"I think I was trying to suggest something about the duality of man, sir ... the Jungian thing, sir."
Private Joker, Full Metal Jacket
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Ricci Reax
You can read my reaction to the Ricci decision, along with those of Dave Kopel, Professor Ronald Rotunda, Maureen Martin and others at the Heartland Institute's website. More here when I get a chance.
"How much respect [Sotomayor] gets from her colleagues when she gets [to the Supreme Court] is another question. Since Kennedy went out of his way to cite the Cabranes opinion, the answer is probably not much."
Funny, coming from an avid supporter of the highly respectable Mike Gableman.
"The fact that the Court’s opinions in this case run 93 pages ... highlights how deeply dishonest and unethical Judge Sotomayor was ..."
That's some real scholarship right there.
This isn't "experts applauding decision," it's partisan hackwork.
Well, I am sure that Maureen Martin and David Kopel feel put in their place. Both comments relate to the handling of Ricci below which was, as Judge Cabranes points out,highly questionable.
Quite the intuitive leap from "highly questionable" to "deeply dishonest and unethical" is it not?
Especially where "highly questionable" refers to a dissenting judge's view of appellate procedure whereas "deeply dishonest and unethical" is a direct attack on Judge Sotomayor's personal and professional integrity.
Albeit a "non-partisan" one, of course.
Mind you, this is the same fellow who blamed gun control for Hitler being able to murder 21 million people.
So the intellectual chasm over which Mr. Kopel springs in this instance is relatively modest.
4 comments:
Experts applaud decision
"How much respect [Sotomayor] gets from her colleagues when she gets [to the Supreme Court] is another question. Since Kennedy went out of his way to cite the Cabranes opinion, the answer is probably not much."
Funny, coming from an avid supporter of the highly respectable Mike Gableman.
"The fact that the Court’s opinions in this case run 93 pages ... highlights how deeply dishonest and unethical Judge Sotomayor was ..."
That's some real scholarship right there.
This isn't "experts applauding decision," it's partisan hackwork.
Well, I am sure that Maureen Martin and David Kopel feel put in their place. Both comments relate to the handling of Ricci below which was, as Judge Cabranes points out,highly questionable.
Quite the intuitive leap from "highly questionable" to "deeply dishonest and unethical" is it not?
Especially where "highly questionable" refers to a dissenting judge's view of appellate procedure whereas "deeply dishonest and unethical" is a direct attack on Judge Sotomayor's personal and professional integrity.
Albeit a "non-partisan" one, of course.
Mind you, this is the same fellow who blamed gun control for Hitler being able to murder 21 million people.
So the intellectual chasm over which Mr. Kopel springs in this instance is relatively modest.
Post a Comment