If you are going to take someone on, here is a primer:
National Review has created a museum dedicated to the Republican political gutter of the 1990s in the form of a new blog hosted by two of the trashy lowlifes who worked during the entire Clinton Presidency to turn our national political dialogue into one big Jerry Springer Show. The authors of the blog are George Conway III and his lovely wife, Kellyanne.
***And, as set forth below, he was also the individual responsible for the dissemination to Matt Drudge of the story about the spots on Bill Clinton’s penis. So that’s George Conway. Isn’t it about time to hear some more lectures from him about the need for dignity in our political discourse and about the shame of lawyers who act unethically?
Conway’s wife and now co-blogger, Kellyanne, is a perfect match for him. Having spent the latter half of the 1990s (before she married George) peddling herself around as one of the soldiers in the army of young, blondish, mascara-drenched Republican loyalists who made a career for themselves digging into Bill Clinton’s sex life, she now runs around creating groups like “Women for Alito” and mindlessly reciting GOP talking points on Fox.
Aye, carumba. And those are mild parts of the post.
Pooh
Oh god, I read this one earlier today. Whatever I do in life, please let me never piss Glenn Greenwald off…
Krista
Whee! That was delightful.
Steve
Greenwald is a strong contender for Rookie of the Year. He has a nice blog.
Davebo
Glenn Greenwald is what keeps me voting Republican.
Well, that and my hair loss issues..
Pooh
Explain please, I’ve never really understood the logic behind this type of statement. (But then, I’m hardly a swing voter).
Pat R
Is this the same Greenwald that hightailed it to Brazil some years ago to escape US jurisdiction? Hard to believe it could be but the name is identical.
topsecretk9
I would concur with Davebo. Glenn is shrill, childish and a James Wolcott wannabe and so my eyes glaze over anytime he burps out an “outrage” a day and then sends out his minions on a crusade to muck up an argument.
Recently he took issue with some benign comment Jonah Goldberg made during the Alito hearings (paraphrasing here) having to do with strip searching the 10 year old girl for drugs. His pointed out the skewed thinking in making the cops the villains rather than asshole drug dealing parents/guardians that put their kids in those situations (an hide drugs on their kids, because they think the cops can’t search them). My interruption is much harsher than Goldberg.
Well that caused Glenn to get his panties in a bunch- Goldberg was ripping our constitution to bits and pieces and the republic hung on a thread and then Jonah received a million and two nasty, over the top rude emails responding.
When you approach an argument so shrill, you tend to make yourself look more like a yahoo and a jerk than someone who has a good point to make.
That’s my take anyways. ( new commenter, know you are a tough crowd so go ahead, rip me to shreds)
Joey
Did you see the Tomaig guy leaving comments? I really hope that guy is a troll….
Vladi G
Yeah, that was when Jonah said:
Then, when called out for making such a ridiculous statement, the pantload replied:
So yeah, Jonah’s all for strip searching kids, “warrant or no”, but when people point out his bullshit, he was only defending police who operate “in good faith on a legal warrant”.
My New Years resolution is to cut down on the swearing this year, but Jonah Goldberg is a true piece of shit, and Greenwald just called him out for being one.
Vladi G
To add, this:
Don’t play with matches, or you’re liable to send that straw man up in flames. Go ahead and search the net and try to find one reasonable person who defended the drug dealer?
topsecretk9
What is the definition of a troll? John Coles comments aren’t closed are they?
I just made a comment. I didn’t realize blogs were like high-school cliches where cross commenting was such a frickin threat.
Vladi G
Your point is taken but I don’t think 1- Jonah’s original comment was so out of bounds and 2- he made the distinction in subsequent posts and sorry but I think drug dealers that stick crack in their kids pants are “pieces of shit”, no offense 3- the lame arguments people used to counter Jonah were far more egregious than what he said.
I don’t think Greenwald accomplished anything but looking like a jerk.
Slide
That post earned Greenwald a spot on my Favorites list.
Pooh
topsecret, he was referring to a commenter on the Greenwald thread. Who may or may not be a troll, but is certainly provacative. You don’t find Goldberg referring to the Constitution as “procedural niceties” troubling?
(FWIW, I think reasonable people can differ as to the underlying case behind the “Strip-Search Sammy” meme, Doe v. Gordy IIRC)
Joey
Huh? I meant that I hope that Tomaig is a troll because he was making some fairly ludicrous statements. If that was you, then you were making some fairly lucicrous statements, and I hope that you were just messing with people. I don’t give a damn where you post comments. Nothing in my previous comment should have conveyed that I did.
Joey
Thanks, I thought I was clear that I was referring to a commenter on Greenwald’s blog, but I guess I wasn’t.
srv
NOBODY in this case had put drugs in their kids pants. Thus, by your non-lame Jonah logic, I guess they aren’t “pieces of shit”?
The 4th Ammendment is increasingly being rendered meaningless each day, and heroes like Goldberg are cheering it on.
Vlad
I bet you could hide a lot of drugs in Jonah Goldberg’s fat ass.
He probably wouldn’t take it too well if the cops performed a warrantless search, though.
DougJ
The Conways are fucking geniuses. Why can’t I write stuff like that? Someday I will.
DougJ
I should have said Cliff Kincaid is a fucking genius. He’s the one who wrote that. My God, that is the best piece of wingnuttery I’ve read in months. So good, so good.
DougJ
The University of Malmo.
I may be gone for a while. I’ll be citing University of Malmo studies at Protein Wisdom, JustOneMinute, Volokh, DeanEsmay, Roger Simon, and TheModerateVoice for weeks. This is just too good.
University of fucking Malmo. Oh, my Lord!
Vladi G
Your point being…? Who are you responding to? Find me one person who defended the drug dealer?
No, he went from saying warrantless strip searches of kids are OK so long as their unlucky enough to have drug dealers in their house to saying that such searches are OK so long as the cops are acting in good faith on a legal warrant. Maybe in your world one makes a “distinction” when he completely contradicts something he wrote just hours before, but most people would call “backtracking after being called out on saying something utterly ridiculous”.
Good lord, this is without even getting into the “I can’t fight the war I’m cheerleading because I’m fat and lazy and have a wife and kids” argument he made last year.
DougJ
University of Malmo, bitches.
Al Maviva
Don’t pick on Glen – as far as I know he hasn’t “fled the jurisdiction.” You probably want to provide some backup for statements like that, because I get the feeling that comments along those lines could get our friend John served with papers. Y’know how some lawyers just do that kind of thing when they are libeled, rather than just sitting back and taking it? Besides, he doesn’t deserve to be picked on. As Matthew Hale’s ex-lawyers go, he’s one of the better respected ones.
On the 4th Amendment issue, having represented juvenile drug dealers (among others) in criminal proceedings, I think that carving out a 4th Amendment exception prohibiting searches of juveniles, especially those apprehended in and around adult drug dealers’ houses during lawful arrests and searches, would probably encourage the further use of juveniles in the drug trade. My juvenile clients already used kids younger than their own age to serve as lookouts, and I believe to serve as drug and money and communications couriers, based on some drug cases I saw involving really young kids that turned up in Juvie criminal court. Hell, I’d have 8 year olds carry my stash if I was a dealer, and knew the cops couldn’t search kids. No doubt this will be deemed by many to be a pedantic distinction – but I’m not in favor of strip searching young kids per se, rather I’m against creation of a safe harbor that incentivizes the use of children in the drug trade. I think that position logically requires that the fourth amendment in its entirety – which permits searches of the person even as it offers protection – should be applicable to juveniles. Yeah, I know, I’m not just a fascist, but a kid-hating fascist, maybe even worse than that Goldberg guy, the journalist not the ex-wrestler…
DougJ
Al, brevity is the soul of wit, my friend. Hire a fucking editor.
Steve
Who said anything about a safe harbor? Persuade the judge that there’s good cause to search anyone found on the premises, and get a warrant to that effect. It’s not like the drug dealer has any idea what your warrant is going to say, so he can’t assume he has a “safe harbor.”
DougJ
This picture of the Conways is priceless.
DougJ
Thank you, John. You made my day. I won’t queer any threads for the next two weeks, I promise. That Greenwald post is possibly the best post ever.
Pooh
Al,
Sure, I agree in principle. Warrant. That is all.
MC
I don’t think it’s pedantic distinction, I think it’s a very valid point. IMO, the problem with searching children isn’t the principle, but the execution. Having been present during the execution of a search warrant in my youth, it’s pretty unnerving – strange people with guns ordering you to sit still while rummaging through your house is frightening. It’s probably not appropriate or beneficial to society to subject children to the kind of personal search we conduct on adults, provided they aren’t considered suspicious or dangerous themselves. If the body search of a child is handled carefully, more like a physician’s examination than a typical police search, I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
The Other Steve
You should say:
“Al, you type too much.”
The Other Steve
That’s rather odd. I would think that Republicans would want to forget those years. They certainly weren’t a high point for the party.
Ok, granted, it was a higher point thatn Schiavo or Abramhoff.
comandante agi
George and Kellyanne are my new heroes.
John Cole
DougJ- Email me.
Will
Unrelated and off-topic: could someone please point me in the general direction of the last “Democratic Stupidity” post. They are so few and far between around here lately, and I have to wonder why that is because the Democrats surely haven’t become suddenly less stupid. Thanks in advance.
Otto Man
You two need to work out some sort of Bat-Signal.
topsecretk9
Tomaig
Sorry, I comment on JustOneMinute and thought “Tom Maguire” is what you were referring to.
Anyways, Pooh I see your point, I just don’t think Jonah’s comment was so earth shattering as to warrant the wage of war it got by Glenn, and I pretty much agree with Jonah.
And I do think Glenn shrill. I’ll go back to TomMag now.
tb
Of course he sounds shrill to you. You’re the pro-warrantless-cavity-searches-of-children guy.
rilkefan
Uhh, John, it’s no secret DougJ is often a pest but making him a co-blogger is not the solution.
JFTR, I agree with Ezra Klein re GG here.
That pic of the Conways is, wow, what’s there to say.
tb
I don’t want to look at them any more. The idea of them crafting a description of spots on Bill Clinton’s penis is making me, uh, physically fucking ill.
Pb
topsecretk9,
Heh–you read all that and you came to the conclusion that Glenn is shrill? Ok… How about the people he was writing about? Or, worse, some of the nuts in his comment section defending the slime he was writing about… It’d be funnier if it wasn’t so sad, watching them parse words like ‘sermon’, get outraged all over again about the ‘oral sex’, invoke boogeyman #2 ‘Ted Kennedy’ (huh, where’d that come from? he’s like their second line of defense when the ‘Clinton’ smears fail) and finally, where’s the sympathy for poor poor ‘Clarence Thomas’ (yeah, right).
Paul L.
Just like the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame picture in Time?
http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2005/people/5.html
Sock Puppet
John Cole- Email me.
The souffle is in the oven.
I repeat:
The souffle is in the oven.
Another Jeff
I clicked on the link to the picture expecting to see something really bizarre but, other than the fact that neither of them is particularly attractive, what’s so funny about the picture?
DougJ
Paul L, you’re a jack ass.
Another Jeff — look again, doesn’t Conway look like the stereotypical putz so happy to have a tall blonde girlfriend? I’ve spent a lot of time around people like George Conway and that picture captures all of them pefectly. Also, that stupid outfit Conway has on and how Kellyanne has that “Look me, I’m Barbara Eden” look on her face.
Krista
That Conway picture is just too much. That is one fat-assed Corgi, too. They look like a promo pic for a bad reality show, actually.
Oooooo…called to the principal’s office! :)
DougJ, honey, I haven’t seen you so giddy in ages!
DougJ
If Flaubert had been a photographer he would have taken pictures like that one of the Conways.
norbizness
I like Conway— he kind of looks like a cross between Ben “Cooter” Jones and Mr. Babyhead, a rarely used character in the Red Meat comics. 1982 and Steve Perry are in a conference call, George: they want their hair back.
Stormy70
Harry Reid is sorry.
He’s doing a heck of a job…
demimondian
I’m with Stormy on this. Harry Reid should consider resigning over this, in fact — it’s truly nauseous that a grown man would spread such stories, true or false, about his political opponents, particularly Republican Senators who are on the take.
Mona
pb writes: It’d be funnier if it wasn’t so sad, watching them parse words like ‘sermon’, get outraged all over again about the ‘oral sex’, invoke boogeyman #2 ‘Ted Kennedy’ (huh, where’d that come from? he’s like their second line of defense when the ‘Clinton’ smears fail) and finally, where’s the sympathy for poor poor ‘Clarence Thomas’ (yeah, right).
You didn’t read very carefully. The commenter who raised the issue of Ted Kenney/Clarence Thomas and Senate Judiciary Hearings agreed that the Conways Clinton obsession was sick, and she gave examples of how the right smeared Clinton to that Tomaig person. Glenn Greenwald agreed with her (in comments) that one cannot both be outraged over smearing Clinton with sexual allegations and also defend what was done to Clarence Thomas with sexual impropriety allegations. (He just thought the scope of the smear cmapigns was vastly different, but not different in kind.)
Greenwald is right on both counts.
Paddy O'Shea
Stormy, babycakes: At least old Harry has the berries to admit he’s wrong and apologize when he makes a mistake. Your boyfriend Georgie gets a bunch of people killed for no apparent reason (or at least not a consistent one), and all he seems capable of doing is coming up with a long list of people to blame it on.
DougJ
That’s the spirit, demi.
Steve
People saw that as an apology? To me, it kinda seemed like he was taking the chance to remind everyone that there is this press release out there with the names of 33 dirty Republican Senators.
Harry Reid always struck me as surprisingly savvy, but then again, maybe it’s easy to look clever when your chief nemesis is Bill Frist.
Lines
Poor Stormy, when all the evidence of graft, corruption and gross levels of stupidity are piling up against every defensive piece of lame commentary she has posted, what does she do? Change the subject.
I love the way Ken “talking action doll” Mehlman tries to spin the Abramoff scandal back onto Reid, but can’t even do that right. It appears the WaPo has his back, though, and tried to clarify a horribly written spin statement.
In fact, I’m still trying to actually figure out if the “apology” by Reid wasn’t anything more than “the tone of my report was not professional”. Every fact in the report is backed by evidence, so what the hell is he apologizing for? The only thing I can think of is that his apology is being used by the Democratic party to draw more attention to his report and its documentation of the level of corruption that has permeated the Repiglican Party.
Stormy70
They are sorry up in Canada, too.
Wow, Krista. Canada is more interesting than ever.
Pb
Lines,
It’s particularly rich that Mehlman is lecturing us on this, considering his attendance at K-street project meetings–and at galas with Abramoff and friends–the fact that he said that people shouldn’t be pointing fingers, and the fact that his brother, who incidentally was assistant secretary of commerce for technology policy under Bush, is now a ‘top lobbyist’ at a firm with their last name on it…
Mona,
*I* didn’t read very carefully? Why don’t you look again:
Krista
That’s not saying much. :)
Oh yeah, this election is getting pretty ugly. I’m so sick of seeing the ads, that I now just change the channel.
Steve
My impression of Canada is that they have corrupt liberals versus ineffectual conservatives, while we obviously have the reverse.
When I was out in Colorado a couple years ago, I saw perhaps my favorite political ad ever. The candidate said, “You’ve probably seen all those ads my opponent has been running about me. Well, I’ve been a farmer all my life, so I know that smell…”
Krista
Steve – whoever’s in power is corrupt, especially as we don’t have term limits.
demimondian
Krista:
And that, Stormy, is why our neighbors to the north have an inferior health-care system. They’re not involved in the day-to-day running of their nation, finding it “boring”. That’s why prescription prices are higher and they have both a lower level of education and Newfoundland.
And don’t call that a lie, Krista — Newfoundland *is* a part of Canada.
LITBMueller
That picture of the Conways is awesome, but nothing in my mind will ever top GOP operative Roger Stone and his wife Nydia in Swing Magazine!!!:
An oldie but goodie!!! Check out Roger’s Superman pose in the pic on the site!
Mona
pb: I didn’t read very carefully? Why don’t you look again:
I looked again, and reaffirm that you read very poorly. Hypatia first told tomaig he was wrong to defend the Conway and others’ sleaze attacks on Clinton, and she said why with specific examples of what had disgusted her about some conservatives at the time. Greenwald at some subsequent point told tomaig to read current GOP “sermonizing” about Mrs. Alito crying becasue of mean Democrats.
Hypatia then explained what had happened in the history of judicial hearings that made nominees and their families nervous, and she cited the revolting lynching of Clarence Thomas on issues sexual. Greenwald then agreed with Hypatia that one cannot consistently defend what was done to Thomas with sexual allegations, and also object to what was done to Clinton. Greenwald said:
Nothing ambiguous about that; that’s how it went. And both Hypatia and Greenwald are correct.
DougJ
I like calling him Brokeback Mehlman. Who does he think he’s fooling? The right-wing closet cases really piss me off.
Krista
Oh Demi, you’re such a card! Yes, Newfoundland is part of Canada (and a wonderful part…Newfies rock!) And I change the channel when the ads come on not because I don’t want to be involved in the running of the nation, but because the ads are tedious, uninformative and offensive. I’ve instead been going to each party’s web site and reading their platforms instead.
Oh, you were being snarky? Never mind then. :)
The Other Steve
Interesting question. But when the Republican party is composed of the Stupidiest People On Earth, the Democrats just don’t have much of a chance to compete.
Stormy70
yeah, why should any gay person have any privacy? It’s unAmerican to be gay and Republican.
The Other Steve
I am glad that Reid apologized. This is a breakdown in Senate decorum. For the past 10 years we have turned the other way towards Republican corruption, and for the good of the bipartisan relationship that should continue.
Stormy70
They will also have a Conservative government, soon. I guess people are tired of having to come to the US to be treated in a timely manner, when they are paying so much in taxes for “free” healthcare. Or maybe they are tired of being ripped off by the Liberals for years and years.
demimondian
Heh. It’s no fun snarking you, Krista, since you never rise to the bait.
My favorite “Canadian politics” story has to do with the time when I was teaching at York, up in Downsview. The leader of the opposition came to talk to the York U. Liberals Club — knowing ahead of time that only about thirty of forty people would show up. And he sat and answered questions about the shadow government’s policy all evening. You ain’t never gonna see Howard Dean taking an evening to come talk to a College Democrats Society like that.
Pb
Mona,
Read what you like into it, I don’t necessarily think that our two ‘versions’ are incompatible here, although I do think you are being far too kind, lenient, and/or blind in places. However, Hypatia was the first to smear Ted Kennedy in the thread, and the first to try to drum up sympathy for Clarence Thomas–both shrill conservative attacks unrelated to the question at hand.
As for Greenwald’s concession to Hypatia, I tend to agree more with Randy:
Zifnab
I was never entirely clear why imposing term limits would clean up politics. We have term limits on Presidencies and yet here we are again with a crook in the White House. We have term limits on Governorships and yet we still have guys like Rick Perry. So long as we exist in a two-party (or in the case of Texas, a one-party) system with the parties pulling the strings, the actual people holding office are irrelevent.
Just take a look at the K-Street Project. The beauty behind it was that the people in office didn’t matter. Just the cashflow. Tom DeLay, Roy Blunt, Rick Santorum, Ted Stevens, it’s all the same. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Doesn’t matter when they took office.
demimondian
Stormy:
You’re right, they will. It’ll be as effective as the Mulroney government was in Quebec, and will revolutionize the Canadian health care system from the ground up.
After all, walk-in methadone clinics don’t actually reduce drug-related crime in Vancouver, you know.
Zifnab
Funny how people in Canada flock to US Hospitals for timely treatment, while people in the US buy all their drugs from generic manufactorers in Canada.
I bet they don’t give you shit over buying Plan B north of Michigan either.
Krista
That would be it. It’s a fine tradition in Canadian politics to stick with a party until you just can’t bear it anymore, and then you throw them all out in one fell swoop (see: Mulroney, Brian).
Demi: sorry for not rising to the bait. I’m just way too damned sincere for this site, aren’t I?
The only thing that keeps any of our politicians from getting too big for their britches is being accosted by our own spoof-news show, This Hour Has 22 Minutes. I’m trying to picture an American president happily being teased and called “Lovey” by a middle-aged Newfoundland woman wearing a Xena outfit (complete with sword), and am failing utterly.
Krista
Zifnab – nope, they don’t.
And I don’t know that I’d call it “flocking”. I’d have to see some numbers. Some people have a lot more money than patience, and wouldn’t even want to wait a week to get their knee surgery. It’d be interesting for someone to do a survey of how many Canadians go to the U.S. for treatments, how long they would have had to wait if they’d stayed home, and the severity/urgency of the required treatment. I don’t doubt that some of them are in considerable pain, and have to wait unduly long. But I also don’t doubt that some are just overprivileged and feel that any wait at all is unacceptable because of who they are.
Lines
Hey Stormy, Canadian Conservatives have more in common with American Liberals than our party of Corruption and Greed, don’t you know, eh?
Steve
I grew up in Detroit, and I am quite certain Canada is to the south.
Mona
pb: However, Hypatia was the first to smear Ted Kennedy in the thread, and the first to try to drum up sympathy for Clarence Thomas—both shrill conservative attacks unrelated to the question at hand.
The Thomas affair is manifestly not unrelated to a discussion of cheap political tactics meant to destroy someone with sexual allegations. That’s what Greenwald’s post about the Conways was about.
Clarence Thomas was never sued for sexual harassment, and that Randy person is in no position to hold forth that Thomas committed illegal sexual harassment. No trial pursuant to proper procedure and rules of evidence was ever had on that matter; rather, there was an 11th hour attempt, at judicial confirmation hearings, to bring Thomas down with vague claims about having told dirty jokes, discussed the size of his sex organs & etc., all of which supposedly made Anita swoon. (And all of which Thomas denied, with angry and fierce outrage.)
Suddenly, wrt Clarence Thomas, the nation was embroiled in discussions of pubic hairs and porn flicks and a black man who supposedly discussed the size of his dick — real dignified and fair, that, and not at all resonant of some of the most vile stereotypes about black males and their behavior.
George Conway could not have done better.
Greenwald applies his judgments irrespective of party or person. And so he rejects the treatment of both Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton. The only people who wouldn’t, would be ideological or party hacks from either side of the aisle.
Lines
Like yourself, Mona?
If you don’t believe that a record that indicates sexual harassment should be investigated before a man is appointed to the highest court in our country, I have to wonder if you do so only out of party loyalty. If you think that it was ok to illegally question Clinton’s sexual activity on a Grand Jury witness stand but find that exploration of accusations of sexual harassment in the workplace arn’t equal, it appears you are the partisan one here, and your blind ideological support of Conway justifies Greenwald’s post, rather than vindicates the Conways.
Zifnab
So that’s the crux. Does Greenwald apply his judgement irrespectively?
Either your sexual antics and “morals” outside of the courtroom have a bearing on holding office or they don’t.
Pb
Mona,
The subject wasn’t “a discussion of cheap political tactics meant to destroy someone with sexual allegations” — it was about the blatant hypocrisy of Republicans to first destroy a man’s life thusly, and then have the unmitigated gall to moralize to the rest of us about ‘incivility of discourse’. In that context “Ted Kennedy did it too”, or “Democrats did it to Clarence Thomas, waah!” is not remotely a proper response, and the fact that you can’t seem to see that really says it all.
Mona
it appears you are the partisan one here, and your blind ideological support of Conway justifies Greenwald’s post, rather than vindicates the Conways.
Oh for Christ’s sake, I think the Conways are total and utter pukes.
Look, I know Glenn Greenwald, and have, for almost ten years. His slapping down the Conways is quintessential Glenn and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Neither does his equal rejection of the Thomas smear surprise me.
But for those of us who hold principle above any party affiliation — and I have never been a member of a political party — we are better able to judge people by what they do, and not by whether they are “on our side.”
The travesty that Thomas endured made me sick at the time, and still does. But I was no less revolted at the bizarre campaign directed at the Clintons.
Lines
Mona:
So how do you think the judiciary should have handled accusations brought forward that indicated that a nominee had participated and initiated flagrant amounts of sexual harassment in the workplace? If Thomas were blindly appointed and those accusations ignored and unquestioned, and he ends up running around asking women in the office if they’d like to handle his gavel, do you think only he would be to blame or would those that ignored the original accusations?
Mona
pb: it was about the blatant hypocrisy of Republicans to first destroy a man’s life thusly, and then have the unmitigated gall to moralize to the rest of us about ‘incivility of discourse’. In that context “Ted Kennedy did it too”, or “Democrats did it to Clarence Thomas, waah!” is not remotely a proper response, and the fact that you can’t seem to see that really says it all.
And for anyone reveling in discussions of the GOP sermonizing about civility in light of the George and Kellyanne Conways that attacked Clinton on sexual matters, if they don’t also think what was done to Thomas vis-a-vis sex smears was wrong, then they are no less hypocritical than those GOP sermonizers they find to be so. Their reveling in hypocrisy is itself hypocritical.
If that hypocrisy fits you, then I can well understand why you find raising the issue of the Thomas hearings to be improper.
Pb
Mona,
About that “travesty that Thomas endured”–any thoughts on what Anita Hill endured? I think that was the real travesty, and Thomas seems to have done rather well, considering.
Steve
Okay, I’ll play the reasonable Democrat here. Of course the Thomas hearings were completely tawdry. Sure, it’s “relevant” if Thomas sexually harassed someone, but it’s also “relevant” if Bill Clinton raped Kathleen Willey or whatever other BS he was accused of. I think the point is, having seen what a few determined zealots did to Clinton, it’s important to think long and hard before you go down that road yourself.
In other words, from where I sit, if the Democrats were 100% convinced that Anita Hill was telling the truth and Clarence Thomas really had done all these terrible things, then sure, go with it, it’s relevant. But if you’re just like “hey, it’s sorta credible, and it gives us a shot to block this nomination” then you need to think about the fact that the tables can be turned down the road.
I think Glenn was exactly right in his assessment of why the Thomas hearings were similar to the hounding of Clinton, as well as his assessment of why they were different. I certainly don’t think anything that was said about Alito is comparable to either of these cases.
Pb
Mona,
Hah, nice attempt to go after me as a dodge, instead of honestly answering. That’s the sort of thing the article was about, by the way. Also, as you should have been able to see previously, I don’t necessarily agree with your simplistic insistence of equivalence between Clinton and Thomas in this case.
fwiffo
DougJ Says:
norbizness Says:
If I die laughing, I’m gonna come back as a zombie and kill you fuckers and eat your brains. This thread has me in goddamn stitches.
Pb
Steve,
That’s the main thing I find amazing about the people who bring up poor Clarence Thomas–they only mention Democrats, and not Anita Hill, as if she was some sort of figment of the Democratic party instead of a real woman who worked with Clarence Thomas and saw his behavior firsthand. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with having bona-fide witnesses testify before the Senate in a confirmation hearing, and they are under oath, so it isn’t like they aren’t risking anything.
Lines
Refering back to the picture of the Conways, is there some formula that turns tall blondes with large hands and hairy knuckles into Republicans?
And is there a competition amongst those as to who can starve themselves the most? How about a “Tall Blonde Republican battle to death, armed only with their prominent adams apples?”
Mona
So how do you think the judiciary should have handled accusations brought forward that indicated that a nominee had participated and initiated flagrant amounts of sexual harassment in the workplace?
Given (a) that these accusations came very late in the confirmation hearing process and with no advance notice to the nominee, and (b) that even if taken as true, they amount to telling dirty jokes and discussing a porn movie, and that Anita felt Thomas wanted to date her but she didn’t want to date him, given all that, the issue should never have been brought up. Fundamental issues of fairness (that control our trial procedures) involve notice and an opportunity to build a defense. That was all flouted in the 11th hour attacks on Thomas.
The Senate Judiciary committee is not without resources; they had scoured Thomas’s life long before the hearings began. If there was Anita Hill — and if Thomas really turns the workplace into a non-stop Howard Stern Show — there should have been other women, and some men, to say so, and they should have been scheduled to testify in advance, with notice to Thomas about the allegations he would face.
Instead, near the end of his testimony, suddenly he is facing charges that he talked about Long Dong Silver and pubic hairs at work. (Setting aside, of course, that a whole lot of us engage in blue humor at work, that could be twisted if taken out of context. I know I have.)
The whole thing was deeply unfair, at a very vile level. It was done to keep Thomas off the Court, just as all the fevered attempts to depict Clinton as a sex addict and rapist were done to have him removed from office. Sex was the weapon in both cases.
SeesThroughIt
No, but it seems rather un-Republican to be gay. You know, considering that being against gay rights is not only a major Republican party plank, it’s also Karl Rove’s favorite scare tactic in case some folks start thinking they might not want to vote against their own economic interest.
demimondian
Wow. It’s good to see a brave woman standing up for herself here. Mona, you’re absolutely right. Why, Hill had only been outed to the chair of the judiciary committee three months before the hearings started, and her story was only corroborated by five separate witnesses at the time of its submission. There’s absolutely no reason to think that Thomas should have answered questions from such an unreliable source.
Lines
An appointment hearing is not a trial, there are no such things.
And a Judge’s quarters are not the latest scene where The Office is being shot.
Steve
It’s kind of amusing that Republicans only respect a right of privacy when it comes to gay Republicans and Rush Limbaugh’s medical records.
It’s somewhat less amusing that the party which built a national campaign around the idea of denying equality to gays has the audacity to say “hey, at least we respect their PRIVACY!”
Pb
Lines,
I was wondering about the tall blonde thing too. They do seem to get to the top somehow. On the other hand, they aren’t all like that, there’s Michelle Malkin…
Lines
Malkin is an alien, though. Didn’t we discuss that fact yesterday?
Joey
I bet they’re tired of having longer life spans and an overall better quality of life too. Oh, wait….
Mona
Why, Hill had only been outed to the chair of the judiciary committee three months before the hearings started, and her story was only corroborated by five separate witnesses at the time of its submission.
Yup, and they had decided not to go there. And those witnesses merely corroborated that Hill said, at the time, that she was depressed about work and Thomas – I believe one said she mentioned sexual harassment, but with no details. She had had performance issues at other workplaces as well.
If Anita Hill had a bona fide claim of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas, she should have brought it. She didn’t. What she did do was describe at judicial confirmation hearings that he told dirty jokes and wanted to date her. None of that is sexual harassment, at least not as she described it, even if her version is taken entirely as true.
Male sexual predators do not have only one target. Yet there was only Anita — claiming she was harassed by dirty jokes. If you think that was fair and a decent thing to do to Clarence Thomas, then you cannot object to Paula Jones and all the other women who claimed Bill had harassed and even raped them, and how all that was used to try to destroy Bill Clinton. Clinton at least had a civil trial to test and cross-examine these accusations (and find that at least one woman was lying), but Thomas didn’t.
But Thomas did not have discover, or an opportunity to show her to be a lair, as Clinton had in the paula Jones case, wrt witnesses like Juanita Borderick, or even Jones herself. No, this was sprung on him at the last minute, and it was disgusting, making him address issues of whether he had ever discussed the size of his penis at work.
Lines
Again, Mona, an appointment hearing is NOT a trial. There is no “defense” or “prosecution”. There are no “innocent until proven guilty” reminders, no “presumption of guilt” or representatives. Its only about answering questions that are brought up, when they are brought up.
Why do you insist on comparing a trial to an appointment committee hearing? Because in doing so you really arn’t helping make your case.
Mona
As was indicated in Greenwald’s comments section, the best article on the Thomas hearings appeared in Reason magazine. Edith Efron wrote therein:
Lines
Ok, Mona, and as seen by the Senate Judiciary Committee, they determined that Hill’s testimony, while alarming by itself, should not hold up the appointment of Thomas, especially without the evidence indication that would determine intent.
You need to rail against the Press for bringing Thomas Pubic Hair to the public airwaves 24/7, not Anita Hill for testifying or the Senate Judiciary exploring the charges as they are required to do.
Barry D
Krista Says:
“Steve – whoever’s in power is corrupt, especially as we don’t have term limits.”
Krista, the first clause is not true, and foolish to believe; the second clause is simply a lie.
Mona
Again, Mona, an appointment hearing is NOT a trial. There is no “defense” or “prosecution”. There are no “innocent until proven guilty” reminders, no “presumption of guilt” or representatives. Its only about answering questions that are brought up, when they are brought up
But (a) judicial hearings — and kind of congressional hearings — still adopt protocols to ensure fairness, and (b) it is not fair to bring an 11th-hour witness whose claims are of the sort that can only be assessed in a trial, which as you note, confirmation hearings are not.
A nominee to any office should not be susceptible to being shot down because one person says they did something that is supposedly actionable, but for which they brought no actual claims and thereby submitting themselves to discovery and cross-examination.
tb
…they are paying so much in taxes for “free” healthcare.
Yes, I much prefer the US “system” where, if they will even cover you, you pay through the nose in taxes AND premiums and you get to fight the insurance company AND cancer when they decide you’re costing them too much, and what the heck, they’re going to stiff you. I love it. Because it’s so fucking modern and smart.
Lines
You know what really bothers me? The fact that Hemingway (Papa) is granted God status in Lit classes. The man was a Conservative, for Christ’s sake!
Besides that, he sucked.
Mona
You need to rail against the Press for bringing Thomas Pubic Hair to the public airwaves 24/7, not Anita Hill for testifying or the Senate Judiciary exploring the charges as they are required to do.
Oh please. They were not required to do that. Indeed, they ought not have.
The forces behind Anita Hill, to destroy Thomas with sex, were every bit as innocent as George and Kellyanne Conway vis-a-vis Clinton. The only reason they failed is because, as the Efron article describes, Thomas gave a tour de force, angry, but controlled, speech that shamed them. His testimony about how black men had historically been subject to horrible sterotypes about issues ranging from the size of their genitals to a supposedly animalistic sexual appetite, left those Senators tied in knots, and the ploy of destroying Thomas with sex therefore simply failed. But not before grossly humiliating him.
Lines
Ignore that last one, was supposed to post in the other thread.
Mona: There is no requirement in a Committee hearing that requires a notification of accusations nor are the nominees given the questions ahead of time. Since Hill’s accusations were not backed up by a formal charge or indictment, they didn’t carry the weight necessary to halt the nomination. I still contend that your problem shouldn’t be with Anita Hill or the Judiciary Committee, but with the press that played the testimony and treated it as a damnation without a sense of the “fairness” you seem to desire.
CadillaqJaq
With all the pros and cons re: Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton, isn’t it a fact that Thomas was confirmed, and Clinton remained in office? IMO, holding or seeking public office is a dangerous process; shit gets flung at you, some of it sticks.
DougJ
Lines, A Farewell To Arms is a great book. I do think that For Whom the Bell Tolls sucks, though.
tb
Why do you insist on comparing a trial to an appointment committee hearing?
When you watch 8 hours a day of “Law & Order” reruns, after awhile everything looks like a criminal trial.
demimondian
Really? I loved it.
Pb
Mona,
How fortunate for him.
That’s the best article you could find on it? Really? Wow, the media has fallen further (and earlier) than I had imagined. Here’s another article for you, tell me if it’s any better, or just more “pure feminist dementia”.
Krista
Barry D – I’m sorry, are you stating that I’m lying in saying that Canada does not have term limits for its head of government, or are you stating that I’m lying when I insinuate that the lack of term limits contributes to corruption? Just looking for a bit of clarification here.
Darrell
Nice bitch slapping of demimon and Lines by Mona. My fav is when demimon shows what a dishonest hack he is with this statement:
and Mona slaps him down with the truth
Ouch. Lines is just as pathetic in defending the 11th hour smears on Clarence Thomas
National Review is a classy group. I don’t understand why gave a couple like the Conways the NR seal of approval with their very own NR blog.
The Other Steve
But… But…
I thought Anita Hill was a liar.
Which is it? Were the judges ridiculous and not worth discussing, or was Anita Hill a liar?
Steve
Sounds like Darrell had a DougJ moment. Purple heart band-aids are practically part of the National Review dress code.
Pb
Steve,
I thought he had a DougJ moment earlier in the post when he called someone else a ‘dishonest hack’ (not that there aren’t enough dishonest hacks out there or anything, but still…) Anyhow, there goes this thread…
Mona
pb: that article you link to is vacuous, and doesn’t hold a candle to the penetrating Edith Efron. About the allegations themselves, it merely states:
Efron had much more, and much more ingisghtful, discussion and analysis.
Did Anita sue Clarence? If Clarence Thomas told jokes at the office that made her feel “harassed,” why didn’t she complain to his superior, and have someone tell him to stop? Why didn’t she contemporaneously hold a press conference denouncing an EEOC head who was day-in-and-out inundating her with an endless litany of descriptions of porn movies and his genitals? Where were the other women? — male sexual predators always have many more than one.
The Senate Judiciary Committe was not impressed with her claims, initially. But finding itself in a bit of a bind in its ability to derail the nomination, at the near end of the hearings, they rolled her on in. I’m sure, however, that was a total coincidence.
The hearings were broadcast live; I watched them inbetween my 1L classes in law school. You cannot blame the media. The fault lies with the Democrats who let this travesty happen, all to keep from an office someone whom they did not want there. Just like some on the right did to Clinton because they wanted him removed from an office in which they did not want him to be.
Lines
Yes, those damn Democrats are to blame, Mona. After all, who wouldn’t want to be treated to self-grandizing displays of his Superior Court Gavel like his most recent opinion on assisted suicide and his pathetic efforts to shield Ashcroft from the humiliation of his failed power grab.
But I go back to my earlier point. If Thomas suddenly started showing off his Supreme Court Gavel to every intern and asking if they thought it was bigger than Rehnquists, don’t you think that those that allowed his appointment to pass should be held accountable? And if they hadn’t questioned Hill on her accusations, they would and SHOULD be the ones to blame for ignoring evidence of his possible sexual harassment and perversion. Luckily, she was wrong and he’s not whipping out the Judicial Seal, except to prove that it is, in fact, bigger than Rehnquists.
Paddy O'Shea
The Washingtonian Magazine is claiming to have seen 5 photographs of Jack Abramoff and George W. Bush together. Also in attendance were some of Jack’s Native American clients, whom he was apparently introducing to his pal Dubya.
I wonder what Jack charged for that mighty honor?
http:www.washingtonian.com/capital_comment/2006/PowerPlayers/02.html
Pb
Mona, ok, that’s about all I can take; see my previous link about Efron, and her “much more ingisghtful, discussion and analysis”. Ugh. Also, nice job of blaming the victim there, it’s really raising the standard of discourse around here too…
Mona
Lines writes: Yes, those damn Democrats are to blame, Mona. After all, who wouldn’t want to be treated to self-grandizing displays of his Superior Court Gavel like his most recent opinion on assisted suicide and his pathetic efforts to shield Ashcroft from the humiliation of his failed power grab.
You are totally misunderstanding Thomas. One of the greatest judicial (S. Ct.) abominations in the last decade — other than maybe Kelo — was the Raich medical marijuana case. Thomas vigorously opposed the Raich majority, which was made up of most of the liberal members of the Court, and Scalia.
His vote in the Oregon case was immaterial, since it was decided 6-3. So, he “dissented” by writing whithering criticism — from literally first sentence to last — of Raich, and accurately analyzing why the rationale and holding in Raich compelled them to vote against Oregon. He didn’t think that result was right as a matter of Constitutional law (and secondarily as that affected statutory construction and parsing of the Controlled Substances Act, which was at issue in both cases), he thought — correctly — that ruling against Oregon was comeplled by the monstrosity the Court had inflicted on us all in Raich; if stare decisis does not apply when, as was true with Raich, a case is only 7 months old, when does it? — asked Thomas, about a holding he hated.
Thomas declared that the Oregon Court was “beating a hasty retreat” from Raich, in his Oregon dissent. Translated, he was saying they were behaving in a wholly intellectually dishonest fashion. And those who were with the majority in Raich and also with that in Oregon, in fact were result-driven, not driven by jurisprudential principles.
In any event, even if Thomas had committed a judicial crime in Oregon, that would not justify 15 years ago humiliating him with the crudist sexual allegations at his nomination hearings. Any more than the right that hated Clitnon for Waco, Elian Gonzalez etc. should have been trying to destroy him with vulgar accusations of sex addiciton, harassment, rape & etc. Goose. Gander.
Steve
I’ve basically been with Mona throughout this whole Anita Hill thing, but anyone who thinks Kelo was one of the greatest judicial abominations of the last decade loses serious amounts of credibility as any kind of authority on constitutional law. I don’t think the outcome in Kelo shocked a single serious observer of the Court, although the popular spin has certainly been damning.
Pb
Mona,
One of the few times I did agree with Thomas was in his dissent in Raich, so I’m on board with that, and I agree with him (and apparently you as well) that the commerce clause shouldn’t be given the unreasonable amount of power it seems to wield today. Also, I’ll be the first to admit that I’m no Constitutional scholar–however, given the Oregon statute as it is written, I don’t see how the commerce clause could even remotely effect the Oregon case–we’re talking about a state law that only concerns a very restricted class of Oregon residents, and doesn’t involve interstate commerce at all. Of course, Thomas’s argument in Raich was that if you can apply the commerce clause to this, you can apply it to anything, but apparently the majority still disagrees with him on that point as well.
Also, I don’t know that I find Kelo to be that surprising a decision, seeing as how all it (allegedly) did was enforce existing precedent, which is what you are currently writing in support of. However, I do think that that sort of use of eminent domain is going too far, and should be restricted. Therefore, it’d be up to us, the states, and Congress to fix it. This is how the system works when you don’t have ‘judicial activism’ working for you, as it likely will be soon enough.
Pooh
Steve, correct me if I’m wrong, but Kelo is rendered somewhat sui generis by its facts, right?
Lines
Ok, Mona, let me try and put it as gently as possible:
If Anita Hill’s accusations had not come out to the public until AFTER the nomination had passed and Thomas was oozing on the bench, would you have held the Congressional Democrats accountable for not looking into something they knew about? Would the cries of “coverup” not have been deafening by those that would have wanted anything done to keep Thomas from an appointment he didn’t deserve?
And I’m only talking about the accusations. I’m not talking about a trial nor a hearing where her accusations could have been found lacking for evidence. Just the plain accusations.
If the committee had ignored her, they would have been damned for their actions as well. In going through the motions of garnering her testimony they essentially proved that her accusations were not enough to stop the nomination.
Either way, I think we were doomed to hear about his Bench Warrent, no matter how the Democrats handled it. I think the Democrats took the more professional method and proved him somewhat innocent of the charges and moved on.
I still think the press is to blame, they played it up to be much more than it was, and tried to create the impression that her testimony was much more of a threat to his appointment than it really was.
Steve
I don’t know which facts you mean, Pooh, although it’s clear that the Kelo-haters tend to fixate on all kinds of horrible hypotheticals that the Court didn’t reach and likely would never allow to take place, like property being taken for no other reason than increased tax revenue. I suppose the Court could have spelled out “increased tax revenue, standing alone, is never enough!” but those weren’t the facts of Kelo, and you don’t always get the dicta you might wish for. One might say that lack of reassuring dicta, standing alone, does not a constitutional abomination make.
Anyway, I believe everything that needs to be said about Kelo can be found here.
Mona
Steve accuses me: I’ve basically been with Mona throughout this whole Anita Hill thing, but anyone who thinks Kelo was one of the greatest judicial abominations of the last decade loses serious amounts of credibility as any kind of authority on constitutional law. I don’t think the outcome in Kelo shocked a single serious observer of the Court, although the popular spin has certainly been damning.
I’ve never held myself out as an “authority on constitutional law,” tho I follow what the S. Ct. does. And I certainly know that both federal and state courts have been conflating “public use” with “public benfit” for some time. Altho, the Michigan Supreme Court recently reversed course set in the flagship Poletown case.
The federal point to stop was Kelo. The Court didn’t stop. That is sickeneing; Mrs. Jones now has to give her house to Wal-Mart if the local officials see a chance for enhanced tax revenue. Left and right, the blogosphere rose up against that holding, for good reason.
Steve
This is what I’m talking about. Visceral dislike of the result, with no appreciation of the actual holding. Are you truly suggesting the Court should have issued an advisory opinion in the mythical Jones v. Wal-Mart case just to placate the blogosphere?
I’m very familiar with the Poletown decision, as a Michigan native myself. And I think the Michigan Supreme Court issued a fine decision – as a matter of state constitutional law. Michigan had a bad experience with eminent domain which caused the court to revisit its thinking on the issue, and that’s exactly the type of political solution at the state level that the Court deferred to in Kelo.
If the people of Connecticut want to limit the power of eminent domain, they’re enfranchised, you know. If they don’t want local municipalities to have the power at all, they can do that too. Or if they think it might be a necessary tool for urban redevelopment, so be it. It’s exactly the kind of state-by-state solution that you would have loved to see upheld in Raich.
Lines
Bingo, Steve. I decided to step back from the Kelo mess and let you handle it, and I’m not disappointed.
Kelo is a perfect example of the Supreme Court ignoring case specifics and upholding State’s Rights to decide for themselves, through elected officials and ballots, how to handle eminent domain.
Have people been hurt by Eminent Domain? Yes. Have people been hurt by flying snakehead fish? Yes, but that doesn’t mean the Supreme Court should have a ruling on flying snakehead fish, because look at all those states along the Mississippi they would have to cover!
Mona
This is what I’m talking about. Visceral dislike of the result, with no appreciation of the actual holding. Are you truly suggesting the Court should have issued an advisory opinion in the mythical Jones v. Wal-Mart case just to placate the blogosphere?
And I’m a Michigan resident and lawyer myself. Kelo is outrageous, as was Poletown, before it was reversed.
Mona
Or if they think it might be a necessary tool for urban redevelopment, so be it. It’s exactly the kind of state-by-state solution that you would have loved to see upheld in Raich.
Raich does not entail a rejection of incorporation doctrine, which I do not reject. Kelo was appalling.
Lines
Mona, why do you think Kelo is outrageous?
Why do you think that State’s Rights when it comes down to Eminent Domain is somehow worse than a Federal law that would be so complex as to be useless?
Do you think there should be no Eminent Domain capability to the states? Do you think the Federal Government should possess the only Eminent Domain capability?
You’re just making statements with no content. WHY? Give me a reason to think you actually are a lawyer and you know what you’re talking about. I’m open to more information, but from what I see in reaction to Kelo, its really one of the best decisions to ever come down in favor of State’s Rights. Individual states get to determine the boundaries and capabilities of Eminent Domain, and thats a few degree’s closer to actual transparency and responsibility to the residents of that state, giving higher power to the people to decide what they think their state should do.
Once the Kelo decision came down, a good sized grouping of states rushed out to review and revise their Eminent Domain laws to bring them more up to date. How is this a bad thing?
Mona
Lines asks: Why do you think that State’s Rights when it comes down to Eminent Domain is somehow worse than a Federal law that would be so complex as to be useless?
This is not an issue of states rights, in any way.
It goes right to the heart of the individual property owner’s rights, and entire neighborhoods have been destroyed so that, e.g., GM could build a car plant and tax revenue would be increased. There is a reason both the left and right blogosphere had fits over Kelo.
Davebo
Honestly someone should call up the Laura Ingraham show and ask Laura what the spots on George Conway’s dick are shaped like.
Lines
The destruction of those neighborhoods had nothing to do with Kelo, and its people such as yourself that misdirect the rage at said destruction that weaken the intent!
The state dictates Eminent Domain. The STATE. Kelo upheld that, thats ALL. It did not determine the intent of the state, it didn’t change the right for states to determine their own designs of Eminent Domain. It only said the states trumped Federal law for Eminent Domain. how is this not an issue of States Rights?
From one state to another, Eminent Domain is different. Thats the whole point, and thats why it absolutely does have something to do with State’s Rights.
I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on the interenet, is that it? Your credentials are showing under your skirt, miss.
Mona
I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on the interenet, is that it? Your credentials are showing under your skirt, miss
Michigan bar practitioners number P52759. Go to their web site, or call them. I’m a lawyer in that state.
Pooh
Steve, my impression was that New London studied the living hell out of the program and had a cast-iron case for economic benefit, not some vague notion of “Wal-Mart = Good”, and the result was based in large part on the verifiable findings of the city council. That’s all I meant, but I didn’t follow the case closely, just a quick perusal of the opinion.
Mona
Oh, and here: last name, Holland, first, Mona. Bar # P52759. Do call them, and then admit you are a moron.
Lines
Then justify your opinion! If you’re a damn lawyer, it shouldn’t be that hard!
Using emotional words is equavalent to me saying that Bush is a loon, so impeach him. You’ve made no valid argument about why YOU think Kelo is a bad decision and when challenged on your assertion, your replies have become smaller and smaller with less and less content.
I honestly WANT to know why you think Kelo is a bad decision. I’m still swayable on the whole thing. To my limited knowledge of law and using my Crib Notes for Dummies on Eminent Domain, it appears like a decent decision that got completely miscommunicated and misunderstood in the blogosphere of doom.
I’ve argued these points before and no one has yet to be able to answer my challenge with anything more than emotional plea’s of “the government wants to steal my property and give it to big corporations!”
Why, if you are indeed a lawyer, are you acting like a petulant child about this? Are you not intelligent enough to word your argument in a way that people here will understand? Are you afraid of being challenged on facts and so you throw out emotional grandstanding statements?
Steve
Of course it’s a states’ rights issue. Why would it not be? Land use is probably THE quintessential local issue. You need look no further than Justice O’Connor’s opinion for a unanimous majority in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984), to understand the importance of letting the States develop individual solutions to the unique problems they face.
It seems clear from your comments that you are opposed, not to Kelo, but to eminent domain itself, or at least the abuses thereof. But you don’t seem to be clear on whether you believe Kelo was simply an incremental creep that the Court should have drawn the line at, or whether you believe the Court should have reversed virtually all of its eminent domain precedent and insisted on a literal interpretation of “public use.”
If the former, I don’t think you realize how arbitrary the line would have been, and to what extent an arbitrary test of that type would have converted the federal courts into zoning boards of appeal with respect to every eminent domain situation nationwide. If the latter, at least your answer has the appeal of a bright-line rule, but it’s hard to call Kelo a constitutional abomination just because it declined to overrule a dozen prior cases.
I refer you again to the Five Myths of Kelo, and ask if you want to substantively challenge any of Professor Merrill’s arguments. I’ll pull out one quote in particular, which also goes to the point Pooh has been making:
Sojourner
Thomas lied under oath about his sexual habits and was given a life-time appointment. Clinton lied about his sexual habits and was impeached.
Just another example of the ethically challenged Repubs.
Mona
Lines saysUsing emotional words is equavalent to me saying that Bush is a loon, so impeach him. You’ve made no valid argument about why YOU think Kelo is a bad decision and when challenged on your assertion, your replies have become smaller and smaller with less and less content.
My comment about Kelo was an aside, in the context of discussing Thomas, the Dem smear campaign against him, and my defense of his holding in Oregon in light of Raich.
My trying to tell you why eminent domain jurisprudence is wrong, showing that the High Court was wrong, would be like evolutionary biologists trying in three short paragraphs to explain to a lay audience why Intelligent Design is not science. Can’t be done.
So, I decline, and stand on all I said about Thomas other than emiment domain/Kelo issues.
Mona
sojourner saysThomas lied under oath about his sexual habits
And you know this how?
Mona
steve claims
Please apply that to Kelo.
Mona
Shoot, my 7:17 to Steve was a misfire; I apologize.
He said: Of course it’s a states’ rights issue. Why would it not be? Land use is probably THE quintessential local issue. You need look no further than Justice O’Connor’s opinion for a unanimous majority in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff,
Please cite the language from Kelo showing this is a states rights issue.
Pb
Gosh Mona, after that I almost feel obligated to introduce myself. And yes Lines, she is apparently a member of the Michigan bar, and not a pathological liar, which is somewhat refreshing around here.
Davebo
Sojourner
Friends and colleagues of Thomas’s discussed his taste for pornography in “Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas.” Which, of course, is problematic in that Thomas claimed he didn’t watch the stuff.
Also, the book documents other potential witnesses who would have confirmed Hill’s story if they were only given the chance to testify.
Steve
Pooh
Really? I think a competent science type (read: not Pooh) could set forth the scientific method in 2 grafs and conclude with “At, present ID does none of this, and is therefore not science.”
Lines
Ok, I’m going to go to every fucking thread and start randomly stating my unfounded beliefs in everything under the sun, then when people challenge me on my statement, I’m going to claim I don’t have time to answer them, and I’m too fucking good to do it.
Screw you Mona, I gave you every chance to validate your opinion because I was actually curious. I’ll mark you down as just another opinionated dipshit and continue in my search for real discussion.
Oh, and just because she’s a member of a state bar doesn’t make her NOT a serial compulsive liar on the internet.
demimondian
Oops, Mona…bad choice.
(1) All science (except the principle of empirical falsifiability) depends on the core principle of “empirical falsifiability”: any scientific statement can, in principle, be refuted by a single observable fact.
(2) ID claims that the properties of all living creatures were untimately specified by an intelligent designer, the properties of which are unobservable.
(3) That statement is unrefutable by any observation.
Ergo, ID is not science.
tb
Right. That would be impossible. But here it is in 6 paragraphs from the Talk Origins archive:
Claim CI001:
Intelligent design theory is science.
Source:
Dembski, William A., 1998. The Design Inference. Cambridge University Press.
Response:
The terms used in design theory are not defined. “Design”, in design theory, has nothing to do with “design” as it is normally understood. Design is defined in terms of an agent purposely arranging something, but such a concept appears nowhere in the process of distinguishing design in the sense of “intelligent design.” Dembski defined design in terms of what it is not (known regularity and chance), making intelligent design an argument from incredulity; he never said what design is.
A solution to a problem must address the parameters of the problem, or it is just irrelevant hand waving. Any theory about design must somehow address the agent and purpose, or it is not really about design. No intelligent design theorist has ever included agent or purpose in any attempt at a scientific theory of design, and some explicitly say they cannot be included (Dembski 2002, 313). Thus, even if intelligent design theory were able to prove design, it would mean practically nothing; it would certainly say nothing whatsoever about design in the usual sense.
Irreducible complexity also fails as science because it, too, is an argument from incredulity that has nothing to do with design.
Intelligent design is subjective. Even in Dembski’s mathematically intricate formulation, the specification of his specified complexity can be determined after the fact, making “specification” a subjective concept. Dembski now talks of “apparent specified complexity” versus “actual specified complexity,” of which only the latter indicates design. However, it is impossible to distinguish between the two in principle (Elsberry n.d.).
Intelligent design implies results that are contrary to common sense. Spider webs apparently meet the standards of specified complexity, which implies that spiders are intelligent. One could instead claim that the complexity was designed into the spider and its abilities. But if that claim is made, one might just as well claim that the spider’s designer was not intelligent but was intelligently designed, or maybe it was the spider’s designer’s designer that was intelligent. Thus, either spiders are intelligent, or intelligent design theory reduces to a weak Deism where all design might have entered into the universe only once at the beginning, or terms like “specified complexity” have no useful definition.
The intelligent design movement is not intended to be about science. Phillip Johnson, who spearheaded and led the movement, said in so many words that it is about religion and philosophy, not science (Belz 1996).
Pb
Lines,
However, it does mean that I believe she’s told the truth at least once, which is more than I can say about some people around here.
Pooh,
Wikipedia does a decent job in their intelligent design entry.
DougJ
I am not a huge fan or Atrios (I don’t like open threads that much) but this is interesting.
demimondian
DougJ — I’m confused?
DougJ
Demi, the stuff about Joe Scarborough. It sounds fishy to me. But then again, I watch three Law and Orders a day. Still, I think I have a nose for these things.
Pb
DougJ,
It’s definitely fishy. It’s also old news, but not necessarily well-known or anything.
Mitchell
Peter Schweizer is the author of Victory, the story of how the Cold War was won, Reagan’s War, which describes President Reagan’s decades-long, and ultimately successful, battle against Communism, and several other books. His recent work, Do As I Say, is a departure. Schweizer profiles eleven leading liberals, and poses the question: how does the way they comport themselves in their business and personal lives comport with their stated liberal principles? The results are stunning.
Schweizer emphasizes that his purpose goes beyond the “gotcha” value of nailing liberal hypocrisy:
[D]espite the fact that they often speak of them with genuine conviction, these do-as-I-say liberals don’t actually trust their ideas enough to apply them at home. Instead, when it comes to the things that matter most in their personal lives, they tend to behave–ironically–more like conservatives than liberals. Which can only make one wonder: If their liberal prescriptions don’t really work for them as individuals, how can they work for the rest of us?
demimondian
Hey, John? This Mitchell fellow is spamming all your threads with his ad. I’m going to ignore him anyway — unless he wants to send me a review copy — but it’s narksome.
demimondian
DougJ, Pb. I’m not sure I put much weight on the Scarborough story. I mean, yes, the man’s pure rope in your wort, but I’ve never seen any clear evidence of pressure anywhere.
But, what do I know? I’m notorious for having no imagination to speak of.
DougJ
Well, PB, as they say on NBC when they run re-runs, it’s new to me!
DougJ
Demi, I think someone probably killed her. As someone who has watched countless hours of Law and Order, I think I know foul play when I see it. I’m only half-kidding.
Let’s say there’s a ten percent chance Joe Scarborough killed her. That means there’s a ten percent change MSNBC has a murderer in a prime time slot (it’s probably higher, I know, since they’ve got Tucker on to, but I don’t want to think about whether or not that’s an independent event, so let’s just forget about it). Would they hire O.J. if the ratings were good enough? Sadly, the answer is almost certainly “yes”.
demimondian
So, DougJ, what do you think of the theeis that (a) successful liberals live “conservative” lives at home, and (b) if (a), that’s hypocrisy?
DougJ
Not interested in what people do at home. Unless it involves murdering their interns.
Pb
demimondian,
I think it’s good enough to make it into Unsolved Mysteries, except that Scarborough would sue the hell out of them if they tried it–he’s very touchy about the whole thing.
Also, I don’t know about successful liberals, but by all accounts, there are lots of conservatives out there who act in private like the alleged morally degenerate limousine liberals they constantly decry. Sounds like yet more projection on their part, to me.
demimondian
So you think he murdered her in Gary Condit’s loft, and dragged her down to Florida to cover for Chandra Levy’s death?
tb
Care to share with us some of the “stunning” results? Because I’m sure as hell not going to buy this guaranteed piece of shit book. Let me guess: author sets up strawman of how liberals are “supposed” to act; author gives unsympathetic portrayal of famous liberal who is also a flawed human being; famous liberal naturally doesn’t live up to imaginary standard established by author, so minimum wage and anti-discrimination laws are bad. QED.
Is that about it? Be honest.
Pb
tb,
Yeah, that’s my hunch too–“eleven leading liberals”? I smell cherry-picking. Looking at it on Amazon, I can see that it’s just another GOP smear merchant at work. The contrast between the Publishers Weekly review and The Weekly Standard review is entertaining, though.
I also like the title “Do As I Say (Not As I Do)” — it reminds me of one of my favorite Genesis songs, which seems rather appropriate.
The Other Steve
BTW. I think Mona is either scs, or someone very similar.
She seems to support Thomas not because she believes he is innocent, but simply because it was mean spirited to point out he was a pervert.
and her opposition to Kelo is based upon the popularity of the opinion, rather than any deep intellectual thought or understanding of the issues involved.
Perfect seed for Republican propaganda.
demimondian
Oh, for heaven’s sake!
Look, I’m as appalled as anyone by the abuse the Anita Hill experienced, both while she worked for Thomas, and, worse, during and after her testimony. Let’s go further: Hill’s testimony clearly showed that Thomas was not qualified to serve on the Court, and it’s terribly to the shame of the Senate to have confirmed him.
That said, the fundamental parallel between Thomas and Clinton can’t be ignored. You’d be surprised how often a liasion between a superior and a subordinate which seemed at the time to be consensual later on turns out to be sexual harrassment. (And not due to the later duplicity of the subordinate, but rather due to her or his need to protect a job at the time.) I suspect that Lewinsky was harrassed, in both the technical and the literal sense.
Sock Puppet
A lot of people with older model computers can’t get down this far on a thread.
Sock Puppet
I wonder where John and Tim are today?
You don’t think they’re off on a Brokeback Weekend or anything, do you?
Pb
The Other Steve,
I believe that Mona is who she says she is; as for if she’s previously had another account on here, well, John or Tim might know that, but I have no reason to believe that she has. But as for her opinions, well, look at that Reason article she praises, or about its author–essence of vile wingnuttery, by someone who never should have stopped writing for TV guide. However, she still seems more reasonable and more grounded than most of the nuts around here, which I think is a good thing.
Sojourner
Lewinsky was a grown woman who participated in a consensual relationship she later regretted. Was it wrong of Clinton to have done this? Absolutely. But Lewinsky was not a child. Women her age successfully avoid having sexual relationships with their successful bosses all the time.
I don’t know if Thomas should have been kept off the court for talking dirty but he sure as shit should have been kept off for lying.
Pb
Sojourner,
I agree. I wonder if there is a statute of limitations for lying to Congress under oath.
Barry
Me: “Krista, the first clause is not true, and foolish to believe; the second clause is simply a lie.”
Krista Says:
“Barry D – I’m sorry, are you stating that I’m lying in saying that Canada does not have term limits for its head of government, or are you stating that I’m lying when I insinuate that the lack of term limits contributes to corruption? Just looking for a bit of clarification here.”
The lack of term limits contributing to corruption.