Patterico's Pontifications


Brad Friedman’s Latest ACORN Falsehoods

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:13 pm

Last seen trying (unsuccessfully) to get me fired for calling him on his lies, Brad Friedman resurfaces today (no links for liars!) to mischaracterize yesterday’s decision on ACORN funding:

The appellate court determined that Congress can target a specific group for punishment . . .

Oh, really?! The appellate court approvingly quoted a past decision saying the precise opposite:

We therefore hold that corporations must be considered individuals that may not be singled out for punishment under the Bill of Attainder Clause.

What the court actually said was that defunding ACORN does not constitute punishment:

[W]e doubt that the direct consequences of the appropriations laws temporarily precluding ACORN from federal funds are “so disproportionately severe” or “so inappropriate” as to constitute punishment per se. . . . In sum, the plaintiffs have failed to show that the appropriations laws constitute “punishment” under the functional test. . . . Nor is the legislative record sufficient to demonstrate “punishment” cumulatively with the historical and functional tests of punishment analyzed above.

If one did not have Friedman’s history of deception as a guidepost, one might call Friedman’s mischaracterization a mistake, born of some combination of laziness and poor reading skills.

But we do have that history. So there you go.

44 Responses to “Brad Friedman’s Latest ACORN Falsehoods”

  1. Finding a true statement by Brad Friedman is like finding a needle in a haystack.

    And seriously: when is the last time you saw a needle in a haystack?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  2. I’ve found some cactus spines. Do they count?

    htom (412a17)

  3. friedman is leftwing’s
    pathological liar
    and that the truth, ptttthhhllllluhhhhhhhh!

    ColonelHaiku (2deed7)

  4. What a great tag for Friedman, Boehlert, et al, posts: No links for liars!.

    Dana (8ba2fb)

  5. Patterico

    Every time i need a needle i go to the latest haystack. :-)

    That is a joke obviously. I went over to the idiot’s blog and wrote this:

    > Brad

    > Got to say, its pretty pathetic to link to the decision but prove you don’t understand it.

    > The court specifically said this defunding was not punishment. Indeed the government contested that issue only. From the opinion:

    > > Because the government does not challenge the District Court’s determination that the specificity and lack-of-judicial-trial elements are satisfied in this case, we focus on whether the laws constitute the type of “punishment” that runs afoul of the Bill of Attainder Clause.

    > In short the Federal Government put all its marbles on that issue—that it was not punishment. Then they go on through a three part test to determine if it counts as punishment and state on each point that it is not.

    > Bluntly if you are THAT BAD at reading an opinion, you just need to step away from the subject. You have no business even trying. But bluntly I find it implausible for you to miss what the court actually said. There are some issues that are complex in law and hard to understand, but sometimes not so much. This is something I expect a lay person of reasonable intelligence to understand.

    Let’s see if he 1) leaves that comment up or 2) corrects himself. If he doesn’t do both, we will know the truth about him.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (f97997)

  6. I never find needles in haystacks. I find needles in sewing notions stores.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  7. Does Brad ever get anything right, going back to that vendetta against Coulter that didn’t go anywhere

    ian cormac (2e065c)

  8. ian – I think he’s still flogging that Sibel Edmonds story. After so many years you’d think that “blockbuster” would pay off for him the way he’s touted it.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  9. Well they have that piece from last May by the ‘crazy’ woman herself

    ian cormac (2e065c)

  10. “The appellate court determined that Congress can target a specific group for punishment . . .”

    Sure, they can, if it’s part of a legitimate function of Congress.

    The Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor (an offense).

    Congress declares war on Japan (a penalty enacted in response to an offense, aka a punishment).

    Same thing if you have a government contract, Congress decides they aren’t satisfied with the job you’re doing, they then punish you by not giving you any more work.

    They can do that.

    They just can’t pass a Bill of Attainder, that’s all.

    Dave Surls (8de556)

  11. Where is bradfreidman’s BFF crissyhooten?

    JD (d9926c)

  12. I see lyin’ Ernie Canning has tapped out an incomprehensible defense of Braddy’s misinterpretation over at his Den of Lies.

    I’d go over there and debunk it, but I’m banned. daley, you should do you it. Oh wait, you’re banned too.

    Aaron, if you and Steve keep making Braddy look bad, you’ll get banned too.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  13. P – For some reason Brad got mad at me for exposing the truth over there on his blog and making him look bad. He claims he doesn’t lie, but he must be using his own definition of the word alien to 99.999% of the rest of the world.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  14. JD, I think Hooten and JEA are still trying to work out what war bonds are.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  15. Tried to get there, by Edmonds ‘Unboiled Frog, but WordPress bloked it

    ian cormac (2e065c)

  16. Well, if anyone wants to ask lyin’ Ernie how his giant mess of words somehow makes Braddy’s incorrect statement correct, have at it. I have to say, if Ernie can’t read a court opinion any better than that, I worry for his clients.

    Patterico (5070db)

  17. “Forget it, it’s Chinatown”

    ian cormac (2e065c)

  18. I think Ernie the Attorney perma-fried his brain a long time ago. Being Brad’s bitch does not take a lot of brainpower, so he’s in the right spot.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  19. Being true embodiments of the NADIR OF MORALITY, and having been outed (only a few weeks back, for breathlessly indulging the worst forms of dishonesty and negligence (re- Shirley Sherrod), its no wonder that you guys are getting soooo hard over this matter… pathetic, and rather non-sensical, but moving all the same.

    Whatever the Appellate court has to say does not change the fact that you are proven liars who take your lead from proven liars.

    LuveyBuns (59694d)

  20. LuveyBuns – Thanks for stopping by. A pleasure to read your completely unsupported comments as usual. Have you been drug tested lately?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  21. “Have you been drug tested lately?”

    I suspect that they’ve been testing out various drugs on Luvey for quite some time now.

    Dave Surls (8de556)

  22. Dave – Many of Braddy’s commenters appear to be in the middle of testing when they post their thoughts, if you can call them that.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  23. Was luveybunz a parody of crissyhooten or EPWJ ?

    JD (3da421)

  24. Too bad, ACORN may not have enough money to steal the election again.

    Inge (f88ae2)

  25. Patterico,

    btw, he responds to me in the comments. he acts frankly like a child. i would link to it, but i am respecting your decision not to link. Except i would say it proves he is now lying.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  26. Okay, I went and read that idiocy from bradblog. What a cesspool. crissyhooten is over there cheerleading the abject dishonesty from bradfreidman and ernietheattorney. They are still arguing that Greene did not fairly win the NC primary (ernietheattorney did not even know the correct state), and that bradfreidman accurately described the findings. Delusional ‘tards of thunder.

    JD (c33623)

  27. Cheerleading? huh? I said that you guys were calling for ernie to come back over here and explain it. I guess he did. Where is the “cheerleading?” I also said you wouldn’t understand, and would probably just call him names. LOL. Nailed it.

    Chris Hooten (865f0b)

  28. You are correct, crissyhooten. I do not understand them. I do not understand why people choose to lie. I do not understand why people like ernietheattorney think they are smarter than a common 16-penny nail. I do not understand why you and yours default to mendacity and dishonesty.

    JD (3dc31c)

  29. So is it the peyote or the mushrooms tonight, JD? Or maybe too much wine? Maybe you just ate too much, and your brain melted? Regardless, I still see no cheerleading on my part. Maybe you got into that dangerous one-hit hydro bud, lol. I’m just yanking your chain, JD. Have a good evening.

    Chris Hooten (865f0b)

  30. I do not drink or do drugs, you lying asshat. I am not yanking your chain. You are a vile lying douchenozzle of the highest order.

    JD (3dc31c)

  31. Dude relax. It is quite obvious that you do not do drugs, I didn’t know about the drinking, or care. Something makes you very cranky sometimes, however, and it is not named Chris Hooten. Or at least it is something else that also makes you cranky :-). Your English skills go out the window, though.

    Chris Hooten (865f0b)

  32. Dishonest assholes make me cranky. Lying douchenozzles make me cranky. Mendoucheous twatwaffles make me cranky. All of the above are synonymous with crissyhooten.

    JD (3dc31c)

  33. XXX OOO

    Chris Hooten (865f0b)

  34. Maybe if you refrained from using phrases such as “*sshole” or “douchenozzle” or “twatwaffle.” Just a suggestion. I mean, calling you “c*ntface” doesn’t really strengthen my argument. Well, not much, anyways.

    Chris Hooten (865f0b)

  35. Give me a reason to use a different descriptor then.

    JD (3dc31c)

  36. Good night JD.

    Chris Hooten (865f0b)

  37. Studies show that arguing with people like Chris Hooten can actually lower your IQ. I recommend against it.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  38. I know better. I will stick with mockery and scorn.

    JD (3dc31c)

  39. JD, it is quite obvious you do not do drugs, dude.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  40. JD

    Stop calling Chris names.

    Don’t you its her time of the month?

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (f97997)

  41. AW – Is it fair to call accurate descriptors name calling?

    JD (3dc31c)

  42. Yeah Patterico, but 9 doctors out of ten state that arguing with the actual Chris Hooten RAISES one’s IQ. It is only arguing with people LIKE Chris Hooten that has the deleterious effects. Demand only the original!

    Chris Hooten (865f0b)

  43. “Last December I criticized (here and here) federal district judge Nina Gershon’s ruling that a provision of federal appropriations law that restricts funding of ACORN is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. I’m pleased to pass along that last Friday the Second Circuit reversed Gershon’s ruling.”

    ColonelHaiku (2deed7)

  44. Side note… Colonel always enjoy Nina Gershon’s portrayal of hot lesbians in the movies!

    ColonelHaiku (2deed7)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6179 secs.