Ward Churchill and Death of Academic Freedom

Pravda ^ | 7/10/2009 | David R. Hoffman

[domeika]

(This is part 2 of an article.)

Recently neo-fascists opposed to Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama’s nominee to the United States Supreme Court, have argued that she doesn’t respect the “sanctity” of the law and chooses instead to be guided by her personal beliefs.

But if there is such a thing as “sanctity” of the law, why are so many Supreme Court cases decided by five-four votes split along ideological lines? Where is this concern when self-loathing Clarence Thomas uses his experiences at Yale University, not the law, to dismantle affirmative action programs, or when Antonin Scalia unethically hears cases where his political cronies are litigants. And why was there no impeachment talk when Thomas, Scalia and others of their ilk violated judicial ethics by refusing to recuse themselves in Bush v. Gore, the case that illegally elevated George W. Bush to the White House during the coup of 2000. --snip--

[domeika]

This idiot claims to be a lawyer. If he can seriously pay his bills by working as an attorney for real clients and not by parasitical means then I'm a Tongan witchdoctor.
If you can get through all of his rant (also read PART I for a chuckle, it starts with Churchill and spirals down to this article moonbat tirade) you'll have to agree that this is a prime example of liberalism as a mental disorder where the afflicted live by choice in the twilight zone. I'm not clinician of any sort by I do know crazy when I see it.

I will comment directly on one of the questions he asks though....

Q: But if there is such a thing as “sanctity” of the law, why are so many Supreme Court cases decided by five-four votes split along ideological lines?"

A: Because four of them are effin nuts. Just like you Comrade Hoffman

[Alex Murphy]

....if there is such a thing as “sanctity” of the law, why are so many Supreme Court cases decided by five-four votes split along ideological lines?

Ping for later

[Cicero]

Well, well. I thought Pravda was making more sense these days. I suppose, though, it’s an unhealthy state of affairs when Pravda is usually more reliable than the U.S. press, and sometimes even to the right of Fox News.

In any case, it looks like they’ve gotten the bug on this one.

[Travis McGee]

Ahh, just like the bad old days. Being lectured on freedom from the pages of Pravda.

[In veno, veritas]

I wouldn't say “sanctity of the law,” but would rather state “rule of law.” The rule of law is that people can reasonably know how a rule will be interpreted, so they can stay within the limits. With the liberal judges, this concept is destroyed because it depends on their mood and past experience in which no one is privy. In general, you can predict which way the conservatives go (unless you count Kennedy as one, I don't), but liberals surprise me a lot. Especially when they state the reasons why.

[rwa265]

You might want to qualify your answer. Depending on which way Kennedy goes, it could be five.

[Congressman Billybob]

It is not a matter of respecting the "sanctity" of the law. It is a matter of respecting the language of the Constitution, which says that it is the "supreme Law." And, as Hamilton explained in the Federalist, either the Constitution is supreme over other sources of law and authority, or it is worthless.

This moron has either not read the Constitution, or he chooses to ignore it. Sorta like Sotomayor, come to think of it.

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, "A Map-Based Answer to the Palin Question"

[domeika]

You might want to qualify your answer. Depending on which way Kennedy goes, it could be five.

That's true. However, I'll play it by ear like a lib and just make it up as I go along to suit whatever end I need for the moment :-)

[traderrob6]

Interesting sidenote...

http://exposingtheleft.blogspot.com/2009/07/cu-billing-churchill-up-to-50000.html

[In veno, veritas]

Having read the first article, I can't believe this guy's entire argument is based on Churchill being innocent of plagiarism...so he's innocent even if proved guilty. If you can accept that premise, then the article might make some sense, but it is a ridiculous premise to accept.

[domeika]

Interesting sidenote... http://exposingtheleft.blogspot.com/2009/07/cu-billing-churchill-up-to-50000.html

I'll bet Churchill isn't too worried about the legal fees. Congress will no doubt slip a goodie or two into the 2nd stimulus (i.e. taxpayer rape) to take care of a fellow leftist.

[Oldpuppymax]

Astounding that people can be so completely screwed up, isn’t it! White is black, war is peace...you know the drill.

[Niteranger68]

Academics exist for the benefit of the student, not the teacher.

[DesScorp]

Ah, good ole’ Pravda, back to America hating. That brief stint with the “real journalism” stuff didn’t suit them anyway.

[domeika]

UPDATE I did a little research on this clown.

Ok, this explains it all now. This guy is a self-aggrandizing idiot that is mad at the world for not throwing rose petals at his feet.

He starts out by saying he was born into the wrong family. Hey how about that? Me too. No trust funds anywhere in my family tree, so I guess now I can just sit back and blame "da man" too. Anyway, after blaming his family, he's also ticked off in high school, presumably because he was a "have not". I think I can safely say that by the sound of his attitude and bad disposition, no normal person would ever want to be around him. Fast forward a bit, and then he goes to law school, after which he can't find a job and is working stocking pet food shelves for just above minimum wage. I guess just going to law school isn't enough, since there is a top and a bottom to every class, and with an attitude such as his, if he were even at the halfway spot from the bottom he would brag about it, so It's safe to say he just got by. But I digress. Once he had his legal degree, he then got rejected at every turn. In stating this, he shows his hand when he also blames a "backlash against affirmative action". Well doesn't that speak volumes? So he basically thinks that a job is owed to him, and demands it. He also says that jobs were promised to him, verbally of course, and then rescinded. Gee, go figure. Anyhoo, he decided to open his own practice.....and guess what? It was dismal failure, once again the fault of others, so he (surprise!) got a part-time TEACHING job. I guess his attitude sank that ship as well, because they (again, verbally) initially told him not only was full time employment offered, but that the job was his. However, not only did he not get it, his lost his temporary position as well. He then, once again blames everyone in the world, except himself of course. It may be interesting to note that with a disposition as bad as his, what kind of person, already employed at the university would offer him a job? That's easy. Loons flock together. Another self-aggrandizing mad at the world individual with the same views A) Wanted company and B) Thought wrongly that they had "the power" to promise a position. So, back he goes to the unwashed masses again, hurt and wronged by "da man".

Current job, among other failures.....legal editor for PRAVDA.

A personal note to Mr. Hoffman: Through your trials and tribulations, you blame everyone but yourself for your shortcomings, even a "backlash against affirmative action". I don't know or care what ethic group you purport to be a member of. All that aside, Mr. Hoffman, you need to understand one central and critical fact that you have obviously overlooked, and that is Mr. Hoffman, that no matter what your ethnicity, no one likes, wants to be around, or God forbid ever hire......an A$$HOLE, unless they themselves are of the same ilk. Got it? So Mr. Hoffman, next time you're crying in your vodka, take note of the reflection in it, because that's the guy who was, is, and will be, ruining your life.

To read his sob story, go HERE