† Who’s Zoomin’ Who?: Underscoring blogger Danny Sullivan’s point that original reporting flows from the MSM to bloggers as well as from bloggers to the MSM, Mark Sherman of The Associated Press writes pretty much the same article that Lyle Denniston wrote on SCOTUSblog back in April about Justice Anthony Kennedy’s seniority enabling him to shape the Supreme Court’s decisions by either writing the opinion himself or assigning it to the justice of his choosing when both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia (who both outrank him) are on the losing side. See for yourself:

 

Denniston: If it has been so that the Supreme Court could properly be called the “Kennedy Court,” because of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s grip on a tie-breaking vote much of the time, that may well be even more so when the Justices open a new Term next October. Without Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced Friday that he is retiring soon, Justice Kennedy moves into position to become a frequent “assigning Justice.”  That is a role not well known beyond Court-watchers, but it is quite important, and can make a difference in how ambitious, or cautious, the Court is in ruling on major, hard-fought cases.

 

Sherman:  Justice Anthony Kennedy, who already decides whether liberals or conservatives win the Supreme Court's most closely contested cases, is about to take on an even more influential behind-the-scenes role with the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens.

 

Denniston: When the Court is divided on any case being decided on the merits, the senior Justice in the majority gets to select a colleague (or take on personally) the task of writing the opinion for the majority.  Depending upon who gets the assignment, that can shape the actual outcome of the case, and also influence its breadth or narrowness.  Also, a colleague whose support may be somewhat shaky can be handed an assignment in order to nail down that colleague’s vote and preserve a narrow majority.

 

Sherman:  By virtue of seniority, Kennedy will inherit Stevens' power to choose the author of some court opinions, an authority that has historically been used - including in as big a case as the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion decision - to subtly shape a ruling or preserve a tenuous majority. …

 

Denniston: He thus will be able to shape even the Court’s more liberally inclined outcomes, by the way he chooses the opinion authors.  And, if he thought any of the other four might use an assignment to write an opinion more sweeping than he would want, he could assign the task to himself, and keep it within whatever bounds he chose so long as it did not drive off one of the four other votes he would need to keep a majority.

 

Sherman:  Another possibility is that Kennedy might keep an opinion for himself that Stevens would have handed off to another liberal justice. Kennedy might write the same decision more narrowly than Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have, said [Michael Dorf, a former law clerk to Kennedy who teaches law at Cornell University].

 

Denniston: Would Kennedy be inclined to line up more often in coalitions with that bloc, just to get the assigning task? … It is not just a ceremonial task, and can, indeed, be an opportunity leading to a more significant leadership role.  Stevens surely used it that way. … [T]he “new” Kennedy Court may begin to materialize.

 

Sherman:  Stevens, who was the senior justice since 1994, was accomplished at producing 5-4 opinions that "moved the law significantly in a progressive direction," said [Doug Kendall, president of the liberal-leaning interest group Constitutional Accountability Center]. With Kennedy calling the shots, he said, the liberals might have to get used to smaller victories.

 

The only salient differences between the two articles is that Sherman paraphrases or directly quotes former Supreme Court clerks and other experts who provide the same information that Denniston supplies from his own deep knowledge of the high court’s inner workings. But without Denniston’s SCOTUSblog post, would Sherman have thought to write this article, or known what questions to ask his interview questions or how to frame them so he could elicit answers that covered the same ground? 

 

† Illegal Immigration Discombobulates Environmentalists: Part II (second item): There is a massive, ongoing ecological disaster in the Tucson sector of the U.S.- Mexico border that rivals the Gulf of Mexico oil spill in its impact. BP’s blown out oil well has been capped, cutting off the flow of oil (for now, at least), but the flood of illegal immigrants tramping through the desert – the U.S. border patrol apprehends several hundred illegals a day crossing into the Tucson sector – and leaving behind hundreds of tons of trash continues unabated.

 

Instead of supporting the efforts of U.S. Border Patrol agents to cap the flow of illegals, coyotes and drug smugglers who are despoiling the fragile Sonoran ecosystem, environmentalists are trying to prevent them from doing their jobs – on environmental grounds, which gives President Barack Hussein Obama the excuse he needs to ignore calls to secure the border. The Washington Times explains:

 

The Sonoran Pronghorn, which resembles an antelope, roams the desert regions of Arizona and Mexico, clinging to a precarious existence. Only about 100 of the creatures separate the species from extinction, and most inhabit a range within the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. The 1,000-square-mile refuge contains seven rugged mountain ranges and shares a 56-mile border with Mexico. Its desolation makes it a favorite gateway into U.S. territory for drug smugglers and illegal aliens, causing murder and mayhem in border communities.

 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) sought to install seven communications towers to spot intruders in the refuge as part of its virtual fence. According to a Fox News report Thursday, objections from environmentalists have resulted in a veto of the original tower proposal by the Obama administration's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Now CBP wants to build just one tower, but even that is too much for Wilderness Watch, an environmentalist group. Its director, George Nickas, says the installation would invite human activity that could damage the animals' habitat.

 

If you think that the lasting environmental effects of illegal immigration are not comparable to the Gulf oil spill, you're wrong. Some 40,000 people are working along the Gulf Coast to skim ocean water and clean shorelines of the estimated 94 million to 184 million gallons of oil that spilled into the Gulf over the past 90 days (assuming the cap holds and the relief well solves the problem). Even after the oil slicks and blobs are sopped up, mopped up and picked up the environment will take years to recover. In comparison, just 3,200 Border Patrol Agents are deployed in the Tucson Sector to cap the flow of illegals and small groups of volunteers from the Tohono O’odham Reservation and the Student Conservation Association have cleaned up less than one percent of the trash left behind each year – roughly 50 million pounds in all, over the past decade. Unless we secure the Tucson sector, the environment will never recover.

 

† Putting The “Boo” In Boomer: In a Los Angeles Times op-ed, "You Look Fine, Really" author Christie Mellor points out that "a generation, [Baby Boomers] learned to market our angst better than any generation before us," and discusses the latest manifestation of her generation's narcissism via a review of "Queen of Your Own Life: The Grown-Up Woman's Guide to Claiming Happiness and Getting the Life You Deserve," a book co-authored by Kathy Kinney (who played Mimi Bobeck on "The Drew Carey Show," famous for using every make-up trick in the book - simultaneously). The 50-something Kinney wants to re-define the “C word” - “crone” – because “being a crone for next 40 years just wasn't an option." Considering that in generations past women didn’t make it much past their reproductive years (if they hadn’t already died in childbirth), all this navel gazing is kinda annoying. Baby Boomers continue to be the generation that just doesn’t know how good they have it.

 

† All The News That’s Fart To Print: Scientists studying human poo-poo – yes, you read that right – discovered that gut viruses are as unique to an individual as his or her fingerprints, reports LiveScience:

 

Even identical twins have very different collections of viruses colonizing their lower intestines.

 

This is in contrast to bacterial communities, which are similar in related individuals, the researchers say. (While bacteria can live and reproduce on their own, viruses consist of genetic material packaged inside a capsule structure and can only reproduce inside a host.) …

 

Most of these "friendly" viruses, which don't cause diseases, make their home inside bacteria already living in the gut. These viruses are thought to influence the activities of gut microbes, which among their other benefits, allow us to digest certain components of our diets, such as plant-based carbohydrates, that we can't digest on our own. …

 

To learn more about the viruses in the human gut, the scientists turned to poop. …

 

The investigators sequenced the viral DNA - or viromes - from samples collected at three different times over a one-year period, which enabled them to track any fluctuations in viral communities over time.

 

More than 80 percent of the viruses the scientists found in the stool samples were new species.

 

[Hat Tip: OpinionJournal]

 

† Updates To Previous Posts (fourth item, Dems Still Beset By Indecision, Infighting And Intrigue): The Washington Post’s Dan Balz writes that for the past five days, Democrats  “engaged in what one administration official called ‘a circular firing squad’ over an accurate - if incomplete - assessment of the political climate voiced by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.”

 

Two of the best House handicappers in the country - Stu Rothenberg and Charlie Cook - show more than 60 Democratic districts at risk.

 

Obama's 2008 campaign manager, David Plouffe, offered much the same assessment several weeks ago. No one in the House raised a hand in protest. Other Democratic strategists have been even more pessimistic in their forecasts. But such is the power of the official White House spokesman's words that Gibbs's comments created uproar in the ranks.

 

Uproar, indeed. Balz’s colleague Paul Kane describes the brouhaha as “lashing out at the White House, venting long-suppressed anger over what they see as President Obama's lukewarm efforts to help them win reelection - and accusing administration officials of undermining the party's chances of retaining the majority in November's midterm elections.” He adds:

 

In recent weeks, a widespread belief has taken hold among Democratic House members that they have dutifully gone along with the White House on politically risky issues - including the stimulus plan, the health-care overhaul and climate change - without seeing much, if anything, in return. Many of them are angry that Obama has actively campaigned for Democratic Senate candidates but has done fewer events for House members.

 

The boiling point came Tuesday night during a closed-door meeting of House Democrats in the Capitol. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) excoriated White House press secretary Robert Gibbs's public comments over the weekend that the House majority was in doubt and that it would take "strong campaigns by Democrats" to avert dramatic losses.

 

"What the hell do they think we've been doing the last 12 months? We're the ones who have been taking the tough votes," Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (N.J.) said in an interview Wednesday. …

 

"What they wanted to do is separate themselves from us," Pascrell said Wednesday. He accused the White House of wanting to preemptively pin the blame on lawmakers running poor campaigns should Democrats lose the majority and not on Obama's own sagging approval ratings. …

 

One House Democrat compared their relationship with the White House to the 1970s Life commercials starring "Mikey," the kid whose brothers trick him into eating the cereal. "There's a sense that's the White House's attitude toward us," the lawmaker said. "And now, Mikey ate it and he's choking on it, and there's no appreciation."

 

And in a telling comment, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) even likened President Barack Hussein Obama to President George W. Bush: “My experience is, we always feel neglected. The experience the Republicans had with Bush - they felt neglected. That's the nature of the relationship between the House and the White House.”

 

Balz adds that some House Dems “believe the president and his team care less about 2010 than about 2012.”

 

† Updates To Previous Posts (last item, Living In These Mad, Mad, Madoff Times): A few months ago the ultra-rich had started spending again (albeit on the sly), but now they've reeled in their wallets again, reports The New York Times:

 

The economic recovery has been helped in large part by the spending of the most affluent. Now, even the rich appear to be tightening their belts.

 

Late last year, the highest-income households started spending more confidently, while other consumers held back. But their confidence has since ebbed, according to retail sales reports and some economic analysis.

 

“One of the reasons that the recovery has lost momentum is that high-end consumers have become more jittery and more cautious,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Analytics. …

 

[T]he Top 5 percent in income earners - those households earning $210,000 or more - account for about one-third of consumer outlays, including spending on goods and services, interest payments on consumer debt and cash gifts, according to an analysis of Federal Reserve data by Moody’s Analytics. That means the purchasing decisions of the rich have an outsize effect on economic data. According to Gallup, spending by upper-income consumers - defined as those earning $90,000 or more - surged to an average of $145 a day in May, up 33 percent from a year earlier.

 

Then in June, that daily average slid to $119. “I think a lot of that feeling that the worst was over has sort of abated,” said Dennis J. Jacobe, Gallup’s chief economist. …

 

The worry, of course, is that consumers will stop spending because of their concerns about a slowdown, and that economic growth will slow because consumers have stopped spending.

 

The New York Times attributes the return to frugal habits by upper income Americans to the “psychological and financial impact” of stock market fluctuations to “perhaps bracing for the possibility of another economic contraction.”

 

Um, perhaps – like corporations – high earners are bracing for all the new taxes they know they’re going to be socked with, starting January 1^st when the Bush tax cuts expire. Not that The Times cares to ask – or even cares to care. Instead, The Times cites one Sam Pizzigati, with the Institute for Policy Studies – which the paper helpfully (and uncharacteristically) identifies as a left-leaning research center - who “cautions against simply boosting the spending power of the rich through tax cuts or other measures.” Now The Stiletto is confused. It’s good for the economy when affluent people have as much disposable income to spend as freely as ever, but it’s not good for the economy to boost their spending power by not raising their taxes?

 

† Updates To Previous Posts (fourth item, A To Z Approach On Illegal Immigration In AZ): Talk about your unintended consequences. In going after AZ because “you can't have 50 states making immigration law” the Department of Justice opened up a can of wriggly worms because that’s pretty much what we have. The Los Angeles Times reports that “there are hundreds of immigration-related laws on the books across the country … regulat[ing] employment, law enforcement, education, benefits and healthcare”:

 

In fact, the number of immigration-related laws and resolutions enacted by states surged to 333 last year, up from 32 in 2005, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. And during the first three months of 2010, lawmakers introduced more than 1,000 bills and resolutions, though it's too early to tell how many will become law. Bills on topics such as employment verification and driver's license requirements are on the table in 45 states.

 

"Lawmakers are frustrated with the federal inaction," said Ann Morse, program director for the organization's Immigrant Policy Project. "Until the federal government acts, states will still see this as an area where they see the need to play a leadership role." …

 

States have a long history of enacting immigration laws. In 1996, after Congress denied welfare to most legal immigrants, states stepped in with laws to provide safety net services. And following the Sept. 11 attacks, state lawmakers passed bills aimed at protecting national security. …

 

Federation for American Immigration Reform President Dan Stein said immigration policy is inevitably a partnership between states and the federal government. The states are "the keys to the kingdom" — where immigrants get identification documents, services and jobs, he said.

 

"If you try only to control immigration at the border … it's an exercise in futility," he said. "National immigration policy can only be carried out with the participation of the states."

 

CA already has a law similar to the one Holder is suing AZ over (last item) – and so does RH. If Attorney General Eric Holder were to undertake a careful examination – that is to say, to actually read - the hundreds of immigration laws already on the books in nearly every state of the union he will spend the rest of his tenure filing Supremacy Clause suits. Or maybe he’s just singling out AZ. The DOJ has become so politicized – “sanctuary cities” that have passed their own immigration laws nullifying federal immigration policies get a free pass - that it’s not inconceivable that Holder just wants to stick it to the conservative governor of AZ.

 

† Updates To Previous Posts (fourth item, We Fight Them Over There So We Don’t Have To Fight Them Over Here?):  Over the past three years, al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist group al-Shabab has recruited more than 20 young Somali men living in MN – many of them born in the state – to return to Somalia to fight to establish an Islamic state. National security experts feared that they would return to the U.S. radicalized and ready to engage in violent jihad against American citizens and targets – their concerns heightened by reports that al-Shabab claimed responsibility for two bombings in Uganda that killed 76 people during the World Cup final. But The Associated Press reports that while some of them have been successfully repatriated to the U.S., the same may not be true for all of them:

 

Five have been allowed to go free with various conditions as their cases work through the court system, including two who admitted spending time in a terrorist training camp. After months in custody, the pair have [sic] gradually received more freedom, and are now living with family members.

 

"Judges tend to err on the side of caution in these cases," said Stephen Vladeck, an associate law professor at American University in Washington. So for a court to release a terrorism suspect, the judge "found clearly and convincingly that the defendant is not a threat." …

 

Federal officials are still seeking some of the Minnesota suspects, and authorities warn the group could still pose a threat in the future.

 

"These individuals still present a dangerousness because of the ideology involved and the training that they get in camps," said E.K. Wilson, an FBI spokesman in Minneapolis. …

 

Charges have been filed against 14 men - including some people who traveled to Somalia and some who did not. Seven of those charged are still at large.

 

† Updates To Previous Post (second item, Guantánamo Bay Detainees Treated Humanely: Report): The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of Aziz Abdul Naji, who wanted to remain at Gitmo, where he has been held since his capture in Pakistan in 2002. Naji and the other five Algerian detainees who prefer confinement to release have no further legal recourse. The Obama administration says it has assurances that the Algerian detainees will not be abused.

 

† Updates To Previous Posts (last item, 10 Reasons Michelle Obama Should Be Proud – Really Proud – Of America): This latest installment in The Stiletto Blog’s ongoing series meant to help instill the necessary pride of country in Michelle Obama’s consciousness to enable her to serve as an unofficial ambassador focuses on Heidi Janson, a boutique owner who founded Brides Across America three years ago. Through her efforts, more than 3,000 wedding gowns ranging in price from $500 to $6,000 have been donated to female soldiers and fiancés of male soldiers serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Washington Post reports on the organization’s summer event, which took place in two dozen cities across the U.S. on July 10^th:

 

Jessica Brawn drove 28 hours to make her appointment at Chevy Chase Bridal last weekend.

 

The 21-year-old Fletcher, Okla., resident was surfing the Internet looking at dresses when she came across an announcement about a wedding gown giveaway for military brides.

 

"I was like, 'Oh, that can't be right. That's not possible,' " said the student and Air Force Reservist, whose fiancé is about to deploy to Afghanistan with the Army.

 

After reading accounts from women who'd gotten dresses through the program, she called the organization, Brides Across America, booked an appointment and plotted her route to D.C. …

 

Though [Brawn] wasn't certain when her big day would be, she knew that her groom would be in his dress uniform when they wed and that they'd walk beneath an arch of swords after the ceremony. She wanted a gown befitting the occasion, something that would make her feel like a princess.