HOW TO THWART VULTURES: I wonder if this approach would work elsewhere?
Archive for 2010
March 10, 2010
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Obama’s State Of The Union Behavior “Very Troubling:”
Responding to a University of Alabama law student’s question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions. “So I have no problems with that,” he said. “On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.
“The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court – according the requirements of protocol – has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling.” . . . Roberts told the students he wonders whether justices should attend the speeches.
“I’m not sure why we’re there,” said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.
Justice Antonin Scalia once said he no longer goes to the annual speech because the justices “sit there like bumps on a log” in an otherwise highly partisan atmosphere. Six of the nine justices attended Obama’s address.
It’ll be interesting to see how many show up next year. Meanwhile, it seems clear to me that had a Republican President behaved similarly, we’d be hearing loud cries of “Fascism!” from all the usual suspects.
UPDATE: Not only did Alito’s mouthed response overshadow Obama this year — next year, there will be lots of stories on whether the Supreme Court justices show up or not, and either way Obama will have stepped on his own speech a second time.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Stephen Clark writes:
Alito’s response or some variation, with the consequence you foresaw, apparently was beyond the imagination of Obama and any who vetted the SOTU speech; the push for health care legislation with its consequent public reaction was also beyond the ken of Obama and his inner circle. Can anyone seriously advance the narrative of political brilliance of this administration, and Obama in particular, without appearing the complete idiot?
No.
March 9, 2010
ANDREW MORRISS is debating Van Jones on “Green Jobs” over at The Economist. There’s a poll. (Bumped).
UPDATE: Related: Looking at the White House emails.
A BATTERY CHARGER with a software backdoor that can compromise your computer. Good grief.
HEH: “The war is over. Drudge won it.”
UPDATE: Related item.
JAC: There are things more important than politics. That is generally true — but when politics become more important, it’s usually a bad sign . . . .
A SALE ON tools and home improvement gear.
HEH: Psycho D-Rahm-a. “Does anyone know whether Rahm has a collection of stuffed birds? Or a fruit cellar?”
UPDATE: “They have lowered the bar so far I don’t know what kind of world these people live in. I can’t imagine such a situation. This is so alien to the vast majority of Americans. It defies explanation.”
VIDEO: The Reagan/Obama Debate.
Personally, I prefer Obamafeld.
UPDATE: C.J. Burch emails: “And if you have to write Massa into Obamafeld, Jon Lovitz is your man.” Heh.
ANN ALTHOUSE ON GROPEGATE:
“Groping.” There’s a loaded word. Can we have some details?
Are the Democrats really policing their own? Does every member of Congress at Massa’s level of touchiness get investigated, or was this selective investigation? . . . I think they are all groping in one way or another.
It’s nothing compared to what they’re doing to the taxpayers.
Related: “Okay, this week is grossing me out. Can we hit the reset button?”
UPDATE: Thank God: WaPo Two Men Kissing Story Not About Rahm And Massa.
Almost by definition, issues that split the Supreme Court can be argued either way. But these lawyers felt so strongly about these arguable principles that they sacrificed paying work and instead went to work without charge for people they loathed – just to turn their principles into law. Doesn’t this tell us something about the strength and content of their principles? And isn’t it fair for Liz Cheney to ask whether the rest of the country shares those principles?
I haven’t had much to say about this, because it seems like a tempest in a teapot. But imagine that John Ashcroft had stocked the Civil Rights Division with appointees who had done extensive pro bono work for white supremacists. Would people’s positions be the same?
NANCY PELOSI ON HEALTH CARE: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
This is what it’s come to.
BEYOND BREAKING FIREWALLS: How to fight Net censorship.
TAKING ON THE PEOPLE WHO CLING BITTERLY TO THEIR . . . FISHING RODS? ESPN: Obama Moving to Limit Fishing Access. “The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.”
FAMILIAR TROPES: Matt Lauer picks, chooses “consensus.”
REPORT: Nissan has 56,000 pre-orders for all-electric Leaf. But are they real pre-orders, or just expressions of interest?
NANOTECHNOLOGY VS. CANCER: “For a long time nanotechnology was one of those technologies that lay only in our future. It is starting to show up in our present. Cornell researchers have attached antibodies to nanoparticles to attack colorectal cancer cells.”
USING ONLINE DATING to ask out people you already know?
UPDATE: Reader Steve Friedman writes:
Several years ago, I was browsing OKCupid and it suggested a new “top match” to me. As I read her profile, she seemed to be the girl of my dreams. But as I kept reading, some of her responses seemed awfully familiar, and I suddenly realized the profile belonged to my ex-girlfriend.
A few months later, we got back together, and are now happily married. So I guess OKCupid was smarter than we were.
Heh. Great story.
NO, IT’S NOT ABOUT RAHM EMANUEL: Creative Capos.
MAKING micro pirate radio.
SENSE AND SENSIBILITY AND AlfonZo Rachel.