Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Hey, at least he didn't say anything as outrageous as "death panels," right?
Hey, at least he didn't say anything as outrageous as "death panelsHey, there was a Republican Supreme Court nominee to be destroyed, so being truthful wasn't part of the calculus.
Once a sot, always a sot.
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.
Kennedy's Borktopia?Anybody know why the video contained that highlight circle that centered on the chattering aid behind Kennedy?
Done too soon-He was "done" when Mary Jo was forced to breathe a liquid.
A gnat calling a condor small.
Edited to correct embarassing typos. Any remaining errors must not be embarrassing.This was the event which raised the evil doubt in my mind that part of the Chappaquidick deal was that Ted would say/do anything when he was told to in pursuit of a political agenda. In other words, he became a political tool to avoid possible consequences.Of course, I have since given up such a foolish idea as being completely without merit or supporting evidence.
Kennedy's comments about Bork were beyond the pale. They represent the all time low in SCOTUS confirmation hearings and created a precedent for poisoning the process that should be weighed by anyone considering his political legacy.
Anybody know why the video contained that highlight circle that centered on the chattering aid behind Kennedy?The circle was on Sotomayor.Welcome to the United States of Evil
I'm sorry. Every time I watch this I find myself unable to extend the RIP to Ted Kennedy.My guess is that right about now he's in the Bardos, traversing his life and being given a clear and objective view of the abject evil he peddled while he was alive.
As I said earlier today on my blog about something completely unrelated... the Left can get away with saying _anything_ they want and they are never called to account for it. At least on this plane of existence.
Why are those comments beyond the pale? They actually seem pretty accurate. I've seen that nutcase, Bork, for example, on television talking about how we should have censorship everywhere because our culture is degenerate. Why shouldn't a senator rip to shreds a twisted fuck like that who's trying to get a life appointment on our highest court? We've got some real scary judges in this country. Look at what Justice Scalia recently said in a dissenting opinion, for example: “This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable.”Scary stuff.
Rialby: What, exactly, is so inaccurate about Kennedy's statement on Bork?
This is the crowd that approved of Obama being called the best pal of terrorists.
LoafingOaf:What is inaccurate about Scalia wrote? Has the Supreme Court held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent? This is a simple question of fact. It either has or it hasn't.
"This is the crowd that approved of Obama being called the best pal of terrorists."What is so inaccurate about the statement that he palled around with terrorists? Was Bill Ayers not a terrorist? Or did Obama not actually pal around with him?
Kennedy was strongly criticized at the time for his vitrolic statement about Bork. But Bork didn't belong on the Supreme Court. His view of the constitution was far too narrow. The man thought Griswold was wrongly decided.
Feel the hate ---
Oafing Loaf wrote oafishly: Why are those comments beyond the pale? They actually seem pretty accurate.They were beyond the pale because they distorted Bork's legal perspective with hyperbole intended to appeal to leftist hysterics -- the kind of folks who think it is racist, per se, to criticize Obama. It would probably have been actionable defamation had Bork not been a public figure.Playing by Kennedy's book Republicans might have said of Ruth Bader Ginsburg that a vote for her confirmation would have been a vote for public-funded abortion on demand, infanticide, eugenics, Margaret Sanger and Adolph Hitler style, and involuntary euthanasia.Of course by now, arguably, the left does support those things, but at the time it would have been hyperbole and "beyond the pale" at a confirmation hearing.
Anyone id the woman in the lower right-hand corner of the video?wv - hedledis: the 'l' in 'blt.'
that's the nuyorican who's now part of the SCOTUS
These comments were not out of the bounds of acceptable political discourse. Bork was a very strong advocate for a particular view of the constitution. Kennedy's vivid language described what he (and the activists who scripted him) sincerely thought Bork's views could lead to if they became a majority view. The liberals under Reagan were scared that Roe v. Wade would be overturned. They were concerned about a rollback of defendants' rights. They were concerned about civil rights. They might have been misguided, but Kennedy's remarks embodied what they thought was on the line. The only way his remarks would be considered out of bounds would be if he didn't really mean them, and was attacking Bork as a kind of subterfuge for another agenda -- say, at the behest of tort lawyers. I don't get the impression that was the case here. I don't see that many conservatives held back in their critiques of Sotomayor. Maybe less memorably phrased, but you certainly heard about her alleged radicalism, reverse racism, etc. Rough things are said in politics. The idea that high-court judicial nominations are supposed to be sacrosanct is a myth with little foundation. If you nominate a boring candidate, you get boring confirmations. Notable figures like Bork will draw fire. So it goes.
mccullough said... The man thought Griswold was wrongly decided. in my opinion it was but i usually only say that in private.
mccullough said..."The man thought Griswold was wrongly decided."He was right. Griswold was wrongly decided, in the sense that it was unnecessary to find a vague and elastic penumbral right of privacy to overturn birth control laws. A great intellectual overreach by the court, and a means to allow judges to bend the Constitution to their personal policy views.
Kennedy's vivid language described what he (and the activists who scripted him) sincerely thought Bork's views could lead to if they became a majority view.I don't buy the "sincerely" bit. It was simply another leftist doing "what works." Comments by his colleagues about Sotomayor were not even remotely comparable.Kennedy's remarks, like the man himself,were without dignity.
David,Sounds like you're not a fan of the second justice Harlan's jurisprudence in this area.People can certainly take the narrower view of individual rights or equal protection. Roe's controversial but Griswold isn't (just like Lawrence really isn't and the parental-rights cases are not). Anyway, Bork, like Gore, has proven after-the-fact that he was not fit for the job. He, like Gore, is pretty much a kook.
Thanks for reminding me what a piece of trash he was. Of course during the Anita Hill controversy Kennedy couldn't say anything.
I have never written on one of these things and usually dont read them but was drawn in when I stubbled along this during my search of the topic of Kennedy and Bork. I had read the quote and I am a 46 year old white, female from the south and it was something I thought I would like to copy and have to look at every now and then. The reason being is that it reminds me that people should stand up more for what they believe in and they should be able to be heard. We live in a democracy and that is the best part that we can say what we believe to be true. When I was younger I thought of Kennedy as a drunk and just a "Kennedy" I listened to my Republican parents talk about them in not the most admiring ways. Kennedy could have just sailed all the time and not worked. He chose to work for our country for a hugh part of his life. He admitted his mistakes and he grew up and stepped across the lines to work with fellow Republicans. He truly wanted to help people who were descriminated against and people who couldnt pay their medical bills. I bet if I were as wealthy as him I wouldnt have spent my time doing that. It takes a certain person to have that persistence and strength . I believe Edward Kennedy was a good man who learned from his mistakes and became the best he could be.
Post a Comment