canning case on the basis that the pro forma sessions meant there wasn't really a recess, those appointees' appointments would only be invalid up until the re-recess appointment.

UPDATE: Weigel says it isn't true, that the House never adjourned, which will mean it will not technically be in recess. Considering that only the Senate confirms nominees, I'm not sure why a recess in the House would matter. But Weigel thinks it does, and so do the Republican members of the House and Senate that he checked in with, so maybe it does.

(via Tripp on FB)

If only we could find a way to harness the power of "fuck you, liberals!"

Truly a renewable resource.

You smart Liptak!!!

Adam Liptak at the NTY:

The more meaningful way to look at the court is as a movie, one starring Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. as a canny strategist with a tough side, and his eyes on the horizon. He is just 58 and is likely to lead the court for another two decades or more.

Is that really true? The average life expectancy for a male in the U.S. is  between 75.35 and 75.92 (depending on which study you look at). I believe those are averages of all people, which means it includes everyone who died prior to age 58, something that Justice Roberts obviously has not done. So the applicable average for him is probably a bit higher. According to the Social Security Administration's actuarial tables, the average time that a 58 year old male has left is 22.82 years. Plus, Supreme Court justices probably get the best medical care that this country offers, so Roberts' actual expectancy might be a bit higher.

So yeah, Liptak is right.  Odds are, Roberts will spend another two decades on the court unless he decides to retire.

(When I started writing this post I didn't think he would be right. So much for my "you stupid Liptak!!!" idea. Somethings the evidence just doesn't bear out the original concept for a post. But after I went through all the trouble of looking this shit up--all to make a fairly minor point about a barely relevant detail in an article that focuses on something else--I might as well post it. So I am.)

SuperDavis

I find it remarkable how well a Taiwanese animation group can represent American politics. Did Wendy Davis' filibuster make that many waves internationally? I mean, it was an amazing feat, even though it is pretty clear that her efforts will ultimately fail.

Conflict with all of Central Asia?

I accidentally discovered the existence of Conflict Kitchen this morning. It sounds like an interesting place.

I also found this job advertisement, but I was puzzled by the list of preferred languages. Is there some conflict with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, or Turkey that I never heard of? (I'll give them Uzbek, Tajik and Turkmen on the theory that they are all minority languages in Afghanistan)

Aren't you a lawyer? Why no law-talk?!?!

Yeah, I realize all the kool blogs are talking about Supreme Court opinions today. As I think I've mentioned a few times before, I'm much less likely to write a blog post saying what I see a lot of other people saying. I mean, what's the point? Others will probably say it better and will definitely have a bigger megaphone than I will ever have on this humble site. I just don't have much urge to join in the pile-on even when I totally agree with the pile-oners.

In any case, in terms of my day-to-day work¹, this is the most significant Supreme Court action this week. And that will remain true even if the Court orders everyone to get gay married tomorrow.
----------------------------
1- Look, extremely rare reference on this site to my actual job!!! I think I haven't done that since ought-four.

Probably not what they intend

I gotta agree with Dave Weigel. The face on this shirt does remind me of Lady Cassandra.

"For reasons of safety, it is not planned for the torch to be lit"

If it's not lit, doesn't that undermine much of the point for this stunt? I mean, it won't really be the "longest Olympic torch rally" because the rally is about carrying the flame from Olympus, Greece (the site of the ancient Olympics) to wherever the current games will be played.

If you count the travels of the unlit torch as part of the rally, then you should really start counting miles from the moment the torch is manufactured. As far as I can tell, no one ever does that.

"We'll be the most militarized border since the fall of the Berlin Wall"

John McCain is bragging about his efforts to make the U.S. border patrol into the infamous Grenztruppen der DDR. Hurray for gunning down people just trying to make a better life for themselves!

(via MatthewB on FB)

Losing the plot

The entire IRS scandal is the allegation that the agency subjected conservative groups to greater scrutiny because of their politics. It's not the greater scrutiny that made it wrong (the IRS is allowed to investigate whether tax laws are broken), it's the fact that the agency might have treated people differently because of their politics.

So the fact that the IRS also went after groups with liberal words in their name doesn't mean the scandal has any greater scope, it means there is no scandal. If the IRS went after groups all along the political spectrum that's fine. In fact, that's the IRS's job. Those kind of searches may have been "inappropriate" under the agency's internal rules, but it completely diffuses the original scandal. I mean, I originally thought this one was real. But because the political-driven targeting allegation is not holding up, I don't think it is anymore.

Not that any of that will deter continued scandal wankery over this one. If Benghazi is any guide, there doesn't have to be a there there for scandal mania.

WWZ

All the criticism of the movie has made me want to read World War Z. It really does seem like it's much more up my alley than the zombie book I imagined it to be.

No Showden

While I personally think the whole "Snowden is a traitor/Snowden is a hero" debate is silly, it's hilarious how he lured a bunch of reporters onto the Moscow to Havana flight and then didn't show up. Apparently, the reporters didn't realize he wasn't there until the cabin doors closed and they were trapped on board. That's a 12 hour and 40 minute flight! And then they will be in Cuba, and not wherever Snowden is.

I wonder if he's even going to Ecuador? (but I hope he is, because I sort of called it weeks ago). Also, cue conspiracy speculation.

ADDING: It gets even funnier, the reporters trapped on the Moscow to Havana can't have alcohol and they are required to stay in Cuba for three days.

Glennzilla on the charges against Snowden

I don't agree with Glenn Greenwald as much as I used to, but he's 100% right about the charges that have been brought against Snowden. Charging him under the Espionage Act is totally ridiculous, especially considering that he didn't actually engage in any espionage even though he had ample opportunity to.

ADDING (6/24/2013): also this.

Wow

(via B²)

Not a strike

So how would this strike work exactly? As I said almost a decade ago, the whole gay marriage debate is not over whether gay marriages will occur. Gay people were holding marriage ceremonies and throwing parties before any jurisdiction in the nation viewed them as a legal marriage. The gay marriage social phenomenon exists independently of the political issue, and that phenomenon will continue to exist even if conservatives somehow reverse the tide of history and outlaw gay marriage everywhere. The gay marriage political issue is about whether the unions are legally recognized. That is, how the government will treat people after the ceremony is over.

And that's what is at stake in both Supreme Court cases. The DOMA case is over whether the federal government can deny the benefits of marriage to people who are legally married in the state they live. The Proposition 8 case is over whether a state violates the equal protection clause of the constitution when it denies legal recognition to same sex marriage when it recognizes opposite sex marriage. Both are about government recognition of same sex unions. If both cases come down "against gay marriage" they won't stop people from having same-sex commitment ceremonies, throwing parties, and calling them marriages.

A strike is when a group of people withhold something (usually their labor) in an attempt to change a policy or practice. So how will conservative activists go on strike if they don't like the Supreme Court ruling? What will they withhold for their strike. They would be able to withhold government recognition, because they are not the government. They can ignore the ruling if they want, but that won't have any practical consequence and thus is not what is normally known as a strike.

Most Americans ignored last month's "defalcation" ruling, but I wouldn't call them on strike over it. And even if it were, it has had zero effect on challenging the validity of that ruling.

A prisoner exchange is no way out of the Gitmo mess

I don't see how the U.S. government could possibly agree to free five Guantanamo prisoners with actual ties to the Taliban, while continuing to imprison the remaining majority that the U.S. military has concluded should be released.

Exercising my magical predictive powers

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that the U.S. will impose sanctions on Uzbekistan for human trafficking, but waive them for Russia and China.

Tourists care more about being shot than sanctions on financial instutitions and against weapons shipments

Among the causes listed in this article for the Syrian Pound's plummeting value:

Western sanctions that have collapsed Syria’s main money-earning industries of oil and tourism

uh, I don't think that sanctions are the reason that tourists aren't going to Syria. And I say that as someone who, until 2 years or so ago, was a fairly big booster of Syrian tourism. I personally recommended to several people that they visit there, because it really was a great place to visit.

In fact, the sanctions that were in effect in 2005 had no effect on my trip, other than the brief pre-trip anxiety mentioned in this post. If not for the violence, I would still be plugging the virtues of Syria as a place to visit. It really had a lot going for it: a lot of diversity, fantastic ruins from several different ancient civilisations, super-safe while at the same time perceived as being really dangerous (thus giving you bonus cool points for going), it's a great place to practice Arabic (if you're into that sort of thing), and the cost of everything there was really cheap. Sure, I had to keep the ew-jay thing under my hat, but otherwise, it was one of my best trips.

And now watching that all being destroyed. (Except for the cheapness.With the pound cratering, I'm sure you can get some great deals). I know that being ruined as a nice place to visit is way down the list of tragedies going on in Syria right now. But I still mourn the loss whenever Syria comes up in my life, like every time that I look at my phone.

"Untruthful," even in the least bit, is still lying

It has been a week and I was in vacation mode for most of that time, but I have not seen anyone call for James Clapper to be prosecuted. Lying to Congress is a crime.

It's rarely prosecuted even though people probably do lie to Congress as often as they lie under oath in the cases I am involved with, because it can be difficult to prove they actually intended to say something untruthful.  But Clapper presents a clear cut case. Last March, Senator Wyden asked Clapper "Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?" and Clapper responded, "No, sir... Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly."

It's clear now that Clapper knew that was false. In fact, Clapper has all but acknowledged that he lied, calling his answer the "least untruthful manner" to answer the question. Which is also not true. Even if we assume that Clapper had a legitimate interest in not disclosing the program in an open session of a Congressional committee, the least untruthful manner without making a disclosure would be to not answer the question.

Lying to Congress is still a crime. There is no exception for testimony given by the Director of National Intelligence (nor should there be). Clapper should be prosecuted. If he is not, then why should we believe any of this stuff?

"live pack swap"

Tesla is totally stealing my idea. I wonder how they deal with the "all batteries aren't created equal" problem?