Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
If a White male lawyer represents a landlord in an eviction case where tenant is represented by a Black Lesbian lawyer, who should win?
If you said “The race, sex and orientation of the lawyers doesn’t matter, what matters is the law and facts of the case,” then why does every law school give bonus points to women and Black applicants? Why does the Bar Association have a Diversity Outreach Program? Why does the Judicial Selection Commission have Affirmative Action requirements to appoint women and minorities as Minnesota judges? Why was it necessary to confirm a Wise Latina to the Supreme Court?
The very things that we insist are irrelevant to justice are the things the administrators of the justice system emphasize above all else.
It’s as if the goal isn’t to enhance justice, it’s to enhance self-esteem. Promoting a few of the downtrodden allows elites to assuage their guilt toward all the downtrodden without actually getting their own hands dirty lifting up any of the downtrodden. It’s virtue-signaling, a balm for the conscience.
And yet we wonder why the downtrodden believe the justice system doesn’t produce justice?
Joe Doakes
Weird, huh?
Recall the in 2008, Obama promised to put judges in place who will rule based on how many victim check boxes someone involved in the case has.
Diversity, by itself, is not a virtue. But in politics, it may help you keep your job.
Joe, I’m curious; I am well aware of affirmative action slots in law schools. Do minority applicants get a boost on the bar exam, too? I’m guessing no, but curious.
And well said on how virtue signaling just makes the problem worse, because it becomes ever more apparent that it isn’t the law that matters anymore. Ouch.
Law prof Gail Heriot wrote about this extensively at Right Coast back in 2007:
http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2007/01/more_on_the_aba.html
It has almost certainly gotten worse in the last nine years.
These days, accusing a lawyer who openly admits to being an affirmative action law school admission of being an affirmative action law school admission will get you fired.
I don’t know. I passed the bar and never looked back!
Most states require applicants to pass the Multistate Bar Exam, a 200-question multiple choice test that covers basic principles of common law applicable to every state (civil trial procedure, criminal law and procedure, contracts, constitutional law, evidence, real estate and torts). That’s a color-the-dots test so the scorers have no leeway.
Minnesota also requires an additional essay exam covering topics selected by the Minnesota Board of Law Examiners: (Business Associations (Agency and Partnerships; Corporations; and Limited Liability Companies), Conflict of Laws, Constitutional Law, Contracts (including contracts under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), Criminal Law and Procedure, Evidence, Family Law, Federal Civil Procedure, Real Property, Secured Transactions under the UCC, Torts, Trusts and Estates, (Decedents’ Estates; Trusts and Future Interests). Those essays are scored by experienced lawyers so there is room for judgment calls.
In both systems, you must prove your identity to be allowed to take the test (to prevent me from taking the test for you). That creates a conflict between “Your identity is secret” and “Congratulations, you passed” where Affirmative Action could conceivably creep in; but I have no idea if it has.
Many of SITD’s bright lights use their knowledge of the constitution and it’s supporting documents to great effect when swatting leftists down. I would bet several of you could name the author and describe the contents of FEDERALIST No. 26 right off the top of your heads.
Does anyone think our Wise Latina® could do that? When you make race, ethnicity and gender a main focus of picking the constitutional scholars we depend on to interpret that sacred document, how far down the line does knowing the constitution go?
Well Melania Trump certainly would agree words spoken by a Woman of Color have more meaning than those same words spoken by a Woman of Pallor (and high cheek bones).
Given your significant experience as a plagiarist, Commenter “Emery”, I can’t wait to see “your” take.
Sef, I’m guessing that when Melania was accused of plagiarizing Mooch, of all people, it softened Emery’s position on the Trump ascendancy, considerably.
I was suspicious, back in 2008, when Michelle said
I’m not too impressed with the plagiarism charge. Every politician’s wife says some variation on “My husband is a good man, he and I love our children and we believe hard work is the path to success” because what else is she going to say?
Powerline has a good post on it today.
JD,
Totally agree.
If the left wing media wants to make an issue of something this trivial, better clean up their own house first. Once one reports something, it’s like a bunch of parrots sqwauking Polly want a cracker!
I am sure the story originated with the Clinton camp. It was probably passed on to a friendly journalist, who brought it to the attention of a dem-leaning (or Trump-hating) editor.
If Ms. Trump can’t find the words to praise her own husband then I’m not even gonna try.
If Ms. Trump can’t find the words…
Right. Because First Ladies (or would-be First Ladies) never had speechwriters before.
I watched Mrs. Trump’s talk, and for a lady who doesn’t address crowds very often, she did a heck of a job. She came across as genuine, which is something our current President and his former Secretary of State fail at utterly. Mostly because…they’re total fakes.
Really, the whole kerfuffle is about five phrases from a 14 minute speech, nothing like what Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or Hilliary Clinton have been credibly accused of. Give it a rest.
I’d bet you a brand new nickel, Emery, that Mrs. Trump has plenty of words to praise her own husband, but the Trump campaign handlers said she wasn’t allowed to use them because people like you wouldn’t understand them because she speaks FIVE LANGUAGES and English is not her first.
When you pass the test for fluency in her native tongue, ask her to tell you in her own language.
Melania’s speech is not important in itself. What is more notable is Democratic and Republican partisans have supported essentially the same concepts in speeches by Ms. Obama and Ms. Trump. Which goes to show how much the Democrat vs Republican “enmity” is about posturing and not about substance.
Here is a paraphrase of the so-called ‘plagiarism’ (I have to paraphrase because the actual words spoken by Michelle and Melania weren’t the same):
“I was raised to value working hard and to believe that your word was your bond, and to treat people with respect. These are lessons we want to pass to following generations because we want them to know that their only limits are their dreams and how hard they work for them.”
If it’s plagiarism, the victim is not MO, it’s thousands of high-school valedictorian-graduation-speech givers.
Emery, you are mistaken. What’s important is the trick and I’ve got to admit, it was well played.
Within moments of the speech, every news outlet was repeating the emotionally charged word “plagiarized” and it’s become the dominant Liberal meme of the day, so compelling that even you had to bring it up in a completely irrelevant context.
The story took hold instantly and pervasively. How was that possible? I find it inconceivable that news anchors have copies of every First Wife speech ever given and time to compare them side-by-side to make the discovery simultaneously. Plainly, somebody alerted them to the similarity and not only that, but also implied the words were STOLEN so she’s a thief, a criminal, and so’s her husband, unlike Hillary who was exonerated by the FBI.
It’s got to be a campaign trick and it’s a damned good one, right up there in the league with questioning the birth certificate and fake-but-accurate National Guard letters. It’s too good to be true but it’s got an emotional hook and by the time anybody rational gets a chance to say “Huh?” the damage is done, the meme has taken hold, further explanations only reinforce the damage.
Well played, Hillary.
Wait for 24 hours and it all becomes clearer. Not crystal clear, but less muddy. As being now reported, Melania did indeed have speechwriters, but only used intro and one line from their script. She and her friend wrote the entire speech themselves by combing through other first ladies speeches. I don’t know how many first ladies gave speeches, but you can only say “Stand by your man” so many different ways.
But as JD correctly pointed out, the immediate uproar was undoubtedly orchestrated and this tempest in a teapot most definitely was premeditated and staged by the Shrillary campaign. Just like immediate attacks on DTJr right after his speech. Only in that case, they were so snookered, I bet they still do not realize what happened.
It’s moments like this that illustrates how a Trump administration would function when given the power and resources of the US government. It’s important as a window into the future. Does this man have integrity? How does he choose his subordinates? Is he competent?
Because he let his wife do her own thing? His wife, not his subordinates? You voted for 0bumbler, you fetid turd, the plagiarizer-in-chief along with his plagiarizer-in-waiting Bidet, and you have the gall to criticize sTrumpet on this tangential matter? You hypocrisy knows no bounds and is just par for the course for rabid libturds like yourself. sTrumpert has plenty of other reasons he should never have made it as a representative of the GOP, but you got nothing better to say than to latch onto the latest Shrillary talking point. Sad. There is a brain lying discarded somewhere where you first drank libturd Kool-Aid.
I’d rather listen to you repeat yourself over and over and over and over and over. Jokes get more funny with repetition. Everybody knows that. Still, you’re more entertaining than yawn.
I was referring to Team Trumps reaction to his wife’s speech. Not the speech itself, which was one of the high points of that evening.
It’s moments like this that illustrates how a Trump administration would function when given the power and resources of the US government. It’s important as a window into the future. Does this man have integrity? How does he choose his subordinates? Is he competent?
OK, so apparently you voted for Obama after he plagiarized a Mass. legislator, chose a plagiarizing running mate, had participated in a “God d*** America” church for 20 years and who had known terrorists in his acquaintance and political association,…..
…..and you’re somehow qualified to judge Donald Trump because his wife mouthed some platitudes that others have mouthed, ignoring the fact that they’re called platitudes for exactly this reason?
Honestly, Emery, can we try some intellectual consistency for once? Please?
It’s important to keep finding new ways of showing why Trump is crazy, incompetent, or insufferable. Each new example is a chance to find a way into those closed circles and break the consensus. Movement is never gradual over time. Steady pressure leads to sudden ruptures. He is gaining and losing chunks of supporters all the time. Many Americans don’t give serious thought to their choice for President until after Labor Day. Everything so far has been background noise to them.
It’s important to keep finding new ways of showing why Trump is crazy, incompetent, or insufferable.
If only you worked so hard to find same for 0bumbler and Shrillary. You, know, for objectivity sake. After all, they are a much more fertile ground for craziness, incompetence and insufferability. Oops, there I go plagiarizing! But being a libturd means never have to turn a critical eye onto oneself. Ever.
Trump is a lot of things, crazy isn’t one of them. He’s playing the media like a god damn fiddle. He’s being outspent 40:1 in swing states by Billery and they are almost all within the margin of error. Think about that for a second.
Also I might note I was a #nevertrump until about 3 weeks ago. I supported Walker, Fiorina, Rubio, and then finally Cruz during primary season. So you aren’t talking to a longtime supporter here
Emery, the way I see it is simple; Trump may be an egotist and unacquainted with the truth, but Hilliary is all that and a crook besides, one whose crimes shout disregard for American security. Moreover, for all his very real faults, he occasionally gets it right–again, this is far more than I can say for Hilliary.
So if it is incumbent on us to show Trump’s faults, it is ever so much more incumbent upon us to show Hilliary’s crimes.
It’s interesting how opinions change in today’s hyper-connected society. Online, people tend to stick to their narrow group of friends, news sources, and therefore opinions. And yet there is leakage in those closed circles; each group of friends and news sources has members who receive views from outside the circle. Occasionally one of those links to the outside will bring in a nugget of outside information which will disrupt the consensus, be it a ‘viral video’ or a funny picture that makes a larger point.
Mission Accomplished ;^)
http://i.imgur.com/IOuHdMA.jpg
Many of the pundits who went for Obama in ’08 thought that they were getting a moderate. David Brooks, Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan, even Chris Buckley voted for Obama. Real conservatives (like me) weren’t fooled for a second. We knew that Obama would govern as a radical leftist.
Everyone knows exactly what they will get with Hillary. They will get a corrupt, venal, left-wing ideologue who believes that the rule of law is something for other people — especially her enemies (There is a saying, supposedly said by one of the czars: “For my friends — anything. For my enemies — the law!”).
Trump, at least, has the benefit of being an unknown. His personality is not going to change, but who knows if he will try to raise taxes or cut taxes, or . . . whatever. He will be restrained by the ‘radical’ GOP establishment, the press, and the federal bureaucracies.
The press, the GOP establishment, and the federal bureaucracies will not restrain Hillary’s radical agenda (goodbye, bill of rights!).
Anyone who thinks Hillary is preferable to Trump when it comes to handling national security was not paying attention during her tenure as Secretary of State or its aftermath.
I was wondering why Melania’s speech sounded so grounded and at the same time so vastly out-of-place from the rest of the angry speeches. Turns out it was because it was from the Democratic Convention.
Ahhh, the Demoncrats. The epitome of civility. BLM, Anti-sTrumpet protesters, Code Pink, Black Panthers, KKK… sorry, don’t have time to list all the peaceful Demoncrat-supported causes.
All right, which word did it this time?
Oh, and forgot that paragon of civility on display – 1968 Democratic Convention. Must be hard to be eTASS when everything he says is cause for p0wnership.
Inadvertent self-parody is usually good for a chuckle.
You would know, Emery … wait, no, you probably wouldn’t.
chupacabra: You will have to be more specific, because I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. I just have a perpetual smug grin on my face.
It must be tattooed on, just like Jokers. Nice look!
Inadvertent self-parody is usually good for a chuckle.
Another non-sequitur to being p0wned.
You got it on the first try!