Big Lizards:Blog:Entry “Even Right-Wingers Have a Lot of Catching Up to Do”

« A Shiite Sandwich | Main | More DeLay DeLights (and Lowlights) »

January 9, 2006

Even Right-Wingers Have a Lot of Catching Up to Do

Hatched by Dafydd

I was listening to Michael Medved opining on the confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito, and I finally just had to turn it off. After perhaps the fifth or sixth time that a caller complained about Alito's decision in this or that particular case -- straight off Chuck Schumer's talking pionts -- and Medved had to respond "I don't know the specifics about that particular case, but....", I realized that Medved is so far behind the times on Alito that he could not effectively argue the case for confirmation.

The maddening thing is that every case cited as an example of Alito's treachery to the Constitution has already been thoroughly dissected, debated, and debunked in the blogosphere -- but Medved seems completely unaware of that. The last caller I listened to raised the case where the Left claims that after the cops "strip searched a ten year old girl," Judge Alito cheered them on, applauding them for brutalizing a child. What a thug he must be!

But this myth was long ago put under the spotlight here in the 'sphere. The first analysis I read was by John Hinderaker at Power Line back on Halloween; then Patterico also analyzed the same case, Doe v. Groody.

The case before Alito had nothing to do with the policy of strip searching anyone, including children; had the warrant explicitly said the cops could do so, nobody would have disputed that the search was valid. The sole question before the Third Circus Court, on which Judge Alito then sat, was whether the police were acting in the reasonable belief that the warrant they received gave them the power to order that search (by a police matron, of course), and therefore whether a lawsuit against them should be dismissed.

Two judges on the court held that it was not reasonable to believe the warrant authorized that; Alito dissented. But even in his dissent, he expressed great reluctance over the policy, while admitting it was likely necessary, so long as drug dealers use children to hide drugs:

I share the majority’s visceral dislike of the intrusive search of John Doe’s young daughter, but it is a sad fact that drug dealers sometimes use children to carry out their business and to avoid prosecution. I know of no legal principle that bars an officer from searching a child (in a proper manner) if a warrant has been issued and the warrant is not illegal on its face. Because the warrant in this case authorized the searches that are challenged – and because a reasonable officer, in any event, certainly could have thought that the warrant conferred such authority – I would reverse.

As it happens, Hindrocket concluded that the warrant did, indeed authorize such a search, and therefore the officers should not have been subject to a lawsuit; while Patterico concluded that the warrant did not authorize that search, but that the officers reasonably believed that it did, and therefore should not be subject to a lawsuit. I am sure that other attorneys in the blogosphere probably believed that the officers' actions were unreasonable; a Google search would likely turn some up.

But the point is that clearly it never so much as occurred to Michael Medved, who is an attorney himself, to look to blogs for analysis of the major cases used against Alito by the Schumerites: Doe v. Groody; Alito's dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where he voted to uphold a law requiring spousal notification before an abortion; and the other cases cited by opponents of Alito's confirmation -- for example, as detailed in Wikipedia, whose list appears to have been taken directly from People for the American Way's analysis (PAW is a great proxy for the liberal position on most issues; the ACLU is good specifically to find out what liberals are saying on legal questions).

Many of these decisions have already been analyzed by attorneys and con-law specialists in the blogosphere... but Medved appears completely unaware of this treasure-trove of deep and detailed discussions. One would imagine that, while preparing for an hour-long segment on Alito's confirmation on his top-rated radio show, he would take at least a cursory glance at previous writings on the small number of cases cited to attack Alito.

One would be wrong.

As a talk-radio host (with his own website) and an attorney, the obvious thing for Medved to do would be to spend some time and identify five or six blogs blogs authored by lawyers and legal scholars he could turn to; these blogs would give him a quick start to analysis of legal controversies, and he could take it from there, doing his own analysis and drawing his own conclusions. Heck, I'm not even a lawyer, and I can cite six such blogs right off the bat: Power Line, Patterico's Pontifications, BeldarBlog (possibly defunct; no posts since last October 19th), the Volokh Conspiracy, Hugh Hewitt, and SCSU Scholars.

Sadly, not even the new-media Right has fully internalized the existence of blogs and how that changes communications in the twenty-first century.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, January 9, 2006, at the time of 2:09 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/395

Comments

The following hissed in response by: John Sobieski

Excellent point. Just Google Blog search and any contemporary issue is there. There seems to be a presumption that the political blogs are spurious and claims and statements therein are undocumented or just plain lies. That's just not true. Politically incorrect, a lot of them are, but is that a bad thing in this PC world.

The reason blogs are reliable is the selfcensorship of the blogworld. If you are going to blog politically, you had better get your facts straight and provide links. Otherwise your commentors will be highly critical. It's as simply as that.

The above hissed in response by: John Sobieski at January 9, 2006 3:28 PM

The following hissed in response by: banachspace

You rely on Powerline for you info?!?!?

Jayzus Gawd. I'm outta here.

Warning! Non-reality-based community detected!

The above hissed in response by: banachspace at January 9, 2006 6:53 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Ummmm...looks like banachspace fears this Big Lizards' Place, plus Power Line, huh. No biggie, banachspace probably heard El Rushbo credit Power Line today, and banachspace is still worried about 'messing' banachspace's pants. Relax, banachspace, Dafydd cuts a lot of slack here, so i would like to see you stay.

If the World is Sane...then i am Insane. - KårmiÇømmünîs†

The Sane World *BAFFLES* the Insane...so to speak. - KårmiÇømmünîs†

The maddening thing is that every case cited as an example of Alito's treachery to the Constitution has already been thoroughly dissected, debated, and debunked in the blogosphere -- but Medved seems completely unaware of that. The last caller I listened to raised the case where the Left claims that after the cops "strip searched a ten year old girl," Judge Alito cheered them on, applauding them for brutalizing a child. What a thug he must be!

Dafydd,

Welcome to ‘Da Dualistic World of Sanity, Insanity, and ‘Maddenedity’. i chose Insanity, some time ago...so to speak with a happy grin upon my humble mug of flesh.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines Sanity in a short quick quirk that i have always had doubts about...it goes thusly:

“sanity : the quality or state of being sane; especially : soundness or health of mind”

Insanity is defined thusly by Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

“insanity : 1 a : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia) and usually excluding such states as mental retardation, psychoneurosis, and various character disorders b : a mental disorder
2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable

This, that, and those from the same dictionary that attempts to explain Dualism in some type of similar Trilogy fashion that they attempted to define/lump Insanity into, after giving Sanity an egotistical “one-liner”, whilst not even listing or even attempting to define Non-Dualism. Figures...so to speak.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines “maddening” thusly (two choices here):

“maddening : 1 : tending to craze 2 a : tending to infuriate b : tending to vex : IRRITATING”

Their first choice was “madden”:

“ 1 : to drive mad : CRAZE 2 : to make intensely angry : ENRAGE”

At that point, their definitions become infinitely long whilst one wishes them to think more in finite terms. Basically, You and i are insane...so to speak of “so what”. Anyway, it sure beats sheer madness and/or rabies, huh.

W is on a roll, after tossing in Harriet Ellan Miers as a “ringer”, following on the heels of John Glover Roberts, Jr. sliding right on in, and now the nomination of Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. Hey, if he can’t stand against some maddening mob on his own, then W has more, and better.

We’re talking Constitutional Law here...we’re talking Democrat Senators that have no clue what that means, and they are going up against Anthony Alito Jr., with MSM backing them, and i agree that it is unfair for them, but “so what”?!? “One-on-One” is a kid’s game, other than in War, and One-Against-a-Mob is *BIG* Time!!! Trust me on this...not even Michael Medved understands Constitutional Law, but people like Justice John Roberts and Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. do.

Many of these decisions have already been analyzed by attorneys and con-law specialists in the blogosphere... but Medved appears completely unaware of this treasure-trove of deep and detailed discussions. One would imagine that, while preparing for an hour-long segment on Alito's confirmation on his top-rated radio show, he would take at least a cursory glance at previous writings on the small number of cases cited to attack Alito.
One would be wrong.

Relax...watch Sam kick some *SERIOUS* Butt!!! The mob is desperate. Relax...

i once had a Liberty City (Miami) Mob attempt to take a Prisoner from me. They were tugging so hard (i was totally surrounded by then) that i started choking him harder, and in mere seconds he passed out...i felt it, and dropped him like a rock. In unison, the mob “ahhhhed” at the same time that it moved backed (like an ocean wave). Help arrived at the same time, i grabbed his limp body back up, tossed it into my car, and left. Beat him like a redheaded stepchild in the elevator...beat him so bad that he clawed his own fingernails off whilst trying to get away from that beating. i owned him, after he sought a mob’s help, and after he and the mob clearly lost that battle. i should’ve kept his fingernails, for a necklace, huh.

The Left Blogosphere is trying everything right now, and so is the Right Blogosphere. MSM is looking for anything negative. The Democrat Leadership (plus a few Repukes) is looking for just one slip by Sam. That is what One-Against-a-Mob is about...so to speak of such ‘Thangs.

Relax, and let the Sane partake of the ‘Maddenedity’ Water.

Karmi

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at January 9, 2006 7:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

banachspace,

i am KårmiÇømmünîs†, a Karmic SLAUGHTERER. Imagine one having the ability to span Duality and Non-Duality...whilst also, naturally being able to span the Internet and to address humans like you at the same time, or to simply SLAUGHTER at will.

SLAUGHTERERING can become boring...stay a little longer, and attempt to explain your point/s.

Karmi

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at January 9, 2006 8:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

Medved probably blanked on that one. I think he gave a reasonable answer anyway. As I recall, Medved said something like, the courts are not there to protect you from humiliation. They're only there to protect legal rights, which Alito did. And you got something wrong too. Medved went to Yale Law School, but never finished. Therefore, never a lawyer.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN at January 9, 2006 8:50 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Dig Alito's Wife...talk about a Woman behind a man!!!

Some 50 plus cameras, compared to some 28 for Roberts, and Alito's Wife stood out like a Woman should. Dems...try 1 camera the next time.

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist at January 9, 2006 9:01 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

RBMN:

And you got something wrong too. Medved went to Yale Law School, but never finished. Therefore, never a lawyer.

Really? Huh, I never knew that. Medved talks all the time about having "attended Yale Law School," but now I don't recall whether he ever said specifically that he graduated or dropped out.

I have a friend who dropped out of law school (Pepperdine, I think). What's weird is that he went all the way through 1L and 2L with no significant problems, got respectable grades -- but then dropped.

My father (who graduated from Boalt Hall and was an attorney-at-law his whole life, until he was disbarred) told me that third year was possibly the easiest and definitely the most fun. I wonder what would cause someone to work through the first two years and then depart before the third?

In my case, I went through three years of graduate school and got my MA in mathematics, even though I had long since decided I wasn't interested in continuing on for the PhD, as I'd originally planned. But that wouldn't have been just one more year, more like another three to do the dissertation, defend it, and so forth. So I don't think that's the same thing.

If what you say about Medved is accurate, then he's a tricksy one, all right!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at January 10, 2006 12:30 AM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

Re: Dafydd ab Hugh at January 10, 2006 12:30 AM

Medved had the chance to go to Washington and become a political speechwriter--a Democrat speechwriter. One of the friends he got advice from, on what to do: Hillary Rodham.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN at January 10, 2006 11:21 AM

The following hissed in response by: kb

I am pleased to be listed with such distinguished company. I may be the only non-lawyer on that list, and alas I've said precious little about the Alito nomination.

The above hissed in response by: kb at January 10, 2006 3:49 PM