Rand Paul

The Lamest Liberal Attack on Rand Paul You'll Read Today

|

During Elena Kagan's 2010 Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma asked the future justice if she believed Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to force Americans to "eat three vegetables and three fruits every day." Laughing in response, Kagan said that while it sounded "like a dumb law," that did not necessarily make it an unconstitutional one. "I think that courts would be wrong to strike down laws that they think are—are senseless just because they're senseless," she continued, adding later, "the principle protector against bad laws is the political branches themselves. And I would go back, I think, to Oliver Wendell Holmes on this. He was this judge who lived, you know, in the—in the early 20th century. Hated a lot of the legislation that was being enacted during those—those years, but insisted that if the—if the people wanted it, it was their right to go hang themselves."

In other words, Kagan effectively admitted that Congress did in fact possess the power to force broccoli purchases, at least under her interpretation of the Commerce Clause. And if you don't like that fact, her answer continued, take your complaint to the ballot box, not to the courthouse, since the judiciary owes deference even to "senseless" laws.

I dig up all of this ancient history because Kagan's answer to Coburn was deployed recently as a weapon against Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Writing at The Atlantic, liberal legal commentator Garrett Epps found himself in the uncomfortable position of mostly agreeing with the point of Paul's anti-drone filibuster last week while simultaneously disagreeing with Paul about almost everything else. Epps' solution was to denounce Paul as a "demagogue" before reluctantly admitting, "One doesn't have to be Rand Paul to see that this administration's approach to public discussion of the new reality has been grudging at best and disingenuous at worst."

To call someone a demagogue is not to compliment them, of course, so I was curious to discover how Epps would support this unkind allegation. Here, in its entirely, is how he tried to do it:

Paul likes to distort quotes from his political foes—witness his earlier claim that Elena Kagan had said that the government could require citizens to eat broccoli, when the record shows clearly that she didn't.

But that Paul is a demagogue doesn't diminish the administration's ham-fistedness in the drone-war debate. There's a growing suspicion that its flawed responses represent not simply inept spin but a troubling ambivalence about the rule of law.

It's true that Kagan never used the word yes in response to Coburn's question, as Paul apparently said that she did, but Epps' case disintegrates beyond that. Not only did Kagan clearly state that "senseless" laws (like the "dumb" fruit and vegetable mandate hypothesized by Coburn) could still be upheld as constitutional, she specifically invoked the example of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the Supreme Court's most famous advocate of judicial deference to lawmakers, a jurist who believed the Constitution should almost never interfere with "the right of the majority to embody their opinions in law." So Kagan basically told the country that the Supreme Court had no business interfering with Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause.

If liberals like Epps are committed to denouncing Paul every time they find themselves agreeing with him on drones, they should at least try to come up with a more plausible line of attack.

NEXT: Cops in Florida Say They Shot and Killed Man Who Was Suicidal, Threatening Them With Scissors

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It’s funny how this fuck agrees with him over something kind of important–murderdroning people–yet what seems to be really important to him is that Rand Paul was concerned about the government being able to force people to eat things. Because, you know, the latter is a super important TEAM indicator and all.

    1. And he had to basically lie to do it. Elena Kagen was being cagey in saying “yes, government could do that very thing”, but it is still an obvious “yes” to every non-lunatic person.

      1. They pretty much have to be “cagey” about everything they say, because if they say waht they truely want and believe the populace would revolt against them and the media would no longer be able to sell them.

        1. The populace will never revolt. America is a land of pussies.

          1. Yeah I know, I was talking more along the lines of the ballot box. If they came out and actually said FYTW they might lose elections so they use clever wordplay instead.

            1. Nah. The D&R monopoly is here to stay.

      2. Right. Saying that she didn’t say it is the left’s version of saying that the Constitution doesn’t include the exact words “separation of church and state.”

      3. Our resident semantic nitpicker is now invoking argumentum ad populum? Come on. She didn’t even say the govt could force veggie eating/purchase, she was evading the question. You can speculate as to what her refusal to say “no, the govt can’t do that” indicates about her beliefs, but that’s different.

        And of course, her (evasive) point is correct; there are stupid laws that are nonetheless constitutional, and the courts are not empowered to strike down merely stupid laws. She didn’t say anything about the constitutionality of the veggie mandate.

        Of course, I would be curious to the Rand Paul quote that Epps refers to, because it’s possible he didn’t say what Epps says he said.

        1. Yes, Tulpa, if you totally ignore the context of the exchange you’re exactly right.

          However, as it stands, you’re not.

        2. She didn’t even say the govt could force veggie eating/purchase, she was evading the question.

          And why would she evade the question? She could have easily said “no of course they can’t do that” and given a popular answer that would have satisfied everyone in the room. She only evaded because saying “no” would have then required her to square that with her actual judicial views and that would have been presumably difficult.

          So yes, her evasion is in context effectively an admission.

          1. If we were doing Requests for Admission or making legal arguments, I would make Tulpa’s argument too.

            But we’re not.

            1. True. But even after you made that argument, if I were on the jury I would infer a negative answer based upon the witness’s behavior. And I would be perfectly right to do so.

              1. Also true. Her behavior and refusal to answer operates, to me, as an admission. That doesn’t give me any heartburn at all.

                1. That’s bullshit. You’re dialing the sophistry up to 11 again.

                  It’s not a statement, it’s behavior pattern that appears to indicate an unstated belief. They’re very, very different things, otherwise what the fuck is the point of rhetoric and control over what you say.

                  1. Tulpa, forgive me if I do not have patience for people who dance on the line. I didn’t like it when you did it, I don’t like it when the Rockwellians do it, and I don’t like it now.

                    The essence of the answer is “the veggie mandate would be stupid but it is not necessarily unconstitutional because ‘Oliver Wendell Holmes'”. How is it you don’t see that? because she paused?

                    1. When I put the Fair Witness hat on, I only see what’s there.

                      In my personal opinion, I think she simply doesn’t see any limitation on govt power outside the BoR (maybe). But that’s not allowed to influence my Fair Witness opinion.

                    2. Really? So there is no such thing as dog-whistling to you?

                    3. The following is an article in which Tulpa cannot call me a racist:

                      “TITLE: Stereotypes?

                      Lots of black people love fried chicken, watermelon and greens. Many black children do poorly in school and eventually develop into subliterate adults. Much city violence is simply black on black crime.

                      Why do we hate stereotypes so much then?”

          2. That’s not the only possibility.

            Some politicians/public figures have a policy of not answering all questions about their personal lives, no matter how stupid the question is. Because if you answer “no” to the question “Have you ever been abducted by aliens from Beta Eridani?” but then refuse to answer the question “have you ever cheated on your wife?” people will ASSUME you’ve cheated on your wife. But if you refuse to answer both they can’t draw any conclusion. Perhaps Kagan had a similar policy about questions about limiting government power; if she says “no, the govt can’t force you to eat broccoli” it becomes harder to refuse to answer questions on the insurance mandate.

            1. Some politicians/public figures have a policy of not answering all questions about their personal lives, no matter how stupid the question is.

              And what reason is there to believe this to be the case? It seems a lot more likely, given her past and stated judicial philosophy that she actually believes there is no limit to the federal commerce clause power. It is not like this belief is rare in liberal legal circles.

              Perhaps Kagan had a similar policy about questions about limiting government power; if she says “no, the govt can’t force you to eat broccoli” it becomes harder to refuse to answer questions on the insurance mandate.

              Exactly. Admitting that there is a limit on the commerce clause powers would make it difficult to then justify things like the insurance mandate. That is the entire point. She doesn’t view there to be any limit on the power but just wouldn’t admit it.

              1. Yeah, Tulpa saying that as if it justifies Elena Kagen giving a noncommittal committal is just weird.

                1. I didn’t say shit about justifying Kagan, and I have hated on her numerous times in these parts. The problem here, apparently, is that my hatred for her is less strong than my devotion to logical truth.

                  1. Tulpa, devoted to logical
                    Truth, fends off the HyR hordes.
                    Broccoli mandates are dumb
                    But not every dumb law
                    Is disallowed. Fie!
                    Has Tulpa won?
                    Context-free,
                    Perhaps.
                    (No.)

        3. “And if you don’t like that fact, her answer continued, take your complaint to the ballot box, not to the courthouse, since the judiciary owes deference even to ‘senseless’ laws.”

          Her evasive point is NOT correct. Of course people have the right to hang themselves if they want to, but they don’t have the right to pass laws requiring other people to hang themselves. That’s retarded. Essentially the point she’s making that if I don’t like a law requiring me to hang myself, I should take it out at the ballot box. I have no reason to complain to the court.

          1. but they don’t have the right to pass laws requiring other people to hang themselves.

            Well, the bill of rights forbids that already, so the commerce clause argument is irrelevant.

            1. I’d say the bill of rights forbids passing laws requiring the eating of brocolli too. I am after all being deprived of liberty and property in doing so.

        4. I always think it’s funny when people make these kind of arguments:

          1. She never said that.
          2. Even if she did, it’s exactly right.

          For some reason, I always expect 2 to mitigate the need to present 1.

          1. “that” and “it” are different things here. “that” is the broccoli mandate’s constitutionality, and “it” is the existence of stupid but constitutional laws.

            1. And from “that” you inferred her point as “it” while simultaneously denying she ever said “that”.

              Now, how did that happen?

              1. No, I didn’t. The “it” stands on its own.

                1. Then why did she say them in the same breath? Convenience?

                  1. That’s a behavioral science question, not a logical one.

                    1. Are they divorced from each other now?

                    2. right but “it” = “the existence of stupid but constitutional laws”. “that” = “the broccoli mandate’s constitutionality”.

                      This implies that “it” implies “that”. Which implies that, if she said “that”, she’s would have been exactly right, because of “it”.

                      So, my post is a completely consistent model of what you said. And that’s it.

                    3. “it” doesn’t imply “that”. That’s the same quantification error Hazel was making. Some is not all.

                    4. Oh, I see: “it” is not sufficient to imply “that”.

                      Ok, well “it” + commerce clause = “that”.

                      Original post still valid.

        5. And of course, her (evasive) point is correct; there are stupid laws that are nonetheless constitutional, and the courts are not empowered to strike down merely stupid laws. She didn’t say anything about the constitutionality of the veggie mandate.

          Er. Did she make the evasive point or not? If she’s saying that stupid laws are none the less constitutional, then she is answering the question in the affirmative.

          How can her “point” be “correct” (the government can force you to eat Brocolli) if she wasn’t saying that?

          1. Brian and Hazel use logic!

            IT’S SUPER EFFECTIVE!

            1. Who’s more the fool: the fool or the fool who follows him?

              1. Tulpa.

          2. If she’s saying that stupid laws are none the less constitutional, then she is answering the question in the affirmative.

            quantifier error. some stupid laws being constitutional, does not imply that all stupid laws are constitutional.

            1. Then why not say “I wouldn’t think so but not all stupid laws are necessarily unconstitutional?”

              The reason, of course, is as you indicated above: she didn’t like where her own logic led. Well, she didn’t like that her own logic might tank her chance to be on the Supreme Court.

              1. Great! Then make that argument.

                Don’t claim that she said something she didn’t.

                What you’re doing is a time-tested and beloved sophistry tactic… make a small logical error that “non-lunatics” will overlook, so that you can make an emotionally stout, while technically incorrect, claim that will be much more effective in pushing your position than the actual correct claim.

                1. Tulpa, please. The only reason you can claim a V on technical grounds is because you’re dropping the context.

                  1. Context doesn’t make the content of someone’s statement change (unless there are pronouns or correlatives that need to be determined). It may be useful for determining intended meaning, but that’s not really the question here; it’s likely Kagan’s intent was simply to evade.

                    What that evasion implies is another question.

                    1. “Context doesn’t make the content of someone’s statement change”

                      So the guy standing in front of a burning building screaming “fire” is the same as the commanding officer telling his troops to “fire”?

                      NO.

                      Which is why you’re an idiot and that statement you made is one of the dumbest things ever typed.

                    2. Oh, definitely, yes.

                      When Tulpa says:

                      Context doesn’t make the content of someone’s statement change (unless there are pronouns or correlatives that need to be determined).

                      This is demonstrably false by counter-example. Not only “fire”, but the famous:

                      Time flies like an arrow.

                      This sentence has no pronouns or correlatives, and it can have multiple meanings (I can think of three off the top of my head). Context is frequently necessary to determine meaning. English is not a context-free language.

                      Which begs the question: why is context not relevant here? Special pleading?

                2. Don’t claim that she said something she didn’t.

                  I never said she said it. I said her answer constitutes an admission.

                  1. In common parlance that’s the same thing.

                    If you want to get technical, then you too are disagreeing with the alleged Paul quote, as he said she did say it.

                    1. OK, I disagree with that verb Paul allegedly used.

                      See how easy that was?

                    2. Yes, it was easy. Why didn’t you say it before?

                3. So you’re saying you can narrowly parse her statement in a way that has her not really answering the question. Versus a broader parsing that has her answering it in the affirmative.

                  I think the answer to this is “Come on. We all know what she MEANT.”

                  1. Even a judge on the bench would grow tired of Tulpa.

                    1. Considering that most judges are inchoate creeps, I take that as a compliment.

                  2. Parsing refers to determining the intended meaning of her statement. Do you think the semantics/grammar is obscure?

                    1. “Context” also refers to determining the intended meaning of her statement.

                    2. “Parsing refers to determining the intended meaning of her statement.”

                      “con?text
                      [kon-tekst] Show IPA
                      noun
                      1.
                      the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect:”

                      Tulpa, proving he’s a mendacious idiot since he first started posting.

                  3. I think the answer to this is “Come on. We all know what she MEANT.”

                    It’s likely that what she MEANT is different from what she THINKS. You guys are after what she THINKS (and I agree with you on that subject).

        6. The incident that Epps has in mind was Paul “distorting” Kagan’s response. Still, “the record shows clearly that she didn’t” is Epps also trying to pull a fast one. She clearly did not answer the question in the affirmative, but Epps writes it such that you’re lead to believe she answered in the negative. Hell, the chapter that he links to in that claim, from his own book, looks plenty deceitful as well.

          1. See, Tulpa, this is the problem you have when you latch onto hypertechnicality.

            By Tulpa’s own logic (which, yes, is TECHNICALLY CORRECT) Epps can get away with this kind of thing because the record does “clearly show” that she did not answer as such.

            The problem is one of rhetoric, though, not logic. Much in the same way I get agitated with the Rockwellians for saying things like “If a man can be defined by the enemies he makes, Hugo Chavez was a saint”, I also get agitated by people like Epps.

            They know what they’re doing – they’re strongly implying something in an attempt to deceive, or not-saying something inflammatory so they can’t be called to account later.

            1. yes, Epps is using sophistry. Doesn’t it suck and grate on your nerves when people try to get away with that?

              1. “Doesn’t it suck and grate on your nerves when people try to get away with that?”

                If you know you grate our nerves when you do it, why do you still do it?

                1. Trollin, trollin, trollin,
                  Keep those posts a trollin
                  Rawhide!

      4. Elena Kagen was being cagey in saying “yes, government could do that very thing”, but it is still an obvious “yes” to every non-lunatic person.

        Right. You have to be particularly dense and/or willfully blind not to read her statement as an oblique “yes, they can”.

        1. You have to be particularly dense and/or willfully blind

          Nailed that one, didn’t you?

          1. Be nice, Tulpa is a thin-skinned fuckwit.

    2. my roomate’s sister-in-law makes $64/hr on the laptop. She has been fired from work for 8 months but last month her paycheck was $17710 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site… http://goo.gl/ASVr8

  2. …”they should at least try to come up with a more plausible line of attack.”

    None exists, so the left is stuck with the left’s common tactic: Lies.

  3. “they should at least try to come up with a more plausible line of attack.”

    How can you expect people with implausable points of view to come up with plausable arguments?

    Also, Rand Muckerfuckin’ Paul!

  4. There’s a growing suspicion that its flawed responses represent not simply inept spin but a troubling ambivalence about the rule of law.

    “But, honestly, I got this fat lip and black eye from walking into a door. Haha, I’m so clumsy, sometimes, it’s a wonder he puts up with me.”

  5. Elena would never challenge a law that she had to eat rubyfruit three times a day.

    1. She’s getting old. She might have to get by with twice.

  6. You can always judge the effectiveness of a counter argument to liberal opinion based on how much hyperbolic shrieking it induces in response.

    Clearly Rand has hit some record levels with the Filibuster. It’s literally off the charts this time.

    1. This is a good point. TEAM BLUE freaks out over 1) completely manufactured pointless shit as a way to distract the sheep, and 2) when someone scores a direct hit on their bullshit, which Paul did with the filibuster. Even better, he scored a direct hit on TEAM RED too in terms of the likes of McCain and Graham.

      As much as I think Paul failed in terms of the stated goal, this shitstirring has been mighty indeed.

      1. It is quite impressive that not only did Rand get the left to froth at the mouth like a rabid dog as they further exposed themselves as the hypocritical tools they are, but as you said he did also manage to smoke out the RINO’s successfully as well.

        Tough to beat watching those two groups twist themselves in to knots trying to justify their disapproval.

        I’m still very reluctant to admire a politician for obvious reasons, but if Rand keeps this up that could change.

      2. So, to use a drone metaphor, the GOP establishment risks becoming collateral damage if it stands too close to the Democrats.

    2. To an extent I think the filibuster irritates them because drone-killing isn’t really part of liberal opinion. It’s the slimy uncle they don’t want to have to talk to or look at at the dinner table, but don’t have the guts to uninvite, and Rand Paul forced them to sit right next to him.

      1. Being forced to face one’s internal contradictions is always distressing.

      2. Don’t forget, there’s also some outrage that anyone would dare imply that President Obama would ever do anything to endanger people, or would even consider abusing power. It’s not even a “I’m from the government, I’m here to help” thing, because they hated the feds when Bush was in office. There is a cult of personality that surrounds the Golden Boy, and anyone who challenges His infallibility or untarnished morality is an enemy of the people.

        1. There’s definitely some of that, but very little of the oppo to the filibuster has attempted to justify Obama’s doings. It’s nearly all about ripping Rand Paul for reasons unrelated to the drone issue.

      3. “To an extent I think ”

        Yes, that’s about right.

  7. Well, you can’t expect them to admit that someone on the other side might be a good guy. Since so much of the progressive identity is founded on the belief that the other side is an unmitigated evil.

    Start considering the possibility that someone in favor of the free market might not be a manifestation of the devil, and all hell will break loose. Liberals might start not automatically discounting everything libertarians say. People might start thinking that maybe MSNBC isn’t completely objective. And then when are you going to do? You have to keep people locked into their bubbles, or you just totally lose control of them.

    1. Since so much of the progressive identity is founded on the belief that the other side is an unmitigated evil.

      There is that but there is also the absolute faith that their side is an unmitigated good. It is not possible for them to admit that Obama would abuse his power. So they therefore must defend the drone strikes regardless of how much it conflicts with their previous positions.

      1. Plus there’s the fact that Rand paul represents the ‘Tea Party’, which therefore conflicts with what their whole image of the Tea Party is about.

        Tea Party guys are supposed to be these Team Red racists with no coherent positions other than hating Obama.

        Thus the only way to make sense of this is that Rand Paul is somehow an evil Tea Party demagogue who just happens to accidentally be right, but is only saying so because he’s a big racist who hates obama cause he’s black.

        1. That’s pretty close to what came out on Twitter. That most holy of shibboleths, abortion, got trotted out, as did the 1964 CRA.

          1. Holy of shibboleths is about right. When comes down to it, a President can pretty much do whatever he wants in liberals’ eyes if he will keep abortion legal, funded and frequent.

            1. I pondered this today: what would liberals do if I introduced a bill tomorrow that banned women from having an abortion if the reason they are having that abortion is because their child is gay? Or mixed race?

              1. They would throw the gays overboard in a heart beat. If we ever get a really significant population of ethnic Chinese or Indians, abortion to avoid having a daughter will come to the US in a big way. And feminists will stand in line and support it in the name for freedom and multiculturalism. You watch.

                1. That was my conclusion too – “bye bye, gay allies”

                  1. Liberals’ complete refusal to even discuss discrimination and hatred of gays in the Muslim community tells you all you need to know about how quickly they would throw the gays over the side.

                    1. The issue causes a lot of infighting, actually, it’s just that they care more about abortion and socialism than tolerance.

                2. They would throw the gays overboard in a heart beat.

                  No, I think your wrong. It’s Animal Farm morality. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

                  They would just claim that Abortion is an absolute infallible right! Unless it’s in the hands of a racist, homophobic right wing bigot. In which case, the unborn minority must be protected at all costs.

                  You’re attempting to apply logic to Liberal ideology. It’s not based on logic, it’s based on feelings.

              2. I actually think they would be ok with banning abortion in that case. Remember, progressive always fall on the side of LESS power for the individual and more power for government whenever there is a conflict between individual liberty and some social good like non-discrimination.

                In fact, they’re already against things like sex selection in IVF, or genetic selection in general. So it’s no a big hop to get them to oppose sexual orientation selection.

                But the way this would be implemented would be a ban on allowing doctors to perform procedures that determine a fetuses sexual orientation before birth.

                1. I agree with Hazel. They would throw abortion under the bus, but they would do it via a ban on allowing doctors to tell you the sex of your fetus (or whatever else about it).

                  1. Right, I mean, they’re already out to bar doctors from doing a genetic test on an embryo to determine the sex before implantation.

                    http://www.geneticsandsociety…….php?id=29

              3. banned women from having an abortion if the reason they are having that abortion is because their child is gay?

                That would be extremely hard to prosecute and would never survive a SCOTUS challenge, even without RvW.

        2. Only liberals have a right to any kind of public forum. If there is criticism of Obama to be done, only a proper credentialed liberal can do it.

          1. ..and that criticism must always be something along the lines of bitching that Obama’s not seizing enough power.

            -jcr

  8. You can always judge the effectiveness of a counter argument to liberal opinion based on how much hyperbolic shrieking it induces in response.

    FTFY.

  9. The Philly public radio station periodically lets one of its management dudes (named Rich Siolli or something like that) give a liberal rant during Morning Edition. Last week he gave one about libertarians and “taxation is theft.” The substance of his argument was IS NOT!

    1. That’s no surprise.

      Liberals are pseudo intellectual bluffers with nothing to back it up.

    2. To be fair, taxation isn’t really theft. It’s more like extortion.

      1. I really would’ve been impressed it he’d made that argument.

    3. I got the “IS NOT!” response just yesterday when arguing that forcing doctors to care for people is slavery. Apparently, they can just stop being doctors and that’s perfectly fine with everyone.

    4. The substance of his argument was IS NOT!

      It’s not like they have a better argument to use instead.

  10. “The Lamest Liberal Attack on Rand Paul You’ll Read Today”

    That’s a bold claim; it’s only noon.

  11. You’d think conservatives would back Rand Paul if for no other reason than the Left’s illiberals hate him.

    1. Statists hate him. Much of the conservative base and most of their politicians are statists.

      1. This is exactly right.

        And it is a great example of why the left-right, liberal-conservative model for political analysis is defective. So defective that it impairs understanding rather than simplifying it.

  12. Epps is getting torn apart in the comments. I imagine the jeerers are mostly right wingers from Instapundit or something, but it’s still funny.

    Jonn Kmech
    30 comments ? 168 votes
    Full profile
    Jonn Kmech ? 5 days ago ?
    It amazes me that someone who teaches constitutional law would write this weak-willed, fence-sitting baloney, and that the Atlantic would publish it. It seriously amazes me (and scares me) how far people are bending over backwards to justify Obama’s policies, when they would have been frothing at the mouth if Bush had done the same (and I’m a liberal myself, for anyone trying to call me a right-winger. This isn’t a liberal or conservative issue, it’s a human rights issue.)

    1. It was his turn to take one for TEAM BLUE.

  13. Fuck Conservatives
    Fuck Liberals
    Stand with Rand.

    1. I can’t handle when people call the Liberals. They are NOT liberal!

  14. There’s a growing suspicion that its flawed responses represent not simply inept spin but a troubling ambivalence about the rule of law.

    Because nothing say caring about the “rule of law” than allowing the President to assassinate American citizens away from the battlefield by what amounts to executive order in the place of due process.

    Whether you agree with Paul or not, he has absolutely forced these people to give up any pretense of logic or consistency. They are all newspeak now.

  15. Paul’s point was that the administration’s vague answers left open the possibility that the President – either this President or a successor – has the *power* to drone-assassinate Americans in America.

    It seems that Epps and his fellow progs insist on distorting this point, painting Paul as paranoically accusing Obama of killing citizens in cafes.

    Epps is a law professor, hypotheticals are his bread and butter. Of course he knows the difference between using hypotheticals to illustrate the scary scope of the drone-killing power and actually claiming knowledge that a specific President wants to do a specific action.

    1. clarification – “claims the power,” not “has the power.”

    2. Of course he knows, which makes his dissembling all the more evil.

      1. He both knows Paul is right and that he will someday want to make the same argument when a Republican is President. So he reduces Paul’s clearly valid argument to the straw man of “Paul is saying Obama intends to kill Americans”. That way he can later make Paul’s argument and claim with a straight face that he is making a different argument than Paul did.

  16. He teaches courses in constitutional law and creative writing for law students at the University of Baltimore

    Not looking good for future constitutional lawyers and judges here…

    1. The former Reason staffer Kerry Howley left Reason to go to Iowa to get an MA in something called “Creative Non Fiction”. Some commenter, I forget who, asked the question “Isn’t that just getting an MA in lying?”

      1. At least you avoided the obvious law-school joke.

      2. LOL. How to be creative with facts (or laws)

      3. That was robc.

        One of the greatest comments of all time, IMHO.

      4. It’s a good line, but I don’t think it is necessarily true (though I really don’t know, I know nothing about the program).

        Even if you are just sticking to solid facts, a lot of creativity is required to write non-fiction that is enjoyable reading. Creativity is not only making stuff up.

        1. “Creativity is not only making stuff up.”

          Yeah, um, no actually, that is pretty much exactly what creativity is.

          1. No, it’s not. Creativity is required to write good non-fiction. That doesn’t mean fabricating things. It means figuring out how to put things together to make a coherent narrative and readable presentation. That requires creativity too.

  17. And if you don’t like that fact, her answer continued, take your complaint to the ballot box, not to the courthouse, since the judiciary owes deference even to “senseless” laws.

    So… let me get this straight. By Elena Kagen’s philosophy, every major “liberal” victory of the 20th (and 21st) century shouldn’t have happened through the courts, but at the ballot box.

    That’s going straight into the old toolbelt for later use.

  18. just as Chad replied I am shocked that a stay at home mom able to profit $4026 in 4 weeks on the internet. have you seen this web page
    http://jump30.com

  19. what Larry explained I didnt even know that a stay at home mom able to make $9939 in 1 month on the computer. did you read this site
    http://jump30.com

  20. Nothing complicated here. Making the other side look bad is always more important than actually solving our nation’s problems.

  21. It only seems inconsistent because you describe Epps as a “liberal” legal commentator, when it appears he is just a plain ole “LEFTIST”, Paul would be the true liberal and Kagan is just a light weight .. .. well .. .. lightweight.

  22. the principle principal protector against bad laws is the political branches themselves

  23. Charlotte. you think Bernard`s storry is exceptional, yesterday I bought a top of the range Smart ForTwo from having earned $7573 this – five weeks past and just over ten/k this past-month. it’s certainly the most comfortable work Ive ever done. I started this 6 months ago and pretty much immediately began to bring home over $76, per-hr. I use this website,
    http://jump30.com

  24. Kate. you think Bryan`s st0ry is surprising, last wednesday I bought themselves a Mazda from having earned $7947 thiss month and-over, ten/k this past month. it’s by-far the easiest job Ive ever had. I began this 3 months ago and almost straight away was bringin in minimum $72 per-hour. I follow the details here,,
    http://jump30.com

  25. I hadn’t seen that Kagan exchange, I fear her even more now. Perhaps what frightens me more is most people wouldn’t know what the Commerce Clause was or how it’s used. The ignorance of our population is dragging us straight to hell.

  26. my buddy’s sister makes $70/hr on the computer. She has been out of work for 8 months but last month her pay check was $18807 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site http://www.fly38.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.