Flashback: 1987 Ad From People For The American Way Vs. Bork
Tweet
48 Responses to “Flashback: 1987 Ad From People For The American Way Vs. Bork”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
When I was in grad school, one of the physics dept. profs had a selection of quotes taped to his door, and one of them had to do with Borks’s view on science policy. Something to the general effect of “Scientists don’t have a right to investigate a damn thing we smart lawyers don’t want them to investigate.” It was very annoying and scary for a future scientist. I have tried on several occasions to google Bork and science but have had little luck in finding it (of course, this was before the days of Google or even consciousness of the Internet among the general public).
Atticus Finch!
Fascinating contrast, Oliver:
Then: We HAVE to protect your right to privacy!
Now: We need to dig up all the dirt we can on this New Haven firefighter who filed a lawsuit that embarrassed a Supreme Court nominee!
They’re still scumbags…
J.
Here’s a possibility, Rheinhard: the quote was utter bullshit to begin with.
J.
We need to dig up all the dirt we can on this New Haven firefighter who filed a lawsuit that embarrassed a Supreme Court nominee!
And by dig up dirt, you mean use Google to see what his entire history of crying discrimination is.
Jay Tea: Here’s a possibility, Rheinhard: the quote was utter bullshit to begin with.
That’s right. If it can’t be found in a quick Google search it simply doesn’t exist.
The scope of Jay Tea’s world, ladies and gentlemen.
Sean, go and look up “possibility.”
Are you prepared to say that Bork absolutely said it? Are you speaking from absolute knowledge of the precise wording, along with the date and location and context of the remark?
I didn’t say it was bullshit, only that it could be. I didn’t even say that was probable, only possible.
There was a lot of bullshit being slung about Bork back then. This quote very well might have been some of it.
J.
Bork was a lunatic right wing extremist.
As it is we’ve got an extreme right wing activist court.
Right wing activists: Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and frequently Kennedy.
Right wing activist judges also litter the Appellate Courts and the Lower Courts.
Oh, look. “Newsy” is tossing around “right wing” again. Who had 4:50 in the betting pool?
Hey, “Newsy,” here’s a phrase you might have heard before:
“Elections have consequences.”
Years of Republican presidents and Republican congresses mean that Republicans get to appoint judges.
Good lord, you’re an incredibly predictable and vapid little twit.
J.
What, ‘Slouching Toward Gomorrah’ wasn’t bad enough?
Atticus Finch to Jay Tea: Bite me!
Indeed:
Name the time and place. I’ll bring my own cutlery.
J.
And condiments.
J.
There you have it folks: Jay Tea is objectively and unambiguously anti-Atticus Finch. Who could have predicted…?
Right winger “Jay Tea”: “Years of Republican presidents and Republican congresses mean that Republicans get to appoint judges.”
Republicans appointed right wing activist judges even while whining about mythical activist judges.
Right wing activist Judges Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and frequently Kennedy don’t rule on the Law, they rule on the perverted right wing ideology that empowers corporations and the powerful over Citizens.
And keep in mind, it was just a few years ago that Republican leaders were threatening violence against any Judges that didn’t rule for their right wing ideology.
The lawlessness of the right wing includes the activist right wing Judiciary of the Supreme Court “conservatives” that radically depart from the clear language of the law and precedent in order to push their right wing agenda.
I actually have quite a bit of respect for Atticus Finch — who would NEVER say anything so coarse as “bite me.” That was directed at you.
Alternately, Indeed, I could argue that I am simply demonstrating my respect for “Atticus Finch” by taking him at his word…
J.
Shorter “Newsy:” The Republicans did a whole bunch of eeeeevil things, so we’re going to prove our side’s better by doing that right back at them, and worse!”
J.
I sincerely wish that Obama would have chosen an actual liberal Supreme Court Justice to counter the right wing activist extremists that currently control the court.
He didn’t.
He chose a low-key moderate centrist whose meticulous legal jurisprudence stayed strictly within the lines and never pushed any boundaries.
And what was the right wing’s complaint? That she wasn’t a right wing activist jurist who had empathy for white males.
Despicable.
By “Newsy’s” standard, Che Guevara was a moderate and William Ayers a mainstream activist.
And getting a ruling smacked down by the Supreme Court, with not a single justice accepting her reasoning, qualifies as “meticulous legal jurisprudence stayed strictly within the lines and never pushed any boundaries?” Man, whatever “Newsy” is smoking, does he/she/it share?
J.
Right wing liar “Jay Tea” falsely claims that the 5-4 decision is magically a 9-0 decision and then lumps in Sotomayor with Che Guevara and William Ayers.
Apparently because one is a Hispanic and the other was regularly accused of being a terrorist.
Right wingers take the Orwellian approach to math and demand that everyone not accept the falsehood of 2+2=5 but right winger’s demand you like it.
Sotomayor ruled on the law.
The right wing activist Judges changed and rewrote the Law through the Judiciary.
Jay Tea: Sean, go and look up “possibility.”
Jay, go look up “sarcasm” and “hyperbole”.
Oh, “Newsy…”
I didn’t say that the court unanimously overruled her. I said that not a single justice affirmed her REASONING. Four agreed with her DECISION, but not one defended the path she chose to reach it.
I chose Guevera because he’s a progressive, revolutionary icon (and, not coincidentally, a psychotic mass murderer) and Ayers because he’s an confessed unrepentant terrorist — not just someone “regularly accused of being a terrorist.
But it is rather enlightening that “Newsy” doesn’t refute the allegations — just tries to diminish the atrocious nature of the two terrorists I cited.
And then he/she/it segues into his/her/its same old tired BS that, apparently, gains veracity with repetition.
Sigh… oh, so predictable. Oh, so tiresome.
J.
I actually have quite a bit of respect for Atticus Finch — who would NEVER say anything so coarse as “bite me.”
Perhaps not, but I bet he would call you a WATB.
Cheesus, all y’all. Step off.
Hispanics need to understand that right wing extremists like Republican Jeff “KKK” Sessions and “Jay Tea” have gone out of their way to falsely smear a decent, moderate Hispanic woman for political purposes.
“Jay Tea”, a blogger for the psychotic Commentary Magazine actually suggests that the Sotomayor is a “psychotic mass murderer” and an “unrepentant terrorist.”
Which is perversely ironic because in another thread he’s currently whining about Republican Sarah Palin being compared to a psychotic mass murderer.
It’s just another example of Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People.
At the same time right winger “Jay Tea” is whining about having Republican Sarah Palin compared to a psychotic mass murderer “Jay Tea” is explicitly saying the same thing about a Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court.
You are completely beyond contemptible, Newsie. We went over this several times with you back on the Sotomayor thread about the Supreme Court decision in the Ricci case and how the people who argued that all nine justices disagreed with her reasoning in the case, just not all disagreed with the decision. Yet you still persist in repeating that lie, that lie that several of us called you out on and explained to you in almost kindergarten level terms that you could understand.
And here is right winger “Dennis” trying to explain how 5-4 is actually 9-0.
4 Justices upheld Sotomayor’s decision and ruled based on the law.
5 right wing activist Justices ruled against Sotomayor’s decision and did so by ruling against the law.
The 5 right wing activist Justices used the Court to rewrite Law and the Republicans are supporting that right wing activist ruling and even going so far as falsely saying that the 5-4 ruling was a 9-0 ruling.
Poor, poor “Newsy.” He/she/it can’t seem to comprehend that “you got the right answer for the wrong reasons” is not the same as “you were right.”
And “Newsy,” I wasn’t comparing Sotomayor to Che Guevera and William Ayers. I was denigrating your staggering lack of intellect and honesty and perspective.
Your inability to acknowledge that is proof that, if anything, I understated it.
J.
Right wing Commentary Magazine blogger “Jay Tea” asserted that a 5-4 decision was actually a 9-0 decision and then he compared Democratic Supreme Court Justice nominee Sotomayor to people that he, “Jay Tea” called a “psychotic mass murderer” and an “unrepentant terrorist.”
And bizarrely, this is the same “Jay Tea” who is pretending to be outraged that Republican Sarah Palin was compared to a psychotic mass murderer.
It’s not just the right wing’s perversion of math that stretches the Orwell’s 2+2=5 to 2+2=9 that’s obscene, it’s the expectation by right wingers that they can simultaneously employ the tactics that they are complaining about.
Orwell underestimated the duplicity of the right wing mind.
Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People.
I gotta get to bed soon for an early morning flight. Could someone let me know when “Newsy” swings back into reality?
J.
Right wing “reality”: Falsely asserting that 2+2=9.
And, as noted before, “you got the right answer, but you used completely bogus reasoning” means you got 100% on the math test.
In the real world, when you gotta show your work, you MIGHT get partial credit for the right answer, but got there by a flawed process. I know my high school math teacher wasn’t that generous.
I guess “Newsy’s” world doesn’t work like that…
J.
In the real world the correct answer means a lot.
In right winger’s fictional alternity, when right wing Judicial activists rewrite the law that’s okay and therefore ? 2+2=9.
That’s both flat out false and duplicitous as well.
The decision you are claiming was 9-0 was 5-4.
And your acceptance of right wing judicial activism that has right wing Judges rewriting the Law is a repudiation from the right wing’s false claim that they were against judicial activism.
If the right wing were consistent they would have denounced the right wing judicial activism engaged in by Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and (often) Kennedy.
As it is, the right wing’s failure to denounce today what they had repeatedly denounced in years past reveals the moral relativism that is the heart of the right wing movement:
Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People.
News flash to the ‘wingers:
Supreme Court justices agree on decisions and disagree on reasoning all the damn time! Have you ever seen an instance where a justice issues a separate opinion? If not, then just hush up now because you have no idea what you’re taling about.
“Hispanics need to understand that right wing extremists like Republican Jeff “KKK” Sessions and “Jay Tea” have gone out of their way to falsely smear a decent, moderate Hispanic woman for political purposes.”
Hispanics should also understand that far left ideologues like Newsy went out of their way to falsely smear avdwcent, moderate Hispanic for political purposes.
Why are Republicans falsely attacking a Hispanic woman?
Because the rump of the Republican Party is made up of racist Republican leaders like Republican Jeff “KKK” Sessions who is more interested in firing up his racist Republican base than reaching out to Hispanics.
J.G,Thayer: “Now: We need to dig up all the dirt we can on this New Haven firefighter who filed a lawsuit that embarrassed a Supreme Court nominee!”
Ummm… When you file a lawsuit, it’s not your fucking private life, dipshit.
Jesus Christ, you are stupid.
Quaker in a Basement: “Supreme Court justices agree on decisions and disagree on reasoning all the damn time! Have you ever seen an instance where a justice issues a separate opinion? If not, then just hush up now because you have no idea what you’re taling about.”
They should just hush up all of the time, because they (almost) never have anything worthwhile to say.
Now they are going to accuse me of trying to take away their first amendment rights, thus proving they don’t know what ‘should’ means.
J.G,Thayer: “Now: We need to dig up all the dirt we can on this New Haven firefighter who filed a lawsuit that embarrassed a Supreme Court nominee!”
Yea, let’s peek in his windows to find out what kind of countertops he has in his house and let’s dig through his garbage! Oh wait…
Ummm… When you file a lawsuit, it’s not your fucking private life, dipshit.
I think he was talking about when the Liberal Nazis stalked Ricci, going so far as to sneak over to a window by his house to determine, once and for all, what kind if countertops he has.
Quaker in a Basement: “Supreme Court justices agree on decisions and disagree on reasoning all the damn time! Have you ever seen an instance where a justice issues a separate opinion? If not, then just hush up now because you have no idea what you’re taling about.”
I saw Schumer on Chris Matthews trying to float the exact same bullshit talking point. “The high court rejected her opinion unanimously!”
And of course, Matthews didn’t call him on it.
OK, time for a mid-course correction here:
The Supreme Court rejected her verdict.
They did NOT reject her opinion.
She gave it a summary dismissal, which means she offered no opinion — just saying “this is crap.”
Not a single justice stated that the issue was crap, and that it deserved only a summary dismissal.
Five justices determined that her ruling was wrong, that the case should have been found differently than she did.
Four justices said she sided with the right side, but cited issues raised by the case that justified a full hearing and an opinion — far more than a summary judgment.
No justice said that the matter deserved summary judgment.
Sigh…
J.
The Supreme Court rejected her verdict.
Can we get another mid-course correction on this sentence? (Hint: you’re having pronoun trouble, Jay Tea.)
Yes, fafaroo, two other judges signed off on it, but we aren’t discussing their incompetence here. Unless you’re defending her on the grounds of “peer pressure” — and I don’t think you really want to go there.
J.
No justice said that the matter deserved summary judgment.
The opposing sides in the case agreed as to all matters of fact. All of ‘em, Mr. Tea. Therefore, there was no hearing and no arguments. The entire appeal turned on matters of law.
The three judge panel unanimously agreed with the ruling of the district court.
So the use of a summary judgment in this case would be wrong why, Mr. Tea?
The three judge panel unanimously agreed with the ruling of the district court.
Just to make sure we’re clear on this point, Mr. Tea: the Circuit Court panel agreed with the District Court judge’s interpretation of the law to be applied in Ricci.
Spin now, Mr. Tea.
While Sotomayor ruled on the Law, the five right wing activist Supreme Court Justices changed the law.
The five right wing activist Supreme Court Justices changed the Law by finding empathy for the white males who were claiming that the discriminatory test favored them she be kept.
The case was brought by a serial litigant (Ricci sues a lot), something that the right wing falsely claim to be against.
Republicans made the Frank “Sues a lot” Ricci the issue when they chose to use him to show an empathetic white face against Sotomayor.
But let’s be clear, Sotomayor ruled on the Law whereas the right wing activist Supreme Court Justices changed the law through the Court.
The four ‘liberal’ Supreme Court Justices ruled on the Law, ruled to uphold the Law, and rejected changing the Law through the Court.
The five right wing activist Supreme Court Justices changed the Law by finding empathy for the white males who were claiming that the discriminatory test that favored them should be kept.
[corrected - clearly coffee time:]
As a side note, this is a right-wing Court. Kennedy & O’Connor used to be part of the conservative wing of the Court, Stevens was considered a moderate when he was first nominated, and to be bunt, there are no Marshall’s or Brennnan’s on this court today. There’s a reason why Sotomayer was nominated by Daddy Bush originally. She’s a milquetoast moderate.