Althouse: I shush Jim Pinkerton.

May 5, 2010

I shush Jim Pinkerton.

He's trying to disclose my Supreme Court plot!

18 comments:

Hagar said...: Liberal is one thing, but Obama is not a "liberal."; 5/5/10, 11:37 AM
Opus One Media said...: Well Hagar, let us take it another step..Pinkerton is no one's fool, he is everyone's inner fool.

His history of "let's bridge the gap between belief and truth" isn't really anything to take home to mother.; 5/5/10, 11:48 AM
Mick said...: What if he is not eligible (not a Natural Born Citizen)? Then he shouldn't have a choice at all. Or if ousted all of his choices are null and void.; 5/5/10, 12:01 PM
Michael said...: Obama is certainly a Natural Born citizen so it doesn't matter.; 5/5/10, 12:03 PM
Peter Hoh said...: So, who is the-most-liberal-person-Obama-could-possibly-nominate?

Or do we have to wait to apply that label to whomever is nominated?; 5/5/10, 12:27 PM
veni vidi vici said...: Damn, Althouse! I thought you were a cute middle-aged gal when I met you in West Hollywood a few years ago, but this bloggingheads shot has you looking about 25 years younger and pretty spectacular. What gives?

Congrats on aging exceptionally gracefully!

p.s. Don't worry, this isn't some pining/stalking lameness, only an observation.; 5/5/10, 12:28 PM
William said...: I enjoyed watching Pinkerton trying to get his mind around the fact that Kagan is insufficiently liberal. The horror.; 5/5/10, 1:02 PM
ricpic said...: Althouse admits that liberals are two faced hypocrites. Of course you don't have to be a genius to understand that anyone who buys into the end justifies the means will misrepresent himself, but for someone marinated in that world to acknowledge the outcome of that world's central tenet is...something.; 5/5/10, 1:12 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Pinkertons stutter annoys the hell out of me.

Call me insensitive.; 5/5/10, 1:35 PM
Big Mike said...: He doesn't know how you got tenure? And you let him live?!?!?

You must be a very nice person.; 5/5/10, 8:26 PM
Penny said...: "I shush Jim Pinkerton".

Althouse morphs into her headline...; 5/6/10, 12:01 AM
Penny said...: What would the headline be when Althouse discusses how she never stood up among her peers at U of Wisconsin to disagree with a well-liked, passionate colleague's position she did not support?

"I pragmatically support likable workmates, whether I agree with them or not!"

You may "shush" Jim Pinkerton...although I failed to see that you did?

You've been blogging too much. It's YOUR house, so you usually prevail here. Where and when it matters the most...U of W..., you go with the "flow" that is the majority, or the well-liked, or the good friend...none of whom you agree with intellectually.

You are "shushing" yourself. YOU, who values free speech.

Help me out here? I admire you, but I am confused?; 5/6/10, 12:48 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Prof. Althouse, I'm one of those almost-lawyers, know what I mean? Government major, read and thought a lot about law and philosophy, etc. But your statement here is somewhat new to me.

Please: can you recommend a book that espouses and defends the inside-the-academy liberal interpretation of the Constitution? I'd really like to learn more about it. I've long wondered how such an apparently illogical approach toward law could be held by so many who are supposedly both smart and schooled in the law.; 5/6/10, 9:09 AM
MikeR said...: I would really have like to see you debate with someone who thought that it was right to abuse the young lady from Harvard. And a lot of people thought that.; 5/6/10, 10:05 AM
Bob Ellison said...: Well, here I am checking back. No response from the Professor. Let me apply what little logic I have learned:

* perhaps the Professor knows no good books on the subject

* perhaps the Professor knows one or more good books on the subject, but does not want to help the enemy

* perhaps the Professor is unable to answer because SuperString-wielding weirdos have welded her to her couch

The latter seems most likely, although the Professor's recent posts, which came after my query, would tend to belie that conclusion.; 5/6/10, 6:04 PM
Bob Ellison said...: The silence deafens. Proving a negative is difficult, but not impossible. Conjecture: there is no "liberal approach to Constitutional interpretation".; 5/7/10, 12:19 PM
Peter Hoh said...: Bob, I don't think you can read anything into the lack of a response. I no longer have an expectation that Althouse will answer questions posed to her on a thread.; 5/7/10, 2:20 PM
jim said...: This is why I can't say nice things.

Calling Obama liberal - especially as POTUS - is a hallmark of basic political illiteracy.

Which of these seems liberal:

FISA? Faith-based initiatives? Offshore drilling? Renewing the Patriot Act? Passing a national hybrid mutant strain of Romneycare after actively strangling a widely-popular public option & rendering single-payer (by far & away the best plan for cheap, effective, universal care) anathema? Massive escalation in Afghanistan? Unilateral refusal to bring charges for a host of Bush Administration crimes? Giving the CIA judicial amnesty on torture?

Does ANY of this stuff ring a bell?

With his next nominee, Obama may very well take the Supreme Court to the right. As a center-right president, with a documented fixation on trying to placate his far-right opponents, that would hardly be a big surprise.; 5/8/10, 1:23 PM