Posted on 01/21/2015 9:06:45 PM PST by iowamark
On a gray Wednesday in November, the Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly and four producers gathered around a conference table on the 17th floor of the News Corporation building in Manhattan...
Slated for the D block was Jonathan Gilliam, a former Navy SEAL...
For those unfamiliar with the phenomenon, a Megyn moment, as I have taken to calling it, is when you, a Fox guest — maybe a regular guest or even an official contributor — are pursuing a line of argument that seems perfectly congruent with the Fox worldview, only to have Kelly seize on some part of it and call it out as nonsense, maybe even turn it back on you. You don’t always know when, how or even if the Megyn moment will happen; Kelly’s political sensibility and choice of subjects are generally in keeping with that of the network at large. But you always have to be ready for it, no matter who you are. Neither Karl Rove nor Dick Cheney have been spared their Megyn moments, nor will the growing field of 2016 presidential aspirants, who can look forward to two years of interrogation on “The Kelly File.” The Megyn moment has upended the popular notion of how a Fox News star is supposed to behave, and led to the spectacle of a Fox anchor winning praise from the very elites whose disdain Fox has always welcomed. In the process, Kelly’s program has not just given America’s top-rated news channel its biggest new hit in 13 years; it has demonstrated an appeal to the younger and (slightly) more ideologically diverse demographic Fox needs as it seeks to claim even more territory on the American journo-political landscape.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Yes, that makes her a good lawyer...so?
You make an interesting point.
Of course lawyers are paid to represent one party over another in a conflict and to make plans for and take precautions against any such occurrence.
I can see the NY Times article on Megan as a “liberal” has had it’s desired effect on conservatives.
Megan is anything but a liberal. She has a brain, a sense of humor and is classy. : )
No-go zones would be easy to prove by the police reports having black holes.
No, she's a lawyer with blinkers on as to what constitutes "truth."
That alone should make you proud of her instead of trying to take her personnel opinion into consideration.
No. She's an educated idiot. For example, she cannot see how gay unions are in injustice to the resulting children because to her, "the case" only involves the two adults.
I disagree with the law and hate her position, but why do you hate her for standing up for the law?
I don't hate her; I just don't respect her for being the useful statist tool.
She is so much more honest about the law and opinions that almost everybody else and actually say so!
She is honest about her take on the law. What she does not understand is that many issues are not properly solved in law. She thinks law addresses EVERYTHING. In her world, you'd have a lawyer on your shoulder instead of a conscience. Life is more complex than the world of lawyers who make lousy technical finders of "fact" in everything from environmental cases to matters of worker safety, issues that involve sufficient intangibles and uncertainties that they are best resolved in markets denominated in competing risk. This is but one reason why the Federal government was constituted with limited and enumerated powers, the limits of which she routinely ignores.
Why does that not matter to you?
Hopefully by now you see why it does. So her honesty is fine.
I wish to add that one of the reasons that "gay marriage" as an issue should not be decided in courtrooms is because the case brought to them will only involve the two adults with standing in that case. Shouldn't future children be represented? Legal mechanism doesn't give them standing or consideration.
Why would anyone watch Rachel Maddow when they could be watching Megyn Kelly?
Megyn is a bit of a bulldog and doesn't let people off the hook, which is as it should be. Hers is not the show on which to appear if you want to be thrown a few softballs.
The Supreme Court has spoken so nothing you say can change that. Accept it and get along with your life.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Please be so kind and tell us the Supreme Court decision that made homosexual marriage the law of the land?
Should we give up on the fight over abortion because of Roe v. Wade?
The Supreme court once said black people were chattel. Would you have said, “The Supreme Court has spoken so nothing you say can change that. Accept it and get along with your life” in that case?
I agree with you in principle but will not make it my primary issue when voting as it would e useless, ie, no one to vote for..."
Wow. That's just...I don't even have words.
I mean, I understand you're crushing on Megyn, and that's why you tend to excuse her. But you, as a conservative, would turn a blind eye to a candidate who supported perversion? Specifically, one who supported two men messing with each other's filthy anal area and calling it "marriage?"
Incredible.
That legal history culminated in the Founding Documents.
For the purposes of this thread regarding marriage, homosexuality, and child rearing - the essential issues are unavoidable.
Each nation has two absolute requirements to actualize or else go extinct.
Requirement 1: Maintain and pass to the next generation the lands which are that nation's homeland.
Requirement 2: Raise and acculturate the next generation of that nation.
Obviously, failure of any of the above results in national extinction.
This thread also is deeply mired in the philosophical/legal quagmire know as “Legal Perfection”. “Legal Perfection” is a concept discussed in Ancient Greece, and discarded as impossible to attain.
“Legal Perfection” holds that the laws should deal equally with all citizens, in all cases. Admirable, but those Greeks also noted that as Athens was a city with 40,000 citizens(slaves, foreigners, etc were not considered), human activities were so complex that laws able to deal justly with all, in all cases were not possible.
Those Greeks then decided that rather than rely on a rigid set of laws which could not be so written as to be just, that human judgement would have to be relied upon.
The culmination/perfection of that wise, even sagacious decision was the American legal system with written laws constrained by the Constitution, administered by grand juries, petite juries, judges, and the most crucial part - a well acculturated citizenry who regulated their own behavior to the degree that system could function.
Back to “Courts, Queers, & Kids”. Remembering the essentiality of acculturating the next generation, from Moses, through Jesus, and to the time of the founding of the American Republic, indeed, until the time of “Woodstock Nation”, the family was assumed to be one man and one woman.
Marriage was given special and preferential status because the married had been proven throughout more than 3,000 years to be the best way to raise and acculturate the next generation.
As queers can not reproduce, they do not qualify to receive the benefits society gives to those who devote so much of their life and labor to raise acculturated children.
To say that queers/queer marriages, or children raised by queers, are “acculturated” is transparent sophistry in light of the above mentioned societal imperatives.
Of those hoping to perfect Legal Perfectionism” or equate Queer Marriage” with a real marriage, I can only say “Bah - Humbuggery!”
I’d like to be there for a Megyn moment. Nice long one.
There is no one or no issue liberals here will not excuse as long as their personal agendas are catered to. And call it ‘conservative’. They will tie themselves into metaphorical knots. Whether it’s Kelly and homo love, Levin’s backers excusing his multiple unfulfilled threats of leaving the GOP or the drooling idiots that STILL TO THIS DAY pine for a Romney presidency.
Their lives are so empty they need to White Knight celebs and live vicariously through them. And they will throw away every last shred of personal integrity to do it. As long as their personal ‘truth’ is upheld.
He’s making a big deal out of a journalist asking serious questions and pretending that that’s unusual on Fox News. That’s absurd. It would be a surprise on any other network but not Fox.
Oh, yeah!
Hey, don;t be greedy.
You already have Lillian ;)
And I have pictures! ;^)
Not that Megyn does whatever she does...
Astonishing that people still watch cable news...
They like to ‘feel’ they got something in return for the $100 monthly donation to Soros and the DNC.
SO...I posted her legal experience - figuring most folk would get the connection with a lawyer's experience giving her the edge on springing the trap - as it were.
Guess, for some, it had to be spelled out -
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.