Archive for January 28, 2010
Yeah, right. They’ve been telling us that for years but look at what those shameless hypocritical liars did today (screen shot from TPM):
Don’t believe me? See for yourself. Here’s the roll call.
From Oliver Willis:
Absolutely, and John O’Keefe is the most recent example of a crime being committed due in part to the carrot of fame and fortune Fox dangled in front of his nose.
I just watched Chip Reid deliver a report on the CBS Evening News about President Obama’s State of the Union speech last night. Reid repeatedly brought up something Obama said and followed it up with “but critics say,” as if what “critics say” is the truth. (This is what’s known as “fair and balanced news” these days.)
Has Chip Reid ever heard of something called fact checking? Why can’t he take what Obama said and fact check it instead of telling us what “critics say”? Or, at the very least, include the facts somewhere in his report?
And could Chip Reid change his rhetoric to: “…but critics Republicans say,” so we have a bit more context already?
Glenn Greenwald, my favorite lawyer on the web:
There’s a reason that Supreme Court Justices — along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff — never applaud or otherwise express any reaction at a State of the Union address. It’s vital — both as a matter of perception and reality — that those institutions remain apolitical, separate and detached from partisan wars. The Court’s pronouncements on (and resolutions of) the most inflammatory and passionate political disputes retain legitimacy only if they possess a credible claim to being objectively grounded in law and the Constitution, not political considerations. The Court’s credibility in this regard has — justifiably — declined substantially over the past decade, beginning with Bush v. Gore (where 5 conservative Justices issued a ruling ensuring the election of a Republican President), followed by countless 5-4 decisions in which conservative Justices rule in a way that promotes GOP political beliefs, while the more “liberal” Justices do to the reverse (Citizens United is but the latest example). Beyond that, the endless, deceitful sloganeering by right-wing lawyers about “judicial restraint” and “activism” — all while the judges they most revere cavalierly violate those “principles” over and over — exacerbates that problem further (the unnecessarily broad scope of Citizens United is the latest example of that, too, and John “balls and strikes” Roberts may be the greatest hypocrite ever to sit on the Supreme Court). All of that is destroying the ability of the judicial branch to be perceived — and to act — as one of the few truly apolitical and objective institutions.
Justice Alito’s flamboyantly insinuating himself into a pure political event, in a highly politicized manner, will only hasten that decline. On a night when both tradition and the Court’s role dictate that he sit silent and inexpressive, he instead turned himself into a partisan sideshow — a conservative Republican judge departing from protocol to openly criticize a Democratic President — with Republicans predictably defending him and Democrats doing the opposite. Alito is now a political (rather than judicial) hero to Republicans and a political enemy of Democrats, which is exactly the role a Supreme Court Justice should not occupy.
The Justices are seated at the very front of the chamber, and it was predictable in the extreme that the cameras would focus on them as Obama condemned their ruling. Seriously: what kind of an adult is incapable of restraining himself from visible gestures and verbal outbursts in the middle of someone’s speech, no matter how strongly one disagrees — let alone a robe-wearing Supreme Court Justice sitting in the U.S. Congress in the middle of a President’s State of the Union address? Recall all of the lip-pursing worrying from The New Republic‘s Jeffrey Rosen and his secret, nameless friends over the so-called “judicial temperament” of Sonia Sotomayor. Alito’s conduct is the precise antithesis of what “judicial temperament” is supposed to produce.
It was clear from Sam Alito’s confirmation hearing and his record of appellate opinions that he is a dogmatic, state-revering, right-wing judge. But last night, he unmasked himself as a politicized and intemperate Republican as well.
And then there’s this from earlier today from the right, about how Alito might retaliate against Obama. Now that would show real “judicial temperament” wouldn’t it?
I must say, the depth to which our society is collapsing is really stunning, and it’s appalling that the people in power are leading the way.
From The Hill:
A day after bashing lobbyists, President Barack Obama’s administration has invited K Street insiders to join private briefings on a range of topics addressed in Wednesday’s State of the Union.
What was the administration doing? Saying, we didn’t mean it?
Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, sounds like a desperate, panicked man in this video, during which he turns into an arrogant bully when asked (this afternoon) to actually name which programs he would cut (yes, a rare thing in the MSN). Oh, and the two people interviewing him are women, MSNBC’s Melissa Francis and Contessa Brewer. Wonder if that — wink, wink — had anything to do with his amazingly condescending, macho attitude.
Oh, and get a load of what Judd said the other day: Hey Americans — Judd Gregg (R-NH) Wants You to Shut Up.
Judd really should consider checking himself in somewhere.
HERE’S A MUST-READ
On January 25, conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote an op-ed titled, “The Populist Addiction.” In it, he took 14 paragraphs to say the same thing we hear all the time from conservatives, that elites control the system and they create all the jobs, so poor, dependent, ungrateful slobs like you and me had better cut the populist anger about the way things are, or we’re going to be living in the woods somewhere:
Hamilton championed capital markets and Lincoln championed banks, not because they loved traders and bankers. They did it because they knew a vibrant capitalist economy would maximize opportunity for poor boys like themselves. They were willing to tolerate the excesses of traders because they understood that no institution is more likely to channel opportunity to new groups and new people than vigorous financial markets.
This week, Matt Taibbi, a writer who I love because (1) I almost always agree with him, and (2) he doesn’t mince words, had a thing or two to say to Brooks in what is a must read: Populism: Just Like Racism!
I think it’ll lift your spirits because Taibbi says so well what so many of us are feeling.