Category — Rhode Island

In unemployment.  Michigan and Rhode Island are tied for first place with an unemployment rate of 9.3%.  For those who want to find a correlation between unemployment and political leanings, here’s the data.  California is in third place with state unemployment at 8.2%.  Governor Testosterone has been whipped into shape by the Missus.

 36 million drivers would flunk drivers tests

 Is it just your imagination, or do many of your fellow motorists lack even a rudimentary grasp of traffic laws?

Well, if a test administered by GMAC Insurance is any indication, one in six people cruising our highways and byways — roughly 36 million licensed drivers — would flunk their driver’s test if they had to take it today. Not only that, but based on the 2007 GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test data the state with the most road-going dummies is New York, while the most knowledgeable ones are out West to Idaho. [snip]

Also of interest from the GMAC Insurance test:

• Drivers 35 and older were more likely to pass
• Illinois, Georgia, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Massachusetts were the least knowledgeable states overall, with average scores under 75 percent
• Fifty-five percent of the respondents didn’t know how many feet before making a left or right to signal. [snip]

The following state rankings were released for the 2007 GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test:

• 1. Idaho.
• 2. Alaska
• 21.Vermont
• 36. Maine
• 37. New Hampshire
• 40. Connecticut
• 46. Pennsylvania
• 47. Rhode Island
• 48. Massachusetts
• 48. New Jersey
• 51. New York

After analyzing the article, before glancing at the list, I thought population was the key. That would place Wyoming first and Vermont second. Not so.

Perhaps, I reflected, the political belief system of the states held a clue. That appears to work for the bottom states, but didn’t vindicate Wisconsin at 4, Washington at 6, Oregon at 9 or Iowa at 10.

Given that the 2007 failure rate doubled to 18% from 2006, a reason exists. Combining both posits advances one conclusion.

I’ll let the reader ponder the possibilities for others.

Getting Licensed to Death

The Reason Foundation just issued a state-by-state study on the number of occupations that require a government license.

The regulatory intrusion in the free market is evidenced by the lead paragraph of Reason’s press release:

Do you want to be a fortune teller in Maryland? Your future better include a license from the state. How about being a hair braider in Mississippi? You’ll need 300 to 1,500 hours of training and government permission. Want to sell flowers in Louisiana? Only licensed florists can do that. And almost every state requires certification if you want to move furniture and hang art while calling yourself an interior designer.

These are not licenses, they are fees (taxes) placed on various businesses. Those businesses that truly need certification have licensing boards set up composed of members of the specific profession or trade. Some require specific schooling (college is not specific schooling) such as Medical or Dental apprenticeship, while some require passing an exam. Most are arbitrary, bordering on state sanctioned scams.

Anecdotally, when I had my construction company in NY, the county instituted a licensing program to “protect” the public. What I could competently do on the 31^st of the month, I was unable to do by fiat on the 1^st of the next month. No test, no questions about acumen or duration of the business; pay the $100 and they mailed the license. The license covered banging nails, sheetrocking and taping, etc. Additionally,I held a Master Electrician license presented by a board of electrical inspectors. That required oral and written presentations.

Here are the top hostile states and the number of occupations requiring a license:

1. California (177)

2. Connecticut (155)

3. Maine (134)

4. New Hampshire (130)

5. Arkansas (128)

6. Michigan (116)

7. Rhode Island (116)

8. New Jersey (114)

9. Wisconsin (111)

10.Tennessee (110)

12.Massachusetts (107)

15. Vermont (107)

“Most of these licensing requirements are completely arbitrary,” said Adam B. Summers, a policy analyst at Reason Foundation and author of the report. “You see that clearly when examining neighboring states. California has 177 job categories licensed. But if you take one step across the state line into Arizona just 72 careers are licensed. In North Carolina you need a license to do 107 jobs. Next door in South Carolina, only 60 jobs require certification.”

Proponents claim these licensing requirements are needed to protect the public from unscrupulous, incompetent, or dangerous practitioners. However, numerous studies show these laws actually reduce consumer protection and public safety, according to the Reason Foundation report.

“These laws are created under the guise of ‘helping’ consumers,” Summers said. “In reality, the laws are helping existing businesses keep out competition, restricting consumer choice, destroying entrepreneurship, and driving up prices.”

Full Report Online
The full study, Occupational Licensing: Ranking the States and Exploring Alternatives, is available online at www.reason.org/ps361.pdf.

Risky Business

Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus believes that the biggest competitors for capital that business has are America’s plaintiff trial lawyers. They siphon off billions of dollars that would be invested in R&D, growth, and jobs creation, or would be returned to shareholders. Trial lawyers also increase the cost of capital for those companies whose ratings are downgraded as a direct result of trial lawyer briefings to financial analysts or press conferences about their litigation portfolios—all part of the trial bar’s new business model. [snip]

State Rankings

NEW HAMPSHIRE-17

New Hampshire’s liability climate encourages growth and job creation. The state has enacted some reforms, including the elimination of punitive damages, medical malpractice reform, and modest joint liability reform. New Hampshire juries are not known for excessive, unwarranted verdicts. Having said this, the state’s insurance loss ratios are in the bottom 30 percent of all states, which explains the 24 ranking in the HWV Index. The Supreme Court majority is activist and the AJP partner that helped with this profile suggests the state’s liability climate could deteriorate as the New Hampshire Legislature considers a bill to reverse reform legislation.

CONNECTICUT-24

While Connecticut’s composite ranking is 24, there is a significant variance among the three indices. The HWV Index and the Harris Poll rank the state at 16 and 14 while the PRI Index ranks it at 44. Despite some liability reform legislation in the mid-1980s, including reasonable limits on punitive damages and elimination of joint liability, the AJP partner that helped prepare this profile rated the state’s liability climate as discouraging growth and job creation.

Supporting this assessment are insurance loss ratios (especially for product liability, medical malpractice and auto, and selfinsurance), which rank Connecticut in the bottom half of all states. The absence of reasonable limits on non-economic damages may help explain the poor ranking on insurance loss ratios. Another negative factor is activist Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who, along with former New York Attorney General (now Governor) Eliot Spitzer, led the movement for regulation through litigation. Connecticut’s liability climate may be trending downward.

MAINE-26

There is a significant variance among the three national rankings with the two econometric studies ranking Maine at 36 and 34 and the Harris Poll ranking the state at 5. Insurance loss ratios in Maine rank 26th in the nation. The Supreme Court majority and Attorney General Steven Rowe are viewed as activists. The Maine Legislature has not enacted any significant liability reform legislation. The state’s liability climate is, at best, neutral to growth and job creation. Maine may well become a “red light” state in the next ranking.

MASSACHUSETTS-29

There is a significant variance in the PRI Index ranking of 41 and the Harris Poll ranking of 18 for the “Bay State.” Although total insurance loss ratios in the state are in the top 40 percent of all states, the product and general liability insurance loss ratios are in the bottom 20 percent. Instead of fairly balancing the interests of consumers and business, the Commonwealth’s liability climate is decidedly antibusiness. With the election of Governor Deval Patrick and an anti-reform legislature, the prospects for improving the liability laws of Massachusetts are dim.

VERMONT-43

With insurance loss ratios among the five worst in the nation, Vermont’s liability climate discourages growth and job creation. The Legislature has enacted some modest liability reforms, such as reasonable limits on punitive and non-economic damages in wrongful death cases. The Supreme Court majority and Attorney General William Sorrell are regarded as activists.

RHODE ISLAND-49

While Rhode Island juries are not known for excessive verdicts, and punitive damage awards are rare, the AJP partner that helped with this profile reports a noticeable upward trend in recent jury awards. The state’s lawsuit against four lead paint manufacturers under a public nuisance theory was the first attempt by a state to hold the industry responsible for the dangers of lead paint in old buildings. Three of the four companies were found liable by a Rhode Island jury—a verdict that could cost the companies billions of dollars unless it is reversed on appeal. The Supreme Court has an activist majority and Attorney General Patrick Lynch is regarded as an activist. Its liability climate is not conducive to growth and job creation.

Enacting tort reform is impossible as long as jurors believe large settlements are apple pie. Lawyers will not vote to slaughter this cash cow; many are in our state offices. The ablility to afford a run for these positions by self-funding makes change difficult. Neither party turns down fresh loot.

Corporations were complacent when years ago the impact of litigation was confined to paying legal fees and enduring the occasional adverse verdict. Corporations could survive this competitive disadvantage against the trial bar. That is no longer true. Today, verdicts reflect an anti-business sentiment and many juries have a lottery mentality when doling out awards. Now, a company’s share value, brand equity, and even its very solvency are at risk. That’s why successful companies must study the trial bar’s new business model, and develop sound, effective, and preemptive opposition strategies.

Outsourcing and foreign manufacturing costs companies less; foreign operations provide an extra shield against lawsuits too. Next, this country will see our major companies incorporating in corporate friendly tax and litigation havens. Halliburton didn’t move to the UAE because of the physical climate.

New England lost its manufacturing base, now we rely on service industries. With the Internet, they are even more mobile; they hire fewer employees.

In a conflict, a fixed position is a losing tactical situation. A legal confrontation is no different. Since there is always some state that sooner or later will alter it’s business laws, an ability to incorporate anywhere provides immunity from high tax addicted governments. Only a Marxist/Socialist believes otherwise. For their position to maintain, they must control all government. Capitalism, being the normal human condition, exists on its own.

I find it problematical in my personal life to leave a job uncompleted. There is a righteous obligation to see tasks to the end, disdaining a poorly finished job.

Personified by original New Englanders as well as the rest of the colonials, this work ethic built this state, this country into what it is yesterday. Hardy woodchucks created the farms and woodlots that became Vermont and New Hampshire. Seafarers from ports in Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut generated trade and wealth.

From the French and Indian War to Korea, we remained stalwart with those that fought at our side. We terminated the first rapacious jihadists, when Jefferson subdued the Barbary pirates. Through the pains of war, we kept the faith and stayed the path

In the mid 1960’s, America changed when the first spoiled generation came of age. They coveted material items, bought with others’ labor, rather than strive for them as in previous times. Never tempered in the forge of maturation, they believe in birthright and have a concomitant deficiency in sense of community. They became the me generation.

Vietnam showed this absence in an obtrusive fashion. Whether we should have or not fought there is moot. This generation demanded the politicos cut and run from there, acquiescence sold the people who worked with us into re-education and labor camps. Those who fought with the Arvin now get nothing except slum housing and pedicab work…if they’re lucky. This precipitated the slaughter in Cambodia for no reason except to exterminate the educated class. Our esteemed officials cared less; those with us paid and are paying the price.

Today, the left is executing the same nefarious diligence with Iraq. The Democrats want to cut and run immediately. Sell out to the heathens; care nothing for the Iraqis working with us. Once more, the boomer generation shows a repellent indifference for our obligations to the Middle East.

The Iraqi citizens, who assumed we would keep our word, acquire death sentences. Al Qaeda avows beheadings as soon as they ensnare those who accepted our word. That is fine with our culture of sensitivity advocates; they extend nothing to anyone adjudged a friend of the US.

Is it to be a bloodbath in Iraq? Shall we allow the leftists to isolate us from any association with other countries save Israel? They wish them destroyed. The message is the same for us.

When the wolves start eating sheep, they save the judas goat for dessert. It isn’t an honor.

The Dems have picked up their 2nd seat in the House with Northup being defeated by Yarmuth. The rest of Kentucky and all of Indiana have not been called yet.

CNN has called it Rhode Island for the Dems. Chafee is no loss for the GOP but it means the Dems only need 3 more seats to take the Senate. I doubt they get it. Tennessee appears to be safe for the GOP but has not been called yet.

Update: Indiana 2 goes democrat. This means they have gotten 3 of the 15 seats they need. On the other hand, two potential GOP pickups in Georgia have not been called yet.

There’s a plea deal in the Station Nightclub tragedy. Michael Derderian will be sentenced to 4 years while his brother Jeffrey gets 500 hours of community service. This is an incredibly light sentence given that over 100 people died and many others were permanently maimed or injured.

Although it appears the Rhode Island Attorney General was aware of the deal, Superior Court Judge Francis J. Darigan was the driving force behind it. His reasoning?

…because he was convinced that their trials and the release of evidence “would only serve to further traumatize and victimize not only the loved ones of the deceased and the survivors of this fire, but the general public as well.”

What a great guy. He’s only sparing the community further trauma. Apparently, Judge Darigan was not swayed by the actual victims and family members. They wanted closure through justice and truth. They’re appalled by the idea that one of the brothers won’t serve even one day in jail. And what about the next nightclub owners who might debate the expense of adding safety precautions or limiting the number of people entering their club? This sentence isn’t much of a deterent against future tragedies.

Judge Darigan has done a lot more harm by denying the victims and families the justice and truth they deserve. This is a sad example of why you cannot trust liberals on the bench.

Governor Romney declared today that the Commonwealth will contribute nothing to the visit of Iranian President Mohammed Khatami’s visit to Harvard University. No logisitics, no State Police motorcade, no nothing! I hope he has to stop and pay the toll coming from the airport.

Read the press release here or below:

ROMNEY DENOUNCES KHATAMI VISIT TO HARVARD
Declines to provide escort, or offer state support for trip

Governor Mitt Romney today ordered all Massachusetts state government agencies to decline support, if asked, for former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami’s September 10 visit to the Boston area, where he is scheduled to speak at Harvard University.“State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel,” said Romney.

Romney’s action means that Khatami will be denied an official police escort and other VIP treatment when he is in town.  The federal government provides security through the U.S. State Department.

Romney criticized Harvard for honoring Khatami by inviting him to speak, calling it “a disgrace to the memory of all Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of extremists, especially on the eve of the five-year anniversary of 9/11.”

Said Romney: “The U.S. State Department listed Khatami’s Iran as the number one state sponsor of terrorism.  Within his own country, Khatami oversaw the torture and murder of dissidents who spoke out for freedom and democracy.  For him to lecture Americans about tolerance and violence is propaganda, pure and simple.”

Romney cited a litany of hateful actions by Khatami, including his support for violent jihadist activities:

• During the period of time he was in office, from 1997 to 2005, Khatami presided over Iran’s secret nuclear program.  Currently, the Iranian Government under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is snubbing the international community’s request to cease nuclear weapons production.
• In the recent conflict along the Israel-Lebanon border, Khatami described the terrorist group Hezbollah as a “shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world.”
• Khatami has endorsed Ahmadinejad’s call for the annihilation of Israel.
• During Khatami’s presidency, Iran refused to hand over the Iranian intelligence officials who were responsible for the attack on the Khobar Towers that killed 19 U.S. military personnel.
• In his own country, Khatami oversaw the torture and murder of Iranian students, journalists, and others who spoke out for freedom and democracy.  Khatami relaxed freedom of speech laws giving democracy reformers a false sense of security only to engage in one of the largest crackdowns in the country’s history.
• In Khatami’s Iran, there was no religious tolerance.  According to the U.S. Office of International Religious Freedom, Iran was one of the worst offenders of religious persecutions.  Minorities, such as Evangelicals, Jews, Catholics and others, have suffered.

“Khatami pretends to be a moderate, but he is not.  My hope is that the United States will find and work with real voices of moderation inside Iran.  But we will never make progress in the region if we deal with wolves in sheep’s clothing,” said Romney.

This reminds me of the time then New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani ejected (via NYPD I believe) Arafat from an event at the Lincoln Center in New York City.

I know it was a political move meant to show Romney can be tough on terror, but goddammit it is a good one.  If he would only go one step further and have the Massachusetts State Police drop the guy on 95 at the Rhode Island line and make him find his way out of Pawtucket!!!! I am sure my friends on the State Police will be more then happy to oblige.

Go Mitt!!!

 Real Deal

So, Lincoln Chaffee (R?-RI) would not put UBL to death? Is this guy a Republican or what?? If you won’t support a death sentence for UBL, who would you suport it for?

Disclosure: I am not a huge fan of the Death Penalty. But Bin Laden? I would flip the switch myself!!

I am a longtime reader and commenter on this site. I was invited by NER to contribute and I am grateful for the opportunity.

The attempt to introduce an amendment to allow for the protection of the flag yesterday failed by a single vote. Some are pouncing on the occasion to blame Hillary Clinton, who spoke in favor of such protections before voting against the amendment, or Lincoln Chafee, the Rhode Islander whose voting record makes many pine for the days when Jim Jeffords called himself a Republican (though in fairness to Chafee, his father, a decorated WWII vet, opposed such an amendment prior to his death in 1999). In that support for such a measure is polling somewhere in the neighborhood of 70% approval, I would imagine there may be a cost for some of the amendment’s opponents. Personally, I am pleased with the outcome.

[Read more →]

This comes as no shock:

Capitol police in Washington, D.C., investigating U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s early-morning car wreck have been told by witnesses that the Rhode Island congressman was at a Capitol Hill bar before the crash, the Herald has learned.

With apologies to Ricky Ricardo, “Patches! You got some ’splanin’ to do!”

From the NY Times:

Mr. Kennedy, a six-term Democratic congressman from Rhode Island, said this afternoon that he would seek rehabilitation treatment at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“Patches” is off to rehab, and I wish him the best of luck.  Addiction is a terrible thing, and given his past history, that part of his story seems plausible.   For the record, Rep. Kennedy should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law just like Rush Limbaugh.  Addiction does not abrogate anyone’s responsibility, and there is still a major inconsistency in his story.  In the first version, he claims no special treatment from authorities was sought, but the latest statement says he does not remember any details surrounding the accident.  Those are mutually exclusive statements which are hard to rectify.  The police need to keep digging.

Additionally, the fact still remains that any of us would have been cooling our heels in jail after hitting a police barrier and staggering around after the accident.  There is little doubt he received special treatment.  Did someone pull strings to get it or does being a Kennedy just entitle you to it?

Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey has come out with an idea I like very much:

Frustrated with wrist-slapping judges who free repeat offenders who have gone on to rape and kill again, Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey vowed to set up an independent review board that could boot bad justices off the bench. Citing several high-profile cases involving questionable sentences, Healey wants a “thumbs up, thumbs down” panel to review all the state’s judges every seven years. Her proposal, which would require majority support from the Legislature and the approval of voters, would create a clear-cut removal process for judges for the first time in state history.

Remarkably, Massachusetts is one of only three states in the U. S. where judges enjoy lifetime tenure (the other two are New Hampshire and Rhode Island — must be some sort of quaint New England vestige of colonialism, eh?). Actually, it’s not quite lifetime, there is a mandatory retirement age of 70. Sort of a play on the old Down East joke — “You been a judge your whole life?” “Not yet.”

Details of the proposal are sketchy. I suspect that’s because it’s not written down yet. My guess is that Healey rushed something out to take advantage of the controversy over the wrist-slap given to a repeat child molester by a Worcester Superior Court judge:

Worcester Superior Court Judge John McCann put Winchendon child molester Glen Wheeler on 10 years’ probation and an electronic monitoring bracelet - even though the 56-year-old con has racked up 11 probation violations, has an alias and went on the run for eight months before being tracked down at a Tampa, Fla., mosque. Wheeler was on the state police list of “most wanted high-risk sex offenders.”

Can’t pass up an opportunity to strike while the iron is hot.

In any event, it appears this proposal will require an amendment to the Constitution, which will allow Healey to run on this issue against the legislature, which is dominated by lawyers and lawyer-influenced Democrats.

Of course, the judges see this proposal differently. Coming out of the box, here’s what one retired appeals court judge said:

“It infringes on the separation of powers,” said retired state Judge Rudolph Kass. “It disregards precisely what the framers of the Constitution founded, which is to allow judges to be free and independent, which includes not looking over your shoulder every time you act.” Kass also argued that there are already systems in place to evaluate judges. The Judicial Conduct Commission handles complaints against judges, while the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Supreme Judicial Court have recently begun issuing “report cards” on justices. “We have a judicial review institution and it works,” Kass said. “I’m not sure the introduction of an additional institution of review is particularly a good idea.”

Of course he doesn’t. And we can expect the state bar association to be coming out against it too — especially MATA (Massachusetts Association of Trial Attorneys), who will jump at the chance to aggressively defend the judges they appear before on a regular basis.

Judge Cass is correct — there is a Judicial Conduct Commission. Its purpose is to investigate formal complaints against judges and, where warranted, act on them. Let’s see how the Commission disposed of a few of the more egregious cases to come before it, taken from the Annual Reports of the Commission:

From the 1998 Annual Report:

In 1997, the Commission entered eight formal charges against District Court Judge John Markey, and an initial punishment of censure was recommended (censure is essentially no more than a public admonishment — a bit of humiliation, so to speak). The Commission alleged that the Judge violated the canons in the following ways:

Canon 1, by failing to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and failing to observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity of the judiciary may be preserved; Canon 2(A), by failing to conduct himself in a manner that promoted public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; Canon 2(B), by allowing his social and other relationships to influence his judicial conduct and judgment, and lending the prestige of his office to advance the private interests of others; Canon 3(A)(4), by engaging in an ex parte communication with another judge designed to influence her judicial action, thereby inducing that judge to violate the canon; and Canon 3(C)(1), by failing to disqualify himself in proceedings in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to one in which he had a personal bias favoring a party. The Commission also charged the Judge with violating the Disciplinary Rules of the Canons of Ethics, S.J.C. Rule 3:07, Canon 7, DR 7-110(B), as appearing in 382 Mass. 793 (1981), by engaging in a private ex parte communication with another judge in an adversary proceeding as to the merits of the case.

If this sort of stuff intrigues you, go read the facts alleged against Judge Markey. They’re really pretty hair-curling.

Judge Markey’s position was this:

Judge Markey does not dispute the impropriety of his conduct, nor that a sanction is warranted. He contends, however, that the severity of the sanction recommended by the Commission is unjustified, and unfair, in view of this court’s precedents, and because of certain factors, among them his lack of intent to influence any aspect of the Macedo cases, and his reputation, contrition, financial situation, and reformed conduct since the Commission’s investigation. He also submits that we may not order a suspension without pay because such a sanction essentially equates to a removal, which, if imposed by the judiciary, is unconstitutional.

Despite concluding that Judge Markey’s conduct was atrocious and indeed did violate the Canons of Ethics in the alleged manner, they determined that an appropriate sanction was a public reprimand and a three month suspension.

There was no disciplinary activity during 1999-2000.

Annual Report 2001:

• A litigant complained that a judge was rude, arrogant and disrespectful, showed gender bias and prejudgment, would not let his attorney speak, gave the idea he had already made up his mind, and acted like an advocate for the opposing party. The investigation substantiated all of the allegations except those of gender bias and being an advocate for one party. The judge and the Commission entered into an Agreed Disposition in which the judge was privately reprimanded for again displaying a pattern of conduct for which he had previously been admonished by the Commission.
• Several complaints filed against a judge alleged that he failed to follow the law, treated litigants and attorneys in a discourteous manner, and failed to give them full opportunity to be heard according to law. Investigation of these complaints supported the allegations of misconduct. … Shortly before the Hearing was to begin, the judge and the Commission reached agreement on an Informal Adjustment which made a Hearing unnecessary. The terms of the Agreed Disposition which were made public by means of a press release included a reprimand, a three-month unpaid suspension, and a requirement that the judge attend two weeks of educational training at his own expense. The terms also included monitoring of the judge by the Commission for two years following his suspension.

I think you get the point. The Commission deals only with allegations of misconduct, not claims that a judge is particularly awful. That happens, you know. Every litigator knows it. Some people are spectacular lawyers that just happen to make particularly lousy judges.

There has to be a means of reviewing their performance. I do not think, however, that judges should be reviewed by the electorate via elections. That is an absurd notion, notwithstanding the many states where it is employed. A judge must feel assured that he is free to apply the law to the facts found and make a reasoned decision in accordance with both, no matter how unpopular the result may be to the public at large. Popularity of outcome is not an appropriate benchmark for retention of one’s robes.

But with the current system, a judge may be reversed on appeal ad nauseam — indicating some serious deficiency of performance — and be immune from any discipline whatsoever, short of some measure of “professional development” or further training. But again, if a judge is particularly recalcitrant in accepting this “training,” there is no means of removing him or her from the bench. How many middle-aged, life-tenured judges do you think are amenable to re-education?

Healey’s proposal, it seems, could find a solution “half-way:” An independent commission, chartered to review the performances of all trial judges at some interval to insure that performance, as a whole, is consistent with the type of integrity and competence that the citizens should be entitled to expect.

First off, I’d like to say I’m very grateful for the opportunity to write on this blog. I was born in Massachusetts and lived there for awhile until my family moved to Vermont, where we stayed until my early teens when we moved to North Carolina. So though I don’t live there anymore I feel I have a connection to New England through my family that still live there and childhood experiences. I even still root for the Pats and the Sox. Beyond that, I enjoy a lot of geeky things – I played the trombone in high school and college marching band, I’m a big Star Trek fan, and my video game collection takes up a good sized bookcase.

I am a recent graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill with a degree in Physics. And though North Carolina is a red state, Chapel Hill is certainly an island of blue in it. I like to think, however, that having my views challenged so often by the student body made me actually think about my views and ask if they were really correct. As is apparent by my writing here, I weighed the facts and realized that liberalism is indeed, as a prominent radio host is want to say, a mental disorder. Even my fiancée, who’s a recovering liberal, found the lack of intelligent discourse on the left appalling enough to hop the political fence. And all that was before I even met her. Speaking of marriage, after this summer I may move somewhere else, anywhere from Kentucky to Rhode Island. But I’ll always be a Yankee (especially to her) and I’ll always be a Tar Heel (especially in the NCAA tourney). Hence the name.

Politically, I’m mostly conservative with a good helping of libertarian (mostly on the social issues). I’m anti-death penalty, pro-life, and pro-gay rights, though not gay marriage. So take all that for what you will. One thing that irritates me about some conservative commentators these days is that I will listen or watch them take a position that is correct but then bumble the defense of it. They argue like a liberal – thinking completely with emotions, not the brain – and I want to avoid that when I can. I hope to say something to get people thinking once in awhile, and I look forward to being here.

Feel free to send comments to Yankee.Tar.Heel@gmail.com

Sen. John McCain (R-MSM) is really starting to bother me:

“Combating the Democratic filibusters has become a hot issue among conservatives, who see the judicial branch as the last bastion of liberalism. Mr. Frist, who also appears to be running for the Republican nomination, will be rewarded if he gets Mr. Bush’s nominee on thebench, conservatives say, and Mr. McCain will be punished if he opposes those efforts………….”If Senator McCain refuses to stand up for fairness, it will damage his carefully crafted image and whatever aspirations he might have,” said Marshall Manson with the Center for Individual Freedom, one of
the groups in Mr. Miranda’s coalition. “The people who care about this issue are
watching carefully, and they have long memories.” Mr. McCain said yesterday he is not worried. “That’s fine,” he said. “We just returned from Michigan and we had great crowds. I’m very popular there, which I’m grateful for.”

McCain is finished if he votes against the Republican rule change. At least the right-wing base will have someone to work against in a warm up to a war with Hill in 2008. This also gives “moderate” Republicans like Rudy Guiliani (R-NY) and Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) a chance to appeal to base voters on judges, without sounding like complete hypocrites.

In related news, the all knowing Bob Novak says the GOP has 52:

Republican leaders count only two or three GOP senators who will vote against the efforts to end, by a straight majority vote, filibusters on confirmation of judicial nominations……Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island will not support this move, and they are likely to be joined by Sen. John McCain of Arizona. That would mean 52 senators would go along with the parliamentary maneuver attempting to end filibusters on judges. Only 50 are needed.

Novak is an insider I tend to believe - I would be shocked if he put his rep on the line over this.. AND if liberal Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) votes for the rules change, McCain is really going to pegged as a leftist RINO by the right. And rightfully so.