Don't lower yourself Nebur! You discussing the constitution with the likes of Hispanic Pundit is as absurd as a King wiping the arse of a monkey.
Am I the only one who yearns for a glorious revolution after which we will have no need for a stupid constitution?
i'm game. i didnt mean to lose your original point, nebur...just wanted to address some erroneous comments.
test
Seems to be working now, here is my (edited) response...
Nebur,
A lot of good stuff here, but before we move on, I have to know, what's wrong with using the word onus? Does it have some undertones I am not aware of? It seems odd that you, as a lawyer, refuse to ever use the word. I must be missing something...
Now, back to our discussion...
I must bring us back to the issue of presuppositions, of our already held biases, restating again that we are both approaching this with different biases that cloud the way we view each candidate. For example, the documentation I gave showing that Reid and the Clinton's are racist seems persuasive to me, but that is only because I already have a large bias against them. Of course Nebur's response seems acceptable to him, since he has a bias in favor of them. The point here is not about the evidence, but whether it is definitive or not, Nebur thinks it is with regard to Rehnquist, I think it is with regard to Reid and the Clinton's, with both of us clouded by our biases.
For example, Nebur writes,
Now, you expect me to believe that the Clintons are racists, based on an article from Reinhold Aman who refers to Senator Clinton as "The Foulmouthed First Bitch"? Mr. Aman appears to be Nucking Futs, at least based on his website, which graphically advocates urinating upon judges and lawyers.
My proof is not based on Reinhold Aman, nowhere in the links is he quoted, he is only useful because he compiled all of the information in one location. It makes sense that those who strongly dislike Hillary are going to be the ones that do the extra effort of compiling all of this information, after all, you don’t think this will be broadcasted on the Democratic National Committees webpage, now do you?
In fact, if you look closely at the accusations against Hillary, you will see that they come from very reputable sources. For example, it was Larry Patterson, an Arkansas state trooper and Clinton bodyguard from 1986 to 1993, not Reinhold Aman that states that Hillary used anti-Semitic slurs. Again, it is Patterson that confirms that Bill Clinton used the N-word to refer to both Jesse Jackson and local Little Rock black leader Robert "Say" McIntosh. In addition, longtime Clinton paramour Dolly Kyle Browning corroborated Patterson on Clinton's use of the N-word.
This doesn't end here either, as if Clinton bodyguard Larry Patterson and longtime Clinton paramour Dolly Kyle Browning wasn't enough, we also have political operative Paul Fray - who led Bill Clinton's unsuccessful 1974 race - saying the same thing. So now we have Clinton's bodyguard Larry Patterson, Clinton's adviser Paul Fray, Paul's wife Mary Lee Fray and Neill McDonald, another former campaign worker, all stating that they heard Hillary Clinton use a Jewish slur against a Jewish member of her team.
So here we have multiple people, all clearly people who have no political ax to grind, and one who actually could be hurt by making such accusations (Imagine the political future of a Democrat who calls the head Democrat a racist), saying the same thing, that Bill Clinton uses the N-word and that Hillary Clinton uses Jewish slurs, but all of that is mere here say, right Nebur?
To further demonstrate my point, let me give another example. Nebur writes regarding Reid,
As for Reid's comments, come on now, H.P.! He said that Thomas lacks the skills to be a Supreme Court justice. By the way, Thomas served less than two years on the bench before becoming Supreme Court justice. I happen to think that our president is a moron. Does that make me anti-white?
No, it's more complicated than simply saying Thomas "lacks the skills to be a Supreme Court justice". What Reid said, to be perfectly clear, was that Thomas "has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written". According to Reid, Black Clarence Thomas is an embarrassment that doesn't know how to write well, while white Antonin Scalia is a genius, yet they both share the same views on a wide range of topics.
To make matters worse, Reid was pressed later, on why he believed Thomas was an embarrassment while Scalia was a genius, Reid responds with,
Henry: When you were asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether or not you could support Justice Thomas to be chief justice you said quote, "I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written." Could you name one of those opinions that you think is poorly written?
Reid: Oh sure, that's easy to do. You take the Hillside Dairy case. In that case you had a dissent written by Scalia and a dissent written by Thomas. There--it's like looking at an eighth-grade dissertation compared to somebody who just graduated from Harvard.
Scalia's is well reasoned. He doesn't want to turn stare decisis precedent on its head. That's what Thomas wants to do. So yes, I think he has written a very poor opinion there and he's written other opinions that are not very good.
An eighth-grade dissertation huh? Well, I did a little searching, talked to a few friends, and this is what I found, here is what Thomas wrote in the Hillside Dairy case that Reid basis his views on,
I join Parts I and III of the Court's opinion and respectfully dissent from Part II, which holds that §144 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, 7 U.S.C. §7254, "does not clearly express an intent to insulate California's pricing and pooling laws from a Commerce Clause challenge." Ante, at 6-7. Although I agree that the Court of Appeals erred in its statutory analysis, I nevertheless would affirm its judgment on this claim because "[t]he negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application," Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, 520 U.S. 564, 610 (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting), and, consequently, cannot serve as a basis for striking down a state statute.
That's it, no more, no less. Where do you see the eighth grade dissertation, pray tell?
Ok wait, there was also no Scalia dissent, Scalia joined the court's majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, as did every other justice except Thomas, and he dissented only from Part II.
Now, if you still don't think that's borderline, if not full-blown racism, take the views of others who share my belief. For example, the congressional black caucus warned Reid, the liberal New Republic online states that it sure smell's like racism to them, and than there is Angela Onwuachi-Willig, a liberal professor at the University of California-Davis School of Law, who criticized Reid's statement as racist.
But of course, all mere coincidence, right?
Ok, now that I have shown you some of the evidence of why I believe that prominent liberals are racist, let's move to Rehnquist, and please tell me if you recognize this dance.
Nebur writes,
Rehnquist was a racist because he told racist jokes. He was a racist because he owned property that excluded "members of the Hebrew race."
How do I know he made racist jokes, should I trust the words of the very liberal Alan Dershowitz? You'll have to forgive me for my skepticism, for not considering him an impartial commenter...
As for owning property that excluded members of the 'Hebrew race' (whatever that means), that would make him non-caring about race issues, not necessarily racist. For example, if I found the home of my dreams, it had the price I wanted, and all the characteristics I was looking for, yet someone told me that it was located in a non-white area, if I bought it anyway, that would make me either, A. racist against whites or B. callous about race issues, with Rehnquist I choose B, you choose A.
In addition, while on the surface something may seem racist, if you actually follow through on the reasons conservatives give, you see that it is the exact opposite of racism, for they have the same stated goal as liberals. For example, there are those that accuse Republicans of being against the 'working class' for having hostile views towards unions and for wanting to abolish the minimum wage (both views of which I share), but if you dig deeper, you will see that the rationale behind those positions (atleast with me) are that unions and the minimum wage on net balance hurts the working class, and therefore one can not conclude that simply because one is against unions or the minimum wage, one must necessarily be against the 'working class'.
I believe that the same overall principle applies to a lot of your criticism against Rehnquist. For example, you write, "he did everything he could to speed up executions, knowing full-well that People of Color are the ones that suffer", well if this is a basis to prove racism, than I would call everybody who believes in making abortion easier to get is also racist, since it is a fact that minorities, especially blacks, have abortions at a much higher percentage than whites. In fact, this was the reason Margaret Sanger, the founder of the abortion movement, started the abortion movement in the United States. She absolutely despised blacks, jews, and all minorities, especially the ones in big families. Don't you see Nebur, the real reason all of these pro-choice advocates want to make abortion easier is because it helps reduce the amount of blacks and minorities in this country, atleast, following your rationale, that is what you would have to conclude. I, on the other hand, believe that Rehnquist simply had a deep moral backbone, where he hated criminals of any color, and thought justice should be served as quickly as possible.
In other words, all of this seems racist based on your liberal views, but if you analyze them based on conservative views, they come out in a different light.
To give another example, you write, "He was a racist because he argued that black children in Louisiana and brown children in Los Angeles were getting an "equal" education, even though the brown kids didn"t have so much as textbooks". Well what did he mean by equal? Did he mean equal under the law or equal in practice? I have a strong feeling he meant the former. For example, if I say currently all minorities and whites are equal under the law when it comes to education, that is a true non-racist statement, but it certainly should not be read to imply that I think they get the same education, for clearly minorities are stuck with worse teachers than whites. So what Rehnquist probably meant was that under the law minorities and whites were seen equally, with the only difference being separated from each other.Whether that actually translates to the same education is a different issue.
As far as minority voters and 'the systematic disenfranchising of voters of color in the 2000 presidential election', your biases again come out clearly. It is a fact that, as the Wall Street Journal reported,
In June 2001, following a six-month investigation that included subpoenas of Florida state officials from Governor Jeb Bush on down, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report that found no evidence of voter intimidation, no evidence of voter harassment, and no evidence of intentional or systematic disenfranchisement of black voters.
Headed by a fiercely partisan Democrat, Mary Frances Berry, the Commission was very critical of Florida election officials (many of whom were Democrats). For example, "Potential voters confronted inexperienced poll workers, antiquated machinery, inaccessible polling locations, and other barriers to being able to exercise their right to vote." But the report found no basis for the contention that officials conspired to disenfranchise voters. "Moreover," it said, "even if it was foreseeable that certain actions by officials led to voter disenfranchisement, this alone does not mean that intentional discrimination occurred," let alone racial discrimination.
In addition, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division also conducted a separate investigation of these charges and also came up empty.
But lets get to the broader issue, let's assume that Rehnquist was, as Richard Cohen is quoted as saying in the Alan Dershowitz article you linked to, "a brass-knuckle partisan", don't you think that to get more bang for your buck, if your goal is to minimize Democrat voters, is to go after the minorities? Now, while that is definitely a morally repulsive method, it doesn't necessarily make one a racist, it can be that Rehnquist was A. racist, or B. a brass-knuckle partisan, again, I choose B, you choose A.
To further illustrate my point, let us assume that there were voter irregularities, but instead of in a black community, they were in a Cuban community in Florida (remember, Florida narrowly decided the 2000 election). Do you suppose, say that this was the very close 2000 election, that Democrats would have been falling over their chairs to fix those voter irregularities? No, of course not, they would have been complacent about the whole thing, but I wouldn't say this makes them racists against Cubans, it just makes them very partisan. And when the stakes are as high as they are in a presidential election, it becomes very common to have strong partisanship on both sides. So Rehnquist, being "a brass-knuckle partisan", could have just been a partisan politician, now while that certainly doesn't excuse his behavior, it still doesn't make him a racist, it just makes him a cruel politician.
As far as not hiring colored people, well how many colored people at the time was Republican, certainly not many. The stronger case could be made against Howard Dean during his presidential run for not hiring many black people in his campaign. It was an accusation that didn't gain much media attention, but a much more telling accusation, since a large majority of the black community does support him.
As for the rest of your accusations, the great majority of them could be answered if you take into account Rehnquist's overall judicial philosophy. For example, based on a liberal judicial philosophy, ones personal views play some factor in constitutional rulings. For example, when Scalia dissented in LAWRENCE V. TEXAS, the Supreme Court decision that struck down anti-sodomy laws, a liberal would automatically assume that it must mean Scalia is personally against sodomy. But if you read Scalia's reasons for dissenting, you see something completely different:
In LAWRENCE V. TEXAS Scalia writes:
Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts–or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them–than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right” by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that “later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress,” ante, at 18; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.
One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion. The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts–and may legislate accordingly…
The matters appropriate for this Court’s resolution are only three: Texas’s prohibition of sodomy neither infringes a “fundamental right” (which the Court does not dispute), nor is unsupported by a rational relation to what the Constitution considers a legitimate state interest, nor denies the equal protection of the laws. I dissent.(emphasis added)
I quoted this in length because I wanted to stress a judicial philosophy that is common amongst conservative justices. It is not a philosophy that holds one moral belief or another, but a judicial philosophy that respects the democratic process. This judicial philosophy believes that moral issues should be left up to the democratic process to decide, that way the moral issues are better solved, and it includes everybody in the process, afterall, lawyers and judges have no better insight into moral issues than the typical citizens do.
Now you may disagree, you not agree with that conservative judicial philosophy, but you must take that philosophy into account when you evaluate a conservative judge. It is not necessarily true, to a conservative, that being against LAWRENCE V. TEXAS is equal to being against sodomy. It is not necessarily true, to give a hypothetical example, that being against a Supreme Court ruling that bans abortion in all states means you are for abortion. Afterall, I personally would be against 'judicial activism' that bans abortion, even though I am completely against abortion. The reason is because I don't think it is the Supreme Courts place to decide these moral issues, I think it is the peoples.
The same can be said with the large majority of Nebur's criticism of Rehnquist. Sure he was against Brown vs. Board of education, sure he was against having the supreme court strike down segregation, but to a conservative that does not necessarily mean being for segregation, or being against racial integration. For example, my favorite conservative of all, Thomas Sowell, gets very close to saying he would be fine without a pro-brown vs board of education ruling (here, here and here), yet he clearly has the interests of Blacks at heart.
Liberals tend to put much more faith in regulations than conservatives do, liberals think that to be against regulation 'A' that is supposed to benefit party A, is to be really against party A. Conservatives on the other hand, myself included, have very little to no faith at all in regulations, so it is much more common to hear conservatives be for party A, yet be completely against regulation A that is supposed to benefit party A.
So we are looking at the same thing through two different lenses, you see 'being against the Supreme Court striking down segregation laws' and from that you infer 'being for segregation'. Conservatives, on the other hand, don't infer the same thing, it is much more complicated than that, since conservatives stress that morals should be decided democratically as opposed to judicially.
But in the end, even this doesn't matter, since our overall conclusions are going to be affected much more by our biases than by the, IMO, overall slim evidence. Just like my accusations against the Clinton's and Reid aren't going to completely convince you, so are your accusations against Rehnquist are not going to completely convince me.
But here, allow me to offer you an olive branch, I am perfectly willing to admit that Rehnquist was a 'man of his time', maybe he did have racist views, but you should also admit the same regarding Reid and the Clinton's. In other words, lets stop dancing and admit that all were probably men of their times, men who like many of their generation, soaked up the racism and probably contributed to the racism around them. I have no problem saying that as long as we are assuming a common denominator here, I am no fan of identity politics; it is the issues that I am concerned with.
With that said, I need to conclude with a couple of things. First, I must admit that I did learn a lot from this exchange, to be quite honest, I didn't know as much about Rehnquist as I thought I did. You really showed me some things that clearly do pass above mere bias, and get very close to definitive racism, and I didn't know of such things before we began this discussion (looks like I'll be cancelling my lifesize poster of Rehnquist I ordered to hang on my wall, LOL j/k). But with that said, let me reiterate my backing Rehnquist up in the first place. I am not backing him up because I think he wasn’t a racist - that is certainly a debatable topic on both ends - I am backing him up because I agree with his judicial philosophy and strongly believe that it benefits minorities, especially poor minorities. I believe that his judicial philosophy, his dissent in Roe vs. Wade, for example, his dissent in the recent Kelo case, his judicial support of vouchers, his overall refusal to support the extremist environmentalist agenda, his overall support for free-markets and a decentralization of power in the Supreme Court, are all good for us minorities and in general the most defenseless members of society. In other words, it is his overall, albeit with some real errors, judicial philosophy that I support, and mourn the loss of.
man I wish HP had his own blog.
Nebur, this was an amazing entry...I loved it. Cyber Kisses.
So, did Rehnquist REALLY die?
I think HP wrote an 8th grade dissertation in the "comments" section.
I read this on Friday and was very impressed with the way you framed your argument. You would think you do this kind of thing for a living or something.
I was surprised to read HP's statement that the Clintons are racist as well. I clicked on the link your provided, which would be HP's "source" for that bold claim.
Some crackpot (if you don't believe me, check his site for yourself) named Reinhold Aman attributes a bunch of verbal slurs to both Bill and Hillary... but here's the kicker:
More than half of the quotes have the same source: News Max magazine. I've never heard of it. Check it out for yourself, I've listed it as my homepage. I poked around, saw a lot of dubious ads on there for penile enhancement, etc. Not something you see advertised on CNN.com or Newsweek.com, thats for sure.
But here's my favorite Aman source:
"When Hillary (once again) physically attacked Bill, Secret Service agents had to separate them. "Keep that bitch away from me!" Bill Clinton told one Secret Service agent. [The National Enquirer, 5 Jan. 1999]"
The National Enquirer is listed as a souce as if it's a real journalistic enterprise! Ha Ha Ha Ha! Are you serious, HP? You can't do better than that? What's next, Star Magazine?
Hey, I heard through the grocery store check line a tasty little rumor for your website: Howard Dean is actually an alien in disguise, he's wearing a human face mask and thats why he has those odd facial expressions... first tip is free of charge, amigo.
I am, of course, not saying that all of the sources are equally valid, certainly one must use sound judgement. But just because one is bad, that doesn't mean the whole thing should be thrown away.
He quotes from several reputable sources, for example, he quotes from AP, Reuters, San Francisco Chronicle, FOXNews.com, New York Post, Jewish World Review, The Washington Post, and Daily News, all in addition to various books.
In addition, I supplied two links, the other link is from CNN, also a reputable source.
So please, go right ahead and dismiss the not so reputable sources, but that still leaves you with the large amount of reputable sources that also say the same thing.
HP, i think u need to step up your game, you got annihilated by Nebur which doesnt happen often
Not so fast, KT. Intelligent HP didn't get annihilated. A friend alerted me to that wacky blogger named Nebur Sobolalliv who's been shooting off his mouth about me and my documentation of the foulmouthed and lying Clintons. What I found on his site is hilarious. If there has even been a devious and amoral supporter of the devious and amoral Clinton scum, it's that fatfaced young nobody Sobolalliv.
Not that I want to engage in an argument with that slimy nobody, who needs a life outside Blogging and the Law Industry. I just want to expose how that devious and disingenuous creep argues and what tactics he uses.
His motto, "See no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil" (concerning the Clintons and whomever else he admires) tells it all. His horse blinders firmly in place, he won't allow anything not up his alley enter his narrow mind. Sobolalliv calls others with divergent views and facts "fucking nuts" and "crackpots." Draw your own conclusion about his power of argumentation.
Now some quotes: "Mr. Aman appears to be Nucking Futs, at least based on his website, which graphically advocates urinating upon judges and lawyers." What that legal eagle Sobolalliv -- or rather, that uninformed vulture -- is ignorant of is that I piss only on the incompetent, nasty, vicious and/or stupid members of the legal mafia I had to deal with, not on others. Some of my good friends are (Jewish) lawyers and even state supreme court judges.
One of Sobolalliv's obvious and devious tricks is to ignore the intelligent counter-arguments by the "HispanicPundit" (¡Hola, Alfonso!), but that can be expected from a closed mind like fatfaced Nebur's. He parades and ridicules a very minor and unimportant item in my 10-page documentation in trying to devalue the complete article, to wit:
"But here's my favorite Aman source: "When Hillary (once again) physically attacked Bill, Secret Service agents had to separate them. "Keep that bitch away from me!" Bill Clinton told one Secret Service agent. [The National Enquirer, 5 Jan. 1999]" The National Enquirer is listed as a souce as if it's a real journalistic enterprise! Ha Ha Ha Ha! Are you serious, HP? You can't do better than that? What's next, Star Magazine?"
The joke is on Sobolalliv for clearly revealing his shyster-like sliming of an opponent and trying to undermine his credibility. First, that item (the perjurer-in-chief calling his bitch a bitch) is very minor compared with Bubba's and the Bitch's anti-Semitic and anti-Black vulgarities. Second, The National Enquirer publishes lots of factual material you won't see in the "liberal" mainstream publications. And third -- and most importantly -- if the item I reported were not true, you can bet your last shekel that the vicious bitch Hillary would have sicced her slimy shysters on the Enquirer and sued it for $10 or $20 million.
To be continued....
Part II
Damn, that diehard Clintonista Sobolalliv tries so hard to ignore facts and keeps on sliming:
"Some crackpot (if you don't believe me, check his site for yourself) named Reinhold Aman attributes a bunch of verbal slurs to both Bill and Hillary... but here's the kicker: More than half of the quotes have the same source: News Max magazine. I've never heard of it."
Of course Sobolalliv hasn't heard of NewsMax. It's difficult to learn of other sources and viewpoints when wearing horse blinders and reading exclusively "liberal" and left-wing publications and websites that tell their gullible readers only what they want them to know and what fits their political agenda.
And he continues with more of the foulest slime he could scrape up to discredit NewsMax:
"Check it out for yourself, I've listed it as my homepage. I poked around, saw a lot of dubious ads on there for penile enhancement, etc. Not something you see advertised on CNN.com or Newsweek.com, thats for sure."
Hey, someone has to pay for maintaining their website. Did you know that many of the penile enhancement products and most of the American porn industry are produced and peddled by Jews? Uh-oh -- now the converted Jew Sobolalliv has new ammunition: He'll call me an anti-Semite, even though I only report facts.
Speaking of Jews, did you notice how Jewish Sobolalliv ignores his fellow Jews who denounced the amoral Clinton slimebags and reported their foul anti-Semitic language? There's Jewish Jerry Oppenheimer who in his book reported Hillary's outburst, "You fucking Jew bastard!" and there's Dov Hikind, a New York Assemblyman and leader of Brooklyn's Orthodox Jewish community and Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz, state chaplain for the State of New York, but typical legal slimer Sobolalliv suppresses these important matters and instead tries to pull a fast one by quoting the Enquirer (but not The Jewish World Review) and by dragging in penile enhancement products. Inquiring minds need no further proof of Sobolalliv's devious and blindly partisan mind.
The open-minded reader of this blogsite can now see what vile but transparent tricks that closed-minded legal boy Sobolalliv tried to bluff you with. Will my exposé of his underhanded argumentation change his view of his beloved slimebags, the Clintons? No way; a mind set in concrete will not allow change. What a loser.
Part III (Final)
CORRECTION
Oops! Not being a blogger, it looks like I wrongly attributed some idiocies to Sobolalliv that were actually written by an anonymous and cowardly asshole named "Rehnquist was a A-hole."
No problem. Two blind Clintonista birds of a feather and all that.
Commenting by HaloScan
