Judge Orders 'Intentionally Deceptive' DOJ Lawyers To Take Remedial Ethics Class (zerohedge.com) 185
According to the Daily Caller, "The judge overseeing the challenge by 26 states to President Obama's executive action in immigration has ordered all lawyers 'employed at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C. who appears, or seeks to appear, in a court (state or federal) in any of the 26 Plaintiff States annually attend a legal ethics course.'"
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Zero Hedge: In writing the ruling, Hanen quoted from the scene in "Miracle on 34th Street" when the boy is called to testify to Santa's existence and saying that everyone knows not to tell a lie to the court. Hanen went on to say that that the Justice Department lawyers have an even stricter duty: Tell the truth, don't mislead the court, and don't allow it to be mislead by others. "The Government's lawyers failed on all three fronts. The actions of the DHS should have been brought as early as December 19, 2014. The failure of counsel to do that constituted more than mere inadvertent omissions -- it was intentionally deceptive." Judge Hanen wrote in his ruling. Hanen ordered that the classes must be "taught by at least one recognized ethics expert who is unaffiliated with the Justice Department." I wonder if the judge could order the lawyers to jail for contempt of court?
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Zero Hedge: In writing the ruling, Hanen quoted from the scene in "Miracle on 34th Street" when the boy is called to testify to Santa's existence and saying that everyone knows not to tell a lie to the court. Hanen went on to say that that the Justice Department lawyers have an even stricter duty: Tell the truth, don't mislead the court, and don't allow it to be mislead by others. "The Government's lawyers failed on all three fronts. The actions of the DHS should have been brought as early as December 19, 2014. The failure of counsel to do that constituted more than mere inadvertent omissions -- it was intentionally deceptive." Judge Hanen wrote in his ruling. Hanen ordered that the classes must be "taught by at least one recognized ethics expert who is unaffiliated with the Justice Department." I wonder if the judge could order the lawyers to jail for contempt of court?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Do you prefer this [washingtontimes.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
The NYTimes and CNN aren't covering the story, so stop complaining about right-wing rags that are actually practicing journalism, and go read the actual judge's order.
Re: (Score:3)
So?
You quote left-wing rags, founded and subsidized by sociopaths and psychopaths, ALL THE TIME!
I do? Maybe you've looked through my posting history and saw something I'm forgetting but I try to keep my sources pretty respectable. And yes this means I try to avoid citing the HuffPo.
The Washington Times is not a reliable source of information. I'm sure they report lots of good stories, but if you go to the Washington Times as a primary source it's really hard not to come away with a severely distorted view of events.
Re: (Score:2)
Since you apparently can only judge a book by its cover:
YOU are not a critical thinker
YOU are too lazy to be objective
YOU are not able to coming to an independent judge
YOU are the kind of person who makes decisions based on ideological purity and truth
YOU are not the kind of person who should be trusted for advice or honesty
A person who is a critical thinker can read Pravda, Das Kapital, and the scribbles of uneducated slaves, and still extract useful information. You are claiming you are incapable of doing that if the color of the book is wrong or if the author is someone you do not like or of the wrong skin color! You are not much to judge or to give advice!
You're (ironically) making a lot of unwarranted (though mostly unfalsifiable) assumptions, including a bizarre closing claim that I'm racist all based on the fact I try to avoid relying on unreliable sources as support for my arguments???
Contrary to your portrayal some of my most read sources are viewpoints that I strongly disagree with, and as opposed to making decisions based on "ideological purity and truth" I'd say my actual flaw is being a contrarian who resists ideological purity in favour of pragmati
Re:Reliable sources (Score:5, Informative)
Whine much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Both articles quote the judge's order and then... y'know... LINK the order.
And you scream "I'll believe it when a source I approve of says it?" (HINT: And not the judge's actual order...)
Bet you would've said the same if Slashdot had posted a Daily Kos article about a judge slamming Bush' DoJ...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bet you would've said the same if Slashdot had posted a Daily Kos article about a judge slamming Bush' DoJ...
Yes, they would have. The Carly Fiorina defense. When backed into a corner, caught in one of her blatent lies, she'd just accuse the person of working from the Trump or Clinton playbook.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow... did I strike a nerve?
Why no Carly - I see you are still trying to shift shit around though. You do realize that your post is exactly what I posted about.
Because NEITHER of you complained when slashdot posted articles from Daily Kos and just happily lapped it up like the kool-aid drinkers you are.
There's a search button... it works.
Because I have no idea of the specific posts you are referring to. But yeah, you see, you even tried to discount my opinion by accusing me of "lapping it up like the Kool-aid drinker that you ( I ) am". Perfect Carly Fiorina defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Shut up, faggot.
That's usually the next tactic
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you'd like to link to this article that I apparently read and supported the use of Kos as a source?
No? I'm not surprised. It never happened.
Don't recall anyone saying you did
The point is that one person's trashy agenda ridden media is another's fair and balanced. And vice versa.
Which makes dismissing news for that reason weak. Giving a good dissertation on why reportage of news from a particular cite is a lie, wrong, or has a specific agenda - without just saying the agenda is conservative doodyheads or liberal hand wringers - might be a much better tactic, as witnessed boy the response you received.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you won't read the order how do you know the article is biased? It's pretty difficult to write an untruthful article with the original source placed front and center. What is much easier is not covering the story at all. You can go to CNN or any of the other traditional orgs for that.
Re:Reliable sources (Score:5, Informative)
And this is an editorial by the Washington Post [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What I provided was a link to a widely known publisher that confirmed the basic assertions presented in the summary. My link made it clear that it pointed to an editorial, and the article itself was clearly marked. Anybody interested in thinking critically about an issue will recognize the need to explore alternative views.
In my opinion, a summary should include a link to a non-paywalled article hosted by a reputable publisher. By reputable I do not mean that the publisher is free of bias. I mean that the
Re:Reliable sources (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently you've not been keeping up with the degree of unethical behavior by the DoJ in this case.
And you are a credible authority on this... because?
Even IF he doesn't have the authority to do so, he has fired a beautiful warning shot across the bow of the DoJ and given serious ammunition to each of the 26 states fighting the unlawful amnesty which can & will be used in state courts given the behavior of DoJ lawyers before this judge.
So finally, you acknowledge that this is in your opinion... which unlike that of the judge, has zero legal authority.
How exactly do you envision that happening? The republican controlled House & Senate (which for the most part agree with the State's suit) impeaching them?
Yeah, good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
That's correct. I had not read the order or examined the issues of the case. I was not commenting on whether the president has the authority he claims to have. Nor was I not commenting on whether the DOJ attorney's involved in this case deserved sanction. I was commenting on the unlawful overreach of the judges order. In
Re: (Score:1)
And the lawyers involved were not involved at any step in this process and likely didn't even know. He's punishing essentially innocent people assigned to the case.
Re:Reliable sources (Score:5, Interesting)
Really?
Wanna ask the judge? Why not read his ruling... which in the end is TFA [scribd.com]
Here is just one juicy bit:
It seems he disagrees with you.
Again, false.
It appears he has gone as far to bar any of the lawyers who have given false testimony in his court room from ever arguing in his court room again (given he can't disbar them himself)... it's punishment to ensure that future lawyers who come before him from the DoJ (or to courts in the states which make up this case) are reminded of the importance of ethics when acting as a lawyer?
Re: (Score:2)
The DOJ has stated otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot about the part where they said they wouldn't be handing out any permits and then until a certain date.
But why let facts get in the way?
Re: (Score:2)
They specifically told the judge they did not issue permits. As a result he did not issue an injunction. They lied. They will probably be disbarred.
Re: (Score:2)
So Elena Kagan should have recused herself in the ACA case. Got it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, that's just a piss-poor editorial of the Washington Post defending the DoJ -
The judge sets the enforcement for 26 PLAINTIFF states (not all 50) - Those are the states suing the Federal government that the DoJ is defending. The 26 states listed are part of the trial and are subject to the judges ruling and, presumably, will go along with the punishment.
Re: (Score:3)
The major question here is if the judge has the jurisdiction to issue this order. He does not.
Well, it sounds like that major question was answered by notable law scholar dcooper_db9. We can all go on with our day now. Make sure to notify the judge that he's wrong. Don't bother justifying anything, just tell him he's wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
He's got lifetime employment, He's almost untouchable. There are good reasons for this but he's clearly stepped over the batshit crazy line. My bet is he's going to get slapped down by this either by a judicial ethics panel, a state licensing board or the supreme court itself. Judges can be punished but it takes time.
The Supreme court could embarrass him by voiding his order with prejudice. That would be a major public slap down and damage his reputation significantly. As the Supreme court is about to rule
Re:Reliable sources (Score:5, Interesting)
None of that will happen. Federal judges have been asserting themselves as a co-equal branch of government, and not the presidents bitches, for some time now. The punishments for DoJ lawyers who try to fuck with the federal court system have been growing gradually over time. They'll keep growing until those lawyers start taking the court system seriously.
The entire point of the justice system is that you game the system within the rules. The DoJ has forgotten that of late, or just doesn't seem to think that federal judges are important. Either way, we've seen more and more evidence that federal judges are pushing back, and escalating over time. Don't piss off a federal judge, and especially don't blatantly go out of your way to do so when your work for the government.
The judges will eventually win this fight. Never doubt it.
Re: (Score:2)
If they did intentionally lie to the court in a manner likely to affect the course of the trial, then they deserve to be disbarred. If it can be proven that they did so, then they should be disbarred.
But that's not up to the judge. He can only forbid them from ever appearing before him again. I'm not sure about the requirement of an ethics class, though. It it was intentional lying, then an ethics class isn't likely to do any good. They knew what they were doing. This isn't one of your edge cases.
That
Re: (Score:1)
It's a case of technically true, but still completely irrelevant.
The states shopped and found a sympathetic judge who put forward a ruling so silly that it can only be taken as a political statement.
This will make for a round of furious masturbation on the conservative circle-jerk media circuit, but it will be overturned with an little more than an eye-roll from a higher court judge.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the matter, your delicate leftist sensibilities were bruised by having to wade through "offensive" material to find the link?
Re: (Score:2)
It most certainly does give context, if you read it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The court ruling doesn't give any context.
Yes, in fact it does.
Is your criteria for "how I find out about the world" seriously "Is this source telling me what I want to hear"?
No, but yours appeared to be, from your comment: "I'm not saying the story's wrong, but could you have found better sources than the Daily Caller and Zerohedge?"
I'm assuming some projection in your comment, because there's nothing in mine that bears any relationship to your extremist ideological twaddle.
It's a free country. Assume away. It won't get you anywhere, but I will defend to the... uh... change in my pocket, your right to do so.
I'd have been happy if the links were to the WSJ (minus paywall) or Times of London. Links to a politically charged blog and an economically charged blog, both of which are obsessed with ludicrous conspiracy theories, is not acceptable or useful.
Wait a minute... didn't you just imply that the source doesn't matter? You just got done insulting me for having that very attitude (albeit incorrectly, as I actually stated the opposite). Righ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the NYTimes and Washington Post have reporters working in shifts on the story. Look, the actual judge's order is linked in the article. Just go read that and stop attacking the source.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but much as I enjoy occasional articles from the DailyKos, I would never consider it a reasonable source of news. It often presents grossly slanted stories. In fact, I think I'd have to rephrase that as "it only occasionally presents stories that aren't grossly slanted", but that's a bit too far in the other direction.
I don't like the right wing, and am not sympathetic to their version of reality, but this doesn't mean they're always wrong. And being sympathetic to the left wing doesn't mean t
Re: Reliable sources (Score:2)
OBVIOUSLY, the DOJ isn't trusted to actually revoke the permits.
The list is also being submitted under seal, which means that, contrary to the DailyKos's fear mongering, it isn't being distributed outside the court.
Re: (Score:2)
if they had acted ethnically.
Do you mean "ethically" or what you actually wrote? If this piece was not about immigration the answer would be obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Equal Justice Ha Ha Ha... (Score:5, Insightful)
When a judge rules that a member of the Peasant Class has been intentionally deceptive; they do hard time for the crime of perjury. Has anyone written an app to cross reference: wealth, political affiliation, political connections, legal immigration status, and whether you are a member ofthe Bar, etc. to decide what laws apply to you and in what way. It gets complicated.
Nixon can't wipe 18.5 minutes of magnetic audio tape but Hillary can wipe all the platters on a magnetic hard drive. See, it gets tricky.
The Same OBama DOJ (Score:5, Insightful)
Whose attorney general Eric Holder waited until after the statute of limitation expired to decide whether or not to prosecute banks, then went to work for the same banks at a 10 million+/ year salary ?
The same DOJ whose attorney general Loretta Lynch has been doing such a wonderful job on defending constitutional rights like proclaiming she would prosecute anti muslim hate speech in the wake of the San Bernadino attacks, would not prosecute Lois Lerner for abuse of office at the IRS, and will likely let Hillary skate on her violations of national security law ?
Well I am shocked that attorneys from that DOJ would have ethics violations.
Re:The Same OBama DOJ (Score:4, Insightful)
And the Democratic Party wonders why Bernie supporters are refusing to do as they're told and get behind Hillary, and why some are threatening to vote for Trump.
Re: (Score:1)
You give too much credit to the Bernard fans who as the Trotskyite wing of the party, still don't understand the risks of going up against the Stalinist wing.
Re: (Score:3)
The only people claiming Sanders voters are going to vote for Trump is Trump supporters.
Sanders voters are more likely to stay home and not vote at all than vote for Trump. I support Sanders, I'd rather cut my testicles off than vote for Trump. Trump'll start WWIII because some foreign leader insulted him. And if he doesn't do that he'll gut the constitution and free speech to make it so people can't insult him. He'd fit right in with the average Arab Dictator.
Re: (Score:2)
Which still is an implicit vote for Trump as it helps to split the Democrat vote.
While not a Trump fan myself, I will say "thank you!!!" on behalf of a friend who is one.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone on the democratic side needs to worry. The evangelicals in the republican party are going to stay home and that's 15% of the republican vote, and that's with the electoral math already against him and Hillary only needing to win Florida to take the white house. That is even if his past history doesn't destroy him during the real campaign which is highly likely. The media's been sitting on hundreds of prior interviews he's done over the years just waiting for the real campaign to start.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump doesn't have a chance, no republican did.
I completely disagree, and honestly I think this is typical head-in-the-sand thinking from non-Republicans. The Republicans are winning all the lower-level elections: they control both houses of Congress, and they've been sweeping more and more state legislatures and governorships. Just 2 years ago, Democrats famously didn't bother turning out to vote and Republicans made huge gains nationwide.
With Hillary as the Democratic standard-bearer, and lots of youn
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy for me: Trump is obviously to the left of Hillary, though not by much. With Trump, I won't worry as much about another war, whereas with her it's virtually certain. I think he's just an egomaniac blowhard who thinks he knows what's best for the country.
As for Hillary for VP, I think that's a terrible idea because she's sure to have Bernie knocked off. There's a long trail of bodies surrounding the Clintons.
Re: (Score:2)
I really doubt that Trump would intentionally start WWIII. But he might insult someone else enough that it got started because of him.
FWIW, Hillary has apparently come out against TPP, so I'll probably grit my teeth and vote for her is Sanders loses. Otherwise I'll vote Green. It doesn't really matter, the state I live in is going to go Democrat no matter how I vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really naive enough to believe Hillary when she flip-flops like that?
Trump really *is* against the TPP, unlike Hillary, so if that's the most important issue to you, Trump is the rational choice. Trump's flip-flopped on a bunch of things, but not the trade issue.
Re: (Score:2)
No one and I mean not a single person knows what Donald Trump is for or against other than himself. He's a liar that will say or do ANYTHING to get elected. The funny thing is half his supporters acknowledge this with winks and nods that claim he'll not do the stuff he's said that they don't like as if they can actually predict what he's lying about. Trump will do and say whatever it takes to win.
You don't have any fucking idea what he believes or what he'll do if he won. The only thing you can be certain o
Re: (Score:2)
He's a liar that will say or do ANYTHING to get elected. ... Trump will do and say whatever it takes to win.
Yes, but you can say the exact same thing about Hillary.
The only thing you can be certain of is that Donald Trump will do whatever is in Donald Trumps best interest without regard for anyone else.
Again, Hillary is the same, and quite likely much worse because she's in it for the money and the power, and is sold out to various interests, which is how she and Bill have become nearly billionaires. At l
Re: (Score:2)
While I only dispute your assertions to the extent that I date it the conflicts back to the 1950's, and probably consider the Korean War to be the start of it, that's not what anyone who uses the term WWIII means. As you probably knew.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Some Bernie supporters (probably a small minority) *have* threatened to vote for Trump.
However, I can see a lot of them turning out to vote, but for Stein or some other 3rd party candidate, instead. Or they might just write-in Bernie's name.
Re: (Score:2)
I am considering voting for sanders as a write-in.
Re: (Score:2)
How much is Hillary's PAC paying you to post this?
Re: (Score:2)
If you can show me video of Trump or Hillary supporters throwing chairs, I will agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly enough, thus far the judge has not blamed Loretta Lynch for this false statements... only former AG Eric Holder... who I agree, was more than a little unethical in his professional dealings.
Re: (Score:2)
Justice Department politicized. News at 11.
Were you as up in arms when the Nixon administration DOJ refused to prosecute Nixon?
Re: The Same OBama DOJ (Score:3)
There wasn't any of the wagon-circling you saw with Clinton or Obama's DOJ, IRS, or EPA chiefs.
Because Republicans hate us and want us to die... or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There were never charges that Nixon was responsible for the Burglary. In fact that was not in the articles of impeachment. It was the cover up, not the crime that did him in.
Next step - disbarment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, are you saying that because he is the Birther Judge, the DOJ did not, in fact, lie in Federal Court?
Re: (Score:2)
Would you take the DOJ admission to lying as fact?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Holder isn't going to work for the same banks .. not directly anyway. He's returning to the same law firm he left to take the Attorney General job:
http://www.alternet.org/news-a... [alternet.org]
The fact that the law firm has those same banks as clients might perhaps explain how and why he got the Attorney General job in the first place, ne?
His replacement, Loretta Lynch, is no better:
http://www.theatlantic.com/mag... [theatlantic.com]
Nothing to see here. Move along. (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
If not for that pesky 5TH circuit upholding his injunction.
You are nothing but a fucking zealot.
Re: (Score:2)
You are nothing but a fucking zealot.
That means what exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
First...
Are you sure they are 'repealing' the decision? Though I guess that is the sort of thing an administration which doesn't respect the rule of law unless it says what they want it to say would attempt.
Assuming you mean 'appealing':
Nice fictitious narrative you've got there. Wants some facts?
The DoJ lawyers confirmed t
Re: (Score:2)
Most judges don't like being willfully lied to... repeatedly.
Oh no, you will be looking at a contempt charge at a minimum, and much less 'first time' deference when your DUI case is decided.
Funny coming from you (Score:2)
How about you provide that evidence that you have not been lying to me repeatedly?
Re: (Score:2)
How cute, you think you bait me into spending any more substantive time on you, despite your continued stalking.
You still are not worth my time.
Re: (Score:2)
Go on - it will only take a few seconds to cut and paste to prove that you are not a liar.
It's not "stalking" - it's a consequence of your actions and me asking you to prove that your word is not entirely worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
The lawyers who have lied in his courtroom have likely been barred from ever arguing before him again... one hopes a President Trump elevates a straight shooting judge like this and further limits the careers of those DoJ folks.
If you bothered to read TFA, you'd see the judge acknowledged he lacks the authority to disbar them. More so, jail risks (largely baseless) screams of "separation of powers!"
The DoJ is however on no
Re: (Score:2)
Neither Obama nor his administration has a lawful ability to repeal a judge's decision. Only a higher court or a change in law or the U.S. constitution can do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither Obama nor his administration has a lawful ability to repeal a judge's decision.
Correct. I got appeal confused with repeal because I read an article that the House is going to repeal the 2001 war authorization before I made my comment.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/280339-house-to-debate-repealing-2001-war-authorization [thehill.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Another hypocrite who will whine about abandoning the rule of law, ignoring regulations and abuse of government power - Except their own, of course.
I'm no longer a Republican.
BTW - that's "appealing" the decision. A freudian slip I'm sure wasn't intentional or how your rose-colored view of the world works in your mind.
Uh, no. I traded in my rose-colored glasses when I became a Democrat. I read an article about the House repealing the 2001 war authorization before I made my comment. The word stuck in my mind.
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/280339-house-to-debate-repealing-2001-war-authorization [thehill.com]
Disgusting (Score:5, Interesting)
Lynch and Holder have run the most overtly corrupt (and therefore like most corrupt) DOJ in history.
I don't care much for Trump but I sure as hell hope he wins at this point because we need someone with the stones to actually look into and prosecute members of the former administration for their misdeeds. I can understand why that isn't a precedent most politicians want to see set, but its the only way we are going to get things cleaned up.
Ethic classes for lawyers? (Score:2)
That can't be compatible with the 8th.
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers file a hostile working conditions class action suit in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ....
SpinSpin (Score:3)
This post is spinning so fast it's hard to read.
What was *really* said and which side is in trouble?
Oh. It's the Birther Judge... (Score:2, Insightful)
The same judge who took (and is still taking!) Orly Taitz' birther case seriously. Really.
So the deal is that a judge who is so unethical and biased that his decisions are guaranteed to be reversed on appeal still has some power -- before he makes a decision. So he keeps the cases going on and on, throwing around the full power of a federal judge, even though he's a nationally recognized disgrace. Basically if WorldNetDaily had the power to appoint judges, they'd have a hard time topping this clown.
Why n
Re: (Score:2)
You can't impeach someone for being a paranoid and incompetent.
Re: (Score:2)
Impeachment is a political act, not a criminal one. They can impeach someone for anything, such as corruption, incompetence, or because it's Tuesday.
Nope. Federal impeachment, while it obviously has political dimensions (duh) is for criminal offenses only. You need at least some pretext of criminal misconduct to use it. Here is what the US Constitution says about the impeachment of federal office holders:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.
Impeachment is effectively an indictment, which is followed by a trial. Impeachment of a federal judge is a big deal, because the trial has to be conducted by the entire US senate. In the entire history of the US there have been fifteen federal judge
Is this even remotely Tech related? (Score:1)
This is a legal and political story.
If the Judge is not just spouting, he can report them to the Bar.
Or hold them in contempt.
Can I ... (Score:3)
Ethics Slap on the Wrist (Score:1)
You know, if an ordinary human being lies to a judge, in a court, under oath, it's called perjury. You go to jail for that.
Oh, these are lawyers, they get special treatment? Right, so there's a higher legal standard for officers of the court. They are never, never to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. They've done that too.
A remedial ethics class is the merest slap on the wrist. What is called for is prosecution and disbarment. But you know, these are DOJ lawyers, so apparently they h
If they are intentionally deceptive... (Score:2)
This is a questionable action... (Score:1)
This case is also about immigration and enforcement of immigration laws. Laws that are FEDERAL laws, not STATE laws. District Attorn
News for Nerds? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No wonder this site has fallen
Now that everyone is a nerd, anti-social nerds are a dying breed.
Re: (Score:2)
I follow Supreme Court law blogs including Volokh, so on this story I'm dtf, but it is puzzling why slashdot has it.
Re: (Score:2)
Activist judges, presidents with executive orders, and a supine Congress with no backbone to stand up to it.
Rather let them get away with it and hope it blows up in their face than stand up to it and get called names.
Re: (Score:3)
"Slashdot is not the Wall Street Journal. It is not The New York Times. Slashdot is an informal meeting ground. A town hall. A pub. A bulletin board in the quad on campus. Here people might not properly capitalize a proper noun. They might transpose letters in 'thier'. They might use jargon that isn't in oxford. And al
Re: (Score:1)
The conservatives say they don't want big government, but when conservative candidates get in they just make different parts of it bigger. And most of the conservative voters don't consider the subsidies they get to be "part of big government". But threaten to cut those subsidies and they let you know that's not what they meant.
Now one problem here is that the phrase "conservative voters" hides a multitude of different constituencies. Each one has it's own set of subsidies that are "that's not what I me