Kagan in 1989: [2 Live Crew’s album, As Nasty As They Wanna Be, banned by a federal judge because of its sexual content, isn’t obscene, because] Nasty does not physically excite anyone who hears it, much less arouse a shameful and morbid sexual response.
Luther Campbell in 2010: She is not going to let any person or group tell her what is right or wrong. Kagan will judge each case based on the law of the land. She has demonstrated she can protect the Constitution by doing the fine work she did to protect 2 Live Crew’s freedom of speech.
Tag: supreme court
Top 12
John Cole runs it down for us re: just what qualifications are required to be a serious person seeking a judicial appointment:
-
Titillating David Brooks- no boring career oriented types need apply. Try to squeeze in some college era hijinks to liven up that vita- maybe a possession bust as an undergrad, some racy Facebook pictures, or a term paper supportive of Mao.
-
Ed Whelan demands a valid driver’s license and there will be a proficiency test to demonstrate “mastery” of the subject.
-
Paul Campos would like a dissertation on the history of curriculum theory (no slouching and skipping out on the role of hermeneutics and critical theory), a treatise on best pedagogical practices, a complete review of the collected works of John Dewey, and a positive evaluation from every lazy student you may have ever had.
-
Andrew Sullivan would like proof one way or another of your sexual orientation. I suppose pictures will do, but the apparent gold standards are the assurances of Jeffrey Toobin and Eliot Spitzer.
-
Somewhat related to #4, K-LO [Kathryn Jean Lopez] has decided that four out of over one hundred justices have been women, and this poses a grave threat to the white male, so no more va-jay-jays- women need not apply.
-
David Bernstein is tired of Ivy Leaguers, so come on down, Heritage Law students!
-
Republicans are requiring a history of judicial experience, which could be daunting, considering they will most likely block your appointment to the bench.
-
Ed Whelan is also requiring that future justices not be residents (current or former) of New York City.
-
Michael Steele is demanding that you not question the Constitutional Right to practice of slavery.
-
Lynn Sweet would like a decent batting stance. And no, I’m not kidding. According to recent debates, proof of a good baseball stance could also serve as verification of your sexual status, as required by Sullivan in point number four.
-
[Andrew] Sullivan is now demanding a record of taking risks and failing to prove a record of life experience.
-
And Howard Kurtz requires a spouse and children
Antonin Scalia, Thinking Man
Salon reports some amazing cogitation on the part of Scalia:
[Peter Eliasberg, whose client objects to the cross suggests that] “a statue of a soldier which would honor all of the people who fought for America in World War I and not just the Christians.”
“The cross doesn’t honor non-Christians who fought in the war?” Scalia asks, stunned.
“A cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity, and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins,” replies Eliasberg, whose father and grandfather are both Jewish war veterans.
“It’s erected as a war memorial!” replies Scalia. “I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. The cross is the most common symbol of … of … of the resting place of the dead.”
Eliasberg dares to correct him: “The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.”
“I don’t think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead,” thunders Scalia. “I think that’s an outrageous conclusion!”
Truly the conservative intellectual at work.
The cross in question:
<![CDATA[// ]]>
I’m sure that many, if not most Jewish and Muslim veterans would look to this as a fitting memorial to their service in WWI… who could possibly view it in any other way!?! It defies belief.
Lemkin 