Subscribe By Email

Worthy Causes


October 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

« Say what? | Main | Why Jesus Christ? »

Monday, July 30, 2007


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


I too pray for Mr. Roberts' rapid recovery; although I disagree with some of his decisions, I wish harm upon no man.

On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with Mr. Schumer's statements. He's expressing his political opinions, and he does so with civility and reason. Calling it "ranting" seems a misuse of the term to me; there's no obvious anger or meanness in the quote.

Yes, you can be certain that the Democrats in the Senate will block many of Mr. Bush's appointments in the future. Why shouldn't they? Their Constitutional duty is to vet the President's appointments. If he offers an appointment that, in their sole judgement, falls short of their standards, then they should reject it. It's their call. There should be a straight up or down vote on the nominations, and if the vote is down, then Mr. Bush will just have to go back and find somebody else until he produces somebody the Senate approves of.


John Roberts is an intellectual titan, and Charles Schumer is an intellectual ant. Nobody is indispensable, but Roberts is as close as it gets. I pray he recovers immediately, and those that slander him pray sincerely for him.

I am contacting conservative bloggers around the country since I am one as well. I hope this email is not an intrusion. I saw your site through Pajamas Media, since I am a fan of that site.

If you are open to doing a link exchange, I get some pretty decent traffic. I figure cross promotion is a win win for all involved. If and only if you feel my blog is of a high quality, I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you.

eric aka

P.S. I am # 6 in the country for best political blog at the bloggers choice awards.



On the blogroll you go... and I urge my readers to check you out... good stuff...

I must say, while Mr. Roberts certainly seems competent, calling him an intellectual titan seems more a matter of partisanship than cold constitutional scholarship. So far, none of the opinions he has written have been impressive. There are some I disagree with; there are some that constitutional scholars find, shall we say, inexplicable; there are some, mostly on technical issues, that seem competent to me. The biggest complaint I have seen so far is that his opinions aren't very well written -- they're a bit on the muddy side.

I'm not prepared to dismiss Mr. Roberts as a bad judge the way I dismiss Mr. Thomas. I'd like to see how he fills out in his role. I'd like to be able to assess a large body of work. But I certainly don't see any reason for calling him "indispensable".


Rick, regarding your update: you refer to Wonkette as a "prominent lefty blog". Perhaps you should examine it. Here are some of the headlines there:

"The Democrats are sad, ineffectual and weak — and they’re not going anywhere anytime soon."

"Since the FBI director’s testimony, Gonzo has hardly been speaking to the FBI but he’s probably just practicing his right to remain silent."

"8 million Iraqis are in immediate need … of a month long vacation for their government! "

"Maybe $3 million is a lot of money when you’re running for Congress in, say, Mississippi."

"The best thing about this new ethics reform BS is the phrase “conservatives plan fight for transparency.”"

" * Ken Starr's Law Firm Has a Crush On Hillary"

"Lipstick Lesbians Say 'Go Ron Paul!'"

"Richy-Rich Obama Confuses Iowa Working People With His Fancy Lettuce Talk"

You call this a "prominent lefty blog"?!?!?!

Morgan K Freeberg


As you continue to police people's viewpoints on things in Rick's comment sections, someday I'd like to see from you a treatise thoroughly exploring the attributes of what you are so fond of calling a "reasonable person," which is now soundly established as a person who's opinions are identical to yours with every issue that comes along.

This reasonable person doesn't think Wonkette is a lefty blog, or that the New York Times has compromised its credibility in any meaningful way. I also understand the reasonable person regards the IPCC as a scientific institution rather than a political one, even though the inconvenient facts say it is a political institution with political rules for draft, review, and publication of the political instruments that happen to be widely treated as scientific research papers.

When you say things that confuse others, these reasonable people infer my confusion is an unmistakable sign that you're much smarter than everybody else. I notice also, when others say things that confuse you, the reasonable people infer your confusion to mean -- that you are much smarter than everybody else.

What else do these reasonable people think? Bit by bit, I'm coming to conclude this clique of "reasonable" people, is a bit more of an exclusive club than you would like us all to think. I mean, what's next...that Michael Moore's documentaries are unfairly slanted to the right?f


Mr. Freeberg, you're pursuing a personal dispute; your comments have nothing to do with Mr. Roberts. I have no interest in proving my worthiness or disparaging yours; my goal is to clarify issues.

If you'd like to discuss Mr. Roberts' jurisprudence, I'll be delighted to join you.

Morgan K Freeberg

It's just that if there's any use whatsoever to attacking the vital distinction between subjective & objective by pointing out what a "reasonable person" would think -- well, to me, a "reasonable person" would characterize the Wonkette resource in exactly the way Rick has done it.

And here you are challenging this assertion as if there was any point in challenging it. It's like challenging whether the earth is round.

If you want to assert that all not-quite-proven assertions are open to legitimate challenge, without regard to how solidly they've already been supported, go right ahead. There is value in this. But I think it would be healthy to do this in a more even-handed way, instead of systematically challenging whatever solid assertions you personally find inconvenient.

And...essentially demanding we take other, more fragile and whimsical assertions as proven facts, barring rock-hard directly-contradictory evidence that's so undeniable as to suit your fancy.

Regarding Chief Justice Roberts, if you are indeed one & the same as this "blank" guy, I agree with you. It's too early to pass judgment. But I'm not looking for passage of a specific amount of time, I'm looking for him to do something groundbreaking. And I think we're in for a long wait, because Roberts is a devotee of minimalist disruption from the High Court upon the law as we know it.

And I think that's good. I would like someone to go through systematically and tear apart all these crazy left-of-center "landmark" rulings one by one, just as well. But I'll take Roberts' way. It's more gradual, more conducive to soothing the public agitation, and probably a lot healthier.

On the issues expressed by Schumer and others about stare decisis, you can find my comments here. But I don't think you're capable of giving those comments fair treatment, unless you fundamentally change the way you think these things out. As you've presented yourself in these exchanges, you're little more than a Geiger Counter with a slightly bloated vocabulary -- you see something that arouses your personal disagreement, you start "clicking." I've not known you to actually digest anything complex, and break it down, as of yet. But there's always hope.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


Tip Jar

Plainly Offsetting Costs

Search Brutally Honest

  • Google




Creative Commons License

Plainly Quotable