Monday Morning

We are battling the glitches just now.

Comments

[Danube of Thought]

Minus 20 at Raz today.

Trails Romney by 5.

[Ignatz]

--We are battling the glitches just now.--

Sounds like TM gave posting privileges to narciso.
Who is we and what are the glitches?

[hit and run]

Son of a glitch!

[Captain Hate]

Has Typhus ever been anything other than a large holding tank of glitches?

[hit and run]

DoT:
Minus 20 at Raz today.

Today is the fourth consecutive day with Obama minus 20 or lower in the Ras index, the first time that has happened this year. The last time Obama enjoyed a streak of four or more such days began two days after Soylent's birthday and ended one day after Clarice's for a span of 6 days.

[narciso]

No one clued me in,

[NK]

The World-- WTI crude is down to $78/bar. (Brent is at $89).Why? IMO, the Euro and BRIC currencies have weakened greatly, which by default has strengthened the Dollar (oil traded in Dollars.) Bernanke did NOT impose QE3, and it appears he WON'T unless there is a FAST equities crash. World Oil demand is flat-- as it has been since 2008. If Romney/Repubs win, and Bernanke says he won't seek a new Fed term saying it's time for new leadership, the Dollar will contnue to strengthen, coupled with the EPA nonsense being revoked, and the Mullahs backing down, WTI goes to $60-$65/Bar. The US economy takes off in 2013. That's the hope anyway.

[narciso]

But she was doing so good, lol;

http://shark-tank.net/2012/06/24/dnc-chairwoman-wasserman-schultz-getting-booted/

[Melinda Romanoff]

NK-

Or the recent downgrade has forced PD banks to post higher levels of their own capital as collateral, thus removing some of the underlying longs in the market. Incremental financing of highly-leveraged, disguised prop trading moves in sequence with capital constraints.

[Sue]

minus 20

And Obama is golfing. Does that strike anyone else as worrisome? Like he knows something we don't?

[Porchlight]

Sue,

If you know the rest of the week is going to suck, might as well golf before it gets started.

If it were going to be good news for him, he'd be in the Oval Office ready to take congratulatory calls.

[Captain Hate]

And Obama is golfing. Does that strike anyone else as worrisome? Like he knows something we don't?

No and no.

narc beat me to it on the DWS don't-let-the-door-hit-you-in-your-fat-caboose farewell tour.

[narciso]

'How you doing,' not so sharp, really

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2012/06/dementia-or-party-hack-ed-koch-gets.html

[Clarice]

There's always a silver lining--little Debbie's staying on as DNC chair until after the November election.

[GMAX]

WTI goes to $60-$65/Bar.

I seriously doubt it. The low last time was about $76. And any pick up in the economy will mean a pick up in energy demand, which will force the needle northward.

[NK]

MEL-- as usual you're right about the trades-- longs in almost all asset classes are crushed by the downgrades. My larger 'regular guy' point is that the Oil trade has been a bubble pumped by the debased Dollar, so the 'long' pinch should be felt more keanly in a bubble asset class like that-- and the 8 week drop or 30% or so in oil is consistent with that. Now, Gold is still flying high, so unfortunately investor confidence in all fiat currencies is just about nil. The politicians and the central bankers have really screwed the pooch here.

[Sue]

I bet this guy is a trip in real life:

Iowahawk: BREAKING: Supreme Court orders U of Chicago to give refunds to Obama Constitutional Law Students.

[narciso]

Heck of job, there, Claude,

http://www.economist.co/node/21557338?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/powerfulaswellasdangeours

[Danube of Thought]

That DWS story is the worst news I've heard in weeks. The woman just kept on giving.

[Melinda Romanoff]

GMax-

Good piece on the LNG/Brent dichotomy in the WSJ this AM. I knew that LNG would be a game changer, but they cite the $/gallon equivalent for the current BTU price at under $16. I wasn't sure what that number would actually be, but it presents itself as an unsustainable spread, regardless of the timeline needed for the change over. It's coming but not in time to save the First Duffer.

[Ranger]

BTW, the DWS thing is another great example of Obama's excellent judgement and executive accumen. She was his pick.

And after her spectacular flame out as DNC head, they are talking about her as an eventual replacement for Pelosi. I guess that's what you call "failing upwards."

[Melinda Romanoff]

Ranger-

I always had the impression that the DWS pick was Schumie's effort to have a reliable stooge in place. Maybe not, but that's the way it smelled at the time.

[rse]

I see Arizona vs US is out.

I have been writing and her's the new post on how Career Ready Practices as part of the Common Core is actually mandating the communitarian ethos.

http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/birth-to-career-finally-and-quietly-creating-the-soviet-mindset-but-here-in-the-usa/

If anyone knows Stanley Kurtz, I bet he won't be surprised by such a back door approach to such a fundamental pillar of socialism.

[GMAX]

Mel

You have to compress it and have the ability to ship it. Infrastructure which does not exist at all in some places and certainly not at the level necessary to greatly affect pricing.

In our lifetimes, yes. In a year or two, No way.

Buying latent nat gas at these prices though, is a very good idea. It will only be worth more in the future.

[narciso]

They upheld the heart of SB 1070 right?

[Clarice]

Scotusblog--no Obamacare today.

[GMAX]

No sequel to Debbie Does America? I am crushed. It was a great action film without much plot though...

[Melinda Romanoff]

GMax-

I agree it's a problem, but it's an engineering problem. And will be fun to see how it's going to be resolved. Cylindrical pumps already exist that can do this cheaply. You can compress on site.

All in all, a really, really good problem. I find it refreshingly exciting.

[Danube of Thought]

SCt strikes down three parts of AZ law; remaining part sent back to 9th Circuit.

Opinion by Kennedy.

[Sue]

CJ Roberts seems to be the likely author of the ACA, or Obamacare, decision. Is that a good thing or bad thing? Did he vote with conservatives or with liberals? That is the 3 day twitter guessing game.

[NK]

GMAX-- I suggested the nat gas buy to my money guy about 8 weeks ago. He said he was buying the field owners, drillers and servicer companies but not the gas, as he had seen too many buys burned by events over 30 years. When I pushed, he gave the link to an online trader where I could buy futures myself, but he wouldn't do a trade he didn't believe in. I took the hint.

[narciso]

What is the point of sending it back the 9th Circuit, they're not going to get it right
anytime soon.

[Clarice]

On Az Scalia would have upheld AZ law in toto:

From Scotusblog:
Tom: Justice Scalia is not only dissenting from the bench, but he has produced a written copy of the bench statement for the press. It is 7 pages long.
10:27
Tom: The upshot of the SB1070 ruling is that, for now, Arizona can apply the "check your papers" provision. And the Court's opinion is a guide to the State on how to apply that provision without being invalidated.

Threw out MT law restricting corporate campaign contributions 5-4.

[Captain Hate]

It's like Jayson Blair never left http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2012/06/24/bullied-grandma-school-bus-ny-times-imagines-rush-and-newt-her-tormentor

[narciso]

So, did I read it right?

[NK]

Narc-- there are other issues in the plaintiffs case challenging Sect 2(B) of the Arizona Law--- racial profiling etc. Now that Sect 2 has been found NOT to be preempted by Fed immigration law, the merits of those issues need to be considered.

[Clarice]

Scotusblog:
10:31
Amy Howe: Justice Kagan was recused from Arizona because she had been involved in the case in her prior post as the Solicitor General of the United States.
10:31
Tom: On net, the #SB1070 decision is a significant win for the Obama Administration. It got almost everything it wanted.

[Clarice]

Scotusblog:

Amy Howe: As part of Scalia's statement in dissent, he is commenting on the president's announcement about suspending deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children -- something that was not part of the case.

[GMAX]

NK

ERF A Canadian company, has a lot of nat gas holding ( plus a lot of oil in the Bakken ). It just cut its dividend, but is still paying 8% or more, and its down about 40% or more. If $2.50 Nat Gas goes back to $7 what is the stock worth then? Could triple your money and get an 8% yield whilst you wait, which is about what the S&P 500 has paid over a long period of time.

There are also some MLPs that have a lot of nat gas holdings that have hedged the nat gas for the next 2-3 years. You can clip double digit coupons, and wait for the rise. QRE and LRE are two I like and hold.

[NK]

Clarice-- Scalia really tweaking Roberts and Kennedy with that. The heat of SB1070 is that where the Federal gov't abdicates its responsibilities on immigration, how can Arizona be premempted? Scalia is basically saying 'toldya,' look at the deporation amnesty for 800,000.

[Danube of Thought]

"It got almost everything it wanted."

Courtesy of Anthony Kennedy.

As I recall it, after the argument all observers were predicting the Court would be giving the administration a major beatdown.

[NK]

GMAX-- my guy agrees with you about that company, plus Apache and one other US owner/driller, but NOT Chesapeake! neither one of us believes in rapacious management.

[Sue]

I'm going to go bet some money that the ruling on Obamacare will be Thursday. ::grin::

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Skimming the 1070 summary in the opinion very quickly, and skimming Scalia's dissent, I think the case is decided on very technical implied preemption grounds. Scalia believes using implied preemption allows the court to strike down a law which is untethered to the words of the preempting statute.

Unfortunately, as I understand the law, implied preemption has been used for some time by the Court in Supremacy Clause litigation, so the Court would have had to overrule precedent to get to Scalia's result.

I don't read this case as a tea leaf on how either the stolen valor or the Obamacare cases will go.

It is clear that Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas are the only Justices who have yet to write a decision this term. One of them has written the Obamacare decision.

[NK]

Obamacare-- Thursday it is-- SCOTUS speculates decision by Roberts.

[narciso]

So that was like his Lawrence statement,

[NK]

JimR-- I find the SB 1070 decision entirely unsurprising. It is well-within precedent on premption. The 3 dissenters are also predictable, they are the 3 strongest States' rights Justices, and Scalia and Alito really distrust this Administration's use (and misuse) of Federal power.

[GMAX]

Aubrey may end up in Club Fed. Stay away from Chesapeake, there was indications today that they may have conspired with Encana to avoid competition on land leases in Michigan. How much more of that nonsense is out there waiting to be disclosed?

[Danube of Thought]

Correction re Raz: trails Romney by 2 today.

[narciso]

It's like the cert petition denial on Latif,
when the whole structure set up by Boumedienne
had to be bulldozed.

[NK]

GMAX-- completely agree. Good companies, in great industries can still be brought down by one man's greed and a lazy Board.

[Walter]

Jim, the scary implication of your comment is that one writes the opinion and the other writes the dissent.

[Jane]

As I recall it, after the argument all observers were predicting the Court would be giving the administration a major beatdown.

That's my recollection too which is forboding.

Apparently the part where a kid can be asked for papers at the ice cream store was upheld.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Dumb question.

Has Justice Thomas ever not penned an opinion?

[Clarice]

Scotus blog speculates the opinion will be partly written by Roberts and partly by Kennedy, On what they base that I can't say.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

I meant that one of the two will write the majority opinion, Walter.

[narciso]

Is there anything Brooks has a clue about?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/06/24/glenn-beck-blasts-david-brooks-mocking-his-egypt-prediction-after-mub

[NK]

Predictions for Thursday? Here's mine: 1. Kennedy writes for the majority invalidating the mandate; 2. Roberts writes the majority opinion on whether to invalidate the remainder of the law-- no idea how that will be decided.

[Clarice]

Scotus blog:

Tom:
From the opinion authorship, health care is almost certainly being written by CJ Roberts, perhaps in part with Justice Kennedy.

[MarkO]

NK, why those two. I've seen that speculation. Is is senority? Wishful or hateful specualtion?

If it is the last case and they are announced by senority, that might be reason to assume Roberts.

[narciso]

All the usual suspects,

http://twitchy.com/2012/06/25/fake-but-accurate-newsroom-star-calls-tea-party-lunatic-fringe/

[MarkO]

I'm still angry with Sorkin because he didn't marry MoDo and take her away.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

These are the cases to be decided according to SCOTUSBLOG:

First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards

Argued on November 28, 2011

Plain English Issue: Whether lawsuits under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, which allows homebuyers to sue banks and title companies when they pay kickbacks for the closing of a mortgage loan, are constitutional if the kickback does not affect the price or quality of the services provided?

United States v. Alvarez

Argued on February 22, 2012

Plain English Issue: Whether a federal law that makes it a crime to lie about receiving military medals or honors violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to free speech.

Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida
Plain English Issue: (1) Whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to require virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty; and (2) whether the Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits taxpayers from filing a lawsuit to challenge a tax until the tax goes into effect and they are required to pay it, prohibits a challenge to the Act’s provision requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty until after the provision goes into effect in 2014.

Nat’l Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Plain English Issue: (1) Whether Congress can require states to choose between complying with provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or losing federal funding for the Medicaid program; and (2) whether, if the Court concludes that the provision of the Act requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional, the rest of the Act can remain in effect or must also be invalidated.

Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services
Plain English Issue: (1) Whether Congress can require states to choose between complying with provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or losing federal funding for the Medicaid program; and (2) whether, if the Court concludes that the provision of the Act requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional, the rest of the Act can remain in effect or must also be invalidated.

You can see that there are many possibilities here for authorship.

[pagar]

"The court ruled that immigration was a federal issue – even though the federal government is unwilling to secure the borders."

Aren't there provisions in our laws to remove government officials who refuse to do what the laws require?

[NK]

MarkO-- Roberts has NOT written an opinion this term. The mandate is a straightforward question -- can it be done under the Commerce Clause, yes or no? The bigger institutional question for the Court is, what are the rules for invalidating a Congressional Statute if one portion is constitutionally infirm? Like any Chief Justice, Roberts is very concerned about institutional questions like that, and he wants to shape the future of SCOTUS statutory review, that's why he saved his opinion for that issue-- so he will write that majority decision, IMO. I have no idea how he comes out on that issue BTW.

[NK]

Pagar-- your comment @11:08 is the basis for Justice Roberts and Kennedy affirming the 9th Circuit injoining 3 sections of the Arizona law-- federal law prempts. if Federal Law isn't being enforced? that's what elections and Impeachment are for. The court shouldn't interfere -- I happen to agree with that philosophy.

[Neo]

NYTimes questions the diversity of law schools ... faculty

Adversaries said the law’s proponents had been too attentive to liberal academics who shaped public discussion. “There’s very little diversity in the legal academy among law professors,” said Randy E. Barnett, a Georgetown University law professor and a leading thinker behind the challenge. “So they’re in an echo chamber listening to people who agree with them.”

[peter]

Is it possible that Roberts gave Kennedy Arizona in exchange for his vote on Obamacare?
(Obviously, ahem, such distinguished jurists would never horse-trade like that, ahem, wink wink)

[pagar]

Thanks NK, proof that we need to elect conservatives that will write good laws and enforce laws. We need to do it this November, not figure we'll have time to do it later.

[MarkO]

My law school faculty was wonderfully diverse, some of the white guys were from California. Honest. Surfers. No. Really.

[Jane]

Supposedly Kennedy won't write the opinion on Obamacare - because he wrote the immigration opinion.

[MarkO]

Too much homework, Jane? What do these chicken entrails tell us?

[Extraneus]

There's that lame hand-on-shoulder dominance move again. In this case, inviting a knee to the crotch.

[NK]

Jane@11:35 and that is why? IMO Roberts chose Kennedy to write SB1070 majority opinion because he would stick to the Preemption issues more closely than Breyer, Ginsburg or Sotomayer. I think Roberts would assign to Kennedy the Mandate decision for the same reason -- Plus Kennedy wrote Citizens United and that is a similar individual liberty vs. Congress overreach case. we'll see shortly after 1000am Thursday.

[sailor]

I, for one, am so tired of Kennedy! He always is looking for attention IMHO. (And he loves that he is considered the swing vote.)

[NK]

Pagar@11:33-- I agree with that. that's why I believe the SCOTUS should use restraint and not find "rights' not in the constitution or repeal Congressional statutes unless there is clear constituional defect. Elections should decide those issues, not the courts.

[Threadkiller]

I would say something Streisand/Kristofferson is going on there, Ext, but I don't think Brewer has that "wind chime" voice he is longing for.

More like a cracked kazoo.

[NK]

Kennedy's a diva-- no doubt about that.

[Threadkiller]

I do not have the time to do more research today, but I think Frau is onto something with the Terry/ Tillman comparison.

http://blog.sfgate.com/foreigndesk/2007/04/24/blow-by-blow-the-pat-tillman-congressional-hearing/

[Neo]

“Then he passed his legislation, and it began to have an effect. In the last three or four months, the private sector has produced 4.3 million new jobs. That is 40 percent more than the 2.6 million jobs produced by the private sector in the seven years of the Bush administration before the financial meltdown. That’s another relevant fact that hardly anybody knows.”

January 275,000 jobs
February 259,000 jobs
March 154,000 jobs
April 115,000 jobs
May 69,000 jobs

In the last three or four months, the private sector has produced less than a million new jobs. That’s another relevant fact that Clinton doesn't know.

[Jane]

Jane@11:35 and that is why?

I have no idea. Some supposed 'expert' on Fox said so. Someone also predicted the opinion would be 200 plus pages.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

I believe the rule is that each Justice is assigned at least one majority opinion per term. Roberts and Thomas have not yet written their opinion this term.

[Ranger]

That’s another relevant fact that Clinton doesn't know.

Posted by: Neo | June 25, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Oh, he knows the facts. It's just... how did Bob Kerrey put it... 'He's an exceptionally accomplished lier.'

[NK]

JimR-- is there an actual rule about writing at least 1 decision per term? I know the senior Justice in the majority assigns the decision author (Chief Justice if he's in the majority), but I've never heard that a Justice must write at least one majority opinion. Hasn't Thomas gone one or more terms only writing dissents?

[Neo]

(Reuters) - Lawyers for Jerry Sandusky sought a mistrial before his conviction for child sex abuse on the grounds that prosecutors showed jurors an inaccurate version of a bombshell NBC News interview with the former football coach, and the mistake may now form part of the basis for an appeal.

I haven't followed the Sandusky trial, but I find it interesting that once again, NBC has a problem with video tape editing.

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

I was wrong, NK. There is no rule. The Chief gets to assign the opinion if he is in the majority. If not, the senior Justice in the majority assigns. I think the custom has been to assign a case to each Justice during the term if possible.

[NK]

JimR-- custom sounds right.

[Captain Hate]

Well this is just wonderful http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/24/NC-student-interview-harassment

[Sara]

Is it possible that Roberts gave Kennedy Arizona in exchange for his vote on Obamacare?
(Obviously, ahem, such distinguished jurists would never horse-trade like that, ahem, wink wink)

I hate reading something like this. It makes the Justices sound so childish and unprofessional.

[Patriot4Freedom]

Ranger said...
"the DWS thing is another great example of Obama's excellent judgment and executive acumen... they are talking about her as an eventual replacement for Pelosi. I guess that's what you call "failing upwards."
followed by...
"Oh, he [Bill Clinton] knows the facts. It's just... how did Bob Kerrey put it... 'He's an exceptionally accomplished liar.'"

... That's two home runs in one day.
Congrats on the great work !

[jimmyk]

That’s another relevant fact that Clinton doesn't know.

Clinton looks like death warmed over in that link. The 4.3M figure must mean since the trough, which happens to have been right around when the ACA passed. Of course, the number since Barry took office (which is the comparison to Bush) is about 200K.