I'm not clicking on that. I'm just blogging to say that I graduated from law school in 1981, before the Federalist Society was created to deal with the problem that law schools only presented what the NYT would now like to repackage as an alternative. This "alternative" was mind-crushingly pervasive back then, and those who made that so are responsible for the reaction they caused. I went to law school believing I'd have the opportunity to participate in a rich debate. That didn't happen.I see the author here is Jeffrey Toobin. I know you must say the Toobin-specific things that you always say. That's already an entry in my Dictionary of Received Idea.
Posts
158 comments:
I’ve seen some backsliding on orginalism.
The Professor wrote: "This "alternative" was mind-crushingly pervasive back then, and those who made that so are responsible for the reaction they caused."
It sounds like you believe the development of the The Federalist Society was some kind of regrettable result.
“ judges nominated by Mr. Biden ruled in support of Mr. Trump’s policies 25 percent of the time, while those appointed by Mr. Trump supported him 92 percent of the time.”
CJ Roberts told us that there aren’t Republican or Democratic judges.
Toobin sketches out how Biden judges are blocking Trump. That’s not their job.
I’m a member of the Federalist Society and it has been great for me. I’ve met a number of judges and lawyers.
serious question:
IF judges Aren't Supposed to base their rulings on the US Constitution..
WHAT ARE THEY supposed to base them on? Their Feelings?
A lot of the Lefty stuff, whether woke gender ideology, DEI teams, or even Lefty Jurisprudence feels anachronistic and dated. It is like it is all from the land that time forgot. I kind of want to rewatch The West Wing which is one of my all-time favorite shows just to see how it feels now. I suspect I would get similar feelings watching that show.
Toobin, got my putz in hand
Keep toobin, like a lefty “man”
I’m rubbed raw, but I’m feelin’ fine
Just keep toobin on
Gilbar they are supposed to base them on policy. What opinion is best for society today. I don’t necessarily agree with it. But the argument is not without merit. Society has changed over the past 200 years and the idea that the Constitution is a living document that adapts to the needs of the people. Having read a number of Supreme Court decisions I find that even conservative justices diverge from originalism to support their policy decisions, it isn’t just leftist judges that do it. It’s just that there are particular conservative justices that base a majority of their decisions on originalism whereas few leftist justices do. But leftist judges push originalism when it supports their policy.
They’re trying to resurrect the idea of the Living Constitution so they can try to kill it again.
I don't know if it's a received idea or not, but I notice that the people that promote alternatives to our Constitution, or who propose that it's antiquated and no longer applicable, are the same people that seem to prefer taking liberties with other people's liberties.
I know you must say the Toobin-specific things that you always say
Yes, we must comma but to take a…stab at something original I’d like to observe Toobin’s continued existence is substantial evidence we are a broken…society. In normal times the Toobin problem would be self-correcting…
Give Toobin credit for this much - he's trying to come up with a reason beyond we want what we want. Reaching for a spurt of principle.
Language is imprecise. It is not difficult to read a particular interpretation into a broad law like the Constitution. For example freedom of religion got read to mean separation of church and state. Is this what the founders meant? I don’t think so. The second amendment reads as if there shouldn’t be any restrictions on gun ownership, but alas there are many restrictions on gun ownership that even conservative judges support. So even originalism allows a lot of wiggle room given the vagueness of statutory language.
Part of being a progressive is constantly rewriting the past so that the Corporate Media stenographers can frame the current idea as a “new way to oppose” [fill in the blank]. You see the amorphous blob of internationalist continual “revolution” must always pose as the scrappy underdog. The apposite corollary is that the center and “common sense” must always be framed as The Man or Authoritarianism keeping the scrappy rebels down even when the “rebels” are made up of every European government, all academic institutions, the assemblers of popular culture and opinion and the entire corporate Media DNC Complex.
The Constitution provides a way to change itself that does not involve or rely on the unmoored opinions of 9 unelected judges.
Which is better for society, that anyone who wants one can own a machine gun or that it is extremely difficult to own a machine gun? A policy decision was made that few should have them despite the use of shall not be infringed in the Constitution. Even conservative justices agree that everyone can own a machine gun.
No blueberry pancakes this morning?
I meant can’t own a machine gun. Even Scalia wasn’t gonna let me buy a machine gun. Sigh.
Toobin has been toobin since he worked for lawrence walsh
it has been great for me. I’ve met a number of judges and lawyers
…that sounds horrible…
…that they have to sell their ideas like laundry soap with a red NEW! is another sign…
Least NEW! thing promoted as "NEW!"
Okay, perhaps Memorandum should have used that other 'Madison Avenue' advertising word for the jurisprudential status quo: "IMPROVED!"
We know of thd american constitution society or the brennan center that doesnt believe in the constitution
The brennan center which defended al queda terrorists
"It sounds like you believe the development of the The Federalist Society was some kind of regrettable result."
I don't know how you get there (unless that's where you wanted to go). I dearly wanted wide-ranging debate when I was in law school, and I didn't get it. The Federalist Society came into being because of a vacuum on the right. I didn't want that vacuum. Maybe it could have been filled better, by something more ideally intellectual, but it's hard to see how that could have happened.
When I say "those who made that so are responsible for the reaction they caused," I mean I'm unsympathetic to whining about the Federalist Society coming from the kind of people who exploited their own power when they had it and took it too far or who act as though they are about truth and accuracy when they had a left-wing agenda.
If they act as though only the other side is political, I regard them as dishonest.
Of course, the Federalist Society people do the same thing.
I'm not on either side. I'm for vibrant debate, here and in law school and in the judicial system, and I'm not interested in playing on one side or the other, though my personal experience was almost entirely around left or left-leaning people, so their deceptions and excesses are more compelling subject matter to me.
"This "alternative" was mind-crushingly pervasive back then, and those who made that so are responsible for the reaction they caused."
It’s actually the “Progressives” who wish to put us back in chains.
The federalist on balance believe in the constitution, liberal academic have revealed they dont on balance turley and dershowitx and you yourself are the exception
It's bullshit all the way down. Originalist versus Living Constructional theories are just thin veils of respectable objectivity that all legal priests in black dresses use to justify their political rulings.
The key point Toobin makes is the lackadaisical approach to judicial appointments of Barrack Hussein Obamba claiming focusing on judges is admitting that democracy is not working. This passivity lead to hundreds of vacancies in the federal court systems, including the supreme court that was left for Donald Trump to fill.
Another DNC self inflicted wound. This strategy of self immolation has been repeated over and over again and again in an insane hope that it will finally be successful.
Ann:
The answer is always to eat more blueberry pancakes. Love is the answer. Love is the law.
Obama was trained in critical legal studies bell ogilvy de unger to destroy the foundations of the legal system eric holder was his wingman when he wasnt flacking for purdue
Toobin
He’s Jeffrey Greenfield’s lout
Keep toobin
He gotta rub one out
Obama was trained in critical legal studies bell ogilvy de unger to destroy the foundations of the legal system eric holder was his wingman
The Pee On You and Tell You It’s Raining Society…
Someone pass Iman the Kleenex. He's running out of Toob socks.
Greenfield i havent heard that name in an aeon
DrSquid said...
The Professor wrote: "This "alternative" was mind-crushingly pervasive back then, and those who made that so are responsible for the reaction they caused."
It sounds like you believe the development of the The Federalist Society was some kind of regrettable result.
Althouse's use of scare quotes on "alternative" indicates she is describing the the "mind-crushingly pervasive" pre-Federalist Society status quo ante that Memorandum ostensibly (but not really) describes as "NEW!"
She's joking around about the publication using the word "NEW!" to describe their article, whereas the intellectual content of Toobin's article is actually pre-1980s thinking.
Lawnerd said...
“Gilbar they are supposed to base them on policy. What opinion is best for society today. I don’t necessarily agree with it. But the argument is not without merit. Society has changed over the past 200 years and the idea that the Constitution is a living document that adapts to the needs of the people.”
We’ve already seen how that worked in practice. The Constitution provides the amendment process to make changes. It’s deliberately difficult to reduce the chances of poor quality changes, such as prohibition, from getting ratified.
Leftists prefer the faster and simpler approach of just having unelected and unaccountable justices decide what is constitutional, actual text of the Constitution notwithstanding. So, where the 5th and 14th Amendments declare that we can’t be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, civil asset forfeiture and property seizure to give to others (Kelo) are cool if you’re on the receiving end.
We see the bafflegrab that ketanji brown and sotomayor come up with
But we have seen how some federalist society memberd have fallen short like barrett and kavanaugh
I'm not on either side. I'm for vibrant debate, here and in law school and in the judicial system, and I'm not interested in playing on one side or the other
If that is your goal, you have failed miserably. Your blog has become a refuge for some of the most extreme (at least I hope they are the most extreme) authoritarian voices.
What in the world ever became of Howard?
He narfled the Garthok, you know he isn't the same
Chokin’ teh bird, pull ups and readin’ Thoreau
All a guy can say is "Ain't it a shame"
Let me get it out of the way. I'm just shocked that Jeff " Let me pull on my Toobin" is still a respected lawyer and NYT's writer. I guess beating off in front of your female co-workers is just a faux-pax. Nothing serious, unlike saying an ethnic slur in private or supporting Trump.
But leave aside his weirdo sexuality, isn't he a complete mediocrity? And completely biased. I've never found anything he said insightful or cutting edge.
Hes become a slithy tove
He went to harvard he worked for walsh he wrote the oj book
Kneel before his brilliance
Its not often I agree with Howard, but...
" all legal priests in black dresses use to justify their political rulings."
Exactly so.
To add, the hypertrophied US legal system is a major cause of economic inefficiency vis a vis its economic competitors, as well as a major cause of bloated budgets, the fiscal situation, the national debt, etc.
Portraying the establishment "party line" as the sexy new alternative is just standard for the MSM. This even seeps into films. In the new starwars, the rebels are still "fighting the power" even though they had won and were the liberal establishment. But somehow, they had to be portrayed as the plucky upstarts - AGAIN.
Which side thought to jail a president for thought crime
If that is your goal, you have failed miserably.
So odd. I was just going to post that she has succeeded admirably. I thought it was a remarkably honest statement.
- Krumhorn
You see the same thing in "one battle after another" where rich multi-millionaire Director Paul Anderson creates a fanatsy group of "Revolutionaries" who amazingly want the same thing as the Billionaire class - i.e. open borders, cheap labor, and Amnesty. Join the revolution and provide cheap labor for Newsome's MJ Farm. Join the revolution and get paul anderson a cheap Nanny.
As Spain goes, so goes Europe.
We've gotten to the point where leftwing judges and lawyers don't even pretend anymore. Anything that supports the leftwing agenda they support. Anything that hurts the Left, they're against. Principles and the constitution/laws are flexible plastic that can be bent anywhich way.
Leftwing juries in the DC area now find every Democrat "Not guilty" and every Republican "Guilty". Its the OJ simpson jury mentality yoked to politics. Verdict first, trial afterwards.
The french spanish and english socialists sail in the same direction
I notice the same habits and patterns see the prospects lighthouse which argues for censorship for hamas for criminal illegals
who amazingly want the same thing as the Billionaire class - i.e. open borders, cheap labor, and Amnesty.
...our clients are the 'Billionaire' class and we see all the numbers- there's not a business model that stands to benefit meaningfully from any kind of unfettered immigration that supposedly brings cheap labor to make Billionaires richer. Not to say some of them don't support whatever leftie ideas are cooking at the moment or (very) meaningfully participating in their implementation...
I once snorted a machine gun off a toilet seat.
To add, the hypertrophied US legal system is a major cause of economic inefficiency vis a vis its economic competitors, as well as a major cause of bloated budgets, the fiscal situation, the national debt, etc.
Truth. The large portion of the failure is the profit incentive around law, the rest is the usual mix of corruption, multiculturalism and political attractiveness of bad ideas to mid wit politicians...
That would be painful (specially the barrel)
My observation of leftists in general, but also leftist lawyers in particular, is that their strongest belief and guiding principle in life is that they are smarter than anyone else. And if/when they become judges, "the law" is barely relevant to how they pass judgment. In their own minds, they are Solomon. Maybe even God. But certainly having greater authority than an ordinary "President". Thus, the district judges who order the President to turn the plane around in mid-flight. And one Supreme Court Justice who likely would be hard-pressed to even read the constitution much less quote relevant sections.
It's not just a tactic. It's their belief system.
with leftwing influences - and cheating - we get the political moron named Katenji.
All of my first year law professors in the late 70s were Critical Legal Scholarship folk. Even then, any younger faculty who were at all conservative were being targeted for denial of tenure. Conservative students could still express their views in class, but there was definitely some eye rolling.
So odd. I was just going to post that she has succeeded admirably. I thought it was a remarkably honest statement.
That is because you and others (e.g., Achilles) can say what ever you fucking want (Achilles wants over 100 million people killed, jailed or exiled) and you will not get called out by Althouse. But if you are left wing and commenting on this site, you better have a thick skin.
Decisions ... decisions. We all make them and have to live with them: go to law school, or perform Wagner naked before thousands of people?
I fear with the coming election results of 2026 and 2028 that Mr.Toobin's subject matter will be all powerful and in charge.
I fear we are fucked.
Freder Frederson said...
..Your blog has become a refuge for some of the most extreme (at least I hope they are the most extreme) authoritarian voices..
authoritarian?
like sending people to camps if they don't take "vaccines"?
like refusing the abiltiy to travel if they don't take "vaccines"?
like getting people Fired if they don't take "vaccines"?
like wiretapping your political opponents?
like using the FBI and CIA to spread lies about your political opponents?
like using the FBY and CIA to try to assassinate your political opponents?
or, do you just mean murdering or mutilating your OWN children?
Lawnerd said...
“Which is better for society, that anyone who wants one can own a machine gun or that it is extremely difficult to own a machine gun? A policy decision was made that few should have them despite the use of shall not be infringed in the Constitution.”
When I was in about 5th or 6th grade, a fellow student told me this story. I don’t know the truth of the matter, but this is what he said.
He said that his grandfather had been an FBI agent in the ‘20s/‘30s. After the grandfather died, his father was going through the clutter in the basement and discovered a BAR (*). No license. An illegal machine gun. So the father, a machinist, tore it down, selling, melting down, or otherwise scrapping the various parts.
(*) - it would have been more likely to be a Colt Monitor, which was marketed to law enforcement at the time.
I'm not on either side. I'm for vibrant debate, here and in law school and in the judicial system
How is this not a desire for pro-level navel gazing? To what end is this?
Tomato tomatoe
Spain is a middling model for "Europe".
Its got some significant advantages vs say France, notably in fiscal policy, because the last conservative government had the balls (a sort of kamikaze move) to raise the retirement age, to its cost. Imagine the guts it would take to do that to Social Security. But the socialists didnt dare lower it when they took over.
Spain is less process-bound in re regulation than some of the Euros, on the other hand its bureaucrats are some of the least efficient.
With the speed of change in our modern society, a centuries-old document would seem inadequate until you see the alternative in action. Saying the old law doesn't work is easy, but the old ideas are based on a very long history, while the alternatives are often based on ideas of just the current generation or two. I like the older ideas for the most part. They were radical in their time, but not because they were new goals, but that they were stated as law and mostly practiced for the first time. The goals of individual rights and limited government are an endpoint not some intermediate place on a timeline. because drifting away from those principles in either direction seems destined for dystopia for the people as individuals and as a group. I can't yet see a world without these values in law that would be better than what we have, but I can imagine a lot of worse outcomes, as many writers have imagined. For me, the best possible utopia would be the full realization of these values, and the problems we suffer now are due to a failure to adhere to them. The original documents may have been genius, luck, or Devine intervention, but regardless over the long term they seem exceptionally good as goals when viewed against the alternatives.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/2022768561031406015.html?utm_campaign=topunroll
So you argue with Achilles. Or Jaq. They are eccentric.
Use good arguments, do not assume you are correct beforehand, and do a bit of research.
"Gilbar they are supposed to base them on policy. What opinion is best for society today. I don’t necessarily agree with it. But the argument is not without merit."
You're right about what the left wants the courts to be, but wrong about its having merit. With all due respect for KBJ and her ilk, the Constitution doesn't give courts the authority over the other two branches to rein in policy choices judges deem unwise. The KBJ vision of the judiciary as an entity that sits at the top of the constitutional pyramid, overseeing the work of the other branches, represents an attempt to seize power from the people and their elected representatives. There's nothing good in it.
all legal priests in black dresses use to justify their political rulings
...against which the bedrock language of the written Constitution is a bulwark. Without it we have Calvinball writ large. Or "might makes right."
"Originalism" recognizes that. Whatever the "principles" of "the alternative" are, they lack this grounding--which is why it is dangerous in the extreme to set aside the specific language and meaning of the written Constitution.
Notwithstanding our Nation's faults, the U.S of A is by far the most successful and free society on Earth. Screw up somewhere else and leave well enough alone.
Howard said...
“It’s bullshit all the way down … all legal priests in black dresses use to justify their political rulings.”
We've taken care of everything
The words you read and the songs you sing
The CO2 you breathe, the drugs you take
It's one for all, all for one
We work together, common sons
Never need to wonder how or why
We are the priests
Of the Temples of Law
Our great rulings
Fill the hallowed halls
Look around this world we made
DEI our stock in trade
Come and join the brotherhood of man
Oh, what a nice subjected world
Let the banners be unfurled
Hold the red star proudly high in hand
DrSquid said...
The Professor wrote: "This "alternative" was mind-crushingly pervasive back then, and those who made that so are responsible for the reaction they caused."
It sounds like you believe the development of the The Federalist Society was some kind of regrettable result.
No, she is pointing out that the people who are regretting the existence of the Federalist Society are the ones who, by their intolerance and religious zealotry, created it.
"If that is your goal, you have failed miserably. Your blog has become a refuge for some of the most extreme (at least I hope they are the most extreme) authoritarian voices."
Other voice are welcome, but they are the people who don't want to hear from the other side. This isn't a refuge. It's that lefties expect a cocoon to be prepared and guarded for them. These are the kind of people who made law school dull back when I was a student. I have NO sympathy for them. They've gotten worse over the years.
“But if you are left wing and commenting on this site, you better have a thick skin”
Or, lucky you, Fredo, at least several layers of fat.
But if you are left wing and commenting on this site, you better have a thick skin.
If you choose to be a pinata, you get what you get.
It's that lefties expect a cocoon to be prepared and guarded for them. These are the kind of people who made law school dull back when I was a student. I have NO sympathy for them. They've gotten worse over the years.
Wahhh! You are the one who wants to live in a cocoon. As long as commenters don't criticize you personally, they can say whatever they want.
All I really expect is "cruel neutrality".
Ann Althouse said...
"Other voice are welcome, but they are the people who don't want to hear from the other side. This isn't a refuge. It's that lefties expect a cocoon to be prepared and guarded for them."
Witness what happened when Twitter/X under Musk went from leftist cocoon to free speech public square. Leftists: "we're going to Bluesky, where we wont be challenged!"
And Althouse chose to go to NYU. I'm sure she could have found herself a law school that was more aligned with her politics, most are.
Left politics have devolved to all the examples
We have seen here
Proscription bankrupting jailing for thought crime
gilbar said...
serious question:
IF judges Aren't Supposed to base their rulings on the US Constitution..
WHAT ARE THEY supposed to base them on? Their Feelings?
The Desires of the Left are what they're "supposed" to base them on, nothing more
Anyone who was on board with that, theres your sign
Lawnerd said...
Gilbar they are supposed to base them on policy. What opinion is best for society today. I don’t necessarily agree with it. But the argument is not without merit.
The idea that unelected and unaccountable "judges" are qualified to best judge what is "best for society" is entirely without merit. Because they live a safe life protected from teh consequences of their choices, they are the worst possible people to make such decisions.
Society has changed over the past 200 years and the idea that the Constitution is a living document that adapts to the needs of the people.
Yes, it does. That's why we have Article V: How to Amend the US Constitution. And you'll note it doesn't say ANYTHING about how "and judges will change it whenever needed".
Funny, that
It is both a source of great pride and also of great disappointment that the legal system in the US is the best there is anywhere in the world .
Lawnerd said...
Which is better for society, that anyone who wants one can own a machine gun or that it is extremely difficult to own a machine gun?
Society is MUCH better off if everyone who can afford to own a machine gun, and hasn't been convicted of a felony, can buy and won as many as they want.
Because "shall not be infringed" means just that, and once you stop accepting that you end up with "Democrat States can infringe it whenever and wherever they want", and that costs far more innocent lives than Tommy guns ever did
Freder said: “If that is your goal, you have failed miserably. Your blog has become a refuge for some of the most extreme (at least I hope they are the most extreme) authoritarian voices.“
Freder you are in error. The blog is open to your side. They choose not to participate because their positions will get summarily dismantled. Invite your lefty friends. I, for one, would welcome them.
Lawnerd said...
I meant can’t own a machine gun. Even Scalia wasn’t gonna let me buy a machine gun. Sigh.
Really? You've committed a felony?
Because anyone else can own a machine gun, you just need to pay the NFA tax and have enough $$$ to buy one.
They're more expensive than they should be, because of the NFA & the 1986 gun law that Reagan stupidly signed, but unless you're a felon you could buy one if you wanted to
Howard said...
The key point Toobin makes is the lackadaisical approach to judicial appointments of Barrack Hussein Obamba claiming focusing on judges is admitting that democracy is not working. This passivity lead to hundreds of vacancies in the federal court systems, including the supreme court that was left for Donald Trump to fill.
The Left in one paragraph.: no one has agency except for the Left.
Any time the Dems don't get everything they wanted, no exceptions, it's because "they didn't fight hard enough".
Psychotic lunacy at its finest
Thats how you get tyler robinson and thomas crooks
Freder Frederson said...
Althouse: I'm not on either side. I'm for vibrant debate, here and in law school and in the judicial system, and I'm not interested in playing on one side or the other
If that is your goal, you have failed miserably. Your blog has become a refuge for some of the most extreme (at least I hope they are the most extreme) authoritarian voices.
Want to know what an "extreme authoritarian voice" sounds like, Freder? it sounds like you.
Because only an "extreme authoritarian" bitches about a place becoming a "refuge" for "voices" he disagrees with.
The reason why the Althouse comentariate has only some extreme leftie lunatics and then a vast range on the Right is because the Left pretty much 90%+ consists of bigoted asses who refuse to engage in debate with opposing points of view.
Thus either a place has a religiously zealous Left that stamps out all debate (no "refuge" for righties there!), or it's "owned" by the Right, because the Left refuses to go there.
That's not Althouse's fault, or Althouse's failure. That's the fault and failure of the mental pygmies of the Left who refuse to engage in debate.
"But if you are left wing and commenting on this site, you better have a thick skin."
LOL. "where's the balance?" Its "Shut up racist - you're cancelled" on almost every Leftwing site, but every Centrist and Rightwing site must be "Balanced" with leftwing views protected and encouraged.
As others have noted, when the leftists on twitter no longer could cancel and ban everyone they liked, they left for bluesky.
Frankly, unlike most in the center and on the right, i get tired of the intellectual dishonesty and "Always be closing" propaganda of the Left. What's the point of interacting some asshole who will say "X" today and "Not-X" tommorrow based on the "party line"? Their only principle is obtaining power and using it to advance their agenda.
The left simply wants to win. Everything else is irrelevant. As Sontag said, "The USSR doesn't need free speech - they have socialism".
Free speech, debate, and the ability to do so unrestricted by government. Pretty basic stuff. Orwell, 2+2 = 4.
That is a real problem for leftists, as this thread highlights the 'debate' tactics of the left.
snark, personal attacks, innuendos. No where do you find an actual argument.
The right has many faults, but they are willing to debate ANYTHING, in the hope that facts and logic matter.
This thread is another example of leftists demanding their right to demonize and hate on us, without pushback. Indeed, they expect the government to protect them, and punish us.
They choose not to participate because their positions will get summarily dismantled.
That is amusing. It is much more common that our positions are not "summarily dismantled" (and I think you need to figure out what "summarily" means, because I am sure what you wrote is not what you meant). Rather, our positions are treated with disdain, not reasoned argument, and ad hominem attacks, as well as silly nicknames.
Whats the point of "debating" with some leftwing shithead who wanted to put Trump in Jail, and laughed at the death of Ashli babbitt, and now (when the tables are turned) cries about "DOJ Weaponization" and "Trump authoritarianism"?
Well we know where they are coming from as taranto states even though their own writers dont read the times or remember what was written
Freder Frederson said...
That is because you and others (e.g., Achilles) can say what ever you fucking want (Achilles wants over 100 million people killed, jailed or exiled) and you will not get called out by Althouse. But if you are left wing and commenting on this site, you better have a thick skin.
We on the Right don't need a "thick skin" to be here, because your "arguments" are so pathetic and weak that no one cares how you attack us.
The UK has had over a hundred thousand poor British girls raped by Pakistani Muslim males, who were and are allowed to get away with it by the Labour Party, because Labour wants their (Pakistani Muslim) votes, and wants to remake British society by importing foreigners like those Pakistani Muslims.
When it comes to "great evils that should be surprised", support for "open borders" and "diversity" is #1. But it isn't suppressed, not by Althouse, and not by commenters.
Because unlike you, neither Althouse nor the rest of us are authoritarian extremists. Just you
Ann Althouse said...
Other voice are welcome, but they are the people who don't want to hear from the other side. This isn't a refuge. It's that lefties expect a cocoon to be prepared and guarded for them. These are the kind of people who made law school dull back when I was a student. I have NO sympathy for them. They've gotten worse over the years.
FWIW: I wish we could get more sane lefties to debate with, too
Poor Jeffrey Toobin, it must be...hard for him with all the...stiff competition in the hack media to be the media's biggest...prick.
Employed at cnn although jake tapper
Freder,
Summarily;adverb: definition:
> In a summary manner.
> Over a short period of time, briefly.
> Without delay; in a summary manner.
Rocco, excellent Rush reference! Neil Chai! JSM
Freder Frederson said...
That is amusing. It is much more common that our positions are not "summarily dismantled" (and I think you need to figure out what "summarily" means, because I am sure what you wrote is not what you meant). Rather, our positions are treated with disdain, not reasoned argument, and ad hominem attacks, as well as silly nicknames.
That's because your positions are generally such worthless shit that there's nothing to actually debate.
Is the actual problem here that you're so stupid/ignorant you don't know what a reasonable argument even looks like?
Facts. Reason. Logic. No feelings. No "this person shouldn't be allowed to post / express that view."
You've posted one long series of whines here with no actual content. Then complain because people treat you like what your output deserves.
You could argue your case a la Orwell, as suggested above.
I recommend a read through of "Down and Out" and "Wigan Pier".
Class Traitor: "Because "shall not be infringed" means just that, and once you stop accepting that you end up with "Democrat States can infringe it whenever and wherever they want", and that costs far more innocent lives than Tommy guns ever did"
Yes, interlocking final protective fires across commercial strips would have put an end to the 2020 riots right quick. CC, JSM
I’ll cut to the chase: A Living Constitution means Vice President Kamala Harris has the unilateral power to reject certified state election results and accept alternate state electoral slates, thereby awarding Joe Biden the presidency over Donald Trump.
The whole Federalist project proceeded quite slowly between 1981 and now. Just a few tears ago when heller was decided even the staunch "conservatives" and alleged "originalists" just were not prepared to say an emphatic "NO!" to the gun grabbers. That is despite the clear originalist meaning of the Second Amendment which did not exclude ANY arms in use at the time within its language.
Which is to say the constant revolution people, given "new" voice by Toobin, have a long long way to go before they can achieve anywhere near the leftist tilt to achieve their designs on the 2A. We may well have legal machine guns for all by then. Who can say? After all, states like CA continue to push the envelope and if there's anything the Trump era Left should learn now, really should HAVE learned 2017-2020, is that the backlash from their novel legal theories is a real harsh on their groove when the higher courts weigh in.
Ha! "a few tears ago" should be "years ago" but it reads well anyway.
Kevin Roberts has almost single handedly destroyed the Heritage Foundation. That's unfortunate because the HF has a newly published 3rd edition of its Guide to the Constitution edited by Josh Blackman. It is a highly informative summary of originalist scholarship, with entries keyed to distinct portions of the Constitution from almost 200 contributors. I learn a lot every time I read it.
"No, she is pointing out that the people who are regretting the existence of the Federalist Society are the ones who, by their intolerance and religious zealotry, created it."
Well put and correct. Thanks!
Some judges are better than others at disguising their personal preferences under some interpretive method.
I’d say conservative judges, in general, are better at it.
"Wahhh! You are the one who wants to live in a cocoon. As long as commenters don't criticize you personally, they can say whatever they want."
Huh? I want substantive debate. Personal attacks are a low form of debate, but to me they suggest that you don't have a good substantive argument.
And it's ludicrous to think that a PERSONAL attack ought not to be responded to. What's your thinking there? Declining to respond to an attack isn't a demand to be given a cocoon. It is to participate in a debate.
But you are right that I could just delete comments that make personal attacks. They violate the instructions that appear above the compose window: "Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny."
Why can't you follow that? I'm going to assume it's because you CAN'T or WON'T be substantive... or interesting... or funny.
I rarely exercise the power to delete deviations from that politely stated rule of thumb, but I could. I shouldn't have to use my precious time to argue with someone who personally attacks me, but to attack me for responding WHEN attacked is utter bullshit.
My working presumption has got to be that you don't have good substantive arguments and you don't know how to engage in a playful lateral way like — to name 2 who are in this thread — Wince and Bob Boyd.
"And Althouse chose to go to NYU. I'm sure she could have found herself a law school that was more aligned with her politics, most are."
What politics? I was 27 and had gone to ART school. My only "politics" was ART and free speech. I would have thought at that time that was consistent with a liberal point of view.
I lived in New York City, in Greenwich Village, and I went to the closest law school. I was lucky to get in, with my BFA degree. I wasn't choosing a political position.
NYU was full of ACLU sort of people. Not real lefties. I found the Critical Legal Studies people at Wisconsin much more interesting (in the 1980s). They were very different.
I was never a conservative. I turned down a request from The Federalist Society to be their faculty adviser.
I genuinely wanted more vibrant debate and less knee-jerk politics.
That was the great fulfillment I found in blogging. If right-wing people responded favorably to me and left-wing people decided to shun me, that was the way it played out, but I hit the ground running on January 14, 2004 and I've always felt that I was doing what came naturally to me.
Your reaction is your reaction. Take responsibility for it.
Here is Jeffery Toobin debating Elizabeth Foley eight years ago, presented by a guy who think she is the sexiest woman alive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqhDHz10vLA
First, Jeffrey Toobin is a typical leftmediaswine. He interviewed me about a subject of which I had first hand knowledge. His article contained none of the information I provided. It gave a contradictory non-factual account of the subject. Second, I was in law school during the transition. One day it was about the law. The next day a former law clerk of Justice Douglas became dean, new profs were hired and social justice became the order of the day. The Federalist Society was tardy. I graduated in 1968.
In college i read the nation and the village voice to know the lefts argument the latter is kaput to my understanding as the daily news will be
Thats how o duscovered how blinkered tomasky was
I had forgotten jane mayers name, she and kurt eichenwald share a similar mo
You Won't Believe The New York Times' Take on Rubio's Munich Speech – HotAir https://share.google/vPX1sskNPeaIFuj9f
Why can't you follow that? I'm going to assume it's because you CAN'T or WON'T be substantive... or interesting... or funny.
So when Achilles rants on about executing people for treason and claims that 30% of the population of the U.S. needs to be imprisoned, exiled or executed, do you consider that to be "substantive... or interesting... or funny", or maybe all three?
The only reason I stick around is to try and at least some of the outright lies and bullshit your rightwing commenters post.
A living constitution is just Darth Vader saying, “The deal has been altered, pray I don’t alter it again.”
It’s hard to amend the constitution, but so easy for judges to contradict it.
“So when Achilles rants on about executing people for treason and claims that 30% of the population of the U.S. needs to be imprisoned, exiled or executed, do you consider that to be "substantive... or interesting... or funny", or maybe all three.”
I suspect she doesn’t push back at Achilles’ commentary because she’s afraid of him.
The absolute closemindedness of the Left is astounding to behold. Not one reader of this blog who understands common English can point to a right wing idea expressed by Althouse let alone one endorsed by her.
Yet her rejection of cant and pre-chewed ideologies as sufficient to be "argument" is a classic open conversation stance. To reject Althouse's self-description based on her willingness to discuss ideas points to the epistemic closure long predicted to be the hallmark of the Far Right but which is noted for being well established behavior of the self-described "liberals" here.
True, many cannot think for themselves. Or consider the opposing argument as more than a foil.
Did I miss an Achilles post in this thread? Because there's an awful lot of straw men being lit on fire by subtards shame-blaming Althouse via mentioning Achilles... in a thread in which he hasn't even made an appearance.
You can't respond to the host's prompts with substance or originality. How do I know? Because you don't.
Freder, your whining about Achilles wanting to execute people for treason is amusing. You belong to a party that idolizes the Soviet Union and has a hard--on for Mao and the "Great Leap Forward." Your party is, right now, running candidates that are campaigning on "Use the Death Penalty on Republicans but never on child rapists and murderers." Achilles is a commentator on a blog. Your party is running actual candidates vowing to execute people who disagree with the Democrat party.
Funny how you don't complain about that. And even funnier is you, a part of the "Everyone who disagrees with Democrats are racist Nazi bigoted haters!" is now whining about people pushing back and calling Democrats names. This is what you guys do: why are you upset at the Golden Rule being applied to you? You are being treated as you have treated others (A collective "you" here).
I love how Inga and Freder are all shocked, shocked at the idea of executing people who disagree.... that's the core guiding philosophy of the left, after all. Has been since the French Revolution!
And Inga and Freder have never once complained about Democrats in power executing people who those Democrats disagree with or don't like, like Lavoy Finlicum or Craig Robertson or Ashli Babbit. When leftists said that 'we shall never, ever execute a child murderer/rapist, but Covington Catholic boys who are guilty of smirking while Catholic need to be fed into a wood chipper!" Inga and Freder never disagreed. That was right and appropriate... but heavens to Betsy the clutching of pearls when they have to confront people who don't appreciate the violent threats from leftists all the day long.
"FWIW: I wish we could get more sane lefties to debate with, too"
They're on backorder. Don't hold your breath.
Is it even possible to have a leftist that can debate sanely? I mean, in the abstract it should be, but honestly, I think leftists are unable to debate because they have never actually encountered the idea that people don't worship their leftist gods. Like, "What do you mean you don't accept abortion as sacred?" They aren't equipped to actually deal with people who disagree. I expect Althouse could, of course, but she's exceedingly rare. Witness she actually doesn't do the regular leftist of "Censor anyone who disagrees so we never, ever face a challenge!" that Freder is calling for in this very thread.
Most people on the left won’t comment here on the Althouse blog or stay for any length of time is because the amount of sheer lunacy has become so severe that it’s really not worth the waste of one’s time arguing or debating with people who are cultists. I’m sorry I have to keep referring to Trumpism as a cult, but here we are. Althouse isn’t the only one who considers her time precious.
Shorter Inag: Lefties won’t comment on this site because Conservatives are lunatics. You know: 50% of the electorate.
"Not one reader of this blog who understands common English can point to a right wing idea expressed by Althouse let alone one endorsed by her."
I've been here for 18 years and Althouse has always been a classical liberal in my opinion.
I consider myself right wing, mostly because I'm definitely not modern left, but I don't understand what the divide is between the modern right and classical liberals. Can someone list some value we don't share?
Humpy…
Trumpists are the lunatics, not conservatives. There IS a difference and if you weren’t in the cult you would have already recognized this.
"I oppose people saying Democrats are traitors, but all Trump voters are evil cultists and lunatics and need to be put down!!!!"
--So Sayeth Inga.
You realize Inga that your stance of "it's impossible to actually debate anyone on the right" is not helping your position on the whole "Leftists are unable to deal with people who disagree with them" claim.
The Left participates in debate by shooting Charlie Kirk. If you can debate with bullets why debate with words?
The first time I shot up, it was free...and I was hooked. Machine guns took over my life. All I wanted to do was shoot more, shoot bigger, shoot faster.
The next few years are a blur in my memory as I chased automatic dragon until one day I found myself at the end of a muddy two-track in a jungle clearing in rural Cambodia, standing in the back of a Hi-lux next a pedastal-mounted Dushka begging a guy who didn't even speak English to give me credit while a water buffalo tied to post waited patiently in the rain 70 meters away.
That's when I knew I needed help.
Machine guns are illegal for good reason.
Inag …… all Trumpists are lunatics. What is a Trumpist? The 80% of the populace that wants illegals sent home.
"The only reason I stick around is to try and at least some of the outright lies and bullshit your rightwing commenters post."
Still waiting for you to provide a single example of you doing this, Fredo. More often than not, your provided "info" is either opinion or the exact opposite of what you claimed it was, both of which suggest you rarely read your own provided links- the rest of the time your info is just provably wrong at which point you vanish from a thread and pretend it didn't happen a few days later.
To be fair to the lefties here, it's a lot harder being on the left. Facts supporting your opinion are infinitely harder to find. I don't envy them one bit.
"The only reason I stick around is to try and at least some of the outright lies and bullshit your rightwing commenters post."
Like when you told us sending illegals home did not have majority support?
As I read Toobin, what the ACS is pushing is not a revival of the "living constitution" model but rather that they have given up on selling that to the public and will devote themselves to putting leftist judges on the bench who will openly resist Trump and the right.
Everyone, whether divergent, monotonic, moderate, etc, is conservative. Change is rare and far between.
If they ever add "Splooge Stooge" to our dictionaries...
"Quit Toobin', you'll go blind!"
The idea that there are no new ideas, just recycled old ideas has been around since antiquity. We now call that recycling process "rebranding" and praise as an art.
The writers of the 14th Amendment back in the 1860s couldn't even imagine pregnant women flying in on jet planes just to bear children here so that they could claim U.S. citizenship. If we change our understanding of the Amendment to prevent that practice, are we getting in line with the framers' "original intent," or adapting the "living Constitution" to new circumstances?
But if you are left wing and commenting on this site, you better have a thick skin.
Maybe you could bring better arguments instead of sniveling like a little bitch.
Like when you told us sending illegals home did not have majority support?
My favorite is when he snarled at us schtoopid assholes for not knowing Coors Light was owned by the same company as Bud Light.
Hint: It's not.
And always with the insulting condescension that is his trademark.
I would like to add to Greg The Class Traitor's fine comments on the second amendment, the observation that back when you *could* just buy a machine gun if you wanted one, that ability did not lead to widespread slaughter.
The St Valentine's Day Massacre which shocked the nation consisted of seven fatalities. You know what they call seven fatalities now? "A slow weekend in Chicago."
Freder Bloviated,
"But if you are left wing and commenting on this site, you better have a thick skin."
No. Just be able to back up your opinions. Which you can't.
Greg TCT @ 9:57
And since the Supreme Court has decided that paying a tax to own a silencer is unconstitutional we are on our way to eliminating the NFA in the long run. It would stand to reason that paying a tax to own a SBR or a machine gun is also unconstitutional.
Kirk Parker said...
The St Valentine's Day Massacre which shocked the nation consisted of seven fatalities. You know what they call seven fatalities now? "A slow weekend in Chicago."
And note: of the 7 killed in the St Valentine's Day Massacre were 6 were part of a criminal gang, and the 7th was someone who knowingly associated with a bunch of gangsters.
It would be nice if the current murder targets where that % criminal
It's really funny how young people keep posting things up as "something new" when us old timers remember those things from decades ago.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.