Some say that liberals have just different ideas about American and policy, but they are not the secret tyrants that some imagine. Well, here is more proof that liberals are the vilest of hypocrites and closet totalitarians, among other things in the closet.
The radical left, in violation of their sacred academic freedom and tenure, is out to get John Yoo, the attorney in the Jorge Bush Administration who's memorandum on executive authority and interrogation techniques have the left upset. Upset enough to expose their vile hypocracy. The left defended communists and pedophiles in teaching positions, but apparently defending executive authority is prohibited. http://chronicle.com/free/v55/i28/28a01201.htm
But in their most vile hypocracy, the left is claiming that some scholarship is indefensible and subject to removal. From the above: 'Testifying before Congress in 2005, Harold Hongju Koh, dean of Yale Law School, called one of Mr. Yoo's memoranda "perhaps the most clearly erroneous legal opinion I have ever read."' 'And Mr. Yoo's memoranda "rested on cursory and one-sided legal arguments."'
Well, if we are addressing clearly erroneous legal opinions, lets discuss Roe v. Wade, shall we? http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.2377/pub_detail.asp
Let us now speak of the standard of erroneousness and one-sided legal arguements:
"Roe is the Dred Scott of our age. Like few other Supreme Court cases in our nation’s history, Roe is not merely patently wrong but also fundamentally hostile to core precepts of American government and citizenship. Roe is a lawless power grab by the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional act of aggression by the Court against the political branches and the American people."
'Justice Byron White—who was appointed by President Kennedy—accurately observed that Blackmun’s opinion was "an exercise of raw judicial power" and "an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review." '
'"What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it.… At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking." John Hart Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 Yale L.J. 920, 935-937 (1973).'
'"Blackmun’s papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference." William Saletan, Unbecoming Justice Blackmun, Legal Affairs, May/June 2005'
'Blackmun’s rambling world-history tour of "man’s attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries," 410 U.S. at 117, wanders from the ancient Persian Empire to the position of the American Public Health Association in 1970 and of the American Bar Association in 1972. Yet, even apart from how unreliable and misleading Blackmun’s tour has been shown to be, it fails to address squarely the most relevant history—the state of abortion regulation at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. As then-Justice Rehnquist’s dissent points out, as of 1868 "there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion," including the Texas statute the Court struck down in Roe. See 410 U.S. at 174-175 & n. 1.'
So, what we have is a decision that is based on nothing other than the policy preference of seven justices with no ties to law, Constitution or history.
And now the left is on the warpath for John Yoo's career? And they revere Justice Blackmun, who wrote a decision without either historical accuracy and consisted of one-sided legal arguements without any merit.
This is just another lesson for those mushy-cons like Hugh Hewitt who are of the mind that liberals are just reflections of themselves; patriotic, smart, reasonable, with no secrets to hide.
Well, just as the radical left wants bills of attainder to get back from AIG executives (and not from Fannie May or Freddie Mac executives) their bonuses, they want to use the power of the state to deprive a professor of his job, tenure or academic freedom be damned.
You see, liberals care for neither, they only care for their hatred of the United States and people who disagree with them. Just examine the feminists and homosexuals who adore radical Islamic terrorists and states. Never a peep from them, unless it is used to attack the west. When Saudi Arabia was aligned with the west, Islam was bad, but now that Islam is an enemy of the west, Islam is good.
Just remember when Saudi Arabia was attacked for the execution of a princess of the House of Saud in the 80s http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/princess/ and now how radical Islam is praised by the left while Islam is at war with the West. http://www.counterpunch.org/patrick04122008.html http://transsylvaniaphoenix.blogspot.com/2009/03/pro-taliban-journalist-kidnapped.html http://sif.org.ohio-state.edu/Gasper.pdf
The left will never allow anyone who disagrees with them any voice, whether it is a tenured position at UC Berkeley or conservatives on talk radio. The will use any method to destroy them, including abusing the Constitution. Free speech, well not for those they disagree with. And not the vilest hypocracy will shame them. For them, the end justifies the means.