« Climate Change Justice | Main | Margaret Schilt: "Is the Future of Legal Scholarship in the Blogosphere?" »

August 28, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Lackawanna Blues

Aren't you one of the people that tells us that law and politics cannot be separated? I thought the entire legal realist movement was based on this supposition.

Wouldn't Al Gonzales be the apotheosis of all of your liberal nonsense, then? He is, after all, (1) not white, (2) a product of affirmative action, (3) not blinded by the politics/law distinction as so many conservatives are.


I know you do Roach. Democracy doesn't work very well when the ruling class systematically keeps 90% of the population uneducated and feeds them religion and fear to gain their votes. Laksabrain, I'm done with you. You're not even a good object for venting for me. You're a watered down,less articulate, intelligent and entertaining version of Roach. I'm all for sparring and venting with paleoconservatives who long for the days of aristocracy, so long as they seem somewhat intelligent while advancing their laughable arguments. You, notsomuch.


Well, thanks for the compliment. Though isn't it the transnational cosmopolitan elite--people like Geoff Stone--who want to reduce the role of religion in public life? And isn't it more middle and working class and dirt poor people who tend to be more religious?

I mean, the media, the universities, artists, authors, CEOs, etc., they don't seem terribly religious to me. They seem Darwinian and self-serving, no doubt, but not particularly religious.

Lackawanna Blues

Don't worry, Roach, in the X-Files/Area 51/grassy knoll/Da Vinci Code world of LAK it is in fact the Catholic Church that controls culture in the United States. The Church accomplishes this through such wildly influential devices as Human Events and The New Oxford Review, not to mention the #1 basic cable television network, the Eternal World Television Network. And the Knights of Columbus are everywhere, too.

...cue creepy music...

Or is it more likely ...?

... that liberal atheists have somewhat greater influence on things, through such little known instrumentalities as public schools, Harvard University (and the rest of the academy), The New York Times, the Washington Post, the AP, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MTV (my favorite flogging horse and the source of most of LAK's libertine philosophy, it seems).

Dwight Dunkley

It is fascinating and somewhat frightening to see the obsession with race that the so-called conservatives on this board leave in their comments.

I get the impression that if Gonzales was white his “brightness” would go unquestioned and his qualifications unchallenged. However, as he is brown and of Mexican descent, the presumption is that he is an affirmative action appointee. Gonzales most decidedly is not. He is a cronyism appointment, brought to Washington and socially promoted by the President due to his relationship with George W. Bush from Texas. Neither is his lockstep-allegiance to the President a function of his race or heritage as Ms. Conway suggests, there are legions of yes-men and women of all shades in the echo-chamber this President calls an administration. Mr. Gonzales was not among any peoples ‘welcomed to America’s shores,’ he is a natural-born American that has stood in positions of great power and is receiving attention today for the ways in which he has abused and misused those powers.

It’s sad to see what has become of conservatism in America as represented by these comments; the lack of ideological integrity and reactionary vitriol with which the commentators here respond is unconvincing to the occasionally moderate “Roach,” as I am most certainly among that number.

So-called conservative commentators here casually brush aside assaults upon the constitution and the powers of the people with uncritical allegiance to party. And when all else fails they attempt to divert attention to debates on the perceived short-comings of Bill Clinton. Get over it, move on, George W. Bush is the President today. His attorney general is Alberto Gonzales, and when the legacy of Gonzales’ Justice Department is written it will clearly be a warning to generations of Americans on the ill effects of jingoism, fear mongering, and Presidential power unchecked by internal criticism. Thankfully, in his ignominy, Mr. Gonzales has provided a useful service.


Conservatives freaked out about Harriett Miers, chiefly because of her lack of brainpower, and she was a WASP'S WASP. Now, granted, intelligence is not everything. The WASP elite had a pretty good ethos. Look at the dirty and uncouth but very bright crowd at any faculty luncheon in our post-sixties universities and compare it to the faculty and class photos of yesteryear. Yes, indeed, a little late 19th Century concern for athleticism and honor and physical courage might be worthwhile, even if it means the occasionally brilliant but typically emaciated and uncouth modern intellectual is left ranting his nonsense in a used book store in the Upper West Side as opposed to in a modern university. Perhaps some penalty for things like draft dodging and drug use among university faculty could accomplish this.

Anonymous Bosch

I have to echo Dwight Dunkley's sentiments, but redirect them towards LAK. LAK, you are not helping the liberal cause (which I whole-heartedly support) by resorting to ad hominem attacks and name-calling. There are plenty of reasons to argue that religion should be kept out of the public sphere without resorting to calling religious people names. That wouldn't fly in a U of C classroom, and it shouldn't fly here. Yeah, it's a blog, but be civil for crying out loud. All you are doing is giving them more reasons why they shouldn't listen to you.


They don't listen to me anyway, i prmise. We've been around this blog for a LONG time. And this is decidedly not a U of C classroom. It's a frickin blog. Ad Hominem attacks are fun and therapeutic. That's why I blog. To vent. I get to tell people what I really think of Religious people, and practice my insults. Save me Jebus! And it's just on Roach and laksabrain, and ocasionally Frederick who are the types to cite Gonzales' race as reason why he was unqualified. I'll keep up with ad hominem attacks on religious nuts, thankyou, and I certainly don't attempt to speak for anyone other than myself. That being said, they are both terrible people. If you no likely, no ready.


I mean come on, "transsubstatiate yourself into a rodent and scurry away" is funny stuff.

Lackawanna Blues

None of us cited Gonzales' race as a reason he was unqualified. We said he was unqualified and cited his race as one of the reasons he got the job. Saying Mexican --> unqualified is a lot different than saying unqualified --> his race in part caused his appointment. How quickly you forget all the "First Hispanic Attorney General" celebrations by Bush and his post-national PC obsessed enablers in the (yes) Republican Party.

But that's ok, just call all of us racists, it takes fewer words.


I wish to add my own objection to the ugly tone this discussion has taken. I have previously asked LAK to turn down the temperature of his rhetoric, and he has already expressed his unwillingness to do so, but I think it appropriate to again disassociate myself from this kind of talk.


I re-read my comments above; I don't believe I insulted anyone other than people that are not participating in this discussion and Geoff Stone, who can defend what is left of his honor at any time. But instead everything he says has the air of an Olympian pronouncement.


Hey now. Laksabrain was the firstto call Stone "anti-catholic." I had to call teh guy out and his cultist beleiefs. it's just how I roll in the bnlogoosphere. Planty of substance with some tongue in cheek ad hominem attacks. It's actually realy entertaining if you're not stuck up or a cultist.

Perhaps you should all get together and trade a preiest some BJs in exchange for him transsubstantiating me into a butterfly, or better the body of christ!

Lackawanna Blues

Um, Stone is anti-Catholic. How you could read this post and conclude otherwise?


Not to mention the fact that he misrepresented the actual reasoning of the partial-birth case, was roundly criticized and fisked in the blogosphere, and issued a non-apology apology a few days later.

If I believed that Justice Breyer votes the way he does because he is a Jew, you'd call me an anti-Semite. Geof Stone said that the Catholic justices vote the way they do because they are Catholic. Geof Stone is an anti-Catholic.

And if that post wasn't enough, it is fairly evident in all of his separationist/Hugo Black/this-message-brought-to-you-by-the early-twentieth-century-KKK First Amendment posts that Stone has a hostility to religion in general.


Might I suggest that we discuss ideas rather than gossip about individuals?

Lackawanna Blues

I agree.

A new day dawning.

Maybe we can up the civility quotient around here.


Save me Jebus.


"If I believed that Justice Breyer votes the way he does because he is a Jew, you'd call me an anti-Semite."
Uh, no. You see the difference between pointing out that religious belief and not reasoned argument is behind a decision one way or another and being anti-religion? Indeed calling Stone anti-catholic in a post that has nothing to do with it is an invitation to be called out for being a pathetic religious sheep who can't think for himself. It is one thing to point out a decision that overturned precedent and was voted for by all the Catholics on the court might well have been so becasue of those Justices' Catholicism, and another to be "anti-catholic," especially given the fact that religion isn't really supoosed to inform leagal decisionmaking. That whole first amendment thing. It is a pathetic accusation, and as soon as you go there, I'm always going to be here to call you out for being a cowardly sheep and a religious dupe who is too cowardly to think for himself and simply passes along dated institutions his parents imparted to him. You are the one slinging ad hominem attacks against Stone Laksabrain. You opened the door, and I just put my foot in.

"This book has no answers!" -Homer
"Save me Jebus" - Homer

Nic Cruickshank

What a pathetic digression. It just might be time to get a life and live it.

Joan A. Conway

Posted by: Dwight Dunkley | August 29, 2007 at 04:23 PM "Thankfully, in his ignominy, Mr. Gonzales has provided a useful service."

The strong-arm government of the caudillos could not perform tasks associated with the public services of "men like Robert Jackson, Francis Biddle, and Edward Levi who represent the highest ideals of public service and the true spirit of the legal profession. It is men like Alberto Gonzales who give the profession a bad name."

"Because the Mexican tradition of separatism, bolstered by increasing specialization, meant that as soon as such interests began to form organizations, these split into various regional, functional, and personalistic factions."

A new "devised channel" was needed in the role of the U.S. Attorney General, because of "the increased number and variety of demands and to rationalize the policy-making process."

Caudillos can't cut it.

"The caudillismo" of Gonzales needs to be "replaced by a set of mechanisms to turn the revolutinary movement into a service stte, stability, and the one meager advantage of personal rule, has to be retained" for bloggers, like Dwight Dunkley in his statement above.

Yes, Bush would have and has "manipulated the politcal system for his own purposes" with fall guys, like Gonzeles, Rove, Rumsfeld, Tennet, Hughes, Myers, and even Snow, as Dunkley's "yes-men and women of all shades in the echo-champer" [Read: Zoom Box Chamber], but without the boxes needed that this President persistently tested for in his so-called officials to extend their leadership roles.

George W. found none, zero! nada!

Surprisingly enough, it rather reminds me of a man, who has engaged himself and his life in serial marriages, where the guy keeps marrying a female that he as deflowered prior to marriage.

Something has to be said, about George W.'s charming ways to debauch so-called officials of the United States, and robbing Americans of the potential of legitimate officials with expectations of extended leadership roles. Somebody intentionally interferred with our expectations. Local Mexican values granted are lacking extension based on tradition of separatism and specialization. Bush took advantage of a natural state of affairs in an Attorney General's recent Mexican heritage.

"Neither is his lockstep-allegiance to the President a function of his race or heritage as Ms. Conway suggests, there are legions of yes-men and women of all shades in the echo-chamber this President calls an administration."


I'm an atheist, but threads like this remind me why I like committed religious people more than committed atheists.

Joan A. Conway

The Ripper is travel outside the thread's orbit, because personally I am not a committed atheist whatsoever! Never have been and never will be.

From my perspective, too many things are out-of-my-control to not believe in a higher almighty power, like the Lord or Jesus or God!

A name I reflect on many a day; do you?

And the supreme being is no George W. Bush!

It is quite American to oppose a President's choices with his cabinet appointments of so-callled officials.

Side Remark: Did you ever hear of "Put Options" on the Option Exchange, betting the market in equity (stock) is going to go down, instead of up, known as "Call Options.?"

Many of us are committed to merit, inclucing Professor Stone, and not "By the Grace of God" under the Doctrine of Indulgences or "Pay as you go" or "mixing the Public with the Private spheres of government" or "government and office is for sale.


Wow, the Jack Goldsmith piece in the Times this weekend is pretty damning. Not even professor Goldsmith is on the side of the weirdo neocons when it comes to violating civil liberties and pooping on te rule of law in the name of "security."

The Dude

From Erasmussimo: "Mr. Roach, your hyperbole is self-discrediting. Anybody using such wild-eyed language invites disbelief."

Ha, and we read Stone with any seriousness? As much as Roach is a paleoconservative, Stone is a shrill liberal who would find something to whine about even if the Republicans did every single thing he asked. It does not surprise me that nearly every single Stone article induces comments that eventually trigger Godwin's law.

Speak of the devil-- Stone is like Hitler, didn't you know?

The Dude

Oh wait, my faux Hitler reference was unneeded: frequent poster and English-languish-challenged Joan A. Conway violated Godwin's law in the second comment. I think this is telling about Stone's posts.

The comments to this entry are closed.