I will make you a great nation;
I will bless you
And make your name great;
And you shall be a blessing.

I will bless those who bless you,
And I will curse him who curses you

His conclusion is that Scalia and Ginsburg must surely agree 95% of the time, and that in the other 5 cases the law is meaningless, and subordinate to “what I like”.

He blathers about his “law school experience” and claims that he “argued cases at the Appellate Court”. I call Bullshit on that. He never practiced law above the grifter level, so what would he have been doing at an Appellate Court?

For example, as liberal as it was, even the Warren Court never went so far as to declare a constitutional right to welfare, no doubt realizing how crippling that sort of entitlement would be to future Congresses notwithstanding its sympathy for the poor.

The Warren Court came really close to doing this exact thing. One of my law professors was a clerk for Harlan, who used to complain that during a stretch of the Warren Court, five justices used to caucus separately.

As for Obama, nothing he says can be used against him in a court of law or anywhere else. He’s read us all our “Obama” rights.

SOMETHING SOTOMAYOR HAS SAID SHE DOESN’T HAVE.

Not only is that antithetical to the concept of a rule of law

So’s throwing out the bankruptcy laws. This is rule of Dear Leader, not rule of law.

+100. He seems to think he’s a 21st-century Martin Luther King. Now, King was inspiring. And his words actually meant something.

BuckeyeSam on June 1, 2009 at 7:22 PM

So in reality, he’s more like the 21st century’s version of Carter and one of the Kennedys’ spawn.