It's me and Instapundit, lawprofs, talking about our new lawprof President, Barack Obama!
(If you can't get the embedded video to play, play it here.)
ADDED: I think I've got the embedded video to start working now. And let me just note that in the freeze frame, Glenn Reynolds seems to be blessing us.
५ नोव्हेंबर, २००८
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२६ टिप्पण्या:
Wow; you and Glenn Reynolds together again for the first time!
That's almost as good a line up as the Yes/Frampton/Gary Wright tour back in the 70's.
No, I seem to remember that they did one once before and the Insta-wife Dr Helen jumped on and they a three way...I mean a threesome...I mean they were altogehter...I mean..well you can look it up.
I liked that one with Dr. Helen.
She really horned in there. Glenn looked like he was used to it.
Also, WTF did they do to the BH widget? It starts, immediately stops, and then prompts me to watch the whole thing at BH. Or to replay the clip, which it didn't play in the first place.
Not the first time. Second time.
Glenn was obviously very happy to include Helen and it was nicely handled, I think.
Come on, Althouse. Are you suggesting in good conscience that the conservatives currently on the court are not impressive justices?
You cannot possibly argue that Alito, Roberts, or Scalia are anything less than first-rate legal minds, even if you disagree with them. I add Thomas to this list. And they were all picked by presidents who aren't into legal minutiae.
You say you like Breyer. Fine. I don't like Ginsberg but she is certainly worthy of the job.
Who's left? Souter, Kennedy, and Stevens. Souter and Kennedy are average at best, but they are more liberal. The nut who definitely never belonged is Stevens, the most liberal of all except for Ginsberg.
What gives?
P.S. The show was great, though. Two heavyweights kicking back and talking. More like that.
He was! That's part of why it was so great: You two had wandered into her territory and she was comfortable taking the reins and he was comfortable letting her.
It was very cool. I think a lot of couples can't pull that off.
Seven Machos said..."Come on, Althouse. Are you suggesting in good conscience that the conservatives currently on the court are not impressive justices?"
I'm not suggesting it, period.
"You cannot possibly argue that Alito, Roberts, or Scalia are anything less than first-rate legal minds, even if you disagree with them. I add Thomas to this list. And they were all picked by presidents who aren't into legal minutiae."
Listen to what I said again. I don't have a problem with the conservatives and you may remember that I have defended them. Conspicuously. My point is that I want an array of voices on the Court, and the liberal side needs to be maintained for balance. If I didn't think the conservatives were strong, strong liberals wouldn't be needed to balance them.
"You say you like Breyer. Fine. I don't like Ginsberg but she is certainly worthy of the job."
I also like the conservatives.
"Who's left? Souter, Kennedy, and Stevens. Souter and Kennedy are average at best, but they are more liberal. The nut who definitely never belonged is Stevens, the most liberal of all except for Ginsberg."
None of them are liberals like Douglas or Brennan in the old days.
If I didn't think the conservatives were strong, strong liberals wouldn't be needed to balance them.
A tremendously good point.
It sounds as though I misunderstood overall. Carry on.
i think one of the great things about having a law professor as the president is that i feel like he will actually know the constitution and be able to do some great things in this country. I'm a little worried liberal illuminati are going to own capital hill, i think there needs to be a strong balance. But i am with you, i think the law professor is going to be a good thing.
Inside the academics of the law profession (pardon my terminolgy which I'm sure is not good), perhaps Stevens may be viewed as a less than pure liberal, but where I am, he always seems to vote that way.
I suppose balance is good but when Ginsburg gets 90+ votes and Roberts just over 70 (if I recall correctly), it tells me many democrats have no interest in balance, including Mr. Obama. But we can always place bets on the return of a "gang of 14" to moderate things. I'll take zero percent for $100.
I didn't watch it, but I'm sure it's at least a quarter step up from your run-of-the-mill Youtube vlogger pontificating from their room. I'm wondering exactly how Pajamas Media is going to send the MSM "down the river" when all they do is offer talking head shows featuring minor pundits who couldn't find the river if they were swimming in it. (The link might not be from PJM, but it's all part of the same set of people).
One correction, however. According to a 2001 page, BHO was a "Senior Lecturer in Law". Whether that counts as a professor or whether they call him that now might be different.
Rahm Emmanuel isn't a law professor.
He's a dangerous, violent, angry little man from the crooked Chicago machine.
Hope & change!
Your hair looks fantastic. Very very chic-it's a great cut and style.
Excellent diavlog. I try to find different things to listen to at work and I've been through a lot of these diavlogs on blogginheads and I usually find them kind of blah, but this one was very good.
The Sarah Palin bit ends with your mouth in an unfortunate position. Oh, well.
It will be very interesting to follow the blogosphere into a Democratic presidential administration since the community only came of age after 9/11.
InstaPundit says in this bloggingheads that he voted for Browne in 2000. On his blog, in the past (unless I just imagined it), he said he voted for Gore in 2000.
So which is it?
Loaf,
No, Glenn said (encapsulated and paraphrased) he was a big backer of Gore but that Gore went nuts and he ended up voting for Browne.
(Me, too.)
College professors with the mentality of high school students, filming themselves.
Oh, I see what my mistake was with the help of Google. It was guest blogger Megan McCardle on Instapundit who voted for Gore!
Obama is elected president and all of a sudden he's going to resist the demands of the Democratic congress? In what way? He'll be for limited government and constitutional restraint? Doesn't compute.
Law profs generally do a fine job of teaching law. Ruling the world? Only if we want our rulers to have tenure.
Rahm Emannuel majored in ballet at Sarah Lawrence. A ballet dancer and a law prof. Fabuloso!
This is the first extensive video blog of you that I have watched. Your personal mannerisms are quite appealing and consistent with your writing style....When you think about it a deferential smile or a sly joke wins more arguments than brilliant reasoning. Or maybe it takes a certain amount of reasoning to learn how to smile deferentially at just the right moment. Anyway, while no Sarah Palin, you are fun to watch.
Also, as I was driving home today I was suddenly thinking for whatever reason about your concern about smutty speech in blog comments and ways that might be imputed to you as a law professor. You're on record hoping tort suits against Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church fail on free speech grounds, so you've pretty much staked out a big, broad position on free speech. Why be concerned about coarse language in blog comments.
Thanks for thinking about me, chuck. The truth is, I don't mind. I like it.
Law professors, no.
Former law review editors, okay.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा