Judging Obama
[Guest post by DRJ]
Northwestern Law School Prof. Steven G. Calabresi analyzes the “extreme left-wing” judges he thinks a President Obama would appoint:
“[Obama] believes — and he is quite open about this — that judges ought to decide cases in light of the empathy they ought to feel for the little guy in any lawsuit.
Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: “[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”
On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.”
There is far more at the link regarding Obama’s views and how Calabresi believes they will affect the judiciary, but the bottom line for me is Calabresi’s point that Obama doesn’t think justice should be blind … and that means there will be no justice.
— DRJ
The supreme court JUST voted for my gun rights, and I think ACE has the right idea. (Upgrade my closet, before Obama’s court has it’s way.)
Earlier on talk radio it was brought up that POL-POT was the leader, but not responsible, it was his followers the khmer rouge, that killed two million of his citizens.
Don’t forget that “volunteer” force, “funded as well as the military” that’s headed for your front door.
Label me paranoid, but I gotta think, am I paranoid enough?
DocJohn (5ffda5) — 10/27/2008 @ 9:54 pmWhen the legal system becomes so corrupt that justice is precluded, society will always find a way to impose justice without the need to involve the legal system.
Another Drew (cdf426) — 10/27/2008 @ 10:02 pmPing!
“The majority is ALWAYS sane, Louis”
DocJohn (5ffda5) — 10/27/2008 @ 10:13 pmL. Niven
In other words, the law be damned!
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 10/27/2008 @ 10:16 pmFrom the mind of a keen constitutional law “professor.”
In many cases, the Law is an Ass!
Another Drew (cdf426) — 10/27/2008 @ 10:18 pmIs that why you identify with it so well?
“society will always find a way to impose justice without the need to involve the legal system”
If you meant me, I agree entirely, and society WILL fix it!
They’re making a grave mistake if they think I’m gonna roll over…
DocJohn (5ffda5) — 10/27/2008 @ 10:26 pmComment by DocJohn — 10/27/2008 @ 10:26 pm
Just stating what I believe to be a universal truth.
Another Drew (cdf426) — 10/27/2008 @ 10:29 pmI take it Prof. Calabresi is some sort of psychic?
He does a wonderful job of speculation and opining and generally talking through his hat.
Here’s another opinion, based on nothing but partisan wishful thinking: I think in an Obama presidency judges will use fairy dust and astrological charts to hand down decisions and unicorns will gallop through the courts spreading technicolor dreams of peace and love.
And justice, DRJ, will be alive and well.
Peter (e70d1c) — 10/27/2008 @ 10:30 pmSilly me. I always thought judges were supposed to decide cases based on the law and the facts. I thought justice was supposed to everyone — the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless — equally.
Under Obama the blindfold comes off the statue of Lady Justice.
aunursa (c07e29) — 10/27/2008 @ 10:31 pmBecause justice doesn’t require holding to any sort of legal principles. Hope and Change are all a court needs!
Pablo (99243e) — 10/27/2008 @ 10:34 pmOh, I BELIEVE in the rule of law, if that’s what you’re asking…
But there is a line, that I will not allow crossed. And that would be my property line – or yours…
And I will fight to defend your rights, and the rest of the constitution, that I swore to “defend against ALL enemies…”
And your right to speak against it.
Activist judges, try to make law, and the citizenry, tries to live by it, but we’ll only go so far.
Let’s don’t forget, they issue “OPINION”…
Not law…
DocJohn (5ffda5) — 10/27/2008 @ 10:47 pmHeck, who needs to deal with messy details like “legal principles” when you can spout off speculation and pour some more gasoline on the bonfire of paranoia and misinformation, as the good professor Calabresi does here to feed the extreme right wholesale acceptance that Obama is a marxist, a racist, against freedom of speech, an angry black man who hates America and looking for revenge, a friend of terrorists, a potential tin pot dictator who rules by whim and empathy even if he did have the respect of the Federalists society students at the Harvard Law Review who came away holding him in huge esteem and admiration for his leadership of that venerable institution. But again, who needs messy facts or arguments based on sound precedent and objective weighing of reality. Certainly not Professor Calabresi, who projects his own need to empathize with the agony of those on the paranoid right , by penning this peice of utter twaddle for the Wall Street Journal.
Peter (e70d1c) — 10/27/2008 @ 10:55 pmPeter,
Your wishful thinking ignores that Prof. Calabresi has relied on Obama’s own words as to how he will select judges. Unlike you, we take Obama at his word.
DRJ (cb68f2) — 10/27/2008 @ 11:08 pmComment by Peter — 10/27/2008 @ 10:55 pm
He’s not only a Marxist, and a racist, but (here I’m taking a step, and saying it) a communist, globalist, apologist, political opportunist who is just to the right of Stalin, and to the left of Bejing…
Kommisar Ombamski says you might just have a position in the new world order…
I’m thinking third comrade in charge of peoples rice farm no. 431, just south of the dallas mushroom collective…
Or would you rather be the mushroom? Need plenty of those too!
DocJohn (5ffda5) — 10/27/2008 @ 11:09 pmObama’s own words
Thank you, forgot that for a sec…
I remember it now, and stand by my words.
DocJohn (5ffda5) — 10/27/2008 @ 11:12 pmFunny how Obama’s opponents are so much more sure of what he’s going to do when he takes office than his supporters are.
Wonder why?
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/27/2008 @ 11:15 pmWonder why?
Koolaid! History! Videos of camo sporting school kids! (the uniform is pretty well funded for a non-shool activity), ummm – his own words…
How am I doing so far?
DocJohn (5ffda5) — 10/27/2008 @ 11:22 pmUnlike you, we take Obama at his word.
Unlike you, and the kindly Professor here, I’m not using thinly buttressed logic and mythology to scare people into who to vote for or against.
The Professor’s argument here has a weak foundation and is mere opinion and speculation. He’s a professor of law and a founder of the federalist Society? He should be ashamed of himself for resorting to such lame partisan argument.
He ends his piece with this gem: Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election.,
Liberty for who exactly? Certainly not liberty and justice for all, but for those who oversee the unwashed ignorant masses. The corporations chiefs, the law makers, the rich and powerful and well connected.
More scare tactics based on the flimsiest of breast beating hysterical assertions that the very foundations of the republic are at risk under an Obama presidency.
Peter (e70d1c) — 10/27/2008 @ 11:31 pmKommisar Ombamski says you might just have a position in the new world order…
Oh absolutely DocJohn and the ObamaBot chip implanted in my head is informing me that you’re shack will not be required for absorption into the collective, although you are scheduled for a re-education / deprogramming session. Don’t worry, once you realize you’re one of us everything will make perfect sense.
/Sarcasm
Peter (e70d1c) — 10/27/2008 @ 11:37 pmHe’s not only a Marxist, and a racist, but (here I’m taking a step, and saying it) a communist, globalist, apologist, political opportunist who is just to the right of Stalin, and to the left of Bejing…
No. He is not DocJOhn, those are all extreme lies told to you by the McCain Campaign, the RNC, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
Those people are just manipulating you for power and money and atttempting to frighten you.
Think for yourself.
Peter (e70d1c) — 10/27/2008 @ 11:45 pmI, as I said will be waiting at the door, knock three times… then duck, fast!
“He’s a professor of law and a founder of the federalist Society? He should be ashamed of himself for resorting to such lame partisan argument”
Obamaski is a teacher’s aid, NOT A LAW PROFFESOR!
“Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election.”
He’s quite correct, and I stand by my position, of your future position… On your knees.
I’ll be long dead.
DocJohn (5ffda5) — 10/27/2008 @ 11:46 pmJudging Obama?
Look at the way he’s judged cuckoo bigots like Jeremiah Wright, unrepentent radicals like Bill Ayers.
Why would Obama select jurists who’d be any different, who’d have an ounce more decency, wisdom, common sense?
More explicitly, he has said something as laughable as: “The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact.” But he’s so dishonest and disengenuous that he won’t come out and proclaim proudly: “I’m a liberal, I’m a leftwinger, and more power to me!!!”
Mark (b68939) — 10/28/2008 @ 12:27 amUnlike you, and the kindly Professor here, I’m not using thinly buttressed logic and mythology to scare people into who to vote for or against.
But you can’t even acknowledge the simple fact that Obama is very, very liberal. Some may even call him an ultra-liberal. And his record indicates that he is much more dogmatic to the left than McCain is to the right.
Mark (b68939) — 10/28/2008 @ 12:36 amHey Peter @ 10:55pm
“Obama is a marxist, a racist, against freedom of speech, an angry black man who hates America and looking for revenge, a friend of terrorists, a potential tin pot dictator”
I couldn’t have defined THE ONE any better:
krusher (1e1e6b) — 10/28/2008 @ 4:07 amHe is a marxist (let’s redistribute the wealth)
He is a racist (Michele’s never been prouder)
He is against freedom (Ask Joe the Plumber)
He does hate America (Change, Change, Change)
He is a friend of terrorists (Ayers,Khalidi,etc)
He is going to be a tin pot dictator because he
is a marxist, racist etc etc etc
Peter – Baracky said
How is any of that relevant to the law?
So, Peter does not like anyone to make any decisions, based on Baracky’s own words, as to what we might expect from him. So, Peter, defend Baracky’s words.
Because you clowns do not care what he has said, and what he says. He is a symbol for you, nothing else.
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:20 amHe should stay in the Senate where his empathy can be written into law – but that would require him to debate what is best with those who may have reason to disagree.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:24 amSo, in order to have the proper empathy, Baracky will have to nominate a poor old gay black handicapable man.
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:41 amno JD, not enough victim groups in that- how about post-op female transgender, maybe even a she-male, vertically challenged, HIV positive, autistic orphan of a illegal alien latino/african american coupling. I don’t expect any repeats of a clarence thomas or janice rogers brown in any case. Maybe Lani Guinier will make it this time and she can push for her signature idea of giving each black 5-10 votes in interest of racial justice to make up for past wrongs? ok, I guess her possibility under Clinton was for AG, but Bush really thought about AG Alberto Gonzales for SCOTUS also.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:19 amMaybe because his opponents can read, understand the meaning of words, and apply simple logic.
Something his supporters either can’t or won’t do.
Steverino (db5760) — 10/28/2008 @ 7:07 amMaybe because we aren’t donning the rose-colored glasses favored by the followers of the Dear Leader?
JVW (f93297) — 10/28/2008 @ 7:16 amthe bottom line for me is Calabresi’s point that Obama doesn’t think justice should be blind … and that means there will be no justice. DRJ
While politically leftist Christians and Jews often point to passages of Scripture that condemn oppression of the poor, that is not the whole story (though probably the more necessary injunction throughout the world). The Bible also says one is not to give preferential treatment to the poor just because they are poor. Justice is justice for all or not justice at all. (Does that mean I would support identical sentences for a rich person shoplifting and a poor person shoplifting a loaf of bread? Probably not, but that doesn’t mean taking bread is “OK”.)
Since Obama’s friend Dohrn has some appointment at Northwestern’s Law School it is not surprising that there should be somebody there of sane disposition that would point this out.
Obama has himself said he would pick Judges like Ginsberg (former lawyer for Planned Parenthood) rather than Roberts.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/28/2008 @ 7:30 amWhat’s funny, Peter, is that professor Calabresi didn’t say any of that. But you did.
And then there’s what your Messiah said, again, in his own words. We deeply disagree and I find that opinion to be a fundamental flaw in a presidential candidate.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 7:42 amHow do you know those are lies, Peter? The man has been steeped in progressivism and racialism and radicalism his entire life. And when ever you bring any evidence of that up (like the passages in his books), his camp calls it a distraction and charges you with racism. Why isn’t he talking about himself and his record and the things that shaped him? “Community Organizer” is the only thing he seems to be proud of, and he really doesn’t want anyone digging into that, either.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 7:48 amIt is racist, and a distraction from the real issues, to question Teh Messiah’s actual words.
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 7:50 amChicago Democratic Socialist for Obama
With some new evidence of Baracky’s goals of redistribution.
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 7:58 amOf all people, from all the media outlets out there, the LA Times’ Obama beat reporter, Peter Nicholas:
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 7:58 amHow dare he question Teh One ?!
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:04 amBecause you clowns do not care what he has said, and what he says. He is a symbol for you, nothing else.
Actually, JD, it’s because we recognize the fact that humans have free will.
Predicting what they’ll do is best left to late night hucksters and scam artists.
And Republican hate mongers, I guess.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:14 amSo his past words, actions, and positions mean nothing …
Oh, and fuck off with the hate monger BS.
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:19 amHow do you know those are lies, Peter?
Because I’m not blinkered by desperation and fear of anything that threatens a very narrow and delicate approach to the meaning of “America” and what it means to be “American.”
I’m afraid you folks have been so spoiled by Republican dominance over the last decade or so, that you’re unable to separate out a party ideology from a national ideology. At the very heart of this, for years now, it’s been a battle for ideological domination, oh since like Goldwater I’d say and it had it’s high tide in the Reagan years (who for all his veneration by the right, was a moderate and progressive compared to what the self-righteous smug and corrupt GOP morphed into during the 90s) and that high water mark has been eroding steadily now that well…your chickens have come home to roost and the hypocrisy and the incompetence, both geopolitically and domestically, are glaringly apparent.
Don’t worry, the Democrats are also susceptible to this if they’re not careful, but for now they’re the only sensible alternative. This country needs to swing back to the middle (as much as the extreme right and your dear leaders in the media would have us believe the fetid rotten to the core, reprehensible belief that Stalinism is knocking on our door) and that’s what’s happening right now.
I stand by my statements about the Professor’s article. He takes one quote, one sliver of a quote given to Planned Parenthood affirming that judges need to have life experience and wisdom and yes empathy and suddenly he throws out 200+ years of law out the window in one sentence. It’s just too simplistic and too convenient. Like fast food for the choir to crow about and get all worked up with….
as evidenced here.
He breeds hysteria and bravado and willful ignorance.
This is not the argument of a man that believes in objective and well balanced arguments based on logic and he hobbles his own argument with phony fear.
Peter (e70d1c) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:26 amPeter just knows shit, man. He is smarter than everyone.
Were that the case, it should be pretty easy to show that Baracky, Pelosi, and Reid inhabit a piece of political real estate somewhere near the middle. I guess since you all enjoy redefining words it should be real easy to demonstrate that.
Nope, yours is the argument of an end-stage BDS sufferer, a partisan hack who enjoys burning down strawpeople.
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:33 amI am interested to learn how empathy for one side over another is a defintional, or foundational principle under the law.
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:35 amOr, you’re impervious to demonstrable facts. Which is to say that you’re blinkered indeed.
See, when I asked you how you know those things are lies, I was hoping you’d point to what you know, because of evidence, to be the truth. You didn’t get anywhere near that bare minimum standard.
You stand by your statement that he said all those things he clearly did not say? Well, that says quite a bit about you, Peter. Blinkered indeed. And apparently deluded as well.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:45 amSo true. So accurate.
Vermont Neighbor (c91cfe) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:46 amAnd voters, potential employers, investors…
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 8:46 amObama must have received an EEO Law Degree based on a quota for his color, not on his grades.
PCD (7fe637) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:06 amJD,
The shrill and dire predictions from the Right about what President Obama will or will not do when he takes over have become shrill and ridiculous.
I’d like to chalk it up to politics, but I’m starting to think you guys actually believe your spew.
A scary thought.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:13 amJD…
Who are you going to believe?
Another Drew (c8adc2) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:35 amPeter, or your lying eyes?
AD – I am not sure who to believe. I most certainly know to not believe Peter, Springer, timmah, lovie and sniffles/alphie.
JD (5b4781) — 10/28/2008 @ 9:40 amIt would be difficult, using past history, to believe those individuals even if they were tied to a burning pyre.
Another Drew (c8adc2) — 10/28/2008 @ 10:01 amYou stand by your statement that he said all those things he clearly did not say?
You need to try this schtick with someone else. I can see through the professor’s BS. And yours and no, I’m not going to go finding everything Obama ever said about choosing judges to back an argument against a man, a law professor who makes a ridiculous emotional argument to scare people and preach to the choir.
But again, please professor enlighten us on how your very own federalist society students who worked on the Harvard Law Review felt about Obama and working for him and his value as a leader and understanding of the law?
He won’t touch that with a ten foot pole, and neither will any of you guys because it blows the professors argument out of the water and exposes it for the twadry, ignorant, mendacious BS that it is.
But screw it. Stick this in your pipe, and Professor Calabresi’s while your at it, and smoke it:
pporters.
Source:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html
More:
http://www.lawschooldems.org/index.php/dave/57-lawobama
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/thread/2579832.aspx
Source:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n17159310
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/27/nation/na-obama27
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/27/nation/na-obama27
Any questions? Didn’t think so. I hope reality doesn’t upset you guys too much from this little hothouse of superstition, paranoia, lies and fantasies (delusions really) of bravado and individualism and freedom.
Peter (e70d1c) — 10/28/2008 @ 10:17 amI am flabbergasted at the utter dishonesty displayed by snuffles and Peter.
Here we have Obama saying he’s going to do something, and the reaction from them is as follows:
Peter: It’s all partisan hackery and lies!
Snuffles: You have no way of knowing what someone will do.
I want to drink whatever it is they’ve been drinking, so I can become equally divorced from reality.
Steverino (db5760) — 10/28/2008 @ 12:09 pmFurther to MD’s Comment 31, Obama either really did not hear Reverend Wright, or Reverend Wright had another agenda. There are REPEATED Bible orders to be completely impartial in matters involving disputes between the rich and poor:
Ira (28a423) — 10/28/2008 @ 12:52 pmPeter also ignores the evidence provided in the WBEZ interview that surfaced about Obama’s disappointments with the Warren Court and it’s unwillingness to go far enough into redistributive change.
Another clue Peter and snuffles fail to connect here. Code words for socialism that they won’t acknowledge.
daleyrocks (60704b) — 10/28/2008 @ 4:00 pmPeter – Obama and the Law Review – Putney Swope!
daleyrocks (60704b) — 10/28/2008 @ 4:01 pmCode words for socialism that they won’t acknowledge.
Geez, daley.
Codewords for Socialism?
You are a prime example of the joke that the American Right has become.
snuffles (677ec2) — 10/28/2008 @ 4:36 pmDaley – socialism is a codeword for black.
Racist
JD (5f0e11) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:02 pmsnuffles did not get daleyrocks’ reference. That is hilarious. What a tool.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:07 pmHe had to blow his nose, and his IQ dropped 80 points.
Another Drew (c8adc2) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:18 pmComment by Ira — 10/28/2008 @ 12:52 pm
Thanks for the follow up. The passage in Leviticus is the one I had in mind. The specific references to “the masses” and “the multitude” in Exodus 23 seem very appropriate when thinking of elections and politics.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/28/2008 @ 5:57 pmYou’re right, Peter. I should ask such questions of someone who isn’t a bald faced liar. Asking them of blinkered old you is a waste of time.
You said he said things he did not say. Then you said you stand by your statements. Then, when challenged on that, you dodged.
You need to try that schtick somewhere else. It ain’t gonna sell here.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/28/2008 @ 6:51 pmRead my last comment Pablo. based on real sound and sober verifiable accounts from interviews of conservative right wing individuals who’ve worked with Obama and have seen first hand his sound and sober bipartisan objectivity and his superb competent leadership of both sides of the ideological spectrum.
You, and your brethren would be lucky to have a president as fair and capable as Obama. Thing is you probably don’t even deserve it. You’d rather 4 to 8 more years of obstruction and failure and destruction of American lives, both here and in Iraq or Iran, so that the rich can keep their tax cuts and the Free market demagogues can pretend the Reagan revolution still lives.
Peter (e70d1c) — 10/28/2008 @ 11:29 pmPeter, please tell us how that has anything whatsoever to do with Calabresi’s thesis; how it rebuts it in any manner. (Hint: It doesn’t. Maybe you should try praising O!’s jump shot instead.)
From the one conservative I can see who says anything like what you’re asserting:
Guess what? Being POTUS is not putting out a legal publication. Politics and ideology are the forefront and the underpinnings of that job.
Your second paragraph is projected twaddle; a waste of your time and mine.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/29/2008 @ 5:41 amI like how the trolls come here warning about “right wing lies about the dangers of an Obama Administration”, but 100:1 odds, ask them to describe “BusHitler’s IMPERIALISTIC FACISTIC POLICE-STATE ruled by the RethugliKKKan Party” and we’d be here all night.
Techie (62bc5d) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:31 amWhile we’re on the subject of partisans who have worked with Obama and his “sound and sober bipartisan objectivity and his superb competent leadership of both sides of the ideological spectrum”, we should check in with Wendy Button.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/29/2008 @ 6:40 amWell that’s the difference between a good president and a bad one and the negative and disastrous results of using the position predominantly to further politics and ideology at every step of the process, as the Bush junta has done, have never been more obvious.
This is excellent first hand concrete proof that he is a leader beholden to all and able to listen and keep his eye on the goal, whether that be put out a good publication of the HLR or whatever it is that will be at hand as president. But you refuse to believe this for one second, because you, sir are the one who is ideologically blind to the facts and willing to buy into the prof’s anecdotal and poorly constructed argument based on thin proof.
Peter (e70d1c) — 10/29/2008 @ 2:40 pmUnless you have concrete proof from either the Professor or other parties with first hand knowledge that counters the evidence I’ve put forth me doth think you’ve basically lost this argument. So either offer up such concrete knowledge or stop telling me I’m wrong just cos you think so.
Peter (e70d1c) — 10/29/2008 @ 2:47 pmPeter wrote..
Well that’s the difference between a good president and a bad one and the negative and disastrous results of using the position predominantly to further politics and ideology at every step of the process, as the Bush junta has done, have never been more obvious.
So, tell me Peter, if giving Ted Kennedy carte blanc in education, or, if failing to hold spending, both of which would go against both politics and ideology in the Republican Party, is “at every step in the process” what would you actually mean by that???
If Bush had held spending in check, the economy would have survived the housing credit crisis, and the oil price crisis, because of the strength of the economy….
Or, if he had bludgened the Republican congress in his first two years to open drilling, that would have countered the oil problem before it happened, but, he didn’t follow politics or ideology there either, did he???
That’s what happens when you accuse others of doing what you do..it’s called projection, and you are completely guilty of that here….
reff (556669) — 10/29/2008 @ 2:58 pmwe should check in with Wendy Button.
She seems disgusted and annoyed with the whole election, Republican and Democrat and I can’t say I blame her. I’m pretty sick of it myself and just want the damned thing to be over with already…
But, really nothing there about Obama’s approach to the law or his leadership style. It is a generalized rant.
Really, it’s silly you think that proves anything either way.
Peter (e70d1c) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:06 pmI guess it is convenient for Peter to ignore Baracky’s actual words, as they are tougher to defend. The strawmen do not fight back.
Plus, tossing around words like theocracy and junta is just fun …
Give us an example of actual real world reach across the aisle bipartisanship, Peter.
You must ignore that which is critical of Teh One.
JD (5b4781) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:12 pmThat’s what happens when you accuse others of doing what you do..it’s called projection, and you are completely guilty of that here….
Are you for real? The Bush administration did not take step one, without consulting with the neocon wizards who injected their ideology and poison and failure into everything from FEMA to the CIA, to the DOJ, to the SEC to the the frigin’ EPA.
Rubber stamp congress for six years!! Six years and you’re telling me that “oh if he’s followed his ideology the financial crisis wouldn’t have happened??” Guy, that is exactly why the financial crisis happened and why gas prices went through the roof and why the economy has tanked and why a flawed war is still raging.
That is the most convoluted bit of nonsense I read in a while.
What will it take for the right to ever accept responsibility for its failures?
Peter (e70d1c) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:15 pmtheocracy
I never used that word and what will it take for you to stop pushing total all out BS as gospel. Read what I wrote and the interview with Berenson of the Harvard federalist Society.
Peter (e70d1c) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:17 pmWho gives a shit about what he did in some college society? What has he done since? What has he done in the service of his constituents? What has he done in service of his country?
That he was nice to a Republican while in college falls woefully short of being proof. Plus, you still fail to address how empathy for blacks, women, the elderly, disabled, etc … is any kind of defining feature and important quality in being a judge, Baracky’s standard. Will his judges give preferences to black over whites? Women over men? People over companies? Old over young?
Simply screaming and calling people name does not an argument make, Peter.
JD (5b4781) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:21 pmCite, please.
JD (5b4781) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:22 pmJD…don’t waste your time…I gave him exact examples, and he went on his ideological rant…
Hey, isn’t that racist now, to be ideological???
reff (556669) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:43 pmWait, and I forgot to denounce myself…
reff (556669) — 10/29/2008 @ 3:44 pmFEMA – Cronyism, slashed funds, Gross and criminal negligence and mismanagement.
A crony with no relevant experience was installed as head of FEMA. Mitigation budgets for New Orleans were slashed even though it was known to be one of the top three risks in the country. FEMA was deliberately downsized as part of the Bush administration’s conservative agenda to reduce the role of government. After DHS was created, FEMA’s preparation and planning functions were taken away.
CIA – Manipulation of Intel and WH pressure to force a connection between Iraq and AQ. Pro-Bush doctrine Cheney man Porter Goss (the Michael Brown of the of the CIA) made director and agents w/o the proper “loyalty” were forced out or asked to resign. Porter Goss was subsequently forced to resign himself (due possibly to some connection to Duke Cunningham,) leaving the agency crippled and without some of it’s more experienced people.
The politicization of the CIA undoubtedly hurt its capacity. Morale is lower and losing the institutional memory, expertise, and human capital associated with 20 of the top career managers at CIA has hurt the agency.
DOJ – Alberto Gonzalez (the Michael Brown of the DOJ.) What can possibly be left to say about the gross incompetence of this man and his being at the whim and call of Karl Rove and the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys, again, deemed not to be politically loyal enough to Bush Republicans. His DOJ tenure is under ongoing investigation and there’s a good chance someone is going to be charged.
SEC –
The Securities and Exchange Commission has come under intense pressure from business and some members of the Bush administration to water down proposed rule changes in the way corporate boards are elected, mutual funds are governed and hedge funds are regulated.
EPA – They deny California’s higher CAFE standards and the excuse being that they must abide by national standards for car emissions in a victory for the automobile manufacturers who ironically end up not having to focus as much on more energy efficient cars or hybrids (this was before gas prices went through the roof.
This article does a nice job of showing the widespread politicization campaign always seeking to appoint incompetent loyalists. You know, cos government doesn’t really matter and if someone’s going to be collecting a fat government check it better be a Bush Republican:
How Many More Mike Browns Are Out There?
Peter (e70d1c) — 10/29/2008 @ 7:58 pmOnce again, Peter, your “cites” don’t support your nonsense. None of those citations list anyone who actually is a “neoconservative”.
And once again, it is clear that you assembled those links by using google, but not by actually reading them.
I think the SEC link you have there is a great example, it does nothing more than describe lobbying on rule making. Nothing in it supports any of your hyperactive exaggerations.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:14 pmOh, and Peter, don’t think we didn’t notice that for a claim about the CIA being pressured to link AQ to Iraq you cited a link that has absolutely no factual basis, and more importantly discusses Porter Goss’ appointment which took place long after the invasion of Iraq you idiot.
Typical Peter. You can’t back up anything you say, and when you try, you make yourself look like a blithering moron.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:17 pmPeter – Transparent attempt at backfilling a bad argument.
Didn’t work.
daleyrocks (60704b) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:51 pmdaleyrocks, the part where he uses Porter Goss as an example of cronyism showed just how freakin’ ignorant he was of the Bush administration and of Porter Goss ( neither of which is a surprise ).
Of course, all of his argument did. Look at the bizarre corners of the earth he had to go to find that dreck.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:53 pmNot only did it not work, but it has now forever landed you in the incompetent lying hack category AND the Gren Gleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenwald School of Linking. You should have higher aspirations than that.
JD (5b4781) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:54 pmNo, she seems disgusted with the Democrats and about to vote McCain/Palin. Maybe you should have someone read her piece to you…slowly.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:56 pmNo, that’s a stone fact, to which you seem oblivious. Always has been, always will be. And if you think Obama is any different, you’re brain dead. Do you have someone nearby that can check you for a pulse?
Pablo (99243e) — 10/29/2008 @ 8:58 pmBut you don’t mind attributing thing to Professor Calabresi that he never said. Save it, hypocrite.
Pablo (99243e) — 10/29/2008 @ 9:01 pmYeah, it just goes to show you guys are a bunch of vultures. I proved my point about the Professor in spades. He is a partisan hack. The Professor spouted off talking points and implied the very same BS that the RNC and the McCain Campaign now in its death throes have spouted off everyday for months on the merest of quotes. I guess he would have that judges not have any life experiences or empathy or understanding of human nature or compassion, which is just so dumb I can’t believe it. I guess judges should all be privileged guys who went to Ivy League colleges and have never faced a serious crisis or understand the meaning of compassion.
And JD, I could have easily repeated all the ideological crap Bush and his lackey’s have injected into those agencies off the top of my head, but it seems that I’m expected to have perfect command of every single detail so I provided those links. So I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t and SPQR if I had a nickel for every time you told someone they didn’t now what they were talking about….
Porter Goss is and was a Bush/Cheney stooge, which is why he had to resign in shame and surrounded by rumors of impropriety. I think someone in the agency basically blackmailed him because he was such a POS and he was ruining their operational capabilities, but that’s just my theory.
I’m done with this thread, ass clowns. Once again you emerge out of your little car and prove yourselves to be a bunch of clueless Mike Browns with so much loyalty to the cause, but simply no brain power or talent to back it up.
Good night.
Peter (e70d1c) — 10/29/2008 @ 9:40 pmOh, Peter has left in a huff.
Another Drew (d394a6) — 10/29/2008 @ 9:45 pmWhat’s the +/- on if he’ll come back?
It would be a shame if all we had to talk to was lovie.
(((put compassion back into lock-box)))
Maybe to yourself. Obviously, not to anyone here.
If Baracky’s own fucking words are now talking points to you, then yes, that is what he did.
Bullshit. You couldn’t even do it with your purported links. You asserted something as fact that in reality, is nothing other than a fevered BDS opinion.
JD (5b4781) — 10/29/2008 @ 10:01 pm