home

Judicial Activism For Me, But Not For Thee

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Law Related
Posted on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:01:37 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via OpenLeft, a conservative complaint about Ted Olson:

I cannot trust the legal judgment of a fellow who claims to be conservative and yet who clearly believes the Constitution should be used by the Judiciary to invalidate the will of the people [. . .]

Meanwhile, back at extreme conservative headquarters, the Wingnut AGs filed their opposition (PDF) to the federal government's motion to dismiss their complaint asking the judiciary to overturn a law enacted by the duly elected Congress and signed by the duly elected President, the health bill and its individual mandate.

Respect for "the will of the people" apparently only matters some of the time. In other words, judicial activism for me but not for thee.

Speaking for me only

< Gross Domestic "Win Shares" And Productivity Losses | Can Obama "Politick" For Dems? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Judicial Activism For Me, But Not For Thee | 85 comments (85 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Hey now... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:42:42 PM EST
    if it keeps from forcing me into bed with a crooked insurance company by law, party on wingnut AG's....legislate via the robes:)

    And can we put this "will of the people" bunk to bed for good...it's always the "will of a handful of crooks".

    It's kind of amusing, really, to see (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:47:59 PM EST
    the sorrow at Red State over losing someone who was thought to be reliably conservative to, of all things, that crazy document called the Constitution.  Heaven forefend there be any consideration that Olson might be right in the arguments he forwarded, because that would involve actually opening one's mind, being objective about the underlying concepts and grasping the true meaning and purpose of the Constitution - and the worst possible end result of that exercise would be one less group of people to kick around.

    That being said, I think I would object to mandated health insurance as representing the will of the people, unless the "people" involved are all health insurance executives acting through lobbyists and from the back rooms of the WH - with the president's help - to convince the Congress to make it so.

    It was passed (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:49:30 PM EST
    by the body that the Constitution empowered to pass laws.

    In our system, that is how the will of the people is reflected in legislation.

    Parent

    Let me add (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:50:28 PM EST
    I always objected to those progressives who wanted to call the Iraq Debacle an "illegal war." It was perfectly legal under US law.

    In'tl Law? Well we can argue about that.

    Parent

    Under what U.S. law or laws (none / 0) (#13)
    by Peter G on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:55:04 PM EST
    do you view the Iraq invasion and occupation as legal, BTD?  

    Parent
    The Iraq War Resolution (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:57:45 PM EST
    passed by the two houses of Congress in the Fall of 2002.

    That clearly empowered President Bush to invade Iraq.

    Parent

    I am not an expert on this, but I question (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Peter G on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 08:10:08 PM EST
    the "entire legality" of the Iraq War, even under the resolution.  The Iraq War resolution of October 2002 purported to authorize the President to use U.S. Armed Forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."  Even leaving aside whether, at the time of the attack on Iraq in 2003, Iraq did pose a "continuing threat" to the national security of the United States (or even whether President Bush believed in good faith that it did, the only other possible interpretation of that first requirement), the attack did not serve to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions" concerning Iraq, which was the second requirement.  At least, the U.N. Security Council itself did not agree that it did.  And second, a law is not valid if it is unconstitutional, and a law by which one branch of our government (the Legislative) delegates to a different branch (the Executive) discretion whether and when to exercise a power granted exclusively to the first branch (the power to declare war), seems to me of dubious constitutionality, at best.

    Parent
    And for those who did not read me the past (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:58:53 PM EST
    7 years, I bitter opposed the Iraq War Resolution (as I did the Bush tax cuts), but the Congress and the then President disagreed with me.

    Parent
    Although SCOTUS upended campaign (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:41:59 PM EST
    finance reform statute.

    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#80)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 12:52:02 AM EST
    And I always respected you for that deeply because of some of the discussions that devolved after that.  If it was an illegal war then our soldiers are war criminals.  They same soldiers that Obama is sending there.  If they refused to deploy, they went to jail as criminals.

    But the Iraq War is not technically nor will it ever be an illegal war.  Those phuckers in the Bush White House made certain to cover their tails thoroughly on that one.

    Parent

    Yes, I'm aware of how it works, and (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:58:19 PM EST
    what it is supposed to reflect, I just don't agree that there is much of an actual connection between what the people really want, and what the legislative body charged with representing them is doing.

    Which is where a lot of the voter anger is coming from these days - that disconnect that seems unlikely to be re-joined.  

    Parent

    If the voters are angry (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:59:56 PM EST
    then they should vote for people who do what they want.

    Either in primaries or general elections.

    Don't let the voters off the hook.

    Parent

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:40:23 PM EST
    Do the polls showing a majority against it count?

    Parent
    The subject was health care (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:44:51 PM EST
    not gay rights and my comment was to bocajeff..

    The point being that the so-called representative government has ignored the will of the people in a completely non-civil rights area...

    My civics class said that the House is supposed to reflect the will of the people, not the will of the Prez working through strong arm tactics and vote buying...

    .... with the Senate providing a brake on any hot headed over the top actions of the House.

    That hasn't been happening very much lately.

    In the case of the mandate I don't believe the Constitution gives the government the power to make anyone purchase anything no matter if it is in their best interest to do so.

    Here again remember that I have commented before that I support a single payer system based on the Medicare model. But I would guess that we would disagree vehemently on how to pay for it.

    Now, if you want to talk about Gay Rights, please remember that I support them, including marriage, so I am probably biased when I agree with the ruling.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 10:58:25 PM EST
    In the case of the mandate I don't believe the Constitution gives the government the power to make anyone purchase anything no matter if it is in their best interest to do so.

    Well there are taxes, which buy the infrastructure of America, and the wars, etc.....  

    And then there is retirement insurance...

    FOS as usual. mr. constitutional convolutioner...

    Parent

    You know, we don't like each other (none / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:23:28 AM EST
    and you have a catty tongue... "FOS"

    How can the "commerce clause" regulate someone not doing something?

    What's next, apply the infield fly rule to football?

    How can it mandate that someone purchase something?

    What's next? Shall Obama tell us a la Hoover, that everyone needs to buy a new car?

    After all, it would be for the common good.

    I guess that's it.

    In the meantime look at MO and see the future.

    Parent

    Call it Taxes (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 12:29:28 PM EST
    And if you do not pay taxes you pay a penalty and interest.

    As far as your interest in the founding fathers and their document, we know that you consider it only a check list of tasks and that it is dispensable.

    Parent

    No you don't know anything (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:33:33 PM EST
    Collecting taxes for the "common good" is a far cry from mandating that someone do some specific task for their "personal good" or else be fined.

    What's next? Lose 40 pounds or be fined? Buy an electric car from government motors or be fined? Use no salt on your Freedom Fries or be fined?

    The people of MO has you folks figured out and delivered a message. That you can't understand it is your fault.

    As I have written time and again. Do a national health care plan based on the Medicare model and pay for via a national sales tax purchased at the POS. That way everyone benefits, everyone pays.

    That would include illegals,drug dealers, free lance construction workers... everyone.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 01:44:46 PM EST
    Universal Heath Care is for the common good. Your semantics are silly. This is clearly a transitional program that will eventually lead to something like Medicare for all.

    Parent
    There aint no such thing (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:03:40 PM EST
    as a "transitional" anything in the Constitution.

    Parent
    Waaaaah (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:21:28 PM EST
    Except the 14th amendment, which you said was only put in to accomplish a task.

    lol

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:29:06 PM EST
    It wasn't put in as such.... And it has been there for around 130 years...

    Now that the task is complete we should pass an amendment and delete.

    You know, the constitutional thing to do.

    Parent

    Wont happen.. (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:44:48 PM EST
    any more than Terri Schiavo was going to rise up and walk..

    Any more than the Bush tax cuts are going to be extended..

    But, by all means, keep shoveling with both hands.

    Parent

    And Jefferson said (none / 0) (#89)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 02:12:57 PM EST
    we need a revolution every twenty years.

    And he wasn't talking about fundamentalist birthers with misspelled signs.

    Parent

    And Obama said he wasn't going to raise taxes (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:29:57 PM EST
    hahahahahaa

    Parent
    And the fact that you can (none / 0) (#93)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:35:08 PM EST
    spell "haha" probably qualifies you to run as a Tea Party candidate somewhere. One must always try to see the bright side to these things.

    Parent
    hehehe (none / 0) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:35:49 PM EST
    And you don't know how to spell hahahaa

    Jondee's specialty is juvenile complaints.

    Parent

    AND "hehe" (none / 0) (#97)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:43:53 PM EST
    that's half a Tea Party candidate address right there..

    Just throw in a couple of grunts and end it by throwing a handful of feces into crowd, and you're as good as elected.

    Parent

    RedState (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:00:50 PM EST
    where the article BTD links to is, has become quite shocking in its overt embrace of violence.  

    I read all kinds of comments about the coming armed confrontation.

    Today, Eric Erickson said that a Revolution would come by ballot but not bayonet.  And, he continued:

    But it is building. It will come. And if left unsatiated by November's elections, something worse will come.

    An "unsated" desire for what?  What is the worse "something" that will come?

    And there is the diary extolling John Wayne's McLintock! and how he was a manly man and just how funny his fight with Maureen O'Hara was....But you know what, John Wayne chases Maureen O'Hara through town in her underwear and then spanks her with a fire tool as the town laughs at her....That is how you deal with strong-willed women.  The character Mr. Birnbaum, the town grocer, tells John Wayne that there comes a time to stop raising your voice with strong women and start raising your hand....

    Truly reactionary and violent cesspool, has RedState become.....this is what the base of the  Republican Party believes?

    John Wayne provided arms (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:09:51 PM EST
    to the "terrorists" (the Indians) in the movie.

    AND looked to Washington DC (the Great White Father) to help deal with local corrupt officials in order to help the territory become a state.

    Are you sure they watched "McClintock!"?

    Parent

    You know, (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:22:49 PM EST
    it is interesting to see, now, in the harsh light of day, all the social conditioning that I absorbed growing up.....

    And so when we say that something is right because it is just common sense or it feels right in our gut, beware it is our social conditioning talking....

    Good point about providing the arms to the Indians....Local pols talking about secession come to mind....

    Parent

    One word answer (none / 0) (#20)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:13:09 PM EST
    Truly reactionary and violent cesspool, has RedState become.....this is what the base of the  Republican Party believes?

    No.

    Parent

    You're only half right (none / 0) (#27)
    by scribe on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:22:49 PM EST
    and that stems from limiting yourself to a one-word answer.

    The correct answer is "no, they're worse."

    Parent

    Time to retire the term judicial activist (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:19:51 PM EST
    Putting aside the argument that anything that comes out of Washington is or has been the "will of the people" for a while now, I thought that was the whole point of the Judicial Branch of government was to interpret laws passed by Congress to ensure that they are indeed constitutional.

    Long past time (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:20:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Hell yeah... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:45:38 PM EST
    its a very anti-checks and balances phrase...the phrase of wanna-be tyrants.

    Parent
    Boo-f'g-hoo, wingnut. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by scribe on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:34:23 PM EST
    When you wingnuts say crap like:
    I cannot trust the legal judgment of a fellow who claims to be conservative and yet who clearly believes the Constitution should be used by the Judiciary to invalidate the will of the people

    I am compelled to remember you wingnuts projectile-vomiting forth oceans of vast, fulsome, lining-up-to-deliver-b-j-level praise for Olson and his conservative legal judgment back when it was Bush v. Gore he was arguing, successfully overturning the will of the people in service of your politics.

    I guess it's just a matter of whose Al is being Gored, right?

    More seriously, you wingnuts need to remember that the Constitution  - particularly the Bill of Rights - is an explictly countermajoritarian, anti-will-of-the-people document.  The Founders you so dramatically embrace (when it serves your present-day politics) or reject (when it serves your fears to deny rights) were quite savvy in recognizing that majorities routinely and regularly deny rights to minorities.  The best minorities can hope for, when deprived of recourse to courts applying the Constitution equaslly to all comers, is the majority saying "later.  Wait your turn." with the full intention of that "later" arriving only after the pols intoning it have retired from politics or died (So they don't have to make hard choices).  

    In the meantime, I'm just popping popcorn, munching it and enjoying the screams of petrified wingnuts.  They're right up there with fans of the Mets, Jets, Browns and Red Sox when it comes to the entertainment value of their disappointed agony.

    Red Sox? (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:37:41 PM EST
    How could you not like the Red Sox--unless you are ahem a Yankee fan....

    Parent
    Geesh (none / 0) (#79)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 11:30:32 PM EST
    the language!  I share your rage, I must say, though.

    And the observation that the Bill of Rights is "explicitly countermajoritarian" is superb.  I doubt more than 10 percent of the public gets that, or even apparently understands the role of the judiciary beyond presiding over OJ Simpson trials.

    Parent

    Will of the people, will of the people. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 10:07:21 AM EST
    Oh shut the hell up. If this country was run by the will of the people, Alabama would bring back slavery and make christianity, or more probably, protestantism, the state religion. The judiciary serves a purpose. To stop mob rule and enforce the Constitution.

    Heh, that sword cuts both ways (none / 0) (#1)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:05:32 PM EST
    Just depends on whose ox is being gored.

    That is what Ted Olson said (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:44:46 PM EST
    He told Chris Wallace that "judicial activism" just means a decision you don't like.

    Parent
    Yes, and Mr. Olsen (none / 0) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:42:47 PM EST
    instructed Wallace on due process and equal rights provisions of the 14th Amendment  and the unconstitutionality of putting them up for vote.  

    Parent
    Let's be clear (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:14:16 PM EST
    I never use "judicial activism" as a sword.

    Parent
    Ok the pendulum swings both ways (none / 0) (#4)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:18:31 PM EST
    But there is still an ox being gored.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#2)
    by bocajeff on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:09:02 PM EST
    there is a slight difference between a direct vote by the people and a representative vote by the legislature...but your point is well taken

    Does Judicial Activism (none / 0) (#7)
    by lewke on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:46:39 PM EST
    have any real meaning in today's political conversations other than "a case was decided in a way I don't like" ?

    Both sides seem to just throw the term out there anytime a case is decided that they disagree with regardless of the reasoning behind the judge(s) opinion.

    Nope (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:48:08 PM EST


    Parent
    For Me, But Not For Thee (none / 0) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 03:54:30 PM EST
    it has always been thus

    To the substance of the individual mandate, (none / 0) (#21)
    by Makarov on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:14:08 PM EST
    although I followed health care reform closely, I never did read anywhere exactly how the tax penalty for failing to purchase insurance was crafted.

    Standing for a state to sue on behalf of citizens notwithstanding, there could be a problem with the Individual Mandate tax/penalty if it isn't applied solely to income. I.E., I think most courts would shoot down a tax levied on pure existence as it seems quite similar to the poll tax.

    If the mandate was crafted as a tax deduction on income you get for purchasing insurance, there's no leg to stand on opposing it. Otherwise, it isn't as clear to me.

    That's an opinion (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:18:58 PM EST
    I think the existing case law completely refutes it but you're entitled.

    Parent
    FTR (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:20:14 PM EST
    I prefer the autoenrollment in a public plan approach to the mandate.

    But both are clearly constitutional.


    Parent

    It isn't a tax (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:43:52 PM EST
    It is a penalty for not obeying the law.

    Parent
    I was not all that enamored (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:16:29 PM EST
    of the idea that Ted Olson was involved in the Prop 8 battle.

     Having Boies, who is btw dyslexic and who represents the Yankees, lead the charge made sense....

    But watching Olson calmly leave Wallace sputtering was truly worth watching Fox.  He was very convincing and very succinct....Even Wallace admitted as much.

    Olson made overturning Prop 8 seem like the only possible result--very matter of fact, as if the reasoning were quite ordinary....A dry outcome that seemed to come up out of the prairie West, or Midwestern small town America.

    What Olson did very well (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:42:00 PM EST
    in that inverview was describe the "hurt" of the gay community, that he could see it in their eyes....

    Boies may have been better at cross-examination at trial, but Olson's interview was really very, very good.

    Parent

    Do let us not fail to (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 11:26:57 PM EST
    remember who Ted Olson is.  I'm glad he's doing what he's doing now with this case, but it doesn't even begin to chip away at the history of what he did back in the day.

    Parent
    I did not see that (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:57:06 PM EST
    until today
    impressive.

    Parent
    The term wingnut should be retired too, lol (none / 0) (#30)
    by republicratitarian on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:37:04 PM EST


    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:53:02 PM EST


    Parent
    With the advent (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:28:39 PM EST
    of the Tea Bagging shock troops, it's more descriptive than ever.

    Parent
    Another repulsive term from the sensitive left. (none / 0) (#44)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:32:30 PM EST


    Parent
    repulsive (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:39:06 PM EST
    is continuing to push that morally bankrupt, social darwinist "unimpeded markets" rigmarole and petting the "God hates fags" contingent in order to keep your coalition together.

    Parent
    Sure, and public theft is justified (none / 0) (#52)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:44:06 PM EST
    in the name of equality at the finish line.

    Everyone plays, nobody keeps score and all get a trophy.

    Parent

    that "public theft" also (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:57:46 PM EST
    pays for your roads, bridges and hospitals..not to mention that wonderful bring-Jesus-back project in the (so-called) Holy Land.

    Parent
    Sorry, but no (none / 0) (#62)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:06:24 PM EST
    the majority of roads, bridges and hospitals are state & local tax funded.  Not by federal income taxes.  The same applies for police, fire and schools.  Even if one chooses to accept the point for discussion, all the govt services listed above are available for and used by all, yet you say that those that earn more should pay more for the same service.  Does a "millionaire" drive more on the roads, have the police respond to more crimes, have the fire dept. put out more of their fires?

    As for you last comment, it is falling back on that boorish and immature debate habit.

    Parent

    How are you guys (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:20:32 PM EST
    progressing with that camel-through-the-eye-of-a-needle research, does it work on the subatomic level?

    Parent
    So regressive taxation (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:19:02 PM EST
    is fair?

    You know, the world will not come to an end if the top mariginal rate goes from 35% to 39.6%.  Or if the rates go back to the  Clinton rates.....

    All this freak out over a small increase in the marginal rate would lead one believe that taxes were going up to 70% or 90%.  

     

    Parent

    The topic was "theft" (none / 0) (#65)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:33:17 PM EST
    "Fairness" from a tax perspective would be everyone pays the same percentage of their income, or pays based on their consumption of goods and services.

    Back to the "theft" topic, am still waiting for an answer on how the "millionaires" consume more govt provided services than anyone else.  It is a valid question if you want them to pay more for the same product.

    BTW, where have I commented, much less Freaked Out over the ongoing tax rate change debate?  Provide a link and you win the point.  Until then, don't apply your stereotype to me nor put words in my mouth.

    Parent

    hmmm . . . . (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:44:45 PM EST
    how many more people need to use government services because of the millionaires . . . .?  {grin}

    Parent
    #67 hmmmm.... (none / 0) (#68)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:47:13 PM EST
    how many more people need to use government services because of the millionaires

    Not quite grasping the point.  Care to elaborate?

    {grin too}

    Parent

    I'm thinking of all the little people who (none / 0) (#69)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 06:53:25 PM EST
    are getting scr*wed by the wealthy. Those that took a hit from Wall St, the housing collapse, etc and those that work at say WalMart who need Medicaid etc . . . .

    Who's money bailed out WS BTW . . .?

    Parent

    So you would agree (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:53:03 PM EST
    that it is OK for whites to use the N word because some blacks do it?

    BTW - I don't agree.

    Face it. You are just looking for an excuse to be insulting to a whole group of people.

    Parent

    Thank you for (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 10:29:53 PM EST
    defining yourself so well... not to mention your fantastic debating and other intellectual abilities.

    And I see that you don't deny the double standard I pointed out.

    Parent

    So insultive and pejorative labels are now OK here (none / 0) (#41)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:20:11 PM EST
    A Thee and Me kinda thingy?

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:35:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Hang on a sec while I finish my belly laugh (none / 0) (#50)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:41:19 PM EST
    Riiiiight.  

    Care to make the bait a little more tempting?

    Just curious, if that is the "official" position, just where is the line drawn on what is acceptable political debate and what is ad hominem?  

    Parent

    Plus it helps (none / 0) (#82)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:12:45 AM EST
    "progressives" feel superior.

    Parent
    Insulting and Pejorative? (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:41:19 PM EST
    More like descriptive, thank's to Karl Rove self proclaimed spinmeister.

    Parent
    Yes, insulting an pejorative. (none / 0) (#51)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:42:15 PM EST
    www.dictionary.com

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:48:58 PM EST
    Insulting only because accurately naming the behavior of shameless spin and distortion must be, embarrassing.

    But maybe you have never encountered the thing right wing political extremists are likened to. A wing nut has two wings that enable the screwing to be done effortlessly. With the flick of a finger the wingnut spins and spins.....

     

    Parent

    Well and ... (none / 0) (#57)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:55:40 PM EST
    Insults and shameful acts are only the vices of conservatives - yes?

    Hubris, thy name is squeaky.

    Parent

    Et tu, Brute? (none / 0) (#58)
    by BTAL on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:56:21 PM EST
    ;)

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 05:39:27 PM EST
    It can get retired when y'all stop spinning like a wingnut....  which, going by the spin on the Prop 8 decision, is not going to happen very soon...

    Parent
    And moonbat goes when???? (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 09:56:50 PM EST
    As a social liberal I believe labels are not helpful if you truly want to understand the other person's point of view.

    Parent
    Exactly ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by nyrias on Mon Aug 09, 2010 at 04:53:51 PM EST
    both sides are hypocrites and they are using whatever means to "win".

    Judicial Activism For Me, But Not For Thee | 85 comments (85 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment