Kevin Drum

Sotomayor's Record on Race

| Mon Jun. 1, 2009 1:13 PM EDT

Is Sonia Sotomayor a bitter closet racist unable to control deep-rooted feelings of race solidarity in her judicial opinions?  Of course not.  Frankly, I feel stupid for even lowering myself to blog about this idiocy.

But just in case you need some expert opinion on this, Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSBlog has reviewed Sotomayor's entire canon of race-related opinions.  The post isn't very long, and his conclusion is clear:

In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.)  She participated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.

Absurd, yes.  But that won't stop the screamers.  Nothing ever does.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Chart of the Day

| Mon Jun. 1, 2009 12:38 PM EDT

This isn't really big news or anything, but Gallup's latest poll shows just how big a hole the Republican Party has dug itself into: they now have virtually no appeal to anyone non-white.  They're almost exclusively a party of white men and women, which explains why their base has convinced them to haul out racial fears as their main line of attack against Sonia Sotomayor.  I just hope they aren't surprised when their meager 11% non-white base declines even further after this is all over.

War and Peace

| Mon Jun. 1, 2009 12:24 PM EDT

Matt Yglesias makes a point that's bugged me for a long time too:

Nobody takes the views of someone who’s a pacifist in general seriously on a specific question of war and peace. But if you’re Bill Kristol, and every time an issue comes up your idea is that we should launch a war, then you get to [be] a Washington Post columnist and a constant TV presence. Here he is with Brit Hume calling for “targeted air strikes” against North Korean missiles:

Why is this kind of stuff taken seriously?  Everyone knows perfectly well why we haven't launched any kind of attack on North Korea: they have lots of troops and lots of missiles and could destroy Seoul and kill millions of people if they decided to.  Kristol knows this perfectly well.  But his endless knee jerk talk of military force as the answer to all problems is given a respectful hearing anyway.  Can't we just put a stuffed doll with a tape recording in his chair instead?  It would save Fox some money and the analysis would be the same.

The 14x Plan

| Mon Jun. 1, 2009 2:01 AM EDT

A few months ago I wrote a brief post about a plan from a guy named Edward Mazria.  His basic idea was that we could get a huge bang for our stimulus buck by refinancing mortgages at low rates if homeowners agreed to renovate their homes to increase energy efficiency.  This would reduce energy consumption, lower mortgage payments, and stimulate the flagging construction industry all at once — as well as providing an enormous multiplier for every stimulus dollar spent.

Well, Mazria's plan is starting to get a little more attention.  For more, take a look at Mike Mechanic's piece on our main site.  It's intriguing stuff.

The Conservative Soul

| Mon Jun. 1, 2009 1:49 AM EDT

On Friday it looked as though the conservative movement was suffering from a personality disorder.  The insane half wanted to brand Sonia Sotomayor as a dull-witted affirmative action hire whose seething racist bitterness would soon turn the Supreme Court into a cesspool of radical retribution against whitey.  The adult half thought that although she was obviously well qualified, her generally liberal record ought to be challenged and her judicial philosophy debated.  Which side would carry the day?

It's starting to look like we've got an answer.  Republican senators have been fairly restrained up until now, but by Sunday they were starting to defect en masse to the insane wing of the party:

Several of those same GOP senators said Sunday that they would now make race a focus of the Sotomayor nomination fight — and they were far less eager to criticize conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich for their racially tinged critiques.

Fanning out across network television talk shows, the senators in essence pledged to ask a fundamental question: Can a woman who says her views are shaped by her Puerto Rican heritage and humble beginnings make fair decisions when it comes to all races and social classes?

"We need to know, for example, whether she's going to be a justice for all of us or just a justice for a few of us," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of the Judiciary Committee, speaking on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.”

....Cornyn's comments were echoed in appearances by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.); Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee; and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), another member of the panel that will conduct hearings.

....The GOP senators' new tone underscored a sense in the party that Sotomayor's history of speaking about her Puerto Rican heritage had emerged as a surprisingly effective line of attack — particularly as President Obama and other Democrats try to shore up their support among working-class white voters.

Oddly enough, Cornyn has never expressed any concerns about whether a white male judge who rules against affirmative action can be a justice for all of us or just a justice for a few of us.  I suppose it just slipped his mind.

In any case, they say that if you want to know what someone is really like, watch how they react under pressure.  That's probably true of political parties too, and the Republican Party under pressure is finding — once again — that when nothing else works, appeals to racial paranoia are a "surprisingly effective line of attack."  Imagine that.

Quote of the Day

| Sun May 31, 2009 2:12 PM EDT

From Alex Knapp, who says that being imprisoned for a crime you didn't commit isn't the worst injustice you can suffer after all:

Now I’ve learned that there is something worse that can happen. You can be accused of a crime you didn’t commit, then have the government that imprisoned you acknowledge that yes, you are innocent — but they’re going to keep you in prison anyway.

He's talking about the 17 Uighurs who continue to be held at Guantanamo Bay despite the fact that they were clearly brought there in error and have never conspired against the United States in any way.  The Obama administration acknowledges this, but continues to argue in court that it has no obligation to release them anyway.  Not exactly a profile in courage.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Mighty Suburbia

| Sun May 31, 2009 1:54 PM EDT

As a replacement for race-based affirmative action, Texas started a program ten years ago that guaranteed admission to the University of Texas to the top ten percent of all high school classes.  As a result, more kids from rural and inner city schools were admitted to UT Austin, the system's flagship campus.  Hooray!  But not everyone was thrilled by this:

For six years [] an odd coalition of lawmakers from the inner cities and rural towns had beaten back efforts to weaken the program....That coalition finally cracked this year under pressure from suburban factions in the Legislature and after heavy lobbying by university officials, who vowed to recruit minorities aggressively.

....Senator Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat, [] fought the change....The bill, Mr. Ellis said, was a victory for suburban students.

“The very people who make the most noise about this are the parents of kids who have had all the advantages in life,” he said. “They are the same people who don’t give a tinker’s damn about the people in the quote other schools unquote.”

But Senator Florence Shapiro, a Republican from Plano who sponsored the legislation in the Senate, said students from good suburban high schools had a legitimate complaint. Only class rank is taken into account, not extracurricular activities or other talents. Many students have been attending colleges out of state.

“The pressure for this bill,” Ms. Shapiro said, “really comes from the suburban counties where the youngsters do really well and many times are in the top 13 percent and cannot go to the university. They really go all over the country when they don’t have opportunity here.”

Never underestimate the power of suburban parents.  They never give up and they never surrender.

(Via Matt Yglesias.)

Extreme Charter

| Sun May 31, 2009 1:15 PM EDT

The LA Times has an interesting read today about the American Indian Public Charter schools in Oakland, which are some of the highest performing schools in the state of California:

Not many schools in California recruit teachers with language like this: "We are looking for hard working people who believe in free market capitalism. . . . Multicultural specialists, ultra liberal zealots and college-tainted oppression liberators need not apply."

....The Academic Performance Index, the central measuring tool for California schools, rates schools on a scale from zero to 1,000, based on standardized test scores. The state target is an API of 800....The oldest of the American Indian schools, the middle school known simply as American Indian Public Charter School, has an API of 967. Its two siblings — American Indian Public Charter School II (also a middle school) and American Indian Public High School — are not far behind.

....On Tuesday, American Indian's high school will graduate its first senior class. All 18 students plan to attend college in the fall, 10 at various UC campuses, one at MIT and one at Cornell.

....The school could not provide its students' elementary school test scores, so it is hard to say if they were [already above average when they were admitted]. Roberts did provide three years of middle school scores for all students who entered American Indian in 2004 (with names removed for privacy), showing their progress in math and English from sixth to eighth grade. Of the 51 students who entered American Indian's middle school that year, only six scored lower than "proficient" in both math and English at the end of sixth grade.

In a nutshell, this story explains pretty well why I like charter schools — and also why I doubt they're any kind of educational panacea.  Lefty-baiting aside, AIPC is a super-strict, teach-to-the-test, no goofing off kind of place that apparently gets good results.  So I say: fine.  If there are some parents who want their kids to go to schools like this, let 'em.

At the same time, AIPC is tiny: 51 students in middle school and 18 in its first graduating class.  It plainly attracts only parents and children who are academically motivated in the first place.  It requires middle school teachers to teach every subject and keeps them on a grueling pace, which means lots of turnover.  Cheerleaders to the contrary ("They really should be the model for public education in the state of California," says Debra England of the Koret Foundation), the odds that the AIPC formula is scalable to an entire school district is nil.

It makes sense to try out different kinds of schools for different kinds of kids and different kinds of neighborhoods.  With a few obvious caveats, I'm all for it.  But let's not pretend that any particular one of these charters is necessarily the model for everyone else on the basis of 18 cherry-picked graduates.  It ain't so.

Chart of the Day

| Sun May 31, 2009 12:27 PM EDT

As I've mentioned before, one of the big problems with reaching peak oil isn't just that oil prices will go up, but that they're likely to spike up and down fairly violently.  In 2006, for example, demand for oil pretty much bumped up against the total available supply, which meant that even a small amount of additional demand was enough to send oil prices spiraling up past $150 in little more than a year.  The ensuing recession reduced demand by only a modest amount, but that was enough to cause oil prices to plummet to under $50 in the same timespan.  And this isn't just a demand-side problem: a small glitch in supply could easily have caused the same kinds of violent price spikes.

As a general rule, the world can handle high oil prices.  In fact, to the extent that high prices get us off our butts and looking for cleaner, more sustainable sources of energy, high oil prices are a good thing.  But what the world economy can't handle is constant, huge gyrations in oil prices: nearly all of our recessions since 1973 have been jump started by a sudden spike in oil prices.

So what happens next?  Via Ryan Avent, Paul Kedrosky points us to this projection from McKinsey, which shows that demand will once again bump up against supply very shortly: probably within a couple of years, but almost certainly within four years at the outside.  And when that happens, prices will once again rise unpredictably.  A strike in Venezuela could cause oil prices to double in less than a month.  A rumor of new supergiant field or a small recession could cause a subsequent collapse.  Price changes of 100% in short periods will become common.

You can probably already figure out where this post is going, can't you?  Wild spikes in oil prices are very bad news for the global economy, and the only way to avoid them is to permanently reduce global demand for oil so that we once again have enough spare pumping capacity to keep prices relatively steady — high and rising, perhaps, but at least rising fairly predictably.  That means we need higher mileage cars (global warming isn't the only reason for stronger CAFE standards), electrification of transportation, better conservation and efficiency measures, and more investment in solar, wind, and biofuels.  And all this needs to be done fairly quickly if we want to avoid an economy permanently at the mercy of OPEC oil.  Even 2013 isn't that far away.

Quote of the Day

| Sat May 30, 2009 1:10 PM EDT

From Michael O'Hare, professor of public policy at UC Berkeley:

So, for the record: I am not the Zodiac killer, had absolutely nothing to do with those (or any other) murders. As far as I know, I wasn’t even in California when any of them happened.

I had lunch with Mike once.  He didn't seem like a serial killer.  But then, they never do, do they?