E!!

I admit I’ve been a little ambivalent about the upcoming Las Vegas Tea parties (July 3rd or 4th depending on which you choose).  The one on April 15 was great fun, and I made some friends and gained new contacts – but I’ve wondered since then, what really came of it?  And what’s next?

Ralph Benko has a suggestion in his latest Examiner column, and I kinda like it.  As they say, “Go big or stay home.”  Or – and I happen to know this is one of Ralph’s favorite quotes - ”Lost causes are the only ones worth fighing for.”  (Clarence Darrow) 

Here’s the core of the piece:

There are plenty of targets for the tea parties. Most ambitious is the call for repeal of the 16th Amendment — the income tax amendment.

A declaration is circulating on the Internet pointing out that July 12 is the Centenary of Congress’s passage of the 16th Amendment and proclaiming a National Day of Mourning coupled with a demand for repeal. The key proponent of the demand for Repeal is John Hanson, an old Cajun chased out of Louisiana by Katrina and resettled in rural Virginia.

With no money to speak of, little exposure, and just a handful of very part time volunteers, he is using www.RepealIncomeTax.com to enlist thousands of signers of the declaration demanding repeal. On July 12th, Hanson will start a three-year campaign to raise awareness of the issue in the states.

Before all we roll our eyes and say, “yeah, like that’s gonna happen,” Ralph reminds us that the 18th Amendment – Prohibition- was repealed after a concentrated national outcry. No constitutional amendment had ever been repealed before and many naysayers laughed at that one, too.  Notably, the income tax has something in common with prohibition:   it is starting to be hated with a passion.

A movement for repeal, if not succesful, could perhaps at least spur major reform.  A welcome thing indeed, and what a wild wonder if the Tea Party Movement could one day point back and say, “We helped do That!”

Nevada is ranked 42nd and has an “F” in the Center for Public Integrity’s (CPI) legislative financial disclosure rankings.  You can read a summary here and see the state’s report card on legislative financial disclosure here.

(H/T:  Geoff Lawrence at the Nevada Policy Research Institute blog)

But transparency is about far more than elections bureau stats.  If you want to learn more about all the different ways government can be transparent from organizations who are already doing good work, go here for a list or go to the Sam Adams’ Alliance Sunshine site here.

A little Hill bird just emailed me to hurry up and flip on CSPAN.  Which I can’t do from my present location.  But if I could, I am told I would see/hear House Republican Leader John Boehner reading aloud.  The text?

A 300-page amendment to the Waxman-Markey energy bill that was dropped in at 3 a.m. this morning.  So…here we have Democrats trying to rush through what amounts to the largest tax in American history (Cap and Trade!) AND then slip in giant last minute amendments in the middle of the night.

Really, I’m surprised they didn’t think to slip a mickey in all the GOP drinks to make sure everyone slept through the financial rape of the American taxpayer.

Keep it classy, guys!

Update: If you want to call your congressman and urge him/her to vote against the “Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Legislation, H.R. 2454,” you can go here to get his/her phone number.  If you live in my district, which many of E!!’s Nevada readers do, your rep is Rep. Shelley Berkley.  Her office number in D.C. is (202)225-5965.

Update 2: If you don’t know why you should be against Cap and Trade, read this fact sheet by the Heritage Foundation.

Update 3: Read what newspapers around the country have said about it (page has  pithy quotes from major publications).

Update 4: Um, it passed.  By 8 votes.  As my friend Doug Busselman said on his blog:  “The forces of greater government control and those who favor destroying what’s left of our economy have won — 219-212. Thank goodness we have Senator Harry Reid to protect us — oh, nevermind!”

Update 5: The eight House Republicans who voted for the bill are:

Mary Bono Mack R (CA)
Mike Castle R (DW)
Mark Steven Eirk R (IL)
Leonard Lance R (NJ)
Frank LoBiondo R (NJ)
John McHugh R (NY)
Dave Reichert R (WA)
Chris Smith R (NJ)

Additionally, the following two Republicans ABSTAINED from the vote.

Jeff Flake R (AZ)
John Sullivan R (OK)

Update 6:  Campaign for Liberty has a list of all the Democrats who voted against.

The Issues

 There have been some good comments on my previous post from people on both sides of the issue.  I responded to the points I thought had some validity.  Do go and read them, and please chime in if you have something to add to the debate.  I am always open to opposing views, including admitting I’m wrong if proven so.

 For the record, I think unions are in many ways obsolete and in all ways a hindrance to free markets and the U.S. economy and should probably be abolished entirely - so I don’t disagree with the commenters who protested the entire FedEx/UPS situation based on their desire to protect FedEx from the Teamsters.  But:  FedEx has resisted unionization even in the parts of the company that are subject to it, so I don’t fully buy into the contention that the Teamsters will necessarily come in and take over.  Let’s not forget that unionization takes a majority vote of employees, and that there are ways of combatting it (a friend of mine does this for a living:  flies in and assists organizations being targeted for unionization).

 Either way, as long as unions and labor laws continue to exist, rules and categorizations should be applied fairly and equitably.  UPS and FedEx may well have started out as different types of companies, but they have since evolved into remarkably similar organizations.  If FedEx employees and/or independent contractors are to remain as-is (non-union), then yes, absolutely, let’s go ahead and allow UPS to operate the same way.  But, as FedEx acknowledges, this was tried, and failed, even back when the Republicans were in charge.

 As for all the nice stuff FedEx does, it’s beside the point.  We can’t exempt orgs or people from fairness under the law just because they are, like, super nice.

 Why We Buy

 I do support one commenter’s stated free-market standard for consumer decision making:  the cheapest price for the best service.  But since the better FedEx rate exists due to an inherent unfairness by way of the mis-application of our laws, I am personally willing to pay a little more for UPS on principle.  (Besides, UPS pricing is still quite reasonable and the truck is always early to deliver to my mother up in rural Idaho.)

 I am NOT a Blogstitute

 On a final note re: the comments, the ex-Nevada senator who insinuated that the only bloggers who would advocate for UPS must be getting paid to do should (1) refrain from directly or indirectly insulting my integrity and (2) offer evidence that UPS did, or is, paying me or other bloggers to push their agenda.  I am not a blogstitute — that’s “prostitute” minus “pro” plus “blog” — and I don’t appreciate even the hint of an allegation like that.  The bent of my blog posts is not for sale.  I don’t march to the drum nor tow the line of any party, group, or organization. 

I say what I want; I say what I mean; and I mean what I say.  Exclamation point.

So have you heard about the FedEx v. UPS cagefight over a new bill that would put FedEx drivers in the same category as every other package delivery driver in the country, including those at UPS?  (Hint:  UPS is wearing the “Yes” shorts; FedEx the “No.”)

The outcome of the bill, if passed, is that the U.S. government would start treating the two biggest package delivery companies in the land – both of which use air and ground transportation to provide their worthy services – equally by placing their operations under the same federal labor laws.

On its anti-UPS, anti-HR 915 website, FedEx says the change would “force the world’s most efficient airline to operate under trucking rules that have never applied to airlines.”

Um…  Let’s pause for a quick poll by show of hands:  How many think of FedEx primarily as an airline?  And how many think of FedEx as a package delivery company?  Yeah, me too.

However, when FedEx was originally founded, it was deemed an airline because it flew important documents between cities.  So, in a stroke of typical government-level genius, its employees were placed under the Railway Labor Act (RLA).  (A serious re-write of those labor laws was overdue even then, but…)  FedEx remained under this classification even as the company shifted into the package delivery business.  Which happened after the invention of the fax machine. 

So along comes a bill (H.R. 915) which would keep FedEx Express’s airline employees under the Railway Labor Act – like the employees of other airlines – while moving its truck drivers (and ONLY its truck drivers!) over to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) with all the other unionized, non-airborn truck drivers in the industry.  Like the UPS drivers.  And FedEx is having a hissy fit over it.

We’ll get back to FedEx’s specific objections in a sec, but first you should know this:

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics for 2007, American Airlines has zero “Transport Related” employees (truck drivers). And United, Delta, Southwest, USAirways and Continental have zero truck drivers. Northwest has 165 truck drivers.  And Mesa has 4. But Express Jet, Sky West, American Eagle, Jet Blue, Comair, Airtran and Alaska also have zero truck drivers. Heck, even UPS, which owns a lot of planes, has zero truck drivers – in its airline operations.

And how many drivers does the “world’s most efficient airline” (FedEx) have?  86,979.

And WHY does FedEx – which is digging its claws into its airline status like a crazed cat clinging to the nearest leg – have 86,000-ish more truck drivers in its “airline” operation than the top 20 U.S. airlines combined?  Because, FedEx says, its drivers are “integrated” into its air operations and, therefore, employees who drive packages around town after they arrive at the airport should be considered airline employees.

Sort of like you are “integrated” into airport operations when you take a cab to your hotel, a limo to your party, or your car to your house.  Right?  No?  Well, what about the handful of airline trucks that carry stuff from the planes to the hangar or a nearby airport warehouse?  Oh – you say those ARE an “integrated part” of an airline because they are driving around IN OR NEAR the airport?  Yes, that does make sense.

So, what about the FedEx driver, who, just like the UPS driver, fills his truck with a bunch of packages at the aiport and then drives all over the state delivering them?  Isn’t he about as “integrated” with airline ops as the UPS driver who does the same damn thing off the back of a UPS plane?  And doesn’t it seem unfair that he still has “special” status because of an archaic law and outdated labor categorization?

This prizefight is expected to go 5 rounds.  I’m with the guy in the “Yes” shorts.

You can check out this site for more on this and related issues.  I’m sure Comments would be appreciated.

And for the FedEx propaganda, go here and give your three cents as well.  Personally, I’ve always loved UPS’ guy-with-the-brown-marker on the whiteboard TV ads.  And FedEx has irritated me by ripping it off in an attempt to smear UPS.  So, guess what FedEx?!  I will be sure to use UPS – and only UPS – from now on no matter WHAT happens with H.R. 915.  And I’ll tell anyone who will listen why they ought to do the same. 

Put that in your 86,979 truck tailpipes and smoke it!

I’m a sucker for Monty Python references.  And this one recalls one of my favorite scenes from The Holy Grail while cleverly poking fun at socialized health care.

My very favorite scene from Grail is this one (dialogue with Graham Chapman as KING ARTHUR, Michael Palin as DENNIS THE PEASANT, and Terry Jones as the WOMAN).

Available on YouTube here.

Newspapers with online versions and newsblogs everywhere take note:

If the U.S. attorney doesn’t like what commenters say on your site, you may be served with a subpoena demanding their personal information.  Even if no crime has been indicated or committed in those comments.

So it is at the Las Vegas Review Journal, which has received a demand for all records related to recent commenter postings, including “full name, date of birth, physical address, gender, ZIP code, password prompts, security questions, telephone numbers and other identifiers … the IP address”.

The comments were posted on this op-ed about an ongoing federal tax evasion trial. The defendant, Las Vegas resident Robert Kahre, is accused of tax fraud for paying people in U.S. minted gold and silver coins based on their precious metal value but using their face value for tax purposes (which is many times less).

As you will see if you scan them, the comments – about 100 of them - fall on various points on the Sane and Nutty graphs, per usual with these kinds of things.  Nothing terribly surprising or disturbing in any of them.

Here’s what Thomas Mitchell, editor at the LVRJ, is saying:

My first instinct is to fight the subpoena tooth and nail. After all, John Peter Zenger was just the printer who published anonymous essays critical of the colonial governor. His jury nullified the existing law and freed him.

On the other hand, if someone were to confess to a real and specific crime on our Web site, I’d give him up at the drop of a hat.

Bottom line: We could fight the federal subpoena, at considerable expense, and lose. Our attorneys are now trying to see if we can limit the scope of the information sought.

What the prosecutors don’t appear to understand is that we don’t have most of what they are seeking. We don’t require registration. A person could use a fictitious name and e-mail address, and most do. We have no addresses or phone numbers.

To add prior restraint to the chilling effect of the sweeping subpoena, we were warned: “You have no obligation of secrecy concerning this subpoena; however, any such disclosure could obstruct and impede an ongoing criminal investigation. …”

I wonder if Thomas Jefferson could have been subpoenaed when he wrote from Paris in 1787:  “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

The Sedition Act wasn’t passed until 12 years later. I thought it had since been repealed.

Heh!

Update: The LVRJ is fighting the subpoena.  And the ACLU has posted a message asking commenters if they would like free representation.  See here.  (Thanks to SinCityXtreme for sending the head’s up and link.)

Also, there are now 173 comments on the story.

One great – or terrible – thing about being a blogger is that very often, sometime between the moment you say to yourself, “I gotta blog about that this week” and the moment you find time to login to your site, someone else beat you to it.

It’s bad because it’s always fun to be first to chime in, but it’s great because the story doesn’t get missed – and sometimes someone says something just as well, or better, than you could have said it yourself.

So, on the subject(s) of Harry Reid, Sig Rogich, Reid’s withdrawn support of the maglev train to L.A., and Reid’s sudden enthusiasm for the DesertXpress train between Vegas and Victorville (wot?!), here’s The Gleaner, and here’s Steve Sebelius, and here’s Sherm Frederick at the LVRJ.  (None of them are overly long, so don’t be afraid to click thru. One or two minutes each, max.)

I think between the three of them they managed to say what I would have said anyway, what I didn’t think of, and what I probably wouldn’t have said. At least not out loud.

Update: Mark Hemingway penned a piece  – “Harry Reid Euthanizes Pet Project” – at National Review Online.  Chuck Muth was interviewed, and I think explains things quite well.  And Hemingway rightly speculates that maglev train or no, Reid’s poll numbers render him extremely vulnerable.

No one who understands political entrenchment and the fact that Big Business, Big Labor, and Big Government are all BFFs (that’s “Best Friends Forever” in text language, for all you old-uns) should be surprised that some wealthy Nevada Republican businessmen are supporting Reid in 2010.  Rogich and others are voting in their own self-interest on the issues that matter to them most.

But all the Republican endorsements in the world are not going to keep the Little People from taking down Big Harry.  In fact, based on the backlash against “RINO”s that just happened in Clark County Republican Party, and the general digust of voters in both parties with Harry’s whoring ways, I’d say those kinds of endorsements will only fuel the fire of already outraged voters.

Burn, baby, burn!

I’m nine days late to this post by Reno blogger Ryan Jerz – and the subsequent discussion in his Comments section - on whether internet access to news content is, or should be, a “right,” and whether or not it is moral to charge for it.  With U.S. print newspapers dying in droves and our own Las Vegas papers reportedly suffering, it’s a timely debate.

Here’s Ryan’s sum up:

I think anyone saying that news organizations should charge for access is a complete moron. As soon as there is yet another financial barrier to getting information that’s supposedly important to societies, you lose another group of people that (in the case of important information) should get access to it. If a well informed public is a more active and engaged public, who the hell in their right mind would advocate the taking of information away from that public? Besides politicians, of course.

Comments then ensue about how people have always paid for news via the print media but are accustomed to getting online info free, how news sources need to pay their news reporters but can’t if they aren’t being paid for content or generating enough ad dollars, how stupid it was for newspapers to start bundling their web ads with print ads (which de-valued web ads in the minds of ad buyers), and how to keep non-subsidized news sources independent. Among others.

I’m curious to see how things will work out for the print and online press in the next 5 to 10 years.  Whatever else, I predict that foundations and 501 organizations interested in achieving accountability-in-government though media and journalism will start offering grant money to start up and maintain independent online newspapers.  Newspapers may be dying, but those who love liberty cannot allow journalism to go with it.

If you have an interest and/or an opinon, read Ryan’s post and drop a Comment – or drop one here for me.

I was unable to attend, but Chuck Muth gives us the details of the special meeting of the Clark County Republican Central Committee last night.  We agreed in advance it would probably be a circus.  But Chuck says it was all business:  ”serious, thoughtful and orderly.”

The main purpose of the controversial meeting was to consider and vote on a resolution censuring the Republican state legislators who voted for this session’s higher taxes. Here’s the text of the resolution:

Whereas, Clark County, Nevada is already burdened with high unemployment and a sagging business economy; and,

Whereas, the platform of the Clark County Republican Party is clear in its opposition to new taxes; and,

Whereas, raising taxes is extremely poor public policy for Nevada’s people and it’s economy; and,

Whereas, the Nevada Republican Party as a whole, and every Chairman of every Nevada County Central Committee has signed a resolution urging it’s elected legislators to vote against raising new taxes; and,

Whereas, the political damage caused to the Republican Party brand name from Republican officeholders who support higher taxes is tremendous; and,

Whereas the Clark County, Nevada Republican Party has a responsibility to make it clear that individual legislators who are registered as Republicans who voted for tax increases did so in disregard for and in opposition to their own political party; therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED by the Clark County, Nevada Republican Party that for their votes in support of raising taxes in SB 429, we censure the following registered Republican legislators:

Republican Senators:
Dennis Nolan
Warren Hardy
William Raggio
Dean Rhoads
Randolph Townsend

Republican Assemblymen:
John Carpenter

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the members of the Clark County Nevada Republican Party urge the Republican Party Central Committee, or any other official party entity from giving any assistance of any kind to those legislators listed above.

Chuck said a few people spoke against the resolution, on the grounds that it would hurt the party to appear fractured. But those speaking in favor pointed out that the harm done to the party by Republican legislators voting for this tax hike was far more harmful - and that something had to be said about it.

The resolution passed OVERWHELMINGLY. Says Chuck:  “The “yeas” were thunderous; the “nays” were barely audible whispers.”

And so it is that the party folks in Clark County took a major step toward reclaiming the GOP from the ”moderate” legislative leadership.

May all Nevada’s other counties follow suit.  So let it be written, so let it be done.

What a cute little spat they are having in the Iran presidential campaigns.

Be nice if Ahmie lost, tho. 

(That’s my pet name for Ahmadiniejad.  I like to call him that when he’s in the news.  And then  imagine him getting really irritated about it.  ”Stop calling me that, infidel woman!”)

You’ve probably heard the social drinker’s jovial party line, “I don’t drink any more.  (dramatic pause)  Don’t drink any less, either…”

Yuk-yuk.

Today’s Morning Bell says this joke pretty much sums up Obama’s proposal for pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) legislation which comes equipped with an exception for entitemlement spending.  Their quoted quip: 

Commenting on President Obama’s exemption for entitlement spending in his PAYGO legislation, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget President Maya MacGuineas said: “This is like quitting drinking, but making an exception for beer and hard liquor.”

Here’s a clip from the piece:

In theory, PAYGO sounds like common sense: Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere. In reality, PAYGO is nothing more than a political gimmick that only enables higher spending and exploding deficits. Heritage fellow Brian Riedl explains:

1) PAYGO has never been enforced

• During the 1991-2002 round of statutory PAYGO, Congress and the President still added more than $700 billion to the budget deficit and simply cancelled every single sequestration that would have enforced PAYGO.
• Since the 2007 creation of the PAYGO rule, Congress has waived it numerous times in order to add $600 billion to the deficit. In fact, the entire “stimulus” bill violated PAYGO; Congress simply ignored the rule.

2) PAYGO’s design is flawed

• PAYGO exempts all discretionary spending, and would also allow all current entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to continue growing on autopilot. It affects only new entitlements or tax cuts that may be created in the future.
• Even if PAYGO were fully enforced, entitlement spending would still grow 6 percent annually, and discretionary spending could grow without limit.

Already this year Obama expanded Medicaid liabilities by $200 billion over 10 years, and he is now pushing a public health insurance option that would cost $452 billion per year, or more than $6 trillion over a 10-year period. How does Obama plan to pay for all this new spending under his new PAYGO legislation? He doesn’t.

Obama is banking on trillions in exemptions to PAYGO over the next decade, including the one for his health care reform plan which will have to run big deficits if they get it passed.  PAYGO is a farce, sham, mockery, etc.  As is politics in this country.

Pass the vodka, please.

Ok, maybe a short glass.  But I stand by the rest of the header.

Today’s Heritage Foundation Foundry quote of the day.  With pic.  (Check out the sunglasses on this lunatic.  Talk about a Hollywood complex.)

Excerpted and condensed from an email from Erick Erickson at RedState:

Obama has proposed sending the International Monetary Fund (IMF) billions of dollars as a quasi-bailout for European banks. 

The word is, House Republicans are going to vote in a block to oppose this, which means around thirty Democrats are needed to defeat the bill.   Blue Dog Dems are the key, along with Dems in districts that tilt Republican.  

Call 202-224-3121. Ask for the members of Congress below and tell them to oppose H.R. 2346, the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Bobby Bright AL-02
Parker Griffith AL-05
Ann Kirkpatrick AZ-01
Suzanne Kosmos FL-24
Walt Mitnick ID-01
Frank Kratovil MD-01
Glenn Nye VA-02
Tom Perriello VA-05Travis Childers (MS-01)
Harry Mitchell (AZ-05)
Gabby Giffords (AZ-08)
Jim Marshall (GA-08)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Bill Foster (IL-14)
Baron Hill (IN-09)

We can file this one under Astronomically Expensive and Unnecessary Crap.  And cross file it under New World Order Advocates On Crack.

On June 9, farmers, ranchers, and consumers from more than a dozen organizations will gather in Jefferson City, Missouri to protest NAIS – National Animal Identification System – during a “listening session” organized by the USDA.  Apparently the USDA does not want to take “no” for an answer and is looking for ways to make this program more “palatable” to citizens.  And their cows.

If you are not familiar, NAIS is a three-phase program designed by the USDA and the National Institute for Animal Agriculture to “advance” guidelines for international trade through an agency of the World Trade Organization called the OIE.

NAIS will tag and track movements of 33+ species of animals worldwide. Phase 1 would require all livestock owners to obtain a GPS-linked “Premise ID number” for their property (farm, ranch, homestead, etc.). Phase 2 would require all animals be tagged with an international ID device. Phase 3 would require electronic reporting of all livestock movements on or off a “premises” to enable a trace-back to that premises.

Doreen Hannes, a researcher, author and public speaker, whose family has a small farm and raises much of their own food states, “The design of NAIS is effectively a license to farm. This program would cost us at least $4,000.00 the first year. There is no method for growers to recoup the cost of the program, and the implementation of NAIS will be the destruction of the family farm and rural America. The cost to freedom is simply immeasurable.”

Paul Hamby, NW Missouri coordinator for Campaign for Liberty, states “NAIS will put an undue burden on non-electric Amish farmers, small hobby farmers, 4-H and FFA members while providing no benefit to them. NAIS will not make our food supply safer. I am against this international livestock ID program run by the same federal government who just bought General Motors.”

I don’t think it’s necessary to invoke the “little guy” to object to this program.  No one should be forced to pay to electronically tag their animals so bureaucrats at another slow-moving, over-funded WTO agency can run reports on worldwide livestock movement every time a sheep sneezes in Bangkok.

Besides, in Australia and Canada, where a similar high-tech tracking program has been tried just on cattle, error rates are reported to be high.  Sounds like a database nightmare that could bog down the entire food system.  In addition, the requirements and costs of infrastructure are clearly prejudicial against small producers and local food systems and favor well-funded industrial and global producers and processors.

For more on this and the group Missourians Against NAIS, from whence most of this information came, see here.

One of my favorites at NRO, Andy McCarthy, finds a unique angle on a much discussed issue.  He explains why many of Sotomayor’s statements would disqualify her from serving on the average jury.  The opening clip:

In every trial – every single trial – judges solemnly instruct American citizens who are compelled to perform jury duty that they will have a sworn obligation to decide cases objectively – without fear or favor. If a person is unwilling or unable to do that, if the person believes he or she has a bias or prejudice, especially one based on a belief that people are inferior or superior due to such factors as race, ethnicity, or sex, the person is not qualified to be a juror. Indeed, prospective jurors are told that they are not qualified if they harbor even the slightest doubt about their ability to put such considerations aside and render an impartial verdict. If the judge or the lawyer for either side senses bias, the juror is excused “for cause” – the parties are not even required to use their discretionary (or “peremptory”) jury challenges to strike such a juror; rather the judge makes a finding that the juror is not fit to serve.

And the conclusion:

 Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror? Let’s say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to “transcend [one's] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law”; and that there are “basic differences” in the way people “of color” exercise ”logic and reasoning.” If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause? Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request?

Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?