Subscribe via RSS Feed

On The Leaked Tribe Letter

[ 4 ] October 29, 2010 |

What Greenwald said.

On the first point, Paul’s post on Kagan and the legal establishment is obviously relevant. I just wonder if Tribe actually believes the highly implausible claims that Kagan will make Kennedy more liberal or if he was just telling Obama what he thought he wanted to hear to promote a colleague.

Comments (4)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Joe says:

    Suck up alert.

    Remember, Kagan is the best thing since sliced bread, while Sotomayor is just a full of herself bully. Tribe deserves a special spanking just for giving conservative bloggers a reason to cackle.

  2. Oscar Leroy says:

    “or if he was just telling Obama what he thought he wanted to hear”

    You mean, behaving like everyone else whom Obama listens to?

  3. R.Johnston says:

    Well, I’ve lost all respect for Tribe. Knowing that he’s an ideologically incoherent two-bit partisan hack willing to whore himself out in order to promote his friends’ interests makes his subjective legal analysis worth precisely nothing at all. It’s simply never worth taking the opinion of known liar and sycophant seriously.

    As famously argued by Daniel Davies, “good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance [and] fibbers’ forecasts are worthless.” That applies just as well to Lawrence Tribe’s legal arguments as it did to the Bush administration arguments in favor of invading Iraq that Davies was criticizing.

  4. Stag Party Palin says:

    Great Horny Toads! Here I am, a DFH from the golden age of DFH’s, and when I dig my foxhole for two I want Bob Barr in there with me. At this point a man with principles, no matter what they are, is a lot more appealing than this Harvard professor and his best student.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site