Obama Blast from the Past

By Thursday May 13, 2010

Huh, what a shocker!



36 Comments
  1. Alf says:
    5/13/2010 at 4:46 pm

    Only the flawlessly beautiful bloggers should throw the first stone. We are judgmental (pun) beings and she is not attractive but may be that is OK. It might better to have an evenhanded goodhearted intelligent justice than an attractive knucklehead.

    Reply
  2. bobbo, we think with words says:
    5/13/2010 at 5:10 pm

    How could a flawlessly beautiful blogger have any more or less valid opinion about attractiveness than anyone else? Silly notion.

    “Beauty is truth, and truth beauty. That is all ye know, and all ye need to know.”

    I can only quibble thereafter. I don’t think an intelligent justice should be evenhanded if the issues are lopsided?

    Reply
  3. Oprah - We ARE Men and WOMEN of Science AND Emo says:
    5/13/2010 at 5:36 pm

    I find her perfectly suitable for the post. It will be good to have our first Down’s Syndrome Justice.

    Reply
  4. Buzz says:
    5/13/2010 at 5:38 pm

    Is that a picture of Dvorak in drag?

    Reply
  5. Buzz says:
    5/13/2010 at 6:07 pm

    There is no story here.

    Why is McCullough posting this?

    Are we to be treated with every well-modulated sound byte?

    That’s the real meta-issue here. Does a good sounding voice equal good logic or good ideas?

    This is what the right does. It banks on pretty people with well-modulated voices. As if those were qualities that Actually Counted.

    Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Sarah Palin, for instance. All vain. All less than ace minds.

    For Dvorak, it’s Curry. Same standard.

    The left has its pretty losers too (Edwards). But, to their credit, Democrats are less chosen for vocal or light-reflecting aesthetics.

    Would Kagan be Much Better Qualified if she looked like Palin? That’s perfectly in keeping with Republican-ism and Tea Bagger-ism as it is practiced on the conservative right.

    Aside: check something the conservative right actually conserves:

    A. The Environment.
    B. The Value Of Money.
    C. Human Health.
    D. American Fairness.
    E. Surplus Treasure.
    F. Fair Tax Distribution.

    Sorry to have wandered here, but there is a meta story under the non-story here that seems to have been a last straw of some sort.

    Reply
  6. Buzz says:
    5/13/2010 at 6:10 pm

    Just to be extra clear:

    ALL supreme court nominees deserve maximum grilling. No matter who.

    Reply
  7. bobbo, we think with words says:
    5/13/2010 at 6:17 pm

    Buzz–be relevant as well as extra clear: grilling to what point? to establish what “facts?”

    Grandstanding with a purpose is oxymoronic.

    Reply
  8. brm says:
    5/13/2010 at 7:07 pm

    #19 bobbo:

    I think some of the meaning of our posts is being lost in translation to the internet.

    Her support of immunity makes me *not* like her.

    Do you think that’s bad too? I’m not being a jerk, I just really can’t tell from your post.

    Reply
  9. brm says:
    5/13/2010 at 8:25 pm

    #25 buzz:

    “This is what the right does. It banks on pretty people with well-modulated voices. As if those were qualities that Actually Counted.”

    What planet do you live on?

    Did you miss that big election we just had between the youthful, shirtless, most-powerful-orator-since-Churchill and the old guy with the bum arm who was about-to-die-any-minute!

    Reply
  10. bobbo, we think with words says:
    5/13/2010 at 9:29 pm

    brm–I agree with you that prosecutors should not have absolute immunity, only a qualified immunity. The same issues arise with judges too with all the same issues. A closer question might be absolute immunity from PRIVATE lawsuits but full criminal liability in prosecutions upon complaint brought by other prosecutors. I think that is the law right now in fact, just not firm because it only happens once every 90 years. I think a few might be forced to resign and mum’s the word. Civil lawsuits allowing for $$ awards is aimed at people who are personally motivated to bring lawsuits==unlike other civil servants who are motivated NOT to bring such lawsuits. OTOH, as you well know, openning up the legal system to lawsuits for negligence could be a real damper on bringing the hard cases or keeping the hard cases going against rich/powerful defendants which is already a tough nut as it is.

    So, pro’s and con’s no matter what we do.

    SEPARATE from the above is anyone arguing either side as part of their job/assigned tasks. As I posted–you/we don’t know what Kagan’s personal views are on the subject JUST BECAUSE she argued one side in a legal brief.

    Regardless, since absolute immunity is the law in most places==why be a single issue evaluator on such a secondary issue?==one that affects only a few people. More important would be her views on broader questions that affect millions of people.

    We can both think of many more impactful important issues===but we will never know her personal opinions on those. Neither will we/ and perhaps even herself, know how we would actually rule on a specific fact pattern even when general leanings are revealed.

    Judges are trained to change their minds when facts are changed. They are religious about that dogma, spouting it whether they believe it or not, and then over time, the dogma takes over, they grow into office.

    Dogma is dangerous. Religion is full of it. Liebertards know nothing else.

    Reply
  11. Breetai says:
    5/14/2010 at 12:19 am

    Just have to point out the obvious here. When Bush Appointed Myers it wasn’t the left that kicked her ass out, it was the right. They did it for the same reason they oppose Kagan.

    For gods sake don’t look at the facts they’ll blind you from your partisan objectives. Bunch of fuckin douchebags.

    It’s just too bad people around here are too blinded by partidsanship and political stupidity to realize the only real difference between the parties are their lies and if you tear down the posters of the elephant or the ass in Washington it’ll reveal a swastika.

    Reply
  12. Animby says:
    5/14/2010 at 12:43 am

    #30 Bobbo – “we don’t know what Kagan’s personal views are on the subject JUST BECAUSE she argued one side in a legal brief.”

    I think this is an important point Bobbo has brought up. One of the problems with Kagan is that people don’t know her stand on many issues. They may try to draw inferences from her court cases but a lawyer will say anything to win a case for their client. Her stand on anything she has said or done in court is no indicator of how she truly believes.

    I comment neither for nor against her at this point. I don’t know enough about her. But I hope I’m somewhere I can watch the confirmation hearings.

    On a completely personal point, who would have thought Obama would appoint someone who would make Ginsburg look good?

    Reply
  13. jman says:
    5/14/2010 at 5:11 am

    leave it to obama to nominate Kevin James for the Court

    Reply
  14. gmknobl says:
    5/14/2010 at 9:10 am

    KAGAN:
    1986-87: Clerk for Judge Abner Mikva, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
    1987-88: Clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court
    1989-91: Associate in Private Practice, Williams & Connolly
    1991-97: Assistant Professor and Professor, University of Chicago Law School (1991-94 as assistant professor)
    1995-96: Associate White House Counsel
    1997-99: Deputy Assistant to the President, Domestic Policy Council
    1999-01: Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School
    2001-03: Professor, Harvard Law School
    2003-09: Dean of Harvard Law School
    2009-10: Solicitor General of the United States
    REHNQUIST:
    1952-1953: Clerk For Justice Robert Jackson
    1953-1969: Private Practice in Phoenix, AZ
    1969-1971: Assistant USAG, Office of Legal Counsel

    Anyone got anything for Miers?

    Yeah, I know that a resume doesn’t tell you experience but it’s amazing how often people are hired based on them. Maybe it actually DOES mean something. Another lie by the Rushlicans exposed.

    Reply
  15. jman says:
    5/14/2010 at 9:54 am

    i do love how vehemently you people will defend obama’s mistakes.

    Now tell us why Geitner is qualified after cheating on his taxes.

    Reply
  16. Rick Cain says:
    5/15/2010 at 6:19 pm

    She’s only been the Dean of the Harvard Law School, and Solicitor General of the USA.

    What does she know about LAW?!?!

    Reply

« Older Comments

Leave a Response


Bad Behavior has blocked 25418 access attempts in the last 7 days.