What Glenn Greenwald Got Wrong about the Constitution

[NJmaverick]

by Doug Kendall, President & Founder, and Hannah McCrea, Online Communications Director, of Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC)

Over at Salon, Glenn Greenwald has been urging calm among progressives who are appalled and angry at the Supreme Court’s ruling last week in Citizens United v. FEC, and accusing progressive critics of the ruling of over-simplifying the law and under-respecting the First Amendment. But his own analysis is surprisingly shallow and his burden is pretty high when he is essentially saying that Justice Stevens’ brilliant and comprehensive 90 page dissent, joined in full by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, gets the Constitution wrong, and the five conservatives on the Roberts Court got this one right. He doesn’t come close to making that argument stick.

SNIP

Greenwald’s main beef with progressive critics of the ruling is that we are fighting issues such as “money is speech” and “corporate personhood,” which are not really front and center in the case. To Greenwald – as to the majority – Citizens United is simply about the First Amendment and nothing else. Greenwald writes:

I tend to take a more absolutist view of the First Amendment than many people, but laws which prohibit organized groups of people — which is what corporations are — from expressing political views goes right to the heart of free speech guarantees no matter how the First Amendment is understood. Does anyone doubt that the facts that gave rise to this case — namely, the government’s banning the release of a critical film about Hillary Clinton by Citizens United — is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid? And does anyone doubt that the First Amendment bars the government from restricting the speech of organizations composed of like-minded citizens who band together in corporate form to work for a particular cause?

Whether one calls this an “absolutist” view or just an “overly simplistic” one is, perhaps, a matter of semantics, but Greenwald is missing the point. Yes, individuals should have the right to form and express political views, whether as a voting bloc, an alliance of protestors, or a legally-recognized entity that collects individual donations to advance a political message. If the Court had written a narrow opinion vindicating the speech of such groups, it is likely that we would have seen a unanimous opinion. After all, at oral argument, Justice Stevens himself argued for precisely this result.

http://theusconstitution.org/blog.history/?p=1511

[tekisui]

1. This is an old article. Is this the only piece you could find to

attack Greenwald on?

[NJmaverick]

2. So you support the Supreme Court ruling that companies are people, just like Greenwald

why am I not surprised

[tekisui]

3. I didn't defend a word. I questioned your point in posting an

article from January. :shrug:


ETA: Probably the wrong forum, too.

[NJmaverick]

4. His dishonest and hate filled article has been posted Ad nauseam here on DU

It seemed people should know what drives the man that wrote that bile filled article that has become DU spam.

[tekisui]

6. Like I said, the best you can do is a 4 month old article?

In which you snipped the paragraph praising Greenwald's intellect and ability. I guess Greenwald's latest hit a little too close to home for you.:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

7. Wrong as usual, here is some seriously damning dirt on this creep

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8300166#8300261

He's a corporate stooge fearful that Kagan will overturn Citizens United

[fortune]

13. Huh? Greenwald has slammed Goldman Sachs in the past

Here's Greenwald arguing against appointing Goldman Sachs stooges to the white House: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/10/16/goldman

How is that consistent with Greenwald being a corporate stooge?

Here's Greenwald slamming the bailout and Goldmann Sachs. How is that consistent with a corporate stooge? http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/07/13/goldman

[NJmaverick]

15. He wasn't slamming them when he worked for them

[katandmoon]

19. Elena Kagan also worked for Goldman Sachs.

[NJmaverick]

20. link?????

[tekisui]

24. Possible Supreme Court pick had ties with Goldman Sachs

WASHINGTON — A top prospect for the Supreme Court was a paid member of an advisory panel for the embattled investment firm Goldman Sachs, federal financial disclosures show.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan was a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute, according to the financial disclosures she filed when President Obama appointed her last year to her current post. Kagan served on the Goldman panel from 2005 through 2008, when she was dean of Harvard Law School, and received a $10,000 stipend for her service in 2008, her disclosure forms show.

A spokesman for Goldman Sachs did not respond to requests for comment Monday.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-04-26-kagan_N.htm

[NJmaverick]

26. So she didn't work for Goldman Sachs but was on an advisory panel

associated with them, that's far less than Greenwald's connections and strong support of Corporations and their citizenship rights.

[katandmoon]

28. She took money directly from Goldman Sachs.

[tekisui]

29. But, not as much as Greenwald!11!!1

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

31. Greenwald supports Goldman Sach's personhood, that says it all about him

not sure how anyone could support a guy that supports the worst Supreme Court ruling in our nation's history.

[tekisui]

36. He supports absolute freedom of speech.

Citizens United is not nearly the worst SC ruling. You obviously don't know, or forget, history.

[NJmaverick]

39. no he doesn't as the average citizen's voice will be drowned out by corporate millions

Greenwald has zero clue about the Constitution and has little interest in what's best for our nation

[tekisui]

44. You want to limit unions and progressive activist organization's

political speech as well? The First Amendment is a tricky beast.

[phleshdef]

42. LOL. "Absolute freedom of speech" is probably the best Murdoch style spin I've seen on the CU case.

Good job.

[fortune]

97. You falsely state that Greenwald assigns "personhood" to corporations

He simply states that the constitution does not only grant rights to "persons."

GREENWALD: "As for the question of whether corporations possess "personhood," that's an interesting issue and, as I said, I'm very sympathetic to the argument that they do not, but the majority's ruling here did not really turn on that question. That's because the First Amendment does not only vest rights in "persons." It says nothing about "persons." It simply bans Congress from making any laws abridging freedom of speech."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united

[katandmoon]

37. This is true, Greenwald obviously took so much money from Goldman that he has time to do nothing but

personally trash Obama 24/7.

[fortune]

100. When, and in what capacity, did Greenwald work for Goldman Sachs? n/t

[NJmaverick]

32. Kagan doesn't want to make Goldman Sachs a citizen like Greenwald does

[katandmoon]

41. Actually you don't know that she doesn't. She has no judicial record.

[NJmaverick]

50. She argued against Citizens United in the Supreme Court

[katandmoon]

108. SHE HAS NO JUDICIAL RECORD

[NJmaverick]

141. Now you are just not making sense. She argued against Citizen United

typing in caps doesn't making it relevant or appropriate

[phleshdef]

35. She didn't take money from anyone. She EARNED money while LEGALLY employed as an advisor.

I'm all for people praising or criticizing her judicial philosophy. But this empty, shallow, guilt by association bitching needs to stop. Goldman Sachs has employed probably over a hundred thousand people over the last 15 years or so.

[tekisui]

40. Including Greenwald.

You should address your post to the OP who is trying to denigrate Greenwald for his 'ties'.

[phleshdef]

45. The OP is just playing the same game you and others play here all the time.

You dish out the same kind of bullshit all the time. I think you can learn to take it a little bit.

[tekisui]

47. .

:cry:

[NJmaverick]

43. but President Obama may pick her for the Supreme Court so she must be bad

:sarcasm:

[katandmoon]

48. but President Obama may pick her for the Supreme Court so she must be good

:sarcasm:

[tekisui]

52. Logic escapes that one.

[NJmaverick]

89. If only you understood the concept of logic

although your "that one" attack is eerily similar to the classic "the one" right wing attacks on President Obama

[tekisui]

99. Look at your screen name.

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

53. Sorry but I don't buy into your concept that there must be knee jerk opposition to President Obama

[tekisui]

55. Sorry but I don't buy into your concept that there must be knee jerk suport to President Obama

[NJmaverick]

60. One doesn't need to have "knee jerk support" for the Presidennt

one needs simply be open minded and willing to listen to the President's explanations.

[tekisui]

68. lol.

Funniest thing you have ever written.

[NJmaverick]

70. Sadly I could see thinking being open minded as funny

[tekisui]

71. Keep it coming!

Open thinking from you!!!!:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[NJmaverick]

128. well if a poster who think laughing icons are the height of intellect

is against her than she must be bad:eyes:

[fortune]

101. Didn't Greenwald support Sotomayor before and after Obama picked her?

That undermines your claimt that Greenwald would oppose anyone that Obama were to pick.

If Obama picks Diane Wood, do you think Greenwald would stop being pro-Wood?

[NJmaverick]

127. nope

[tekisui]

161. link?

[Jefferson23]

164. Greenwald's connections? Did you read the wiki link that

was given to you in the earlier thread?

"During law school, he worked as an intern and Summer Associate at the New York law firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, and after graduation, he practiced law in the Litigation Department at Wachtell, Lipton (1994–1995); in 1996 he co-founded his own litigation firm, called Greenwald Christoph & Holland (later renamed Greenwald Christoph PC), where he litigated cases concerning issues of U.S. constitutional law and civil rights.<1><13>"


As an intern, what makes you think he was responsible for that long list of cases, and are you aware of the type of law
he later practiced?

[skepticscott]

111. So when will your acknowledgment

that Glenn Greenwald never worked for Goldman Sachs be forthcoming?

Yeah, I know...not holding my breath...

[Cha]

95. How don't care how old the article is..

no reason you should be censored because somebody doesn't want it seen.

[dionysus]

160. he's a hero because he hates obama. meanwhile in the real word, he's some dipshit blogger no one has

ever even heard of.

[skepticscott]

10. Why do people like you

keep trotting out the tired and false notion that this case was about "corporate personhood"? The First Amendment doesn't simply apply to individuals, nor do many other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It simply says that Congress cannot restrict the freedom of speech...period. The First Amendment makes no distinctions regarding where political speech has to be coming from in order to be protected. You may not like the idea of corporate personhood, but whether corporations are legally considered as "persons" or not is irrelevant to this particular case.

[NJmaverick]

16. because "people like me" care about Americans and want to protect them

from the worse abuses by big business. What about you? Why do you defend the corporate citizenship?

[ipaint]

38. LOL. Spare me your neo lib version of "care". nt

[NJmaverick]

74. "caring" is what drives me to hold mostly liberal views

what about yourself? what drives you if it isn't caring?

[ipaint]

98. neo-liberal. There is a differnce.

[Cha]

119. "neo liberal"? Stupid labels don't make your case.

[skepticscott]

59. Care all you want

but either do it within the context of the existing law, or get the law changed if you don't like it. If you need to misrepresent facts to advance your position, then your position may need another look.

And please quote where I said anything about defending "corporate citizenship", or else stop putting words in my mouth. I said that corporate personhood, whether you agree with it or not, is irrelevant to this case. Free speech protections are not limited to individuals.

[NJmaverick]

75. I suggest you look at the link I provided that clearly shows the flaws in the

Citizen United case and Glenn's position

[skepticscott]

84. I've read it, thanks

and here's what I read:

Greenwald, of course, is widely and appropriately respected among progressives for his aggressive defense of constitutional principles and their abuse in the execution of this country’s “War on Terror.”

(My emphasis)

On the other hand, you and the other Greenwald bashers here have stated that he knows nothing about the Constitution, never posts a single fact in any of his columns, and is completely full of it. So either the person writing the piece you linked to doesn't know what he's talking about, or you don't know what you're talking about. Tell us which it is.

[NJmaverick]

115. You seemed to have skipped all the main points and heard only what you wanted to hear

[skepticscott]

130. Answer my question first

because if the guy writing the article doesn't know what he's talking about (by your own acknowledgment), why would I bother refuting his arguments?

Since the author clearly thinks that Greenwald should be respected for his treatment of Constitutional issues in the past, and you've stated just as clearly that Greenwald is clueless about the Constitution, one of you is full of shit, right? Which one is it?

If you can answer that question directly and honestly (which I doubt), then, if your answer warrants it, I'll devote the time to demolishing the rest of the article. It's not that hard, btw...sorry, but that's what happens when you blather on about issues that are outside of your intellectual understanding, and just rely on quote from peoples who agree with you to make your case. I won't rely on any quotes from Greenwald to make you look foolish.

[NJmaverick]

131. No, you were given a solid and compelling argument against yours and Greenwald's position and you

dismissed it out of hand

[skepticscott]

134. Gee, what a shock

you dodged the direct question again. I know how much it sucks to be pinned on that point, but you are...deal with it. By your own statements, either you or the author of this piece is full of shit, and if it's him, your contention that his argument is "solid and compelling" doesn't hold water, now does it? So which one of you is wrong?

[NJmaverick]

135. No I wasn't shocked by your out of hand dismissal

[skepticscott]

143. Duck, dodge, weave

You're pinned and screwed on this point, so I won't waste my time with you any more. Debating you is no more productive than debating a radish. Silly me not to have seen that sooner.

[NJmaverick]

144. Your self declarations of victory are laughable at best

Especially as you avoid and ignore REAL DEBATE

[CTLawGuy]

5. Man

Greenwald sure loves those corporations, doesn't he...

[NJmaverick]

8. Perhaps that's why he opposes Kagan, she might want to over turn People United

[CTLawGuy]

136. he just dislikes anything Obama does

for some reason.

[Cha]

120. Now that greenwald defends them.

[WeDidIt]

9. One important note, Greenwald has never gotten anything right. n/t

[katandmoon]

22. So you disagree with all his many scathing criticisms of BushCo and its MSM enablers?

[NJmaverick]

79. Anyone with half a brain was critical of George Bush, that doesn't buy him any credibility

[saltpoint]

76. I agree. He's been way off way often.

One of the least readable analysts out there, IMO.

[HughMoran]

86. I came to that conclusion a while back

I unsubscribed to the incessant crap my mailbox was being spammed with. What a relief that was.

[fortune]

11. The article is dated January, 2010

May I ask why you brought up a 4-month old article? Pehraps solely because it's an anti-Greenwald piece?

[NJmaverick]

14. This hate monger's latest venom filled attack article has been posted repeatedly

It's important that people see where this mindless hater is coming from. He is a corporate stooge that has worked for many of the big corporations and the CATO institute. He probably doesn't like Kagan because he is afraid she will over turn his beloved Peoples United case

[grantcart]

106. its not the age of the article that is relevent its the degree that it shows Greenwald

to be an uneven thinker approaching gadfly status.

Do you defend Greenwald in the Citizens United or do you pick and choose Greenwald as a source.

[BootinUp]

12. Greenwald shouldn't pick a battle with Stevens

he will lose 99% of the time.

[fortune]

102. Greenwald agrees with Stevens almost always

Should anyone agree with anyone 100% of the time?

[BootinUp]

105. That was not my meaning nt

[ClarkUSA]

17. It's obvious that Glenn Greenwald is an intellectually shallow professional shit-stirrer...

... who hasn't got a clue about the Constitution. That's why the constitutional scholars quoted in the OP and constitutional law professor President Obama are opposed to the decision in Citizens United.

[NJmaverick]

18. Funny that someone so clueless about the Constitution has the arrogance to comment on the Supreme

Court pick

[ClarkUSA]

27. What's even funnier: his loyal followers don't care how clueless he is re: the Constitution...

... as long as he keeps bashing Obama long enough for them to post his OPs regularly on DU. They used to love Paul Krugman for that reason, too, until Krugman ate crow. And Greenwald knows that if he didn't twist himself into a pretzel in order to oppose every decision the Obama administration makes, he'll lose his standing among the 24/7 Obama critics who drive traffic to his website, which in turn justifies his paycheck. He is the epitome of a media whore.

Thanks for posting this OP and exposing the fact that he used to work for Goldman-Sachs. I predict that his devoted followers here will ignore this fact even though they are the same folks who repeatedly demonize anyone with ties to Goldman-Sachs.

[katandmoon]

33. Greenwald is critical of Obama for the same thiings he was critical of Bush for

[ClarkUSA]

61. Um, no. He is siding w/BushCo forces on the Citizens-United decision, as detailed in the OP.

Let's not put lipstick on a pig just because the pig is a professional Obama basher.

[Cha]

96. greenwald the human pretzel who used to work for goldman-sachs.

He needs to straighted himself out before he's worries about anyone else's business.

Lose "his standing" and all that fund raising fueled by hatin' on Pres Obama.

[katandmoon]

109. If GS is so horrible then why did Obama accept GS campaign contributions?

[skepticscott]

112. Can you cite when he was an employee of Goldman Sachs,

and what his position at the company was? Or did you just read that posted somewhere and swallow it whole, like all of the other sheep here?

[Cha]

118. greenwald is the head baaaa baaaaa

whether he worked at goldman sachs or not is the least of the human pretzel's problems.

[skepticscott]

125. Nice job of tearing down the goalposts

why not just admit you were wrong and got caught spreading falsehoods, and move on?

[NJmaverick]

129. Why? They have been proven RIGHT

[skepticscott]

133. Proven right? Where and how?

Cite for us your evidence. When was Greenwald an employee of Goldman Sachs and what was his position at the company? You know all this and can demonstrate it, right? Because if it were a lie and you knew it, and kept repeating it, well...you do the math...

[skepticscott]

163. And of course, crickets

no facts, ever...just mindless, hopelessly biased blather.

[Cha]

138. greenwald doesn't give a shit when he spreads lies.

[Name removed]

142. Deleted message

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

[cornermouse]

21. Desperation in motion.

Too funny. :rofl:

[Cha]

121. Yes, greenwald is a fucking desperate

asshole.

[saltpoint]

23. Greenwald strikes me as a very bright mind who is crippled by his bias

against the president.

I disagree with just about anything he's done since Obama's election and I definitely don't trust his instincts on Court appointments or rulings.

[NJmaverick]

25. That's a pretty good take on things

[katandmoon]

30. He's as "biased" against Obama as he was againt Bush, for the EXACT SAME THINGS

You do realize that, don't you? Greenwald is consistent. He ddn't like Bush's wiping his ass with the Constitution and he doesn't like it when Obama does it, either.

[NJmaverick]

34. Nope your assessment is flawed

Because it is based on the assumption that there is no difference between the two men. Any reasoned and rational person can see there is a huge difference between President Bush and President Obama

[katandmoon]

46. So it's different when BuchCo eavesdrops without warrants than when ObamaCo does it?

[tekisui]

51. ANd, Obama's indefinite detentions are better than bush's too!

Not to mention Obama's increase and expansion of drone strikes. A program which bush started.

[NJmaverick]

58. Yep President Obama supported green energy, stem cell research, the poor, students

veterans, ending the Iraq war, ending DADT just like George Bush

[katandmoon]

63. Has Greenwald criticized Obama for any of those things?

[NJmaverick]

77. He has criticized President Obama for opposing the Citizens United ruling

That's is unforgivable in my book.

[katandmoon]

83. And yet you are unable to understand the concept that there some things OBAMA says/does that are

just as unforgivable in OTHER people's books.

[NJmaverick]

92. Oh I have no doubt you don't forgive the President for some perceived slight

[katandmoon]

110. Obama will make do just fine with the almost million bucks his last campaign got from Goldman Sachs

[NJmaverick]

114. See that's not exactly true. President Obama made his money with small donations

that means every $50 or $100 he got from a citizen that worked for Goldman Sachs counted as having come from Goldman Sachs.

[tekisui]

66. I applaud most of his domestic efforts.

He hasn't ended the Iraq War yet, nor has ended DADT. I don't know why you read into my post on specific issues that I was trying to equate him to bush.

Slow down and think while you read and before you post. On specific issues his is just the same as bush: definite detention and drone strikes are a couple. That in no way suggests or implies that he is like bush on any other issue. Get it?

[NJmaverick]

78. Yet there are no posts of you applauding, why is that?

[tekisui]

80. Sure there are. You can find some if you search.

You also don't know when I rec, or what I do outside DU.

[NJmaverick]

57. Yep President Obama supported green energy, stem cell research, the poor, students

veterans, ending the Iraq war, ending DADT just like George Bush

[spiritual_gunfighter]

123. It is different to some people as you can see

Pathetic really.

[cornermouse]

49. Yep.

That's why he ended Bush's spying on Americans, closed Guantanamo, made it clear that American citizens in other countries can't be assassinated by their own government, got us out of the mideast, and as Yul Brenner would have said, etc.," etc, etc."

[NJmaverick]

56. Yep President Obama supported green energy, stem cell research, the poor, students

veterans, ending the Iraq war, ending DADT just like George Bush

[cornermouse]

65. More desperation in motion.

Tell me. When did he actually pull everyone out of Iraq and when did he actually end DADT? The poor? He hasn't done much at all for them other than use their tax money to bail out the golden boys of Wall Street.

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

73. You failed to address a single point I raised

[katandmoon]

82. You failed to address what Greenwald had to say about them re Obama.

[NJmaverick]

94. Gleenwald thinks the President was wrong to defend us against corporate domination

is that addressing things enough for you?

[tekisui]

103. They addressed three of your points.

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

117. Yet you couldn't list a single one

which is not the least surprising.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

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

[tekisui]

137. .

:rofl:

[katandmoon]

67. Please point out where Greenwald has criticized Obama for that?

[NJmaverick]

72. President Obama criticized quite vehemently Citizens United

as opposed to Greenwald who supported it

[katandmoon]

81. I'm not talking about Citizens United. I'm talking about the other things you mentioned.

You apparently thought it was relevant to raise them in this Glenn Greenwald topic, so I wanted to know what Greenwald had to say about them.

[NJmaverick]

90. We are talking a Supreme Court justice so nothing is more important than the worst ruling

in our nations' history. It shows Greenwald should kept as far away from the Supreme Court as is humanly possible

[tekisui]

104. It was not the worse ruling in history.

Christ. Learn a little. Dred Scott was worse. Korematsu was worse. Chae Chan Ping was worse. Bush v. Gore was worse. Those are just the easy ones.

[NJmaverick]

116. This one has the potential to END OUR DEMOCRACY

I suggest you take your own advice and read a little (actually read a whole lot)

[tekisui]

162. Are you familiar with those cases?

Japanese internment.
Restriction of Blacks from citizenship.
Upholding racism as an immigration policy.
8 years of bush.

Our democracy has never been for all.

BTW, when you capitalize random words, you give the impression that you think your one or two line thought-farts are too much for others to understand. The emphasis is unnecessary for us. We know how to read.

[saltpoint]

69. Greenwald has been consistent in his rabid bias.

I do realize that and have said as much more than once.

I skip him on the analyst landscape in favor of other writers.

Including on the subject of the Court.

[brentspeak]

54. Critical thinking = "bias"

Next thing you'll say is that "up" = "down" and that "white" = "black".

[NJmaverick]

62. Glenn Greenwald has not shown any 'thinking" much less any of a critical nature

[saltpoint]

64. Relax, brentspeak. The next thing I say is as unpredictable as a

Supreme Court nominee's ultimate disposition on cases.

For all you know I might reference Petula Clark's outstanding recording, "Don't Sleep in the Subway."

I've been known to reference it at the drop of a hat.

It pays to be ready for anything.

[HughMoran]

88. As I've said above, I unsubscribed to his crap

The guy was almost never right, so I shut off that spigot.

[saltpoint]

93. Hi, HughMoran. Good for you. And I have no qualms about the guy's

brains. He's very intelligent but good lord he's so biased he can't walk in a straight line without turning around to tie a dog's shoes.

If he doesn't like Obama, that's his call. But his bias is not more important than the maximum possibilities of current events. He pretends that it is.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

87. I think Glenn Greenwald is more consistant than most

He wrote about appalling policies when they were instituted by Bush and then he did not reverse judgement when those same policies were upheld and continued by President Obama. Policies take precedent over personality and I agree with him. I don't think he cares who he agrees or disagrees with or who agrees or disagrees with him. That's why I enjoy reading him and I think his columns are most often interesting and informative. I think he causes a lot of discomfort for people who place personality over policy because that instigates a lot of pretzel logic as to why something was awful and unConsitutional under Bush but is ok under Obama.

I completely disagree with him on Citizens United and was pretty apalled at his stance. BUT, then I also disagreed with the ACLU who also came out for the 1st Amendment argument as opposed to the corrupting the entire country, buying elections, corporate personahood stuff which also apalled me. ACLU apologists say that they supported just one tiny aspect of the decision, but no one has yet to convince me that they still weren't on the wrong side on this one. The Supreme Court got this one very very wrong and it should be overturned or countermanded with airtight legislation. All the righties who scream about judicial activism should shut up forever after Citizens United since Roberts went out of his way to expand the scope of the issue before him to facilitate fascism/corporatism and to drown out the free speech of individual citizens forever.

[NJmaverick]

91. Greenwald's support for the Citizen United ruling shows he is

clueless about our Constitution and there for his opinions on who should be picked as a Supreme Court Justice should be discounted. As for the tired "peronality" meme, give that sorry and intellectually dishonest talking point a badly needed retirement.

[freddie mertz]

107. The smear machine appears to be running on all cylinders.

Nothing about witchcraft yet, but I am sure it's not over yet.

Unrec.

[NJmaverick]

113. You are of course referring to Greenwald, who clearly is a master at smearing

[Cha]

122. But, he's a coward..he can smear his ass off..

but he can't take the facts about himself.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

132. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[freddie mertz]

148. No, I wasn't. nt.

[CBR]

139. Kagan is a witch? Thanks to Glenn for letting me know! The

Republic is SAVED!!!!!!!!

[NJmaverick]

140. She turned me into a newt

[freddie mertz]

150. That explains it, then.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

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

[freddie mertz]

149. Silly.

[CBR]

154. What is silly is decrying the "smear machine" while engaging in it. nt

[depakid]

145. Greenwald's wrong on this one- but he's right about Holder and Kagan's abandonment of principles

to "fight terror."

Indeed- by abandoning those principles, America loses the very battle it's supposedly fighting.

[Name removed]

146. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[freddie mertz]

151. Greenwald is this week's Emmanuel Goldstein.

Move over Bill Maher.....

[NJmaverick]

153. Greenwald is getting what he deserved, he was dishonest in his attacks on the President's supporters

and he is rightfully being called on the carpet those reprehensible actions and for his atrocious judgment in the Citizens United case

[freddie mertz]

155. Forgive me if I am unmoved.

Clear, principled arguments with what the man has said are one thing, smears are something else.

I have not made up my mind about Kagan yet, but am feeling the push to oppose her after viewing the relentless and in some cases, frankly dishonest attacks on her critics.

Your use of typically overheated, hyperbolic modifiers in the above post is just one example of how these (depressingly familiar) tactics undermine any valid argument you might have been able to make.

[NJmaverick]

156. Principled and Greenwald should not be used in the same sentence

unless it's too talk about Greenwald's utter lack of principles.

[freddie mertz]

157. I expected too much I guess.

Keep spitting it out then.

It only hurts your cause anyway.

[NJmaverick]

158. What hurts OUR cause is your efforts to undermine our DEMOCRATIC President

Not my bringing up examples of one particurly nasty and outspoken critics questionable judgment

[freddie mertz]

159. Nonsense.

From one adhominem to another.

Bye.

[Moochy]

166. You showed him a thing or two,

he'll think twice before messing with our team!111111111111111111111111111111111

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

165. He's clueless about Kagan's legal briefs, too. SCOTUSBlog has refuted his bullshit attacks on her.

SCOTUSBlog, in their 9,750 word profile of Kagan has debunked his completely false attacks on Kagan:

"Some have criticized Elena Kagan for supposedly favoring a strong view of executive power. They equate her views with support for the Bush Administration’s policies related to the “war on terror.” Generally speaking, these critics very significantly misunderstand what Kagan has written. Kagan’s only significant discussion of the issue of executive power comes in her article Presidential Administration, published in 2001 in the Harvard Law Review. The article has nothing to do with the questions of executive power that are implicated by the Bush policies – for example, power in times of war and in foreign affairs. It is instead concerned with the President’s power in the administrative context – i.e., the President’s ability to control executive branch and independent agencies. That kind of power is concerned with, for example, who controls the vast collection of federal agencies as they respond to the Gulf oil spill and the economic crisis."

Glenn "Clueless" Greenwald also missed Elena Kagan's 2005 letter to Senator Leahy on executive power, where she opposed the expansion of it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x293888

[Flaneur]

167. Slimy hack tactics by the OP. This is really embarrassing.

[Cha]

168. "slimey hack tactics"? look at yourself.