OMFG! Is the Chief "Justice" a boob or what?

OMFG! Want to hear the most fatuous, most naive and supercilious argument ever for Citizen's United, "can't we show Hillary the Movie any time we want" case? This is--believe it or not--Chief Justice 'Peppermint Patty' setting up the American electoral system for a fall of storied proportions.

Rachel Maddow Show (Video) 5-10-2010

So obviously Roberts and the 5/4 "judicial unactivists swing majority" said not only can you show that, but just don't bother with those pesky PACs any more because you corporations with infinite deep pockets and spectacularly responsible shareholders can just buy any influence any time you want to anywhere. Even foreign corporations: they must REALLY have responsible shareholders, right?

Kagen does a good job arguing to the court and showing the contradiction of mutual fund shareholders while Robert just ignores her and hammers his silly stupid point that he tries to gloss over with supercilious humor. What a HACK!

There are some people that think they are special and should be the parents to people. Because they think people are lesser, and not able to make decisions. They think their view is correct, that is the know-it all, and a delusion to forward their own agenda.

But they make that judgement based on what they think is most important, usually some quality they have, so they think that is what is important.

It is the flaw of arrogance.

Everyone should be a parent to people, but they should also be their children and learn also by knowing they are not always correct and do not always know what is best.

It should not be rule by edict claiming superiority, but an acknowledgement that nobody knows everything, and should try to learn from each other and respect the different abilities and ways of thought different people have.

argument with Roberts. Was she totally unprepared for that question?

I have no doubt that she is a nice person and gets along with people very well. But I wondered when I heard this clip whether she has even argued simple motions in court before appearing before the Supreme Court. She may have written a lot. She may have taught a lot. But, based on the limited amount of argument we heard in the clip on the Rachel Maddow show, she sounds to me like she has hardly ever appeared in a real court -- at least not in a number of years.

I hope I'm wrong. If anyone knows better, please let me know. That was subpar.

That case was decided before she ever walked in the courtroom. Robert's comment proves that.

But go ahead and hold her to an impossible standard.

you go to Slate.com and look for the link in the article about Kagan. I thought she did fine in the face of an activist court and an obviously complex case.

She stammers a little there because Roberts is about to turn the proceeding into a joke. I'd stammer too if I was her. Kagen's answer shows the exception that proves the rule that if she were a mutual fund shareholder that then she would have no say in the corporate decision to dump $$$ into American elections. She does very well, just listen to it.

You smile and then turn the joke on them in a very friendly way. You don't recoil in fear. You are prepared. That is a normal turn of events.

Sometimes you simply move on. She could have made an equally humorous remark about how the answer to the question depends on whether you are a very small investor or a very big investor. She could have pointed out that Roberts' question pointed very precisely to the problem.

We know the response to Roberts' question. It is the job of the government to protect the voice of the small investor as well as those who have no money to invest. When large corporations can spend the cash that in part belongs to a lot of small investors who are invested with very small amounts in many companies on campaign ads that oppose the interests of small investors, something is wrong. It is not paternalistic to protect the rights of little people. It is equal justice.

Let's look at the very situation going on now with regard to the reform of the financial sector. The big banks have the investments and accounts of millions and millions of small investors. Who besides Congress and the courts can insure that the big banks don't overwhelm their own small investors' voices and even deprive their own small investors of access to information by electioneering for candidates that represent the big banks to the detriment of the banks' small investors and account-holders.

Here is something Kagan could have said:

The concept of equal justice demands that Congress and the Courts protect small investors and small accountholders.

Protecting small investors and small accountholders from large banks and other companies that would use the money of the small investors' and accountholders to gain an unjust political advantage by funding the campaigns of the banks' candidates is not paternalistic. It is equal justice.


Kagan did not state her case well. She simply did not answer Roberts' question effectively. Paternalism/equal justice. That was the issue. She did not raise it in response to Roberts' question.

I'm not saying that Kagan could have persuaded Roberts, but, at the very least, she would have focused the argument on the weaknesses in Roberts' stance for posterity, his disregard for equal justice. Again, conservatives were allowed to dominate with their jingoistic terminology. To accuse a stance of being paternalistic sounds so good. Our Founding Fathers did not write the Constitution to establish a system without paternalism. They wrote it to establish a system of equal justice. Conservatives want to obliterate that historical fact from our memories.

Kagan just stood there with her mouth moving. Her mind was not in gear. The equal justice argument was just begging to be stated. Too bad.

no Sotomayor. Justice Sotomayor was extremely on top of all the questions put to her and did so well. I'm not sure Kagan is going to hold up.

for the job. As Rachel pointed out elsewhere last night, Rehnquist the Nixon appointee had no experience as a trial attorney, only Asst. Atty. General. He became chief justice, the dude who controls the legislative calendar, heaven forbid.

The 5 have their agenda and NOBODY will stop them.

I'm criticizing her failure to prepare for such an obvious question.

She simply did not respond quickly enough. She does not appear to have much experience on either side of the bench.

She prepared beautifully by instantly responding with the exception which proved the rule that shareholder oversight was pathetically inadequate. Some say she didn't prepare because she agreed in some sense with the final 5/4 decision. That seems not to be so from this viewing.

to reclaim dues or something like that with regard to political activism. I am not familiar with how unions operate really.

try this one,

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Private-Speech-Public-Purpose.pdf

then come back and tell us how poorly she will do. If you ask me, her reputation for being very capable and well versed in the law is well deserved. Really I haven't heard anyone that is regarded as her peer take your view or anything close to it.

The problems with law review articles published under professor's names are 1) you don't know how much input students had to the final paper; 2) they do not prove that an attorney is effective in court or understands the peculiar dynamic between lawyers and the judge in a courtroom.

Maybe the clip I heard was unrepresentative of Kagan's work, but she seemed thrown off base by a question that she should have anticipated. She kind of stammered (to repeat the comment of someone else here on this thread). She did not seem to know how to recoup after Roberts put her down. Judges measure the attorneys before them based on the ability to argue quickly, succinctly and effectively in court. Kagan was unable to make a simple point within the very limited timeframe she was given in which to make it.

She no doubt writes well. She will, of course, mostly be doing appellate work and will have the opportunity to select good clerks and rely on them. But in terms of presenting her case effectively to her colleagues on the right on this Court, she will have a steep climb.

so I don't know why you are saying that. The SCOTUS is an imposing place where the "justices" tower over the attorneys presenting to them. We are not allowed to actually see it because cameras are banned there. Also Roberts was trying to think of A JOKE instead of consider the arguments she would make seriously, as he would have been expected to. That is why she stammered; he was trying to silence her. Also, this was her first big case there.

Then, checkout his conclusion, it is absurd: "Govt. is big brother if it doesn't let deep pockets spend unlimited money to influence the peoples elections." Corporations are not even people!

Equal Justice is the response to Roberts' paternalistic nonsense.

I'm gonna go with "or what", cuz otherwise it's an insult to boobs everywhere. :-)

He's an arrogant fuckwad.

By his logic we should do away with the FDA and if we get sick from some drugs or food simply buy something else next time (unless they kill us). Oversight and regulation are OUR responsibility, not the government's.

:crazy:

I knew Roberts was a conglomerate boob, but this takes the cake.

boobs are too classy

when they said he was forced to play Peppermint Patty in Charlie Brown in his school. It's clear though that Roberts is a true stinking corporate tool who doesn't give a darn about the American people. Lucky he's on their for life and that Chimpy made 'em chief "justice" so he can strangle everybody by setting the actual agenda of the SCOTUS... for Rushpublicans. OMG.