And here comes the Soros-funded Think Progresss, "Justices Have Been Forced To Resign For Doing What Clarence Thomas Has Done":
Justice Clarence Thomas is an ethics problem in a black robe.And he's being subjected to a high-tech attack in a white robe.
Former University of Montana law professor and outspoken conservative Rob Natelson has been denied his request for professor emeritus status, a decision he called "petty" and "inexplicable."Natelson was apparently one the most published professors on the faculty. Denial of emeritus status was clearly driven by ideological hatred. Progressives suck.
Natelson, who retired in May 2010 after serving 23 years as a professor in the law school to take a job as a senior fellow with the Independence Institute, was informed upon his return to Montana in June that the law school faculty had voted against granting the constitutional scholar emeritus status.
Emeritus status is granted to a retiring professor whose colleagues feel he or she is worthy of the academic recognition and prestige based on the faculty member's research, service and instruction during his teaching tenure.
"Emeritus status for retirees is pretty routine and almost always given," Natelson said. "I find the whole thing very peculiar. Even though there's a history here, this thing seems so petty, so small."
Filed by attorney Brian Procel of Miller Barondess, the suit seeks class action status and compensatory damages of $50 million for a claimed class of some 2,300 TJSL attendees.Hat Tip: Instapundit.
Beth Kransberger, who serves as the law school's associate dean for student affairs, tells the legal publication there was no misrepresentation and says TJSL followed guidelines set by the American Bar Association when reporting its employment statistics..
"We've always been accurate in what we report, and we've always followed the system given to us by the ABA," she says. "This lawsuit is very much about a larger debate. This is part of the debate about whether it's practical to pursue a graduate degree in these difficult economic times."
Given bin Laden’s unquestioned leadership position within al Qaeda and his clear continuing operational role, there can be no question that he was the leader of an enemy force and a legitimate target in our armed conflict with al Qaeda. In addition, bin Laden continued to pose an imminent threat to the United States that engaged our right to use force, a threat that materials seized during the raid have only further documented. Under these circumstances, there is no question that he presented a lawful target for the use of lethal force.
On April 25, gay-rights advocates -- led by the Human Rights Campaign -- scored a victory after the HRC applied pressure on a law firm hired to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and woman and denies federal benefits to same-sex partners. The firm fired its client. There are two reasons you should be outraged, no matter what your position is on DOMA.Go read it all. One of the more outraged commentaries I've read on the case. Earlier I meant to juxtapose William Jacobson's commentary on this, "Is There Now A Hostile Environment For Pro-Traditional Marriage Views At King & Spalding?", to that of Dale Carpenter's. William writes, for example:
For whatever their reasons, the supporters of gay marriage have chosen the path of intimidation rather than persuasion. I think this is a mistake, but time will tell.The comment assumes that this kind of intimidation is new, unprecedented. But is it? Dale Carpenter had an interesting piece at the New York Times the other day, "How the Law Accepted Gays:
THE prestigious law firm King & Spalding has not fully explained its decision this week to stop assisting Congress in defending the law that forbids federal recognition of same-sex marriage. But its reversal suggests the extent to which gay men and lesbians have persuaded much of the legal profession to accept the basic proposition that sexual orientation is irrelevant to a person’s worth and that the law should reflect this judgment. The decision cannot be dismissed simply as a matter of political correctness or bullying by gays.Well, folks should finish the essay, and they might be a little more convinced, although I'm not. There's something fundamentally different about the struggle for civil rights for gay Americans, and since 2008 that difference has been a level of demonization and intimidation of the opposition that's unprecedented in my political lifetime. But go back and read Debra Saunders once more. Even the leadership of HRC admits they're again ready to pounce and destroy at the next instance of politically incorrect non-compliance to the gay narrative.
Here's the thing. If Obama is so smart, isn't two and a half years enough time to figure out it isn't working? That is if his intentions are honorable, if he really wants a growing economy, if he really wants new jobs, isn't two and a half years of this ridiculousness enough to show that it's not the right way to do it? Isn't two and a half years enough time to realize that you're on the wrong path? Hint: This is why some of us believe all this is on purpose. There's no indication of smartness in anything he tries to do. He doubles down on his failures. Now, speaking of Obama's academic record, he attended Harvard Law School at the height of something that it was promoting, education technique or a theory. It was called critical legal studies. Critical legal studies was in its ascendancy at Harvard Law when Obama was there. You can look it up. Just Google critical legal studies. It is out and out Marxism.Ann's got the link to the transcript.
By training and profession, he's a social deconstructionist comfortably embedded in the lifestyle of oppositional legal and political culture. He has carefully navigated the waters of legal academe and municipal machine politics to carve out an outwardly non-confrontational demeanor, while on the inside he's informed by post-material, postmodern activist priorities, and his possible accession to the presidency would bring to power an occupant in the Oval Office dramatically unlike any of those who have come before.
At Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, "Prosser gains 7,500 votes in Waukesha County" (at Memeorandum).
Now this is the best! Ann Althouse has a post on Richard Hasen's commentary at Politico, "Wis. court election courts disaster." See, "Don't talk about fraud! Fraud?! There is no fraud! Pay no attention to those... those... those... frauders!":
Don't dare say fraud!While the fraud allegations [in various recent elections] remain stuck in the public’s mind, no proof of any systemic fraud has been unearthed. Instead, close examination of elections show, time and again, that our election systems are not perfect – but this is due to human error and not fraud.... [I]f the Wisconsin Supreme Court race goes into extra innings, I expect things to become especially contentious and partisan.To become contentious and partisan? It's been ridiculously contentious and partisan here in Wisconsin since mid-February. It's hard to understand why the Republicans should stand down now. Prosser was way ahead and would have easily won if Democrats hadn't turned what was supposed to be a nonpartisan election into a referendum on the Republican governor they hate. It took Prosser a long time to realize he had to fight like a politician and not just sit quietly modeling traditional judicial demeanor. Outrageous, dirty politics was played against the old jurist, and he had little idea what to do about it. Now, his advocates are supposed to play nice so things won't get ugly? We've been in uglyville since February.
Word.
The Political Carnival's already suspicious, and at Firedoglake: "Now this could approach scandal territory. Let’s see where it goes."
Right. Scandal.More at POWIP: "Prosser Takes the Lead by . . . 7500 Votes?"
And at New York Times, "Suspect Pleads Not Guilty in Tucson Shooting":
PHOENIX — Jared L. Loughner, who the police said was responsible for the shooting rampage outside a Tucson supermarket on Jan. 8, pleaded not guilty on Monday to charges that he tried to murder Representative Gabrielle Giffords and two of her aides.
Appearing in Federal District Court alongside his defense lawyer, Judy Clarke, Mr. Loughner entered a written plea to Judge Larry A. Burns of San Diego without uttering a word.
Dressed in an orange prison jumpsuit and wearing glasses, Mr. Loughner, 22, smiled through most of the proceedings and chuckled when a clerk read out the name of the case: the United States of America v. Jared Lee Loughner.
Ms. Clarke offered no objection to a request by Wallace Kleindienst, an assistant United States attorney, to move the court proceedings to Tucson. But Mr. Kleindienst, who is considered an expert in murder cases, indicated that additional charges were likely to be filed and that Ms. Clarke would have additional opportunities to push for the trial to be held elsewhere.
During the arraignment, which was conducted under high security, Judge Burns asked Ms. Clarke whether she had any concerns about her client’s ability to understand the case against him. “We are not raising any issues at this time,” she said.
The prosecution on Monday turned over to Ms. Clarke records from Mr. Loughner’s computer and transcripts of 250 witness interviews.