Monday, June 25, 2012
IS DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ done as DNC chairwoman? I love the speculation that she would try running against Nancy Pelosi for minority leader (and conceivably Speaker of the House). What a cat fight that would be. My bet would be on Miz Pelsoi: old age and treachery will beat youth and (skill?) every time.
WAS FAST AND FURIOUS intended to promote gun control?
Bill Whittle is arguing that the Fast and Furious program was an effort by the Obama administration to increase bloodshed in Mexico and thereby lead to tougher gun control regulation in the U.S. This theory has been around for a while, and may receive a wider hearing now that Obama has asserted a weak privilege claim to prevent the disclosure of some Fast and Furious documents.I could almost accept the PowerLine argument except for the combined arrogance and abject stupidity of the Obama administration.
The theory cannot be ruled out. However, I don’t find it persuasive.
MICHAEL BARONE: Obama Backers Use Race as Alibi for Ebbing Support. The race card isn't playing well this year.
JUST PLAIN PETTY: Confirming their arrogance, "in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Arizona's immigration law, Obama administration officials announced Monday they are suspending (in Arizona) a key program that allowed state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law."
COMMENT OF THE DAY ON IMMIGRATION: "Maybe we should build a fence around California rather than Mexico. Ex-Californians do more damage." From the comments here.
CLEARLY IT WAS ALL BUSH'S FAULT: the decline accelerated in 2001 (but there's no data for 2009-2012). Look at the data in Part II and Part III for more economic history.
JONATHON TURLEY suggested packing the Supreme Court by increasing the number of Justices from nine to nineteen in order to 'more democratically' interpret the Constitution (never mind that groups comprising more than eight or nine people allow cliques and sub-teams to form, each with their own agenda, which can derail the outcome).
Let's assume for a moment every Supreme Court can have only two decisions (Constitutional/Not Constitutional), that every Justice is independent (no cliques), each Justice has exactly the same probability of coming to the correct (Constitutional) decision. Then the binomial distribution can easily be used to evaluate the Court's likelihood of coming to a correct decision as a function of the size of the Court and the likelihood of each Justice coming to the correct decision.
Given the number of 5-4 decisions, we can roughly estimate the Justices' likelihood of a correct decision (in 'hard' cases) as greater than 5/9ths, or about 60%. If so, then a Court of 9 Justices will have a 'correct decision rate' of about 73% in the 'hard' cases, and a Court of 19 Justices will correctly decide 81% of the time, a difference of 8%.
In 'easy decision' cases where the Justices' individual correct decision rises (to say 80%), then the probability of the Court making the correct decision rises to 98.0% and 99.8% respectively.
This assumes that no cliques form, which will almost certainly lower the larger Court's effectiveness.
Let's assume for a moment every Supreme Court can have only two decisions (Constitutional/Not Constitutional), that every Justice is independent (no cliques), each Justice has exactly the same probability of coming to the correct (Constitutional) decision. Then the binomial distribution can easily be used to evaluate the Court's likelihood of coming to a correct decision as a function of the size of the Court and the likelihood of each Justice coming to the correct decision.
Given the number of 5-4 decisions, we can roughly estimate the Justices' likelihood of a correct decision (in 'hard' cases) as greater than 5/9ths, or about 60%. If so, then a Court of 9 Justices will have a 'correct decision rate' of about 73% in the 'hard' cases, and a Court of 19 Justices will correctly decide 81% of the time, a difference of 8%.
In 'easy decision' cases where the Justices' individual correct decision rises (to say 80%), then the probability of the Court making the correct decision rises to 98.0% and 99.8% respectively.
This assumes that no cliques form, which will almost certainly lower the larger Court's effectiveness.
FOLLOW THE IDEOLOGY.
It's a pretty ugly accusation, but there has to be some reason Obama intervened. Linked from here.
It's a pretty ugly accusation, but there has to be some reason Obama intervened. Linked from here.
HEY, I'VE GOT A GREAT IDEA: Let's pack the Supreme Court.
Hint: IQ isn't additive. Also I recall reading somewhere that a committee is just as smart as it's dumbest member.
More: "Certainly groups comprising more than eight or nine people are inefficient because they allow some members to coast (‘social loafing’), and their size allows cliques and sub-teams to form, each with their own agenda, which can derail the outcome." I would think 19 would more than sufficient to screw things up.
Hint: IQ isn't additive. Also I recall reading somewhere that a committee is just as smart as it's dumbest member.
More: "Certainly groups comprising more than eight or nine people are inefficient because they allow some members to coast (‘social loafing’), and their size allows cliques and sub-teams to form, each with their own agenda, which can derail the outcome." I would think 19 would more than sufficient to screw things up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
