The Hypocrisy here is at Epic Levels

[berni_mccoy]

Yesterday, I posted ( http://journals.democraticunderground.com/berni_mccoy/978 ) that Greenwald has no credibility attacking Kagan as a pick because he, voluntarily, defended a racists organization whose leader is a convicted murderer. He wasn't their criminal defense lawyer, he was their civil representation.

The overwhelming response: "That's his job".

And yet, the primary criticism that's being leveled at Kagan here (because there is nothing else against her): Kagan, acting as Solicitor General, defended the Government in it's case against Scrushy/Siegleman by filing a brief (here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/23440615/Siegelman-Case-Elena-Kagan-Reply-Brief ) to deny their petition for a writ of certiorari.

And yet, the justification that it was her job does not apply here.

Let's summarize this:

Greenwald defending racists murderers first amendment rights voluntarily: it's his job.

Kagan defending the government as the appointed defender: No excuse.

Yep, epic hypocrisy.

[Major Hogwash]

1. The dial has been turned all the way to "11" for quite awhile now.

Just use earphones, and then pull the plug on them and it won't bother you anymore.

[phleshdef]

2. And I'll bet none of the guilty parties will answer to this.

[EFerrari]

7. There is absolutely no comparison between upholding the First Amendment

and upholding the corruption of the Bush DoJ.

[berni_mccoy]

13. Exactly HOW is she "upholding the corruption of the Bush DoJ."?

This is where you fail a basic logic test.

[EFerrari]

18. Excuse me? What "basic logic" is there in defending a verdict

reached in the court of a corrupt judge and pursued by a corrupt prosecutor under the direction of a corrupt DoJ and Karl Rove? Did you not follow this case at ALL?

Maybe before you attack people who are nauseated by this case, you should spend a minute of your precious time to find out what they're talking about.

[berni_mccoy]

20. Basic logic fail: "defending a verdict" that she was not doing.

She was denying a petition for a writ of certiorari. There is a big difference.

Neither is she "covering Bush ass" or "upholding corruption of Bush DoJ" as you so epically failed at accusing her.

[EFerrari]

25. You cannot deny the stakes in that case. They are public record.

Fail yourself.

[phleshdef]

26. By your standards of basic logic, a violent crime defense attorney is pro-murder and pro-rape.

I don't think I want to have anything to do with your laughable sense of basic logic.

[EFerrari]

31. Another failed analogy. A defense attorney's duty is to defend his client.

A prosecutor has an altogether different job.

Look in the mirror.

[phleshdef]

36. Um, She was an appointed defender for the government for the issue in question.

But throw around the word "failed" some more and top if off with some other cringe worthy, unoriginal cliches like "look in the mirror". Its REALLY helping your argument.

[EFerrari]

40. And more fail and more bullying. Sorry, friend. Ms. Kagan

is an active participant in a miscarriage of justice. There is no comparison between that and defending the First Amendment even for scum. In this country, scum has First Amendment rights.

The administration has had over a year to take the high road and they have not. She has been complicit in the course they are pursuing, not only for Siegelman but also for Paul Minor.

[berni_mccoy]

46. The only bullying that's going on around here is a proclamation that she's bad

because she's Obama's pick. And that anyone who thinks otherwise isn't a "true liberal". You and others here have been proclaiming what a "true liberal" is for some time now. That's the bullying that's going on.

[EFerrari]

63. Please show me that post. Thanks.

[Ignis]

75. I second that emotion. I'd like to see the support for that smear.

...Though I suspect I'll be waiting a while. :eyes:

I guess you just need to stop hanging out in "bad company" if you don't want to get hit with the broad brush, EFerrari.

:rofl:

[phleshdef]

51. Blah, blah, fail, fail, you are a bully, throw in some self righteous platitudes and baseless claims

Rinse. Repeat.

[EFerrari]

64. Congressional Inquiry Urged in Prosecution of Ex-Governor

By ERIC LIPTON
Published: July 17, 2007

WASHINGTON, July 16 — Forty-four former state attorneys general, mostly Democrats but also some Republicans, have signed a petition asking Congress to investigate whether politics played a role in the criminal case against former Gov. Don E. Siegelman of Alabama.

Mr. Siegelman, a Democrat who was governor from 1999 to 2003, is in federal prison while appealing his conviction and seven-year sentence on charges of accepting bribes from an Alabama hospital executive. He has long contended that his prosecution was politically motivated.

In their petition, sent to the chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, the former attorneys general said, “There is reason to believe that the case brought against Governor Siegelman may have had sufficient irregularities as to call into question the basic fairness that is the linchpin of our system of justice.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/17/washington/17attorneys.html?ei=5090&en=f082c6134507fb5d&ex=1342324800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1200852823-zfgkyLmGTq+dPqHgroW8tw

[berni_mccoy]

32. Greenwald wasn't their criminal defense attorney.

[rudy23]

3. Fine--Neither Greenwald NOR Kagan should serve on the Supreme Court if they're going to carry water

for racists and fascist election-riggers

[berni_mccoy]

4. I'm glad you admit Greenwald's attacks on Kagan are baseless.

[rudy23]

24. No, I just admit they should keep Greenwald from the Supreme Court. Not baseless at all. n/t

[kestrel91316]

5. Certain people here will stop at nothing to attack Obama and any and all

actions he takes. I have my own personal theories about why they do that, lol, but I can't say it here.

[EFerrari]

6. .So, let me get this straight.

Trying to send an innocent man to jail for 20 years = okay. Defending the civil rights of a hate group = bad.

Is this satire?

[berni_mccoy]

9. I got it... Greenwald is special. Kagan, not so much.

Kagan has no right to fulfill her duties as Solicitor General.

Greenwald can defend the rights of any scum he wants, voluntarily.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. no it seems to have gone right over your head, at ground level.

First amendment rights do not disappear if you are 'scum', one's duties as solicitor general ought to include resigning rather than participating in an ongoing travesty of justice.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. What part of 'resign' do you think encompasses authority over the case?

Clearly you are not arguing against anything I wrote in your response above. I suggested that the principled action she should have taken with respect to the Seigleman was to resign. Likewise the principled stand with respect to the first amendment rights of 'scum' is to defend those rights. That is the actual equivalency here, not the stupid false one you presented in your OP. And, as you so cleverly pointed out, when it comes to outright glaring stupidity, I am an expert.

[EFerrari]

14. What is the legal principle Kagan was defending, berni?

Greenwald was defending the 1st Amendment. Is there something in the Constitution about covering Bush ass that I'm overlooking?

[berni_mccoy]

16. This is where your hatred for Obama blinds you. She's not "covering Bush ass".

She's applying a defense for the Gov't. She has no power to undo the case or make it magically go away. She cannot argue for Siegleman or Scrushy.

[EFerrari]

23. My hatred of Obama? LOL

I can feel myself getting stupid just reading this thread.

So, you can't answer the question?

Your comparison fails.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. there is a minor difference here you might want to address

A: racist murderers have first amendment rights.
B: the Siegleman case is a travesty of justice.

Did you wish to amend your OP to address this minor discrepancy?

[berni_mccoy]

10. She filed a motion to deny a writ of certiorari. She was the appointed defense for the Gov't.

What else is she suppose to do? She can't dismiss the case.

[Major Hogwash]

11. To be honest, I thought they banned Epic Levels 2 years ago,

But, I may be wrong.

LoL

Hyperbole at 10 o'clock in the morning is too much for me.

[Oregone]

19. "I love the smell of hyperbole in the morning"

[Oregone]

17. Deleted message

[depakid]

21. Sorry that you don't seem to understand what the word "hypocrisy" means

but suffice it to say, it has nothing to do with your antipathy for Greenwald for pointing out some uncomfortable facts and analysis regarding Kagan.

Typical under the bus behavior aimed at anyone who dares criticize something the fearless leader does or promotes and quite frankly a lot of us are getting sick and tired of it.

[berni_mccoy]

22. Your ridiculous presumption that I have antipathy for Greenwald is just that.

You presume to know me, but know nothing about me. And you continue to attack the President on anything and everything you can, faster than the right does. Yes, there is hypocrisy here for Kagan and you are going to do anything and everything you can to label anyone who likes or supports the President as either dumb or evil. You've been exposed for your immediate attacks on Kagan as someone who will baseless take an opposing stance against the President.

[depakid]

33. That's sure what it sounds like to me!

Greenwald is a private attorney taking various cases. That's what Private attorney's do!

Kagan (in your example) is a representative of the government- and thus she owes a duty to the people to exercise appropriate prosecutorial discretion.

The two situations aren't comparable- and neither Greenwald nor DU'ers are in any way "hypocritical" for viewing the situations- and assessing criticisms rationally in context.

[phleshdef]

37. The duty of the representative of the government is to represent the government.

That was her job. You don't GET to decide what the description of that job is. I know that must be hard for you to swallow. But lying about the description of the job she held isn't going to help your refute the OP.

[EFerrari]

44. Officers of the Court take an oath to uphold the law

and probably in Federal Courts, to uphold the Constitution. That is their first duty.

[phleshdef]

50. What laws did Kagan break? How did she violate the consitution? When will these smears end?

[EFerrari]

62. I was speaking directly to your point about what her duty is.

How is that a smear? Are you smearing her? LOL

[Warren Stupidity]

49. "You don't GET to decide what the description of that job is."

You do however get to decide if your actions would cross an ethical boundary that should not be crossed. It was also Yoo's job description to provde legal theories for Bush torture policies. Would you argue that Yoo was merely 'following orders' and thus committed no ethical (or legal) violations?

[phleshdef]

52. Point taken. But the theories Kagan presented are being misrepresented by her critics.

So the whole thing is being blown out of proportion in the first place. Aside from that though, it does trouble me to see Elena Kagan attacked for doing what she was suppose to be doing.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. we could argue honestly about that, about the OP, not so much.

[phleshdef]

29. So hypocrisy means lawyers shouldn't do their jobs. Criminals should not have defense attorneys...

When will we stop institutionalizing hypocrisy!!!!?

I'm outraged!

[EFerrari]

34. Actually, that's berni's argument. Take it up with him.

[berni_mccoy]

39. LOL! Let. Me. Spell. It. For. You. Slowly. You're only point against Kagan is one you blindly

ignore against Greenwald who you allow to criticize her.

Is. That. Easier. For. You. To. Under. Stand?

[EFerrari]

43. Nope My point is, your analogy doesn't work to an embarrassing degree.

And I don't need Greenwald to form my own opinions, thanks.

[berni_mccoy]

45. Your failure of logic is that it's NOT an analogy. It's a fucking sad reality here.

[EFerrari]

61. You are comparing apples and allen wrenches. n/t

[mmonk]

27. The difference is in administering the law vs practicing law.

I do not believe in using law to circumvent the law.

[tranche]

28. It's complicated. Only the superior minds of Greenwaldians can comprehend.

[sandnsea]

30. Oh wow, I finally get what Siegelman did

Good lord, he sold a seat on the CON Board so Scrushy could control what medical facilities were opened in Alabama in direct benefit to HealthSouth. Scrushy, a crook on the level of Ken Lay, and these people are defending them. Siegelman isn't saying he didn't do this, he's just saying it's legal because everybody does it.

Holy criminy. And people accuse Obama supporters of only looking at the D.

[berni_mccoy]

38. Yes, there is that point too, however,

it is overlooked for some reason around here... Maybe it's because Siegleman painted himself as a victim of Rove's. I don't know. But it's an ancillary point as to why people have shown a double standard around here against Kagan.

[WeDidIt]

42. Rove, the all powerful evil genius made Siegleman do that stuf

Didn't you know? He used the government mind rays and the tinfoil actually AMPLIFIED them.

[mmonk]

67. I have no double standard against Kagan.

I opposed her before I knew of Greenwald's position on her. I would oppose her regardless of Siegleman as well. Sometimes, its just simply because we do not agree with her nomination and doesn't have a particular link to anyone else. Sometimes, there's no "grouping" involved.

[rudy23]

53. WOW!!!! So now we're defending the process in Alabama that so many US attny generals opposed?

WOW!

[sandnsea]

55. Elaborate please

And then cite Kagan's errors.

[rudy23]

58. 52 former state attorney generals from both parties wrote letters alleging misconduct in that case

There was clear political motivation and conspiracy in this case (Rove was infamously at the center of it all), and Kagan urged the Supreme Court to deny Siegelman an appeal


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1858991,00.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-kreig/siegelman-judge-asked-to_b_534628.html

(the link to Kagan's brief has been removed from the HuffPo article)

[sandnsea]

60. Again

Cite Kagan's specific errors. I can't respond to you if I don't know your specific beef.

I don't care if Rove was at the center of it. The man sold the CON Board seat and doesn't deny it.

Prosecutorial misconduct is a separate issue. Please elaborate your position.

[joeybee12]

35. Lots of chutzpah in writing this...

...lost of reasons kagan isn't a good nominee...but God forbid you should take the time to read those and simply do a knee-jerk defense of everything Obama...as usual.

[Forkboy]

71. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Berni is the single most kneejerk poster on DU.

It's on display daily.

[Donnachaidh]

73. kneejerk -- I'd call it tourrettes

especially if you post something that goes against the talking point of the day.

[VMI Dem]

41. Welfare reform? Ban late term abortion?

I see the centrists are spinning this one too.

[sandnsea]

54. Not exactly

The recommendation was to pass Daschle's bill that protected the health of the mother, rather than risk a Republican override of his veto and having to implement a truly heinous abortion bill.

That's a political calculation, not an opinion on abortion. And that's not spinning, that's fact.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/elena-kagan-urged-bill-cl_n_570935.html

[WolverineDG]

48. You just now noticed? nt

[Rex]

56. Depending on who you talk to around here, it is always at epic hypocrisy levels.

Just have to find the right threads. Like this one. Epic.

[berni_mccoy]

59. Your question about how ThinkProgress's endorsement of Kagan will be spun...

now that was Epic.

:rofl:

Can't wait to find out the answer to that question.

:popcorn:

[Rex]

66. Same here pass the popcorn.

[Greyhound]

65. If you keep twisting that much, that frequently, you're going to end up at the chiropractor's.

It has nothing to do with her doing her job, it is that she is far too conciliatory, even submissive, to any authority. Even when that authority is illegitimate and committing crimes. SG's do their jobs and still write their opinions and objections all the time.

[berni_mccoy]

68. LOLOLOLOL! That's all you got?!?! Bwahahahahah

Right... she's too concilliatory? :rofl:
she's submissive? :rofl:

You guys have really let this nomination get under your skin.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[berni_mccoy]

70. LOL!

Says the person with the make-out photo of Kucinich in their sig-line!!!

Oh the fucking irony!

[Forkboy]

72. Like Greenwald has so clearly gotten under yours?

:shrug:

[berni_mccoy]

74. Like this post has gotten under yours?

[Forkboy]

76. It hasn't.

It's been interesting, not annoying. I'm not a kneejerk reactionary, berni. That would be you.

And on edit, I believe EFerrari is waiting for some evidence from you above.