Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for the ‘liberals versus conservatives’ Category

>Why Are People Calling Obama Evil?

>Yes, they are–they’re looking at his mindset and how he makes decisions and are coming up flat. they don’t understand how such a nice appearing family man with two wonderful kids and a smart wife can he, himself, be such a jerk.
   I’m speaking from the vantage point of a conservative. To progressives he may seem as normal as apple pie and baseball in America. but he’s not.
   Today Rush Limbaugh told his listeners why this man is so liberal in everything. He studied at Harvard University not just law, but “Critical Law Studies.” What bothers most of us is how Obama has hidden so many documents and so much information about himself. Finally, he has released his long form birth certificate — just two years after he began as president when the law states you can’t run for this high office unless and until you reveal this document. Who did he buy off in the U.S. Elections Commission? If I were in Congress I would want to investigate this group, bring them before Congress and ask them some questions, at a minimum. Perhaps some of them need to be fired. They are’n’t doing their jobs. 
   We do need to know what kinds of grades Obama got when he attended Columbia and Harvard Universities–and Oxidental. Limbaugh said today there is credible evidence that he got poor grades at the latter school. If so, how did he get into Harvard? Politics, I suspect. Someone in government swung a deal with the school to let this “foreign” student get in. Foreign student? Yes, he won a Ford or Fullbright scholarship coming in from where he was living in Indonesia and was known as Barry Sartoro. Queer, wouldn’t you say, at least. He’s an american-born president, at least by today’s birth certificate, but he’s living abroad and coming in as a foreign student.
   What is Critical legal Studies? Is it so different from our own Constitutional law that it causes people to become upset with it and with the students who graduate at the schools offering CLS.
The following from Wikipedia will explain it all to you, my readers.

Critical legal studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Critical legal studies is a movement in legal thought that applied methods similar to those of
critical theory (the Frankfurt School) to law. The abbreviations “CLS” and “Crit” are
sometimes used to refer to the movement and its adherents.




Although the intellectual origins of the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) can be generally 
traced to American Legal Realism, as a distinct scholarly movement CLS fully emerged 
only in the late 1970s. Many first-wave American CLS scholars entered legal education,
having been profoundly influenced by the experiences of the civil rights movement,
women’s rights movement, and the anti-war movement of the 1960s and 1970s. What
started off as a critical stance towards American domestic politics eventually translated
into a critical stance towards the dominant legal ideology of modern Western society.
Drawing on both domestic theory and the work of European social theorists, the “crits”
sought to demystify the numerous myths at the heart of mainstream legal thought
and practice.
The British critical legal studies movement started roughly at a similar time as its
American counterpart. However, it centered around a number of conferences held
annually, particularly the Critical Legal Conference and the National Critical Lawyers 
Group. There remain a number of fault lines in the community, between theory and
practice, between those who look to Marxism and those who worked on
Deconstruction, between those who look to explicitly political engagements and
those who work in aesthetics and ethics.


Although the CLS (like most schools and movements) has not produced a single,
monolithic body of thought, several common themes can be generally traced
in its adherents’ works. These include:
  • A first theme is that contrary to the common perception, legal materials 
  • (such as statutes and case law) do not completely determine the outcome 
  • of legal disputes, or, to put it differently, the law may well impose many 
  • significant constraints on the adjudicators in the form of substantive rules, 
  • but, in the final analysis, this may often not be enough to bind them to 
  • come to a particular decision in a given particular case. Quite predictably, 
  • once made, this claim has triggered many lively debates among jurists and 
  • legal philosophers, some of which continue to this day (see further 
  • indeterminacy debate in legal theory).
  • Secondly, there is the idea that all “law is politics.” This means that 
  • legal decisions are a form of political decision, but not that it is 
  • impossible to tell judicial and legislative acts apart. Rather, CLS have 
  • argued that while the form may differ, both are based around the 
  • construction and maintenance of a form of social space. The argument 
  • takes aim at the positivist idea that law and politics can be entirely 
  • separated from one another. A more nuanced view has emerged 
  • more recently. This rejects the reductivism of ‘all law is politics’ and 
  • instead asserts that the two disciplines are mutually interspersed. 
  • There is no ‘pure’ law or politics, but rather the two forms work together 
  • and constantly shift between the two linguistic registers.
  • A third strand of the traditional CLS school is that far more often 
  • than is usually suspected the law tends to serve the interests of the 
  • wealthy and the powerful by protecting them against the demands 
  • of the poor and the subaltern(women, ethnic minorities, the working 
  • class, indigenous peoples, the disabled, homosexuals etc.) for 
  • greater justice. This claim is often coupled with the legal realist 
  • argument that what the law says it does and what it actually tends 
  • to do are two different things. Many laws claim to have the aim of 
  • protecting the interests of the poor and the subaltern. In reality, they 
  • often serve the interests of the power elites. This, however, does not 
  • have to be the case, claim the CLS scholars. There is nothing intrinsic 
  • to the idea of law that should make it into a vehicle of social injustice.
  •  It is just that the scale of the reform that needs to be undertaken to
  • realize this objective is significantly greater than the mainstream 
  • legal discourse is ready to acknowledge.
  • Furthermore, CLS at times claims that legal materials are inherently
  •  contradictory, i.e. the structure of the positive legal order is based 
  • on a series of binary oppositions such as, for instance, the opposition 
  • between individualism and altruism or formal realizability (i.e. preference 
  • for strict rules) and equitable flexibility (i.e. preference for broad standards).
  • Finally, CLS questions law’s central assumptions, one of which is the 
  • Kantian notion of the autonomous individual. The law often treats 
  • individual petitioners as having full agency vis-a-vis their opponents. 
  • They are able to make decisions based on reason that is detached 
  • from political, social, or economic constraints. CLS holds that individuals 
  • are tied to their communities, socio-economic class, gender, race, 
  • and other conditions of life such that they cease to be autonomous 
  • actors in the Kantian mode. Rather, their circumstances determine 
  • and therefore limit the choices presented to them. People are not 
  • “free”; they are instead determined in large part by social and 
  • political structures that surround them.
Increasingly, however, the traditional themes are being superseded by
broader and more radical critical insights. Interventions in intellectual 
property lawhuman rightsjurisprudencecriminal lawproperty law,
international law etc, have proved crucial to the development of
those discourses. Equally, CLS has introduced new frameworks to the
legal field such as postmodernismqueer theory; literary approaches
to law; psychoanalysis; law and aesthetics and post-colonialism.


Many conservative and liberal scholars were highly critical of the 
critical legal studies movement. The idea that the law was utterly
indeterminate was contested in a famous debate in the late 1980s.
More conservative critics argued that the radical nature of the
movement was inconsistent with the mission of professional
legal education.

[edit]Continued influence

CLS continues as a diverse collection of schools of thought and social 
movements. The CLS community is an extremely broad group with
clusters of critical theorists at law schools such as Harvard Law 
SchoolGeorgetown University Law CenterNortheastern University,
University at BuffaloBirkbeck College LondonUniversity of 
MelbourneUniversity of KentKeele University, the University 
of Glasgow, the University of East London among others.
In the American legal academy its influence and prominence seems to
have waned in recent years. However, offshoots of CLS, including

critical race theory continue to grow in popularity. Associated
schools of thought, such as contemporary feminist theory and
ecofeminism and critical race theory now play a major role in
contemporary legal scholarship. An impressive stream of CLS-
style writings has also emerged in the last two decades in the
areas of international and comparative law.

In addition, CLS has had a practical effect on legal education, 
as it was the inspiration and focus of Georgetown University Law 
Center’s alternative first year curriculum, (Termed “Curriculum B”,
known as “Section 3” within the school). In the UK both Kent and
Birkbeck Law Schools have sought to draw critical legal insights
into the legal curriculum, including a critical legal theory based LLM
at Birkbeck. Various research centers and institutions offer CLS-
based taught and research courses in a variety of legal fields
including human rights, jurisprudence, constitutional theory
and criminal justice.
In New Zealand, the University of Otago Legal Issues Centre was
established at the University’s law faculty in 2007. Professor Kim
Economides, Director of the University of Otago Legal Issues
Centre, was a founder member of the UK Critical Legal Conference
in the 1980s. He has taught critical legal studies at Otago and legal
ethics at Victoria University of Wellington. Both his teaching and
research currently explore critical, ethical and empirical perspectives
on the operation of the legal system and lawyers’ work, particularly
within the context of New Zealand.
Law & Critique is one of the few UK journals that specifically
identifies itself with critical legal theory. In America, The Crit is
the only journal that continues to explicitly position itself as a
platform for critical legal studies. However, other journals such
as Law, Culture and the Humanities, Unbound: The Harvard
Journal of the Legal Left, The National Lawyers Guild Review,
Social and Legal Studies and the Australian Feminist Law Journal
all published avowedly critical legal research.

[edit]See also

[edit]Further reading

  • Mark KelmanA Guide to Critical Legal Studies, Harvard 
  • University Press, 1987
  • Costas Douzinas & Adam GeareyCritical Jurisprudence: 
  • The Political Philosophy of Justice, Hart Publishing, 2005
  • Roberto Mangabeira UngerThe Critical Legal Studies 
  • Movement, Harvard University Press, 1983
  • Janet E. Halley (ed.), Wendy Brown (ed.), Left Legalism/Left 
  • Critique-P, Duke University Press 2003
  • Janet E. Halley “Revised version entitled “Like-Race Arguments”” 
  • in What’s Left of Theory?, Routledge, 2001.
  • Richard W. BaumanCritical legal studies : a guide to the 
  • literature, Boulder, Colo. : Westview Press, 1996
  • Richard W. BaumanIdeology and community in the first 
  • wave of critical legal studies, Toronto [u.a.] : University of 
  • Toronto Press, 2002
  • Duncan KennedyLegal Education and the Reproduction of 
  • Hierarchy: A Polemic Against the System: A Critical Edition
  • New York University Press 2004
  • Duncan Kennedy, A Critique of Adjudication [fin de siecle], 
  • Harvard University Press, 1997.
  • David W. Kennedy and William Fisher, eds. The Canon of American 
  • Legal Thought, Princeton University Press (2006)
  • Andrew AltmanCritical Legal Studies: A Liberal Critique
  • Princeton University Press 1990
  • John Finnis, “On the Critical Legal Studies Movement” 30 
  • American Journal of Jurisprudence 1985
  • Scott Fruehwald, “Postmodern Legal Thought and Cognitive 
  • Science,” 23 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 375 (2006).
  • Le Roux and Van Marle, “Critical Legal Studies” in Roeder (ed) 
  • (2004) Jurisprudence

[edit]External links


>Let’s Let The Left Leave America




Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists
and Obama supporters, et al:

  We have stuck together since the late 1950’s for the sake of the kids,
but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want
a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of
future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

  Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on
what is right for us all, so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can
smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

  Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each
taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure  our two
sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively
easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets
since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

  We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are
welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war,
we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
We’ll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and
biodiesel.  You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell.
You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to
move all three of them.

  We’ll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical
companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved
lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies
and illegal aliens. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and
rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

  You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain
the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the
peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under
assault, we’ll help provide them security.

  We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to
Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain.
You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

  We’ll keep the SUV’s, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can
take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

  You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing
doctors. We’ll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a
right.  We’ll keep “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” and
“The National Anthem.” I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute
“Imagine”, “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing“,
“Kum Ba Ya” or “We Are the World“.

  We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give
trickle up poverty your best shot.

  Since it often so offends you, we’ll
keep our history, our name and our flag. 

  Would you agree to this?  If so, please pass it along to other
like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just
hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you answer which one
of us will need whose help in 15 years.


John J. Wall

Law Student and an American

>Vote For Conservatives Only – Then For Term Limits


June 15, 2010

Scientist Discovers Fire

A puzzled professor at Rice University, who also sits on a commission investigating whether term limits should be scuttled, offers evidence that people like term limits. Moreover, it seems people are especially prone to like them during times when the career politicians have gone out of their way to destroy the economy and all things wonderful and beautiful.
The popularity of term limits is old news. Term limit measures pass every time voters get a chance to vote for them. Many people who blog and write letters to the editor and attend Tea Party ralliesregularly demand term limits — even as pols and pundits regularly announce, in tones of increasing desperation, that the term limits movement has expired already, and anyway we-already-have-term-limits-they’re-called-elections.
Bob Stein’s research pertains to Houston. His 1998 survey of registered voters showed 22 percent of respondents supporting city term limits “very strongly.” By 2009, 41 percent supported term limits “very strongly.” The number who opposed term limits “very strongly” rose from only 7 percent to 12.
The Houston Chronicle also reports that in a 2002 article, the professor observed that Americans support term limits “for elected officials at all levels of government.” But he professed not to understand the reason for this enthusiasm.
Somehow it doesn’t occur to the professor that Americans don’t want to be ruled by an entrenched, unmoving, heedless oligarchy that represents only itself?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob..