[metmom]

I noticed that he portrayed himself as a champion of the Constitution, but was more than willing to trash it when it suited his purposes. He must have thought it only applied to him and no one else had any rights.

[TigersEye]

That is a very accurate description of his style. I have been acquainted with him for years. He usually hit every WoDs thread and did the same thing he did here. Endless posts, insults, accusations, intimidation, twisting facts to fit his case. Bringing in information after fifty posts of acting like everyone should be aware of it and acting very superior about it. You might support the WoDs yourself but I highly doubt you would want to associate yourself with his views on it.

In the last couple of years he came up with a cockamamie theory that the 2nd Amend. only protects you if you're in a militia, that "people" in the Constitution doesn't mean all citizens, not in the past and not in the present, and the states can outlaw firearms possession outright or allow it for all citizens if they want and the 2nd Amend. has no bearing on that.

I'm sure he would say I am telling it wrong but it's so bizarre I can't pretend to be able to cite his theory chapter and verse. Besides it kind of changes when he needs it to. Like the Constitution. Of course only YOU and I are doing that!!! If they let him back in you can count on a continuation and whining about all these references to him in his absentia without pinging him.

[AndyJackson]

There is a wonderful tribute to WFB appearing at National Review on Line The Soul of Buckley, wherein the eminent conservative scholar Harvey Jaffa relates the following story:

Our dispute had its origins at a Philadelphia Society meeting, when I was lecturing on “We hold these truths to be self evident...” Van den Haag stood up and declared “There are no self evident truths...” I then asked him, “Is it not self evident to you that you are not a dog?” He replied, “No.” I then said, “Don’t you know that you are not a dog?” He again replied, “No.” I concluded the dialogue by saying “If you don’t know that you are not a dog, maybe you don’t know that I am not a fire hydrant.” I don’t think many there left without knowing why certain self-evident truths were the basis, not only of justice, but of sanity. There is no ground for human rights in positive law unless there is a prior ground in natural law recognizing that human beings are neither beasts nor God.

The problem for the Zotted One is that he attempted to pose what he thought was a rational argument that it is ok for schools to do that which any sensible and morally upright individual knows to be reprehensible, namely to treat a teenage girl in a manner that would outrage PETA if it were attempted on a dog. It defies certain self-evident truths, certain fundamental distinctions that differentiate our regime from that of Hitler, or Stalin or Saddam Hussein.

Frankly I am concerned that some judges could rule that this is actually ok. I only hope that the en banc opinion understands that affirming this decision will undermine the - ahem - respect that we have for our learned citizens who serve on the judiciary.