No Runny Eggs

(H/T – Mark Reardon)

CNN’s Jeff Greenfield, in a rare moment of clarity, comes up with a few questions that sound better than anything coming out of the Senate Judiciary Committee for Judge Alito. Mark takes his stab at the loony-bin second set, so I’ll go for the first set. I’m not a lawyer, but let’s play along anyway:

Everyone seems to agree it’s wrong for judges to “legislate from the bench.” Give us two or three examples from the court’s past where, in your view, the court legislated from the bench. – Greenfield may not like my answers to this question, but Roe v Wade sure as heck comes to mind. Going back into history, the Dred Scott decision was another.

Name two or three justices from the past whom you do not admire. Why not? – Roger Brooke Tanney because he thought that he and his fellow Supremes alone could decide whether certain free blacks were in fact citizens. Earl Warren for starting the modern strain of judicial activism, and Warren Burger for continuing it.

The Ninth Amendment says that the enumeration of certain rights [in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights] should not be held to disparage other rights… .” What does this mean? – The rights listed in the Constitution, whether they are found in the body, the Bill of Rights, or succeeding Amendments, are not the end-all, be-all. That having been said, not everything is a right. Further, the Tenth Amendment seems to rule out any federal role in the determination of those “other” rights except through further amendments.

Justice Scalia says that the court was wrong 80 years ago, when it began to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Do you agree? – That depends on which Amendment is being applied. Nothing in the First Amendment should be applied to the states; it was one of only 2 (the Tenth being the other) that specifically spoke of limiting only federal power. The other 8, on the other hand, which includes the Second, would and should also apply to the states and local governments.

-If a punishment — say, branding or flogging — was widely accepted at the time the Bill of Rights was written, could it be considered “cruel and unusual” today? – That determination is best left to the legislative process.

(H/T for the McNally piece – Peter)

Joel McNally, in what appears to be a moment of relative clarity, makes the case against replacing the Bradley Center. Unbelievably, I agree with the gist of it. There are, however, some moonbatty items in the piece that need to be shot down…

I remember foolishly believing when the Bradley Center opened that since the Bucks wouldn’t have to pay any rent to play in their luxurious, new sports palace, ticket prices would be dirt cheap.

Ordinary Milwaukeeans and their children would be able to buy the best seats in the house. Democracy would reign in the stands instead of the strict caste system that existed in other cities where movie stars and corporate attorneys sat courtside and working-class families watched with binoculars from the rafters.

That golden age never arrived. It turns out free rent isn’t nearly enough tribute to pay to professional sports franchises owned by millionaires these days. They want cold, hard cash.

The BC was never Lambeau Field, and the Bucks will never be the Packers. They don’t have a 60,000+-name waiting list to let keep growing by undervaluing the seats. Further, there’s a much higher percentage of a particular team’s revenue that’s dependent on the team in the NBA than in the NFL.

As for the binoculars comment, I once had season tickets up in the rafters. I never needed binoculars, though I freely admit that the seats on the lower level are FAR better. Those hoping for the Arena’s coziness were bound to be disappointed; there’s no way to make an 18,000-seat arena as cozy as an 11,000-seat one.

Finally, it’s not just the owners that want cold hard cash. The average NBA salary is somewhere north of $4 million.

Other than that, it’s a pretty good piece. The money shots, as they usually do, come at the end. I espeically like this one:

Payne says newer arenas are destinations that create revenue on non-game days with restaurants and shops. But nothing is stopping the Bradley Center from adding such attractions now, except an embarrassing dearth of customers in existing downtown restaurants and shops on non-game days.

To which I add a general perception on the Friday’s Front Row at Miller Park. It doesn’t seem to be terribly busy on those times I drive past Miller Park when the Brewers aren’t in town.

I’ve got a thing or two I want to comment more-fully on, but I can’t let these items pass unnoticed.

• The heart of the Alito hearings began today. Judge Alito is running circles around the Senate Judiciary Committee.
• From the JS’s DayWatch – In the tire-slashing trial, no sooner was the jury seated than the defense pulled out the race card, seeking a new jury. That was denied, and we’re working through opening statements.
• Some of you folks out in Waukesha County have an election today. Scott Newcomer, who once again got legal confirmation that he is in fact eligible to vote in and run for the 33rd Assembly District, would like to get that magical 75% of the vote, so if you’re going to vote for him, do so before 8 pm when the polls close.