Monday Blog Roundup

September 18, 2006

Nathan Newman argues that "incentive pay" rather than improving worker performance, merely lines management's "own nest." According to Newman, "incentive pay often ends up doing very little to improve performance, but does a lot to lower the pay of all workers while undermining overall worker power in the workplace. Which explains why most workers when they vote on a union contract decide to eliminate incentive pay where they can."
Spencer Overton comments on a now famous picture of progressive--and largely white--bloggers meeting with fmr. President Bill Clinton. "There's a problem with this photo and what it implies about how the power structure is changing -- and who might get left behind. Let's not deny that and make excuses. . . ."
Brian Tamanaha makes this comparison: "In a familiar movie scene, the Devil appears before the dying man with a compelling proposition: 'I will save your life,...in exchange for your eternal soul. . . .' The Bush Administration's pitch is this: 'I will do whatever it takes to save the American people, . . .even if that involves ignoring the law and torturing suspected terrorists."
Larry Lessig warns that supporting Oprah for President can have legal consequences.
and finally, who said this?

First, I think, in order to achieve their foreign policy goals, the Clinton Adminisitration has undermined the balance of powers that exist in foreign affairs, and have undermined principles of democratic accountability that executive branches have agreed upon well to the Nixon Administration. The second thing is that the Clinton Administration has displayed a fundmental disrespect for the rule of law. Not in the sense that they don't make legal arguments to defend their positions, but the legal arguments are so outragous, they're so incredible, that they actually show, I think, a disrespect for the idea of law, by showing how utterly manipulable it is. And the the third thing is a matter of consistency. I think one of the things the rule of law demands is that people be consistent, and that institutions be consistent in their legal positions. And I think the Clinton Administration, as I'll discuss in a moment, has been wildly inconsistent. It has gone to the point of disavowing previous executive branch opinions, and when it does things that it finds so inconvenient legally that it overturns too much law, it just doesn't say anything at all, and goes ahead and does what it intends to do anyway.

Orin Kerr has the answer.