Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Michael Steele attacks Kagan's praise of Thurgood Marshall

As you may have heard by now, Michael Steele has blasted out a statement hitting Elena Kagan because she supposed showed "support" for statements suggesting that the Constitution "as originally drafted and conceived" was "defective."

The author of those statements about the Constitution was none other than Thurgood Marshall. Kagan wrote about Marshall in a 1993 article as follows:

During the year that marked the bicentennial of the Constitution, Justice Marshall gave a characteristically candid speech. He declared that the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was "defective"; only over the course of 200 years had the nation "attain[ed] the system of constitutional government, and its respect for... individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today."

That's the basis for the RNC's claim. As many have already pointed out, it turns out that Marshall was talking about slavery. Presumably the RNC agrees this was a defect that needed to be corrected.

But here's more of what Kagan wrote in that original article:

For in Justice Marshall's view, constitutional interpretation demanded, above all else, one thing from the courts: it demanded that the courts show a special solicitude for the despised and disadvantaged. It was the role of the courts, in interpreting the Constitution, to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government -- to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion. The Court existed primarily to fulfill this mission.

That seems like a pretty straightforward claim: Kagan says Marshall believed the Constitution should safeguard the individual rights of those who have been failed by all other organs of government. That seems like Civics 101. Does the RNC really disagree with this?

The RNC has to know (one hopes, at least) just how uncontroversial these statements really are. The decision to make this their opening shot suggests that the remaining arrows in the quiver may be pretty dull indeed.

By Greg Sargent  |  May 10, 2010; 12:15 PM ET
Categories:  Supreme Court  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: DCCC pulls out of Hawaii free for all
Next: Gulf spill could boost energy reform

Comments

The amendments to the Constitution are a pretty straightforward admission that the original document could not contain everything. Nor could it anticipate every change that would occur after. And as to the slavery issue, the Constitution was clearly time-bound in a way that necessitated a change. Not to mention voting rights for women and so on.

This is a stupid line of attack by people who don't know much about law, history, etc.

Posted by: BGinCHI | May 10, 2010 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Hey Greg, I have two things to point out.

First, Listen to the RNC conference call with Curt Levey. They want to fight ANY nominee so that they could delay Obama's agenda. That plays right into Obama's hands... http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/top-strategist-advises-gop-to-prolong-scotus-fight-to-block-obama-agenda.php

Second, Despite what Glenn Greenwald and other Civil Libertarians argue, Elena Kagan MAY in fact be a progressive when it comes to executive power. Both liberals and conservatives have missed this article:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/05/kagan_may_face_questions_about.html?ft=1&f=1014&sc=tw

Posted by: calchala | May 10, 2010 12:26 PM | Report abuse

This must be more of that minority outreach from the GOP.

Truly unbelievable, and as BG points out, just another in a series of political attacks that serve no purpose other than, perhaps (?) intentionally driving away informed and/or minority and women voters from the GOP. Other than that I can't think of a single rationale, politically, to make this line of attack.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 10, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

FYI - NRSC email:

"""President Obama has nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. We want to know what you think of it.

Just like the GOP did during the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor, Republicans will demonstrate respect and civility toward Kagan, even while asking tough questions and examining her record and legal views.

As we debate her qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice, we want to know what you think. Today, the NRSC is re-launching www.protectthecourts.org, where you can give us your feedback and tell us what you think about President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan."""

Just like with Sonia Sotomayor the GOP will demonstrate respect... Hahaha. I really can't wait to hear the feedback they receive.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 10, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

thanks, calchala. I hadn't seen the NPR thing...

BG -- question I think is whether they knew how uncontroversial this really is...

And Ethan, keep them NRSC things comin' :)

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 10, 2010 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Greg, I find their email list to be a never-ending source of comedy.

FWd you that email.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 10, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Greg, I'm sure they do know she's an uncontroversial pick. Perhaps they're trying to see if they can get any traction on suggesting/projecting her as "controversial" just because Obama nominated her.

Pretzel logic, but when you've got peanut butter for brains it's probably all you're likely to get.

Posted by: BGinCHI | May 10, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Obviously whoever originated the attack knew it was uncontroversial. (I'm not willing to bet that was anyone at the RNC; they may well have just broadcast it from some right-wing email chain without looking at the source.)

Clearly, they intent was to put out the words "Constitution" and "defective" to make a "she insulted your mother!" attack with no concern for the actual content of the statement.

Posted by: jimeh | May 10, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

No one has ever accused Michael Steele of being able to think before he opens his mouth. Abraham Lincoln once said "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubts."

Posted by: jp1943 | May 10, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Especially cringe-worthy coming from Michael Steele.

Posted by: dkp01 | May 10, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

A lot of us here are big fans of Bill Halter and are hoping he will be able to beat Lincoln at her own game. A little weird news from the FLOTUS commencement speech in Arkansas last weekend. It's not the kind of thing I usually bring up because it seems kind of petty, but I found it rather odd at a minimum and perhaps worse. Apparently every pol or celebrity got a mention except Halter. From kos, so I still take it with a grain of salt.

"Michelle noted the presence of everyone down to Redus (the local mayor), but petulantly snubbed the state's Lt. Governor? All because Halter has the temerity to hold Blanche Lincoln accountable for her efforts to stymie Michelle's husband's agenda?"

"Lincoln stood on the floor of the Senate and promised to filibuster health care reform with Republicans if it had any hint of being good and effective. She brags about voting against the president's cap and trade plan. She's fought to gut the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gasses. She flipped on EFCA when it suddenly had a chance of passage."

"Now, she and Obama both claim that she has stood by the president. So that leaves two options -- either the two of them are lying, and she hasn't stood by him. Or she has, and it turns out that Obama really didn't want EFCA, really didn't want meaningful climate legislation, and really didn't want the public option. I tend to think its the former."

"But regardless, we shouldn't see such petty vindictiveness from the White House -- particularly against a fellow Democrat, and one who has a much better chance to be Senator from Arkansas next January than Lincoln."

Posted by: lmsinca | May 10, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Steele wants to go back to 3/5 representation and indirect election of senators.

Posted by: indar20 | May 10, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

The health care bill was an objectively moderate piece of legislation, too. Didn't stop them from making crap up about "death panels" which any informed person knew was a characterization around improving end-of-life care originally drafted by a Republican.

Of course they'll suggest Kagan hates the Constitution. The intensity of their complaint has nothing to do with how objectively moderate something or someone is, or how baseless the attack they're making is. It's got everything to do with whether Fox News can get everyone else credulously repeating and debating the attack, and drive down some poll numbers.

It's an insane way to govern. But it's how they operate.

Posted by: theorajones1 | May 10, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Most everyone here seemed to think Kagan was a good pick, although not their first choice. I also know that Greenwald is not anyone's fav, but as I supported Diane Wood much more strongly than Kagan I would like to quote GG one time, I didn't previously. Just think about it please, I think we missed out on a debate worth having.

"It's even less surprising that Obama would not want to choose someone like Diane Wood. If you were Barack Obama, would you want someone on the Supreme Court who has bravely insisted on the need for Constitutional limits on executive authority, resolutely condemned the use of Terrorism fear-mongering for greater government power, explicitly argued against military commissions and indefinite detention, repeatedly applied the progressive approach to interpreting the Constitution on a wide array of issues, insisted upon the need for robust transparency and checks and balances, and demonstrated a willingness to defy institutional orthodoxies even when doing so is unpopular? Of course you wouldn't. Why would you want someone on the Court who has expressed serious Constitutional and legal doubts about your core policies? Do you think that an administration that just yesterday announced it wants legislation to dilute Miranda rights in the name of Scary Terrorists -- and has seized the power to assassinate American citizens with no due process -- wants someone like Diane Wood on the Supreme Court?"

Posted by: lmsinca | May 10, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

And now I'll shut up about it. LOL

Posted by: lmsinca | May 10, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

All, check out this interesting new poll on energy reform in the wake of the gulf spill:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/05/poll_gulf_spill_has_created_bi.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 10, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Let's cut through the niceties and say what must be said.

If it weren't for what Thurgood Marshall did, Michael Steele would probably be shining shoes. Not because he deserves to (though undoubtedly some people think he does), but because that's the way black men were treated under that constitution that Steele seems to think was a model of utter perfection in 1789.

Steele should be profoundly ashamed of himself. But of course he is not, which itself is a shame, and a tragedy. And it tells you everything you need to know about the GOP that they picked this sap to front for it.

Posted by: Meridian1 | May 10, 2010 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Once again, Chairman Steele reveals his complete and utter ignorance. I find it even more odd/sad that the first Black Chairman of the RNC would so blatantly attack the first Black Justice of the Supreme Court in a misguided attempt to ridicule Ms. Kagan.

Steele was an ineffective Lt. Gov. in Maryland (he was simply Black window dressing for a Rep. Gov.) and he is even less effective, albeit disastrous as Chair of the RNC.

Go Mikey, Go! Every time you speak, Dems win a few more votes!

Posted by: Woodie731 | May 10, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

TO: lmsinca who wrote:
‘Most everyone here seemed to think Kagan was a good pick, although not their first choice. I also know that Greenwald is not anyone's fav, but as I supported Diane Wood much more strongly than Kagan I would like to quote GG one time, I didn't previously. Just think about it please, I think we missed out on a debate worth having…”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In the nomination process, one must also “accept” the President’s nomination, before going through the process.

For some reason, the position may have been offered, but declined due to some unknown but relevant fact.


Posted by: lindalovejones | May 10, 2010 2:04 PM | Report abuse

If Obama does anything, Michael Steele can't open his mouth fast enough. Can't possibly take the time to think, just talk and talk now! Did he think that he would have found the Constitution perfect if he were around in 1787?

Maybe Michael Steele has nostalgic fantasies about revisiting slavery? Just when you think he can get no dumber, he does!

Michael Steele really ain't too bright, is he?

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 10, 2010 2:09 PM | Report abuse

This seems like a pretty simple statement: Kagan says Marshall believes the Constitution should protect the individual rights of those who have been abandoned by all other organs of government. Thurgood Marshall http://usspost.com/thurgood-marshall-9534/

Posted by: susan166 | May 10, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

And Marshall thinks the Court's job is to protect individual rights against the government? Wow, that's radical. Steele is an idiot if he thinks he can twist that very conservative perspective into something radical. But I think he's already established that.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 10, 2010 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"pretty dull indeed" pretty much sums up the mental capacity of the gop....what a pathetic lot.

Posted by: dem4life1 | May 10, 2010 2:20 PM | Report abuse

And of course Kagan's description of Marshall's views was accurate. I don't see anywhere where she endorses them as her own in any event. Not that they were controversial in the first place, just saying that using the statement against her is doubly stupid.

Posted by: JoeT1 | May 10, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

If Steele were a black man, he would probably feel differently.

Posted by: joebanks | May 10, 2010 2:27 PM | Report abuse

"That seems like a pretty straightforward claim: Kagan says Marshall believed the Constitution should safeguard the individual rights of those who have been failed by all other organs of government. That seems like Civics 101. Does the RNC really disagree with this?"

Start with the fact that you mischaracterize what Kagan said. She praised Marhall's view that the Court's proper role is "to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion."

She did not refer to rights, or even to constitutional rights, but to interests.

The view of constitutional jurisprudence and the Court's role expressed here is a radical liberal one. She is saying that the Court's proper role is to seve as a political representative for unnamed classes of persons who fail to achieve their political goals through the other branches.

If she had even referred to constitutionally protected rights rather than interests, she would at least be giving lip service to fidelity to the Constitution, but she didn't do that. To her, the Court's role is not faithfully to interpret and apply the Constitution as it is written, but to advance the interests of special classes.

And to what "interests" is she referring? We can reasonably assume a broad range of political, social, and economic interests. The left has over the past few decades championed a whole range of such interests, from welfare rights to homosexual marriage -- all extraconstitutional interests the left seeks to have enforeced as constitutional rights.

Obama once complained that the Court has not gone far enough, for example, in creating welfare rights to spread the wealth around.

So, no, Kagan's views and Marshall's are not hardly Civics 101. They are radical liberal judicial activism 101.

Posted by: quarterback1 | May 10, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

GOP Strategist on 4/22):

Block Obama's SCOTUS nominee for NO REASON other than to benefit GOP politically...

MUST-READ over at TPM:

"Even if it's a nominee that we can't seriously stop, we can accomplish several things, and so a hard fight is worthwhile," Levey implored. "Certainly it can be to the political advantage of Republicans.... There's everything to be gained from making the Supreme Court vacancy a campaign issue in 2010."

"There's broader goals such as just distracting Obama from other items on his agenda," Levey added. "The tougher the fight the less capital and time and resources and floor time in the Senate there is to spend on immigration and climate change, etc."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/top-strategist-advises-gop-to-prolong-scotus-fight-to-block-obama-agenda.php

Audio at the link......

Republicans showing YET AGAIN that they simply don't care about this country.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 10, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Hey, who let the moron in?

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 10, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Ah, poor GOP, just can't win for trying.

Kagan is a shoo-in and the GOP knows it, it just wants to make dough off the deal. So much for really caring about the american people.

Posted by: bonncaruso | May 10, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Whenever I feel myself in need of a top-notch constitutional scholarly opinion, Michael Steele is always the first name I think of.

Posted by: curmudgeon6 | May 10, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Of course the RNC disagrees. It does so reflexively, without rational thought. It does what it is supposed to do... be against, as a matter of principle (HEEHEE)(everything not Republican).

Posted by: Geezer4 | May 10, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Michael Steele, the class clown, the GOP idiot!!

Posted by: OHREALLYNOW | May 10, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

RE:So, no, Kagan's views and Marshall's are not hardly Civics 101. They are radical liberal judicial activism 101.
*****

Po-tay-to Pa-tad-o...

Posted by: bproulx45 | May 10, 2010 2:55 PM | Report abuse

"The view of constitutional jurisprudence and the Court's role expressed here is a radical liberal one. She is saying that the Court's proper role is to seve as a political representative for unnamed classes of persons who fail to achieve their political goals through the other branches."

You really are a boring ideologue. One of the Supreme Court's core functions is to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority. If Obama nominated Scalia you and the mindless GOP would oppose him. That oppose-every-breath-Obama-takes schtick got old long ago. Use your brain or keep your tongue.

Posted by: wbgonne | May 10, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

The Constiution states, "All men are created equal..."

This statement did not include SLAVES or other MINORITY people. The Constitution was flawed as intrepreted by our founders whom all owned SLAVES.

RNC and Mr. Steele should study HISTORY and act like they studied American History, and not Bizaro World History.

The RNC and Mr. Steele and company need to shut up, as they all come off as racists, just like Virginia celebrating the Civil War while not acknowledging the War was about whom will own the SLAVES.

More reverse rhetoric from the NO PARTY of the GOP.

Patrick

Posted by: patmatthews | May 10, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

Steele is a moron.... why would anyone expect him to be able to analyze anything, let along legalese?

Obama could nominate Mother Theresa or Moses and the stupid GOPers would object....

Posted by: EdSantaFe | May 10, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse

The Sisyphus of morons strikes again! So, quarterback, you are going to singlehandedly rewrite history regarding Justice Thurgood Marshall? You certainly are ambitious. THAT is one big rock you’ve chosen to push uphill in perpetuity.

You do realize that you are on the wrong side of historical consensus on this one, don’t you?

Oh, I forgot; you got a gold star in Con Law when you attended Sock Puppet School of Law. I guess that makes you some kind of Thurgood Marshall super genius.

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 10, 2010 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Following the GOP strategist's advice (c/o that TPM article) to a "T":

The top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee has signaled that the GOP will put up a tougher fight against Solicitor General Elena Kagan than they did against the White House’s other Supreme Court choice, Sonia Sotomayor.

Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions told POLITICO that Kagan's "activist" background could be a significant impediment for GOP support.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37003.html

Republicans have NO SHAME. NONE. Unreal.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 10, 2010 3:48 PM | Report abuse

It sounds like Steel forgot to ask God what His intent was when He wrote the Constitution, at least the Shrillbilly from Alaska has the sense to do it before she opens her mouth!

Posted by: AverageJane | May 10, 2010 3:50 PM | Report abuse

This is simply TOO MUCH FOR WORDS...

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's office sent this email to reporters:

SHOT
“A Trailblazer Throughout Her Career” – 2010 White House on Elena Kagan

CHASER
“A Trailblazer for Women Lawyers” – 2005 White House on Harriet Miers

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/05/10/2299142.aspx

Seriously. WTF? Republicans are BIZARRE. The whole lot of them should have mental exams.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 10, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Those who enshrine the constitution as some sort of sacred document, handed down from on high by those with superhuman wisdom, would do well to recall that it exists in its present form today only after 27 amendments.

If it wasn't 'defective' as originally written, it certainly did not take into account the country's social evolution.

Posted by: EnemyOfTheState | May 10, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Michael Steele is a joke.

Posted by: lindalovejones | May 10, 2010 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Controversy equalizes fools and wise men....and fools know it.

Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Posted by: kchses1 | May 10, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Obama could nominate Mother Theresa or Moses and the stupid GOPers would object....

Posted by: EdSantaFe | May 10, 2010 3:10 PM

***************************************

As well they should, because 1) they are both dead and 2) they weren't American citizen when they were alive.

Seriously, "defective" is too strong a word to use to describe the Constitution of 1789. In fact, many scholars would argue that the document was perfect, in that it achieved two important goals.

First, it allowed the Constitutional Congress to agree on a single framework for a Federal government that was acceptable to the vastly different regional imperatives and interests at the time. Someone mentioned the 3/5s rule for African slaves. This was not a racist denigration of Africans, but a compromise between the southern states who wanted slaves counted in the apportionment of the House and northern states who wanted only free citizens counted. Once slavery was abolished, it became inoperative and was deleted by the 14th Amendment.

Second, the Constitution became a living document, capable of being adapted over the past 221 years to suit the changing realities of American society. The fact that we have had to amend the Constitution only 17 times in the past 221 years since the Bill of Rights were adopted, speaks to the perfection of the original framework, not to mention the fact that there has never been a need to call a Constitutional Convention as provided for in the document, not even after the disruption to the government caused by the Civil War.

So there, Marshall and Kagan are wrong and Michael Steele is right. Of course, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Posted by: hisroc | May 10, 2010 4:41 PM | Report abuse

You know what? It doesn't matter. Kagan is a done deal. They'll never keep S. Brown, Snowe and Collins on the reservation. Game over.

Having said that, the RNC is welcome to demonstrate once again what a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites they are. If I were them, I'd be hoping November was going to be postponed. They'll never live up to their own press. They've made sure of that.

Posted by: st50taw | May 10, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

"You really are a boring ideologue. One of the Supreme Court's core functions is to protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority."

Right back at you, and you are a shallow thinker as well.

There is quite a difference between between impartially interpreting the Constitution -- which would include impartially protecting constitutional rights -- and representing political, social, or economic interests of those you consider not to have been sufficiently successful in the other branches.

One of these should indeed be part of Civics 101, but not the one Greg seems to think is uncontroversial.

Among the leftwing academic set, this language has well understood meaning. It means, the Court's role is to grant rights to welfare and economic support, homosexual marriage rights, abortion rights and the like.

This might sound to the shallow thinking not much different from saying that the Court should protect the constitutional rights of political minorities, but it is quite different.

Posted by: quarterback1 | May 10, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

No shame in the GOP, huh?

Senator Obama opposed both Roberts and Alito and even supported filibustering, purely because he disagreed with their judicial and constitutional views.

Silly liberals.

Posted by: quarterback1 | May 10, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

QB, do you think the qualifications of Elena Kagan and Harriet Miers are comparable?

Because the highest ranking member of your party in the Senate just did.

That, to me, is so intellectually dishonest that yes, it is shameful.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 10, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

It has to be said, in their defense, that the Republican Party is an effective emetic.

Posted by: dldbug | May 10, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

This might sound to the shallow thinking not much different from saying that the Court should protect the constitutional rights of political minorities, but it is quite different."

Yes, and I know the difference: You want the Court to preserve the rights of the majority and the wealthy at the expense of various unpopular minorities. I am all in favor of the Court expanding civil liberties and ensuring that everyone gets the benefits of those rights. Much of your comment reads like a Limbaugh-lite screed against hobgoblins that have long ceased to be relevant. Here's something the Right Wing probably doesn't realize: By trying so desperately to crush all shoots of Progressivism you are catalyzing the Progressive process.

Posted by: wbgonne | May 10, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

I think you obviously mischaracterized what the McConnell email said. Why did you do that?

And it was to Jeff Sessions' comments that you said "no shame" etc.

I would rather have Miers than Kagan on the Court any day.

If we follow the Obama standard, even brilliant judges with stellar qualifications are unqualified unless they have the right views and philosophy.

So the expectation that his nominations should be treated differently is what is intellectually dishonest and shameful.

Kagan has been a reliable liberal, law professor and dean, published a couple of articles, and been a Dem party insider (with Wall Street perks to prove it). Oh, and she graduated magna from HLS. Big deal.

No doubt she is very smart; so are a lot of other people. The GOP should follow Obama's own precedent and oppose her and every nominee Obama sends, because they will all be reliably far to the left.

Posted by: quarterback1 | May 10, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

"The GOP should follow Obama's own precedent and oppose her and every nominee Obama sends, because they will all be reliably far to the left."

The GOP doesn't need a reason. It opposes EVERYTHING Obama suggests, even when he re-suggests their own suggestions. Does the phrase "credibility problem" ring a bell?

Posted by: wbgonne | May 10, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

"Yes, and I know the difference: You want the Court to preserve the rights of the majority and the wealthy at the expense of various unpopular minorities. I am all in favor of the Court expanding civil liberties and ensuring that everyone gets the benefits of those rights."

I would be in favor of your forming some coherent thoughts. Perhaps you could list three such rights of the majority and wealthy, and three such "civil liberties" (or rights, or whatever you think they are) that the court should "expand."

And then tell me why none of it is "relevant" anyway. (eyes rolling)

Oh, gosh, you mean to resist "progressivism" is to promote it? We're doomed!

What a mental hash your comments are.

Posted by: quarterback1 | May 10, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I've always defended Michael Steele. I thought it a mistake for PG citizens to support a Baltimore hack (Ben Cardin) over a product of their own community.

With this, I quit. Mike, you done lost your mind. You're on your own. You can't make a difference if you're no different.

Posted by: gbooksdc | May 10, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company