I posted this to get to the heart of the matter on Sotomayor and the lively discussion regarding her nomination.

I think it would behoove all of us to properly define what exactly an "activist judge" is.  I would define an activist judge as one who does not follow the law and legal precedent when making a legal determination.  Rather, such a judge would substitute what they think the law should be rather than what it is.  However, there is a caveat. 

A judge on the Supreme Court need not follow precedent, as bad precedent needs to be overturned.  A district court or appeals court judge does need to follow any precedent, regardless of how wrong that precedent is.  IIRC, Gonzalez v. Carhart was a model for how judges should act: district and appeals courts struck down the law banning partial birth abortion based on precedent and the law.  The Supreme Court then changed the precedent.

Please offer up your own definitions of an activist judge and whether or not you'd agree that courts inferior to the Supreme Court are beholden to bad precedent.

Good Friday morning Swordsmen. It's been a while since I dropped a NCR, but the last week of every month will always be a tough time for me. I hope everything is going well with everyone. a lot of stuff hit the Google reader that have since blown over, so if you see an old story or two, forgive me. On the ledger: a new guy in at Bank of America, Souter stepping down, Obama the socialist, black optimism, the future of the Republican Party, Chysler, cheating, and a surprise guest arrives to Twitter.

The Obama administration recently released four controversial OLC memos (in largely unredacted form; available here ) that discuss in detail specific harsh interrogation techniques that, in the opinion of the memo authors, are permissible under certain circumstances. The Obama administration has withdrawn the memos but has also promised that those who carried out procedures authorized as legal will not face prosecution. Partially for my own convenience in organizing my thoughts and partially in response to some discussion I've seen elsewhere, I wanted to make a few simple points.

Hat tip to The Liberty Papers .

I absolutely hate them. Few things get my free market juices flowing like disgusting cartels propped up by slovenly favoritism and privilege from government.

As some know, there is a small chance I may run for US Congress in 2010 due to my dissatisfaction with how much of an issue "intellectual property" (mostly copyrights and patents) is in national politics.

Before I put forth my ideas, I'd like you at SC to put forth what you have to say on the matter.  Here are some questions you may want to consider:

Well, the Obama presidency is only a few days old and it's been pretty good...so far. Yes, there will be disappointments and bad policy in the coming months (from my POV at least) but in these first few days, Obama has made or is starting to make good on some good campaign promises...and that's always a good thing.

As a libertarian, I don't get much to cheer about regardless of which party is in power so seeing little battles being won in a long, daunting and bleak war is the best I can hope for.

Not that more pervasive external audits would not increase the number of frauds discovered, but past history shows that external auditors have not been the most productive in discovering fraud and auditors neither work under the assumption that the dishonest nor assumes unquestioned honesty.

As my good friend Brutus14 pointed out in Thursday's open thread, the Barr campaign has filed suit [PDF] in Texas to have the court compel the Secretary of State to remove John McCain and Barack Obama from the ballot.

The statute in question which states in part:

Hat tip to Megan McArdle .

Microsoft is unveiling IE8, Internet Explorer 8, which has privacy feature for browsing than will hurt Google's main business: targeted search ads.

From the Financial Times :

Microsoft has unveiled its Internet Explorer 8 browser equipped with a privacy feature that could threaten the advertising model of web search rivals such as Google.

Ender's video which featured the former Clinton supporter indirectly reminded me of the topic of judicial appointments and its effect on voters.

A common argument for McCain that has been used to shore up his support among the base is that he will appoint strict constructionist judges in the mold of Antonin Scalia while Obama will try to pack the court with far left ideologues. That, in and of itself, is a good enough reason to pull the lever for McCain, regardless of what views he may have on other issues. Indeed, a McCain presidency could finally be what overturns Roe v. Wade. Lets take a moment to dissect these arguments.

To: Philip K. Paulson (1947-2006)
Re: Latest decision: Cross can stay

Yeah, you're dead, and as Atheists we believe that it means the end, oblivion, nothingness. But, you know how we all are all the same, reluctant to give up connections with those we are fond of.

Someone once described courage as not never being afraid, but going on in spite of the fear. As a nation and as elected officials we seem to be running dangerously low on courage. Oh we have the tough talk down, we have the posturing, but do we really have true courage? Since 9/11 when at least 2,985 people died from the terrorists attacks I think that what has been lost in all the hype is some perspective. While this was surely a tragedy, the population of the United States in the year 2001 was somewhere around 290 million people. Based on those numbers the terrorist attacks killed less than .02% of the population, yet since the attack we have responded by invading sovereign nations, torturing our fellow human beings, and gutting our Constitutional protections.

Of all the things that bother me....almost unconditionally and without exception...in the realm of public policy, anything that can be generally put into the policy group of forcefully removing or obstructing choice, evolution or innovation in commerce for the benefit of vested interests (AKA, the euphemism: "Public Interest") deserves to be blacklisted and totally removed from the clutches public policy. This can be in the form of needless licenses, quotas, expensive permits or flat out you-can't-do-that-because-we-said-so types of legal arrangements and constraints.

The Supreme Court recently heard a challenge to the DC handgun ban in a case that has the potential to definitively clarify the Second Amendment , which states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There has been a long-standing debate between gun rights activists and gun control advocates as to whether this describes an individual right or whether it applies only in the context of a regulated militia. The ruling is not expected until June, but based on questioning before the Court, it appears likely that a majority of Justices will rule that the DC ban is unconstitutional.

Private protection has a strong and under appreciated place in our society says Sheldon Richman

This is Richman reflecting on a speech by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel:

In making the case for private nonstate protection, he pointed that we already are protected to some extent from government invasion by private organizations. How so?

Specter asked me, when I posted a pic of my new son, what his name was. I meant to answer, but by the time I got back to that thread I figured it was a little late to reply. As it happens, his name is Elliot. When we picked his name we googled it (and common variants), looking for any infamous namesakes, and almost everything that came up was good -- the kid from ET, the corruption-fighting Governor of New York. A few short weeks later, Spitzer has resigned in disgrace after it came out that he paid large sums of money for sex. Thanks a lot, Eliot Spitzer!

It's worth looking back briefly to how this happened.

Hat tip to The Liberty Papers who finds this excellent article by John Stossel on lobbying and big government.

It reminds me of a diary I wrote about Google, Microsoft and Lobbying.

Said I:

Hat tip to Tyler Cowen .

Tyler comments on a post by Megan McCardle at the Atlantic about what the legal ramifications should be for drug companies' products that pass the FDA approval process. Megan's commentary was, in turn, prompted by a post by Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly .

Starting with Drum:

How would you improve and standardize our criminal justice system to minimize the possibility of wrongful convictions? Some possibilities and background below the fold.