Idiotic, Baldly Political Requests for the Disqualification of Supreme Court Justices
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
This is so silly, specious and attention-seeking I am tempted to ignore it. But I guess I agree with Palin’s implicit logic that a smear has to be answered, so here goes.
So this morning the New York Times publishes more or less a press release, reworded, asserting that (gasp) Justices Scalia and Thomas might have had a conflict of interest. The theory goes like this.
Every year there is a retreat to discuss policy and politics held by the Koch brothers, a pair of industrialists that apparently the left is trying to set up as the right wing George Soros. And in a recent letter they mentioned that Scalia and Thomas had spoken sometime in the past at one of these events. You can read a purported copy from Think Progress, here.
So a liberal anti-freedom group called Common Cause has sent a letter to the Department of Justice seeking to have them investigated. Specifically they suspect that Scalia and Thomas were paid money by a corporation. Not that this corporation was a party to the case, but still this corporation is very active in politics and thus benefited from Citizens United. Therefore, they believe they should have disqualified themselves in Citizen’s United, and for that reason the decision should be vacated.
Um, for what? The Code of Conduct for United States Judges specifically says that federal judges are allowed to speak, even for compensation:
Complete separation of a judge from extrajudicial activities is neither possible nor wise; a judge should not become isolated from the society in which the judge lives. As a judicial officer and a person specially learned in the law, a judge is in a unique position to contribute to the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, including revising substantive and procedural law and improving criminal and juvenile justice.
Obviously it is possible for this kind of advocacy to compromise impartiality, but these Common Cause morons seem to think we should assume it is a problem. That is wrong.
But, Common Cause would argue, they are being potentially paid by a corporation and every corporation benefitted from Citizens’ United, therefore somehow that adds up to bias.
First, Justices speak before corporations all the time. For instance, this is Justice Ginsberg speech to Harvard Law School, which is a corporation. And that is before Ginsberg heard the case of Rumsfeld v. FAIR, a case which directly concerned the legality of Harvard Law School’s policy on military recruiters. And here’s one by Justice Breyer. Indeed, it seems safe to assume that if you google the name of a prominent law school (Harvard, Yale, Stanford, U. of Michigan, etc.) and the name of a supreme court justice along with the word “speech” you will find at least one such speech by nearly all justices at nearly every prominent law school. For instance do you think any of our Supreme Court Justices spoke at the University of Michigan Law School before or after they ruled on the legality of their affirmative action program? I would bet the answer is “yes.”
Oh, but those are the good kinds of corporations, right? The problem is that there is no reasonable, neutral legal basis to distinguish the “good” ones from the “bad” ones and it just ends up being which corporations you like better—hardly the ideal of blind justice.
But its much worse than that. You see Justice Breyer has directly benefitted financially from Citizens United. So has Justice Ginsberg. You see in Citizens United, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of a corporation to speak. Justice Elena Kagan, then the solicitor general of the United States, argued that corporations had no right to speak at all. If that view had been followed, the government would have unfettered power to even ban books. As Justice Kennedy wrote “If Austin were correct, the Government could prohibit a corporation from expressing political views in media beyond those presented here, such as by printing books.” So the right of a corporation to pursue its freedom of the press was on the docket that day, and not even the dissenters were willing to allow for a breach in the right of the press. In this, future Justice Kagan found herself radically alone.
And both before and after this decision, Justices Breyer and Ginsberg were authors in published books. Ginsberg wrote the forward to several books and Justice Breyer was the main author on a pair of books. Breyer in particular had to know that if he allowed Congress to outright ban books, the ability to profit from his authorship would be endangered. So they should have disqualified themselves, right?
And even if they literally ruled against their interest, that doesn’t address the problem. As a matter of law, bias is a concern for both sides in a case. Let’s take a simple example: the upcoming criminal trial of Jared Loughner. His lawyers have asked for the disqualification of every single federal judge in Arizona and that sounds right. Judge Roll was a co-worker and very often friend of many of the judges there and they can’t possibly be impartial. But as a matter of law, the federal prosecutors have as much right to object as the defense. The defense can rightfully be concerned, for instance, that an Arizona (federal) judge would want to see his/her colleague avenged. But the prosecution can rightly fear that an Arizona judge might unfairly favor the defendant, to prove how “unbiased” s/he is.
Further, every single justice who owns a single stock in any corporation has a similar problem. Which is just about all of them. After all, if corporations can speak freely, their ability to profit might theoretically increase and thus the stock’s value might go up.
The reality is that when you are a Supreme Court Justice, the issues you rule on are often so big there is no way for a decision not to affect you in some sense of the word. Let’s return to the example of Jared Loughner. I think it is fair to say that all the federal judges in Arizona should be disqualified, but if we want to be technical, there isn’t a single federal judge alive who doesn’t have a stake in the outcome of this case. The prosecution for the murder of a federal judge directly bears on the safety of every other federal judge. ABA President Stephen Zack stated that Roll’s murder was “a direct attack on our American way of life and the rule of law.” I imagine a lot of federal judges agree. So does that mean every federal judge is disqualified from presiding in the trial of Loughner?
The answer, virtually every federal judge would give, is no. And the logic is implicitly that the bias alleged must be particularized enough that it would not result in the disqualification of the entire judiciary, or a large swath of it. Yes, I suppose federal judges could just own no stock, write no books, make no speeches, teach no students, etc. But not only is that unreasonable but it is unwise. Federal judges, as a group, are some of the smartest people in our society with the greatest knowledge of the judiciary. We all can benefit from their perspective, yes even the perspective of the justices I consider to be flakey.
Of course there are limits to this. They are required to make financial disclosures, their speaking fees are limited by law and substantively they can’t get up there and give lectures that lead one to question their impartiality. So if Scalia gets up in front of an audience and lays out a legal strategy for overturning Roe v. Wade, that is probably against the rules. But Common cause doesn’t have a single piece of evidence of that kind of conduct. There is no evidence that Scalia or Thomas were paid a dime–indeed there is no evidence that they got any reimbursement for expenses. They can’t even tell you when this retreat was done, so for all we know, the retreat could have occurred after the Citizens United decision, which would conclusively rebut any suspicion that it was a bribe in disguise. What it has is, “ooooh, look Scalia and Thomas have associated themselves with an ‘evil’ corporation.” Well, bluntly that isn’t even good enough to justify an investigation.
Hopefully, therefore, there won’t be one.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Return to main page.
What could the Justice Department do about it, anyway?
If Common Cause had a legitimate grievance, Constitutionally the only recourse would be impeachment. The Justice Department doesn’t have the power to “vacate” a Supreme Court decision.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 1/20/2011 @ 9:49 amNot yet they don’t. Give them time, they will find a way.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/20/2011 @ 9:58 amDoesn’t Soros contribute to Common Cause, isn’t this a conflict of interest, didn’t we learn the FEC complaint filed against Christine, was by
narciso (6075d0) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:19 amthe father of the head of CREW, a contributor to Biden and Castle
Steven
let me look into what happened with other judges who are impeached and what happened. as usual you are asking a good question and if you haven’t heard me say this, i am a big fan of your political writing and wish you would blog more about it.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:22 amYou know, it occurs to me that many Justices have wives, so they are biased and shouldn’t rule on anything that benefits women. Also, they might have friends in other suspect classes who benefit from the legal benefits they have.
Oh wait… civil rights don’t work that way?
I think the underlying assumption the left wants to inject is that this isn’t really about civil rights. Corporations are not aliens. They are run by people with civil rights, and if they assemble to speak, that’s protected, even if the unions and lefty shills want the power to silence them. They treat these people as less than human by saying it’s bias to even associate with a corporation at all.
Our civil rights are all around us, practiced all the time, and it’s not bias to reflect on this when you rule that the first amendment hasn’t been canceled.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:29 amthey could just attempt to amend the constitution to say that corporations don’t have freedom of assembly or speech. Why not try to do that? Right now the first amendment protects all speech.
Amending the constitution by getting judges off cases seems like the wrong way to go about it.
Why do they insist on keeping the name ‘democrat’?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:30 am> Why do they insist on keeping the name ‘democrat’?
Given the history of the party, i can only assume that they meant the term ironically.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:32 amOne misses your long form blog, Steven, it was one of the bright spots of the early 00s in the blogosphere. It may be just as with the LDP, or the DPRK, AW, ‘those words you’re using’
narciso (6075d0) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:37 amHell, even if they did, it wouldn’t mean bubkus. As Scalia pointed out in the energy task force case, the fact that he played golf with Cheney frequently meant he wasn’t biased….because he said so! Thus your petition for recusal is denied, because I [Scalia] am a Supreme Court justice and can do pretty much what I please.
With Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito, you get what you pay for: Republican/conservative foot soldiers on political issues. Scalia, for instance, is much more interesting on regulatory issues, but hand him politics or crime and he sounds like Sean Hannity. Thomas is an anachronism, whose jurisprudence makes no sense. Alito will follow Scalia anywhere and Roberts will always side with the side of power and money uber alles. And, isn’t knowing that all that’s required for counsel? As long as their jurisprudence is predictable, then what’s the big deal? The point of precedent is to show what the law means for the rest of us. As long as it stays roughly the same, then the justices have done their job.
I mean, Koch money or no, Scalia and Thomas are philosophical whores for the rich and powerful. They didn’t need Koch money to decide Citizens United, they just needed a Chief Justice who lacks a conscience and would let them broaden a narrow challenge to a decision which over-turned a century of precedent.
Common Cause is right to be annoyed that the Kochs were able to buy the last election, but even without that cash, thanks to the philosophical beliefs of 5 justices, the legal question is moot. It’s now a political question and not a legal one. They are wasting their time and the DOJ should laugh at them.
I will say, it is cute to see how Aaron thinks corporations have more individual rights than American citizens accused of terrorism or helping Julian Assange. In the former case, he is a loud advocate for their right to warp democracy toward the plutocracy; in the latter, he thinks Bradley Manning, who has been convicted of nothing, deserves what he gets…..if only, Manning had made himself a corporation prior to allegedly releasing that info! Then, Aaron would be screaming about the Manning corporation’s “freedom of speech.”
timb (449046) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:52 amYou just made that up.
Because you know you can’t win an argument legitimately.
I’m getting really tired of the refusal to have a reasonable debate.
Do you have any idea who O’Conner or Ginsburg were in their careers? You ignore that when calling someone a foot soldier, because you are not really making any point beyond ad homs.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:58 amJust one example, Aaron obviously thinks Manning should get a fair trial, and has the right to political speech. He violated his oath to keep secrets. This is a crime. It’s also a crime if a corporation does it.
Jackass.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:59 ampoor timb: out of his depth yet again and still.
clue to the clueless: talking points aren’t rational debate, no matter how many you string together. all that accomplishes is the destruction of innocent irony meters all over the globe.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/20/2011 @ 10:59 amThat’s the silliest thing ever written here, unless you are being hyperbolic. It never has protected all speech. Go hold a banner with a picture of dope at an off-campus event and see if you get suspended. Write something nasty on Facebook about someone in your class (if you were a kid) and have the government come down on you. Sell fraudulent investments; yell fire in a theater; figure out what “fighting words” actually means; try to give unregulated individual campaign contributions….there are many limits on speech, Dustin. Drawing the line is the question and, since Teddy Roosevelt and the trusts (you know, when Standard Oil controlled 90% of America’s money supply), the power of corporations to warp public debate has been regulated. Until, that is, John Roberts, corporate hack, saw his chance to eviscerate it.
Same guy who said the school could suspend the kid with the banner and limit his free “speech,” because the damage to America is so profound when a kid advocates smoking dope, doesn’t think banks giving millions of dollars to the people who regulate them is a danger. And, somewhere, untaxed, multi-billionaire hedge fund managers thank him.
timb (449046) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:01 amDustin, O’Connor was and is a Republican. She was an elected official in Arizona for goodness sakes.
Besides, I agreed with Aaron, Common Cause has no case. I would go so far as to say they are being silly. I don’t why you get so worked up. Scalia and Judge Sentelle were instrumental in picking Ken Starr; Judge Thomas officiated Limbaugh’s weddings and his wife is a Tea Partier. As long as these things are known, then the lawyer giving advice and the judge making rulings knows how the law is interpreted. There is no crime in being a foot soldier in a political movement. It was pretty common the Court back in the 19th century.
timb (449046) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:06 amredc1c4, not sure what you mean, since I was agreeing with Aaron. I imagine, though, I have more “training” and “education’ about the question than you might think….
I forgot how hard it was to agree with you guys, so locked into your partisan teams of “good vs evil.” Meanwhile, the people who are stealing our democracy are laughing all the way to the bank.
timb (449046) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:09 amanyone know where i can get a bulk deal on irony meters? i’m all out… 8)
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:11 amjust to be excessively accurate, I meant to type “oil” instead of money. Of course, to Rockerfeller, the terms were inter-changeable.
timb (449046) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:11 amSo?
You’re ignoring the facts.
You ignore proof of a footsoldier.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:12 amIt goes without saying that most Justices will be nominated by Republicans, since Americans usually trust us more with the White House. This doesn’t insulate a hard leftist foot soldier whatsoever.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:13 amred, just for a moment, could you learn some other internet cliche? Your irony meter comment the first time any of us read it…on usenet in 1996, but it just doesn’t have as much cachet as you imagine. For instance, I appreciate a clever non-sequitor as much as the next guy, but maybe you can embrace a new internet cliche just to change things up?
timb (449046) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:14 amtimb
i would say most of your first post is the very definition of a backhanded compliment.
> it is cute to see how Aaron thinks corporations have more individual rights than American citizens accused of terrorism or helping Julian Assange.
Actually if a corporation was accused of terrorism (or otherwise waging war on the US) or helping ASSange, i would advocate equal treatment.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:20 amDustin, you become less coherent by the moment. First, you take a Holy warrior buffoon, like McCarthy, at his word for anything. Secondly, you look at career of a woman who served as the State Senate majority leader from Arizona (at a time when Barry Goldwater’s machine largely controlled Arizona), was elected as a Reublican judge, and then nominated to the Supreme Court by Saint Ronald Reagan I and you tell me she is some leftist?
Are you that far right? Have you joined the John Birch society?
Perhaps you are unaware of this widely posted news item?
She wouldn’t have retired if Gore won, Dustin.
I’m just not understanding you problem with the original point: plenty of Supreme Court justices are foot soldiers for political parties. So why is it offensive to point out how political Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and the head-shaking “untrue” muttering Alito are?
timb (449046) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:22 amI like how you don’t need convictions to advocate for punishment, Aaron. At least, you are consistent.
timb (449046) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:23 amLOL. What in the world are you talking about?
Just explain my link, jackass. She’s a leftist foot soldier. You set the standard yourself, for Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts, and I simply proved that O’Conner exceeds your tolerance.
Except that you’re obviously just shilling on a partisan basis.
Please apologize for lying about my POV on McCarthy.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:24 amhe still advocates for a fair trial, idiot.
Stop lying about what people say.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:25 amWhen called on his shilling for the left, he defends this by moving his position to:
Except you’re only whining about conservatives, and without actually proving your case. You just insist they are because they are conservative. you’re also ignoring, or even denying, against great evidence, that someone is a leftist foot soldier.
What’s wrong, timb? Can’t win your arguments? That’s because you’re wrong.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:28 amShe’s not a leftist, but she’s not a dependable conservative voice either. now following O’sullivan’s law thar might make her one, but I’m not going there.
narciso (6075d0) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:30 amNarciso, she’s not only an overt political activist now, but doing so against basic voter ID requirements, in a way that breaks the law.
She is also an idiot. Her rulings were always the lousiest in their rambling logic. Perhaps we’re just not of the same POV, but her rulings are well to the left of what I perceive as the center. And while that’s subjective, what’s objective is that her positions are democrat. Just take the issue in my link above.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:34 amAt any rate, it’s Timb who is saying someone is a foot soldier, for hire, thanks to playing a game of golf, or giving a speech. And also arguing that someone is not a foot soldier if they actually advocate for a political cause before ruling as a judge on that same matter. And the only distinction is that he’s a lefty shilling for a lefty.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:37 amI’m hesitant to respond to you, Dustin, since you’ve decided name-calling is the way to go, but what I was and am trying to tell you is not to take a moron like Andy McCarthy’s word on, well, almost anything. He’s as far out there as Mark Levin.
Still, if you would to read an alternative viewpoint on the cery same case he’s whining about you can see one here. Rather than make a lot of ad hominem attacks, the law professor notes Arizona’s law didn’t make a lot of sense. the Supreme Court agreed on that point and, as I’ve noted, I don’t consider them to be a bunch of leftist foot soldiers.
I’m pretty sure, though, that they upheld the Arizona law, just like they did the ridiculous one here in Indiana. Andrew didn’t much care for Sandy, since she wasn’t a true conservative (as that began to be defined later on), but she’s as Republican as you are, Dustin.
No one on my side considers her a friend, but I am always impressed with her tenacity and biography. She is an awesome lady
timb (449046) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:37 amtimb
> I like how you don’t need convictions to advocate for punishment, Aaron. At least, you are consistent.
Did i say the word “punishment?” no, i said treatment. which is a different word, you know.
what exactly are you objecting to in regards to either manning or our enemies? spell it out and then we can talk.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:41 amtimb has evidently declared jihad on irony meters throughout known space.
teh st00pid is strong in this one.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:50 amAfter reading Dustin’s posts, I’m reminded why I usually refrain from engagement around here. My posts weren’t about which judges were political and which aren’t. You should take it on faith that they pretty much all are, Dustin, since they have pretty much always been political and their nominations are political events. To say the least, you are missing the forest for the trees:
Scalia and Thomas can do whatever they want and Common Cause is being stupid. I am agreeing with Aaron. In a perfect world, SCOTUS justices wouldn’t do what they did, but that has no bearing on their vote.
As for whether Sandy O’Connor, lifelong Republican, meets your current standards for what a Republican is, well, you’ll have to take it up with her.
As always, I’m grateful when y’all go around kicking out other true believers, since it makes your winning elections harder, but I have no say who meets with your description of what a RINO is or isn’t, because frankly, the outside of these circular firing squads are hilarious.
I say more power to you, Dustin, you quick them “squishy” people out. For example, if you could please come to Indiana and successfully “primary” Richard Lugar, I would be most appreciative. The only way to win that seat for a Dem is for you guys to nominate a Christine O’Donnell type.
With that, I think I’ll actually do some work and leave the field to what I’m sure is an entertaining bunch of insults, non-sequitors, and personal attacks
timb (449046) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:51 amSorry, I didn’t realize you meant this McCarthy.
Can you actually explain how he’s wrong about O’Connor? This was a major recent story, after all.
You say democrats don’t see O’Connor as their ally. That’s just wrong. Most of them do. Granted, you’re probably so far off the reservation that you think the DLC and Bill Clinton are not really lefties either.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:53 am“I forgot how hard it was to agree with you guys, so locked into your partisan teams of “good vs evil.””
timb – Sure timb, because you always present as such a model of flexibility and tolerance. Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:54 amJust a heads-up, timb, but your “far out” may not be as far removed from mainstream as you think.
Ag80 (e03e7a) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:55 ambla bla bla bla bla
You have repeatedly ignored my arguments. Your only reply is rambling endlessly that I’m extreme. You’re the one relying on ad homs, not me.
Actually address my points, instead of just insisting you’re right.
Or continue to hesitate to participate here. It’s not like you can even repeat someone’s POV honestly. I think your defensive reaction to a reasonable reply says everything that needs to be said.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:55 am“Common Cause is right to be annoyed that the Kochs were able to buy the last election”
timb – How much did the Koch brothers spend buying the last election? You and your pals must have a number. Please provide links.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/20/2011 @ 11:57 amI came for the Aaron and dang it, I’ll stay for the Aaron.
What I mean, and this will have to be brief, since I’ve wasted over a hour here today, is that the President of Untied States has ordered the murder of an American citizen, without a trial and without due process. With regard to Manning, he has yet to be charged, and although his case is governed under the UCMJ, he is still being held in almost solitary confinement and in conditions most courts deem harmful to convicts, let alone a “presumed innocent.”
Here, though, you complain loudly about rights of the “unborn” and corporations. Corporations are legal fictions, entities and not people, and to declare their “free speech” right are comparable to a individual citizen is offensive –to me– and is part of the process whereby are Republic looks more and more like the Roman Republic everyday.
You become exercised when a corporation cannot “speak,” but when it’s the rights of an individual who has had no due process, you shrug and say “that’s an enemy.” Seems weird to me.
I don’t expect you to agree, but I do appreciate the opportunity to opine.
timb (449046) — 1/20/2011 @ 12:00 pmI suppose the fact that the two top groups giving money to politicians last election were liberal-aligned unions is just lost on you, huh?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/20/2011 @ 12:02 pmWhat American is this? Certainly you don’t mean ASSange…
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/20/2011 @ 12:04 pmActually, you are 100% wrong. Corporations are in fact “legally created people”. They exist so that it is not neccessary to list every single person when filing a lawsuit, or charging taxes, or any other of the countless things a normal person must do. A corporation is treated, in courts, as a single person.
That they make money should not change the fact that they have a desire to have a voice in elections.
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 1/20/2011 @ 12:07 pm“I mean, Koch money or no, Scalia and Thomas are philosophical whores for the rich and powerful. They didn’t need Koch money to decide Citizens United, they just needed a Chief Justice who lacks a conscience and would let them broaden a narrow challenge to a decision which over-turned a century of precedent.”
timb – Why? Because you say so. Me, I think Democrats overplayed their hand in 2008 trying to suppress criticism of Hillary, leading to the Citizens United decision. Now they’re just butt hurt that the playing field has potentially gotten a little more even relative to all that juicy union money they rack up. It’s just that simple.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/20/2011 @ 12:07 pmCommonweal, has taken up Awlaki’s case, which is a strange hill to die on so to speak. His ties stretch from the 9/11 hijacker, to the latest arrests a few months ago, didn’t he take creditfor the Ft. Hood shooting, which is right in line, with what Wuhayshi (AQAP leader) counseled as ‘spectacular attacks on soft targets’
narciso (6075d0) — 1/20/2011 @ 12:07 pm“he is still being held in almost solitary confinement and in conditions most courts deem harmful to convicts”
Specifically how does his confinement differ?
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/20/2011 @ 12:10 pmTimb
> What I mean, and this will have to be brief, since I’ve wasted over a hour here today, is that the President of Untied States has ordered the murder of an American citizen, without a trial and without due process.
That’s not punishment. That is war. I mean by your logic D-day was unconstitutional.
> With regard to Manning, he has yet to be charged, and although his case is governed under the UCMJ, he is still being held in almost solitary confinement and in conditions most courts deem harmful to convicts, let alone a “presumed innocent.”
Yes, and he had a chance to object and by due process his request to be set free and be allowed to keep communicating to ASSange was denied. And? We keep people in very restrictive detention all the time. they are entitled to a hearing to challenge the conditions of that detention and he lost. and?
> Corporations are legal fictions, entities and not people, and to declare their “free speech” right are comparable to a individual citizen is offensive –to me
Actually what they are, are associations of people. and liberals want to pretend that when you associate in certain configurations you give up your right to speak.
I mean by the logic of Elena Kagan and yourself, the NYT is not entitled to freedom of the press. I mean they are a corporation, too, right? So according to you, the government can come in and tell them what to print and what not to print, right?
Indeed, according to your approach, we have a much simpler answer the wikileaks problem. you see, THEY ARE A COMPANY, TOO. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/13/3065456.htm
So according to you, they have no free speech rights, right?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/20/2011 @ 12:12 pmdaleyrocks remembers what Citizens United is really about. It’s about the government shutting down criticism of Hillary.
timb hates freedom.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 12:12 pm“the President of Untied States has ordered the murder of an American citizen, without a trial and without due process.”
timb – Are you objecting to the issuance of an Executive Order to t5ake out a terrorist who has ordered the deaths of numerous American citizens? Seriously?
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/20/2011 @ 12:13 pmscott
no, what he is talking about is that islamic dick who inspired the ft. hood shooter and several other attacks. name slipped my mind.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/20/2011 @ 12:13 pmtimb – How much weed do you smoke every day?
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/20/2011 @ 12:15 pmtimmah! timmah!! timmah!!!
Icy Texan (1ddadb) — 1/20/2011 @ 12:33 pmYou’re ok with the fact that Scalia and Thomas are in the pocket of the Koch’s?
Would you be ok if a number of justices were in the pocket of Soros? Same thing.
RJ (017d51) — 1/20/2011 @ 12:55 pmRJ
Thanks for reading the post. no, no one has established that anyone is in the pocket of anyone.
and yes, if the politics were reversed i would feel exactly the same way. These justices are typically filthy rich, with a guaranteed lifetime job. its hard to bribe someone that well off.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/20/2011 @ 12:58 pmAgreed. But isn’t there another issue at stake? To wit, the appearance of impropriety and the integrity of the court as an institution?
Kman (d30fc3) — 1/20/2011 @ 1:00 pmSo you’d have no problem if a few Justices were attending functions with Soros, officiating weddings for Keith Olbermann, and going on hunting trips with Biden?
RJ (017d51) — 1/20/2011 @ 1:04 pm“You’re ok with the fact that Scalia and Thomas are in the pocket of the Koch’s?”
RJ – What is your evidence for that statement?
Are you OK, I presume you are that Ginsburg is in the pocket of the ACLU and Sotomayor is in the pocket of La Raza?
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/20/2011 @ 1:11 pmThe SCOTUS is about as political and biased as it ever was. Handing Bush the presidency was the end of any neutrality. Scalia is a lunatic theocrat who believes constitutional rights don’t apply to women. Uncle Thomas just sits there, does nothing, says nothing, collecting a paycheck while his tea party wife and Scalia tell him what to do.
RJ (c4caa8) — 1/20/2011 @ 1:13 pmRJ
what you just said about thomas was misinformed and racist.
Thomas doesn’t speak in oral arguments, yes, because he considers them a waste of time. i am inclined to agree, btw. scalia has great sport in it, but i don’t think minds are typically changed.
but the man does not do nothing. he regularly authors opinions.
nor does he do simply what scalia tells him to. in fact on many occassions he has disagreed with scalia, and over time scalia came to adopt thomas’ position, not the other way around.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/20/2011 @ 1:17 pm“These justices are typically filthy rich”
Which ones are rich? Thomas and Alito are not.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/20/2011 @ 1:18 pmThomas isn’t in anyone’s pocket. I can apply his principles with extremely high predictability, for any case he is likely to hear.
He’s been quite honest and consistent, and the only guide to his actions are what the damn law says.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 1:20 pm“Handing Bush the presidency was the end of any neutrality.”
RJ – Yes, telling the Florida Supreme Court to follow it’s own laws was a biased decision. You are a total moron.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/20/2011 @ 1:20 pmwhy would i waste anything new and inventive on a one trick pony troll who is still stuck in ’96?
what really bothers you is that it is a quick and, obviously, because you responded to it, effective way to say i think what you posted was utter schise without suggesting your twaddle was worthy of any significant effort on my part to elucidate why.
call it the Usenet equivalent of RIL…
maybe you should stay at alt.vampires.flonk.flonk.flonk….
buh?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/20/2011 @ 1:29 pmWhat I mean, and this will have to be brief,
“…blah, blah, blah, alleged factual statements without provided substance, illogical point, failure to respond, intentional obfuscation, derrrrrr.”
As always, good to hear from you, Timmah.
Dmac (498ece) — 1/20/2011 @ 1:38 pmBest to put the sarc tag in there for future reference, Mitch – wouldn’t want anyone out there mistaking your satire, and then buying a gun and shooting up the nearest shopping mall.
Dmac (498ece) — 1/20/2011 @ 1:58 pm“He just sits there, like some great ape.”
Mitch – Why do liberals hate black people?
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/20/2011 @ 2:01 pmbtw, steven in the beginning asked if the FBI does have the power to investigate.
what seems certain is if there is suspicion of actual federal crimes, yes they do. so they could claim a suspicion of bribery and proceed forward.
You can see that in the example of the impeachment of Judge Walter Nixon.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-740.ZO.html
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/20/2011 @ 2:12 pm55. So you’d have no problem if a few Justices were attending functions with Soros, officiating weddings for Keith Olbermann, and going on hunting trips with Biden?
Comment by RJ — 1/20/2011 @ 1:04 pm
— A few of them might as well be doing that already.
Icy Texan (1ddadb) — 1/20/2011 @ 2:29 pmbtw, i will add affirmatively that i don’t think officiating at a person’s wedding will bias you, except MAYBE if said marriage is now in divorce proceedings.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 1/20/2011 @ 2:33 pmTimb, RJ, Mitch, all think that the conservatives on the court are too extreme, etc. You complain about the “appearance” of impropriety with Thomas and Scalia. I have a simple question for you.
Where was your outrage when Sotomayor and Kegan participated in the conference to decide whether or not to take a case concerning Obama’s eligibility just last week?
Since neither of these two appointments would have been legal it the case were decided against Obama, why are you not outraged that they would not recuse themselves since they stand to benefit financially and politically by him retaining his office?
My guess is that you have no problem with them participating even when their conflict of interest is as blatant as this. After all, they are your side’s shills. Nothing to see here. Just ignore the man behind the curtain.
Jay H Curtis (8f6541) — 1/20/2011 @ 2:34 pmComment by RJ — 1/20/2011 @ 1:13 pm
Icy Texan (1ddadb) — 1/20/2011 @ 2:37 pm57. The SCOTUS is about as political and biased as it ever was.
— True. Some members are biased in favor of inventing rights out of whole cloth, others in favor of actually basing decisions on what the COTUS really says.
Handing Bush the presidency was the end of any neutrality.
— Ten and a half years, and counting. Feel free to drop the meme at any time.
Scalia is a lunatic theocrat who believes constitutional rights don’t apply to women.
— Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
Uncle Thomas just sits there, does nothing, says nothing, collecting a paycheck while his tea party wife and Scalia tell him what to do.
— It’s good to know that Mitch isn’t the only liberal racist that came over to play today.
This onslaught of ridiculous and illogical investigations based on some nebulous violation of a Leftist political viewpoint about a Supreme Court Decision is RETARDED on its face but part of the Clowens Piven strategy to overwhelm the system.
Part of that overwhelm is the use of media to pound a drumbeat of specious lies that reside in the numb skulls of lazy thinkers who end up reacting on some great day of revolution and say “WE DONT NEED ANY BALANCE ON THE HIGH COURT!” and burn the damn thing down or vote in a Clown Nozzle like Barry the Boy Queen Presidente in Name Only (Chin Poseur de Chavez y Mussolini).
The trolls on this blog make me ill. Clarence Thomas sits on the court like an ape, indeed. I cant wait to read his memoirs where he will classily clear the decks of the Left’s doggerel and sliming of his character with the wannabe Anita “Thrill” Hill.
Bear1909 out.
Bear 1909 (f2f455) — 1/20/2011 @ 2:38 pmI think it’s pretty hilarious that people still try to pretend Clarence Thomas is stupid, just because he reads the briefs before oral arguments, and rarely needs more help making his ruling. The oral arguments are a show, and he’s not an entertainer.
He’s brilliant, and if he were white, but Scalai black, the hysterical left (not generalizing the left, but rather focusing on the hysterical part) would be saying Scalia was the idiot.
“Uncle Thomas”. I think that says it all. He’s a great example for non-elite people to work their ass off and accomplish something. His race is not relevant to me, but I admit he’s also a great example for black people. I guess minority successes must be democrats, or they get the hate.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/20/2011 @ 2:46 pmLet me remind people, in case they forgot, that the case in which Scalia didn’t recuse himself was not against Dick Cheney, it was against the Vice President. Cheney was the named defendant only because he happened to be VP at that time; if the case were still going on 20-Jan-2009 the defendant’s name would have been changed to Biden. Therefore, as Scalia pointed out, his personal relationship with Cheney was irrelevant; Cheney had no personal stake in the outcome of the case, so even if they were close friends there’d be no reason why Scalia shouldn’t hear it.
Milhouse (54f1a0) — 1/20/2011 @ 4:32 pmBy this reasoning, since Justices are actually paid by tax dollars, aren’t they beholding to any taxpayer? So if any case comes before them in which one party is a taxpayer, and the other is not, don’t they automatically have a bias for the taxpayer? *boggle*
Loren (998d8f) — 1/21/2011 @ 8:25 amOn the contrary. Since they are paid by money forcibly extracted from the taxpayers, they are automatically biased against taxpayers, and in favour of the taxing authorities.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/21/2011 @ 8:34 amhttp://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-thomas-disclosure-20110122,0,2413407.story
Impeach.
Perkins (c1f855) — 1/23/2011 @ 9:02 amMilhouse @73, very important point you have there.
It’s almost as though you actually read Scalia’s explanation instead of jumped to a POV reflexively.
Perkins, Common Cause is not a reputable source.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/23/2011 @ 9:15 amBetween 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation’s IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled “none” where “spousal noninvestment income” would be disclosed.
A Supreme Court spokesperson could not be reached for comment late Friday.
Perkins (c1f855) — 1/23/2011 @ 9:21 amPerkins – Ho Hum! Gro up.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/23/2011 @ 9:26 amConservative black men and conservative women scary the holy hell out of things like “perkins”.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/23/2011 @ 9:33 amIt was really amusing how the left hates Virginia Thomas. She’s done nothing to them, but they hate her anyway.
Normal Republican woman, who speaks her mind and lives a normal life. Not too good to drive on a roadtrip, or shop at a Wal Mart, or speak at a Tea Party. No concept of racism. Just a normal American woman. Libel her husband and she’ll actually call you and ask you to seek redemption.
To some people, Virginia Thomas is everything they hate, all rolled up into a person.
Anyway, just in case some people are worried about this: this isn’t a crime, and the recourse would simply be to amend the forms if there really was an error. But since the source is Common Cause, there’s no reason to believe there was an error.
This is how to left tries to circumvent our elections. Thomas was appointed, and the left will never get over it, because he’s one of the most straightforward legal minds our country has ever enjoyed.
So he’s stupid, or he’s an ‘Uncle Thomas’, or now, he should be removed because of his wife. Pathetic.
Common Cause is not a reputable source, and it is also the only source the LA Times relied on even though the primary source should be available for anyone to see, so that really raises my suspicion that someone’s lying.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/23/2011 @ 9:44 amThis has nothing to do with hate, this has to do with ethics and the law. Federal judges and justices are required by law to disclose their spouse’s income — thus preventing persons who wish to influence the judge or justice from funneling money to them through their husband or wife. Yet, as the Los Angeles Times reports, Justice Clarence Thomas has not complied with this requirement for years.
Perkins (683c27) — 1/23/2011 @ 9:51 am“This has nothing to do with hate, this has to do with ethics and the law. Federal judges and justices are required by law to disclose their spouse’s income”
Perkins – Presumably you can give us the applicable citation from pages 17-24 of the instructions for Form AO 10 requiring Justice Thomas to list his wife’s income in the section of the disclosure statement you cite above.
We’ll wait.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/23/2011 @ 9:53 amJustice Thomas failed to comply with his disclosure obligations and he is clearly in violation in another ethics scandal regarding his participation in fundraisers for far-right political groups. Thomas attended a gathering of wealthy corporate activists convened by billionaire Charles Koch to raise money for right-wing political causes, and he also attended fundraisers hosted by the far-right think tank that used to employ his wife.
A Supreme Court justice lending a hand to a political fundraising event would be a clear violation of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
If this were proven as fact, would you still back Thomas in the face of these violations? To do so would be corrupt and unAmerican. Is that your position?
Perkins (683c27) — 1/23/2011 @ 9:56 amPerkins
i will wait for a respectable news outlet to report on this. Btw, who do you propose to run the inquest? perhaps Tim Geitner along with Charlie Rangel?
Aaron "Haiku" Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/23/2011 @ 9:58 amYou know what really is pathetic about you?
You actually know this isn’t the truth. You read the article you linked, and pasted excerpts out of it, and then skipped over the parts that admitted this isn’t a criminal violation and isn’t a violation of any ethics standard that applies to the Supreme Court. You know this is actually a matter of correcting a form, if there was even an error. You’ll have to prove this was even a requirement, and also prove that the income even existed.
So far, even the LA Times refuses to say that, instead saying ‘according to Common Cause’. Common Cause is just the latest lefty shill organization. Why do they have to keep making new ones? Because the old ones lost their credibility for lying all the time.
Anyway, pretty hilarious that you link and pasted part of the LA Times article, but skipped:
So tell me: why do you want him impeached? You already proved this wasn’t a serious issue. Is it because you think we should just remove judges you don’t agree with?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/23/2011 @ 9:59 amIsn’t this all just like in the Chicago Way game plan for winning elections? Obama always seemed to serendipitously make out in his electoral quests with sealed divorced records being opened (the seven of nine/Ryan divorce) that led to having a late-arriving black carpetbagger opponent. I thought Gore’s army of lawyers in cahoots with the Fla. State Supremes would pull out the Gore-Bush election. No complaints from the civil left about students voting numerous times, along with the dead, criminals and illegal aliens. Of course it was ok to attempt to disenfranchise the military absentee ballots though.
Calypso Louie Farrakhan (798aba) — 1/23/2011 @ 10:04 amBut looking to the future, what scams will Holder and ACORN be pulling for next election?
Why would it be unamerican? You already proved this isn’t a crime, or a violation of judicial ethics. That came from your own link.
That’s also from your link.
At least you admit you haven’t even proven your charges. That’s progress, I guess. But it’s pathetic that you set the goalposts where you do, where it’s unamerican to support someone who didn’t commit any ethics violations, and merely would need to amend a form. Your only source that the form is wrong is ridiculously unreliable. I think casting BS charges is unamerican.
But hey, while we’re at it, what do you think of the Rezko Obama situation? Do you think it’s unamerican to vote for Obama?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/23/2011 @ 10:04 am“Justice Thomas failed to comply with his disclosure obligations and he is clearly in violation in another ethics scandal regarding his participation in fundraisers for far-right political groups.”
Perkins – This is merely something you want to believe, not something you or Common Cause have proven. I really would like to see proof that based on the instructions for filling out the disclosure form, Justice Thomas erred in filling it out. Even Common Cause does not allege that in their letter.
I think you are just making sh*t up.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/23/2011 @ 10:18 amSounds like perkins is just making stuff up.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/23/2011 @ 10:21 amJD – Why does the left hate black people?
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/23/2011 @ 10:38 amAnd Jooooooooooos too. I have no idea why, daleyrocks. Maybe Perkins or Macker can explain.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/23/2011 @ 10:50 amJD, you should apologise to Macker, who has not given any hint of antisemitism. Your treatment of his comment about the causes of WW1 is every bit as unfair as Charles Johnson’s treatment of Glenn Beck’s comment.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:00 amthat’s a very low bar, Milhouse, and I think you now owe JD an apology, because there’s no doubt Brian seriously discussing Jews in the way he was antisemitic.
What insight we have into what he’s really thinking is limited. He contradicted himself, was verbose and stupid, and obviously at the drop of even mild criticism, shrieked hysterically that people like me are responsible for ‘criminal republicans’ and an ‘echo chamber’. He argues like a coward, so it’s impossible to know if he’s really an anti semite, or merely a low rent troll.
But there was an obvious hint of antisemitism in his comment. Perhaps not much more than a hint, if you’re generous enough to give him far more benefit of the doubt than he gave me.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:05 ambtw, I realize milhouse is making his points in good faith, and is a thoughtful commenter, but perhaps he’s not treating Macker to his own standards. That’s generally how I treat people. If you’re incredibly generous, you’re given a lot of leeway. If you’re sarcastic, you can withstand sarcasm. If you freak at the drop of a hat, with almost no evidence, than you should have applied extreme clarity to your own comments.
I think this is the easiest way to negotiate the limitations of text discussions.
By the way Macker treats other commenters, his own strange ramblings had more than a hint of antisemitism.
It’s the same reason I’d be rougher if responding to JD than I’d be towards DRJ, and interpret roughness from DRJ as a much louder point than I would from JD.
Macker set the standard he’s failing.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:08 amDustin – Given that i.m.d.w. has been sockpuppeting Milhouse of late, some of the normally thoughtful Milhouse comments I suspect are coming from the troll. Just sayin’.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:17 amI did not call him and anti-Semite. So you take take that apology you called for and shove it.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:20 am“I did not call him and anti-Semite.”
I did and I am not apologizing. Out of the blue, finance, Jews and World Wars appeared on the thread. His meaning was clear.
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:24 amCode of Conduct for United States Judges
Canon 7: A JUDGE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM POLITICAL ACTIVITY
A. A judge should not:
(3) solicit funds for or pay an assessment or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, attend political gatherings, or purchase tickets for political party dinners, or other functions.
CANON 2: A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES
B. A judge should not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should not lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of others; nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
Thomas, and Scalia attended a meeting of “a network of Republican donors” that was being organized by Koch Industries, “the longtime underwriter of libertarian causes,” clearly a political organization.
Perkins (683c27) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:25 amI agree with daleyrocks. Those kind of talk was completely bizarre, and while I guess I’m employing the dog whistle logic, I don’t think sane people bring up Jews and the cause of WWI when talking about completely different issues.
It’s too clever by half to then not complete the ‘Jews are evil’ process, just paving the road in that direction. Brian’s comments deserve to be mocked for what they are.
Brian’s comments were so unreadable that I wonder if Milhouse read them all, or just enough to get the impression that he’s a nice guy who got piled on. Or maybe Daleyrocks is right an pathetic imdw is trying to cause trouble.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:29 amPerkins is not making it up. he is quoting from the LA times. which might be making it up. certainly so far common cause has not shown itself to be an honest broker and the LA times should have looked into it, itself.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:31 amDaley@#97: that’s horrible. I can understand not liking people, but taking other people’s names and posting under them? Jeez.
Simon Jester (bdc73f) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:31 amI love how “perkins” and timmah and those that came before them like to assert some vague undefined conspiracy theory about the Koch brothers, and how they get the vapors over Thomas, but ignore the exact same behaviors from those they agree with.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:32 amPerkins, your first link explains that that code doesn’t apply to the Supreme Court. Further, you are stretching those guidelines to an extreme point to say there was impropriety at all.
So Thomas attended a group of like minded people. That is not impropriety, even if those people are libertarian. It’s hilarious. You don’t seem to care if liberal judges affiliate speak to Universities or left wing organizations.
OK… now you’re just lying. Why quote this at all, if not to suggest Thomas actually did this? You’re just another lying agitator. Why can’t you respond directly to any of the objections being made to your accusations? You’re just going to filibuster the thread full of accusation after accusation, right? I think you know exactly how unfair you’re being.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:33 amDustin, if you saw even the slightest hint of antisemitism in Brian Macker’s comment then you completely missed his point. And since that point was not at all subtle, the only way to miss it was to not be paying attention. His entire point was that it’s easy but illegitimate to put together a string of incontrovertible facts that lead to an outrageous and insupportable conclusion.
For example, it is a fact that one of the causes of the instability that led to WW1 was flaws in the international banking system. It is also a fact that many of the key players in creating and running that system were Jews. One could therefore put A and B together and conclude that Jews were at least a contributory cause of WW1. Hitler did in fact make that connection, and went one step further: he concluded that therefore the Jews were to blame for the War and everything that it caused. That conclusion is unreasonable and outrageous, even though the facts that seem to lead to it are true.
Let me now put that in my own words: Jews were responsible for creating some of the factors that contributed to the background which led to WW1. Those Jews are as much responsible for destroying Europe as the captain who brought Mrs O’Leary (or her ancestors) to America, and the farmer who sold her the cow, were responsible for burning Chicago. In both cases there is a sense in which they were indeed responsible; but in neither case were they* to blame.
That was Brian’s point, and he accused Beck of that sort of thinking. Whether he’s right or wrong, to take it as a sign of antisemitism is precisely wrong, and shows that you’re reading his comment with a strong prejudice that predetermines how you’ll understand it regardless of what he actually says.
* let alone others of their nation
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:34 amDaley – I don’t necessarily disagree with your assessment. The simple fact is that mil house is calling on me to apologize for something that i did not do. I await my apology from milhouse.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:34 am#98, did you not write #92?
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:35 amHe’s quoting a lot of things. He’s not quoting the part of the LAT article that shows the other quotes of his do not have any application. He’s not quoting the part that notes no one has ever been disciplined for this violation (that is only asserted, not proven, and very weak).
He’s also quoting things that aren’t even asserted, in an effort to suggest something that hasn’t happened.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:35 amNowhere is the phrase anti-Semite in #92. Ain’t there. You accused me of something I did not do.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:36 amCould you deny that you’re being sockpuppeted by imdw, please? I know that’s a little insulting, but it’s a sincere request, just for clarity’s sake.
Also, 92 doesn’t make an antisemitism accusation. It notes a bizarre tendency to bring Jews up, and mocks it. Can’t you at least admit that JD is fully justified to that limited extent?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:37 am#100, Koch Industries is not a political organisation. It donates money to many causes; some of those may be political organisations, though I’m not aware of any. “Libertarian causes” such as the Cato Institute are not political organisations within the meaning of the canon. And going back a bit, the Heritage Foundation is not at all “far-right”; it’s as solidly mainstream as the Brookings Institute.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:39 am#92 is a clear and unambiguous accusation of antisemitism against both Perkins and Macker. There is no other way to read it, and you know it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:40 am#99, his meaning was indeed clear, and it was the very opposite of antisemitic.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:41 amWho sees people this way? “Jews”? Who cares that someone was Jewish? It’s illegitimate to classify people.
So a banker was Jewish. I’m sure some bankers were also not Jewish. The Jewishness is not relevant at all to anything you’re saying. No, “Jews” are not to blame for banking issues.
Is this really difficult to understand? There is nothing special about Jews that warrants the way you’re talking about Europe. It’s a trick to switch the terms in that way. I think it’s completely transparent. I can’t recall if you’re one of the comments who claims special authority on these subjects because you’re Jewish yourself, but let me note that this argument is also completely irrational.
I don’t permit any gray area on this subject, and I’m doing my best to be civil in my reaction. Brian deserves his scorn for his stupid parable meant to cloud a very simple issue.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:42 amNo, it’s mocking someone who brought up Jews in a silly way.
It just so happens that the person accused is probably an antisemite, though. You have a completely wrong way of looking at people to start with, if you think it’s OK to say “Jews are to blame” for any reason whatsoever (And indeed, you DO think that’s acceptable).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:44 amNow milhouse is asserting intent on my behalf. There are plenty of other ways to read it, your lack of imagination and comprehension does not allow you to drone my intent. Now, I await you apology for claiming i said something I did not. Or, go pleasure yourself with some pumice lotion and a swordfish. Just quit asserting my words and my intent based on your flawed interpretation. Because that is dishonest.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:44 amCan someone explain to me how it’s legitimate to concern yourself with their race or creed?
It’s like saying black people are responsible for rape, and then stringing together some argument that includes a person who happens to have black skin. What’s Jewishness have to do with any of this, Milhouse?
and I’m still waiting on you to please note that you are not imdw. I realize this is a little insulting, and you seem more intelligent than imdw, but I’d appreciate the disclaimer.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:46 amNo clue where drone came from, damn spellcheck.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:49 amHoly Jeebus.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:52 amSo you are accusing someone of being antisemitic?
If not, then are you retarded?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:54 am#113, Not just “some bankers” were Jewish. The international banking industry was originally created by Jews, was dominated by Jews for centuries, and while by the 20th century other participants had also joined the field Jews were still key players in it. Without the Jewish participants it would have collapsed. So to the extent that the banking system was one of the root causes that ultimately led to the War, Jews were responsible. And, to return to my Mrs O’Leary example, whoever introduced the potato blight to Ireland was ultimately responsible for burning Chicago. In neither case is there any sort of blame attached, and that is the bizarre leap Brian was condemning.
G2G, won’t see more comments until this evening.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:55 am#117, it doesn’t matter who’s using it, “Joooooos” is not an expression of antisemitism but an accusation of it.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:56 amNo, it is not. And it was not, milhouse. You can continue to assert that, but it will not make it so.
JD (d4bbf1) — 1/23/2011 @ 11:59 amThis monetary explanation for the cause of WWI sounds like complete and total bullsh*t to me. The first time I ever heard about it was yesterday. Do somebody have a link where the theory is explained?
daleyrocks (e7bc4f) — 1/23/2011 @ 12:38 pm