June 10, 2005

Michael Jackson abducted Natalee Holloway!

I made the mistake of venturing into the painful world that is broadcast news - CNN, MSNBC, (fox), and whatever else occupies channels 28-34 here in central Jersey.
Michael Jackson may have raped a baby, he may not have. At this point, with the jury 6 days into deliberations, I think it would be fair for the media to back their coverage off a bit, maybe to a meager 21 hours per day.
Natalee Holloway, the 18 year old Alabama honors student who got abducted at an Aruba nightclub more than 10 days ago, is the other reason I want to kill my TV. The coverage is mind-boggling. Like intense media focus in the US is going to convince some predatory skeezebag in the Carribean to come forward and admit his guilt. The only thing slightly redeeming about this coverage is that the main suspect's last name is 'Van der Sloot,' but even that loses its quirky charm after hour 3.
In the meantime, this is what you've missed out on:
1. A tropical storm is going to hit Florida
2. A surfer in Jersey got bitten by a Great White (okay, I know that's not major, but its cool)
3. US fatalities in Iraq is about to hit 1700
4. Citigroup added $2billion to the pot of Enron settlement payouts.
5. Nationalized health care was seriously challenged in Quebecois court.
6. Bolivia may collapse into civil war
7. The US and Britain made a huge step towards 3rd world debt relief.
8. The closing of Guantanamo is becoming inevitable
9. President Bush's approval ratings have shot into the shitter
10. The Senate has confirmed 3 ridiculous human beings as appelate judges, and will likely send Bolton to the UN

Fuck it. Just read Rudepundit next time you feel an urge to reach for the remote. If you want entertainment instead of news, at least you'll have a chance at learning something.

8 comments:

  1. Anonymous8:22 PM

    Just out of curiousity - let's say the Dems refuse to allow a vote on Bolton until Bush turns over some papers - what would happen if Bush said, okay, then I'm not going to send an ambassador to the UN? I'm not saying he should do that, I'm just kinda wondering is all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think its improbable, because everyone would look bad. Bush would really look like a lame duck, and the Dems would never shake the title of being obstructionist. Nobody wins.
    The problem is that the Bush administration has already invested too much ego in the nomination of Bolton, and would lose face if Bolton were retracted in favor of someone more moderate and reasonable.
    The Democrats, I think, know they will lose this fight, but want as many people as possible to understand just what it is that Bolton stands for.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous4:56 PM

    Yeah you retarded fool, putting out provocative statements in academic speeches or conferences automatically makes Janice Rogers Brown a ridiculous human being. The fact that as a daughter of a southern share cropper and single mother she's been able to rise to the top of her law school class at Cal, get elected (by over 75%) to the State Supreme Court of Cali, get a qualified rating by the ABA, and put out brilliant law is obviously just a sham and tells nothing about her character.

    The reason you don't deserve anything except vapid idiotic news is because that's apparently also the way your mind operates.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey, did I ever fucking say that Janice Brown didn't overcome adversity?
    There's a difference, you shmuck.
    Part of the problem is that, if the media is going to discuss Brown at all, they bring up her pretty amazing past, and then state that her nomination is controversial, without explaining why.
    This was a post about something entirely different, but, fine, let me explain to you why she does not "put out brilliant law," and why the ABA has ranked her a "qualified," instead of "well qualified."
    Justice Brown is extremely far to the right, and while I would never nominate her, I'd still regard her as qualified if she used a legal basis for her decisions instead of her ideology.
    Instead, you see the same exact language in her public speeches recycled in her decisions.
    She views all government regulation as part of the socialist revolution of the 1930s, and a path to kleptocracy. She calls race a suspect basis for classification. There are examples, one case after another, of her completely disregarding Supreme Court precedent when convenient, having a double standard on interpretation of constitutional language so she can support business but attack affirmative action, she doesn't trust juries for cases where a business could be harmed, but doesn't mind when a criminial defendant's life is at stake...

    The point is, Brown might have an incredible life story, and she may actually be quite intelligent or well-read, but her judicial opinions are often on very shaky legal ground, but in her own mind, solid ideological ground, and that makes her a ridiculous human being.

    Next time you open your mouth make sure you know what the fuck you're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Check this out

    Its a good summary of why, if Brown isn't a ridiculous human being, she is at the very least, a ridiculous nominee.

    She's rated as "not qualified" by a substantial minority of the ABA, and when nominated for the California Supreme court, the California Judicial Commission ranked her "not qualified."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ok, I have to jump in becuase this is ridiculous. First, to the anonymous commentator, while personal stories are excellent, Brown is probably the least deserving of all of Bush's recent nominees in terms of deserving a DC circuit seat. What's important when one becomes a judge is sound jurisprudence, and while nobody doubts that Brown is intelligent, all of her personal stories, etc aren't really relevant.

    However, I still think that Brown meets the threshold to be confirmed (and she was confirmed w/bipartisan support. Niral, you're falling into the trap of accepting everything you see and only reading sources like PFAW, saveourcourts, independentjudiciary, alliance for justice. While the groups do do a good job digging up dirt sometimes, you can't expect to post a paper by independent judiciary that doens't cite sources. For example, some of the quotes in that independent judiciary piece, particularily in the first paragraph are in speeches addressed to the federalist society and IFJ and are intentionally meant to be provocative. Niether the piece you referred to or anything in your statements show that what she's used in speeches is actually reflected in her opinions or give a reference to a single california law she overturned. You can continue to say the evidence is overwhelming, but that proves nothing until you refer each one of the cases (in a larger pattern) and we examine the context of teh decisions. I mean, you're certainly intelligent enough to realize that PFAW and alliance for justice, etc don't have same purported indifference to ideology you have when examining these nominees. That's why i think its unfair for you lecture others on knowing what the heck they're talking about. If you want to point out quotes in her decisions which mirror her speech quotes then I'd be happy to examine them. I personally do have some problems with parts of her San Remo Hotel decision (though the claims she pines for the day of lochner are silly), but I haven't seen anything that specific in your statments or in the document you referred to. Some of the things are downright silly like the following:

    She asserts that the Supreme Court has been wrong to: outlaw vicious, speech-based racial
    harassment in the workplace under federal anti-discrimination law; condone certain affirmative
    action programs; recognize “an expanding array of judicially proclaimed fundamental rights,” like
    the right to marry, the right to decide how to live or die and the right to live together as a family; and
    afford comparatively less protection to the economic rights of property owners – “a dichotomy” that,
    according to her, “is highly suspect, incoherent, and constitutionally invalid.”


    I mean, this is just a list of things that fall on the side of liberal issues without any references, details or context. I mean, the supreme court has found some affirmative action oversteps constitutional bounds and the most substantial anti discrimination law is usually enacted by the state (which leads to a question of what case she did object to such federal standards in). Furthermore, terming things like she doesn't support the right to family, life or death is obvious political spin and I don't think you should really base what you feel are informed arguments on it (there are more detailed sites, though many of them also practice faulty and partisan driven logic) like PFAW's and a liberal students blog on nominees. As for your claims she's zealous in her pursuit of purported 'socialism' I think you probably havne't really read her decisions. She's hardly advocating locherism here, but instead is claiming that there should not be an overstepping in terms of respecting personal freedoms (even in the case of private property, which seems to be infringed upon more frequently) in either direction (in favor of locher, or in favor of some of the land grabbing laws in say San Fran). For example, I think you'd find her well in the mainstream if you asked her her opinion on Kelo and that you might even agree with her. Either way, because she's being nominated to a circuit court of appeals court, so she has to adhere to precedent strongly (unlike in say SCOTUS). You haven't shown anything which would prove she would overturn such legislation in her legal opinions and consequently I can't see very good reasons to deny her appointment. If she was nominated for a SCOTUS seat then I might be on your side but that isn't the case right now.

    As for ratings, just to remind you the ABA does have well qualified, qualified and not qualified ratings. While she recieved a substantial majority that said nq, she did recieve a majority qualified rating. Also, I think the anonymous commentator was silly to pick Brown out of the three you mentioned, as Owen and Pryor are truly superb judges who would have exposed your somewhat unfair comment very quickly. Brown is probably the worst of the three.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well put Spinal Tap dude.
    I actually did dredge up an opinion here or there that, in my meager knowledge, I found to be ridiculous, but that might have been self-confirmation of what I found on the partisan sights.
    And yes, Browns the worse of them.
    I could've done a more informed job with talking about the nominees, but at the time that was big issue, I was taking final exams, and I didn't really mean to delve into it so deep in this post.
    besides, its LGB man. hyperbole is key.

    ReplyDelete
  8. fair enough..i figured cause you guys end later than us this was somewhat cursory..not to mention the context of the post (rude pundit is funny even if it is a liberal site...i personally reccommend cfav.blogspot.com for the best satire of religious conservatives)

    To be fair, I would have serious problems with JRB on the SCOTUS..
    Pryor however I think is somewhat qualified and I think owen is more qualified, though niether are in my top 10 for who i want to see bush nominate

    ReplyDelete