Category Archives: Supreme Court

Assassinating Scalia

John Hinderaker has a great piece on the kerfuffle at George Mason University, “Will Liberals’ Posthumous Smears of Justice Scalia Succeed?

The short of the story is that the university’s law school (one of the few with a strong conservative/libertarian presence) recently received a pair of large monetary gifts (totaling $30 million), one of which may be conditioned on renaming the school for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Of course this has sent a number of professors at the rest of the school (mostly a typical liberal state school other than its stellar economics department where Walter Williams and Nobel Prize-winning professors like James Buchanan have taught) into conniptions over the proposal. Read the Hinderaker piece.

My real point is that it further demonstrates how liberals politicize everything. I’m sure they could politicize tiddlywinks if they could figure the angle.

The thought that some tiny sliver of academia might not be under their thumb has sent them into full mobilization. They really do want to remove all conservatism from the public square. To make such thoughts verboten. This needs to be understood.

By the way, George Mason, the Founding Father, probably would have liked Scalia.


Rosa Brooks — The Face of the Enemy

Did you know that the Dept. Of Defense has a Special Coordinator for Rule of Law and Humanitarian Policy? It’s a vile bee-yotch named Rosa Brooks.

You have to read this to believe the soullessness of this woman. She wouldn’t bat an eye signing death lists of political enemies. She’d be a good soviet apparatchik.

Or you can let Jazz Shaw at Hot Air take the hit and read his summary.

She comes onto my radar because of the shockingly classless attack she made at Foreign Policy magazine on Antonin Scalia upon his death — because this addle-brained dimwit would not have done it while he was alive (his discarded fingernail clippings know more than she does).

Her main beef with Scalia hinges on Scalia’s belief that Americans are to be governed by the Constitution and American laws not foreign laws. She begs to differ and figures her fellow one-worlders are ready to dance a jig on Scalia’s grave.

Brooks is supposedly a law scale grad (Yale, natch!) and has had a series of legal policy jobs. Amazingly, this repugnant wretch has been involved, inexplicably, in making Pentagon policy since 2009 in at least one other office. (No wonder our military is so screwed up.)

Oh, bonus vomit-inducer, she’s the daughter of that old-dyed-in-the-wool commie Barbara Ehrenreich. You can’t get anymore inside the bubble of liberal totalitarian nihilism than this.

What do you bet that Special Coordinator for Rule of Law and Humanitarian Policy is a six-figure job? That’s where your tax dollars are going, people — completely do-nothing jobs that pay committed, hardcore leftists to tear down this country from within. Pray, tell, why does the Dept. Of “Defense” need a Special Coordinator for Rule of Law and Humanitarian Policy? It doesn’t sound particularly “Defensive” or threatening. I’d expect such rubbish from the State Dept. Can’t that money be spent on bullets or even Obama’s special green energy jet fuel that costs $300 a gallon to make?

Hey, get this, she won the Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service. More tax dollars at work and rewards for those who don’t deserve them! I wonder if she got a Libya Liberation Campaign Participation Trophy?

She is allegedly married to an Army Special Forces lieutenant colonel (some judgment red flags there, soldier). I’m not sure how she came upon the name Brooks. It’s not her commie mother’s maiden name. Her Wiki euphemistically describes mom merely as a “best-selling author.” That’s like describing Lenin as a “former barrister’s assistant” or Josef Mengele as a “doctor” or Barack Obama as a “former law professor.”

I suspect that Foreign Policy, usually considered fairly dull, green eyeshade Washington reading, is fielding a number of queries on how this piece got published under its name.

My final note — Brooks probably isn’t as awful as I make her out to be. With a bit of judicious editing and a new opening this could have been merely a disrespectful, deceitful, ignorant bit of character assassination of the recently departed appearing as an op-ed in the New York Times or HuffPo. That’s how far civility has fallen in the age of liberalism.

“Caitlyn” Roberts

I’m as puzzled as anyone concerning the behavior of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, lately his bizarre reasoning in Burwell.

But I have two theories.

One is that he really hates his job and wants to be fired or removed. How else to explain his reasoning that, yes, the law offers clear specifics that demand a ruling against the administration, BUT, I am going “depart” from the text of the law and side with good intentions of the administration. It is this type of specious emotional antireasoning that the court was created to overstep in the first place. So maybe Roberts is thinking that if he gets really wacky, someone will notice and he’ll be impeached. “Springtime for the Supreme Court,” produced by John Roberts Bialystok.

Two, he only pretended to be a conservative but now “identifies” as a liberal. He’s the judiciary version of Bruce Jenner.

Neither is particularly appealing.