Joe Bodell at MN “Progressive” Project, in the tradition of those great Americans Frank Burns and Dwight Schrute, wants to know; “did you go, or have you ever been, to a Tea Party?”
At what point does society recognize that an elected leader’s public speech has crossed the line into the territory of sedition?
About two seconds before it crosses into “witchcraft”.
Oh, give me a break. It’s as serious as anything else in Bodell’s point.
Wikpedia’s definition:
{{facepalm}}
(Note: When someone leads off an “argument” with a dictionary definition of a word, they are insulting you. When they lead off the “argument” with a definition from Wikipedia, they are insulting themselves. And you).
I digress…
Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.
The answer is simple, Joe. “Sedition” is a “crime” that gets trotted out to criminalize dissent, and bully people into compliance, acquiescence and silence.
For example, if I say “Keith Ellison is a brittle, vindictive little man who is more suited to teaching Grievance Studies at a community college than representing a great city like Minneapolis in Washington, and I urge you to vote against him”, and the “local authority” in Mr. Bodell’s Wikipedia reference (sknx) “deems” it to be rabble-rousing, and has perverted the laws to make “sedition” illegal, they could sic the goons on me.
Glad I could help.
Fortunately, our “local authority” is bound by the Constitution, whose First Amendment protects my right to have an opinion about Keith Ellison just as much as it does the right to make statues of the Virgin Mary out of dung, or Joe Bodell’s right to pass off McCarthyistic misapplications of archaic, authoritarian laws as “reasoning”.
Or Michele Bachmann’s right to get a crowd whipped up against Joe Bodell’s government:
Just this past weekend, Michele Bachmann spoke at a Tea Party rally in St. Paul, saying
“But mark my words, the American people aren’t gonna take this lying down,” Bachmann later said. “We aren’t gonna play their game, we’re not gonna pay their taxes. They want us to pay for this? Because we don’t have to. We don’t have to. We don’t have to follow a bill that isn’t law. That’s not the American way, and that’s not what we’re going to do.”
After which she told people to go into the woods with Grampa’s Garand and start shooting revenooers?
Well, no. The Representative was calling people to “resist” at the ballot box and at Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings (assuming we haven’t seen the last of them) and on the phones.
Which is still legal, by Joe Bodell’s leave.
An MPP reader happened to be in the neighborhood of that rally, and noted that there appeared to be many more Wisconsin license plates nearby than one normally sees in St. Paul.
(Huh? First – does Joe Bodell ever spend time in Saint Paul? Second – and I repeat; huh?)
Curious. In any case, I’m fairly certain that if Congress passes a bill…and the President signs it (despite those same Republicans playing footsie with the crazies who fervently believe him not to be a natural-born American citizen), the bill. becomes. law.
(And goodness knows one must not play footsie with people with bizarre fringe views, must one? Because having fringies and other lunatics show up at ones’ party sure destroys ones’ credibility, doesn’t it?)
Anyone care to disagree?
I’d raise my hand here, but I’m afraid Joe Bodell will call the State Patrol or something.
OK, Joe, it’s fairly simple. If a bill. becomes. law, I get to work to change it, in the Legislature, and/or by changing the legislature.
But if it walks like a duck and talks like a seditionist, at what point do we call the damned thing one thoroughly seditionist waterfowl?
It’s simple, Joe. You can call it “sedition”. You can even call together a group – call it the “Minnesota Anti-American Activities Project” hearings, if you’d like – and have them declare it anything you want. Call it sedition, or witchcraft for that matter. And the rest of us will do what Americans do whenever people do that kind of thing. Laugh at it, and maybe come up with a snappy term for trying to criminalize dissent. “Bodellism”, perhaps?
Nah.
It just seems like that invoking a term that was last used as an authoritarian and not-very-constitutional infringement on civil liberty in 1918 is something you do when you don’t have a very good factual argument.
So urging people to break a non-existent law is now sedition?
To be perfectly clear, I think that “sedition”, like “defamation”, is one of those things that can happen ethically even if not legally.
Like if I yell “the king is a fink”, it’s still sedition, even if it’s not legally banned.
Not that that makes Bodell’s post any less weird.
I took a quick look at West’s online law dictionary.
“Sedition” is a word a little like “treason”. It has a popular meaning as well as a legal definition.
The reason Tailgunner Joe used a popular definition rather than a legal definition (though he sure talks a lot about the law in his piece) is that, in the US, the legal definition of sedition is waging war to accomplish the violent overthrow of the government or conspiring to do so.
Unlike many other countries merely calling on people to disobey a law is not sedition.
I guess ol’ Joe will have to try that ‘witchcraft’ thing instead.
Piggybacking on what Terry said, when I applied for a secret security clearance, I was asked-
“Have you ever been an officer or a member or made a contribution to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the United States
Government and which engages in illegal activities to that end, knowing that the organization engages in such activities with the specific intent to
further such activities?”
I was never asked if I opposed a horrible bill in Congress and announced my intention to seek its repeal.
Bachmann is a lot of things, but she is not inarticulate. If she wanted to say people should ““resist” at the ballot box and at Tea Parties and Town Hall meetings (assuming we haven’t seen the last of them) and on the phones,” she would have said that.
What she in fact did say is “we don’t have to follow a bill that isn’t law.” If you had been paying attention you would know she was talking about the use of the “deeming” procedure.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/bachmann-were-not-going-to-obey-health-care-law—-we-dont-have-to-video.php?ref=fpa
Bachmann went beyond saying she would try to block the bill or try to repeal it if passed. She said if the bill is passed with a procedure she does not like she will encourage people to not obey the law. She said “If they pass the bill legitimately, then yes, we have to follow the law — until we repeal it. But if they pass it illegitimately, then the bill is illegitimate, and we don’t have to lay down for this. . . . And you can’t say you voted on a bill when you didn’t, because it’s fraud. But we are not helpless here. We are not helpless, there are things that we can do.” Specifcally she said people would not have to pay the taxes mandated by the bill i.e. “we’re not gonna pay their taxes”.
That is clearly not (legal) sedition. Whether you call it (popular) sedition or civil disobedience probably depends on your oppinion of the “deeming” prodcedure. Whatever else it is a far different kettle of fish than saying “the king is a fink”.
I think, RickDFL, that Bodell is trying to define sedition as civil disobedience that is not agreeable with his politics.
Since there is no law yet, it’s not even civil disobedience, really, much less sedition.
Now, on the other hand, when Bachmann urged people not to fill out their census long forms, that law was on the books. Wonder how that flew under Tailgunner Joe’s radar? If it was because Bachmann’s constituents hypothetical refusal to fill out the forms would actually reduce their representation, that proves my point about Bodell’s definition of sedition. Kind of a backwards-polish “no harm-no foul” deal he’s got going there.
Terry:
“Bodell is trying to define sedition as civil disobedience that is not agreeable with his politics.”
I would say that that is the way most people deffine the terms, at least as far as the popular understanding of sedition.
Now I’ve gotten to thinking . . . my mind is aglow with whirling transient nodes of thought, careening through a cosmic vapor of invention.
If some feller . . . oh, let’s call him Penigma, were to declare to his many friends and supporters down at the bowling alley “Comrades! I tell you, if the government ever passes a law forbidding Americans like me from wearing pants with the zipper in the back, it is unconstitutional! I hope you will join me in not obeying such an illegitimate law and by refusing to pay your taxes!”, would Bodell consider our fictional character to be engaging in sedition?
I thought it was settled science that sedition is the highest form of patriotism. I may have to go all the way back to 2006 or 07 to check that out, but I don’t know if I want to in the face of this chilling wind.
Terry:
“would Bodell consider our fictional character to be engaging in sedition”
That would depend on what Bodell thought about zippers in the back.
You all seem to think that if A calls X ‘sedition’ and B dissagrees, then A or B is using ‘sedition’ incorrectly. I would say they both are using the word ‘sedition’ correctly, they just dissagree about X.
I would give a dollar to see Bachmann sock Pelosi.
I thought Bachmann recommending disobedience against a bill was simply strange.
On the other hand, I laughed out loud at the recent STrib article fact checking Bachmann’s claims Pelosi is out to get her. Turns out Pelosi doesn’t seem to think Bachmann is all that important after all, which is sad, because that means Bachmann has been imagining how important she is in the big fight against the left….. makes sense to me. You don’t fear that which you laugh at.
As far as I can tell, Dog Gone, Every leftist in America spends day and night obsessing about Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Fox News, and Michelle Bachmann.
Ever notice that Al Franken named his radio show after Bill O’Reilly, His first book after Limbaugh, and his last book after Fox News?
Huh. Just thought of it. Pelosi has never been to grad school. Bachmann got her JD from Oral Roberts U & went on to post-JD schooling. That means that Bachmann is Obama’s peer & Pelosi is not.
No wonder Pelosi is out to get her.
I bet the Strib’s “fact checking” was a biased attempt to hold onto their last reader. Looks like it worked.
RDFL:
You all seem to think that if A calls X ’sedition’ and B dissagrees, then A or B is using ’sedition’ incorrectly. I would say they both are using the word ’sedition’ correctly, they just dissagree about X.
Actually, it’s more like this: A calls X “seditious” in terms that meet a “dictionary” definition of a “crime” that, in all of American history, has been invoked solely to stifle “X”, where “X” equals dissent.
I laughed out loud at the recent STrib article fact checking Bachmann’s claims Pelosi is out to get her. Turns out Pelosi doesn’t seem to think Bachmann is all that important after all, which is sad, because that means Bachmann has been imagining how important she is in the big fight against the left….. makes sense to me. You don’t fear that which you laugh at.
I rarely read the Strib for these things – I mean, all their conclusions on political stories were written long ago.
But do you actually believe that Nancy Pelosi would hold a press conference saying “Michele Bachmann is my biggest gadfly, and I want to destroy her?” Leaving aside that that’s just not how it’s done, someone in Pelosi’s position isn’t going to let anyone see her sweat whether she’s got a hit out on Bachmann or not. She’s got people for that.
But Bachmann is a favorite target for everyone from the local idiots to Keith Olberman. Being able to draw 10,000 people to Washington to protest ain’t small potatoes; being an unapologetic conservative that beat back the whole Dem establishment without the aid of any help from the national GOP makes her pretty formidable. Pelosi’s intentions are really irrelevant; the real point is that Bachmann is the kind of person that scares the p*ss out of the left’s leadership.
Which is why the attacks never, ever stop.
“I laughed out loud at the recent STrib article” – DG
At least it wasn’t a complete waste of your time, eh Dog Gone.
….
“Pelosi has never been to grad school. Bachmann got her JD from Oral Roberts U & went on to post-JD schooling.” – Terry
Well, Terry, I suspect DogGone will depart from her MO and totally discount Bachmann’s education.
….
Here is supporting evidence of DG’s MO:
“Just a college degree with a substantial number of courses from a community college.” – DG on March 9, 2010 2:22 PM
Such peasants should not even be allowed to run for public office, eh dog?
“courses” at a community college, what kind of neanderthal would even think they should even be able to talk to the elites like Joe Biden, eh dog?
Mitch:
Charges of ‘sedition’ have been used to ciminalize ‘dissent’. But that is not what Bodell is doing to Bachmann. Bodell’s charges her with ‘sedition’ not because she opposes passing the law or would try to repeal it, but because she is encouraging people not to obey the law if passed. Nor does Bodell say what Bachmann is doing is a crime. The Wikipedia article he cites makes it pretty clear that Bachmann’s statements would be non-criminal in the U.S.
All Bodell does with the term ‘sedition’ is point out that Bachmann has moved from dissent to encouraging people to not obey a law. That is a big step and worthy of notice. If you oppose the law, I can see why you would not want to call it ‘sedition’, but I can not see why Bodell, who supports the law, can’t. That is why we have two different terms. ‘Sedition’ for people who dissaprove of the law breaking and ‘civil disobedience’ for those who do not.
Put another way, if Bodell does not want to say Bachmann is encouraging ‘civil disobedience’ because that would suggest he approves of her position, what term that suggests dissapproval would you allow him to use?
“The Wikipedia article he cites . . . ”
You’re so funny, RickDFL!
“All Bodell does with the term ’sedition’ is point out that Bachmann has moved from dissent to encouraging people to not obey a law.”
What law?
Now you think it’s reasonable to call someone “seditious” because they oppose something that is not a law?
But do you actually believe that Nancy Pelosi would hold a press conference saying “Michele Bachmann is my biggest gadfly, and I want to destroy her?”
Mitch, shhhhh. It’s almost nappie time for deegee, keep it down. She needs to be all perky for the 4:00 kool-aid and gin hour.
“You don’t fear that which you laugh at.”
Pfffft….but you’ll laugh at what’s not even there with enough gin and kool-aid boilermakers. Right, dear?
Charges of ’sedition’ have been used to ciminalize ‘dissent’. But that is not what Bodell is doing to Bachmann. Bodell’s charges her with ’sedition’ not because she opposes passing the law or would try to repeal it, but because she is encouraging people not to obey the law if passed.
Right. He’s using an ugly, criminal-sounding word for what he’d no doubt call “civil disobedience” if it were aimed at, say, the RNC convention.
Nor does Bodell say what Bachmann is doing is a crime.
With a word like “sedition”, he doesn’t have to.
If you oppose the law, I can see why you would not want to call it ’sedition’, but I can not see why Bodell, who supports the law, can’t.
Never said he could’t. It’s a free country for now.
But the term “sedition” has an ugly, criminal overtone; it may not be in the wikipedia article, but if asked 100 random people on the street if it were a crime, I’m pretty confident 75 would answer some degree of “yes”.
That is why we have two different terms. ‘Sedition’ for people who dissaprove of the law breaking
…which are, in appropriate context, almost invariably law-enforcement and government.
Put another way, if Bodell does not want to say Bachmann is encouraging ‘civil disobedience’ because that would suggest he approves of her position, what term that suggests dissapproval would you allow him to use?
Dissent. Disagreement. Protest.
None of them has pseudo-legalistic pejorative overtones.
Disagreement with the President is unpatriotic. Democrats have been saying that for years. Especially in the 90s.
Terry said:
““The Wikipedia article he cites . . . ”
You’re so funny, RickDFL!”
Now Terry, you know that Wikipedia is where RickDFL finds all his best “settled science”. Do you know how many “peers” review the “articles” there? 😉
Terry Says: “I would give a dollar to see Bachmann sock Pelosi.”
Given the sentiment of many of us I think we could get the amount well into 6 figures without any effort.
Wait until Bachamnn and Palin are on stage together at the Mpls Convention Center on April 07. The looney left will explode.
Mitch:
‘Sedition’ is “criminal-sounding” because it involves encouraging others to break the law. That is what Bachmann is doing, by her own admission. That is why 75 in 100 would say the word has a “criminal overtone”. In the U.S., encouraging others to commit a crime is not in itself a crime, but it is certainly closely associated with crime.
That is why “Dissent. Disagreement. Protest. ” don’t fully descibe what Bachmann is calling for. If I opposed HCR I could call for all three in order to repeal or change the law, without calling on people to disobey the law. Certainly disobeying a law is an example of all three, but it is also more than those. Thus we need a word for ‘dissent’ plus ‘law-breaking’ and ‘sedition’ or ‘civil disobedience’ fill the bill. If you have a better suggestion that includes the implication of law breaking, have at it.
“what he’d no doubt call “civil disobedience” if it were aimed at, say, the RNC convention.” Exactly. That does not mean he is using the term wrong, just that he dissagrees with others about the RNC security rules.
Sedition’ is “criminal-sounding” because it involves encouraging others to break the law. That is what Bachmann is doing, by her own admission.
Just like Martin Luther King.
That is why 75 in 100 would say the word has a “criminal overtone”.
Nope. They’d say it because it sounds like an actual crime, as opposed to a pejorative for dissent that you and Tailgunner Joe find inconvenient and scary.
In the U.S., encouraging others to commit a crime is not in itself a crime, but it is certainly closely associated with crime.
Only if you want to demonize dissent. Which you clearly do.
That is why “Dissent. Disagreement. Protest. ” don’t fully descibe what Bachmann is calling for.
For your purposes, I didn’t figure they would. But then, your purpose is the same as Tailgunner Joe’s. To scare the undecided. To demonize Bachmann. And to make opposition to HCR sound somehow base and depraved.
does not mean he is using the term wrong
“Whether he’s using the term wrong” has never been at issue. He’s using it with absolute McCarthyistic calculation.
Mitch:
“Just like Martin Luther King”. Sort of. Both MB and MLK called on people to break the law. If you agreed with them, you call it civil disobedience, if not you call it sedition. To white segregationists, MLK was engaged in sedition. I may dissagree with them, but I understand what they were saying.
“They’d say it because it sounds like an actual crime, as opposed to a pejorative for dissent that you and Tailgunner Joe find inconvenient and scary.” Bachmann is calling on people to commit actual crime. That is more than just dissent. You seem completly unwilling to recognize this or even to allow other people the words you need to point this out.
“Only if you want to demonize dissent. Which you clearly do.” You are just being silly. It does not have anything to do with what I want to do. How could a word that means encouraging others to commit a crime not be “closely associated with crime”?
“your purpose is the same as Tailgunner Joe’s. To scare the undecided. To demonize Bachmann.” Pointing out that Bachmann is urging people to break the law may have that effect. On the other hand it may win her points for strength of conviction.
Using the term ‘sedition’ instead of ‘dissent’ does 2 things. 1. It indicates MB is calling for people to break the law (not just dissagree with it or trying to change it) and 2. that the speaker thinks this is a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with doing either. If you have a better word that does both feel free to suggest it.
Bodell says:
An MPP reader happened to be in the neighborhood of that rally, and noted that there appeared to be many more Wisconsin license plates nearby than one normally sees in St. Paul.
To which North Dakotan Mitch responds:
(Huh? First – does Joe Bodell ever spend time in Saint Paul? Second – and I repeat; huh?)
Let an old cheesehead help you with that, Mitch. Bodell likely remembers that Joe McCarthy was from Wisconsin — Appleton, to be precise. In his mind the presence of Wisconsin plates at a Bachmann appearance might mean that fevered McCarthyites from the Badger State have come across the St. Croix to seek assurance and salve for their wounds from the new McCarthy, la Bachmann. These backwoods cheesehead seekers apparently had been living in caves waiting for the call to action, just like Japanese soldiers stranded on remote islands after WWII.
Never mind that McCarthy has been dead for 53 years now and that Wisconsin politics are arguably even more liberal than Minnesota’s these days. A guilt-by-association slur that good can’t be passed up. And the bastards are probably Packers fans, too.
Even when Sen Reid said the war was lost, thus giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies, I still never called him a traitor, because his motivation was his personal gain, not the gain of AQI.
Similarly, sedition is a term that implies acting against the government with the intent to bring about its downfall. Rep Bachmann has never advocated for that.
If you have a better word that does both feel free to suggest it.
Inciting.
Yossarian:
‘Incite’ is close, but not quite there. First, it suggests the act incited is violent or vigorous, which is not what Bachmann is doing. She is calling for a calm deliberate act. Second, it does not seem to imply that the action incited will be illegal. You can incite a perfectly legal action e.g. incite workers to strike.
I should know better than to inject myself into a uselessly pointillistic discussion that’s best left to people who are content to parse comments into infinity.
It won’t happen again.
You could always do another limerick. Now how would you work “pointillistic ” into it?
Along with “nihilistic RinkyDink”. Consider it a challenge.
“Bachmann is calling on people to commit actual crime.”
Specifically, DickyDFLoser, substantiate YOUR accusation or STFU.
good f***ing god, if were going to use a website to define sedition lets at least use dictionary.com
–noun
1.
incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.
2.
any action, esp. in speech or writing, promoting such discontent or rebellion.
3.
Archaic. rebellious disorder.
Ok, I have taken some con law classes at a local community college (I know that doesn’t mean much to lefties but screw em) and this becomes an interesting debate. If I say “We need to overthrow the government in order to restore the constitution” it could be argued that I didn’t commit “sedition” per se because I didn’t (necessarily) incite anyone, now if I say “I fully support anyone who will take up arms and go up to DC to kill politician X Y or Z” THAT is sedition BUT only if someone only acts upon my speech. If no one acts on my SPEECH I cannot be arrested, now if I lead a group to go try to take over the capitol, not only would I be insane and probably sucidical, but assuming I survived it I could be tried for sedition. If you ask me the only people who have even recently come close to commiting sedition would be those DOJ lawyers who offered pro-bono work to defend the Gitmo terrorists. THAT is offering aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war which I believe can recieve the death penalty.
Bachmann has never drawn a crowd of 10,000.
Fox news put up footage from another event to try to pretend she did.
The area police estimated the crowds she’s drawn at fraction of that number. More trying for a greater importance than she actually has.
I see she has quietly begun to support filling out the census after her wackadoodle anti-census position a year ago.
Bachmann is hardly Obama’s educational equal. Yes she got her JD – from an unacredted law school, which folded after a brief period of time. It was not recognized for purposes of passing the bar and practicing law. She had to get an additional degree to be an actual lawyer – which she did, and more power to her for having done so.
I’m curious as to why she used to cite being a litigating attorney in her various bios, but now she doesn’t.
It will be interesting to see if Bachmann is around after the next cycle of elections.
My understanding of the difference between sedition and civil disobedience is that sedition implies inciting to violence, while civil disobedience is not violent and willingly accepts the legal consequences of breaking the law as an integral part of the disobedience. Sedition does not willingly accept those legally imposed penalties. Civil disobedience is part of working to change a specific aspect of law or practice, sedition is intended to overthrow an entire government, not a specific part.
Bachmann seems to differ from civil disobedience when she speaks of people being armed and dangerous. Challenging the legitimacy of a tax, if that challenge is a legal challenge, strikes me as very different from being armed and dangerous, or seditious, as well as being too narrow in focus to be sedition.
Well, yeah. She did draw 10,000. Fox got busted plumping up one crowd shot – NOT inflating the attendance.
Please try to keep the two straight.
Bachmann is hardly Obama’s educational equal. Yes she got her JD – from an unacredted law school, which folded after a brief period of time. It was not recognized for purposes of passing the bar and practicing law. She had to get an additional degree to be an actual lawyer – which she did, and more power to her for having done so.
It’s not my observation, but a professor I knew told me that people who went to non-Ivy-League schools often got better *educations*,because they knew they weren’t going to be coasting through their careers based on having that Ivy alumni directory.
Thus, it’s possible that Bachmann, who actually had to work for her JD, got a much better education than Obama, measured in terms of individual results rather than toniness of institution.
I’m curious as to why she used to cite being a litigating attorney in her various bios, but now she doesn’t.
Nobody cares anymore.
It will be interesting to see if Bachmann is around after the next cycle of elections.
And there’s the evidence that you get all your information from Dump Bachmann. If Bachmann survived 2008, she’ll survive anything.
K-Rod:
Bachmann called for people not to pay taxes required under the healthcare bill (if it passes through the ‘deeming’ procedure). Not paying your taxes is a crime.
Bachmann is hardly Obama’s educational equal.
True. Bachmann didn’t get into grad school as an affirmative action admit.
“Yes she got her JD – from an unacredted law school, which folded after a brief period of time.”
Rot.
Oral roberts had it’s accreditation yanked for something like 6 months because it only hired Christian profs and admitted Christian students. The accredation was later reinstated. The ABA did not pull the accreditation for lack of accademic rigor.
That “extra” degree Bachmann got was an LLM in taxation from William and Mary (not exactly Fred’s Discount College of Law), not another JD. An LLM is like a master’s degree in a discrete field, only you get it after you get your doctorate (i.e. JD). Pretty sure W&M wouldn’t admit a grad from an unaccredited achool to their LLM program.
Quantity-wise, this makes Bachmann Obama’s educational superior. So suck it.
But, then, facts are like kryptonite to you people. So go ahead and write some stammering non-rebuttal rebuttal.
DG: note that Learned Foot IS a lawyer who has passed the MN Bar.
I know how big you folks at Penigma are on accreditation and all.
Yes she got her JD – from an unacredted law school, which folded after a brief period of time.
This seems to be a common story re Bachmann on the left.
It’s not true. The Coburn school of Law had problems getting accredited, but they reached a compromise with the ABA — not about quality of instruction, but about religious affiliation. The ABA blinked, not Oral Roberts U. Coburn was fully ABA accredited when Bachmann graduated with her JD.
Coburn did not fold. It was transfered to Pat Robertson’s CBN University. It is now called Regent University School of Law. It is fully accredited by the ABA.
You don’t have to scratch very hard to expose the snob in you, Dog Gone.
Looks like I cross-posted with Mr. Foot.
For the story of Coburn I relied on different sources than he did. Along with web resources I looked at The court and the cross: the religious right’s crusade to reshape the Supreme Court.
As I understand it, the ABA held back on accrediting Coburn because of a no-religious discrimination rule they adopted without proper study back in the 70’s. Coburn, allied with other religious universities, threatened them with court action that could see the ABA stripped of its authority to accreditate at all. The ABA caved and accredited Coburn, but when the school ran into financial problems and was transferred to CBN, the ABA yanked its accreditation and it took the law school (now called Regent) 3 years to get it back.
This occurred after Bachmann matriculated.
A few years ago Gail Heriot at Right Coast — a real, honest-to-God Professor of Law, wrote a blog series about the pressure the ABA puts on law schools to attract minority candidates, graduate them, and push them through the law exam:
http://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2007/01/more.html
Not that this has anything to do with the Current Occupant, of course.
Looks like Dog Gone has been taken to task once again. Have some pity, BDS/PDS is a debilitating malady.
…. …. …. ….
“Ok, I have taken some con law classes at a local community college…”
Ben, do you realize you have exposed your “weakness”? heh heh heh
“Just a college degree with a substantial number of courses from a community college.” – Dog Gone on March 9, 2010 2:22 PM
Terry, do you really think you are justified in using the word “snob”? Hahahahahahahahaha no, I couldn’t say it and keep a straight face hahahahahahahaha
…. …. …. ….
Specifically, DickyDFLoser, substantiate YOUR accusation or STFU.
You do understand the meaning of “substantiate”, right?