tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post115642791237131939..comments2024-03-29T06:24:15.282-05:00Comments on Althouse: Why do judges make it easier for their critics?Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156752773754700652006-08-28T03:12:00.000-05:002006-08-28T03:12:00.000-05:00Where you think and that is the optimal word here ...<I>Where you think and that is the optimal word here "think" that the nightly news is left wing, may I kindly remind you that they are obligated by law NOT TO EDITORIALIZE otherwise the fairness doctrine and equal time doctrines go into effect</I><BR/><BR/>The fairness doctrine was mostly repealed in 1987 and completely repealed as of 2000.<BR/><BR/>The equal time rule does not apply to interviews, documentaries, scheduled newscasts, or spontaneous news events. Also, the equal time rule only covers time given to political candidates, not time spent editorializing on behalf of a candidate.<BR/><BR/>In other words, you're completely wrong and haven't the foggiest idea what the hell you're talking about. There's no legal barrier to any news outlet being entirely partisan.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156752208360093812006-08-28T03:03:00.000-05:002006-08-28T03:03:00.000-05:00are liberals against the second amendment?Most of ...<I>are liberals against the second amendment?</I><BR/><BR/>Most of them, yeah.<BR/><BR/>Let me put it to you simply: if the ACLU read the first amendment as narrowly as it reads the second amendment, nobody would be allowed to give a political speech or publish a book or newspaper without written authorization from the US government.<BR/><BR/>The ACLU is an ideological organization, sure. But the ideology it promotes is that of the ACLU, not that of the US Constitution. Sometimes the two overlap, other times they don't.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156694143355738492006-08-27T10:55:00.000-05:002006-08-27T10:55:00.000-05:00"children children children.an overriding problem ...<I>"children children children.<BR/><BR/>an overriding problem with the unlearned rightwing is that they have no patience for facts and frankly if facts bother them, they simply ignore them.</I>"<BR/><BR/>House, if you had posted a fact in the previous 80 posts instead of ad homs, I'd bother to read the rest of your comment.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16093091446115602225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156658585293152102006-08-27T01:03:00.000-05:002006-08-27T01:03:00.000-05:00Yo Nachos -Yes we all know that the fairness doctr...Yo Nachos -<BR/><BR/>Yes we all know that the fairness doctrine was repealed in 1987 (God Reagan certainly had millions of dollars in good reasons to do so) but - and I guess if the only connection you have to television is to flip the clicker - you think that broadcast doesn't fully embrace it to this day stives for acccurate report least the possibly offended party errupts and gives airtime to opposing community views and disparate views and generally anyone or anything of merit least it have issues when licenses come up for renewal.<BR/><BR/>If the networks didn't still uphold the doctrine as a core responsibility, there would never be a "care to comment" solicitation seeking the view from the other side of the coin.<BR/><BR/>Obviously you know zip about how the television news process operates, what is news and what is entertainment news and sadly what is just entertainment that the public takes for news.<BR/><BR/>It is a much deeper issue than the little layer of top soil you plow over and over again.hdhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573004614816464571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156639963482965392006-08-26T19:52:00.000-05:002006-08-26T19:52:00.000-05:00children children children.an overriding problem w...children children children.<BR/><BR/>an overriding problem with the unlearned rightwing is that they have no patience for facts and frankly if facts bother them, they simply ignore them.<BR/><BR/>Rush's audience (daily) is approximately the same size as the 3 major news casts combined. Where you think and that is the optimal word here "think" that the nightly news is left wing, may I kindly remind you that they are obligated by law NOT TO EDITORIALIZE otherwise the fairness doctrine and equal time doctrines go into effect. Unlike cable that has no such governance.<BR/><BR/>And then there is Rush, Sean, Savage, and the host of other lunatics who spout on radio (also unregulated) and instead of a perceived (not real) attack imagined on nightly news, they crapforth (appropos wording) for 3 hours daily...15 hours a week...of incessant stupidity and lies.<BR/><BR/>They taunt you zealots to defend them with slogans about the liberal media and truly yea i say verily unto you, you have not one single idea or fact to back it up other than some halfass opinionated bilge.<BR/><BR/>Please don't mess up Althouse's blog with your swill. And it does have nothing to do with her opinion and everything to do with your responses. They are innane, self serving, artifical and downright stupid on face.hdhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573004614816464571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156610875653451392006-08-26T11:47:00.000-05:002006-08-26T11:47:00.000-05:00"Oh you silly gooses. the ACLU actually does defen...<I>"Oh you silly gooses. the ACLU actually does defend the principle first - then the party involved. are liberals against the second amendment? Not at all. We are or at least I am, the dithering with it to fit a "cold dead hands" mentality. The constitution is, above all else, a study in common sense not, as some sillies want to make it, an on/off switch. Because print is black on white doesn't mean your thought process should be."</I><BR/><BR/>Hdhouse, is this meant to make no sense or does it just look that way?<BR/><BR/>-<BR/><BR/>Jonah Goldberg has a position on media bias I've come to agree with--it's so patently obvious the media is left leaning that I get bored with even arguing over it.<BR/><BR/>Every poll shows an overwhelming amount being Democrat. Of the journalism students I met in college, an overwhelming majority of people who went into the field were always Democrat. Of the journalists I've talked to one-on-one, it's always assumed those they work with are Democrats.<BR/><BR/>And when I get into arguments about this, the examples people on the other side cite always boil down to some radio talk show host with a few hundred thousand listeners or Fox News: a cable news network. (Ok, Limbaugh has more. No, he does single-handedly cancel out everybody else.)<BR/><BR/>When you're relegated to citing those, as far as I'm concerned you've proved my point. Maybe you cited more--I honestly don't know (like I said-I'm beginning to agree with Goldberg on this; I'm not interested in reading five paragraphs here on this and since your other posts haven't been much more than ad hominems (that means personal attacks) there's not much of a chance anything informative will be in them.<BR/><BR/>(BTW part 1, I'm much more civil towards people who don't deal in ad hominems-you should try it sometime)<BR/><BR/>(BTW part 2, the chances you haven't read this post are less than Katie Couric voting Republican so don't bother replying with that)<BR/><BR/>Life is short and I think taking the time to even write all this is questionable. Anyway, if you've wondering why you're not getting more responses, that's why.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16093091446115602225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156582614688441232006-08-26T03:56:00.000-05:002006-08-26T03:56:00.000-05:00Oh you silly gooses. the ACLU actually does defen...Oh you silly gooses. the ACLU actually does defend the principle first - then the party involved. are liberals against the second amendment? Not at all. We are or at least I am, the dithering with it to fit a "cold dead hands" mentality. The constitution is, above all else, a study in common sense not, as some sillies want to make it, an on/off switch. Because print is black on white doesn't mean your thought process should be.<BR/><BR/>And while we are at it...there are a number of posts decrying the liberal media "...the left's refusal to admit to the left-slanting bias in the media ..." and some nerd was in wonderment the NYTimes would give Ms. Althouse space to skewer one of their own....<BR/><BR/>Please stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and getting your talking points on this subject from him. Left-slanting media as you so inaccurately call it is simply a shill rap because "right-slanting" media is frustrated by their second class intellectual and, frankly, honesty status. Do you think that the Washington Times has anything in common with the NYTimes in terms of journalism? It is a pipsqueak paper with a circulation just over 100,000..putting it OUT of the top 100 in the US. It isn't small without reason. It is small by in large because it is so much inferior to the Post.<BR/><BR/>But let's get on to the real "left-media". What pray tell is the left media? Someone define that please. Your right wing media, lead by the Rush/Sean/Savage crowd dwarfs the alleged "left" in both reach and frequency of message. Rush the blowhard farts unrelenting and highly inaccurate spewey for 3 hours a day and reaches more people each week than the top 200 (yes 200) newspapers in the US "left or right". The conservative media audiences outnumber print and if the "labeling" is evening remotely applicable, the evening newses included by 200%. <BR/><BR/>Does the so called "left" decry the "right wing media" for the sins of the world? We might and we of course should, but what the "left wing media" moniker really means is a jealousy factor immeasureable.<BR/><BR/>And to the reasoning and thought processes of lawyers: Get a grip. I repeat my earlier observation. If being a lawyer is such a high and mighty position in life - something of the Olympus of intellectually achievement - the world series and world cup of truth, knowledge and the American way (sans cape) then how there are so many of you? Certainly there can't be THAT many ambulances.hdhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573004614816464571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156540344270932752006-08-25T16:12:00.000-05:002006-08-25T16:12:00.000-05:00I gather from your admission that republicans, by ...<I>I gather from your admission that republicans, by in large, do not support the bill of rights</I><BR/><BR/>That's an extremely silly way to misread what he said.<BR/><BR/>You claimed that the ACLU was "bipartisan". 7M was just pointing out that they're not. "Bipartisan" does not, as you seem to think, mean "composed of those political views which you agree with". It means "representing both sides".<BR/><BR/>As for the notion that they defend "the bill of rights" -- they defend their interpretation of those parts of the bill of rights that they think are important and significant. Not quite the same thing as "defending the bill of rights", as (for example) gun owners well know.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156526109020769262006-08-25T12:15:00.000-05:002006-08-25T12:15:00.000-05:00"I gather from your admission that republicans, by...<I>"I gather from your admission that republicans, by in large, do not support the bill of rights and, your opposition to a group that defends individual rights that you concede that Republicans care for neither."</I><BR/><BR/>You're kidding right?<BR/><BR/>Or can this be played both ways--like if the majority of NRA execs vote Republican, that means Dems are against that part of the Bill of Rights?<BR/><BR/>I say I support all that is good and right in the world.<BR/><BR/>I usually vote Republican.<BR/><BR/>Ergo, all Dems who oppose me are opposed to all that is good and right in the world.<BR/><BR/>Am I following this?Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16093091446115602225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156523815807969512006-08-25T11:36:00.000-05:002006-08-25T11:36:00.000-05:00OHHH this is such an easy target:"Seven Machos sai...OHHH this is such an easy target:<BR/><BR/>"Seven Machos said... <BR/>"i can't imagine why anyone in law wouldn't support the ACLU. It is bipartisan and has a very specific mission."<BR/><BR/>What percentage of the Board of the ACLU do you think voted for President Bush in 2004? What percentage voted for a single Republican in the last major election? What percentage of financial contributors do you suppose voted for a single Republican in the last major election?"<BR/><BR/>I gather from your admission that republicans, by in large, do not support the bill of rights and, your opposition to a group that defends individual rights that you concede that Republicans care for neither.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for making my point.hdhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573004614816464571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156515222402136582006-08-25T09:13:00.000-05:002006-08-25T09:13:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16093091446115602225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156509021415768152006-08-25T07:30:00.000-05:002006-08-25T07:30:00.000-05:00Palladian:I loved your one-line critique of Dave's...Palladian:<BR/><BR/>I loved your one-line critique of Dave's sentence structure. Like so many others on the left, Dave believes that anger makes an adequate substitute for thought. Judge Taylor's opinion is Exhibit A, but there are so many additional examples.<BR/><BR/>Le style, c'est l'homme.tjlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06162785796605831050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156480685552895192006-08-24T23:38:00.000-05:002006-08-24T23:38:00.000-05:00Why do judges make it easier for their critics?Bec...<I>Why do judges make it easier for their critics?</I><BR/><BR/>Because when you combine enormous power with a complete lack of accountability for bad decisions, arrogance inevitably follows.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156480591954069792006-08-24T23:36:00.000-05:002006-08-24T23:36:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Palladianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01105490715666718993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156479006717474782006-08-24T23:10:00.000-05:002006-08-24T23:10:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07157956195267298515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156477424376985262006-08-24T22:43:00.000-05:002006-08-24T22:43:00.000-05:00"And you guys accuse Justice Taylor of "judicial a..."And you guys accuse Justice Taylor of "judicial activism"?"<BR/><BR/>Wow, did Stevens finally retire? I must say that Justice Taylor's confirmation hearings were a lot faster than the Alito hearings! Maybe it will be in the morning papers...Palladianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01105490715666718993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156475628404076482006-08-24T22:13:00.000-05:002006-08-24T22:13:00.000-05:00i'll be a lot more sympathetic to your posting whe...i'll be a lot more sympathetic to your posting when i read your blog on the scalia/cheney hunting episode.<BR/><BR/>i can't imagine why anyone in law wouldn't support the ACLU. It is bipartisan and has a very specific mission.<BR/><BR/>As a con-law guru one would think that your wisdom for supporting civil liberties would be paramount.hdhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573004614816464571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156473654043196832006-08-24T21:40:00.000-05:002006-08-24T21:40:00.000-05:00Doyle asks: What if the "math problem" in question...Doyle asks: <I>What if the "math problem" in question isn't as hard as you think it is? This would explain both the correct answer and the absence of more work.</I> <BR/><BR/>The problem here is that the decision is not nearly as easy as it may appear at first glance. To get an idea of all the stuff that the judge seemed to ignore, you should read the <A HREF="http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/safefree/nsa_govt_motion_dismiss.pdf" REL="nofollow">government's motion and brief to dismiss</A> - that was coincidently denied in the <A HREF="http://softpats.com/docs/NSA_Taylor_opinion.pdf" REL="nofollow">opinion</A> and <A HREF="http://softpats.com/docs/NSA_Taylor_order.pdf" REL="nofollow">associated order</A> that have been the object of these discussions (and, thus, were before the Court). I should note that my general feeling reading the government's brief and the judge's opinion together is that after she finished determining that she could proceed despite the State Secret privilege, that she then flat ignored the government's brief thereafter. <BR/><BR/>For anyone who is interested, <A HREF="http://bhayden.blogspot.com/2006/08/aclu-v-nsa-more-useful-links.html" REL="nofollow">I am accumulating relevant information, including links to all the pleadings I have found, the statutes, etc.</A>Bruce Haydenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10815293023158025662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156468921215523812006-08-24T20:22:00.000-05:002006-08-24T20:22:00.000-05:00Forgot to mention: that 23mill to 1,000 groups was...Forgot to mention: that 23mill to 1,000 groups was in 2004 alone.tmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07397983429766950558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156468858751984682006-08-24T20:20:00.000-05:002006-08-24T20:20:00.000-05:00The organization gave 23 million to around 1,000 g...The organization gave 23 million to around 1,000 groups. There's no way she even knew that 45k of that (over several years) was going to the ACLU.tmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07397983429766950558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156468347882988592006-08-24T20:12:00.000-05:002006-08-24T20:12:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.SippicanCottagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14940797380578921776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156463909809767932006-08-24T18:58:00.000-05:002006-08-24T18:58:00.000-05:00Yow more frothing!Yow more frothing!Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08791314877257904422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156461729577661832006-08-24T18:22:00.000-05:002006-08-24T18:22:00.000-05:00Balfegor: Not really.....people were complaining a...Balfegor: <I>Not really.....people were complaining about her in the recent Affirmative Action cases, where there were allegations that she improperly manipulated the court assignment process...</I><BR/><BR/>Now this is what I love about the internet. No more monopoly. Is there any chance a person like me, who really doesn't know much about the law, would ever come in contact with information like this? No.<BR/><BR/>With that said, I do have to give props to the NYT for publishing Ann's editorial. It's not often I give the NYT props.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Doyle, you need to read Sippican Cottage's comment from the last post on this subject, which nicely explains why "wiretapping" is an obfuscation of this matter.knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13231876226573540476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156461590852909682006-08-24T18:19:00.000-05:002006-08-24T18:19:00.000-05:00Gee, fellas, do you think this fresh "ends justify...Gee, fellas, do you think this fresh "ends justifying the means" angle could be applied elsewhere in a discussion of warrantless wiretapping to catch terrorists?Brian Doylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01652827640480365357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1156460787470801852006-08-24T18:06:00.000-05:002006-08-24T18:06:00.000-05:00"Seven Machos said... I'm seeing way too much of t..."Seven Machos said... I'm seeing way too much of this mentality on the left of "we don't really care about the means, only the end." It's frightening."<BR/><BR/>Hasn't that been a hallmark of the left since at least Roe v. Wade?Jeff with one 'f'https://www.blogger.com/profile/05744612696537883583noreply@blogger.com