Michelle Malkin » Obama’s choices: Gird your loins

Obama’s choices: Gird your loins

By Michelle Malkin • May 1, 2009 09:13 AM

Conservatives in Washington are gearing up for the SCOTUS battle. My legal sources have compiled sketches of Obama’s top three likely picks and their records. Gird your loins:

Elena Kagan

“Dean Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be concerning given her complete lack of judicial or appellate experience. She has never been a judge or even argued a case in a court of appeals. It is difficult to see how her experience fundraising for Harvard Law School qualifies her for a seat on the Nation’s high court.

-Dean Kagan has taken positions that are disturbingly out of the mainstream. For example, driven by her view that the “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy adopted by a Democrat Congress and President Clinton is “a profound wrong–a moral injustice of the first order,” she argued that it violates the First Amendment for the United States to withhold funds from colleges that ban the military from recruiting on campus. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected this view.

-It is also unclear that a Justice Kagan would be an adequately independent check on executive excesses. She has argued in favor of greatly enhanced presidential control over the bureaucracy, which is concerning in light of President Obama’s unprecedented centralization of power in the White House.

-Dean Kagan has argued that nominees to the Supreme Court should undergo a searching inquiry into the nominee’s substantive views of the law, and should comment particular issues. If nominated, it will be interesting to see whether Dean Kagan remains faithful to this prescription in answering the Committee’s questions.”

Sonia Sotomayor

“Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be very concerning given her hard-left record on the Court of Appeals, where she is recognized by practitioners as one of the more liberal judges.

-Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decisionmaking, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”

-Only just recently, in Ricci v. DeStefano, Judge Sotomayor was chastised by fellow Clinton-appointee Jose Cabranes for going to extraordinary lengths to dispense with claims of unfair treatment raised by firefighters. Judge Sotomayor’s panel heard a case raising important questions under Title VII and equal protection law, but attempted to dispose of the firefighter’s arguments in a summary order, until called out by Judge Cabranes. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case.

-Substantial questions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor’s temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a “bully” who “does not have a very good temperament,” and who “abuses lawyers” with “inappropriate outbursts.”

Diane Wood

-If nominated to the Supreme Court, Judge Wood will have some substantial questions to answer regarding her judicial philosophy based on her work as a circuit court judge.

Judge Wood’s judicial views have on occasion been far outside mainstream legal thought and appear driven by her personal policy views. In NOW v. Scheidler, she wrote an opinion applying RICO – a statute designed for mob prosecutions – to prevent pro-life activists from engaging in protests. The Supreme Court reversed with Justices Ginsburg’s and Breyer’s concurrence. NOW v. Scheidler, 537 U.S. 393, 402 (2003).

-Judge Wood has betrayed a consistent hostility to religious litigants and religious interests. For example, Christian Legal Soc’y v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853, 867 (7th Cir. 2006), she would have voted to allow a public university to revoke the student organization charter of the Christian Legal Society because it declined to extend membership to homosexuals.

She also authored an opinion refusing to allow prisons to require inmate participation in drug rehabilitation programs that used “explicit religious content,” even where such programs were the only ones available, effectively allowing inmates to refuse treatment entirely. Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472 (7th Cir. 1996).”

***

Ed Morrissey: “After the dust settles, the court will be in exactly the same position as it is now, but in the meantime the GOP will have had an opportunity to show Obama as no post-partisan moderate but as a liberal idealogue. Elections do have consequences — and so do appointments.”

Indeed.

William Jacobson in the Green Room: “…ironically, Specter’s defection may give Republicans the ability to filibuster judicial nominees at the Judiciary Committee level, so the nominees never get out of committee.”

Posted in: Supreme Court

Printer Friendly

comments (199)

trackbacks (55)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#693220

On May 3rd, 2009 at 1:02 am, Ragspierre said:

It is certain that Romney would have done the same thing as Obama which is to continue the bank bailouts that Bush started. There is nothing that Obama has done, other than the Chrysler negotiations, that is different.

“The best stimulus with the highest multiplier effect is one which gives money back to people rather than having government spend more, and so I think they got it wrong. It’s too much weighted toward spending, too little weighted toward tax reductions,” Romney said.

I think what’s certain is you are off your meds again, PP.

Maybe you should stop spending time at sites like Think Progress and MoveOn.org.

That crap will rot your brain.
#693222

On May 3rd, 2009 at 1:10 am, Ragspierre said:

Despite the frequent claims to the contrary here, Clinton was the most pro-business president in our lifetime. He was also a fiscal moderate and his first budget in 1993 (rejected by Congress on arrival) was the model for Gingrich’s Contract with America.

PP, baby boy, there are a LOT of us with memories that go past Billery.

I think that your statements in your last several posts tell us VOLUMES about you.

I seem to recall that Clinton locked up the NW US for years, prohibiting logging.

I seem to recall that Clinton stole millions of acres of land from the Western states, and put them into the Federal pocket.

I seem to recall that Reno, under Clinton, mau-maued banks and other lenders into making housing loans that fiscal common sense said no one in their right minds should make.

I COULD go on, but it’s just too damn depressing.

You have seriously undercut your own credibility here, boy.
#693225

On May 3rd, 2009 at 1:23 am, Ragspierre said:

First, illegal immigration should be eliminated by securing the border, creating an immigration identification card, and establishing an employment verification system and penalties for noncompliance. Those who have come here illegally should be able to apply for residency, but their application should be given no advantage relative to those who have remained in their home countries.

Second, the legal immigration process should be simplified, and our immigration policies should favor applicants with skills and education. I oppose the McCain-Kennedy bill because it allows virtually all illegal immigrants to permanently remain in the United States.

PP, if you have issues with that statement…

support them.

Don’t just ignore them, or attack the man with bunch of name-calling.

And, forgive me, but I was absent the day they passed out the decoder rings.

Comprehensive isn’t a dirty word to me, though it can be in the context of its use by liberals.

Sometimes, it just means…I dunno…

comprehensive.

Kinda like “top to bottom”.
#693281

On May 3rd, 2009 at 10:20 am, Ragspierre said:

WASHINGTON – Wall Street is not going to play as dominant a role in the economy as regulations reduce “some of the massive leveraging and the massive risk-taking that had become so common,” President Barack Obama says.

The changes in the role of Wall Street and the huge profits that came from that risk-taking could mean other adjustments as well, Obama said in an interview in this week’s New York Times Magazine.

“That means that more talent, more resources will be going to other sectors of the economy,” he said. “I actually think that’s healthy. We don’t want every single college grad with mathematical aptitude to become a derivatives trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, and we want some of them to be going into computer design.”

The Obama administration is trying to restore more regulations on the financial sector to avoid some of the risk-taking that helped cause the current economic problems.

“Wall Street will remain a big, important part of our economy, just as it was in the ’70s and the ’80s,” he said. “It just won’t be half of our economy.”

This guy is a BOOB. A yutz. A babe-in-the-woods. An ignoramus. AND…

he doesn’t know ANYthing about what he’s saying…
#693288

On May 3rd, 2009 at 11:18 am, Pasadena Phil said:

Rags: we disagree alright? You look at the inkblot and see what you want to see. Fine. Since when do you take ANY politician at their word? Good luck with that.
#693289

On May 3rd, 2009 at 11:27 am, Ragspierre said:

Since when do you take ANY politician at their word? Good luck with that.

Thanks. It has worked every time I’ve tried it, BTW.

See, if we listen to ALL they say (and I include what they do, because that speaks loudest), they WILL tell us who they are and what they intend.

That, I find, is both a more reliable and more fair approach than listening to what others have said they said.

I wish that every American had listened carefully to all that Obama said about his beliefs and intentions, and not what others said he said.

If they had, our nation would be in much less danger than it is now.
#693290

On May 3rd, 2009 at 11:36 am, Pasadena Phil said:

On May 3rd, 2009 at 11:27 am, Ragspierre said:

Since when do you take ANY politician at their word? Good luck with that.

Thanks. It has worked every time I’ve tried it, BTW.

I rest my case! You are a RUBE! You take politicians at their word, you arbitrarily manipulate these discussions based on your set of “facts”, only sources that you approve of can be included, and when your arguments fall apart, you wait a day or do and go back to a thread to accuse me of lying.

You really are a pile.
#693292

On May 3rd, 2009 at 11:43 am, Ragspierre said:

Take a deep breath, PP.

Now, reading what Romney actually has said on immigration policy…(see above)…and not what somebody (especially a LEFTIST blog)…has said he said…

Please take a few minutes to rationally explain what Mitt said that you find wrong, dangerous, deplorable, etc.

Come on…give it a try.
#693297

On May 3rd, 2009 at 11:58 am, happyscrapper said:

On May 3rd, 2009 at 10:20 am, Ragspierre said:
WASHINGTON – Wall Street is not going to play as dominant a role in the economy as regulations reduce “some of the massive leveraging and the massive risk-taking that had become so common,” President Barack Obama says.

Obama is the most dangerous man on the planet, and the most powerful. You don’t need a crystal ball to figure out what is ahead for this country. Unless he is ousted from office and tried for treason, we are on our way to becoming like Venezuela. You can take THAT to the government-owned bank.
#693299

On May 3rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm, Ragspierre said:

I’d settle for the ousting part.

Even that could lead to massive “civil disorder”.
#693304

On May 3rd, 2009 at 12:14 pm, happyscrapper said:

On May 3rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm, Ragspierre said:
I’d settle for the ousting part.

Even that could lead to massive “civil disorder”.

I checked in with Drudge this a.m. and there was an article about how Simon Cowell and the producers of American Idol are trying to get Obama to make an appearance. It is interesting to read the (0ver 900 so far) comments…all that I have read are totally against that and really do not like Obama at all! There are even some posts by dems who express regret that they voted for him. I was encouraged by those posts. I even posted a couple comments under my happyscrapper name. The tide is turning. Now, if Obama hasn’t entrenched his goons in too deeply, we might have a chance without violence. Otherwise…I just don’t know what is going to happen, but it won’t be pretty.
#693309

On May 3rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm, happyscrapper said:

By the way, if Obama appears on American Idol, that will be another show I will boycott. Sad, because I really enjoy that show. But, like Jay Leno, the liberals are continuing to shoot themselves in the foot by showing their bias on their TV shows. I used to watch Leno faithfully. But I don’t even find him remotely funny any more now that I have heard some of his disgusting “jokes” against conservatives. Having Obama on Idol would be a HUGE mistake for Cowell. His ratings would drop dramatically.
#693310

On May 3rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm, Pasadena Phil said:

Rags: Let me clue you in on politics. Politicians will say ANYTHING to get elected. It’s what they DO that matters. You judge them by reconciling the two. Romney ran a very lame campaign last year and when people like me were in the trenches fighting the McCain-Kennedy-Bush amnesty bill, he was nowhere to be found. All of the GOP candidates except Tancredo and Hunter knuckled to McCain. Romney could have helped SHAPE the outcome and thus OWNED the issue by coming out and joining the fight. He didn’t. He cowered in the shadows during the battle and then when it was safe, he issued statements for the simple-minded and impressionable.

Successful candidates like Reagan, Clinton and Obama impose themselves on the party. They seize opportunities and change the course of events. There is a famous quote from Alexander Hamilton about that that I would look up if it mattered.

Keep looking at that inkblot kiddo. All the paths you try to lead us down end up at dead-end solutions that have zero chance of happening. You are in fact protecting the status quo by trying to derail all rational and sensible alternatives, even when they are working (Tea Party movement e.g.).

Let’s analyze your suggestions so far:

Taxpayer strike: The government will not be brought to its knees by a taxpayer strike because there will never be a taxpayer strike. (Check)

Summary executions for pirates. No prosecutions.: Neither the US nor the rest of the world will adopt a policy of summary executions of pirates because it is not warranted and we are striving for civilization, not a return to a barbaric “might makes right” world. (Check)

Judge Romney (all politicians) solely by what he says. The GOP is NOT going to be saved by a lame flip-flopper like Romney. Excellent business man, excellent manager, but a political coward. Politics is war without guns.(Check)
#693313

On May 3rd, 2009 at 1:04 pm, happyscrapper said:

“Soon you won’t be able to call me an idiot, you idiot, Obama will see to that. I am on the right side and will be protected by the State.”

“Anyone who puts our president down yes folks OUR PRESIDENT should be thrown in jail!”

These are two comments on a site about Obama appearing on American Idol. 99% of the comments are anti-obama. But these two comments show very typical thinking of people on the left! They are both from the same person, who probably wrote them from a computer in his trailer or mom’s basement. Still, this kind of thinking is dangerous to the country!
#693318

On May 3rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm, DannoJyd said:

Ragspierre, keep up the good work here. Da ObamaBots [with Soros as puppeteer] cannot be allowed to spread their lies and filth on this reputable site.
#693322

On May 3rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm, Ragspierre said:

Danno;

Thank you. I’m honored, and grateful to our worthy host for the forum.
#693328

On May 3rd, 2009 at 2:37 pm, Ragspierre said:

Keep looking at that inkblot kiddo. All the paths you try to lead us down end up at dead-end solutions that have zero chance of happening. You are in fact protecting the status quo by trying to derail all rational and sensible alternatives, even when they are working (Tea Party movement e.g.).

Let me try an analogy from physics and engineering.

Energy is a wonderful thing. It has great potential to do wondrous good or wondrous harm.

When energy is rationally understood, it can be used by the ingenuity of rational people to perform work.

The TEA Parties are like sunshine on an acre of land. They are wonderful, cheerful things to behold. There is considerable energy in them. But they, by themselves, can perform no work. They are dissipated, unfocused potential, and no more. The energy they represent will have to be converted to useful work by some means.

Contrary to what you say about me, you have shown yourself to be an utterly conventional thinker, and a rather contradictory one, at that.

Your solutions are Civics 101, without the pragmatism imposed by the last 4 DECADES of trying what you propose, and having it fail. I know. I was there. That is delusional, to my way of thinking. It may even be cowardly.

I asked you once if you would even have the patriotic guts to place a STARVE THE BEAST sticker on your car? You did not answer. Please do so now, yes or no?

I ask you now if you would have the guts and commitment to the nation to at least be part of a STARVE THE BEAST support group? Not a part of the boycott, but a support group. Yes or no, please.

Thank you for condescending to teach me about politics. I wonder what I would do without such instruction….
#693330

On May 3rd, 2009 at 2:55 pm, Ragspierre said:

Summary executions for pirates. No prosecutions.: Neither the US nor the rest of the world will adopt a policy of summary executions of pirates because it is not warranted and we are striving for civilization, not a return to a barbaric “might makes right” world. (Check)

Debating with yourself must be enormously satisfactory.

As between you and I, I’m willing to bet that I am the only one who has read the treaty that describes the “law” to which you refer (not “centuries” old, BTW…just 1/2 a century).

A couple of things stand out:

1) there is no bar on a maritime policy by the US military to fire on pirate vessels if they do anything other than immediately submit when ordered to stop and be boarded. If I were SEC NAV, I would establish a policy of firing on them for maximum effect

2) there is no bar on private vessels engaging pirates from taking whatever steps they choose, excepting an act of piracy themselves. There needs to be a Blackwater Maritime Branch. I’d be happy to submit my resume.

The hot topic among legal scholars (who tend strongly to be doctrinaire leftists) is how to shoe-horn pirates into one of the Geneva Conventions, and extend them full protection under our founding legal documents.

You compared pirates to teenage street gangs. They are dealt with exactly as you propose to deal with pirates. How is that working out in the cities and towns of America? Are they deterred?

You are a great deal more civilized than am I. People as civilized as yourself get innocent others hurt and killed. I rather advocate hurting and killing predatory people. Call me Conan. I am not nearly as “nice”.
#693331

On May 3rd, 2009 at 3:04 pm, Ragspierre said:

After I said about politicians: See, if we listen to ALL they say (and I include what they do, because that speaks loudest), they WILL tell us who they are and what they intend.

PP said my position was: Judge Romney (all politicians) solely by what he says.

and condescended to teach me this useful lesson: Let me clue you in on politics. Politicians will say ANYTHING to get elected. It’s what they DO that matters. You judge them by reconciling the two.

This is an argument for–

1) breathing between posts, and

2) actually reading what people say before touching a keyboard.

Otherwise, it CAN make you appear either foolish or dishonest…maybe both…
#693335

On May 3rd, 2009 at 3:13 pm, Ragspierre said:

Taxpayer strike: The government will not be brought to its knees by a taxpayer strike because there will never be a taxpayer strike. (Check)

PP has put himself firmly in that very large camp of people who will, without any particular reason, always say NO to any innovation.

“Nope, nope…can’t be done…foolish to try…”

It is just one of those bumps in the road you know will be there when you set out on any great endeavor.
#693344

On May 3rd, 2009 at 4:42 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

. Those who have come here illegally should be able to apply for residency, but their application should be given no advantage relative to those who have remained in their home countries.

No, they should not.

Deportation, a fine or 6 months in jail are what the law says.

Unless we change it to benefit the law breakers.
That’s what Comprehensive means to the open borders types, like McCain, Grahamnesty, and Romney (with the Guatemalan gardeners).

That’s amnesty and the 1986 amnesty got us 10 times the number of illegals. Why do something over again and expect a different result? Isn’t that insanity?
#693345

On May 3rd, 2009 at 5:02 pm, Ragspierre said:

Deportation, a fine or 6 months in jail are what the law says.

I think it also says that, unless an illegal immigrant returns home prior to being caught, they are not eligible to apply as a legal immigrant. That SHOULD be a big disincentive to coming here illegally. It clearly isn’t working to that effect, though. Should we simply continue to do what doesn’t work? Or should we recalibrate our laws and other responses?

This is one reason that a really comprehensive reform HAS to make the process of compliance (legal immigration) MUCH less bureaucratic and difficult.

If that is not done, we are looking at an impossible gradient in terms of incentives.

We DO, I think, want people who will come here according to our laws. I don’t advocate removing law as a hurdle…only making it far less an impossible, impassible obstacle.

Amnesty was an experiment that proved counter-productive. It would be foolish to repeat it. To my mind, that is off the table. But I do not think like a politician…for which I nightly give thanks!

That does not dictate that there are not other initiatives that can…should…be tried. This is not rocket science, and any model can be tested using what we know about economics, human behavior, law, and politics.

As a people, Americans are rightly revered for our innovative nature. I see no organic reason why we cannot innovate an effective response to this set of problems.
#693352

On May 3rd, 2009 at 6:13 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

It isn’t a disincentive precisely because we have shown our weakness in being unwilling to uphold our own laws. No one will take them seriously if we do not. Enforcement will work as an incentive to self deport especially if we make it clear that deportation will mean being barred entry legally.
We already take in over a million a year through the legal channels. That is more than plenty. Accomodating those who have chosen to ignore the laws with ANY form of amnesty is surrender of the rule of law and our country. Both parties are complicit, neither will stand up for the citizens.
#693358

On May 3rd, 2009 at 6:35 pm, Ragspierre said:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/nyt-calls-obamas-court-views-pragmatic

This is a must read on this thread’s topic.
#693359

On May 3rd, 2009 at 6:59 pm, Ragspierre said:

V Pat;

We share a lot of fundamental agreement.

Trouble is, we have to fight this…

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/schumer_immigration_refor/2009/05/03/210199.html?s=al&promo_code=7F0D-1

So, we need to support something that heads this off, works, and can win popular support.

Otherwise, we’re wind wiffen’, if you take my meaning.
#693366

On May 3rd, 2009 at 7:26 pm, Virginia Patriot said:

In 2005, H.R. 4437, an enforcement bill, had popular support, it is what touched off the counter-attack by the amnesty crowd first with the May Day marches and then with a ful court press of “poor immigrant” sob stories. The GOP simply folded rather than stand up, as usual. None of the propaganda is working, Americans do not want to give up the rule of law or their country, even if both parties have agreed to do so.
#693376

On May 3rd, 2009 at 8:44 pm, sonofdy said:

WAY OT but interesting. My drill weekend is ending and I got 2 bits of news.

1/ Last month they revoked my 11B mos. That pised me off. No idea why.
2/ This month they mobilized anyone with a primary, secondary or additional MOS of 11B. Why is this interesting? My unit is an 88M unit. They are mobilizing ANYONE with ANY infantry experience. WTF???

I have no idea what this means but the unit administrator said that this call up is wide spread. Anyone else hear about this???
#693384

On May 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm, lgm said:

Ragspierre said (#187):

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/nyt-calls-obamas-court-views-pragmatic

This is a must read on this thread’s topic.

I did a spot check. The thing I checked was wrong. Presumable the rest as well. It says:

Whereas once upon a time the presidency of the Harvard Law Review was handed out based upon merit, Mr. Obama was only given the position because he is black.

You follow the link to see how they support this charge. The support is:

Since there is no record of Mr. Obama’s writings apart from this just uncovered unattributed and seemingly lackluster piece, is there any doubt as to how Mr. Obama attained the position?

In other words, the blog writer didn’t like Obama’s work, so the Harvard Law School class mustn’t have liked it either. Maybe Obama was elected to Law Review the same way Bush was elected to cheer leading, by being popular.

There is no evidence of him having edited any articles that anyone can find.

This is a misunderstanding of the word “edit” in this context. The head of a professional journal, such as the Harvard Law Review” oversees the submission approval process. The people who handle individual submissions are called “editors”, though they do little editing, and none of it on the public record. What Obama was doing as head “editor” was reading submissions and deciding which were important enough to be published.
#693409

On May 3rd, 2009 at 11:03 pm, Ragspierre said:

Whoa, color me surprised!

lgm has posted a thoughtful, non-bomb-thrower post here.

Excellent!

I don’t subscribe to everything said, but neither do I subscribe to everything in the blog whose link I posted.

I think the information is good and informative, while not recommending or condemning the analysis, which is clearly the opinion of the author of that blog.

My experience with law review was that selection of the editors was very largely a popularity contest.

I know that Carol Platt Liebau (sigh), one of those RINOs (according to PP) on Townhall was a law school classmate of THE ONE, and I think was on law review with him. You can look up her opinion of him, I think.

As a trial attorney, one of the things I’ve learned in practice has been that its good to have a law review type as opposing counsel. They tend not to be very good in the trenches.

Law review is, however, an absolute mandate if you have aspirations to be a legal academic (law school professor). Most law schools will just snuff at you without that ticket being punched.

One of the huge problems with affirmative action is that you never know it someone in one of the discriminated FOR groups really has the chops, or if they just got in on some extraneous BS like their color, gender, or last name. One of the many, many reasons I admire Dr. Sowell and Dr. Williams, who did the deal solely on their merit.
#693421

On May 4th, 2009 at 1:08 am, torabora said:

“outside mainstream legal thought”

Stick it to ‘em!
#693475

On May 4th, 2009 at 9:05 am, Ragspierre said:

I’ve always considered that Obama was thoroughly radicalized from his early life on.

That really is unquestioned, if you know anything about the man and his influences.

From a legal philosophy perspective, he will use any path to get to where he wants to go, and the rule of law be damned.

I think it likely he will appoint someone like Thurgood Marshall when he gets a chance.

I recall Marshall saying near the end of his career that a black man had no interest in the Constitution, or words to that effect. I wondered why he did not have the integrity to leave the Court.
#693480

On May 4th, 2009 at 9:36 am, happyscrapper said:

On May 4th, 2009 at 9:05 am, Ragspierre said:
I’ve always considered that Obama was thoroughly radicalized from his early life on.

That really is unquestioned, if you know anything about the man and his influences.

Going along with what you said…I just heard on Fox & Friends that some very reliable and influencial lawyer for Chrysler or GM or one of those companies is accusing someone in the WH of using strong-arm tactics to get him to do what they want. I didn’t hear the whole story, but I wonder if it has to do with the unions. The lawyer said he was told that if he didn’t do what they wanted him to do, they would ruin him. Or something to that effect. Don’t quote me on this because I only heard pieces of it! But it sounded very much like this lawyer was a reliable, upstanding person (if you can use lawyer and those other words in the same sentence!!) and apparently the WH is using mafia-style thug tactics on him. If this is true, it is a big story. More details will probably follow our MM. I just thought this needed a mention. Of course, we know that the WH is currently being run by the “mafia” and thinks it has so much power no one can touch it. We will see.
#693484

On May 4th, 2009 at 9:48 am, Ragspierre said:

http://townhall.com/columnists/CarolPlattLiebau/2009/05/04/empathetic_justices_threaten_our_freedom

“In fact, by invoking a comfortably-undefined “empathy” as the indispensable quality in a justice, President Obama is deftly deploying warm, fuzzy rhetoric to signal that he intends to select a justice with a very specific left-wing policy agenda.”

Good piece. Dead on.
#693490

On May 4th, 2009 at 9:58 am, happyscrapper said:

There is no doubt that Obama will choose someone who will have a radical left-wing “agenda” and will not follow the constitution if they don’t think it is necessary in certain cases. That is just the kind of thinking Obama does. I loathe that man more every time I see him. He is smarmy, condescending and egotistic…and he lies constantly. Still, people are fooled by him. Talk about mass brainwashing!
#693557

On May 4th, 2009 at 10:47 am, DBNinKY said:

On May 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm, lgm said:

Note that your own points of contention are only conjecture and opinion and are without sources to support them, which is the exact charge you are making against the writer.

For example:

What Obama was doing as head “editor” was reading submissions and deciding which were important enough to be published.

Unless you were there, how do you know this to be his contribution as editor?
#693714

On May 4th, 2009 at 12:08 pm, chapoutier said:

What Obama was doing as head “editor” was reading submissions and deciding which were important enough to be published.

Unless you were there, how do you know this to be his contribution as editor?

Because that is what EICs do. It is not conjecture or opinion to say, for example, that firefighters fight fires.