SCOTUS Debate On CSPAN Now

[YellowDawgDemocrat]

Should be an interesting debate, left and right presented.

CAUTION: Ann Coulter is one of the panelists

[gmoney]

1. Has Coulter complained about the appointment of Boosh?

[RichV]

2. Seen this one.

The liberal side OWNS the others. Coulter comes off as ignorant on the topic... surprising since she went to Michigan Law School and all.

[DU9598]

3. Coulter, JD????

Never knew she went to Law School. I wonder if she was on the law review, and if so, did she write a peer review article?

[La_Serpiente]

5. I believe she was a part of the Michigan Law Review Board

and I think she was an advisor to Abraham Spencer.

[readmylips]

4. Turned it on. First face talking crap is that dumb Coulter....

Turned it off immediately. Three things I can't stand to see on my TV; 1. little man boosh, 2. Ann Coulter, 3. Snakes. All the boosh cabinet falls under real snakes.

[neverforget]

6. My TV wouldn't survive 2 minutes if I had to listen to Ann Coulter

and David Limbaugh. :puke: :argh:

[SanchoPanza]

7. Seen it before...

Coulter, while certainly donning the persona of lunatic rightist while on the pundit shows, is not the one to watch here. Although her notion of equating gay rights with a person's freedom to use as much water as they want in their toilet is laughable on its face, the real anti-genius on the panel is David Limbaugh who is a liar, an imbecile, and a fraud whose only saving grace among the right is his more famous brother. If you though Coulter's "Slander" amd "Treason" set the bar for factual innacuracies and flat out distortion, you've yet to read Limbaugh's "Persecution". Virtually everything he wrote in that little gem of theocratic revisionism was just made up from mail-order for-profit religious scam artists like Pat Robertson and Robert Tilton.

At least they have Jay Sekulow to give them some degree of credibility.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

8. Sancho...your assessment of the panel and their credibility is dead on

[grasswire]

9. it was an outstanding presentation

I'm going to have to find a replay.

How in hell did Coulter and Limbaugh get picked to face off against Dershowitz, Nadine, and Barry Lynn? Is that the best and brightest the right can find to argue about SCOTUS?

One might think they would cough up Bork or Starr.

Barry Lynn's summation must be transcribed. I'll try to do that later.

[SanchoPanza]

10. Its rather elementry, really.

Both Sekulow and Coulter are licensed attorney's, though Coulter's presence results far more from here quakery in the pundit cirlces than her status and reputation as a lawyer. To my knowledge she hasn't practiced law in at least eight years, since her rise to fame among the public face of the right during the Paula Jones scandal afforded her much more lucrative opportunities as a right-wing schill.

Limbaugh is pimping his new book, plain and simple. The crux of the right's argument against "liberal activism" hinges on some vague notion of Christian persecution. This is a subject that Sekulow focuses on as a lawyer and in which Coulter sometimes dangles her feet, but never takes the full plunge. And yes, Coulter did cough up Bork.

In my honest opinion, the entire panel was substandard for the topic at hand. For the "pundit version" of a debate on the judiciary, they're all pretty much fine. But for a reasoned exchange of ideas the only two people who were worth watching were Sekulow and Lynn. Everyone else was just filler or, in the case of Nadine, obligatory.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

12. Alan D's discription of the SCOTUS as "corupt " was excellent

[SanchoPanza]

13. Excellent for What?

Certainly to rile the emotions of those who supported Gore in the Supreme Court decision, but what Dershowitz allegdes, though it is true, was not the motivation behind Thomas and Scalia remaining on the case. Thomas was primarily not looking out for the financial interests of his wife and Scalia the financial interests of his son. The political gain for their party and agenda was far more important.

And I was COMPLETELY disappointed that a lawyer of Dershowitz's calibur didn't immediately jump on Sekulow's answer to the absurd notion of "Equal Protection" being the basis for the Bush v. Gore majority opinion. Essentially Sekulow admitted that Rehnquist & Co. couldn't find a reasonable argument that O'Connor and Kennedy could agree upon, and INVENTED the argument of Equal Protection for that purpose! THIS isn't judicial activism? Using constitutional arguments in completely untraditional ways to meet a political end? Or, more likely, are such practicies warranted only when your political end is being met?

[0rganism]

11. I think it's more a matter of contempt for discourse

The right wing no longer cares about argumentive integrity, only perceptions matter. And propaganda is every bit as effective for motivating people as a sound argument. Sure, there are others besides Sekulow who could have been on their panel, and done much better than Coulter and Limbaugh, but they are unnecessary. Simple propagandists will suffice.

EVERYTHING the right wing takes seriously is political powerplay. If it doesn't lead to large campaign contributions and votes for the republican candidates, it just isn't worth doing. Why bother with a real debate on issues? They might lose. But an opportunity to saturate the airwaves with propaganda is not to be missed.

[grasswire]

14. does anyone remember...

...the sponsoring organization of this debate? I'm trying to find the video on c-span with no luck so far.

[thebigidea]

15. Regent University, with a smiling Pat Robertson introducing

[grasswire]

16. still can't find the video...

...the search function on c-span.org turns up nothing for regent university. Bizarre.

[thebigidea]

17. its not online, but here's the link

http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=170640067

[grasswire]

19. thanks

I guess that great commentary is lost to those of us who don't want to spring for $29.95 for a tape. Bummer.

[KFC]

18. What is the controversy about SCROTUMS?

Doesn't seem like something to argue about.