Category Archives: Uncategorized

“Don’t Make the Supreme Court Another Victim of This Year’s Toxic Presidential Campaign” by Senator Orrin Hatch

[With snarky commentary by Jeff Klein]

“Like many Americans, I mourn deeply the loss of Justice Antonin Scalia. [The surviving Supreme Court justices are also mourning; that’s why they’re all wearing black.] He was a giant of the law and a dear friend. [I hope you told him that when he was alive.] He transformed the trajectory of our nation’s highest court and helped scale back years of unbridled, unprincipled judicial activism by liberal justices intent on imposing their views on the American people. [Shame on those liberal justices! Why can’t they be like the CONSERVATIVE judges imposing their views on the American people???]

“Justice Scalia’s passing comes during a particularly contentious time in our nation’s history. [True dat.] The country is in the midst of a volatile, highly charged presidential election. [Truer than true.] Accusations of dishonesty and hypocrisy fly with abandon. [True x3.] No charge, it seems, is too base to attract media attention. [That damn Media!] The current political climate is as toxic and as polarized as I have ever seen. [And I sure hope you’re not gonna add to that polarization, Senator.] 

“For this reason, I believe firmly that it would be best for the Court, and the nation, to select Justice Scalia’s replacement after the presidential election. [Well, so much for not adding to the polarization…] Adding a Supreme Court nomination to the current polarized climate would serve only to undermine the Court’s independence and drag the Court into the caustic atmosphere of the 2016 presidential race. [The Supreme Court? Independent? Who knew?]

“Throughout my 40 years in Washington, I have sought to prevent the courts from becoming a political football. [What a guy!] I have criticized attempts by Democrats to politicize the courts and to impose litmus tests on judicial nominees. [I’m sure glad Republicans don’t do that!] My concern has been with the Court as an institution, and I have sought to protect the judiciary from improper political pressure. [Not to mention protecting your corporate lobbyist friends, I am sure.]

“There is simply no way that a new justice can be confirmed in the current election-year climate without his or her nomination becoming a political firestorm. [Actually, there is a way, if the Republicans would be civil and reasonable about scheduling the hearings.] Any hearings or debates on the nomination will become little more than an opportunity for both sides to air grievances and to engage in a proxy war over the presidential campaign. [Yes! Leave the proxy wars in the Middle East, where they belong.] Both parties will inevitably use the nomination to try to position their side favorably for November and to score political points against opponents. [Thank you for explaining how politics works.]

“These are not the conditions for a fair and considered appraisal of a nominee’s qualifications. [I think you mean, “Fair and Balanced,” don’t you?] The mantra on both sides would be to win at all costs and to bloody the other side as much as possible in the process. [Isn’t that how it’s been since at least the 1990s?] Far better to wait until after the impending election, when cooler heads [and a Republican president?] will have at least some opportunity to prevail.

“Indeed, already there’s yelling and shouting about a potential nomination, with Democrats calling Republicans radicals and extremists for saying we should wait until after the election to fill Justice Scalia’s seat. [Well, if the shoe fits…] Such attacks would become only more vitriolic were the Senate to take up a nomination before the election. [No, not if Republicans were to act reasonably.]

“There has also been a great deal of obfuscation and misinformation about the Senate’s role in the confirmation process. [Gee, I wonder who’s been doing that?] Supporters of the President have asserted that President Obama has a “right” to fill Justice Scalia’s seat [nope, never said that] and that the Senate’s “job” is to hold hearings and vote on whomever he sends up. [Oh, sorry; it’s the Senate’s job to do nothing. Our mistake.] This is nothing more than political posturing. [Wha — political posturing?? In the United States of America??]

“To begin with, the President has no “right” to appoint nominees to the Supreme Court. [Again, never said that he/she had such a right.] The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate, but gives the Senate an equal power to confirm, or not, as it sees fit. [Yes, but –] Only with the Senate’s consent may the President fill a seat on the Supreme Court. [Yes, but –] To say the President has a “right” to fill a Supreme Court vacancy now, or at any point in time, is constitutionally illiterate. [This is a distortion of what the President’s supporters are actually saying, and you’re doing this to try to make them look dumb. But you really just end up looking like a tool of the Republican party.]

“Nor does the Constitution require the Senate to hold a hearing on a nominee, or even to take any action at all. [Now you and them there other Republicans ain’t a-gonna take advantage of that there loophole, is ya?] The Senate may exercise its constitutional prerogative to reject a presidential nomination in whatever manner it sees fit. [Please use responsibly.] For example, although in recent years it’s become customary to hold hearings on Supreme Court nominations, for the first 130 years of our nation’s history the Senate never held a hearing on any Supreme Court nominee. [Wishing it was 1873 again, Orrin?] And the Senate has chosen on multiple occasions to allow a nomination to expire rather than act on it. [Only because the sell-by date had passed.] In one case, Congress even abolished a Supreme Court seat rather than confirm the President’s nominee. [Lincoln had just been assassinated and the nation was in turmoil, you ass.] Although no two situations are exactly alike, these examples make clear that the Senate may withhold its consent in a variety of ways. [Orrin, ya shoulda been a lawyer!]

It’s been more than 100 years since a Supreme Court justice died in office during a presidential election year. [And that Senate had no problem confirming the President’s nominee for a replacement.] It’s been 130 years since a justice died in office in a presidential election year during a time of divided government. [And that Senate had no problem confirming the President’s nominee for a replacement.] And a justice has never died in office this late in a term-limited President’s last year, when voting on the President’s successor has already begun. [And a justice has never died in office in the month of February before the Senate convened and the Moon was in the seventh house and Jupiter aligned with Mars… – I mean, we can just go on and on and on with these convoluted and silly arguments.]

“In light of the highly polarized, corrosive nature of this year’s presidential race, coupled with the fact that Americans have already begun voting on President Obama’s replacement [um… you mean successor, don’t you?], the right course of action is to wait until after this year’s election to consider a nominee to fill Justice Scalia’s seat. [And it’s the “right course of action” `cause you said so!]

“Let the American people decide whether they want Hillary Clinton or the Republican nominee to select the next Supreme Court justice. [This is really just a red herring, Senator. The American people already decided, in November 2012.] President Obama will never again face voters [lucky him], yet whoever is chosen to succeed Justice Scalia will likely serve 30 years or more. [Must. Change. That.]

“Let a new President with a clear mandate, not a term-limited President with less than one year left in office who faced a historic rebuke by voters in the last midterm election, make this crucial decision. [Reagan got the same rebuke in the 1986 midterms, yet he got no such resistance to filling the vacancy, you hypocrite.] Don’t make the Supreme Court another victim of this year’s toxic presidential campaign. [As you are now doing.] Too much is at stake. [Isn’t that the tag line of most political commercials?]”

…AND, Senator Hatch, here’s a quote from one of the articles YOU cited:

“There is, in short, no historical support for the claim that the Senate has a tradition of shutting down the Supreme Court appointment process in presidential election years. The tradition is the opposite, for the Senate to consider Supreme Court nominations, no matter the timing, and actually to confirm nominees when they are moderate and well qualified.”

 Senator Hatch’s original essay

by Jeff Klein March 10, 2015

First, a disclaimer: I love Apple products. I’m using a Macbook Pro to type this blog.

However, I believe Apple’s days as an innovating company are over. I’ll explain why:

Let’s say you have a highly innovative company.

And let’s say the guy who made it all happen, le guru who led the company to greatness, is now gone.

And to further let’s-say, let’s say the accountants move in, and the shareholders start demanding blood.

What do you have?

You have Apple in the 1990s.

And it seems to be happening all over again.

However, there’s one huge difference between Apple in the 1990s and Apple in the 21st Century: There is no Steve Jobs to ride in and rescue the company.

With Jobs’ death in 2011 there has been a vacuum at Apple. Corporations, like nature, abhor a vacuum, so the vacuum is being filled — not by another brilliant designer/idea person, but by accountants.

The accountants are running the show now. Sure, CEO Tim Cook is “in charge,” but he has to answer to the shareholders.

It’s not Cook’s fault. Anyone brought in as CEO would have to answer to the shareholders, ultimately.

Jobs never did, and never cared to.

The only way Apple can resurrect itself creatively would be to tell any new CEO, “You have unlimited time to do whatever you think should be done. We will never remove you, no matter what the results.” Naturally, they can never offer that to anyone.

Back to the 1990s

While Apple is looking to find a place in the 21st Century, it actually seems to be returning to the 1990s, post-Jobs. At that time, Apple floundered; the company put out too many variations of its Macs, confused the marketplace, and lost market share. There were no innovative products. Even customer support, I recall, was unresponsive and lacking in helpful knowledge.

For the iPhone, there are design issues and failures that aren’t being addressed, such as text legibility and intuitive operability. No UNDO button. No BACK button. Users get lost or frustrated. This article describes how Apple is destroying design.

As I write this, some customer support has been outsourced to the Philippines, offering sub-optimal help and longer wait time to speak to a knowledgeable agent. Really not a good sign.

I wonder how long it will be before someone at the company says, “Y’know, we’re making these unibody cases out of aluminum, but there’s another way to do it that’s cheaper and just as good, and it’ll save us millions of dollars per year…” One tip-off will be when we hear about more and more product breakages.

Another clue will be iterations of the same product. In lieu of innovation, the company would only come up with alternate versions of their already-existing products, as it did in the 1990s.

Such a Shame

It’s sad on a few levels. Personally, I’m sorry to think I may have one of the last of the best Macbook Pros, and that the next generation or so may not be as great, though they may be faster and lighter and more convenient. Great technology, however, can be measured in different ways. Take the replacement of great-sounding vinyl LPs with the convenient but soulless CDs, as one example.

And it’s sad for the world, in this way: Companies used to be consumer-focused, resulting in the best products. But that changed post-1960, after Robert McNamara drove Ford Motor from a money-loser to a success, not necessarily through innovation (after all, a car is still a car, and an iphone is still an iphone, whatever extras you throw in it) but by extreme number crunching: improving the bottom line with more efficient delivery, products requiring less expensive production, smaller versions of the Lincoln line, and the like. That encouraged the rest of corporate America to follow suit and let the accountants run the show. The outcome has been a decline in real quality, and an increase in useless crap.

Accountants think, “What can we do to our products to sell more of them?” and play it safe.

Visionaries think, “Is there an alternative to what we’re doing?” and take risks.

McNamara was, basically, an accountant. Jobs was a visionary.

Simply building on Steve Jobs’ products won’t carry the company into the future. Therefore, without Jobs, I have doubts that Apple will ever do anything truly innovative again.

So when I say Apple is done, I don’t mean that it will somehow run out of cash, or that its stock will crash.

What I mean is, it will eventually become another Microsoft — a company not known for being a technology leader.

Addendum May 31, 2019: My post predated Hackernoon’s post from 2017 which touches on similar issues and has a much better top graphic.

The worst economic catastrophe in the history of civilization was the Dark Ages which spanned over 500 years, from 450 to 1000 A.D. The second worst was the Great Depression, which fortunately didn’t last as long but was still devastating, from 1929 to 1941.

And the third worst economic nightmare since the beginning of civilization? We just lived through it: The Crash of 2008.

The U.S. is still struggling to recover. That’s despite the fact that the stock market keeps hitting record highs, unemployment is down (5.8%, the lowest since 2008), 200,000+ jobs per month have been created over the past year, GDP is over 3%—these days, good news keeps a-comin’.

The problem is that most folks aren’t feeling the recovery. Many have debt and are struggling to make ends meet. If they are working, their wages have been stagnant for at least the last six years.

Credit Still Very Tight

The crux of the problem is this: Banks are not really lending. Banks lending hasn’t been truly significant since The Crash Of 2008. After The Crash, banks tightened credit particularly for small businesses and potential home buyers, as shown in this Small Business Administration (SBA) chart:

Even now, outstanding credit is still required to get a bank loan. Understandably, lending was constricted after The Crash, and there has been no real loosening since then. I believe banks will start lending again—that is, doing what they’re supposed to be in business to do—when the Federal Reserve starts raising interest rates from its current 0%, where it has been the last ten years, to at least 3%. The first rate hike is widely expected to take place late in 2015.

A Fall Hike

Federal Reserve meeting in 2014 to discuss the fate of the world

I am hopeful that rate hikes will begin as soon as possible, because this should accelerate the recovery and get the economy revved up at last, leading to a “tangible” recovery. With banks paying higher interest on depositors’ money, citizens will be enticed to put their money in savings accounts. That would cause a few things to happen:

1. With depositors getting a better return on their savings, they’ll be inclined to put even more money in bank accounts, which would increase the banks’ reserves.
2. With the increased capital, banks will be more inclined to loosen credit and make loans, spurring home buying and small business activity.
3. With the extra money from interest, consumers would be able to make more purchases, further propelling the economy.

But there’s now a new factor on the horizon: OIL.

The “New” Wrinkle

Okay, oil is not so new. But the price of crude has been dropping sharply since June 2014, from $115 to the current $70 per barrel and this discounting is likely to continue. OPEC appears to be in disarray, and the Saudis seem uninterested in cutting production for the time being. Of note, the United States has been the world’s biggest oil producer as of July 2014, pulling ahead of Saudi Arabia and Russia. There is now an oil glut.

If the price of crude continues to drop, the ramifications could be impressive. Most industry sectors would see improved bottom lines—especially those industries that rely on trucking or flight. Stellar profits should result in an increase in hiring. If skilled workers then become harder to find, wages would finally jump in order to attract talent. Most employee wages should rise with that tide.

Of course, Americans would enjoy terrific savings at the gas pump. More money in their pockets would result in more consumer spending, leading to economic juice not seen since the 1990s.

Unemployment would fall not just because of increased hiring but because, with gas near $2/gallon, there would be financial inducement for many of the unemployed to get a job to which to drive. That is, when gas was $3.50/gal, it didn’t always make sense for people to sacrifice a huge chunk of a paycheck for fuel expenses in order to drive to a job. Collecting unemployment benefits was a better deal.

Of course, the drop in the price of oil has been hurting the energy sector, especially the oil industry. But if they saved their massive earnings from the boom years, they ought to do just fine during this period of low oil prices, which shouldn’t last more than a few years.

Oil workers would be hurt in this scenario, unfortunately, as those jobs dry up. But after a few years, as oil prices rise again, the industry should see a restoration of jobs.

By the time the price of oil starts rising again – perhaps mid 2017 – the economy could be churning at a fairly high gear, with GDP growth over 3 percent. That said, unforeseen events in the U.S. — and in Europe — could easily delay a true recovery.

The Next 12 Months

In summary, I see 2015 as the turnaround recovery year, IF interest rates are raised at least twice and oil prices remain low. I think both conditions are necessary to begin a true, palpable recovery. That said, here are my hopeful expectations for one year from now (end of 2015):

• Interest rates raised at least twice, to .75 percent
• Gas prices falling to nearly $2/gallon
• Unemployment rate below 5% and dropping

We’ll see how 2015 unfolds.

Happy Holidays to all!

11/27/14

ADDENDUM 12/6/17: Obviously, two things did not happen as outlined here: (1) The Fed did not raise its rate to 3%. In fact, as of this writing, it has languished at 1.25%, with an expected raise to 1.50% in the coming weeks. (2) As a result, the true recovery did not take place and wages are still stagnant.