Here's some potentially VERY good economic news that was lost amid the weekend news flurry.  Those…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Some Potentially VERY Good Economic News

Here's some potentially VERY good economic news that was lost amid the weekend news flurry.  Those with "skin in the game," and who likely possess the best perspective, are betting heavily on an upturn, as highlighted by Friday's Wall Street Journal:

Corporate insiders are buying stock in their own companies at a pact not seen in years, a sign they are betting on a rebound after a coronavirus-induced rout.  More than 2,800 executives and directors have purchased nearly $1.19 billion in company stock since the beginning of March.  That's the third-highest level on both an individual and dollar basis since 1988, according to the Washington Service, which provides data analytics about trading activity by insiders."

Here's why that's important:

Because insiders typically know the…[more]

March 30, 2020 • 11:02 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Poll: Public Approval of Supreme Court Plummets Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, July 05 2012
If Supreme Court esteem was indeed Justice Roberts’s goal...initial feedback suggests that he miscalculated terribly.

One week after the Supreme Court’s perplexing ObamaCare – pardon, ObamaTax – decision, debate continues regarding its most likely long-term legacy. 

Was Chief Justice John Roberts playing a game of stealth conservative chess, while the rest of us remain only capable of checkers?  Or did he instead play the role of Supreme Court popularity curator, instead of neutral umpire as promised during his confirmation? 

Evidence mounts in support of the latter theory.  From references in the dissent to the ramshackle quality of Justice Roberts’s “tax” rationale to rumors of personal interactions between the justices themselves, it appears that he altered his legal position to accommodate extra-judicial concerns.  Moreover, it’s extremely difficult to conceive that Justice Roberts occupies some higher intellectual realm inaccessible to fellow Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito, rendering them collectively unable to fathom some superior grand constitutional strategy. 

If Supreme Court esteem was indeed Justice Roberts’s goal, however, initial feedback suggests that he miscalculated terribly. 

This week, Rasmussen Reports released a surprising survey revealing an instantly negative public response to the Court’s ruling.  In a statistically significant and reliable poll of 1,000 likely voters following last week’s decision, more people now believe that the justices merely craft their decisions to fit their own agendas, rather than conduct themselves impartially.  Moreover, an increasing number now believe that the Supreme Court is too liberal, not too conservative. 

Just one week prior to the Court’s decision, 36% of respondents believed that it was doing a “good” or “excellent” job, while only 17% believed that the Court was doing a “poor” job.  This week, however, only 33% said that the Court is doing a “good” or “excellent” job while those who said that the Court is doing a “poor” job shot up to 28%.

And as for the neutrality that Justice Roberts claimed sacred during his confirmation hearings, the American public apparently isn’t buying it.  Some 56% of those surveyed responded that the justices simply pursue their own political agendas and alter their legal rationales accordingly.  Less than half as many respondents – just 27% – now believe that the Court’s justices maintain judicial impartiality. 

Moreover, public opinion toward the healthcare law itself remains negative.  According to Gallup, more Americans surveyed after last week’s ruling believe that the law will harm the nation’s economy than believe it will help.  Significantly, independent voters hold that position by a 47% to 34% margin, with the overall disparity at 46% to 37% (thus suggesting that Gallup even oversampled Democrats, since Republicans held that position by a 78% to 13% margin). 

As for Rasmussen, its generic healthcare survey following last week’s ruling shows essentially no change – the public strongly opposes the law.  Some 52% favor repeal, while only 39% support the law.  That is not only unchanged since the preceding week, but also since the law was passed in the first place. 

I continue to include myself among those conservatives who believe that the long-term legal impact of last week’s ruling will prove more positive than negative.  After all, had the challenges not been brought, ObamaCare would have remained just as alive, as would federal power to impose such a monstrous law through its general taxing and spending power.  But absent the challenge and last week’s decision, we would not have achieved the new and significant limitations on federal commerce clause authority, its authority to command individual state action or use of the necessary and proper clause as some sort of all-purpose utility knife for federal misdeed. 

Whatever one’s position on the substantive legal impact of last week’s ruling, however, it appears to have done nothing to boost public acceptance of the law.  Instead, all it seems to have achieved was undermining public respect toward the Supreme Court itself. 

Not exactly the goal you had in mind, was it, Mr. Chief Justice? 

Question of the Week   
In which one of the following years did Congress first meet in Washington, D.C.?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
"New York Governor Andrew Cuomo called on the federal government to take control of the medical supply market. Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker demanded that President Trump take charge and said 'precious months' were wasted waiting for federal action. Some critics are even more direct in demanding a federal takeover, including a national quarantine.It is the legal version of panic shopping. Many seem…[more]
—Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law
— Jonathan Turley, George Washington University Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law
Liberty Poll   

Who is most to blame for the delay in passage of the critical coronavirus economic recovery (or stimulus) bill?