True, because we are not emotionally geared to rhetorical arguments the way those on the left side of the aisle are.

“Generic bile against Obama doesn’t count.”

Of course not. What we do is document the facts and report them. Stupid is as stupid does.

Regards,
Peter H.

I’m not sure which is more shocking, that this is apparently what they are teaching students at Harvard Law School, or that this man has been allowed to TEACH Constitutional Law. Unbelievable.

Yes, I fully expect Associate Justice Sharpton will be on the court by this time next year…

True. Tawana Brawley and “diamond merchants” could only enhance one’s resume. Although, I think Justice Wright or Justice Ayers is more likely.

[W]e must also acknowledge that it is quite likely Obama will (and really should) pick a woman to join lonely RBG on the bench. If this is the case, then I’d like to endorse Pam Karlan, Stanford Law professor, brilliant con law scholar, [and] experienced Supreme Court advocate, to be the next Justice. Among other things, Karlan is genuinely funny–I mean, really truly funny–and could likely not only give Scalia a run for his money as the justice who gets the most laughs from the bench, but also put Scalia in his place by showing him what someone who is really funny–and not just using his high perch to make people feel uncomfortable–sounds like from the bench. [Jay Wexler]

OBAMA JULY 2007:  We need somebody who’s got the empathy to recognize what it’s like to be uh, a — a — a young teenaged mom. Uh, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled.

OBAMA NOVEMBER:  Sometimes we’re only looking at academics or people who have been in the courts.  If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that’s the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.

OBAMA:  What I do want is a judge who is sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless, those who can’t have access to political power, and as a consequence, can’t protect themselves from being dealt with sometimes unfairly.

OBAMA:  If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and — and order and, as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society.

OBAMA:  As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.  It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.  And in some ways we still suffer from that.

If she truly treats opponents with respect, you can be sure that this is a major disqualifier for her in this administration.