Harvard Law Review publishes a judge's scathing critique of Supreme Court--on emotional grounds
One of the most important freedoms Americans supposedly have is freedom of speech. Unfortunately, the fact is that left/liberals routinely prevent conservatives from speaking on college campuses. This is an obvious violation of civil rights, but conservatives never sue for that--because it's not possible to find anyone with assets to make the cost of filing worthwhile: the thugs are just random individuals.
A second type of bias is that liberal rags like the Hahvahd Law Review routinely publish articles by screaming, hair-on-fire leftists, but never publish articles by conservatives.
Which brings us to the current event: A federal judge has made headlines by trashing the Supreme Court of the U.S. in the Hahvahd Law Review. The judge is furious that for the first time in ages the court has a conservative majority.
Judge Lynn Adelman's article is titled, “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.”
“Assault” evokes images of criminal behavior, and that's intentional, although Adelman doesn't claim any criminal behavior in his article. Rather, he claims our way of life is in grave danger because conservatives hold a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.
He claims this because the Supreme Court sometimes issues decisions that Adelman doesn't like. The fact that there's a well-reasoned legal basis for such decisions is irrelevant to Adelman (who was appointed by Bill Clinton). He complains about the court's decisions on campaign finance, collective bargaining, health insurance, gerrymandering and voting rights.
He accuses the court of favoring big corporations and the rich. He rails against economic inequality and social disparities that afflict poor people and minorities.
To hear Adelman tell it, President Trump is the source of all evil. So, too, is the Republican Party, which Adelman sees as an eager co-conspirator in the plot against poorer Americans.
Adelman has a demonstrated fondness for publishing politicized denunciations. In 2017, he penned a law review article excoriating “How Big Money Ruined Public Life in Wisconsin.”
Now, like all Americans, Adelman is entitled to say and write anything he wants. My point is that influential liberal publications like the Harvard Law Review publish unsupported, emotional propaganda like Adelman's, but never publish any articles criticizing his views. Equally important, criticizing the Supreme Court on emotional grounds rather than legal grounds leads emotional voters to believe the court should rule based on emotion rather than on the law.
That's a recipe for disaster.
A second type of bias is that liberal rags like the Hahvahd Law Review routinely publish articles by screaming, hair-on-fire leftists, but never publish articles by conservatives.
Which brings us to the current event: A federal judge has made headlines by trashing the Supreme Court of the U.S. in the Hahvahd Law Review. The judge is furious that for the first time in ages the court has a conservative majority.
Judge Lynn Adelman's article is titled, “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.”
“Assault” evokes images of criminal behavior, and that's intentional, although Adelman doesn't claim any criminal behavior in his article. Rather, he claims our way of life is in grave danger because conservatives hold a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court.
He claims this because the Supreme Court sometimes issues decisions that Adelman doesn't like. The fact that there's a well-reasoned legal basis for such decisions is irrelevant to Adelman (who was appointed by Bill Clinton). He complains about the court's decisions on campaign finance, collective bargaining, health insurance, gerrymandering and voting rights.
He accuses the court of favoring big corporations and the rich. He rails against economic inequality and social disparities that afflict poor people and minorities.
To hear Adelman tell it, President Trump is the source of all evil. So, too, is the Republican Party, which Adelman sees as an eager co-conspirator in the plot against poorer Americans.
Adelman has a demonstrated fondness for publishing politicized denunciations. In 2017, he penned a law review article excoriating “How Big Money Ruined Public Life in Wisconsin.”
Now, like all Americans, Adelman is entitled to say and write anything he wants. My point is that influential liberal publications like the Harvard Law Review publish unsupported, emotional propaganda like Adelman's, but never publish any articles criticizing his views. Equally important, criticizing the Supreme Court on emotional grounds rather than legal grounds leads emotional voters to believe the court should rule based on emotion rather than on the law.
That's a recipe for disaster.
posted by SF at
1:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home