This is an example of High Falutin SuperDuper Intellectualism advising the Obama campain. Is the man really that dumb? That is, does he truly fail to understand that naming a post "trimmers" that discusses reproductive and sexual rights places him squarely in the ass of many a joke? What a fool. The argument he makes there too is stupid. I guess young pregnant women don't deserve any rights because you know, they're too young to have sex but when they do and they get pregnant they can't be trusted to decide for themselves what to do about it, and anyway if Daddy's the Father he deserves to have another say in how to use her body Maturely, or something...
Just shoot me, please.
...Harvest Time is kicking my ass, and I don't really have much to say politically these days anyway. I'll try to get some pics and recipies up soon.
- chicago dyke's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Cass Sunstein?
He's in line for the Supreme Court, right?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Sunstein Speculation
I've seen a number of people speculate that he would be an Obama choice in light of his close relationship with Obama (until recently he was at the U of Chicago law school) and also he's married to Samantha Power, another Obama-ite.
Whether that's will come to pass or not, who knows?, but he's definitely that kind of post-partisan guy that Obama tends to attract like flies. He loves executive power.
And yes the speculation makes it a lot harder for Obama to invoke the S. Ct. argument because if this is what an Obama nominee looks like, he's not all that much better than a likely McCain nominee. He's a prime example of the 2% less evil doctrine.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt
He's been mentioned
Sorry, that's the best I can do right now.
But for example: (this in 1999!)
But some day--and that day may not be far away--Cass Sunstein may be setting law as a federal judge on either a Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court itself.
If anyone has anything more concrete than the fact that he's advising Obama, to suggest that he would be an Obama pick (or would not be), I'd like to have it.
The thing is, when people argue with me that it's necessary to vote for Obama because of the Supreme Court, I think "Cass Sunstein? Fuhgeddaboudit." I don't want him anywhere near the Court.
---------------
We can't afford not to have single-payer!
Cass Sunstein
he is bad news, somehow we have got to get the word out.
ChiDy--I was wondering' if your harvest was so bountiful you had
no time to post. Nice problem to have, right? Tiring, but you'll love the result of all your hard work come winter and early spring.
And, OMG, "trimmers"??? Was he thinking of Obama?
Obama's somewhat equivocating "support" of women's right to choose reminds me of a terrificly intelligent guy I knew in grad school. Ran into him years later when he'd remarried and settled down, was still writing; we got into a heated discussion about abortion. He had changed his mind and told me (this was the early 90's) that within a few years Roe v. Wade would be overturned, as it it should be. He stated that as he lived longer he had much more respect for the egg/sperm conjoining and felt women should only abort for reasons of health such that the woman might very likely die or have no reproductive future.
This guy had been so far to the left of me in our university days that I was stunned. Still am. He had reasons for his change, but, mostly, it was his feelings for his children--and the fact his first wife got custody of their child and had moved out of state.
The personal really is the political....
2% less evil doctrine?
The 2% less evil doctrine is something I tend to disagree with. Is it really less evil to have people vote for a party thinking that if we change the party we change the agenda? Since 2006, the Democratic Party has helped pass much of the Republican agenda. They chose to bring FISA to the floor for a vote, the Dem leadership and the Dem candidate for president supported it and voted for it. Bush's illegal activities will not be questioned in court and we lost more of our 4th amendment rights because the Dems decided they wanted this to happen.
If we lose additional Constitutional rights, if Democratic appointments (i.e. Sunstein) cause further erosion of women's right to choose and Democrats continue to pass Republican agenda items, are they really less evil. Or by deluding people into thinking that the agenda will change with Democrats in power are they as evil since they are deluding the public into thinking their vote will make a difference to policy?
Cass Sunstein is a horse's ass
If you wanted a poster child for Pointy-Headed Intellectual of the Year, Sunstein would be your choice. This little essay is a capsule summary of his dilettantism, what passes amongst some in the educational elite as meaningful and witty cocktail chatter about how to simplify the complex issues of our time so the common people can understand them. The problem is that this simplification is actually a distillation - this drivel is how Sunstein thinks, as simple-minded as you can be.
I don't worry about Sunstein for SCOTUS. The occasional floaters with his name attached come from himself and his wife and a few of sycophants, not from anyone with real juice. He is one of now hundreds of Obama legal advisors, he doesn't have much sway with the Senate and he doesn't give good interview so the testimony part is likely to be an embarrassment and if there is one thing Obama hates it is being embarrassed. Sunstein will get, if he wants it, some theoretician slot in DOJ but I would be shocked out of my shorts with a SCOTUS nomination.
Democrats and Obama = a lot less evil, not 2%, and even if it were so the difference between alive and oblivion is not trivial.
Have a good harvest, CD. I'm freezing more tomatoes today myself.
Glenzilla and (and re:) Sunstein
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/22/ob...
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2...
Cites for Sunstein floating hiw ows name as SCOTUS nom by
Obama? Thanx, BIO.
In general, has Obama mentioned any actual possible nominees, or has he stuck with the "someone like X" generality?
Here's one example
Read all the way to the bottom to see where humble Cass oh so tentatively raises his little hand - "Pick me, Pick me!"
Oh yes, "modesty" indeed; never mind the shamelessness of his submissive ass-kissing to the Senate and the Executive, it is this absolute inability to recognize and appreciate irony that is the clear tell - Cass Sunstein is a horse's ass.
Do you have any citations for anyone of importance pushing Sunstein? Or is it all just this universal repetition of the "many people are saying" meme? I see a PR campaign driven by Sunstein and Powers, (he the s and she the D in that interpersonal power exchange I'm betting) and nothing more.
So far as I know, Obama has not dropped any names. That would be the honorable course, so as not to close off any options prematurely or raise false expectations in anyone's mind. For a thoroughly dishonorable person like McCain, naming names is no problem; he's lying every time he opens his mouth. For people to then call out Obama because he is not as base as McCain, well, that is another headshaker for me.
Sunstein's Dangerous Advice to Obama--
with lots of links-- http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/7/19/...
Hhhmmm-seems Sunstein is talked about bcz he is an
"unofficial" adviser to Obama and says things which can then be read like the entrails of sacrifices made to MCM the by one of the oracles of Obama....
Information is for sissies.
Obama's SCOTUS nominations
assuming he gets elected, will be driven by political needs and a desire to effect a balance that has been missing. I do believe that Obama sees himself as a transformative figure - he is - and will want to leave that mark across history. Calling my shot, and not knowing which Justices may leave the Court, I say that Obama's first three picks will be - in no particular order - a moderately liberal black to balance Thomas; a woman, whether or not Ginzberg leaves; and a Hispanic, a historic first that will serve to solidify the Democratic hold on that demographic. More than one of them could be a twofer. A white male conservative is not in the cards.
Considering the Senate's towering integrity
and concern for the rights of others, I'm just certain they will abandon their collective capitulation to the GOP (which of course won't abandon its own principles just for Obama) to go out on a limb and politically readjust the court.
Your speculation also overlooks the fact that many nominees come from the federal bench (though obviously not all). The federal bench is loaded with Bush I & II appointees. We all know the general disdain Obama has shown for the two Clinton terms in the 1990s, so it seem pretty unlikely Obama wouold lower himself to selecting a Clinton-appointed federal judge.
Now I may be all wrong and you actually have identified jurists who fit the descriptions you made above. If so, I would love to know who they are.
just mark the date and time, oceans
you can have all the fun you want mocking me if I turn out to be wrong.
There is a strong sentiment among Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate towards restructuring the Supreme Court to better reflect modern American society. Will they have an opportunity to do that with McCain? No, they will not. With Obama, however, they will have a great deal of influence - some here have argued that the reason they backed Obama was because they could control him. Be that as it may, collectively I believe that they will indeed do as I predict.
And why would Obama - or any President - need to limit their nominations to sitting judges? As you note, more than a third of SCOTUS judges had no prior experience on the bench. Earl Warren was never a judge, and neither were John Marshall, Felix Frankfurter, Louis Brandeis or Oliver Wendell Holmes. The Republicans can hardly object credibly on that account, since both Rehnquist and Scalia also had no experience as judges. The pool is much wider than earlier Republican winger appointments.
A lot of people have shown disdain for Clinton's policies; he is more popular as a person than he is respected for presidential accomplishments. It makes no sense, however, to suppose that Obama would pass over a qualified judge because they were originally appointed by Clinton. No "lowering" of himself would be involved; what a silly thing to write.
in my defense, re: a little night...'s comment
i said it was an example of the intellectualism, itself, and not that sunstein is specifically advising obama. sunstein is a member of a group of people touting policies and ideas that are to be found in the obama policy outline. obviously, obama is in that group as well. so what i really meant to say is "this bullshit third way pseudointellectualism of the weak Chicago school and centrist dem enthusiasts is stupid and it sucks."