The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Tank]

SPORTSWORLD DICK CHUGGING ON JOBAMA'S APPOINTEES! WHERE DOES IT STOP? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/05/26/sotomayor/index.html

DRLP, son.

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg176665#msg176665

(At least the MLB side of it is.)

[Tank]

SPORTSWORLD DICK CHUGGING ON JOBAMA'S APPOINTEES! WHERE DOES IT STOP? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/05/26/sotomayor/index.html

To be fair, it's possible that she does have a dick.

I'll tell you what she doesn't have, though: children.

What kind of childless commie he-bitch is Barry Soetoro trying to shove down America's throat?

[Philberto]

SPORTSWORLD DICK CHUGGING ON JOBAMA'S APPOINTEES! WHERE DOES IT STOP? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/05/26/sotomayor/index.html

DRLP, son.

http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=6402.msg176665#msg176665

(At least the MLB side of it is.)

I'll take that one. I don't really read this thread that much these days. Too many intelligent words going on

[Slaky]

I have an idea that DRLP means we already talked about that - what does it stand for? It is a shoutbox creation?

[Philberto]

I have an idea that DRLP means we already talked about that - what does it stand for? It is a shoutbox creation?

I was going to come up with some smarmy clever response... and then I realized I'm Irish Yeti and I don't do that very well..

Dempster Rotation Lieber Pen.

While I wasn't there at the time, it came from the shoutbox, indeed. Apparently once the news broke, everyone in the shoutbox repeated the news... or something like that.

[morpheus]

SPORTSWORLD DICK CHUGGING ON JOBAMA'S APPOINTEES! WHERE DOES IT STOP? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/05/26/sotomayor/index.html

To be fair, it's possible that she does have a dick.

I'll tell you what she doesn't have, though: children.

What kind of childless commie he-bitch is Barry Soetoro trying to shove down America's throat?

Another thing she may well lack: intellectual curiosity.  Which, I am told, is the single defining characteristic that separates the intelligent from the not-so-intelligent.

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-sotomayorside0527.artmay27,0,7883030.story

...Sotomayor and the two other judges on the 2nd Circuit panel that heard the appeal waived restrictions on the length of legal briefs and time allotted for oral argument. In an apparent measure of the significance of the case, the parties were permitted to submit 86-page briefs and an 1,800-page appendix. They were given an hour to argue.

On Feb. 15, 2008, in a single, unpublished paragraph, the panel affirmed Arterton's "thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion." It also said it was sympathetic to the plight of one of the plaintiff firefighters whose dyslexia required him to take extraordinary measures to prepare for the test.

Cabranes [the dissenting judge] wrote that the three-judge panel's ultimate decision "contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination."

You're reviewing an appeal of an employment-discrimination case, and your answer is "no."  No review of the Constitutional issues, just "what he said." 

I'd especially be interested in Gil's opinion on this, since I believe it strikes reasonably close to his area of expertise.  Is it common for an employment discrimination Circuit-Court appeal to have a one-paragraph majority opinion affirming the lower court's ruling?

[morpheus]

I have an idea that DRLP means we already talked about that - what does it stand for? It is a shoutbox creation?

I was going to come up with some smarmy clever response... and then I realized I'm Irish Yeti and I don't do that very well..

Dempster Rotation Lieber Pen.

While I wasn't there at the time, it came from the shoutbox, indeed. Apparently once the news broke, everyone in the shoutbox repeated the news... or something like that.

You've got it.  After that news occurred, whenever someone would breathlessly e-run into the ShoutBox with "breaking news" that had been broken the day before, someone would say something like "in related news, Dempster Rotation, Lieber Pen."  Sometimes a link to the news article saying that Dempster was in the rotation and Lieber was moving to the pen would be used.  After a while, someone (probably Thrillho, but alas, I cannot recall) got the idea to shorten it to DRLP, and thusly, an historic Internet Tradition was established.  There have been very, very poor attempts to reestablish "DRLP" using a more current news item (ChucktoChuck's "OSGB" for "Ortman Starting, Grossman Bench" being the most egregious of these), but, of course, these things cannot be forced.  They just happen.

[Brownie]

I want to know more, but if I was one of the 100 that matter, you'd have me as leaning in favor of confirming.  I'd want to know more given the Didden ruling.

[Chuck to Chuck]

There have been very, very poor attempts to reestablish "DRLP" using a more current news item (ChucktoChuck's "OSGB" for "Ortman Starting, Grossman Bench" being the most egregious of these), but, of course, these things cannot be forced.  They just happen.

Egregious?  Or simply consistent obnoxiousness?

And it's Orton.

[morpheus]

There have been very, very poor attempts to reestablish "DRLP" using a more current news item (ChucktoChuck's "OSGB" for "Ortman Starting, Grossman Bench" being the most egregious of these), but, of course, these things cannot be forced.  They just happen.

Egregious?  Or simply consistent obnoxiousness?

And it's Orton.

The latter is probably a better description, you're right.  But as for the bolded part... I can't tell if you're writing in green or not.

[RV]

SPORTSWORLD DICK CHUGGING ON JOBAMA'S APPOINTEES! WHERE DOES IT STOP? http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/05/26/sotomayor/index.html

To be fair, it's possible that she does have a dick.

I'll tell you what she doesn't have, though: children.

What kind of childless commie he-bitch is Barry Soetoro trying to shove down America's throat?

Another thing she may well lack: intellectual curiosity.  Which, I am told, is the single defining characteristic that separates the intelligent from the not-so-intelligent.

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-sotomayorside0527.artmay27,0,7883030.story

...Sotomayor and the two other judges on the 2nd Circuit panel that heard the appeal waived restrictions on the length of legal briefs and time allotted for oral argument. In an apparent measure of the significance of the case, the parties were permitted to submit 86-page briefs and an 1,800-page appendix. They were given an hour to argue.

On Feb. 15, 2008, in a single, unpublished paragraph, the panel affirmed Arterton's "thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion." It also said it was sympathetic to the plight of one of the plaintiff firefighters whose dyslexia required him to take extraordinary measures to prepare for the test.

Cabranes [the dissenting judge] wrote that the three-judge panel's ultimate decision "contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination."

You're reviewing an appeal of an employment-discrimination case, and your answer is "no."  No review of the Constitutional issues, just "what he said." 

I'd especially be interested in Gil's opinion on this, since I believe it strikes reasonably close to his area of expertise.  Is it common for an employment discrimination Circuit-Court appeal to have a one-paragraph majority opinion affirming the lower court's ruling?

I can't speak for that individual opinion and how appropriate a per curiam opinion was in that particular case. As for her overall 'intellectual curiosity' - here is the Almanac of Federal Judiciary (which seems to be an unbiased source of anonymous attorneys' opinions, from what I can tell) on Sotomayor:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/05/almanac-of-the-federal-judiciary---sonia-sotomayor.php?page=5

Some excerpts:

She is frighteningly smart. She is intellectually tough. She looks at the practical issues. It is fair to say she has done better than many people predicted. When you argue before her you have the sense that she is waiting for you to give her a reason to win. She is bright, but doesn't always get the facts.

She is very outspoken. She is overly aggressive. She abuses lawyers. She makes inappopriate outbursts.

She is engaged in oral argument. She is well-prepared. She will cut you off and cross examine you. She is an active questioner. She can get harsh in oral argument.

She writes very clear and careful prose in her opinions. Her writing is not distinguished, but is perfectly competent.

Draw your own conclusions, but I think it's helpful to look at a range of opinions and the body of work, in addition to questioning some of her more controversial opinions.

[Kermit, B.]

I have an idea that DRLP means we already talked about that - what does it stand for? It is a shoutbox creation?

Sorry.

[Jon]

I have an idea that DRLP means we already talked about that - what does it stand for? It is a shoutbox creation?

Sorry.

Why are you apologizing? You never go there.

[RV]

If you're a simple caveman like me and don't understand why healthcare has gotten so goddamn expensive to the point that it'll cripple our economy in a few years, this is a good start:

Somewhere in the United States at this moment, a patient with chest pain, or a tumor, or a cough is seeing a doctor. And the damning question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost, or to maximize revenue.

There is no insurance system that will make the two aims match perfectly. But having a system that does so much to misalign them has proved disastrous. As economists have often pointed out, we pay doctors for quantity, not quality. As they point out less often, we also pay them as individuals, rather than as members of a team working together for their patients.

Providing health care is like building a house. The task requires experts, expensive equipment and materials, and a huge amount of coördination. Imagine that, instead of paying a contractor to pull a team together and keep them on track, you paid an electrician for every outlet he recommends, a plumber for every faucet, and a carpenter for every cabinet. Would you be surprised if you got a house with a thousand outlets, faucets, and cabinets, at three times the cost you expected, and the whole thing fell apart a couple of years later?

When it comes to making care better and cheaper, changing who pays the doctor will make no more difference than changing who pays the electrician. The lesson of the high-quality, low-cost communities is that someone has to be accountable for the totality of care.

[RV]

DPD. FWIW, here's a take on Sotomayor, Ricci, and empathy.

Mr. Ricci did not challenge the constitutionality of Title VII. So the only real question before the court was whether New Haven had reason to believe that if the city used the test results it would be sued under Title VII. Mr. Ricci's specific circumstances—his race, his dyslexia, and his professional aggravation—have no bearing on that legal question at all.

So why did every report on the case begin and end with Ricci's compelling employment story? Might it have something to do with the fact that the conservative organizations supporting Ricci used his sympathetic tale as the centerpiece of a successful media blitz leading up to oral argument before the court? Could it be that they wanted to make sure the justices understood just how Title VII could impact the lives of ordinary Americans like Frank Ricci? Could they—oh the horror!—have wanted the justices to empathize with Ricci's plight?

And we want to be clear that there is nothing wrong with spotlighting your client's sympathetic life story; indeed, failing to do so could be considered a form of legal malpractice.

Every time Justice Antonin Scalia writes a habeas opinion that begins with the depiction of a gruesome murder, he is evincing empathy toward the victim.

The best judges combine empathy with adherence to the rule of law. Given that both liberals and conservatives have long sought to benefit from that fact, isn't it high time we were all honest enough to admit it?