Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWhat sort of psychological bent would lead people to want to be part of a dead-end political party like the GOP?
Clearly, fear--stirring it as well as succumbing to it--is central to such a psyche, and Republicans are swinging that big spiked mace as wildly as if it were the night before a bitterly contested election. This Web ad that came out last week isn't from Michael Savage or Glenn Beck (more from them later) but from House minority leader John Boehner and intel committee ranking Republican Pete Hoekstra.
Actually, we do feel safer, most people would say. The world doesn't hate us quite as much now that a president is offering a handshake instead of the finger, and we're not alienating our allies now that we're not asking them to jump off the Geneva Convention while screaming "Yee-ha!" all the way down.
The strange thing is that Repubs are still producing this kind of National Security theater, complete with cardiac arrest-soundtrack, even though it's failed time and again over the past two years in campaign ads for Tom Tancredo, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and just about every other doomed GOP hopeful.
At some point the vaunted Republican noise machine stopped being about winning elections and became instead a feckless attempt at mass justification, popping out one lame excuse after another for the party's failures. And it was a short leap from there to simply hitting rewind on the rightwing's longtime romance with a Lost Cause. Like Southerners still waving the stars'n'bars 150 years after Appomattox, or Col. Custer blithely riding up that coulee into an overwhelming force of Sioux and Cheyenne warriors, today's Repub diehards will go to their graves muttering about the fascist-socialist-gun-snatching tyranny of Barack Osama, convincing themselves sotto voce that, by fighting for a lower tax-rate for the extremely wealthy, they're the true descendants of the American Revolution. As the teabag-besotted begillionaire Mitt Romney told a Republican crowd this weekend, with no apparent sense of his own absurdity, "We are the party of the revolutionaries, they [Democrats] are the party of the monarchists."
That new study indicating that conservatives might not quite understand that Stephen Colbert's wingnut rants are devastating mockery rings true. Because not understanding isn't just a failure to get the joke, it's a defense mechanism: Without a certain level of cluelessness, the whole party would be knocking around in an unstatesmanlike manner, blurting, "My God, what have I done?" Isn't it simpler to insist, as Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe does, that Arlen Specter's flight from the GOP is exactly what the party needs to regain control of both the House and the Senate? "This is the first visible evidence that what happened in 1993 is happening again now," Inhofe told Fox News, sounding like Caligula claiming that treasure chests of seashells were his tribute from Neptune for defeating the sea.
Why are these marble men so determined to resurrect dead, failed ideas? It isn't simply because they don't have new ones (which they don't). There's also a psychological payoff to committing yourself to a bankrupt idea--whether it's the odd notion that cutting taxes will save us from our economic crisis of liquidity, or the disproved theory that abstinence-only education will decrease teen pregnancies.
The sad fact is, fidelity to a Lost Cause valorizes you, it imitates honor. So the Republican Party isn't about greed or power or any base selfishness; rather, it's about nobly committing to something larger than itself--ending abortion, spreading democracy by force, saving Terri Schiavo, or, as of late, saving the GOP itself from knowledge of itself. Never mind that none of those commitments is remotely achievable, even the last.
For the kingdom of Lost Cause Republicans is not of this world. This world is corrupt and fallen. But there is another world where all of our desires, be they sleeping with 72 virgins or living tax-free, will be fulfilled, and heavenly justice will prevail.
The beauty part about a Lost Cause is that you don't have to struggle to find practical political solutions--that would require compromise and make you impure. Instead, you only have to make gestures and think magically. As Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina said, "The best way to get to 60 is to have a core group of Republicans who really do what they say and stand for their principles."
To achieve purity, whether in a body politic or an individual body, you must be ever vigilant for contaminants. Corruption could come in the form of compromising on a stimulus package or saying something rude about Rush, or, this season, in the form of actual viruses. (Some GOPers conflated H1N1 with Specter by dubbing his defection as "The Swine Flew.")
That is, purity requires paranoia, and what better paranoid fantasy of (white) purity befouled (by darker races) is there than the Mexican Immigrant Swine Flu Bioterrorist plot? See, says hate radio's Michael Savage, the pandemic's source isn't pigs but Islamofacist terrorists who may have "concocted this virus and planted it in Mexico," knowing full well that Mexican immigrants are the "perfect mules for bringing this virus into America."
For Glenn Beck, the virus itself is the ruse, cleverly designed to put baby-killers in charge of the department of Health and Human Services. "She [Kathleen Sebelius] can be confirmed right out of the gate because of this swine flu. So don't look over here, look at the swine flu, look at the swine flu, look at the swine flu. And she just goes right through the gate."
Unclean! Unclean! They've all come back, those Goldwater-era obsessions--commie infiltration, brains getting washed, contaminants you can't wash out. And now, from crazy-eyed Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Obama's "re-education camps."
Wait, haven't we seen this movie before?
What's an honest American to do besides take that long, last ride into the purity of a blinding flash of white?
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
It makes oh so much sense then:
Washington Post-ABC News Poll This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone April 21-24, 2009, among a random national sample of 1,072 adults using both conventional and cellular phones.
Date____Dem__Repub__Ind__Other
4/24/09__35____21____38____5
1/16/09__ 35____23____36____5
11/3/08__ 35____26____30____6
4/13/08__35____29____30____5
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/03/2009 @ 11:19pm
f the 21% that still label themselves repub:
5% are complicit in the crime and don't mind lying about their intentions (hsuB/cHeney admin)
10% are delusional, but suspect that the GOP are a bunch of crooks, but just don't mind all that much (Palin)
6% are undereducated and have no intention of ever getting any, but aspire to be filthy rich (Wurzelbacher)
50% of the 5% share some of the 6% point of view
Thus 79% of the USA know that 21% in the USA are against what they stand for.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/03/2009 @ 11:22pm
As an aside, add this one to the GOPeers crack-up:
"Rice, in her first appearance in Washington since leaving government, was at the Jewish Primary Day School of the Nation's Capital before giving an evening lecture at the Sixth & I Historic Synagogue. She held forth amiably before a few dozen students about her love of Israel, travel abroad and the importance of learning languages, then opened the floor to their questions.
Then Misha Lerner, a student from Bethesda, asked: What did Rice think about the things President Obama's administration was saying about the methods the Bush administration had used to get information from detainees?
"Let me just say that President Bush was very clear that he wanted to do everything he could to protect the country. After September 11, (but not before) we wanted to protect the country," she said. "But he was also very clear that we would do nothing, nothing, that was against the law or against our obligations internationally. So the president was only willing to authorize policies that were legal in order to protect the country."
She added: "I hope you understand that it was a very difficult time. We were all so terrified of another attack on the country. September 11 was the worst day of my life in government (being the President's National Security Advisor) , watching 3,000 Americans die. . . . Even under those most difficult circumstances, the president was not prepared to do something illegal, and I hope people understand that we were trying to protect the country."
Misha's mother, Inna Lerner, said the question her son had initially come up with was even tougher: "If you would work for Obama's administration, would you push for torture?"
http://tinyurl.com/c9vsv8
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/03/2009 @ 11:57pm
Though I admit there's a lot of truth to this article, I think it's also a little bit dishonest. An underlying assumption is that only Republicans currently have purity issues. Given how many people have criticized Obama whenever he deviates from their perceived ideological purity, it is unfair to ascribe this trait purely to conservatives.
At the same time, it subscribes to unfair generalizations. First, the quietly underlying claim that Republicans have not been putting forth alternative ideas is plainly false; for instance, they proposed an alternative budget to that which Obama offered. Did it have significantly less spending? Yes. Is this arguably un-original? I guess, but no more so than the idea of massive spending to solve the problem. The debate should not be on the relative newness of the ideas, but on the independent merits behind them. A good start would be to acknowledge that many Republicans are actually interested in discussion, which means that broad-brush generalizations like those painted in this article are not the least bit helpful.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2009 @ 01:03am
Great Strangelove clip. I always thought one of the funniest parts of the movie is when Mandrake realizes Gen. Ripper is batshit crazy. The look on Sellers' face is perfect.
Posted by koroviev at 05/04/2009 @ 02:00am
Today's latest science announcement ... researchers show that the intensity patterns of the spread of swine flu virus round the globe maps that of the flow distribution of dollar bills.
The dollar causes disease. The buck will f--k you.
And that's news?
New world order. Or is it odor?
Posted by sloper at 05/04/2009 @ 02:07am
In re: Savage's baseless comments demonizing Mexicans....
How reprehensible. There is potential for suffering and death on a huge scale and what do you get from idiots like savage? Not compassion or common sense, but racism and xenophobia.
Comments, like the ones from the Savage clip, only bring out the worst in people.
Posted by koroviev at 05/04/2009 @ 02:15am
Ms Savan utilizes a typical marxist/leftist manipulation of fact to stir up the "masses" against opposing political views.
I cite the current lie that she and other leftists have been employing that states that "conservatives believe Colbert is not mocking them, but is actually a conservative". And how is this amazing conclusion derived?
"The Ohio State University
This study investigated biased message processing of political satire in The Colbert Report and the influence of political ideology on perceptions of Stephen Colbert. Results indicate that political ideology influences biased processing of ambiguous political messages and source in late-night comedy. Using data from an experiment (N = 332), we found that individual-level political ideology significantly predicted perceptions of Colbert's political ideology. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the groups in thinking Colbert was funny, but conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism. Finally, a post hoc analysis revealed that perceptions of Colbert's political opinions fully mediated the relationship between political ideology and individual-level opinion."
A study of data from 322 people. We don't know the data behind it; what the sample consisted of; or the actual questions.
From this, leftists make the definitive conclusion on Colbert and conservatives. Just think what other lies and deceptions they utilize to promote their marxist agenda
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 09:04am
'So the auto bailout that was supposed to keep U.S. workers on the job is instead providing taxpayer dollars to companies that plan to shutter idle factories and lay off workers in the industrial Midwest while shifting work to other countries.' -- John Nichols -- The Nation -- 2 May, 2009
'Henry Kissinger, the pioneer of Cold War detente during the Nixon era, has made a return to frontline politics after President Barack Obama reportedly sent him to Moscow.... According to Western diplomats, during two days of talks the octogenarian courted Russian officials...' -- The Daily Telegraph -- 6 February, 2009
'Why are these marble men so determined to resurrect dead, failed ideas?' -- Leslie Savan -- The Nation -- 3 May, 2009
Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/04/2009 @ 09:15am
Date____Dem__Repub__Ind__Other
4/24/09__35____21____38____5
1/16/09__ 35____23____36____5
11/3/08__ 35____26____30____6
4/13/08__35____29____30____5
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/03/2009 @ 11:19pm
Interesting poll. But I suspected it would pan out that way. Dems stayed unchanged and steady at 35%, Other was virtually unchanged at 5-6%. So the Repugs are switching to Independent. I noticed on a lot of talk radio shows that former Repugs were calling themselves Independent or "True Conservatives", or "Reagan Conservatives" or even in some cases "Goldwater or Eisenhower Conservatives". Unreal. But even though they changed to Independent most of them were still repeating hard right talking points.
So they still haven't learned anything. They just don't want to be associated with the Republican Party anymore and they proudly announce that they are "Independent". Kind of like a petulant child who is running away from home for the first time..
Posted by chaoszen at 05/04/2009 @ 09:40am
11/3/08__ 35____26____30____ 6
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/03/2009 @ 11:19pm
I amused myself for a second with the notion that I was responsible for the change in "Other" from 5 to 6% in November. I went in to the DMV to renew my CDL on the 2nd or 3rd and changed parties from Democrat to Green Party. I expressly told the clerk that I was switching parties and showed her the form. When I got my voter registration a week later in the mail, it still indicated I was a registered DEMOCRAT! Apparently somebody does not want me to switch to the Green Party..
Posted by chaoszen at 05/04/2009 @ 09:57am
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/03/2009 @ 11:19pm
Polls are not your friend.
Posted by ACook at 05/04/2009 @ 11:26am
<i>Posted by snowball666 at 05/04/2009 @ 08:23am </i>
First, I hadn't heard about that proposal, and Googling it hasn't turned up a whole lot either; was this actually suggested (as in, both it actually happened and was not in jest)?
Second, this doesn't come anywhere close to defending Ms. Savan's article. She's not just talking about Republican legislators; she's talking about Republicans as a class, and while doing so, making broad generalizations with no basis in fact. The study evidence is certainly suspect; not that one personal case disproves a general rule, but I find Colbert both quite entertaining and quite satirical, and I would consider myself, eh, moderately conservative.
Third, you're still missing the deeper problem. Why is it that the only way to be productive is to spend vast amounts of government money on things? I just don't understand that. The perception that saying "no, we won't fund that" is just obstructionist because they won't give you something else for the federal government to fund instead just seems bizarre.
So what's the criticism? Is it new ideology v. old? That's clearly not the case; injecting government spending into the economy is a solution that's been argued for quite some time, as is a system that allows the economy to function with minimal (or limited) interference. Is it action v. inaction? This only makes sense if you believe that spending should be the default remedy? Why should the standard for meaningful contribution (which should be independent of political ideology) presume from the get-go that one political ideology or the other is correct?
Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2009 @ 11:58am
Why should the standard for meaningful contribution (which should be independent of political ideology) presume from the get-go that one political ideology or the other is correct? Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2009 @ 11:58am
It's a given that more people suffer under the repugs than under the demos.
The only debatable question is whether more people prosper under the repugs than the demos.
With all their flaws, I'll take the demos every time.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/04/2009 @ 12:30pm
Date____Dem__Repub__Ind__Other
4/24/09__35____21____38____5
4/13/08__35____29____30____5
... They just don't want to be associated with the Republican Party anymore and they proudly announce that they are "Independent". ..
Posted by chaoszen at 05/04/2009 @ 09:40am
Except that those independents in this poll, had only an increase of 3% more leaning repub since 4/13/08, whilst they lost 8%. And even though dems were stable at 35%, 3% more independents lean dem during the same period.
Date_____LeanDem__LeanRepub__NoLean
4/24/09 ____ 18_______16_______ 10
4/13/08_____15_______13________8
Just a friendly observation...
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/04/2009 @ 12:56pm
er, whilst 'repubs' lost 8%
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/04/2009 @ 1:03pm
"It's a given that more people suffer under the repugs than under the demos."
Posted by Sorelish at 05/04/2009 @ 12:30pm
So, what's that suppose to mean?! That we color folk should be thankful for the crumbs (and ass whippings) you white liberals gave us??!! WTF!!!
If it's one thing that irrates the hell out of me most of all, is when I read smug condescending comments like this one!!! And the sad commentary on top is...YOU BELIEVE IT!!!
The next time you call someone on this thread a racist and elitist, take a good look in the mirror first.
Posted by ACook at 05/04/2009 @ 2:11pm
<i>Posted by Sorelish at 05/04/2009 @ 12:30pm </i>
No, that's not a given. It's a claim. I could just as easily say "it's a given that republican policies get higher tax revenue than democratic ones." I would be wrong. It might be true that Republican policies lead to more revenue, but it's not a "given."
Literally, the standard I'm seeing is "bad/unoriginal= not wanting to spend vast amounts of money on X thing." And that's absurd. Since when did the only "creative" response to something become "Congress should spend money on Y instead!"?
I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why this article isn't a combination of skewed metrics and false generalizations.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2009 @ 2:52pm
Would any Gitmo Guests contaminate your city/state??????
Democrats drop funds to close Gitmo
May 4 01:56 PM US/Eastern
Unwinding Guantanamo: Defense Secretary Grilled Over Fate of Inmates
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats are refusing to pay for President Barack Obama's plan to relocate prisoners from the Guantanamo detention facility where enemy combatants are being held.
Obama has signed an executive order to close the facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by early next year. But the Pentagon has yet to come up with a plan on where to put the 240 or so prisoners. Between 50-100 are likely to be sent to the United States.
No lawmaker wants the accused terrorists in their backyard.
House Democrats unveiled a $94.4 billion war funding bill Monday and it had no money for the relocation plan.
The step is not likely to be the last word, however. If needed, money could be transferred later--without a politically difficult vote.
Posted by Happy at 05/04/2009 @ 3:02pm
Posted by ACook at 05/04/2009 @ 2:11pm
My father, acook, on more than one occasion had his racial background questioned. Late in life he applied for a job in a different town & on being interviewed & divulging his last name had the boss ask, "Is that white?" accompanied with a "hahahah". The old man responded "I hope not, hahahah". He got the job.
And, yes, he was repug & gave me a few ass whippings as I was coming up. Since I take after mom's side, I guess you could say there was some justice applied. Hahahah.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/04/2009 @ 3:05pm
So thrawn, you don't even have LvL's "pie in the sky" as your final arbitrator. All you've got is Ayn Rand.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/04/2009 @ 3:28pm
The explosive rise of the U.S. budget deficit and debt burden will lead to serious inflation down the road, says billionaire and Obama supporter Warren Buffett.
The Congressional Budget Office predicts that government debt will peak around 54 percent of GDP in 2011.
But Buffett told CNBC Monday morning that the ratio could surpass 80 percent -- unless there are significant spending cuts or tax increases.
Ahhhh...can't you just feel the hope and change as the Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrat congress pull the lever and flush America down the drain!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/04/2009 @ 3:48pm
Ahhhh...can't you just feel the hope and change as the Obamanation that makes desolation and the Demoncrat congress pull the lever and flush America down the drain!
Posted by comancheamerican at 05/04/2009 @ 3:48pm
Well there ya go CA--and which pipe are you planning to swim through to escape the coming Marxist-Collectivist-Pinko new order?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/04/2009 @ 4:08pm
You knew what he meant....
Posted by ACook at 05/04/2009 @ 2:50pm
No, unlike new cons, I don't believe myself omniscient.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/04/2009 @ 4:17pm
I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why this article isn't a combination of skewed metrics and false generalizations.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2009 @ 2:52pm
You mean like the laundry list of facts, figures, actual historical events, that have led most coherent individuals to assess the new con repub GOPeers to be an embarrassment?
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/04/2009 @ 4:36pm
<i>Posted by Sorelish at 05/04/2009 @ 3:28pm </i>
Eh? Where'd that come from?
<i>Posted by hsuBfools at 05/04/2009 @ 4:36pm </i>
Since you cite historical events, I'm assuming you're going after conservatism as a philosophy rather than just the current governing Republicans. In that case...your premise is simply wrong. Many reasonable, thinking, moral people have found themselves in the conservative camp, just as many reasonable, thinking, moral people have found themselves in the liberal camp. That's why we have this fantastic democratic construct called dialogue and compromise.
And also, I don't think the GOP is without flaws; far from it. I would be happy, for instance, to go the rest of my life without hearing the brilliant (sarcasm) point "but even scientists admit evolution is just a theory!" or seeing substantial numbers of Republicans on a primary stage publicly deny evolution. I also think that historical conservatism had tended to pay insufficient attention to poverty, since a humanitarian obligation to fight poverty doesn't fit neatly into an economic analysis designed around maximizing the "health of the economy."
Ideas don't tend to fit into the nice, easy "this is dumb, this is just true" box that you've tried to put them in, and people don't tend to either.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2009 @ 4:55pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/04/2009 @ 4:36pm
Since you cite historical events, I'm assuming you're going after conservatism as a philosophy rather than just the current governing Republicans. In that case...your premise is simply wrong.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2009 @ 4:55pm
Well, you're wrong on either end of your preliminary assumption.
To assume that having a coherent list of GOPeer failures presupposes on your part that one, myself, can only accept an incoherent list of their achievements.
No, one does not equal the other.
Rather faulty logic on your end as even your last paragraph counters your first.
Or was that an attempt at an unflavored innocuous straw structure?
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/04/2009 @ 5:25pm
The dollar causes disease. The buck will f--k you. And that's news? New world order. Or is it odor? Posted by sloper at 05/04/2009 @ 02:07am
Paper money is one of the dirtiest items in our world, something that changes hands like crazy. People put it in their mouth, up their nose, drop it on the ground, bury it, write on it, keep it in dirty purses and wallets. Ever been in a grocery store when somebody puts money in their mouth while they hunt for change? It's truly the best way to spread disease.
There's a buck to be made selling some kind of container to put your cash in that kills germs. I call it 'The Buck Stops Here' money sanitizer.
Anything is better than commenting on the lost tribe of the conservative party, so I thought it was time for some info-tainment.
Posted by ficheye at 05/04/2009 @ 5:47pm
My father, acook, on more than one occasion had his racial background questioned. Late in life he applied for a job in a different town & on being interviewed & divulging his last name had the boss ask, "Is that white?" accompanied with a "hahahah". The old man responded "I hope not, hahahah". He got the job.
And, yes, he was repug & gave me a few ass whippings as I was coming up. Since I take after mom's side, I guess you could say there was some justice applied. Hahahah.
Posted by Sorelish at 05/04/2009 @ 3:05pm
And unlike your old man, I can't laugh off my color or my name.
Note: Being a republican or democrat has nothing to do with getting disciplined. My parents were considered god fearing liberals and they still whipped us. Any whippings you got, were well deserved.
Posted by ACook at 05/04/2009 @ 8:45pm
Just wait until the end timers of 2012 chime in...it's coming from the fringe and it will make tea parties seem quaint. It's right wing hatred for all that this country stands for that allows them to take their Icarus flight...
Posted by erazma at 05/04/2009 @ 9:18pm
I got spanked by my mom and dad enough to know I better not ever get caught if I was going to pull something not to their liking.
Spanking was real common back in the '50's. But my mom really got into it, verging on torture. Beyond sometimes hitting with the belt buckle, she liked putting me in stress positions, kneeing for hours on rocks/pebbles/uncooked pinto beans, called me demeaning/belittling names, would take away my clothes,...
She had a mental condition. And she was extremely religious too. Still can't tell which of the two made her worse.
My dad wasn't very religious in the traditional sense, but he was by far the kinder gentler one.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/04/2009 @ 9:25pm
On a happier note-- where's Mask:
THE NEW YORKER
MAY 4, 2009
MR. JUSTICE GORE
"The choice would be electrifying," writes Michael Sean Winters at "In All Things," the group blog of America, the Catholic (Jesuit) weekly.
The biggest objection to putting Al Gore on the Supreme Court, I assume, would be that he's not a lawyer. But is this really a bug rather than a feature? Gore spent sixteen years in Congress, where he helped make the laws, and eight as Vice-President, where he took care that the laws were faithfully executed. His perspective would fill some giant blind spots on the present Court, which is made up entirely of former federal appeals-court judges who have little or no political experience, have never been elected to anything, and have a strikingly narrow experience of life in general.
A law degree is probably a helpful credential, all other things being equal, for a trial judge or an appeals-court judge. But it is far from essential in a Justice of the Supreme Court. The heart of a Justice's job is interpreting and applying the Constitution, and for that things like a knowledge of history (including Constitutional history), a feel for the workings of government, a strong moral sense, an ability to think and write clearly, and a temperamental affinity for the long view--all of which Gore has in spades--are much more important than a professional familiarity with the details of contract or case law. Gore would make a superb addition to the Court. And, of course, it is pleasant to imagine the opportunity his appointment would afford the four remaining members of the Bush v. Gore junta, especially Antonin "Get Over It" Scalia, to contemplate and, perhaps, repent of their sins."
POSTED BY HENDRIK HERTZBERG
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/04/2009 @ 9:32pm
Sure the world doesn;t hate us anymore, we are now the world's most powerful doormat, because Chavez, Castro, Kim Jong Il and Ahmedenijad likes us now.
How Quaint.
Posted by apoorspic at 05/04/2009 @ 9:47pm
COOL!
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/04/2009 @ 9:52pm
Er, mayday mayday mayday:
http://www.wunderground.com/radar/mosaic.asp
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/04/2009 @ 9:56pm
Tell me there's something wrong with the radar... please.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/04/2009 @ 9:58pm
<i>Posted by snowball666 at 05/04/2009 @ 5:41pm </i>
It sounds like you're agreeing with my point. What you gave are reasons why a liberal perspective is correct. That's great; what I'm saying is that there's a discussion to be had, and the fact that Republicans are opposing spending doesn't mean that their contribution to the debate isn't just as valid as those who defend it. That, plus "stereotypes of conservatives are bad," is all I'm really defending here, and it sounds like we're agreed on that.
<i>Posted by hsuBfools at 05/04/2009 @ 9:32pm </i>
Please, PLEASE tell me this is a joke, and that the writer is not actually that appallingly ignorant of what the Supreme Court does. "The biggest objection would be that he's not a lawyer." Yes! Yes, actually that's kind of a big one; for a Court whose job it is to interpret the law, understanding it seems like a rather important prerequisite. Putting aside arguments for or against originalism, many of the cases the Court hears involve nitty gritty nuances of law that someone not trained in it can't possibly be expected to automatically comprehend, much less decide.
What's even better is that the author ACTUALLY ARGUES that while knowledge of the law is important for a lower court or appeals-court judge, it doesn't matter much for a Supreme Court Justice. What?? They try most of the same issues! Where does he think the constitutional cases the Court hears come from?? Moreover, if it's an appeals court, the Supreme Court can overturn them. If it's the Supreme Court, the buck stops there; of all places, legal qualifications are REALLY important there.
Sorry to go on and rant so much, but this suggestion was so absurd that it deserves extensive mockery.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2009 @ 10:21pm
Oh, one other thing. They actually say that not being elected to a position is a disadvantage to a Supreme Court judge. Maybe civics isn't crucial for writing these editorials, but the whole point of being a Supreme Court justice is that we don't WANT you to be a political actor. You're supposed to be (as much as possible, though I realize this can't be achieved perfectly or anything close to perfectively) an apolitical actor. Absent that, judicial review can't be squared with democratic theory.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2009 @ 10:24pm
I think a big indicator of where the party is at is the fact that a Republican Senator insinuated that the swine flu is the fault of Obama and Democrats in general by saying with certain implied wink that the last time the swine flu happened was under a Democrat as well(which isn't true it was under Gerald Ford). Now I know there are kookie Democrats blaming this stuff on Republicans as well, but they aren't SENATORS. The Republican party, not the general conservative base but the party itself, is desperate to legitimize itself and right now is willing to use fear and lies because nothing else is working. We will see what happens.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/05/2009 @ 12:59am
Sure the world doesn;t hate us anymore, we are now the world's most powerful doormat, because Chavez, Castro, Kim Jong Il and Ahmedenijad likes us now.
How Quaint.
Posted by apoorspic at 05/04/2009 @ 9:47pm
What would we do if the world didn't Hate and Fear us anymore? We can't have that, can we? What would happen to Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater, General Dynamics, Locheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon, Litton Industries, General Electric, Dick Cheney and the DOD itself!
Christ almighty! We might even have some Peace in the World.
Posted by chaoszen at 05/05/2009 @ 07:15am
Posted by Thrawn at 05/04/2009 @ 10:21pm
"Must judges be trained as lawyers in order to be effective in office, or can nonlawyers serve equally well? This question has long provoked controversy among lawyers, judges, legislators, and the public. In her empirical study of the place of the nonlawyer judge in the American legal system, Doris Marie Provine concludes that, despite the opposition of the legal profession to nonlawyer judges, they are as competent as lawyers in carrying out judicial duties in courts of limited jurisdiction.
Provine presents a persuasive argument that the case against nonlawyer judges has been weighted in favor of the professional interests of lawyers, not public concerns. Her examination reveals as much about the presuppositions of legal professionals as it does about the competency of nonlawyer judges to old judicial office. To substantiate her claims, Provine has conducted the most comprehensive survey of nonlawyer and lawyer judges yet undertaken, augmenting this material with court observations and extensive interviews of judges. She integrates the results of this survey into the historical context of the lay versus lawyer judge debate, showing how the legally trained judge came to predominate in the American judicial system and analyzing in detail the campaign both in and out of the courts to make legal training a prerequisite for being a judge. Ultimately, Provine suggests, Americans are too committed to the significance of credentials and to the legal profession's vision of the judicial process to respond very favorably to nonlawyer judges, however well they might perform.
Judging Credentials will force lawyers, judges, scholars, and the public to reconsider the role nonlawyer judges play in the American judicial system."
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/05/2009 @ 08:40am
'...Simes suggests that Obama is a kind of blank slate with little or no track record...' -- Robert Dreyfuss -- The Nation 2 July, 2008
'In a wide-ranging interview with Charlie Rose, [Bill] Clinton suggested Obama was ... inexperienced...' -- Ari Melber -- The Nation -- 15 December, 2007
'Because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know. If I help Obama, he's gonna help me.' -- Peggy Joseph -- Sarasota, Florida -- November, 2008
'As we begin our fourth century as a nation, it is easy to take the extraordinary nature of America for granted.' -- Barack Obama -- 30 June, 2008
Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/05/2009 @ 09:01am
General Jack Ripper?
Major T.J. Kong?
and "But there is another world where all of our desires, be they sleeping with 72 virgins or living tax-free, will be fulfilled, and heavenly justice will prevail."
Hmmmmmm, that's sounds awfully familiar....doesn't it, Larry?
LOL
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 10:18am
I love the way both sides claim Colbert. The man is a genius! I did however see those tears on election night, and although he could, and probably has, claimed they were tears of sadness because his guy lost, the sigh of relief with it spoke volumes. Then again.......
Posted by Carolsthought at 05/05/2009 @ 10:53am
Posted by Carolsthought at 05/05/2009 @ 10:53am |
Colbert isn't the best satire of the Right.....Michael "Savage" Weiner is. (He just doesn't know it...maybe.)
Weiner's latest? Autism isn't real.
Seriously, he's claiming that it's just "kids being brats".
Colbert couldn't touch that...it'd be TOO unrealistic!...LOL
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 11:19am
I am very glad to see the Republicans flailing. But right-wing pundits were making exactly these sorts of remarks about progressive Democrats less than a decade ago ("permanent Republican majority," and all that). It proved woefully shortsighted. But that only goes to suggest that if things take a turn for the worse economically (and, n.b., where the banks are concerned Obama's policies are, alas, well-nigh indistinguishable from those of his predecessor), the Republican noise machine might well whip up significant public support.
Remember, after the Beer Hall Putsch, the Nazis were a joke, too.
Posted by iamcfar at 05/05/2009 @ 11:43am
"Christ almighty! We might even have some Peace in the World."
Posted by chaoszen at 05/05/2009 @ 07:15am
Not if India, Pakistan and the Taliban get into it.
Posted by ACook at 05/05/2009 @ 11:58am
amen, "mask" and right along side of him is Rush explaining Parkinsons.
Posted by Carolsthought at 05/05/2009 @ 12:02pm
Posted by Carolsthought at 05/05/2009 @ 12:02pm
Disease has a liberal bias!
(Now THAT Colbert could try...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 12:08pm
The GOP are whacked (except for Ron Paul that is) but no I do feel safer under Geroge Bush 3rd, er I mean Obama. And why should I? All he is doing is carrying out W.'s mess. He has not repealed the Patriot Act nor the FISA Bill, so we Americans are still under surveillance by our Government. He has not and it doesn't look like he is going to be withdrawing the troops from Iraq and the ones he does withdraw are only going to be sent to Afghanistan and then to Pakistan, and these are slotted as indefinite wars. Remember during the primaries, McCain's Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran, song and dance he did, well Obama seems to be listening to the same tune, just not quite Iran, yet. Let's see, Obama has also been siding with Zionist Israel, by being the "black" president to boycott the Conference on Racism. Oh and let's not forget about the Financial Hi-Jacking of our government as Obama and his little minions Tim Geithner and Larry Summers hand over our finances to the Rich And Powerful Banskter Elites and Complete Control of Our Government to the (not-So-Federal) "federal" reserve. Oh I do NOT feel any safer and nor should you. Obama is making this country just as scary as W. left it. The true answer is not the Republican Party, nor the Democrats, the True answer is going to lie within the Third Parties of this Nation rising up to give real choice and real change to Americans!
Posted by kristofeR! at 05/05/2009 @ 12:52pm
Wow, one of the most successful 100 days in presidential history and critiqued for not doing EVERYTHING already!
One tuff crowd.
So if Obama gets around to most of the other stuff in the next 100-300 days, will your tune change?
Or will there be new stuff on a growing list?
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/05/2009 @ 1:41pm
"Actually, we do feel safer, most people would say. The world doesn't hate us quite as much now that a president is offering a handshake instead of the finger".
I'm glad you "feel" safer. That's really important. And that "world" you describe that hated us so much? It is simply your fellow liberals in the world that "hated" us.
You fall victim to the deception that there is a divide in our country. That perceived divide is designed to neutralize us and leave us powerless against the true forces that created the GWOT and the current financial crisis.
And by citing the psychological bent of your opposition, you are no different than Michael Savage.
But hey, as long as you're with the cool kids, life's good for you. No need for the truth.
Posted by freiheit1 at 05/05/2009 @ 1:44pm
That perceived divide is designed to neutralize us and leave us powerless against the true forces that created the GWOT and the current financial crisis.----Posted by freiheit1 at 05/05/2009 @ 1:44pm
What is...the Federal Reserve Board, Alex?
I'll have "Sinister World-wide Conspiracies" for $600, please.
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 2:18pm
<i>Posted by hsuBfools at 05/05/2009 @ 08:40am </i>
Could you link me to that study, please? I haven't seen anything thus far that actually represents an argument, and certainly nothing that even comes close to responding to the arguments I've presented thus far. Having someone with no legal experience on the Supreme Court is a terrible idea (ESPECIALLY someone with an exclusively political background).
The Supreme Court (and the judiciary branch as a whole) is meant specifically to be a legal entity. Its job is to apply the law as it exists to the cases that come before it. This requires two types of skills that law school is specifically intended to engender. The first is the capacity to "think like a lawyer." This doesn't just involve case-based reasoning; it involves the ability to immerse yourself in the law and make that your criteria for adjudicating decisions. Absent that framework (though, granted, law school doesn't always instill it), it becomes extremely easy to inject your own vision for society into your decisions.
The second type of skill is a knowledge of the law itself. This is perhaps the more obvious difference. Law school doesn't just exist for funsies; part of its function is to convey a broad knowledge of how the law works and what categories and terminology underlie different areas of the law.
Here's the other problem, though, putting the paper aside. The article about Gore wasn't just talking about putting someone on a court who had never been a lawyer. It was talking about putting someone on the Supreme Court who had never served ANY role in the legal profession. That's nuts; experience matters, and Gore wouldn't even have a Cabinet to counteract lack of experience. He's on his own, in the court of last resort. Terrible idea.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/05/2009 @ 2:47pm
Its job is to apply the law as it exists to the cases that come before it.---Posted by Thrawn at 05/05/2009 @ 2:47pm
Doesn't it also have the right to original jurisdiction?
Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 3:11pm
According to New York's 2006 report on these courts, 72% of the nearly 2000 Town and Village Court judges are nonlawyers. 75
The Town and Village Courts are New York's "most numerous and diverse trial courts, [l]ocated in all 57 counties outside New York City"76 and provide "accessible venues to resolve criminal and civil disputes pursuant to State law:"77
[They] enjoy the same criminal jurisdiction as any other "local criminal court," including the Criminal Court of the City of New York, the City Courts outside New York City and the District Courts of Nassau and western Suffolk Counties on Long Island. By investing in them such broad criminal jurisdiction, the Legislature empowered the [courts] to arraign all crimes (including the most serious felonies) allegedly committed in the locality, and to adjudicate misdemeanors, traffic infractions and other violations.78
Although the New York Times series is about "the lowest tier in New York's state system," the situation is not anomalous: it is "a tier that is replicated in many other states of the country." 79 Non-lawyer judges reportedly serve in many states besides New York.80
http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr43-2/CR%2043-2Greene.pdf
And here are others:
http://tinyurl.com/cgkeyg
http://tinyurl.com/dzg6ga
http://www.caught.net/prose/lawjud.htm
http://www.legalreform-now.org/menu2_2.htm
http://tinyurl.com/cd7jaz
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/05/2009 @ 5:28pm
I comment on CARE 2 the number reported is over 9 million members. And guess what they are all rooting for us to take the lead and take back our Rich and Abundant America. They have not been inane to the political games played and being played today by the last bastion of hope for the dying in the streets Bilderbergs.
We some times seem to forget that all mankind are born with a conscience. They may not speak out but that is not to say that they do not know the truth. But what we in America today portray for the rest of the World to see is HOPE. In WWII all greeted my dad and some other men that had served to set the world free from tyranny when they came ashore, not as some one to be feared but to be lifted up as men who took their life in their hands to set the captives free. Now those brave men that fought and some died set a standard for us VERY HIGH and we cannot let them down.
We The Peoples Advocates WTPA are providing the only HOPE in saving our great nation. So JOIN IN and ENLIST to serve with your VOICES being heard and your VOTES being counted and moved along to our lobby group in Washington DC to power push the peoples needs, wants and wishes in our cities, states and Federal Governments so that each one of us would have rights to life in all ways of equity in acts of Justice. Info contact Dwight Baker Dbaker007@stx.rr.com
Posted by DWIGHTBAKER at 05/05/2009 @ 5:32pm
Here we go again:
"Here we go again Here we go again and again Wondering how it all began Wondering will it ever end
Round and round we go Where it's going nobody knows Though I know we've been This place before Someone keeps on moving the door" - J. Lennon
Posted by Scott_ffolliott at 05/05/2009 @ 5:44pm
Republicans wanted less spending? Where? Aren't they whining about BHO "slashing the military" - and of course they want more people in jail [military and prison spending fairies?]. Sadly BHO is NOT cutting out of Iraq or Afghanistan - where we absolutely don't belong and that do not help our real defense needs. He is upping the ante in the drug war induced Mexican border gang wars and has surrogates suggesting gun controls as the solution to the crime and violence caused by our drug prohibition without any measurable standards. There is a lot that it wrong with big government. The Democrats want to keep most of that intact. But don't call me a purity Democrat; I left them after they nominated Clinton.
Posted by rimchamp77 at 05/05/2009 @ 8:44pm
My father is one of many Bush voters who has stepped into Beck's crazyland. The same people who allowed themselves to be scared into submission and to accept the paranoid delusions of forgiveness. These are the same people who thought Clinton should be run out of town on a rail for a cheesy affair, but think it is A-OK to start a horrific war and bankrupt our country without a blink of an eye. The Republicans are truly lost, a bankrupt Party with no ideas or moral backing.
Posted by P.D. at 05/05/2009 @ 10:13pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/04/2009 @ 9:58pm:
I never much cared if the "world" loved us or not. We have friends and we have enemies. I would prefer to keep that fat tick Chavez or Castro or that whack job in Iran and other such vermin, enemies.
I find it humorus how you seem to salivate over your polls as if they are cast in granite. When we see 10-10-10 + (% unemployment, interest rates, inflation rate), not to mention a high tax rate, your granite may develop some cracks, oh say around 2010 or 2012....
Posted by pyeatte at 05/05/2009 @ 11:16pm
Yep, apparently for new cons, a past or future fantasy will always --always -- be preferable to the current reality, as they can't see themselves having their heads stuff into one and others new con butts; thinking merely it's the thing to do in their always sunny at the end, butt sandy new con paradise....
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/06/2009 @ 01:00am
Perhaps there's another underlying and deep rooted reason most new con repubs won't embrace science or evolution-- they're simply not meant to-- evolve...!
Wouldn't it all make sense and ease a ton of tension all 'round if we all just accepted that as fact and let new con repubs devolve into oblivion?
Is there really a choice?
There is a god after all!
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/06/2009 @ 01:21am
What type of person keeps wanting the same policy over and over again that fails? An insane Republican, that's who!
First of all, I'm tired of people assuming us liberals are soft on economic theory, or that we are just giving money away.
It's time I clarify some things for you people:
1. Tax cuts cost money too. Republicans seem to forget this. It's basically a question of tax cuts=lost revenues down the road, or govt spending=immediate, tangible uses. Either way, it costs the same dollar for dollar.
2. We had no other option folks. Did you realize that interest rates cannot really be cut much more? Or that the wealthy currently pay only 10% income taxes on average anyway due to loopholes in our system?
3. We TRIED giving the uber wealthy tax cuts under Bush. How did that work out?
4. Since the population does not have the purse strings to stimulate the economy anymore, what's left? Govt spends.
Posted by sciencerulestheology at 05/06/2009 @ 04:02am
The current crop of GOPers and their new little council are nothing more than the flying monkeys of Rush Limbaugh. "Fly my little pretties, fly!"
Posted by Greytdog at 05/06/2009 @ 06:36am
Posted by P.D. at 05/05/2009 @ 10:13pm
You might notice that Beck is now rapidly DISTANCING himself from Bush and his previous support for the Iraq War....
though still a Republican stooge (despite denials), Glenn realizes that he'll get nowhere to keep supporting Dubya. Really the same for Limbaugh, who pretends (on most issues) that Bush was never even President...straight from Clinton into Obama. LOL
Posted by Mask at 05/06/2009 @ 09:00am
Posted by snowball666 at 05/06/2009 @ 09:42am
Who is Phil "This is a mental recession and you're all a bunch of whiners" Gramm?
Posted by Mask at 05/06/2009 @ 10:49am
Posted by Mask at 05/06/2009 @ 10:49am
For every post Republicans make on the economy here that should be the reply.
Posted by !immutable at 05/06/2009 @ 11:35am
"Sure the world doesn;t hate us anymore, we are now the world's most powerful doormat, because Chavez, Castro, Kim Jong Il and Ahmedenijad likes us now."
Posted by apoorEXCUSE... at 05/04/2009 @ 9:47pm
What A-POOR-EXCUSE-FOR-[FILL-IN-THE-BLANK] really means but for the thick haze of rightwing ideology that garbles his verbal output:
"Sure the world doesn't hate us anymore, we are now the world's most powerful doormat, because FOR A FEW YEARS, GEORGE W LOSER PUT THE "KICK US IN THE ASS! HARD!!! SIGN ON OUR BACK, THEN WENT TO PLAY GOLF IN VACATIONLAND AND FOR PHOTO-OPS AFTER THE TICKING BOMB AUGUST 6 BIN LADEN BREIF WAS HANDED TO HIM...AND THE FOLLOWED IT ALL UP WITH SOME HEARTY ROUNDS OF "YO' PRINCE BANDAR, LET'S HOLD HANDS...SWEATILY! ALLAH AKBAR TO YOU TOO, MY PRINCE!""
Clears that up.
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/06/2009 @ 11:40am
ANTISOCIAL, aka "The Very Angry Reverand Larry", has emerged from the bunker to defy the swarming Black Helicopters from ACORN platoon and exhibit some more of his usual symptoms:
"A study of data from 322 people. We don't know the data behind it; what the sample consisted of; or the actual questions.
From this, leftists make the definitive conclusion on Colbert and conservatives. Just think what other lies and deceptions they utilize to promote their marxist agenda"
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 09:04am
Could we re-frame this some? F'r instance...
"A study of data ON THE TOWN OF BEERFART, NEBRASKA WITH 322 people THAT WAS PETITIONED FOR A NOD TO JEWISH HOLIDAYS IN THE TOWN SQUARE. From this, RIGHTISTS make the definitive conclusion ON THE WAR ON CHRISTAMAS, WRITE RAPIDLY ANGRY PSUEDO-BOOKS ABOUT IT, AND HYPERVENTILATE ALL OVER THE AIRWAVES. Just think what other lies and deceptions they utilize to promote their HYSTERICALLY INFERIOR RIGHTWING agenda"
---Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 09:04am
..or maybe...
"A study of data from A CLIMATE CHANGE FREAK DENIALIST WITH NO DOCTORATE (FUCK, NO NOBEL) IN EARTH SCIENCES-BUT WITH A VERY ACTIVE AND ATTRACTIVELY DESIGNED BLOG THAT LINKS TO J.INHOFE. We don't know the data behind it; what the sample consisted of; or the actual questions.
From this, RIGHTITS make the definitive conclusion on CARBON PARTS PER MILLION, CARBON SINKS, ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENT COSTS VERSUS THE "BUSINESS AS USUAL" SCENARIO, THE COURSE OF THE NEXT 100 YEARS AND SO ON. Just think what other lies and deceptions they utilize to promote their "WE'RE EMBITTERED, ANGRY OLD HAS-BENN/NEVER WERE MEN WHO WANT TO KILL 'EM ALL" RIGHTWING agenda."
---Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 09:04am
Yup, The Rev said it...
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/06/2009 @ 11:58am
Recently ANTISOCIAL and the (disgusting even to imagine what he might look like) DARIN were nuzzling each other shamelessly about how badly they still want to go down on Reagan. All this, years after that hapless case finally shit-the-bed and croaked.
Let's hope they keep up the 1980s nostalgia for another several decades! Reagan has not run or won an election in the USA since...1984, a quarter century ago. One of the ten generations that have made America since it became a Republic has emerged since Reagan's last campaign. No one born after 1966 was even old enough to vote in the RWR era--a cohort that comprises more than 1/2 the US pop.
Sid Blumenthal said it well the week Obama won:
"McCain desperately elevated Joe the Plumber as the voice of the people against Obama's "socialism". Joe was a ghost of Republican campaigns past, the stalwart member of Nixon's "silent majority", the "Reagan Democrat". But the symbol was an atavism; the reality was a guy on the make seeking to own a business and avoid taxes. Once the spotlight focused on him, he hired an agent to hustle commercial endorsements and a book deal. Just as McCain's campaign has been an extended seance trying to call forth Reagan, he found himself at a rally summoning Joe the Plumber, who wasn't there. "You're all Joe the Plumber!" yelled McCain in frustration.
McCain long despised Bush, then embraced him and, by the campaign's end, condemned him. One thing he has not done is to reflect on his own incoherence and whether it represents more than the vicissitudes of ambition. Bush, too, envisioned himself as Reagan's true son. In his campaign McCain has acted as though he had only to repeat magical phrases and symbols that lifted Republicans into the White House to restore the natural order."
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 05/06/2009 @ 12:12pm
<i>Posted by Mask at 05/05/2009 @ 3:11pm </i>
Yeah, in a very small set of cases, but even in those cases it isn't meant to be a forum to decide what society ought be like.
<i>Posted by hsuBfools at 05/05/2009 @ 5:28pm </i>
This is wholly irrelevant. The fact that some states do this doesn't mean it's a good idea. Many states also elect judges, which is spectacularly dumb.
Give me an argument, and here rather than by simply a website proxy, why you think this is good, and especially why we should want a former politician and non-lawyer on the Supreme Court. Should a non-doctor be chosen for Surgeon General?
Posted by Thrawn at 05/06/2009 @ 1:37pm
The flag to which you refer in Paragraph 5 is probably not the "Stars and Bars," which has 3 broad horizontal stripes (red, white, red) and a blue field with a circle of white stars (ranging from 7 to 13, depending on the date of the flag.) The flag to which you refer is probably the "Southern Cross," which in various forms was used as a battle flag and navy ensign, and is the flag most often used as a modern racist rallying flag.
Posted by budnbess at 05/06/2009 @ 2:04pm
A study of data from 322 people. We don't know the data behind it; what the sample consisted of; or the actual questions.
Posted by antisocialist at 05/04/2009 @ 09:04am
Since not everyone may have ready access to "The International Journal of Press/Politics," I'll summarize here. The 322 participants in the study were students enrolled in several large undergraduate communications courses at a "large midwestern university" (unnamed, but likely Ohio State University, where the authors work). The demographics were 58% female and 42% male; 85% white with roughly 5% each for black, Asian, and other; age range 18 to 40, with 21 the average; party self-identification: 15.1% Democrat, 13.8% Republican, 68.3% independent. The average ideological self-identification (with the choices being Very Liberal, Liberal, Somewhat Liberal, Moderate, Somewhat Conservative, Conservative, and Very Conservative, with the choices numbered 1-7) was 3.68, that is, between Moderate and Somewhat Liberal, but slightly closer to Moderate. The participants watched a video clip of Colbert interviewing Amy Goodman, and then were asked a series of questions and asked to respond with "Strongly Agree," "Agree," "Feel Neutral About," "Disagree," or "Strongly Disagree." The questions included things like "In the video clip Colbert means what he says about groups like Democracy Now," "Stephen Colbert is socially conservative," "Stephen Colbert personally agrees with liberal opinions and ideas like those offered by his guest," and "I thought Colbert was funny in the video clip."
Posted by richcarl at 05/06/2009 @ 2:10pm
This is wholly irrelevant. The fact that some states do this doesn't mean it's a good idea. Many states also elect judges, which is spectacularly dumb.
(I'm sure you'd rather be deft than daft? The studies cited, if you bothered to read any, state that apart from many states having nonlawyer judges, a large percentage are rated successful judges. So is your contention that successful judges are a dumb idea? Now that 'is' really Thrawndumb. And yes, you guessed it-- there are more bad lawyer judges than nonlawyer judges.)
Give me an argument, and here rather than by simply a website proxy,
(And I quote "Could you link me to that study, please?..."Posted by Thrawn at 05/05/2009 @ 2:47pm)
why you think this is good, and especially why we should want a former politician and non-lawyer on the Supreme Court. Should a non-doctor be chosen for Surgeon General?
(Again if you bothered to read the studies you asked for explaining the other side of the lawyer lobby and control of the purse strings-- you'd stop sounding enamored of your own rhetorical ignorance-argument.)
Posted by Thrawn at 05/06/2009 @ 1:37pm
And apparently why new con repubs are destined for extinction, can't accept reality outside the confines of their own insulated declarations. Then finally, owning their circular dementia, they spiral ever smaller and smaller.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/06/2009 @ 5:03pm
Simply-- pearls to swine.
Posted by hsuBfools at 05/06/2009 @ 5:09pm
<i>Posted by hsuBfools at 05/06/2009 @ 5:03pm </i>
Rated successful judges by whom? I'm directly answering the theoretical argument that's been raised by pointing out that law school conveys specific knowledge about the law that you don't get outside of it. I would, for instance, invite any non-lawyer to explain to me the intricacies of personal and subject-matter jurisdiction.
Also...is there no AMA lobby?
<i>Posted by hsuBfools at 05/05/2009 @ 5:28pm </i>
The study you cite on this post actually devastates your own argument. When the study delves into the case of New York City courts, along with non-lawyer judges in general, the study (while conceding that lawyer judges aren't perfect) clearly argues that non-lawyer judges are problematic. Here is a particularly juicy quote:
<<As Judge Kaye noted, "‘a lay person, regardless of his educational qualifications or experience, is not a constitutionally acceptable substitute for a member of the Bar.'">>
And this one:
<<Furthermore, the Town and Village Report's complimentary statements are self-contradictory, as the report itself recognizes the importance of legal education for judges to enable them to do their jobs. As the report notes, "there is nearly unanimous agreement that the unique education that law school provides can empower judges to discern, apply and shape the law in ways that non-attorneys can find difficult, if not impossible.">>
The impact of all this analysis is that people before these judges are, for all intents and purposes, deprived of due process of law because the judges don't understand the intricacies of the law that any judge should need to know.
The very first study you cite devastates your argument for the exact theoretical reasons I've outlined.
Posted by Thrawn at 05/06/2009 @ 10:33pm
Good grief. I am picturing Dick Cheney going down on the bomb. The whole party is cheering him on.
Posted by misskaren at 05/06/2009 @ 11:26pm
Peoples desire for a one party country creeps me out. Sounds like a dictatorship.
Posted by oldtinker at 05/07/2009 @ 08:30am
Not too sure myself non-lawyer judiciary members would be a good idea.
But, just throwing it out there--people have passed the bar without going to law school ( I believe FDR was one, I may be wrong, and that prick Roy Cohn admitted he basically bought his notes to get through law school.)
In contrast, any neurosurgeons out there, you think, who could pass their certifications without the attendant schooling?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/07/2009 @ 9:02pm
Go Red Wings.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/07/2009 @ 9:13pm
"She passed the bar without law school"
Saturday, September 2, 2006 at 12:30 am
Carolyn Strozier Seklii, who grew up in Savannah, passed the Virginia State Bar exam last spring and was sworn in this summer as an attorney at the Supreme Court in Richmond.
Carolyn Strozier Seklii, who grew up in Savannah, passed the Virginia State Bar exam last spring and was sworn in this summer as an attorney at the Supreme Court in Richmond.
And what's so outstanding about that?
Carolyn, a 45-year-old divorced mom of two teenagers, did not attend law school. Instead, she enrolled in Virginia's law-reader program, an alternative to law school.
"I was the only law reader sworn in (of more than 300 who were in the crowd that day in Richmond)," said Carolyn, who is the daughter of Bob and Helen Strozier of Savannah.
But, she added, she could not have accomplished the task without the support of her co-workers and her colleagues in the legal community, especially former Deputy Commonwealth's District Attorney Stuart Sullivan, with whom she worked.
For three years she studied about 18 hours a week, in addition to having a full-time job as director of Victim-Witness Assistance
Savannah Morning News, September 2, 2006
Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/07/2009 @ 9:30pm