Banner ad

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Cruising the Web

Liberals are going hyperbolic about yesterday's decision on the Voting Rights Act, going so far as to say that it is "as lamentable as Plessy or Dred Scott." Please. President Obama and Eric Holder came out to criticize the decision. In other aspects of constitutional law, liberals love to talk about how interpretation of the Constitution should adapt to changing time. But here, when times have changed since 1965, they want to keep the provisions in place that were used to determine where racism was so bad that the federal government had to step in to treat those jurisdictions differently. They refuse to acknowledge that those determinations from 1965 are, almost 50 years later, outdated. Ironically, the Obama administration is determined not to look at results, but only look at those old assessments of these areas; however, when it comes to disparate impact studies of employment decisions, the administration wants to look only at numerical results rather than at what is actually going on in those businesses. But when it comes to voting rights, numerical results as to minority turnout are irrelevant to deciding which areas should get DOJ oversight.

Liberals like to deride Clarence Thomas as being a lawn jockey for Antonin Scalia because they vote together so often. But this handy graph from Scotusblog shows that, up to this week, Thomas and Scalia had voted together 87% of the time, while Kagan has voted with Ginsburg 96% of the time and Sotomayor has voted with Ginsburg 95%. Sotomayor and Kagan vote together 97% of the time. So who's the lawn jockey now?

The Onion gets it right: "Impatient Nation Demands Supreme Court Just Get To The Gay Stuff"

So why is Obama allowing himself to get played by the Taliban?

There were 12 separate IRS groups from across the country targeting conservative groups.

So why, in this age of severely leaky government institutions, don't we get some juicy leaks from the Supreme Court?

New York City unions better be worried about what is happening to union workers in cities like Stockton, California which have been going bankrupt.

I've always thought that it didn't make sense to say that a basketball player is shooting "from downtown" when he makes a three-pointer. After all, underneath the basket is where there seems to be more urban congestion. That should be downtown and beyond the arc should be considered out in the country or the suburbs. Apparently, I'm not the only one puzzled by this mixed metaphor. Here is one explanation for the origin of the phrase.

15 comments:

Patrick said...

The term "downtown" itself is unusual. In New York City (specifically Manhattan) the business district is called downtown because its "down" ie: South. Manhattan's Midtown and Uptown are similarly logically named in terms of their geography. However, so central is New York in the American mind that we call all of our business districts downtown even though most of them are actually midtown. Of course, this has nothing to do with basketball.

mark said...

Clarence Thomas proved he wasn't merely a "lawn jockey" last January when he spoke four (4) words during arguments, breaking a seven-year silence. Sure, they were un-intelligible, but does anyone believe a lawn jockey could do that? Clearly not.

Last, First, MI said...

Mark,

Your comments are racist, no? You seem to be of the leftist ilk that believes all black people must think a certain way...I find that disgusting, dehumanizing, and yes, racist.

Haven't seen much from you here lately. Scandals got you down? I should think so but it's just sick that you decided to reemerge with such trash to spew. Now be a nice loyal-to-the-end leftist, like Robert Byrd, and crawl back under your rock, at least until you can pass the Paula Deen test.

mark said...


Your comments are racist, no?

Ummm, no.
Perhaps, equitus, you didn't notice that Betsy brought up the term "lawn jockey" (and used the term to describe liberal justices). Your fake outrage is misplaced, yet again.
There are eight very intelligent, qualified justices (well, seven: Not sure if Scalia is mentally unbalanced or just a liar), and then there is Thomas.
I've been traveling (Venezuela). Sweet that you missed me. But yes, I've been a bit "down" about the scandals. Perhaps I should just pretend to believe everything Obama says. Seeing repubs lie and overplay their hand helps a bit.

mdgiles said...

"There are eight very intelligent, qualified justices (well, seven: Not sure if Scalia is mentally unbalanced or just a liar), and then there is Thomas. "

Oh, you're a bigot alright. Because you simply can't get it through that skull full of mush, you laughingly refer to as your brain; that all black people neither think alike, nor follow a particular political point of view. BTW, you're also a liar. Betsy brought up the term "lawn Jockey" because that's how clowns like you, refer to Justice Thomas, because he supposedly follows Justice Scalia. She pointed out that the percentages of Liberal judges marching in lockstep, was far greater; thus earning them the title of "lawn jockey" if it was going to be applied to anyone.

mark said...

Four words in eight years?

Whining about bigotry and racism when you can't defend something. Nice.

Betsy Newmark said...

You and others might not agree with his reasoning, but he has explained why he doesn't ask questions. In most cases, each side gets 1/2 hour to present their arguments and he wants to give them time to do so rather than interrupting. He feels that justices do it to either showboat or make a point for the other justices rather than to elicit real answers to their questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas#Approach_to_oral_arguments

If you think that his silence is an example of his inability to think, read Jan Crawford Greenburg's book on the Supreme Court. http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Conflict-Inside-Struggle-Control/dp/0143113046/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1372349973&sr=8-2&keywords=Crawford+Greenburg

Feel free to disagree with him on his judicial positions, but criticizing him for not speaking in oral arguments is just taking the easy way out. And calling him a lawn jockey is indeed a racist comment that would get people hung out to dry if they used such an image with Obama.

mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mark said...

Betsy,
No, I don't buy his explanation for never asking questions. What does other justices "showboating" have to do with not having the curiosity to ask one single question in eight years?
Yes, describing a person as a "lawn jockey" is offensive. Except to cite your use of it, I've never used that term. mdgiles called me a bigot for saying Thomas does not have the level of intelligence one would expect of a Supreme Court Justice. Besides his silence, I'll remind you that he claims he "forgot" to claim his wife's six-figure earnings for a number of years. So, yes, if he "forgot" to truthfully fill out his disclosure forms (for which he affirmed the accuracy with his signature) then perhaps he's not Supreme Court caliber. I know conservatives gave him a pass, but I suspect a liberal would have been "hung out to dry" by repubs.

I won't claim to know as much as you or Greenburg about Thomas, but Greenburg appears to be a biased conservative:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/05/26/abcs-greenburg-takes-sotomayor-remarks-out-of-c/150518. I wonder if a book written by a liberal would carry the same weight.

Gahrie said...

Jan Crawford Greenburg is currently the legal expert for CBS, hardly a conservative hotbed. However, because she shows some signs of integrity and professionalism, hacks like Media Matters attack her.

As A USSC watcher of some years, I've always considfered her to be fairly leftist.

mark said...

Gahrie,
As a "USSC watcher of some years", perhaps you were concerned that a justice "misunderstood" the disclosure forms, not realizing that checking "none" next to the "Spouse's non-investment income was incorrect if your spouse earned over $600,000.
Taking him at his word (that it was an honest mistake), Thomas clearly doesn't have the intelligence one would think necessary to be a justice. Of course, that's assuming he wasn't lying when he filled out the form, and lying when his "mistake" was uncovered. Surely that couldn't be it.

Gahrie said...

Tell you what...I'll condemn Thomas for his mistake when Democrats stop appointing Treasury secretaries who cheat on their taxes. (or appointing Treasury Secretaries who are too stupid to use turbo tax)

mark said...

Gahrie,
Brilliant. Your "defense" of Thomas is that a dem appointment cheated on his taxes. As a NE Pats fan, perhaps I'll start defending Aaron Hernandez by pointing out that Ray Lewis 'got away with murder'. Makes perfect sense.
I've already said here Geitner was lying about his taxes (no hard evidence, just common sense).
But please clarify, are you acknowledging that Thomas was lying, or that he is "too stupid" to complete his declarations honestly?

Pat Patterson said...

Actually quite a few justices never spoke or asked questions while in session. It appears by a rough count almost half went their entire career without grandstanding for the press.

"Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn."

George Bernard Shaw

mark said...

I've seen no evidence that "quite a few justices never spoke or asked questions", or that half the justices were "grandstanding" for the press. (And given the changes to how arguments are heard, it seems an absurd claim).

Nor have I found any indication that Jan Crawford Greenburg is "fairly leftist".

Perhaps someone can provide that evidence, or perhaps people here are simply making things up due to embarrassment about Thomas.

I have, however, found plenty of evidence that, besides not having the intelligence to accurately fill out disclosure forms, Thomas is corrupt.

http://www.bilerico.com/2011/06/justice_clarence_thomas_growing_ethics_scandal.php