Patterico's Pontifications


The Australians are Mocking Us

Filed under: Judiciary — Angry Clam @ 12:14 pm

[Posted by The Angry Clam]

Read it here.

It’s a serious reversal of fortune since the days of Crocodile Dundee, and its fault lies entirely with the Senate.

Key quotation:

When you contrast the bedlam unfolding over empty seats on the US highest court with the smooth, untroubled, barely noticed appointment last week of Susan Crennan to our own High Court, the lesson is clear. Why politicise our courts?


With no disrespect, Crennan’s appointment has already passed from newsprint to fish wrapping. And that is a very good thing. Why? Because in Australia, to the chagrin of many legal activists, most of our judges do not prance around as politicians in legal drag as they do in the US.


We Just Want the TRUTH! . . . Even if We Have to Lie to Get It

Filed under: General,War — Patterico @ 6:47 am

You gotta keep a close eye on these anti-war protesters.

They’ll pretend to have children when they don’t . . . is leaving nothing to chance as it tries to make Sheehan into a national icon. It supplied demonstrators with advice on media relations. . . . “We’re also asking that you bring pictures of children,” requested, and it didn’t matter “whether or not you have a child serving in the military.”

(h/t Sachi.)

They’ll pretend to be former Republicans turned Democrat by their shame over the war . . .

(He’s actually a Democrat, and has been for years.)

. . . all as they repeatedly scream their slogan:



Random Conversation with My Two-Year-Old Son Matthew in the Car, 1

Filed under: Humor,Real Life — Patterico @ 5:48 pm

To understand this, you have to understand that I sometimes try to get my kids to say silly nonsense phrases, which is what I was doing as the conversation started:

Me: You say: “Bust a move, yo!”

Matthew: No.

Me: You say: “Boy-a-Busybee.”

Matthew: No.

Me: You say: “My name is Matthew.”

Matthew: No.

Me: You say: “No.”

Matthew: No.

Me: Good job! See? You said what I told you to say.

Matthew: That’s right. You tell me to say no and I will say no.

Me: Okay. You say: “No.”

Matthew: No.


Matthew: You say yes and I say no.

Me: You say stop and I say go go go.



Matthew: Stop.

Me: Go go go.

Then we laughed.

More Clever Wording on Abortion from the L.A. Times

Filed under: Abortion,Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 7:01 am

There is yet another example of clever wording by the L.A. Times‘s David Savage this morning. Like last night’s example, today’s story tells the literal truth about abortion, but distorts the facts in a way that would fool unsophisticated people into thinking there is more evidence for the pro-abortion position than actually exists.

If you went to a trial and watched 6 people testifying that the light was red, and 6 people testifying that the light was green, would you go home and tell people: “The plaintiff testified the light was red, and other witnesses backed up his testimony” — and leave it at that?

Only if you were already prejudiced in favor of the plaintiff.

And so it is with Savage’s story this morning. Savage reports that the Bush administration has filed a brief in the Supreme Court supporting the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act. Here is how he describes the state of medical support for the procedure from the trial in Stenberg v. Carhart, the previous partial-birth abortion case decided by the Court:

In Nebraska, for example, Dr. Leroy Carhart was the only physician who performed midterm abortions, and in 1997 he filed a legal challenge to a state law banning intact dilation and extraction procedures, contending the law was unconstitutional. He testified that the intact removals were safer than other methods because there was less chance of bleeding and infection.

Other medical experts backed up his testimony, agreeing that, in some instances, the procedure was a better method of performing abortions.

Literally true. And very misleading — because other medical experts disputed Dr. Carhart’s testimony.

Clearly, from his record, Savage is a supporter of abortion rights. So he tells you that doctors agreed with Carhart — and completely fails to mention that other doctors didn’t.

For example:


More Evidence that Schumer Is a Liar

Filed under: Judiciary,Morons — Patterico @ 6:27 am

Chuckie S. repeatedly said that he didn’t want another Scalia or Thomas, but he would be fine with another Rehnquist. For example, Chuckie S. asked Roberts during the hearings:

So now we must take the evidence we have and try to answer the fundamental question: What kind of justice will John Roberts be?

Will you be a truly modest, temperate, careful judge in the tradition of Harlan, Jackson, Frankfurter and Friendly?

Will you be a very conservative judge who will impede congressional prerogatives but does not use the bench to remake society, like Justice Rehnquist?

Or will you use your enormous talents to use the court to turn back a near-century of progress and create the majority that justices Scalia and Thomas could not achieve?

Chuckie repeated the theme in this speech during the final Committee debate:

That’s why I struggled with this decision so long and so hard. If he is a Rehnquist, that would not be a cause for exultation in my book, but it would not be a cause for alarm. The court’s balance will not be altered. But there is a reasonable danger that he will be like Justice Thomas, the most radical justice on the Supreme Court.

Raise your hand if you think Chuckie would have voted for Roberts if Roberts had answered specific questions about how he would vote, with the same answers William Rehnquist would have given — including a declaration that he would be a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I see no hands.

So, What Will it Be?

Filed under: Judiciary — Angry Clam @ 5:16 am

[Posted by The Angry Clam]

There’s reporting over at that the next Supreme Court nominee is down to two people:

Word in legal circles is that Priscilla Owen is set to become the next justice appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Unfortunately, I have received reliable information late this afternoon that Karl Rove, among others, is making a last minute push for the President to consider Alberto Gonzales, despite previous assurances from inside the White House, Justice Department, and Senate that Gonzales was not being considered.

One will make me pleased; one will make me furious. There’s a lot of people like me in the Republican Party base. Karl, let’s see if this is your Waterloo on reading which way the wind is blowing.


Famous Courtroom Climbs Back Up Those Four Floors

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 9:18 pm

I called Lance Ito’s courtroom today. Sure enough, they’re still on the ninth floor, contrary to the reporting of the L.A. Times, which had put the courtroom on the fifth floor.

Los Angeles Times: O’Connor the Swing Vote on Abortion

Filed under: Abortion,Dog Trainer,Judiciary — Patterico @ 8:37 pm

The L.A. Times reports:

This might sound familiar: President Bush may decide this week on whom to nominate to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the court’s swing vote on issues such as abortion, affirmative action and religion.

Very clever. We’ve been through this before: the constitutional right to abortion will remain at 6-3 (at best) even after the confirmation of John Roberts. Justice O’Connor is most certainly not the “swing vote” on whether abortion will remain constitutionally protected. But if you pressed the authors and editors of this article, I’m sure they would claim that they never meant to imply that she is. They would tell you that they meant simply that Justice O’Connor is the swing vote on certain abortion restrictions, such as a possible ban on partial-birth abortion.

Of course, they could have said “certain abortion restrictions” instead of “abortion,” but that’s two more words, and one of them is kinda long, and newspapers have space issues, dontcha know.

It just so happens that phrasing it this way allows them to fool unsophisticated people who aren’t following the issue closely into thinking that O’Connor is the only thing standing between Roe v. Wade and oblivion. But I’m sure they didn’t mean for anyone to take it that way. Right?

This Weekend’s Posts

Filed under: Blogging Matters,General — Patterico @ 6:25 am

You weekday-only readers missed a busy weekend here. You could just scroll down, but for the scroll-impaired, here’s a summary:

I am once again asking readers to tell us about themselves. We have pretty good participation now, with 114 comments as of the publishing of this post. If you have never left a comment mentioning something about yourself — especially if you’re a lurker — go here and leave one!

I unearth a buried L.A. Times story that reports that whites — not blacks — are disproportionately killed in Iraq. Hear that, Charlie Rangel?

There were a couple of posts about gay marriage this weekend. Dafydd ab Hugh had a post purporting to debunk certain “myths” about gay marriage, and I took a crack at refuting his post here. Although I support gay marriage, I praised an L.A. Times editorial writer for taking a stance in favor of Arnold’s veto of the gay marriage legislation — legislation which was passed on contravention of the California constitution. A debate is still raging on these and other topics in this thread, with 146 comments as of the publishing of this post.

I take a couple of swipes at Oliver Willis, here and here. In the first post, I tell a story about when I worked at a courthouse at 76th and Central in L.A.

Apparently taking potshots at easy targets was the theme this weekend, because I also mock Jimmy Carter.

Continuing the theme, I make fun of an L.A. Times reporter for not knowing what floor he was on.

I point readers to John Roberts’s answers to written questions.

I note Alex Kozinski whapping a sleazy lawyer good.

It’s another online politics test. Apparently I’m a social moderate and an economic conservative. Sounds about right.


Tell Us About Yourselves

Filed under: Blogging Matters,General — Patterico @ 1:22 pm

[BUMPED to top all weekend; new posts appear below.]

A while back I had a thread asking readers to tell us something about themselves. Some regular commenters weighed in, but many of you haven’t.

I’d like anyone who hasn’t already participated in that thread to go here and tell us a little something about who you are: where you’re from, how old you are, what you do for a living and for fun, and that sort of thing.

I’m not just interested in the regular commenters, but also in the lurkers. I know there are a few of you out there. Let’s hear from you!

P.S. No comments to this post allowed. Any responses should be left at the link above.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2190 secs.