Althouse wrote yesterday: "My blog is pretty left-wing today. I'm skewing left."
Don't get me wrong, Althouse is free to sail whichever political winds she feels more comfortable sailing. Far be it for me, to berate her on that score. I've enjoyed reading her "vortex" vortices for years.
However, at a time when we have a dictator light president, making a mockery of the rule of law and the separation of powers, it is not an appropriate response for Law professor Althouse to be playing footsy with the left. An ideology, who's proponents sole purpose for existence, these days, seems to be to prop up president "I can do whatever I want" Obama.
Why encourage more of that kind of presidential worship (something I thought she disliked) by even hinting that she might like what they are doing, what Obama is doing. If there was ever a time NOT to turn left, this is it. Althouse, come back to your good senses.
And you readers, please join us with your thoughts and comments, but before you do, 'read the post and see what topics are raised. Address these topics. Express ideas and make good observations. Don't make any personal remarks and don't go back-and-forth with another commenter (except at the level of responding to ideas about the topic under discussion).
Thanks.
97 comments:
Seems evil to me, to be avoiding the most severe abuse of the Constitution in decades, far worse than Nixon, simply to focus on gay gay gay and black.
Did I mention gay?
Goddamned disgusting.
Professor Turley seems genuinely alarmed with what is going on.
But, at this point, he is the lone voice in the wilderness.
This is a Lem trap.
I feel like I should delete myself.
I think Althouse runs a moot court in her comments section. It's what attorneys train to do. She wants both sides of every news story and opinion to see the light. When one side or other is sorely lacking, she encourages a stable of characters to take up the fight for the other side.
I like wading in there to make fun with word play, to impugn what I perceive as bad faith character, and to correct or add to facts. The key is to not take things too personally.
I have also never played any character but myself there, because I'm not a skilled actor.
Althouse herself has blind spots in her judgements, but does a pretty good job of what she's trying to do.
The key is understanding "what she's trying to do."
Althouse is a far leftist.
I'm not referring to her opinions, but to her tactics.
Gay marriage lost 30 straight state referendums. It became the law of the land solely because lawyers overrode the will of the people.
Remember Althouse's verdict (paraphrased) at the end of that process: We had to do it for your own good.
So, what Althouse actually believes in is rule by lawyer.
This has been the defining characteristic of the far left for decades... a refusal to allow the will of the people to prevail.
I thought it was a trolling post---actually all of her posts from yesterday were boring to me, so I didn't get involved.
The post on Lois Lerner, Issa and Cummings could have been more interesting today if I had read it before someone else got ahold of the comments section and turned it into caca.
@Birches
It was turned into caca, no doubt.
But the shit argument presented will be precisely the one Democrats present...
A white man dared to diss a black man.
So, that's what we're up against.
@Birches
I agree.
I would wager that the serious problem with Lerner not testifying will be purposefully lost in the media in the exact same way.
It's how the left rolls.
"This is a Lem trap."
Bingo. And he forgot the red meat tag :)
He's Lemsplaining.
Since it's Althouse, wouldn't it be blue meat?
I don't follow TV media so I'll have to take you guys' word for how the Issa/Lerner story plays out and whether the public feels that Cummings was shut down. I don't think it will play out that way.
Certainly if Althouse feels that Cummings was slighted, that's her business. She bends over backwards for black and gays -- giving all of us a horrifying glimpse behind the curtain -- but given her milieu, it's no surprise.
Althouse has a strong countermajoritarian streak, but forgets sometimes -- I think--who's a "majority" and who's not.
I actually went to TOP today and left a post for the first time since I was banned. It was the IRS investigation thread. It seems she has the same Hippos she feeds messing up her pool.
But moreover, Cummings succeeded in his efforts. The left is talking about Cummings and Issa, and they can ignore the IRS becoming a political weapon. They are gleeful about this, because they see Hillary leading in the early polls, so they think they are home free. The IRS will be their gestapo, and they think people will just along with it.
@leland
True, the IRStapo is fine with half the country. Some of the left think GOPers should be tried for being, well, non-lefties.
It is getting a bit frightening to me.
Thanks for the tip Deb.
@Lem: One more prediction: She and Meade are going to ignore this thread* because she really wants you -- and some of us others -- to go away.
*Meade's Google alert must be ringing off the hook.
_________________
Leland wrote: The IRS will be their gestapo, and they think people will just along with it.
Remember that the DoJ really pissed off the supplicant media once or twice already by snooping. This could easily happen again.
Come one this is too easy- we all know long tenured law profs who came of age in the 1960's, went to school in NYC, have lived in a far left cocoon for 30 years and has a gay child has almost NO chance to see the world like a conservative. The cocoon insulates them from the broad of bigger and bigger fed govt. IOW, they are, in a large way, non compos mentis.
It is ironic to see the onetime teacher's pet crapping all over the threads over there.
You know, I just mentioned the separation of powers issue because a highly respected college of hers is sounding the alarm also. Obama re-writing law It's hardly a partisan issue.
But the stuff I left out is impeachable offenses galore.
Make that colleague of hers...
She could at least do a blogginheads with that man, professor Turley.
Anytime, Lem :)
No, Pogo, definitely red meat to stir up the rabble-rousers.
As I said, Althouse believes in rule by lawyer.
I used to work in the law firms where she once worked. I know the mentality. Arrogance personified.
In Woodstock, the leftists say: "The Tea Party got what it deserved."
Why? Because they are bigots.
The accusation, in the mind of a leftist (and Althouse) renders the bigot into a non-person who has no legal or political rights.
This bigotry biz is what led us to this impasse where we are no longer a nation of laws. We are a nation ruled by lawyers.
Every issue that is a "bigot" issue (and all issues are now "bigot" issues) is outsider the purview of the electorate, and must be decided by our betters... lawyers.
The leftist press will ignore the issue of illegal activity by the IRS, point to a white man dissing a black man, and declare this to be yet another bigotry issue.
So, round we go... the Tea Party had it coming!
I don't take academics all that seriously, and Althouse plays into that so I'm ok with it. It's a lounge act.
It's a lounge act.
The pets are meant to common touch.
Get serious. Ann and Larry have no pets. They borrow props.
Phony is as phony does.
Supposedly, 9/11 changed her views on foreign policy and the market crash on things economic, but here I think it's just that she can't bear the idea she was that wrong about Choom (you see it a lot these days all over the Leftosphere now that all their pet ideas are crashing).
Shouting Thomas said...
The gay, gay, gay thing is mind boggling.
The woman wants us all to go gay.
No, but the Gaystapo wants to be allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and she's the over-indulgent mother who can't say, "No".
If it is any consolidation gays definitely don't want you to be gay.
It's good to see that education and brilliance displayed so fiercely.
That was a firm retort, Titus.
English is hard.
Lem don't you have better things to do than to worry about this. Old news man. Leave them to stew in their juices.
I barely have the heart to belittle Crack, and call Garage fat anymore. That place really just is incredibly stale and uninteresting.
As to the weaponization of the IRS, I expect Italy levels of tax dodging and cash economy to spring up.
Incentives change behavior, even/especially perverse incentives.
The IRS scandal will not be resolved unless we get new Republican leadership and control the Senate. We need a real Speaker who go after them with a select committee. Put somebody tough, smart and ambitious in charge and let him loose.
Where's Ray Cohn when you need him?
That shoulda been "Roy" Cohn. Died of AIDS, didn't he.
I drove by Point Loma HS last week. Both Don Larsen and David Wells went there. Both threw perfect games for the Yanks and both went to the same HS. Marion Ross also is an alumnus.
Just above this post (at least on my browser right now) is an ad for something to "remove ugly dark spots." It shows a loathsome, claw-like hand, disfigured by age. Whatever is on sale will presumably change that.
Do you think so?
Thanks Lem. You did the impossible. I was about to sympathetically advise you to disregard the rantings of the crazy narcissist you seem to never get enough of, as crazy narcissists always have their own agendas. But you seem to have out-did her in going full-metal-rightwing and declaring the majority of the country traitors. And I have to say that in a narcissism contest the winner has to be the one refusing to concede that a majority voting public of a successful democracy just might have good reasons for what they think and do.
If only you could behead like the Queen of Hearts. Just make sure not to get a law degree and understand the field that would give you an actual basis in understanding for what is and is not legal.
The IRS scandal will not be resolved unless we get new Republican leadership and control the Senate.
It's always about control, right? Will the next episode of control require more 18th-century clever re-branding? Or did Brand Toxic now become palatable? I thought Tea Partyism was just the purity that the country needed? Could they not purify by fire the 75% of the country rejecting them? Was their lower-than-ever congressional approval rating (yes, even lower than previous congresses AND the president AND Bush) just too much of an impediment?
Was their pose as a party of Rape Philosophers and anti-47 per centers that cost them so dearly last year bad enough to rebrand back to the old brand?
People give up social media for Lent.
I think a better penance is to hang around more of it.
Mitt Romney lost because of many factors. Not least the monolithic lap dog media that refused to do it's job. So only a full bore Congressional investigation on a party line vote will do the trick. Just the way they passed Obamacare. Partisan all the way. The Obama way. The Chicago way.
Coming to a Congress near you.
It is getting a bit frightening to me.
Oh come on, Pogo. You're always frightened. Admit it. Did you check under your bed for Mao and Stalin yet?
If the Liberals had a ounce of sense they would speak up about the violation of our rights by the unprecedented invasion of privacy by the NSA. Geometrically greater than anything that had gone before. The targeting of people by the IRS because of their political beliefs. The destruction of the filibuster that served as a break on the excesses of one party or the other. What the Democrats fail to realize is that they will not always be in power. If you think that they will never lose power you are sadly mistaken. No one party rules forever. Unless of course they usurp power unconstitutionally.
Which could happen with this President.
I saw Mitt Romney sweating bullets when trying to backtrack on his "Honestly Display of Hatred for the Country" moment. You'd have to own the media to get them to find a way for a guy to somehow manage to look good after that. But let's blame them anyway. Let's admire Putin and blame the free media of America for not being controlled enough.
The country's been partisan as hell since 1980 - 2006. The people are no longer with the rape philosophers and the corporate aggrandizers. The country's more liberal. No amount of political missteps by Obama will somehow change that. The days of Ralph Reed and William Kristol and Dick Morris are done. And responsible Republicans know that the kooks that Buckley supposedly purged them of (now given bigger microphones than they deserve) will win them no durable majorities. Wait another generation, you'll get your turn.
The destruction of the filibuster that served as a break on the excesses of one party or the other.
Today's squelching of Free Mumia, Esq was a nice bipartisan effort not requiring a filibuster.
Bravo, I say.
I think it is quite possible that he would try to abrogate the 22nd Amendment.
After all he has a phone and he has a pen. That's all he needs.
Oh come on. Your only dissenters on ECHELON with an ounce of legal credibility on ARE liberals. There aren't any conservative Greenwalds and Snowdens and the rest. Do they exist? Where are they? They just see political blood, not principles violated. Once these issues go to the SCOTUS, which if they're so severe they'd have to, we'll see where all the conservative jurists you packed the courts with line up. Show me what the conservatives who need to have reasoned principles for a living end up decreeing, not just what a bunch of partisans say.
The 2014 mid terms will drive what happens in 2016. If the Senate flips and the House goes even more Republican, the people may welcome a liberal counterweight as POTUS. In fact, they may even come to like Obama's last two years. I assume that he does want a legacy, and he'll work on his legacy. Getting shown up today over "Free Mumia, Esq." is a good start.
Keep dreaming Ritmo. The ravages of Obamacare will turn that worm wait and see. All of those people who got screwed will vote against the party line Dems who stuffed that down the peoples throats. The Republicans will nominate someone who will fight and not lie down like a pussy like Romney did. If not the party will die. And deserve to die. The Republicans will not win by being more like the Democrats. Ever.
The country needs a choice not an echo.
If the Dem record of failure and corruption is what they want then that is what they will get.
Rand Paul is an example of someone who is speaking out about the excesses of the Obama administration. His class action suit is the only tangible action that I have seen.
On the other hand, if people get a credible whiff of election shenanigans meant to keep the Senate (D), they will punish in 2016.
What is a more tangible example of election manipulation than delaying the Obamacare mandates without going to Congress to change the law.
They should go to court to enforce the law. The executive does not get to change the written law by the stroke of a pen. They have to go to Congress to get that authority. Simply put it is lawless in the extreme.
Typical of this President.
It has been been dying the death of Tea Partyism and will continue to die if it doesn't moderate. These are not the times of yesteryear, man.
At least Chicklet knows that there are ways to look to trends to predict what's in political vogue and what's gauche. He understands that it's about more than just party purity. So will the ®s (sorry, too funny but I had to leave that conversion to a "trademark" symbol in) who remain in office or actually have some power at that point, and I have a feeling they'll be moderates. Just because Obama's not a de Gaulle or a Churchill doesn't mean he'll cause Tea Party Nation to lift a banner, charge the White House and somehow change their approval ratings from single digits to Elizabethan acclaim.
It's not the 1980s any more. It's just not. It's not the 1960s either (apart from the weed legislation), but it's certainly not the 1980s.
What would happen if a Republican President decides he doesn't like a law that a Democratic Congress passed? Can he just decide to change it or delay the specific provisions because he feels like it?
Or is it what we would call in technical terms: Ridiculous bullshit in the extreme?
Nobody wants a Democrat lite. Why buy that when you get the real thing? The Republicans will not win by being more like the Democrats no matter how many times you say it.
Psssst. He is not a liberal. Just sayn'
Oh, I hear you there.
Listen - they can hold hearings all they want. If he's in violation or a practice needs to change, so be it. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any accountability - I'm just saying that there are ways of deciding accountability and that those aren't always similar from anything having to do with political outcome.
And psssst - the nation wants single-payer. Their objection to Obamacare is that it didn't go far enough.
Can he just decide to change it or delay the specific provisions because he feels like it?
Oh come on… do you seriously believe that Republicans are never more lax about the executive agenda of a liberal law? You can't believe that.
Psst not true. Many millions upon millions do not want to pay for pregnancy or birth control or mental health for a lot more money when they can get a cheaper policy. They want to make the choice and not have Obama make it for them. Having the government make decisions for you is not American. The Devil is in the details. You can't bullshit this. People who have to pay a lot more or lose their policies are not going to be happy. There are a hell of lot more of them than there are people who love it.
Obama lied. You can't keep your policy if you like your policy. You can't keep your doctor if you like your doctor. The government will tell you what policy you can have and what bullshit you have to pay for that you don't need or want. They will tell you what doctors you can see.
Obama lies. He lies and lies. That catches up with you eventually. Delaying the mandate only delays it a little. But people are wising up when they lose their policy.
"Oh come on… do you seriously believe that Republicans are never more lax about the executive agenda of a liberal law? You can't believe that"
Name one time that happened. Nixon tried it by impounding funds and got impeached for it.
Besides we are dealing with what is happening now. Not with what Millard Fillmore or Rutherford B. Hayes did. Today. He is acting unconstitutionally. Everyday.
The only question is how bold will he be?
. I assume that he does want a legacy, and he'll work on his legacy. "
You think he wanted to be a failure and a liar on all that he's done so far? He's just unqualified and incompetent for the job. Of course he wants to make a nice legacy, but he has no idea how to do that either. Lucky for him it doesn't matter what he does, the media will build him a fine legacy out of what he leaves behind: the broken promises, lost prosperity, malaise and confused cobweb of regulation that may or may not actually have to be enforced depending on who is in power. They can also build a cabin out of spent beer cans and used band aids. They are that good... and committed.
Many millions upon millions do not want to pay for pregnancy or birth control or mental health for a lot more money when they can get a cheaper policy.
Here's the deal: THey don't want to pay for anything! But it's complicated to make that happen. If costs rise then it's a failure. But let's not pretend that people think they had great choices before. They had rationing. It was done by the private sector, and with fewer guarantees of care. I don't see any way around that reckoning…
There is a difference between the perception of care and it's reality. Making every patient their own little bureaucrat and advocate didn't work. It was a bad idea. The American health care system before was horribly inefficient, and even less popular. This will not be a stellar improvement, but it won't be as bad and certainly not worse.
Lastly, it's astounding to me to see people complaining about how they perceive that their coverage will change who happen to be the same people who never thought there was anything wrong (or worth doing) about tens of millions completely uninsured, without any stable access to insurance, who didn't even have a shot close to what everyone else had then or still has now.
And this battle was fought and decided four years ago. It's not going to be reversed. Republicans are finally starting to compromise, not retreat. In your heart you don't want to have lifetime caps or pre-existing exclusions either.
The only question is how bold will he be?
Over-the-shoulder-Holder-bolder. Obama seeks to lift himself and separate others. He's a soft boob needing some restraint.
He will have a David Dinkins legacy. Dinkins was one of the worst mayors in the history of New York. But revisionist journalists gave him credit for things that Giuliani did. Because they lie.
Historians lie and cover up for Democrats. They did it for Kennedy. They will do it for Obama.
What will be interesting is when the tell all books come out.
Lastly, it's astounding to me to see people complaining about how they perceive that their coverage will change who happen to be the same people who never thought there was anything wrong (or worth doing) about tens of millions completely uninsured, without any stable access to insurance, who didn't even have a shot close to what everyone else had then or still has now.
How is the ACA doing signing up those illegals? I haven't heard a peep.
What I see Obama doing is issuing a Presidential pardon to every felon to restore their voting rights. Millions of votes for Democrats. The criminal class is their voter. So why not?
It has to be in the works.
Name one time that happened. Nixon tried it by impounding funds and got impeached for it.
Breaking and entering is a real violation. You have to admit, when Republicans break the law, they do it dramatically. None of this "phased implementation of your own law is wrong!" stuff. ;-)
I'd say outing CIA agents qualifies. Firing state AGs for not being partisan qualifies. These were unprecedented directives in my book. Never thought I'd see them, but apparently whoever was running the Bush White House wanted to go there. Before anyone can complain about supposedly not upholding laws they have to take seriously the spirit of neutrality that these horrible breaches so wantonly violated. Putting Pandora back in her box is harder than letting her out.
What I see Obama doing is issuing a Presidential pardon to every felon to restore their voting rights.
Then awesome, I say - and I didn't even know about this. Voting should be fundamental, and a government hoping to hold onto power by restricting voting in any way, from shortening poll hours to disenfranchising its enemies, is a weak one.
I always thought that taking voting rights away from criminals was an admission that a government thought that if it could jail the entire population, that would be a good way to raise its tyrannical grip on power. Democracy assumes most people AREN'T criminals. It assumes most people can and should be trusted - with the vote no less than with anything else. Let the non-violent offenders out already. Disband the prison-inustrial-complex. It's a waste of money and lives. Put people in prison that are dangerous, not just "undesirable". What a waste.
Put people in prison that are dangerous, not just "undesirable". What a waste.
Why is Mumia a folk hero admired by POTUS? Why isn't some guy serving a life sentence for smoking a joint in your imaginary world a hero?
Then awesome, I say - and I didn't even know about this. Voting should be fundamental, and a government hoping to hold onto power by restricting voting in any way, from shortening poll hours to disenfranchising its enemies, is a weak one.
Why not give voting rights to Canadians and Mexicans?
No one is talking about pardoning murderers. Chickie. We are saying that if you fear that enough of the population is criminal, then you can't call yourself a democratic leader. There are real criminals, and they should be jailed. But if you fear there are enough of them to change your election strategy, you shouldn't be in the electing business.
We are talking about voting. You are changing the subject.
Why not give voting rights to Canadians and Mexicans?
I apologize for provoking your easily distracted mind. Americans don't lose their citizenship for going to jail. There are awesome historical reasons for this. If you want to see how tyrants define "criminal" for the sake of political expediency and furthering their own power, watch the Showtime series on The Tudors. You'll see.
Chickie: Troop hates ECHELON for the same reason I'm against proliferating prisons and restricting voting. It signals that the government thinks you're a criminal for getting in the way of its political interests.
It's not right.
I disagree with him on the first and he probably disagrees with me on the second, but at least we probably understand the common motivation for both positions. I respect where he's coming from and it's probably from the same place that leads me to think it's a waste to expand prisons and the number held within (or especially released from them) who can't vote.
There are real criminals, and they should be jailed. But if you fear there are enough of them to change your election strategy, you shouldn't be in the electing business.
But you were talking about giving voting rights back to all felons; presumably that would include some murderers and rapists. Why not presume that bad people serving time will vote for their interests and vote for bad laws.? Suppose that a small town having mainly a prison population voted itself a new mayor? How far and how broadly are you will to go with re-enfranchisement?
BTW, today's Senate action shows that even some Dems will come to their senses regarding prisoner's rights and those who fight for them.
BTW, 'Night!
Why not presume that bad people serving time will vote for their interests and vote for bad laws.?
Sure, I could assume that could (theoretically) happen, but I would have bad faith to assume that enough of them could do so as to change a decent outcome when it comes to how our laws and leaders are decided.
They have names for countries that imprison people so disproportionately that it would affect the political outcome - IF elections were to be held there. They go by names like North Korea, China, the Soviet Union, etc.
Taking voting rights away from criminals can provoke a government to jail people simply to prevent them from opposing him. Let me be on the record as opposing that.
Suppose that a small town having mainly a prison population voted itself a new mayor? How far and how broadly are you will to go with re-enfranchisement?
Only for national elections. It's a good point you raise.
Good night.
Let's pick this up again.
Just notice one thing.
We didn't have to talk about a garden gnome and consort to have a lively civil discussion. Just sayn'
Good night.
Why are surprised that Prof. Althouse is tacking left?
The whole idea that she's conservative is ludicrous.
That's not a slam to say she's basically a liberal. The reason she seems conservative to many is she isn't knee jerk and doctrinaire, like some we know. *Cough! Cough!*
I'm enjoying your blog, Fr Fox. Looking forward to more Rome pictures.
Mumpsimus:
Thanks! But for the next week, it'll be German pictures.
FWIW the few felons I've known were never stopped when they walked into a voting booth, and I'm wondering if illegals are either.
Sarah Palin says something and the left collectively lose their minds. Amazing how much power she has over them.
As for Obama and PPACA, I'd like to know one aspect on which it was sold for Congressional support and public support that has actually held?
The number of insured hasn't changed. Being generous and accepting the administration's numbers, the number of *cough* enrolled *cough* barely outnumbers the number that lost their insurance. Again, keeping with the Administration's numbers, there are still ten's of millions without health insurance.
The cost of healthcare has gone up, and unless more people enroll soon, it will go up even more. But Obama has pushed back the drivers for enrollment.
Accepting the argument that the exchanges provide better insurance, well Obama just pushed back the drivers for businesses to provide a better plan.
PPACA was suppose to lower the deficit, and to the point that it began with taxes on medical devices before providing any service what so ever; the maybe it has increased government revenue rather than spending. But Obama has promised to reimburse insurance companies from losses because enrollment has not reached the expected numbers for the actuaries to break even. And then there is the $600 million spent to build inadequate websites followed by yet unreported millions more to fix them.
What about this law and Obama's actions deserve continue support? What is successful about the law to date?
It seems the only support for PPACA is to protect the political careers of those who made it happen. No one on the left wants to discuss bringing to task those that have caused it to fail in implementation.
ACA broken promises.
1. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.
2. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
3. Families will on average save $2500 annually.
4. Obamacare won’t add a dime to the deficit.
Listen all they have to do is put in a law to make it illegal not to offer a policy because of a pre-existing condition and put in some governmental assistance for catastrophic situations. Then call it a day.
Let it be like car insurance. You decide what you want covered. If you just want the minimum liability than that is all you have to pay for. You don't have to force nuns to get birth control or cover drug rehab or have 80 year old men have prenatal coverage. A couple of simple rules and let the market handle it.
Repeal Obamacare and write a law that is one page that everyone can understand.
Althouse, come back to your good senses.
I don't read Althouse since her little hissy fit that led to the birth of this blog. Althouse bases everything on emotion and uses "logic" to bolster her emotional reasoning.
All of her reasoning about gays comes from her feelings about her gay son. She's a princess who thinks it should all be her way.
Listen all they have to do is put in a law to make it illegal not to offer a policy because of a pre-existing condition and put in some governmental assistance for catastrophic situations.
I think just the money spent on the website could have built a pool of money to cover the uninsured with pre-existing that were not being covered. Prior to PPACA, most states had an insurer of last resort, which was a safety net. I would be against federal funding of those things, but I could get behind a general law that suggested states should have such a safety net. It certainly would be a better law than what we have now.
That would greatly reduce the opportunity to commit fraud. Graft, fraud, corruption - that's what Obamacare is all about. Cronyism at its finest.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/please-stop-comparing-health-insurance-to-car-insurance/
Post a Comment