Is Obama Threatening The Supreme Court Justices?

How do you know it isn't a popularity contest.

It's fashionable to promote special interest drones.

And Harvard is not above bowing to such PC forces.

It's arguably the most prestigious law review in the US, if not the world. Their reputation is much more valuable than current political fashion. (And Harvard doesn't run the Law Review, it's a separate organization)

Ask any lawyer if Law Review editorships are given out for "affirmative action".

__________________

You shouldn't believe things just because you want to.

Did you not source the quote so you could avoid people finding out the next sentence?

That quote comes from the comments to an article on Politico, not from the Harvard Law Revue. Here is what they actually say about themselves.

Harvard Law Review: About

How about that, students make all the editorial and organizational decisions. Tell me something, if there is no one to tell the students who the editor in chief should be, how do they pick him, or her, a Magic 8 Ball, or an election?

Here is a brief history of the Harvard Law revue that talks all about the elections. The only editors who are not elected are the first year editors.

Harvard Law Review: The Harvard Law Review — Glimpses of Its History as Seen by an Aficionado

Please, keep trying to make it seem like winning an election is an achievement instead of a popularity contest.

__________________

Arguable according to whom? It is a student newspaper that focuses on law, it is not arguably anything more than that to anyone that actually understands the facts.

As for the affirmative action question, the Harvard Law Revue itself says that editor positions are given out on the basis of affirmative action, why should I ask a lawyer?

__________________

how exactly should the fucking goon fucking gangbanging thug traitor be dealt with?

Tell him "Quit whining bitch".

__________________

'Excuses are tools of the incompetent, used to build bridges to nowhere and monuments of nothingness,'"- Barack Obama

that's quite lax treatment for gangbanging thug traitors.

are you sure you are not a commie?

I'm not in a habit of kicking someone when he's down.

Obama's pissed about the way it went, and like the punk that he is he chose to insult them.

It was his way of lashing out at the adults in Washington. He's into this victimization thing.

__________________

'Excuses are tools of the incompetent, used to build bridges to nowhere and monuments of nothingness,'"- Barack Obama

Harvard Law Review is run by Harvard Law STUDENTS. Harvard Law Review: About

__________________
The very existence of Ravi is an argument in favor of burkas. Oh, and Zona is a liar. What a shock.

Let Bill Cosby deal with Him. A few days of Jello Torture, and De-programing should do it. If not we could send the Son of Africa back.

"The organization is formally independent of the Harvard Law School. Student editors make all editorial and organizational decisions and, together with a professional business staff of three, carry out day-to-day operations."

Harvard law students are not really all that independent of Harvard Law School even if the school is not responsible for the content or membership since one must BE a Harvard law student to be on the Harvard law Review.

So, are we emphatic agreement?

__________________
The very existence of Ravi is an argument in favor of burkas. Oh, and Zona is a liar. What a shock.

Conservative hypocrisy is further compounded by the fact that extreme rightists and libertarians reject the doctrine of judicial review altogether, as well as the interpretive authority of the Supreme Court with regard to what the Constitution means.

Clearly they’ll cheer on the Court as it violates judicial restraint and ignores the will of the people when it concerns a law they disapprove of, particularly when they perceive the invalidation as a political blow to a democratic president they loathe.

For liberals this isn’t an issue, of course – they understand the law, the Court’s interpretive authority, and that judicial review predates the Constitution and Federal government. It was part of the Anglo-American judicial tradition during the Foundation Era and before that during the Colonial period.

Liberals may not agree with the Court when it strikes down the ACA, but unlike conservatives they understand the ruling is now the Law of the Land, that this is what the Constitution says on the issue, and only those ignorant of the law would content that the Court was ‘wrong’ or lacks the authority to review and invalidate a law to begin with.

__________________
The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943

Wow, seriously Reb? Racism and Libel in the same post? And you wonder why the Tea Party gets a bad name...

__________________
.
.
.
Ho Ho Ho

that's why they used the word "formally".

i guess we are agreement, mon. emphatic, even.

now we go drink mucho bier?