Happy Birthday America,your democracy just got punked…

I want and need to do many things this week but as I am still possessing the slivers of time to check e-mail and headlines I’ve discovered I’m susceptible to seeing headlines that blow me away.

Such is the case of the overnight usurping of the new federal earmark bill by corporate America and our fine upstanding legislators.

Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur is the first of undoubtedly many to find a way to say “yes they did (can)”.

NYT

Advertisements

126 Comments

  1. Alfie says:

    I’ve lost $2500. in the market this quarter. Economy improving?

  2. graychin says:

    Alfie – isn’t saying that our democracy “just got punked” perhaps just a tiny bit over the top?

    As long as there is government there will be greedy profit-seeking corporations and their lobbyists, looking for new paths to the taxpayers’ teat. I guess that’s a down-side of the otherwise perfect economic system known as “capitalism.”

    It is likely that the tactic described in the Times article will not survive. It surely violates the the terms of those “not for profit” organizations’ tax-exempt status, and should result in loss of that status – especially now that the tactic has been publicized. Which in turn will result in loss of the earmark – if further efforts of the lobbyists can be overcome.

    http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=123297,00.html

    It’s unfortunate that Supreme Court made these kinds of abuses a lot easier when they announced this decision:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html

    Alfie, THAT was when our democracy REALLY “got punked.” Where was the outrage then?

  3. graychin says:

    Oh come on – can’t I have TWO links in a comment without getting put in the moderation queue?

  4. Alfie says:

    My recommended reading for the day:
    Monticello’s Shadow’s by Myron Magnet @ CityJournal
    I stumbled upon it and was reminded of how much right and left types like to look at Jefferson. I found this an interesting perspective.

  5. graychin says:

    The economy and the stock market are two different things. Republicans often confuse the two.

    Lost in the statistical noise of the bad June jobs report was the fact that the private sector added 83,000 jobs. The loss was in government jobs (mostly census workers) – which I’m sure that most of the commenters here would consider to be a GOOD thing.

  6. Alfie says:

    graychin:
    first nobody gets to flood the gates with linkies.
    second Citizens was the right thing to do and strengthened democracy. I also believe DISCLOSE has sick loopholes but will be an overall good thing for the voting “consumer”. If you are too stupid to gather info you are too stupid to vote.
    third. You’re wrong regards the economy on too many levels for the limited time I have this vacation week. Money shifts on the market are a good indicator of the economy .
    83k is piss in the snow gray and as for the cheering for govt job losses. MMM m seems to me that your sidekick celebrated their hiring.

  7. Alfie says:

    I have to add. gray you always seem to be seeking adversaries. My comment about the stock loss and the economy being pounced upon is a good example. Companies shifting,holding and losing money IS THE ECONOMY. I know the Keynesian in you wants to deny that but get over it.

  8. Alfie says:

    less than 600k jobs added compared to the 8 million lost.

  9. Tex Taylor says:

    Alfie, several weeks back I documented for Graychin recent studies showing the failure of Keynesian economics – from the Harvard Business school, no less. The same economists Obama uses. Graychin’s blanket response – something about little respect for…

    http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6420.html?wknews=052410

    I believe the man is incapable of admitting he is wrong, and possibly unteachable. Graychin believes with all his soul it an admission of weakness, even when furthering arguing against the obvious makes him look stupid. Don’t ask me why….

  10. graychin says:

    Alfie has linked an excellent article on Jefferson. I recommend it highly.

    Alfie, I “pounced on” your remark about losing money in the stock market during the first THREE days of July as being foolish because – it was. And I don’t seek adversaries. Sometimes adversaries stalk ME and follow ME around.

    The economy IS improving. It’s sputtering, but it’s improving. Some of the folks in Washington find themselves in a bind over that. An improving economy is widely believed to favor the Democrats in the November elections, so some Congresscritters may have a confilct of interest when it comes to passing measures that might do some good. Like unemployment benefits.

    Tex’s link to the Harvard Business School article does not show the “failure of Keynesian economics.” That isn’t even its topic, because it only concerns itself with what happens in the pork-laden districts of a few congressional leaders. We already had this discussion, and I don’t feel like repeating myself any further.

  11. Tex Taylor says:

    Keep lying to yourself Graychin.

    The double dip is here, and like ’32 will fail the American people again. The only people, and I do mean only people, who actually believe the economy is improving are sycophants such as yourself who literally have lost all since of objectivity.

    Smart people know better, Wall St. knows better, small business knows better, corporations know better. That you would even hint at anything different, shows what a shill you really are.

    P.S. Repeating yourself any further? 😆 That’s rich, and not Frank. You didn’t even bother to response last time you lying asshole. I will happily point to the post for anybody interested to see how dishonest you are.

  12. Tex Taylor says:

    Oops since should be sense…above.

  13. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “The economy IS improving.”

    How do you figure that?

    Unemployment is only being reduced because people are dropping out of the job market and the census workers are being let go. GDP is threatening to double-dip. And stocks are again tanking, taking millions in capital along with it.

    Exactly what portion of the economy do you feel is improving?

  14. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “Like unemployment benefits.”

    Because extending unemployment benefits has been so effective at improving the economy thus far?

    Tell us another one, Nancy.

  15. It’s unfortunate that Supreme Court made these kinds of abuses a lot easier when they announced this decision:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html

    Alfie, THAT was when our democracy REALLY “got punked.” Where was the outrage then?

    Really? Please, draw deep into your well of legal knowledge, and inform we rabble about how Corporations have been viewed and treated in our commonlaw, and specific statutory structures in this nation, Professor Greychin. I seem to have missed your class on the syllabus on both trips through law school.

  16. Tex Taylor says:

    Profound wisdom imparted by Graychin – In2TheFray – May 24th, 2010

    The past quarter’s earnings are a darn good indicator of the next quarter’s earnings. A good earnings report always boosts stock prices.

    😆 SILENCE – The Jay Financial Giant has spoken As the curtain is pulled back. It’s actually enjoyable to refer back to Graychin’s imparting financial advice to see how quickly each tidbit of wisdom is refuted.

    In this case, it took exactly six weeks.

  17. graychin says:

    Tex, my earlier statement is in no way inconsistent with Alfie griping about a two-day drop in the stock market. A two-day drop in the stock market doesn’t mean anything in terms of the trend of the entire economy. If you believe otherwise, you should let the court appoint a guardian to manage your financial affairs.

    Aren’t you glad that you have your hobby of rummaging through my old comments to fill your idle and empty days?

  18. graychin says:

    “Like unemployment benefits.”

    Because extending unemployment benefits has been so effective at improving the economy thus far?

    Tell us another one, Nancy.

    What you seem not to understand (or are you merely being argumentative) is that the unemployment benefits DID and DO help the economy grow. No one expected a quick reversal of the mess that existed in January 2009 – except you.

    One of the large factors holding back the economy is weak consumer demand. Unemployed people can’t spend money that they don’t have. Their spending multiplies and ripples through the economy.

    Surely you understand that, and are just acting like an ass for the hell of it?

  19. graychin says:

    Please, draw deep into your well of legal knowledge, and inform we rabble about how Corporations have been viewed and treated in our commonlaw, and specific statutory structures in this nation.

    I refer you to the dissents from justices Breyer, Stephens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor. They said it better than I ever could, since they are not inclined to “follow the money” in their decisions as are the reliable “conservatives” on the court.

    As a devout disciple of originalism, can you seriously argue that the Founding Fathers intended that huge multi-national corporations would be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the election process. And would have envisioned corporations as equal to human beings in their Constitutional rights? (Superior, actually, since large corporations have more speech to offer money to spend.

    Humans are creatures of God. Corporations are creations of the government. ‘Nuff said.

  20. What you seem not to understand (or are you merely being argumentative) is that the unemployment benefits DID and DO help the economy grow. No one expected a quick reversal of the mess that existed in January 2009 – except you.

    One of the large factors holding back the economy is weak consumer demand. Unemployed people can’t spend money that they don’t have. Their spending multiplies and ripples through the economy.

    Surely you understand that, and are just acting like an ass for the hell of it?

    Are you really that stupid, or are you just hoping that we are?

    Consumer confidence is low, even among the fully employed, because of the uncertainty over employment in the face of stated fiscal policy that guarantees an increase in taxes for both the employed and the employers, which causes understandable anxiety over the prosepects of continued employment.

    Unemployed people receiving unemployment benefits do not stimulate consumer confidence, because:
    1. Other people are paying them that money, either through taxes, or by government borrowing, which will have to be paid for by …more taxes;
    2. Unemployment compensation is only a fraction of what the person made when they were working. Depending on the job and their finances, they may have only been just keeping up with their debt before becoming unemployed. For your theory to even begin to work, unemployment payments would have to fully replace or exceed the amount the recipient made when working, and even then, it would not work because we would be paying people NOT to work, and we find ourselves in the tax/borrow and tax circle again.

    You need to quit drinking from San Fran Nan’s glass. Otherwise, you could end up like her and do yourself permanent damage.

  21. As a devout disciple of originalism, can you seriously argue that the Founding Fathers intended that huge multi-national corporations would be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the election process. And would have envisioned corporations as equal to human beings in their Constitutional rights? (Superior, actually, since large corporations have more speech to offer money to spend.

    I have a limit on how much research I’ll do for one person in a day when they aren’t paying me for the priviledge. Your limit has been reached for the day in my response to you at my site.

    However, I do recommend that you start your own research on the matter, and then try to form a cogent argument against the law of corporations, and its voluminous history on their legal status in western culture.

    You might also consider what spending limitations remained untouched by the Citizens United decision, and contrast this with fundraising and spending engaged in by unions, if you are capable of doing so honestly.

  22. graychin says:

    Other people are paying them that money, either through taxes, or by government borrowing, Other people are paying them that money, either through taxes, or by government borrowing, which will have to be paid for by …more taxes;

    BIC, “other people” have paid you every dime you ever earned.

    Government borrowing? BINGO! That’s where it comes from. That’s exactly what we are talking about.

    … which will have to be paid for by …more taxes…

    HERESY! Don’t you believe that the way to increase government revenues to pay off the debt is to CUT taxes?

    Seriously, isn’t that the way borrowing works – always? Borrow it now when you need it, pay it back later when you can afford it, i.e. after the economy has improved.

  23. BIC, “other people” have paid you every dime you ever earned.

    The money I earn is the result of a contract between myself and the people paying it. I made no such contract to pay a portion of what I earn into transfer payments to other people. I would get more value for my money if it were my desire to do so, simply by paying that money to Joe Smith and Bob Jones directly, rather than being compelled to give it to government, and give it to government, and give it to government, so government can take its handling charge, and then distribute some of what remains to Joe and Bob.

    HERESY! Don’t you believe that the way to increase government revenues to pay off the debt is to CUT taxes?

    That is exactly what I believe. But the current level of borrowing is both “Historic” and “Unprecedented”, and in such a climate, it is exceedingly foolish to borrow more, and increase the burden on those who are still working, either by increased taxes on their employers, or directly, with increased taxes on them.

    You might want to bing “Henry Morganthau”…just sayin’

    Seriously, isn’t that the way borrowing works – always? Borrow it now when you need it, pay it back later when you can afford it, i.e. after the economy has improved.

    As long as the current band of sticky fingered kleptocrats is dictating policy, the economy will not improve. You cannot “spend yourself to prosperity” by borrowing to expand government and at the same time systematically attacking American business, industry, and the individual American’s wallet. Yet this is precisely what the Health Care Takeover Act, Cap and Tax, and the President’s stated objective to drive the domestic coal industry out of business does.

  24. Tex Taylor says:

    Tex, my earlier statement is in no way inconsistent with Alfie griping about a two-day drop in the stock market.

    Irrelevant to my point and an attempt at deflection on your behalf. Your statement on May 24th clearly indicating you were and are wrong, and provides further proof you are and were incorrect with respect to what a stock market indicates – a predictor of future results. I don’t have any idea your field of expertise, but one thing I can say with certainty is it is neither macro economics, nor the stock market. Anybody that thinks our “sputtering economy” is improving is a dumb as your ridiculous observation from May 24th listed above.

    A two-day drop in the stock market doesn’t mean anything in terms of the trend of the entire economy. If you believe otherwise, you should let the court appoint a guardian to manage your financial affairs.

    No, but a 13% drop over ten weeks is a trend and a vote of no confidence. May I remind you that your feckless President borrowed $862,000,000,000 dollars to specifically “stimulate” the economy? In addition, your feckless President has in seventeen short months increased the deficit almost 30% alone, almost 300% the last Bush deficit budget, though he campaigned against the Bush deficits? And the net results has been another 3,000,000 jobs lost, (at least), real unemployment has increased another 4-5 % points, and 4% of the stimulus has been spent on the “shovel ready” jobs you promised for infrastructure. No wonder you worship at the altar of Obama – he thinks like you and he lives a lie. And may I remind you that consumer confidence is now quickly approaching the recession low again? If that isn’t the definition of epic failure, I don’t know what is. You can deny all you wish – but you were wrong then; you are wrong now. Hard to believe an educated man would see these results and his assessment is that we need to continue on the same path.

    Aren’t you glad that you have your hobby of rummaging through my old comments to fill your idle and empty days?

    Rummaging? Hardly. That was but a pasting of your response that you denied earlier. It was your response to my charges of the failure of Keynesian economics – that which you continue to defend without warrant here. It’s a necessary exercise to prove by your own words the accuracy of your predictions, the depth of your knowledge, the dishonesty of your refutation in the hope we forget. And don’t count on me forgetting what you’ve posted. I knew you were an unobjective hack two years ago. You’ve done nothing to change my opinion. It’s just so much easier here to do than the Tulsa World.

  25. Tex Taylor says:

    Right on cue for our malignant narcissist:

    Plenty of Schock, Very Little Awe at Mandatory Obama Signage

    Reads like his “Arizona solution” – post signs 80 miles from the border warning of illegal immigration. If it weren’t so tragic, this entire administration short of Robert Gates would be comical.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/plenty-of-schock-very-little-awe-at-mandatory-obama-signage/

  26. graychin says:

    Still worried about the deficit? You should be, but you’re focusing on the wrong solutions:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-2010-6

  27. Tex Taylor says:

    Great spin, Graychin. Your Democrat Congress has been in total control since 2007. Besides, the excuses ain’t working anymore. Consider yourself one in ten who don’t know better…

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/06/obama-poll-economic-stimulus-confidence-down.html

  28. Alfie says:

    Tex, my earlier statement is in no way inconsistent with Alfie griping about a two-day drop in the stock market.
    Ummm Gray I wasn’t griping about a two day dip,my loss occurred over a quarter ending 6/30

  29. Alfie says:

    Corporations are creations of the government.
    omg

  30. Alfie says:

    On a post specific note…. does anyone have anything to say on the earmark story. Hell I even used the gray lady for linkage.

  31. Alfie says:

    Tex any number of our local pols love to post project signs with their signatures on them. I personally find the ARRA signs less offensive although incredibly shallow in their obvious attempt to pay homage to the FDR days. Most of the programs/projects I’ve personally seen are nothing but episodes of state and local mismanagement and failure with DC coming to the rescue.

  32. Tex Taylor says:

    Alfie,

    Tex any number of our local pols love to post project signs with their signatures on them.

    Same here – ‘progress as promised’ is their creed. Orange cones with holes in the street – an example of ineptness, poor planning and inefficiency in action. I think corporations ought to start stamping each product they produce as “Progress as Promised – in spite of the Government.”

  33. Tex Taylor says:

    The latest NBC-Wall Street Journal poll reveals that Obama’s standing among white voters is remarkably similar to that of President George W. Bush at this same time two years ago.

    Buwahahahahahahaha..

    Karma.

  34. Elric66 says:

    “I’ve discovered I’m susceptible to seeing headlines that blow me away.”

    Like this one?

    Obama’s new mission for NASA: Reach out to Muslim world

    http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/obamas-new-mission-for-nasa-reach-out-to-muslim-world-97785979.html

  35. Elric66 says:

    Dow Repeats Great Depression Pattern: Charts

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/38092759

    Enjoy your change you moronic drones

  36. Tex Taylor says:

    Elric,

    I took a trip over to uber liberal Nate Silverman’s blog. Reading the comments, you can see the lies and blatant distortions of the Left. The progressive thieves of the Dimocratic Party are now down to saying: (1) If we didn’t have the stimulus things would be much worse (got any proof for that boys and girls?) and (2) Taxes have never been lower. You ought to read the excuses as to excuse Obama’ massive failures. “Santa theories”, “Paul Krugman was right!”, etc…

    What is unbelievable to me as after we’ve now had time to measure Obama, they will still defend this catastrophe and demand more of it. They’re all as empty headed as Nancy Pelosi talking about unemployment benefits being the quickest way to create jobs.

    These people are so dishonesty it is mind boggling. Cumulative taxes have never been higher, fees and services are a tax by any name, any tax on business is a tax on consumers, and they’re still defending the failed policies of the 30s because the economy would recover if government would only spend more.

    I have been forced to come to the conclusion, not only are these people woefully uninformed and morally bankrupt, but flat out stupid.

    Gawd, we need to purge ourselves of these fools.

  37. Tex Taylor says:

    dishonesty / dishonest

  38. Elric66 says:

    Tex,

    There was an episode on South Park a few years back where Kyle said 25 percent of the American population are morons. He is correct and sites like Nate Silverman prove just that. No matter how much damage al-Thuggy and the demomarxists do, 25 percent of the population will stand by them no matter what. Graychin is a perfect example.

  39. Tex Taylor says:

    Elric,

    Graychin was off on one of his tangents yesterday about this burgeoning deficit is Bush’s fault – with proof, of course of some nearing bankruptcy rag. 😆

    Kind of like unemployment would be 15% (it already is dummies) if we hadn’t passed the stimulus. Note how the goals move as each glaring lie and failure is exposed, i.e.

    Employment won’t go higher than 8.0% to could have been 15% or more. Anybody with more than a room temperature IQ and no agenda is laughing in their faces now.

  40. Elric66 says:

    Tex,

    Bush was part of the deficit, I wont argue that. But the spending really started once the demomarxists took over Congress, which included al-Thuggy in the Senate. They “conveniently” always leave that out.

  41. Elric66 says:

    This should make people poorer. It should make Graychin happy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJKtNX4YDYU&feature=player_embedded

  42. Elric66 says:

    Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/06/ex-official-accuses-justice-department-racial-bias-black-panther-case/

    al-Thuggy’s “post racial” America. Amazing. al-Thuggy attends a black supremacist “church” and this happens. Who would have guessed?

  43. Tex Taylor says:

    These libs that frequent this board are in a complete state of denial. Useful idiots like Graychin try to explain away that we are pointing the wrong fingers at the budget deficit, are a party of no ideas, teabaggers, imperialists, war mongers, yada yada yada.

    Here is a parallel fact for these useless, lying propagandists trying to tap dance from blame. Illinois, Calif, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, all Blue States that have been controlled by Democrat Majorities for years – long enough to try the tax and spend, union labeled, public welfare roll on the backs of private enterprise, are bordering on bankruptcy. The Massachusetts socialized medicine routine is in the red and found wanting.

    Now Obama is following the same blueprint on a vastly bigger scale for the rest of American, using the stimulus money to reward Democrat supporters and buy union and welfare votes. The pattern of failure is repeating itself. Urban decay across all of America is the Obama recipe. Like I said before, the Clown-in-Chief couldn’t run a fruit stand without assistance.

    For all you enlightened moderates who thought we needed change, should have been careful for what you wished for, ey?

  44. Elric66 says:

    Interesting. The drones havent commented on the racist regime.

  45. Alfie says:

    Well I was away from the house & computer all day enjoying a great day with the family at an oil free beach. I get home and quickly getting sick of the Sox game I checked the email etc.
    Long and short….Elric wondered when I would say Obama equaled or surpassed FDR. Well hang on Elric ‘cuz here it comes.

    By filing a lawsuit based on false terms the Obama Administration has entered fascist stage,deserving of impeachment and or violent removal.

    That’s right I would accept the violent removal of this administration. I will belay that though as I am now very confident that my fellow Americans will remove this cyst and his American sovereignty hating cronies via the democratic process.

    America has permanently died a little with this legal action and I sadly confess that even the thirdest third world nation on the globe has surpassed America in a big column.
    I think given Harpers good work up north I may need to return to my ancestral roots.

  46. Elric66 says:

    Welcome to the light side Alfie. Better late than never. I knew what this thug was capable was when it came to light about his “church” that he sat in for 20 years. That was 3 years ago.

    And we do know that fascism is an offshoot of marxism or the other way around. Whether they rally around race, class or nationality, it all comes to the same result, the state controls everything.

    Glad to have you aboard Alfie, we need all the troops we can get.

  47. Elric66 says:

    The Obama Administration Protected Black Panther Who Advocates Killing White Babies

    This should be fun now that Alfie is on board.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN67KJdd6Mw&feature=player_embedded#!

  48. graychin says:

    Alfie, don’t you know that it’s against the law to advocate the violent overthrow of the United States government? That’s as it should be, since one of the jobs of a government is to protect itself from bomb-throwing extremists. When you cool off, maybe you will rethink what you said. Democracy doesn’t work when the losers of elections throw bombs instead of merely sucking their thumbs and pouting.

    And “fascists” don’t file lawsuits. They send in troops to suppress dissent.

    I don’t know if the Arizona law in question is constitutional or not. I think that both sides have reasonable arguments to make. The Obama Administration has nothing to gain by pursuing this lawsuit unless they are merely interested in keeping the oath they took to uphold the Constitution. Obviously they expect to win. I have heard that the POTUS actually knows enough about Constitution law to have been hired to teach courses in it at a prestigious law school. And you can stuff that little factoid where the sun doesn’t shine! 😀

    Clearly I have a lot more belief in America and its institutions than you do. Even during the darkest and most Constitution-mocking days of the Bush Administration I never advocated violent overthrow of that stupid, corrupt, dictatorial regime. If the Administration’s lawsuit against AZ is off-base, the courts will find it so. I think that at least four of the Supremes will not pass up an opportunity to poke Obama in the eye, regardless of the merits of the case. Therefore, I don’t expect the lawsuit ultimately to succeed.

  49. graychin says:

    “Corporations are creations of the government.”

    omg

    Alfie – didn’t you know that?

  50. graychin says:

    The second comment in this thread is where I addressed the earmark story. It was also the one that got “moderated” out because it contained two links – which is probably why you missed reading it.

  51. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “I have heard that the POTUS actually knows enough about Constitution law to have been hired to teach courses in it at a prestigious law school.”

    When all else fails, appeal to authority.

  52. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “I think that at least four of the Supremes will not pass up an opportunity to poke Obama in the eye, regardless of the merits of the case.”

    Like they did during his SOTU address?

    Oh wait….

  53. graychin says:

    Huck – don’t you think that Sam Alito would LOVE to get a chance (ANOTHER chance) to poke Obama in the eye?

    If Alito would betray his lack of judicial temperament in as public a setting as the SOTU, then he must salivate at the thought of a chance to flame Obama in a SCOTUS opinion written for the ages. A judge ought to disqualify himself from hearing a case in which he can’t be impartial, but Scalia has set the SCOTUS’ bar for that standard very, very low.

  54. Elric66 says:

    “I have heard that the POTUS actually knows enough about Constitution law to have been hired to teach courses in it at a prestigious law school.”

    I heard the guy is such a dumbass he sealed his transcripts.

  55. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “Huck – don’t you think that Sam Alito would LOVE to get a chance (ANOTHER chance) to poke Obama in the eye?”

    Alito wasn’t the one doing the poking. Obama was.

  56. Elric66 says:

    “If Alito would betray his lack of judicial temperament in as public a setting as the SOTU, then he must salivate at the thought of a chance to flame Obama in a SCOTUS opinion written for the ages.”

    Fvck off drone. You get more despicable everyday.

  57. If Alito would betray his lack of judicial temperament in as public a setting as the SOTU, then he must salivate at the thought of a chance to flame Obama in a SCOTUS opinion written for the ages. A judge ought to disqualify himself from hearing a case in which he can’t be impartial, but Scalia has set the SCOTUS’ bar for that standard very, very low.

    I hate to mess up a good rhetorical device, but could I trouble you for some examples of Alito and Scalia demonstrating a lack of judicial temperment along with citations to the Model Code of Judicial Conduct to support your allegations? (I can and have provided them for the wise latina woman appointed last year.)

  58. graychin says:

    “I have heard that the POTUS actually knows enough about Constitution law to have been hired to teach courses in it at a prestigious law school.”

    When all else fails, appeal to authority.

    Huck, not so much an appeal to authority as a suspicion that Holder and Obama just MIGHT no a tad more about Constitutional law than I do. Or than Alfie does. Or than you do. If not, some Federal judges will set them straight very quickly.

    Our conversation reminds me of this news item from about six months ago.

  59. Huck, not so much an appeal to authority as a suspicion that Holder and Obama just MIGHT no a tad more about Constitutional law than I do.

    My son’s WEBLOS den knows more about Constitutional law than you do.

  60. If not, some Federal judges will set them straight very quickly.

    Federal Judges who “make policy” like this one?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q

  61. Elric66 says:

    “Huck, not so much an appeal to authority as a suspicion that Holder and Obama just MIGHT no a tad more about Constitutional law than I do.”

    Yeah like letting off the Black Panthers based on race. All you know how to do is follow your marxist leaders.

  62. graychin says:

    BIC, no doubt you are more familiar with the codes of judicial conduct than I am. Don’t you recall something in there about judges needing to avoid the appearance of favoritism in addition to avoiding smoking-gun evidence of actual favoritism?

    Do you find nothing troubling about Mrs. Clarence Thomas organizing a nonprofit “tea-party” affiliated lobbying group, Liberty Central, to organize conservative activism, issue score cards for members of Congress, and involvement in electoral politics?

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/14/nation/la-na-thomas14-2010mar14

    Or Scalia and Cheney going duck hunting togetherin Louisiana, right after the SCOTUS agreed to hear Cheney’s appeal in lawsuits over his secrecy in handling of the energy task force?

    Actually, I wish that Cheney would take all four predictable “conservative” justices hunting with him every weekend! 😀

  63. Elric66 says:

    Video: The nice young man Eric Holder let off the hook

    When Attorney General Eric Holder suddenly reversed course and had the DoJ dismiss the voter-intimidation case against two New Black Panther Party activists stemming from an incident in 2008 in Philadelphia, many questioned why the DoJ would quit a case it had already won. Attorneys within the DoJ wondered why the federal government had suddenly become disinterested in voter intimidation. Some, like Christian Adams, Asheesh Agarwal, and Mark Corallo have gone public with their outrage, and also wonder where the hell Congress has gone in its duty to oversee the executive branch and its enforcement of laws Congress passed.

    Well, look, maybe this was just a bad day for the defendants. Maybe they were just nice young men who took civic engagement to a momentary extreme of enthusiasm. They’re probably just nice guys caught in a single instance of bad judgment … right? Er, not exactly, as Naked Emperor News and Breitbart’s B-Cast discovers after watching National Geographic:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/06/video-the-nice-young-man-eric-holder-left-off-the-hook/

  64. graychin says:

    Oops – two links in one post, and it’s hung in the moderation queue again. Alfie, I’ll try to remember not to do that again.

  65. graychin says:

    BIC, no doubt you are more familiar with the codes of judicial conduct than I am. Don’t you recall something in there about judges needing to avoid the appearance of favoritism in addition to avoiding smoking-gun evidence of actual favoritism?

    Do you find nothing troubling about Mrs. Clarence Thomas organizing a nonprofit “tea-party” affiliated lobbying group, Liberty Central, to organize conservative activism, issue score cards for members of Congress, and involvement in electoral politics?

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/14/nation/la-na-thomas14-2010mar14

    (to be continued)

  66. Elric66 says:

    “Oops – two links in one post, and it’s hung in the moderation queue again. Alfie, I’ll try to remember not to do that again.”

    Gee you drones sure are slow learners. But then, you arent trained to think.

  67. Elric66 says:

    Democrats push for new Internet sales taxes
    by Declan McCullagh

    The halcyon days of tax-free Internet shopping will, if Rep. Bill Delahunt gets his way, soon be coming to an abrupt end.

    Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat, introduced a bill on Thursday that would rewrite the ground rules for Internet and mail order sales by eliminating the option for many Americans to shop over the Internet without paying state sales taxes.

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20009603-38.html

    Gee a demomarxist pushing this? How odd.

  68. graychin says:

    (Continuation)

    Or Scalia and Cheney going duck hunting togetherin Louisiana, right after the SCOTUS agreed to hear Cheney’s appeal in lawsuits over his secrecy in handling of the energy task force?

    Actually, I wish that Cheney would take all four predictable “conservative” justices hunting with him every weekend! 😀

  69. Elric66 says:

    Matthews: Media will destroy Palin if she wins in the primaries

    This isn’t intended as a criticism of Chris Matthews or his statement about Sarah Palin; in fact, he’s exactly correct in this analysis. If Palin decides to run for President and scores big in Iowa, survives in New Hampshire, and can go big in South Carolina, she will have a strong lead for the Republican nomination. Actually, that’s not exactly news, since that’s also the strategy for Mike Huckabee and Tim Pawlenty (who is spending three days in Iowa), and anyone else seeking the Republican nomination. Matthews is also not wrong about what will happen if Palin manages to do it (emphasis mine, courtesy of Greg Hengler):

    Of course they will! Notice that no one objects to this characterization of the media on this panel of, er, media personalities. No one questions whether that is actually the media’s job, to intentionally try to destroy political candidates. It’s all just a given. Palin runs, media will attempt to destroy her — and it serves as an implicit admission that the media did exactly that in 2008.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/07/matthews-media-will-destroy-palin-if-she-wins-in-the-primaries/comment-page-1/#comments

    Gee they dont even try to hide their bias anymore. Maybe if they actually did their job and dug as hard into al-Thuggy’s life as they did Palin’s we wouldnt be in this mess right now.

  70. Do you find nothing troubling about Mrs. Clarence Thomas organizing a nonprofit “tea-party” affiliated lobbying group, Liberty Central, to organize conservative activism, issue score cards for members of Congress, and involvement in electoral politics?

    You make an accusation regarding a lack of judicial temperment against Alito and Scalia, and when challenged, you start talking about Mrs. Thomas? And you accuse me of sophistry? Really?

    Mrs. Thomas does not sit on a bench anywhere, unless she has been very quietly appointed to one, and the memo was never circulated.
    If you are arguing that his position limits her activities, I think you have a clear and unmistakable problem with a violation of her First Amendment rights.

    If you are arguing that what she does limits the way he can and should conduct his duties on the bench, you aren’t really there, either.

    RULE 1.2
    Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
    A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
    COMMENT
    [1] Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct and conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety. This principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.
    [2] A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the Code.
    [3] Conduct that compromises or appears to compromise the independence, integrity, and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Because it is not practicable to list all such conduct, the Rule is necessarily cast in general terms.
    [4] Judges should participate in activities that promote ethical conduct among judges and lawyers, support professionalism within the judiciary and the legal profession, and promote access to justice for all.
    [5] Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules or provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.
    [6] A judge should initiate and participate in community outreach activities for the purpose of promoting public understanding of and confidence in the administration of justice. In conducting such activities, the judge must act in a manner consistent with this Code.

    RULE 2.4
    External Influences on Judicial Conduct
    (A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.
    (B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.
    (C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.
    COMMENT
    [1] An independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and facts, without regard to whether particular laws or litigants are popular or unpopular with the public, the media, government officials, or the judge’s friends or family. Confidence in the judiciary is eroded if judicial decision making is perceived to be subject to inappropriate outside influences.

    Mrs. Thomas’ activities, however personally offensive you may find them, are not enough to support the argument that he has in some way violated these canons. If a case came before the Court that concerned the political persusasion of one of the parties, and that party was one scored by the group in question, then it might be appropriate to address the issue of recusal for that matter.

    Now, do you have examples to back your original allegations, or didn’t the KOStards provide them in whatever rant you read to inform yourself on the subject?

  71. Or Scalia and Cheney going duck hunting togetherin Louisiana, right after the SCOTUS agreed to hear Cheney’s appeal in lawsuits over his secrecy in handling of the energy task force?

    Well finally, something regarding someone you originally accused. Be nice for you to come up with something for Alito too.

    I confess that I am not aware of the specifics, and it might matter to me if Scalia is a regular duck hunter, if he had ever hunted with Cheney before, and if a specific accusation of how it affected his ability to be impartial was made.

    Typically, judges will say before the outset of a trial if there exist circumstances that all parties should be aware of, like in my last trial, where the Judge once worked for opposing counsel 20 years ago, and he also disclosed that he and counsel still met and had lunch together a few times a year as late as last year (he was just appointed to the bench 2 months ago). This is done in order to give me and my clients the opportunity to decide if we want it heard by a different judge. In this case, the answer was no. I do not know if SCOTUS follows the same proceedure, but if the argument was not made by counsel, then I’m inclined to think that the facts didn’t support a recusal on the matter.

  72. graychin says:

    Alito:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0110/Justice_Alitos_You_lie_moment.html

    I neglected to mention Thomas in my original post – only Scalia and Alito. Is that sophistry?

    As I understand it, each justice of the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of whether or not to recuse himself from a case in which he may have (or be perceived to have) a lack of impartiality.

    Mrs. Thomas didn’t give up her “right” to freedom of speech when Clarence became a Supreme Court justice. But perhaps she recognizes that the nature of her political activities calls into question his “above politics” performance on the Court. I doubt that either she or Clarence gives a shit about those appearances – the appointment is for life, and there is work to be done deciding cases the “right” way.

    I can only imagine how you would be screaming if Justice’s Breyer’s wife was an outspoken defender of the ACLU. No double standard for you at all, BIC? None at all?

  73. graychin says:

    Then we have Mr. Chief Justice Umpire-In-Chief Roberts, calling those “balls and strikes.” 😀

  74. graychin says:

    “That pitch was way outside. But I’m calling it a strike because he MEANT to throw it over the plate.”

    BIC, on explaining why when they said “person,” they really meant “citizen.”

  75. “That pitch was way outside. But I’m calling it a strike because he MEANT to throw it over the plate.”

    BIC, on explaining why when they said “person,” they really meant “citizen.”

    Yeah, and if it weren’t for those pesky rules of grammar, almost a century of precedent working against you, and the marked acts of the government during that same time period, you might almost have something in your implication that I’m “Making it up”.

  76. Elric66 says:

    So al-Thuggy just picked a marxist to run Medicare and Medicare without even a hearing. Where do you draw the line drones? When is too much marxism and thuggery too much even for you?

  77. Alito:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0110/Justice_Alitos_You_lie_moment.html

    That’s the best you got? You have nothing.

    1. The case had already been decided, that was why Il Douche’s nose was so far out of joint to begin with. There was nothing improper or unethical about the comment made.

    2. The only story there was the President’s “unprecidented” and “historic” decision to criticize the court in a forum where decorum would not permit them a meaningful response. While it is unsuprising, as he has shown himself to be a bully before, it still represented a new low in Presidential conduct. Had he still been licensed to practice law, it could have cost him his ticket to practice.

    3. And this is my favorite…what Alito said was TRUE. I know, I know. You want to believe that it is a horrible ruling because Il Douche’ and keef Overbite and the rest didn’t like it, but I’ve read the decision, and the cited cases, and there was no century of law overturned. For starters, we didn’t even have an FEC until the 1970s, and the only case that was overturned was a 1996 (?) [I’m going from memory here] appeals court case, that did not square with a considerable body of prior law.

    I neglected to mention Thomas in my original post – only Scalia and Alito. Is that sophistry?

    You failed to mention Thomas in your follow up comment, opting instead to impute his wife’s activities in a vague way to his ability to perform his duties impartially. I already pointed out that according to the rules governing their conduct, that doesn’t even get you close to a legitimate concern. That is sophistry.

    As I understand it, each justice of the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of whether or not to recuse himself from a case in which he may have (or be perceived to have) a lack of impartiality.

    If there were a clear case of failure to do so when necessary, the Congress has the power to impeach, and most Judges are circumspect enough that they will avoid conduct that raises a legitimate question, or they will at least have an answer…and I believe I recall one during my lifetime…I want to say it was Souter answering a criticism that he should have recused himself. I’ll try to look it up later when I am not at work.

    Mrs. Thomas didn’t give up her “right” to freedom of speech when Clarence became a Supreme Court justice. But perhaps she recognizes that the nature of her political activities calls into question his “above politics” performance on the Court. I doubt that either she or Clarence gives a shit about those appearances – the appointment is for life, and there is work to be done deciding cases the “right” way.

    I see. Why bother with facts that might support what you imply, when the smear will satisfy your purposes? Afterall, I’m sure you know just as much about which contestant on American Idol that Justice and Mrs. Thomas “give a shit about”.

    I can only imagine how you would be screaming if Justice’s Breyer’s wife was an outspoken defender of the ACLU. No double standard for you at all, BIC? None at all?

    You only have you imagination, because without more, I wouldn’t have a reasonable suspicion and wouldn’t have much to say. That is the benefit of having to sit through a semester of Professional Responsibility and the fact that I look at these things through the prism of the Model Judicial Code of Conduct. You can be excused for making baseless allegations rooted in emotion and ignorance. I don’t have that excuse.

    Now if she publically stated how she and her husband discussed cases under review and how she specifically swayed his decision to match her own, then that might be cause for legitimate concern.

  78. Hucking Fypocrites says:

    “I’ve read the decision, and the cited cases, and there was no century of law overturned. For starters, we didn’t even have an FEC until the 1970s, and the only case that was overturned was a 1996”

    None of that matters, BiW. Obama said so, and he knows more than we do. After all, he was a constitutional law professor.

  79. None of that matters, BiW. Obama said so, and he knows more than we do. After all, he was a constitutional law professor guest lecturer.

    Fixed it for you. 😉

  80. and most Judges are circumspect enough that they will avoid conduct that raises a legitimate question, or they will at least have an answer…and I believe I recall one during my lifetime…I want to say it was Souter answering a criticism that he should have recused himself. I’ll try to look it up later when I am not at work.

    Here is one article on recusal…it doesn’t mention anything about Souter giving an explaination for not recusing himself on a case, so maybe I didn’t remember it correctly.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recuse

  81. graychin says:

    The distinction between the word “person” as compared to the word “citizen” is NOT an issue of “grammar,” and trying to call the distinction a “pesky rule of grammar” must surely be a attempt at deliberate and dishonest obfuscation. The two words have entirely clear and distinct meanings to everyone except originalist lawyers.

    (A tangential question – if a resident non-citizen is not a “person” under the Fourteenth Amendment, then is a domestic corporation a “person”? Or is it a “citizen”?)

    Not even precedent can limit the word “person” to only those holding American citizenship – especially when that precedent was as egregiously wrong as rounding up and interring certain ethnic groups during WW II for no cause. A precedent like that rivals Dred Scott in stinking to high heaven and deserves no weight in court.

  82. graychin says:

    You are getting far afield from my original point about four of the Supremes salivating at the prospect of poking Obama in the eye. You can make your lawyerly arguments until your voice gives out that Alito violated no judicial code, but his backtalk in a very public setting was widely criticized and surely supports my original contention that he would enjoy getting back at Obama.

    As would Cheney’s hunting buddy.

    As would the husband of the Republican activist / tea party lady.

    All of them following the letter of the law, careful to keep their toes just inside the line.

    But there is no illusion that any of them is inclined to be impartial. They don’t even care about the appearance of impartiality, or pretend to be “fair and balanced.” Their wear their blatant partisanship like campaign buttons on their robes.

  83. The distinction between the word “person” as compared to the word “citizen” is NOT an issue of “grammar,” and trying to call the distinction a “pesky rule of grammar” must surely be a attempt at deliberate and dishonest obfuscation. The two words have entirely clear and distinct meanings to everyone except originalist lawyers.

    I was referring to the use of semi-colons rather than periods, and the way that the sections were drafted. However, since you had trouble with comprehending it the first time, I’ll repeat it for you:

    However, if you are bound and determined to cling that interpretation, lets look at the section:

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    The section has to be read in its entirety.

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    This sentence defines how one becomes a citizen. It also uses the word “person.”

    “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;”

    This says that a state can’t make a law that abridges the priveleges and immunities of …wait for it…citizens!, and there is a break in the clause with a semi-colon. That semi-colon is important, because that indicates that you are still holding the same thought, whereas a period indicates that the thought is over.

    “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

    “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    Remember, we are still on the same thought…what a state cannot do to a citizen. If you plan to extend this protection to anyone, you don’t take this new tack with a semi-colon, you end the previous thought with a period. You also don’t include a blanket grant of protections to anyone, citizen or not, within the same section in which you provide a definition of a citizen, and the protections of citizenship. If they had intended to extend such protections to anyone, it would have required no effort to set them forth in a separate section, like they did with the other different ideas that were set forth in the Amendment.

    (A tangential question – if a resident non-citizen is not a “person” under the Fourteenth Amendment, then is a domestic corporation a “person”? Or is it a “citizen”?)

    Now you add a new distinction not made before. If you are talking of a resident alien, which is different from “person” who just happens to be here, they have protections that are granted by their specifically recognized status.

    And domestic corporations are both persons, and if domestic, citizens of the United States. I know that this distresses you. Get over it. The status of corporations has been very clearly delinated in western law and common law for quite some time. As in a couple of hundred years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

    Not even precedent can limit the word “person” to only those holding American citizenship – especially when that precedent was as egregiously wrong as rounding up and interring certain ethnic groups during WW II for no cause. A precedent like that rivals Dred Scott in stinking to high heaven and deserves no weight in court.

    I see. Law by Graychin fiat. Fortunately, what you think qualifies as precedent has little impact on what is precedent.

    And you can blame Dred Scott (and Plessy) on activist courts, which ignored precedent, and the intent of the drafters of the laws in question.

  84. You are getting far afield from my original point about four of the Supremes salivating at the prospect of poking Obama in the eye.

    Not really. You’re the one who made accusations about their judicial fitness, and then brought some really weak examples.

    You can make your lawyerly arguments until your voice gives out that Alito violated no judicial code, but his backtalk in a very public setting was widely criticized

    It wasn’t “widely criticized” by anyone citing the rules of conduct that they are to conduct themselves by, and frankly, the opinion of partisan hacks is uncompelling on the subject.

    and surely supports my original contention that he would enjoy getting back at Obama.

    I can give you credit for possessing an active imagination. “Not true” uttered in response to a false (and perhaps uninformed?) criticism made in a forum where it was not appropriate, and where the Court’s presense was a matter of courtesy and respect, not of necessity is not an indication of the Court’s burning desire to poke the Lecturer-In-Chief in his eye. Nor is the characterization of “backtalk” appropriate. You might sit down and re-read your copy of the Constitution. The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, equal to both the legislative branch and the executive. What that means is that it does not answer to the President, and they are the ones, not a petulant and small guest lecturer from the University of Chicago, who interpret and apply the law.

    As would Cheney’s hunting buddy.

    Really? He has stated this desire, or is it something you just “know”?

    As would the husband of the Republican activist / tea party lady.

    Proof? I mean other than the meager display you’ve presented?

    All of them following the letter of the law, careful to keep their toes just inside the line.

    And as long as they do, they haven’t done anything wrong or unethical.

    But there is no illusion that any of them is inclined to be impartial. They don’t even care about the appearance of impartiality, or pretend to be “fair and balanced.” Their wear their blatant partisanship like campaign buttons on their robes.

    You mean like the wise latina woman, or the ones who want to look to foreign law to strip own domestic law of its meaning? Don’t kid yourself. Everyone has opinions. But frankly, without being involved in the practice, and lacking any evidence of clear violations of the law or ethics, you’re doing little more than presenting an emotional opinion wrapped in ignorance without any respect for what judges do or how it is that they do it. Spend your life in the practice of law, and maybe you might obtain an informed perspective from which to make a meaningful pontification.

  85. Tex Taylor says:

    Who Will Investigate the Investigators?

    Another voter fraud scandal involving the Justice Department.

    Last year Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes made a jaw-dropping announcement to attorneys in Justice’s Voting Rights section. She said she would not support any enforcement of a key section of the federal “Motor Voter” law — Section 8, which requires states to periodically purge their voter rolls of dead people, felons, illegal voters and those who have moved out of state.

    According to Mr. Adams, Justice lawyers were told by Ms. Fernandes: “We’re not interested in those kind of cases. What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it.”

  86. graychin says:

    BIC, you seem to live in a world where nothing is true unless it can be proved in court by a preponderance of the evidence. The legal world may be like that, but the real world is not. No one could even function outside of a courtroom in a world like that, and your attempts to drag every debate into a courtroom are just silly.

    Although there is no overt behavior that violates judicial codes (Alito), and no prohibition against rabid partisanship of the spouse of a supposedly apolitical Justice (Thomas), and because Justice Scalia may decide for himself without appeal whether his personal relationship with Cheney calls his impartiality into question, these men REEK of the APPEARANCE of political favoritism and partisanship. And the APPEARANCE of favoritism IS prohibited to a judge, although appearance is only found in the eye of an objective beholder. “Objective beholder” may describe neither of us.

  87. these men REEK of the APPEARANCE of political favoritism and partisanship. And the APPEARANCE of favoritism

    No more than Ruth Bader Ginsberg, John Paul Stevens, or the wise latina woman.

  88. graychin says:

    “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…”

    In that clause, “citizens” is a subset of the larger set of “persons.” Citizens are “persons born or naturalized in the US.” Persons not “born or naturalized in the US” are NOT citizens. Hence, two categories of “persons” clearly exist to the drafters of the 14th Amendment – citizens and non-citizens.

    The previously quoted sentence from the 14th Amendment makes its own clear distinction between “persons” and “citizens.” Yet you argue that the use of the word “persons” in the “due process” and “equal protection” clause is accidental, based on the presence of – a SEMICOLON?

    😀

    And because we rounded up (unconstitutionally?) people of Japanese, German and Italian ethnicity and held them in camps for the duration of WW II.

    And because Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis were treated vindictively (unconstitutionally) after the Civil War?

    “If the law supposes that … the law is an ass.” – Mr. Bumble

    Counselor, you are making a pathetically weak argument. Can you take off your advocate hat for just a minute and look at what the 14th Amendment SAYS?

    Do you see why I call your arguments sophistry?

  89. graychin says:

    I would like to see what would happen if the President attended a hearing at the Supreme Court and audibly muttered “not true” at an assertion made by Justice Alito.

    Co-equal branches of government? Perhaps, but subordinate to each other on the others’ turf.

    “these men REEK of the APPEARANCE of political favoritism and partisanship. And the APPEARANCE of favoritism”

    No more than Ruth Bader Ginsberg, John Paul Stevens, or the wise latina woman.

    I gave my examples. Where are yours?

  90. You are forgetting precedent as well, oh legal expert. Or perhaps that term of art was not taught to you in law school. That means “cases”.

    But frankly, you’ve lost the argument.

    You believe I’m wrong. I’ve shown you that it isn’t true, in how the law was interpreted by the Court, in how the law was applied by the government, and in how the law was drafted, despite the result-oriented decision of an activist court more than a century after the fact. You aren’t going to budge, neither am I, and I will most likely live longer.

    Let’s move on to the next topic to argue about.

  91. Gotcha!

    You got nothing. And you’ve had nothing for weeks now.

    I gave my examples. Where are yours?

    I have a full day ahead of me, so I’ll give you the easiest example first:

    http://threesurethingsoflife.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/unfit-and-injudicious/

  92. Tex Taylor says:

    Co-equal branches of government? Perhaps, but subordinate to each other on the others’ turf.

    The state of union address is nobody’s turf. If it’s anybody’s turf, it is the American people’s turf. What Obama did what pathetic, crass and classless – one of many times Obama has proven his bullying nature and penchant for sticking his foot in his mouth.

    What Obama should have been met with was a chorus of boos and catcalls instead of the monkeys jumping in a cage like the insufferably Senators Schumer and Durbin displayed – two of the most unscrupulous men to walk the planet. Their time is coming…

  93. Elric66 says:

    Financial regulation bill dictates ethnic, gender quotas
    Share
    posted at 12:55 pm on July 8, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
    printer-friendly

    Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Barack Obama insist that the new financial regulation bill pending a vote in the Senate is a necessity to restore stability to troubled markets. Instead, it looks as though Democrats have been more concerned about quota systems than economic growth. Buried deep within the bill is a requirement for all regulatory agencies with jurisdiction in economic arenas to start beancounting based on ethnicity and gender, as Diana Furchtgott-Roth discovered:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/08/financial-regulation-bill-dictates-ethnic-gender-quotas/

    al-Thuggys “post racial” America

  94. Elric66 says:

    Shocking Video: NAACP Leader Says Man Beaten by SEIU Goons at Tea Party Protest “Not Black Enough” to Protect, He’s an “Uncle Tom”…

    http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/07/caught-on-tape-racist-naacp-leader-says-kenneth-gladney-not-black-enough-to-protect-hes-an-uncle-tom-video/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gatewaypundit2+%28Gateway+Pundit%29

    My you drones must feel proud

  95. I would like to see what would happen if the President attended a hearing at the Supreme Court and audibly muttered “not true” at an assertion made by Justice Alito.

    The baliff might prompt him to be quiet.

    Co-equal branches of government? Perhaps

    No, not “perhaps”.

    but subordinate to each other on the others’ turf.

    Congress isn’t the President’s “turf”, and the Court is not required to attend the SOTU. They come as guests, out of respect and courtesy. Only a bully insults a guest, and only jerk does it with demonstrably false lies.

  96. graychin says:

    Without deciding whose “turf” hosts the SOTU, it ain’t the turf of the Supremes.

    Who did Obama insult? He made an assertion about a SCOTUS decision that Alito (and you) believe to be incorrect. Nothing more. It isn’t “demonstrably false lies” (as opposed to “true lies”?) to state an opposing opinion, or even an incorrect opinion. If so, you are the biggest liar on the planet as far as I am concerned.

    I’m glad you mentioned that the Justices came to Obama’s SOTU “out of respect and courtesy.” But I guess Alito didn’t get the memo about why they were there. 😀

  97. Elric66 says:

    “Only a bully insults a guest, and only jerk does it with demonstrably false lies.”

    Sounds just like Der Fuhrer al-Thuggy

  98. Elric66 says:

    WaPo — Attention is focused on Arizona and the federal government’s challenge to the state’s strict new immigration law, but three other states could adopt similar legislation next year.

    Lawmakers in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah, which have already taken steps against illegal immigration, say that Arizona-style measures have a realistic chance of passing when their legislatures reconvene in 2011.

    Bad news for the drone. OK banned Sharia law as well.

  99. I’m glad you mentioned that the Justices came to Obama’s SOTU “out of respect and courtesy.” But I guess Alito didn’t get the memo about why they were there.

    Actually, I think that he just expected the President to act like the President, and not like a petulent child who had just been told that he couldn’t have a snack before dinner.

  100. graychin says:

    OK, BIC. You’re floundering badly again with that last comment. But nice try, counselor. Never give up even an inch in court.

    Are you married? If so, are you ever wrong? In the unlikely event that you are ever wrong, can you ever bring yourself to admit it?

    (If a man speaks in a forest, and no woman is there to hear him, is he still wrong?) 😀

  101. OK, BIC. You’re floundering badly again with that last comment.

    And you’re purposely being an idiot. It is no different than me inviting everyone over to my house for a formal dinner, and then as everyone is seated, I start in how dumb you are and how you haven’t performed your job correctly. It is rude, it is bullying, and it disrespects the dignity of the proceedings.

    And while I can recognize that you might not want to believe it, had he still been licensed to practice law, he very likely would have faced discpline by his licensing authority for what he did.

    Are you married? If so, are you ever wrong? In the unlikely event that you are ever wrong, can you ever bring yourself to admit it?

    Yes, I am married. I have been wrong in my dealings with her occaisionally, but only occaisionaly, largely because I am careful to pick my battles.

  102. Elric66 says:

    Notice that racism from the demomarxists never ever bothers these drones?

  103. graychin says:

    And while I can recognize that you might not want to believe it, had he still been licensed to practice law, he very likely would have faced discpline by his licensing authority for what he did.

    Huh? Who did something, and what did he do?

  104. graychin says:

    And while I can recognize that you might not want to believe it, had he still been licensed to practice law, he very likely would have faced discpline by his licensing authority for what he did.

    That’s the same thing that I tell my wife. I’m usually right because I don’t argue when I’m wrong.

    But that’s what lawyers get paid to do! 😀

  105. graychin says:

    (Please ignore my previous comment. My “copy” wasn’t refreshed.)

    Yes, I am married. I have been wrong in my dealings with her occaisionally, but only occaisionaly, largely because I am careful to pick my battles.

    That’s the same thing that I tell my wife – that I’m usually right because I don’t argue when I’m wrong.

    But that’s what lawyers get paid to do – argue when they know very well that they’re completely wrong! 😀

  106. graychin says:

    Poor Elric. No one pays any attention to anything that he posts.

    Not even his fellow “conservatives.”

    I surely don’t.

  107. Elric66 says:

    “I surely don’t.”

    Why would you want to admit your “president” is a racist pig? I sure wouldnt.

  108. Elric66 says:

    Poll: Barbara Boxer (D-ouche) Lead Over Fiorina Goes From 30 to Only 3 Points, Favorable Rating Among California Voters Hits Low…

    http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6662JP20100708?type=politicsNews

    I guess having al-Thuggy campaign for her had the predictable effect. 🙂

  109. Elric66 says:

    So any of the drones want to explain why al-Thuggy wants to “enforce” immigration law in AZ but refuses to secure the border or refuses to sue sanctuary cities? Please dont you all trip over each other to explain it. 🙂

  110. Elric66 says:

    Islam and Marxism From Allah to Alinsky: Introduction

    Daily we are struck with ever more outrageous signs of an administration that seems to lack all common sense when it comes to Islam, and the violent and peaceful jihad being waged against the West. We have a President who bows down to our enemies and excoriates our staunchest of allies, an Attorney General who cannot bring himself to say the phrase “radical Islam,” and a National Security Adviser who refers to Jerusalem as “al Quds.”

    More generally, the Left in this country and abroad has in recent generations consistently sided with Muslim causes, seemingly inexplicably in light of the gross civil rights violations of Islamic nations and if nothing else the disproportionate liberalism of prominent Jewry.

    Those who see moral equivalence between the Islamic world and the Western World, and act accordingly, often aggressively opposing Israel are not limited to politicians such as Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama, but naturally other molders of public opinion in academia and the media. I recently questioned why our media portrayed barbarians such as Anwar Al-Awlaki, Nidal Malik Hasan and Faisal Shahzad in a sympathetic light. Read More »

    http://bigpeace.com/amellon/2010/07/07/islam-and-marxism-from-allah-to-alinsky-introduction/

    Explains al-Thuggy and also the drones here.

  111. Elric66 says:

    “The real problem here, as I testified yesterday, is a lawlessness that’s in the Civil Rights Division that will enforce some laws and not others.”

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/08/quote-of-the-day-600/

  112. Tex Taylor says:

    Elric,

    It would appear to me that this Administration is willingly trying to stick it up the ass of the majority of Americans, or lacks the common sense to do the right thing – this ambulance chasing, sharia loving, Gitmo-9 lead attorney representing Obama’s American hating against Arizona being another one.

    And that is too many coincidences in my book to simply indicate lack of common sense – I would call it a willing pattern.

  113. Elric66 says:

    Tex,

    Been saying all along he is destroying the nation on purpose. If he was truly incompetent, you would see opposition from his own party but they are in full support of this regime.

  114. Elric66 says:

    Obama underwater in Carville poll?
    Share
    posted at 10:55 am on July 9, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

    James Carville runs Democracy Corps, a liberal political-action group that also does regular polling on elections and issues. Normally it provides the Left with interesting, if not necessarily compelling, data for debate, but today’s poll results have plenty for the Right to discuss. Not only does it show Barack Obama underwater on job approval, it also shows that Obama has created a wide impression that he is a socialist in practice, as Jim Geraghty points out:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/09/obama-underwater-in-carville-poll/

  115. Huh? Who did something, and what did he do?

    The Fresh Prez of Bill Ayers’ remarks during the SOTU address.

  116. Elric66 says:

    Video: New Black Panther Party Leader Malik Shabazz Heaping Praise on Osama Bin Laden Only 6 Months After 9/11…

    http://weaselzippers.us/2010/07/09/video-new-black-panther-party-leader-malik-shabazz-heaping-praise-on-osama-bin-laden-only-6-months-after-911/

    Hopefully it makes it through. No other link but this is the group that al-Thuggy is protecting. You see, Im not surprised because al-Thuggy’s “church” has ties to the Nation of Islam. The “church” he sat in for 20 YEARS. So Alfie, am I still “paranoid” or prone to exaggeration or am I on the money?

  117. Elric66 says:

    US started negotiating spy swap before arrests
    Share
    posted at 6:52 pm on July 9, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
    printer-friendly

    Normally, an operation to roll up an espionage network entails secrecy, as any hint to the network’s home intelligence service would mean losing the opportunity of catching the agents and the data they have stolen. That was not the case with the Russian sleeper agents arrested by the FBI this month in a dramatic if anachronistic display of the rivalry between Washington and Moscow. In fact, the US tipped off their counterparts in Russia about the spies — and worked out the details of the swap before ever getting any of the suspects in custody:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/09/us-started-negotiating-spy-swap-before-arrests/

    Try defending this too drones.

  118. Elric66 says:

    Audio: How the DoJ allowed voter fraud in Minnesota
    Share59
    posted at 12:34 pm on July 10, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

    Former Department of Justice attorney J. Christian Adams has blown the whistle on politicization within Justice in enforcing election laws, specifically the laws requiring cleaning voter rolls of the deceased and convicted felons. While the main focus of the media (such as it is) has been on the politics of the issue, Adams wants to get more of a focus on the consequences of politicization. He talks with Twin Cities talk-show host Chris Baker about the impact of this politicization in Minnesota, a subject that Minnesota Majority knows all too well. The conservative organization has spent the past 20 months attempting to get the attention of the DoJ on this very subject, to no avail:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/10/audio-how-the-doj-allowed-voter-fraud-in-minnesota/

  119. Elric66 says:

    Obama touts $400M loan to solar company run by corrupt congressman’s nephew
    Share21
    posted at 7:45 pm on July 10, 2010 by John McCormack

    As Ed pointed out last week, President Obama announced in his July 3 weekly address that the federal government will back nearly $2 billion in loans to two solar power companies as part of its “green jobs” and stimulus programs. The $2 billion is supposed to produce 5,100 jobs–but most of them are only temporary construction jobs. A company called Abound Solar claims its $400 million loan will produce 1,500 permanent jobs in Colorado and Indiana, and–this is a fact Obama conveniently left out of his remarks–the $1.45 billion loan to the Spanish company Abengoa Solar will only produce 85 permanent jobs. That’s right: 85. I’m not cutting off any zeros.

    As crazy as it may be to invest millions of dollars per job, this story actually gets much worse. As Andrew B. Wilson writes in the latest issue of The Weekly Standard, there’s a culture of corruption angle:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/10/obama-touts-400m-loan-to-solar-company-run-by-corrupt-congressmans-nephew/

  120. Alfie says:

    One hope on the Democratic side is that the conservative “tea-party” movement will drive the Republicans too far to the right for the taste of mainstream voters. But there is not much evidence of that in the polling. Indeed, the number of voters telling Gallup’s pollsters that the Republicans are too conservative has fallen since 2008 from 43% to 40%, and the proportion who think them about right has grown from 38% to 41%. Meanwhile the share of voters who consider the Democrats “too liberal” has risen from 39% to 49%. That cannot be good news for Ms Pelosi and her anxious colleagues in the House.
    That is the closer in a piece over at the Economist.
    Add to this the IMF report out fresh and the gains our neighbors in the Great White North have made and one has to believe the USA is nearing a deciding point.

  121. Elric66 says:

    Al-Jazeera Told of NASA’s ‘Muslim Mission’ Before Congress…

    (Washington Examiner)- Lawmakers across Capitol Hill, both Democrats and Republicans, were surprised to learn recently that the Obama administration has made reaching out to Muslim nations a top priority for the space agency NASA. They will probably be more surprised to learn that administration officials told the Middle East news organization Al Jazeera about it before they told Congress.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/NASA_s-Muslim-outreach_-Al-Jazeera-told-first-98058674.html

    I think its pretty obvious where al-Thuggy’s loyalties lie………the ummah.

  122. Elric66 says:

    Poll: What was the Obamateurism of the Week?
    posted at 9:00 am on July 11, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

    It’s time again to choose the Obamateurism of the Week, and we will not rest until we have one. Hey, we could easily have 4 or 5, but that might be a little hard on Barack Obama’s self-esteem. He can thank us for keeping it down to one, but we have to admit that the continued supply of Obamateurisms is getting a little … Erie.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/11/poll-what-was-the-obamateurism-of-the-week-54/

  123. Elric66 says:

    Obama Finalizes Plans For 3rd Vacation Since Gulf Oil Spill Crisis Began
    Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, July 10, 2010, 3:59 PM

    “I’m not going to rest or be satisfied until the leak is stopped at the source, the oil in the Gulf is contained and cleaned up, and the people in the Gulf are able to go back to their lives and their livelihoods.”

    http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/07/obama-finalizes-plans-for-3rd-vacation-since-gulf-oil-spill-crisis-began/

Comments are closed.