Ralph Neas is an Idiot

[Havelock]

That is all. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SENATE_KAVANAUGH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

[Dillgaar]

BAH, you lapdogs all stick together :p

(j/k, I love riling up Havelock)

[Severoth]

Why is this in the "Vanguard Discussion"? Should it not be in "General Chatter" or "Volcano"? Please move this crap out of game discussions.

[Skarlath]

Hehe I moved it across. I guess in Hav's fuming rage he must have clicked the wrong forum. :p

[Havelock]

Dangit, I thought this was the Volcano. I swear I clicked on that ...

[armsakimbo]

My question for Havelock, regarding the title of this thread, is whether he is prepared to characterize every American who's made a similar partisan attack as an "idiot". (As far as I can tell, this would not only include most voters, but the overwhelming majority of career politicians and their advisors, regardless of party affiliation.)

If not, just how do Mr. Neas' qualifications differentiate him from those Mr. Havelock would exempt?

If so, how does Mr. Havelock justify singling out Mr. Neas?


:pirate: This message brought to you by An American Against Partisan Politics. :pirate:
:pirate: The AAAPP is not an organization, and is most definitely not tax exempt. :pirate:

:pirate: Pirate smileys courtesy of Silky Venom. :pirate:

Edit: added more pirate smileys. :pirate:

[Havelock]

I don't know about everybody, but a lot of people who make partisan attacks are idiots. But Neas in particular draws my ire because he's undermining the judicial branch and what it's supposed to be - he more than pretty much anyone else is responsible for hyperpoliticizing judicial nominations and bringing really vitriolic and personal attacks against every judicial nominee who disagrees with him. His efforts are doing real damage to America by conveying the idea of the judicial branch as no different than the other political branches. The judiciary's power comes from its legitimacy, and that legitimacy depends on judges deciding things for reasons rooted in the Constitution, the laws of the country, and sound and impartial legal analysis (or at least making their best efforts to do so). Neas loudly and repeatedly tells people every judicial nominee he disapproves of (basically every Republican nominee; he even made all sorts of dire warnings about people like Justice Souter back in the day) is a partisan hack, and as that idea takes root it will begin to affect how the judiciary does its business, and as it does that it will undermine the legitimacy of the judiciary (and thus, ultimately, its power).

[Dillgaar]

well luckily the more people like him say stuff like that the less people take it to heart after a while and he will just fade into a memory...

look at people like jack thompson... they fight tooth and nail for something and repeat something over and over... thei first time it shocks people so they sit up and listen... every subsequent time thereafter it lessens and lessens to the point people just see them as a joke...

now we don't even hear a peep from the likes of thompson but I am sure he is bidinig his time until he thinks the people have become more sensative to his screaming and hollaring

[Havelock]

I should add that there have been some nominees that people are justified in freaking out about. Another thing Neas does is give them cover; when you say the absolute worst things about every single nominee, it's hard to differentiate the good from the bad.

[armsakimbo]

But Neas in particular draws my ire because he's undermining the judicial branch and what it's supposed to be - he more than pretty much anyone else is responsible for hyperpoliticizing judicial nominations and bringing really vitriolic and personal attacks against every judicial nominee who disagrees with him. His efforts are doing real damage to America by conveying the idea of the judicial branch as no different than the other political branches.

*shrug*
Lots of folks on the other side of the aisle assign the bulk of the responsibility for "hyperpoliticizing judicial nominations" to the Republicans for stalling so many nominations until Clinton's term expired. Others, also on the left, would blame the anti-abortion movement's long term focus on reversing Roe v Wade by appointing a sympathetic Supreme Court.

As far as I can tell, federal judicial nominations always been pretty heavily politicized. The only thing that's kept the courts somewhat sane and reasonable has been the very pronounced general tendancy of federal judges to become markedly conservative once appointed, which has more than once protected us from the "true believers" on the left and the right. (Conservative here meaning biased towards preservation and stability, a concept seemingly as foreign to so-called conservative politics as real liberalism is foreign to so-called liberal politics championed by people such as Mr. Neas.)

The judiciary's power comes from its legitimacy, and that legitimacy depends on judges deciding things for reasons rooted in the Constitution, the laws of the country, and sound and impartial legal analysis (or at least making their best efforts to do so).
I would say that this relates to the conservatism I mentioned above. Most of them seem to take their responsibility very seriously, to the great benefit of the country as a whole.

Neas loudly and repeatedly tells people every judicial nominee he disapproves of (basically every Republican nominee; he even made all sorts of dire warnings about people like Justice Souter back in the day) is a partisan hack, and as that idea takes root it will begin to affect how the judiciary does its business, and as it does that it will undermine the legitimacy of the judiciary (and thus, ultimately, its power).
You may be right about the degree of damage being done, but I'm doubtful. It seems to me that Mr. Neas is just the latest symptom of an ancient disease, and that he's not significantly different from those we've seen and shrugged off before.

But hey, now that I've gotten my $.02 in, I'd like to point out that my comments in this thread should not be construed in any way as a defense of the partisan ass referenced in the thread title.