११ नोव्हेंबर, २००९
"Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Forcibly Guest-Edits High School Newspaper Article About His Own Visit."
But now wasn't it so nice of him to stop by and teach the children about law... with a whole counter-example object lesson?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३८ टिप्पण्या:
I wonder what would Kennedy have done if they said that his approval and rewrite was another story and slammed him with a critical story calling him the worst person in the world?
One rule for us, the proles, and another rule for them, the elite rulers.
That's satire again, isn't it.
Sarcasm! I meant sarcasm!
Perhaps they don't have a culture of fact checking at the Daltonian. Perhaps one time too many, Justice Kennedy has been surprised to read what some high schoolers thought they had heard him say.
"Perhaps they don't have a culture of fact checking at the Daltonian"
Sure they do--they just ask the editors at The Nation.
Why in the hell did they abide by his request?
I suspect that this story is complete bullshit, and someone wanted to quote Kennedy, or get further comments, and he obliged.
I'm not a fan of Justice Kennedy, but I just don't think he would claim the paper cannot print something until he gives the thumbs up. If he did, impeach his ass.
Quotations were ‘tidied up’ to better reflect the meaning the justice had intended to convey.
I bet a lot of lawyers before the Supreme Court would like to "tidy up" the transcript of oral argument to better reflect what they had intended to convey.
Perhaps Kennedy is just a big Family Guy fan and wanted to help the students avoid a lawsuit.
WIFE: Luke! Luke, time for dinner!
LUKE PERRY: In a minute, babe.
I'm reading every high school newspaper in America to see if I'm mentioned.
[Spots Meg's article claiming Luke Perry is gay]
LUKE PERRY: Oh, my God! Meg Griffin, you are so sued.
I'm sorry.. I jumped the gun there.
I thought (b4 reading the whole story) that Kennedy was being attacked.
The story was more about his staff than about the justice himself.
Still. I meant every word I said had it being about the injustice upon the justice i had imagined.
It sounds like there was nothing counter to the law. Kennedy agreed to talk at the school, in return for the right to review and edit any reporting of the event in the school newspaper. I assume that such an agreement binds the school, and the school paper, but could not stop a student from publishing an unapproved article in some other paper.
Oh, and if Kennedy's quotes have been edited from what he said to something else, then they are no longer quotes from the event, and reporting them as such would be journalistic malfeasance. Another important skill for reporters to learn early.
If I had gone to law school I believe i would have been a defense attorney.
I'm not talking about trying to get Hasan nor Sodini off. I'm talking about the belief that we should give every one the fairest shake possible.
I watched an interview on CSpan with Melvin Urofsky author of Louis D. Brandeis "A Life".
He spoke for an hour with Brian Lamb about Brandeis and I thought this is an American I should know about. I ordered the book.
The idea that Brandeis had a kind of a round of the knights table in Washington - as a Supreme - is fascinating.
They cant and/or wont do that anymore.
"He was a republican but he was a democrat"
"He was a conservative but he was a liberal".
wv - tryin
I'm waching the interview again.
Frankfurter took a "stipend" from Brandeis for a while to support him. (it was not illegal then)
Frankfurter did not make enough/little as a professor.
Brandeis had "a woman with a head for numbers" handling his finances"..
A famous biographer called him..
"The intellectual architect of the new freedom".
Anyone else envisioning an old guy grabbing a pencil out of some 14-year-old girl's hand and scribbling, "the BEST of the Supreme Court Justices..."?
Just me?
(No, I didn't read the story. That would ruin it.)
I'm going to go on a limb and say that maybe be would have been better known had he not been born a jew..
I'm guessing. (I could be wrong)
there was a justice that didn't "get along" with him.
the justice would at times "walk out" when it was Brandeis turn to speak in conference.
He had an aversion for "bigness" in government AND in businesses.
it took 6 months to confirm him.
he had friends and enemies in both parties alike.
He was not initially active in woman suffrage nor in the civil rights movements.
while a supreme he did side with the naacp.
wv - imerses
Cold, hard all business no nonsence. made use of every minute of his time.
Everything I heard in this interview when coupled with how i interpret Althouses writing here on her blog tells me Althouse is a Brandisian of the first order.
Maybe there there is another justice i never heard of she likes better but as i said I think Althouse is of the Brandeis school - at least when it comes to her political way approach.
and I haven't even read the Brandeis bio yet.
He would have mixed reactions (the author surmises) to his book (Other People's Money and How the Bankers Use It) been largely quoted for free in Wikipedia.
He did not use the phone until much later in life because he thought it too much of an intrusion on his privacy.
Just to add a little context, it was only a few weeks ago that lefty blogs rocketed around a misquote of Justice Scalia, claiming he said that he would have dissented in Brown v. Board of Education. In fact (as anybody with half would have known), Justice Scalia said he would have dissented in Plessy, and thus would have voted to find "separate but equal" unconstitutional. Had he not been on video, there would probably still be idiots out there claiming he really did say he would vote against Brown.
So I'm a little sympathetic with the Justice and his staff, though I agree he should have found a better way to handle the problem.
The story of how one of the justices did not sign a letter congratulating Brandeis on his retirement from the court (signed by all the other justices) i thought touching.
Just to add a little context, it was only a few weeks ago that lefty blogs rocketed around a misquote of Justice Scalia, claiming he said that he would have dissented in Brown v. Board of Education.
exactly
this is the kind of thing that drives them more into caves of isolation, to the point where we know more about our enemies than our justices.
it would be funny if it wasn't true.
"He almost invents pro bono".
wv - mander
OMG - 950 some pages.. yikes
Lamb asked name something that makes him one of the best Supremes of all time.
"His work on free speech and privacy".
("he burned a lot his papers".. too bad)
BTW - its not just Tropper still MIA ...
we also have an Amber Alert for Simon.. the lawyer..
(no el hijo de Jonas ;)
Truth is i dont really know if Simon was a lawyer..
he had Scalia as his avatar.. and seemed to be versed on law about as much as i'm on baseball.
i think its interesting that at one time there was a supreme that was also a baseball commissioner.
Cant say that about football can you ;)
speaking of baseball..
there is a star surplus... more like a glut.
its going to be good for the smaller markets... pick up a star cheap.
got ot go..
Lem does a boring imitation of Titus. Everyone's lost interest.
Silly, Ann; thinking the US Constitution is about limiting government.
there was a justice that didn't "get along" with him.
the justice would at times "walk out" when it was Brandeis turn to speak in conference.
McReynolds. Magnificently conservative, he was the staunchest of the anti-New Deal justices. He wrote the enigmatic to the point of Sphinxitude opinion in US v. Miller, the last Second Amendment case for almost seventy years.
Well, I read Lem's stuff Iapetus. He's very entertaining and smart.
So that's at least one person not bored at all.
Joe said,
"Silly, Ann; thinking the US Constitution is about limiting government."
Silly Joe, thinking we are are a constitutional republic; after all, G.W.Bush himself declared of the Constitution, "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
And he proved it by enthusiastically violating the Constitution, to the active cheers (or dumb acceptance) of his adoring fans in the media and the country at large.
Now, Con Law Prof. Barack Obama, by continuing and even expanding on Bush policies, similarly treats the Constitution as provisional, to be observed only as convenience suggests.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा