The general consensus seems to be that last night's results settled the Democratic nomination fight. But I'm not exactly sure why that is.

For months now--since South Carolina--it has been pretty obvious which states Obama would win and which Clinton would carry. It seemed clear all along that Obama would win North Carolina comfortably and that Clinton would take Indiana by a close margin. And that's what happened yesterday. So why all the talk about how the race is finished now? Look: If you believed that the nomination fight was signed, sealed, and delivered before yesterday, that's a perfectly reasonable position and the results only confirm your theory. After all, because of the way Democrats apportion delegates, the pledged delegate lead has been out of Clinton's reach since early February--something everyone watching the campaign has long understood. But if you thought that Clinton had a small, but viable, chance to sway superdelegates at the convention by making the case of a popular vote victory, then I'm not sure how last night changed anything.

In other words, it's not clear how yesterday changes anything. The candidates performed roughly to expectations and the next three weeks are going to be a gauntlet for Obama as he gets clobbered in one place after another--all while being touted as "The Nominee." What has been Clinton's gambit since February--her attempt to be leading at least two of the popular vote counts by the time of the convention--will finally be given the chance to mature as she has a string of contests with very favorable demographics. It seems to me that there's no reason for her to quit now and every reason for her to stay in the race. And that this gambit has as much chance of succeeding today as it did on Monday.

The future direction of the Supreme Court is very much at stake in this November’s presidential election. The two or three justices most likely to depart the Court over the next four years -- Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg, and possibly Justice Souter -- are liberal judicial activists who routinely read their own policy preferences into the Constitution and who selectively regard their own favored precedents as sacrosanct. If a President Obama or a President Clinton names their successors, the slender operating majority on the Court for liberal activist results on most contentious political issues is likely to be preserved for at least another generation. By contrast, a president committed to nominate, and fight for, justices who will practice judicial restraint offers real hope that the Court may soon be restored to its proper role in our constitutional system. In his speech today, John McCain has provided encouraging evidence that he would be that president. One speech, of course, does not a campaign -- or a Supreme Court appointment -- make. John McCain needs to continue to make the case for judicial restraint and to draw the stark contrast between his views and his Democratic opponent’s on the proper role of the judiciary. If elected, he will need to populate key judge-picking positions -- including the White House counsel and the attorney general -- with experienced advisers committed to his stated goals. (We would rest easier if he threw out a few names now.) And he will need to be ready to devote a lot of political capital to defeat intransigent Democratic opposition in the Senate. Conservatives, for their part, need to do what we can to help McCain live up to his promises.

The mischief began 40 years ago in the case Griswold v. Connecticut, when the Court struck down a prohibition on contraceptives on the basis of a "right to marital privacy." The bit about "marital" was quickly dropped, and the new discovery became a general right to privacy.

In Griswold, the Court suggested the right might be found in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and/or Ninth Amendments. In other words, it must be there somewhere, anywhere. But since the right to privacy is nowhere mentioned, the Court had to contend that it resides in "penumbras formed by emanations." In layman's terms, that means in partial shadows formed by emissions, which it doesn't take a constitutional scholar to conclude sounds pretty vaporous.

If Connecticut's contraceptive law was outdated and purposeless, the answer was simple: for voters to overturn it. Both the dissenters in the case, Justices Hugo Black and Potter Stewart noted that they opposed the Connecticut policy, but that didn't make it unconstitutional.

The conventional wisdom is not always wrong. But because it depends so much on emotion, it can often mislead. As a result, it is in times like these that economic fundamentals become so important. Rather than dwelling on the bad news coming from the financial and housing sectors, we believe it is important to look at the underlying drivers of the economy. And those look very solid.

Back in 2002-03, the household measure of civilian employment was much stronger than the payroll survey, signaling economic recovery.  However, at the time, many prominent economists, including Alan Greenspan, (wrongly) argued that the payroll survey was right about the economy, not the household survey.

Then, in late 2007, the household survey was weaker than payroll growth, signaling slower growth and gaining some adherents now that it was showing weakness. But in the past few months, the household survey -- which we have followed closely all along -- has turned up strongly. In the first four months of 2008, when the payrolls survey shows a loss of 65,000 jobs per month, the household survey shows a gain of 179,000 per month.

Look for more positive economic data in the months ahead, as the most predicted recession in U.S. history never comes to pass.    

Retribution is the goal of restoring the scales of moral justice to balance as possible. 

What, then, is the proper retribution for murder? As death penalty opponents are so fond of saying, “Executing the murderer will not bring his victim back to life.” That, of course, is true. It’s just as true, however, that giving him LIPWTPP will also fail to accomplish a resurrection. And that’s the point. There is simply nothing the murderer can do to truly restore the social fabric to the status quo ante for the obvious reason that there is no way to replace missing people. Nonetheless, as history and the Bible so clearly have held, blood alone can atone for shed blood. By requiring his life of him, we make him pay the only correct price and force him to fully pay it. This balances both the moral fabric as well as the murderer’s personal register.

Once we comprehend this distinction between murder and all other crimes (which can be restituted for), it should be clear that retribution not only justifies execution, it requires it. Execution is the only correct penalty-in-kind for murder, and retribution is the only value so far analyzed which justifies taking this most precious of payments from someone.

Fed up with politicians incapable of balancing budgets? Well, now state legislatures across the country want to take a crack at balancing your checkbook – whether you like it or not.

Paternalism – the idea that government must take care of adults because they aren't able to do so themselves – is the ideology behind the wave of politicians determined to limit how much and how often Americans can borrow money. By putting stringent restrictions on borrowing, these politicians would effectively ban the practice of short-term "payday" lending, no matter how many people use it responsibly in times of crisis.

For those who enjoy access to high lines of credit, these short-term loans – which essentially let customers borrow cash from their next paycheck – may be a bad deal. But many of the less prosperous don't have such attractive alternatives to the kind of loans that politicians like to demonize.

A couple of related predictions:

1) If Hillary wins by double digits in Indiana and squeaks out a victory in North Carolina, she will give the Democratic super-delegates much to ponder. Pat Caddell observed after the Lioness’ most recent victories, “The nomination process is not a suicide pact.” Caddell can't be the only Democratic poobah harboring such sentiments.

2) If the super-delegates do take a fresh look at Hillary while simultaneously deciding that Obama is too weak a candidate to take a flyer on in a year that should be a slam dunk for the Democratic party, Hillary's strange new respect from the right will have a life expectancy best measured in hours as opposed to weeks or months

The favorite culprits for high black prison rates include a biased legal system, draconian drug enforcement and even prison itself. None of these explanations stands up to scrutiny.

The black incarceration rate is overwhelmingly a function of black crime. Insisting otherwise only worsens black alienation and further defers a real solution to the black crime problem.

Racial activists usually remain silent about that problem. But in 2005, the black homicide rate was more than seven times higher than that of whites and Hispanics combined, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics.

When prominent figures such as Barack Obama make sweeping claims about racial unfairness in the criminal-justice system, they play with fire. The evidence is clear: Black prison rates result from crime, not racism. The dramatic drop in crime in the 1990s, to which stricter sentencing policies unquestionably contributed, has freed thousands of law-abiding inner-city residents from the bondage of fear.

The continuing search for the chimera of criminal-justice bigotry is a useless distraction that diverts energy and attention from the crucial imperative of helping more inner-city boys stay in school — and out of trouble.

When news of the new "Amazon Tax" spread, most New Yorkers probably thought it just meant they'd have to start paying a little more when they ordered online merchandise. But the law, passed in Albany last month, is likely to have a far greater effect on small businesses than it is on consumers.

Critics of the new law say it is unworkable because tracking multiple sales tax rates is difficult - particularly for smaller retailers - while supporters counter that software tools are making this easier. But the reality is that Amazon and other merchants with affiliate programs won't bother adding the additional capability to collect New York tax; instead, they'll take the far easier step of blocking any New York-based site from their affiliate programs. The result will be a tremendous loss of income for the numerous small New York businesses now participating in affiliate programs.

If New York wants a larger share of online sales tax revenues, it should focus on making the state more attractive for online retailers to set up shop here, and improve enforcement of existing tax laws. Instead, the Amazon Tax will hurt New York's small online businesses and entrepreneurs, and ultimately may lower overall tax revenues, while strengthening New York's reputation as being unfriendly to small businesses.

Snobbery and the resentment of snobbery (and it is really snobbery, and not elitism as such, that we have all been discussing) are always going to exist in societies with significant upward social mobility.  The more opportunities available to people through merit (or at least largely through merit), the more pretensions the arrivistes will put on to demonstrate that they do, in fact, belong in their new status group.  Snobbery may not be limited to arrivistes, which is to say those who have succeeded in making their own way, but I suspect it is most obvious among these people, because they are the ones who most have to prove that they have adopted the mentality associated with their new status and their new peers.  

Evidently, there are a lot of people on the left who find the controversy over Obama’s San Francisco remarks absolutely infuriating because he ”told the truth” and is being punished for it, but for everyone else the remarks were not just condescending–they were insulting because they were false.  More than that, a politician presumed to know why people did or believed certain things, when he probably cannot know their motives and, more importantly, shouldn’t care.  In an election, it is the politician’s motives, his beliefs, that are at issue.  The pol is the one who is supposed to be scrutinised by the voters, not vice versa.