Barack Obama’s new Supreme Court nominee is stealing your act:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

It’s nice to see that the President of the United States is nominating an open believer in race-based identity politics to the highest court in the land.

Ilya Somin at The Volokh Conspiracy weighs in:

I am not yet sure what position to take on President Obama’s selection of Sonia Sotomayor. My general sense is that she is very liberal, and thus likely to take what I consider to be mistaken positions on many major constitutional law issues. I am also not favorably impressed with her notorious statement that “a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Not only is it objectionable in and of itself, it also suggests that Sotomayor is a committed believer in the identity politics school of left-wing thought. Worse, it implies that she believes that it is legitimate for judges to base decisions in part on their ethnic or racial origins.

Once again the mask slips and the race politics espoused by people like Diego Hernandez, the Commentator’s erstwhile punching bag Nate Gulley, and Sonia Sotomayor is exposed as little more than racism by another name.

Representative Linda Sanchez has an article over at the Huffington Post responding to criticism of her proposed bill, the Megan Meiers Cyberbullying Prevention Act. She starts off with this nice piece of obfuscation:

“If you were walking down the street and saw someone harassing a child, would you just walk by and look the other way? If that person was telling the child the world would be better off if they just killed themselves, would you ignore it?”

Well … no, but my response probably wouldn’t be to craft an overbroad, facially unconstitutional bill that targets far more than just “cyberbullying.” But then again, I’m not Rep. Sanchez. (For you critical thinkers out there, Sanchez’s rhetorical question is called a false dichotomy.)

Bonus points to Sanchez for including the phrase “so-called free speech” in her article. It really shows her true colors when it comes to the First Amendment.

Also, hat tip to Reason, where you can find a more thorough shellacking of Sanchez’ Maginot Line of an argument. Crossposted at Campus Magazine Online.

A bill sponsored by Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-California) has been proposed in the House of Representatives that would make “cyberbullying,” as it’s been coined, illegal.

The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, named after a 13 year-old girl who committed suicide after falling victim to a cruel Myspace prank, would make it a felony to transmit “in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior.”

As is wont to happen when lawmakers grandstand on a current issue, the proposed bill is a legal train wreck – a half-baked piece of legislation that, if it weren’t almost guaranteed to be stricken down as unconstitutional, would be seriously dangerous to free speech.

For example, law professor Eugene Volokh can think of six examples off the top of his head where the bill would encroach on protected First Amendment speech. Under the proposed bill, perhaps even this blog post could be considered “cyberbullying.” Rep. Sanchez might find my calling her legislation “half-baked” and “a legal train wreck” emotionally distressing, and I could be prosecuted in federal court.

What’s startling to me about the bill, though, is the similarity in the language to many of the oppressive speech codes found at universities throughout the country. In particular, notice the part about “substantial emotional distress.” Just like so many confused university administrations, Rep. Sanchez seems to believe that it aught to be illegal to make someone feel bad.

The bill is essentially the uber-version of all those speech codes. It would, for all intents and purposes, make criticism of anyone illegal. Well, hey, at least we would all be living in the ”inclusive, respectful atmosphere” that universities try so hard (and sometimes illegally) to foster, right?

Just thought I’d call attention to the fact that Commentator Publisher Guy Simmons has a letter-to-the-editor in today’s Emerald, laying to rest any notion that Truman Capps’ lamentable pro-gun control article was written or edited by anyone with even the slightest clue of what they were talking about.

Extra points for using the phrase “statist pukes.”

Of course, according to Homeland Security, Chewbacca is not only a smuggler but also a potential terrorist.

You didn’t think we were going to let yesterday’s opinion piece in the ODE about concealed carry on campus slip by, did you? In case you missed it, columnist Truman Capps wrote about how icky guns are and how they shouldn’t be allowed on college campuses. Of course, he made sure to get his liberal credentials out in the open:

I live in Portland and listen to NPR, and my family owns a Prius and a Subaru (with a Volvo in our recent past) – perhaps it’s not surprising that I disagree with the notion that a campus full of armed students and staff is safer than an unarmed one. While I agree that people, not guns, kill people, I am also a firm believer in the familiar adage “Mo’ firearms, mo’ problems,” especially on a college campus.

It’s not so much that I completely disagree with Capps (although I do); it’s that his article is factually wrong on several counts. For example, at the beginning of his second paragraph Capps writes:

Currently, concealed weapon permit holders can take their guns with them everywhere except for government buildings, bars and college campuses.

There is no Oregon statute against concealed carry in bars or college campuses. According to ORS 166.370, possession of a firearm in a public building is a Class C felony, but one of the exceptions is “[a] person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun.” In fact, the only public buildings you are not allowed to carry a firearm into are courtrooms, airports and federal buildings.

The university system code against concealed carry is in clear contradiction of state law. I don’t even know where Capps got the idea that concealed carry is illegal in bars. Perhaps before he writes an article disseminated to the whole campus, he should do some basic research first. Or perhaps his editors should fact-check his stories for, y’know, blatant errors. Perhaps a retraction is in order.

I wrote an article last year about concealed carry on campus, which prompted this response from the ODE. Searching through the blog archives for “concealed carry” and “gun control” is also fun.

P.S. In his penultimate paragraph, Capps writes, “[I]f campus safety is such a concern, let Department of Public Safety have guns.” Can we nominate this for oxymoronic phrase of the year or something?

Tomorrow Luke Sheahan from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) will give a lecture in Columbia 150 at 7 p.m.

FIRE is a great organization that protects students’ rights on college campuses. It’s often pigeon-holed as a conservative organization, but it’s actually quite non-partisan. (It just so happens that most violations of students’ rights these days are against conservatives for being “biased” or “intolerant.”) If you’re interested in First Amendment issues and controversies, specifically in higher education, come check it out.

FIRE has also supported the Commentator in our time of need. The event is sponsored by the Oregon Commentator and KWVA.

*

I forgot to mention it yesterday, but good for Iowa.

Money quote:

“We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective,” Justice Mark S. Cady wrote for the seven-member court, adding later, “We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law.”

Yes.

Well, call me old-fashioned if you will, but I have always taken the view that swastika symbols exist for one purpose only—to be defaced.

–Christopher Hitchens

A United Nations “human rights” body has approved a proposal that urges UN member states to outlaw criticism of religion under the guise of “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion.” Uh huh.

Thankfully, the motion isn’t binding, and there’s virtually zero chance that any state, outside of the collection of Islamic dictatorships, Belarus, and “progressive” darling Venezuela that supported in the first place will take any actual steps toward implementing any of its recommendations.

Still, it’s something to keep in mind the next time someone starts singing the praises of the United Nations and getting all misty-eyed thinking about the possibility of enshrining “tolerance” in law.

[UPDATE]

More here. (via Instapundit)

In the wake of the Oregon Daily Emerald strike, I’ve heard a lot of people on campus say that it was little more than a publicity stunt. I’ve even been asked if I regret supporting the strike. The short answer is no.

Even if the methods and process of the strike were a little dubious, which even some of the ODE staffers will admit, I still support the decision because I think independent newspapers are a vital public service. Believe it or not, all of these “obsolete” newspapers still act as a powerful check on government, and student governments and college administrations would like nothing more than to be free of them.

For example, the faculty adviser of the student newspaper at Clark College was mysteriously denied tenure after she pushed the paper to do more critical reporting on the administration. (She also fought the administration’s desire to pre-screen articles.)

Or there is there is the ongoing battle at Montclair State between the paper and the student government. The paper is currently suing the student government for breaking public meeting law. Last year, the student government froze the paper’s budget during a battle over the government’s decidedly odd habit of meeting in private.

OR take Western Oregon University for another example. WOU fired a faculty newspaper adviser and disciplined a student journalist after the daily paper revealed a serious privacy flaw in WOU’s computer system.

These are all examples from college papers, but this happens at every level. David Simon, creator of The Wire, recently wrote an article about how the city of Baltimore is running ramshod over public record laws in lieu of an aggressive newspaper presence.

Which is why I can’t fathom why some technophiles and bloggers are gleeful about the death of newspapers. I mean, if you like your government to do whatever it pleases without oversight or accountability, by all means, throw a party because the future’s looking great.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a California law school is not required to recognize religious groups that have closed or discriminatory membership requirements. In essence, this mean that the college can defund any campus religious group that requires its members to follow a particular faith.

David French over at Phi Beta Cons sums up why this a horrible precedent:

From a common-sense standpoint, this is absurd. Imagine telling a Baptist church that its search for a new pastor had to include equal consideration of Buddhist or Hindu candidates. Imagine telling a synagogue that they were engaged in unlawful “discrimination” if they categorically refused to permit imams from functioning as rabbis. How can student guarantee that they can maintain their distinctive voice if each group essentially has to be open to all students, regardless of those students’ beliefs or intentions?

Of course, the ruling extends beyond religious groups to any campus club or organization. Maybe it’s a reductio ad absurdum, but I wonder what this kind of “non-discriminatory environment” would look like at large. For example, the Oregon Commentator has pretty loose membership requirements, aside from my explicit “no hippie nonsense or ASUO fan-fiction” rule. Could the magazine be defunded for not printing or associating with hippie nonsense?

Likewise, could I go to the Student Insurgent and demand to have my articles on laissez-faire capitalism printed? Like French notes, what happens to distinctive voice when you have no control over membership? Or, as the late great Groucho Marx once said, “I don’t care to belong to any club that would have me as a member.”

Cross-posted at Campus Magazine Online.

About a month ago, Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States raised some eyebrows (and heckles) when he said that America is a “nation of cowards” when it comes to issues of race. The phrase “national conversation on race” has been repeated ad nauseam since Barack Obama delivered what many hailed as a “historic” speech in the wake of the controversy surrounding his then-pastor, the bilious race huckster, Jeramiah Wright.

Apparently they didn’t get the message in Portland. The Oregonian is reporting that an 11-year old boy, Dru Lechert-Kelly, was banned from performing a skit in which he was to wear a mask of President Obama and sing a song. It seems that “some of the parents” in the audience were indignant at the sight of a white boy wearing a mask of the President that he bought at a costume shop. The principal of the school said that the skit was “inappropriate and potentially offensive”.

One is reminded of the “offense” taken by certain members of the ASUO Senate when Commentator Editor-in-Chief CJ Ciaramella recited the President’s inaugural address during his Senate run. I think Dru Lechert-Kelly’s parents have it about right:

“I understand the history of black face and how African Americans were caricatured by it,” Lechert said. “However, we now have a popular biracial president who is admired by white and nonwhite people. At what point will it become OK for an 11-year-old admirer to dress up as the president without fear of offending someone?”

Both Don Surber and the Oregonian point out that Obama himself wore just such a mask during an appearance on Saturday Night Live. There’s a picture of Obama holding said mask toward the bottom of Surbur’s post.

Maybe Holder was right about all that “nation of cowards” stuff. Only I think the “cowards” are the very people who fancy themselves the most “progressive” on racial issues.

So much for the “post-racial President”, then.

(via Instapundit)

—-

[Update 03/17]

Blue Oregon has a related post about some high schoolers being banned from putting on a performance of Steve Martin’s play Picasso at the Lapin Agile because of outrage over profanity and sexual references. When they were disallowed from performing the play at the High School, the Eastern Oregon University College Democrats stepped in to pay for the students to put on the play at the University campus. Then Steve Martin himself offered to fund the whole thing.

All the manufactured “outrage” and feigned “offense” on both sides of the ideological spectrum is getting really old. Unfortunately, it works.

[Update 3/18]

Via Protein Wisdom, the greivance train rolls on. Thankfully, I’m fairly sure that any effort to re-brand St. Patrick’s Day (because celebrating saints is like… exclusionary, and stuff…) as “Shamrock Day” is destined for utter failure.

Here it comes…

Excerpt:

In carrying out its general purpose under subsection (a), the Commission shall address and analyze the following specific topics:

…

(5) The effect on the Nation, on those who serve, and on the families of those who serve, if all individuals in the United States were expected to perform national service or were required to perform a certain amount of national service.

(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

No word yet on whether or not the name “Reichsarbeitsdienst” is being considered for the new program.

Yeah, I know. Drink.

___

Then there’s this:

Because some governors might not accept the money, Congress added a unique provision, in subsection 1607(b): “If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.”

If state law does not give the state legislature the right to bypass the governor, how can Congress just change that law? Where does Congress get the power to change a state constitution?