If the literature wasn't inciting to violence (and I assume it wasn't) then of course it was within his free speech rights. NYC would have had to demonstrate his beliefs affected his work. (Or if they thought they did but couldn't prove it, assigned him a job where his personal beliefs wouldn't matter.)

I think if all the people like Pappas were 'out', we all would breathe a collective sigh of relief that there really aren't that many of them after all. Persecuting them absent an actual crime, or proof they are actually planning a crime, only makes them more paranoid - which seems to be their problem in the first place.

Go Sotomayor! :-)

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. One assumes you disapprove of

"patently offensive, hateful, and insulting,"

speech, but then you follow it up with

fatface Oxy-boy

Are you being ironic? I can never tell with you. But every article of yours I read spits spite from the page.

It's naive to assume that Rush Limbaugh cares what an obscure case might reveal about a Supreme Court nominee he opposes, let alone that he has good intentions or that he believes his own vitriol to the letter. Remember that Sotomayor is replacing a relatively liberal-leaning judge to begin with, and that conservatives are only criticizing her because as a nominee under a democratic administration, she is automatically a target for anything they think might stick. They have all but openly admitted this, many pundits stating that opposition to her is a way to keep their base of support fired up.

Limbaugh's disregard for truth or accuracy are widely known. Anyone who thinks that he would change his tack on account of one case of this nature is oblivious to how right-wing punditry operate. They are concerned with scoring points, with battling their ideological enemies, and with profiting from the controversy they stir up. They are not in the business of rifling through facts, undertaking research, or agonizing over how to approach nuanced issues in a principled and responsible manner.

It is well that responsible people consider cases such as this in understanding the facts that demagogues ignore. We must set a counterexample to the extremists' rhetoric and their cynical approach to agitprop. But it is equally important that we see extremism for what it is, and that we treat extremists as they deserve to be treated - not by hemming and hawing and meekly including them in an evenhanded dialogue that only glosses over the lies, intimidation and openly seditious instigation that the right increasingly stoops to. Rather by exposing, condemning and when necessary, prosecuting them when they present a clear threat to the security of the United States and its citizens, we can send a clear signal that people like Limbaugh cannot maliciously manipulate public opinion and government policy and divide and destabilize our country, and then expect to be treated as if all they're doing is exercising their rights by conscientiously expressing their opinions to an open minded audience of impartial and responsible people.

These assholes are programmed to be against any and everything Obama does. They then have to back their way in to their opinions when presented with contrary evidence. The whole "empathy" canard is pathetic. So much has come out about Alito & Thomas and their empathy eruptions that it dissolves any talking point on that score.

Fatface Oxy-Boy. That is priceless. I'm going to use that one.

First Amendment free speech jurisprudence is full of bright lines. You can find Scalia on the same side as Sotomayor would be in such cases. Are we now going to see an endorsement of Scalia from you, or at least an attack on his critics?

There are all kinds of areas within the law without bright lines that provide opportunity for judicial mischief. That said, the isolated comments of Sotomayor don't add up to racism yet.

Ricci will, however, get close scrutiny. In that case a city went to great lengths to get a race-neutral promotion test, specifically targeted to skills and knowledge associated with the promotion position, so as to wihstand a Title VII disparate impact challenge.

When the city didn't get the colors it wanted, it refused to certify their own test, claiming they were afraid of a Title VII challenge (the challenge the test was designd to avoid), and thereby claiming they were not discriminating, but the city had an interest in avoiding a lawsuit. And this passed muster. Except the Supreme Court is now looking at it.

She looks like she's qualified, and will get on, but if the Ricci appeal is heard and decided first, and reverses her decision, things might get dicey -- whether she's a racist or not.

this has gotta be a shameless attempt on your part to bait Republicans. whatever it is, it is pathetic.

you are a juvenile, and you discredited yourself immensely today.

jealous of Limbaugh? 20 million listeners tune in to him at some point each week -- stick that in your pipe, smoke it, and inhale.

someone with a mug like yours should not be hurling taunts like "fatface"

and by the way, today on his show he affirmed the "racist" accusation. sorry, but you're wrong, AGAIN

aleatico- you are veering into Nut land with comments like "whether she is a racist or not"

blog- you are alreaddy well within the borders of nut land and your trademark anger, which we have allseen before many. many times, is all too revealing.

Hola, LHB. I see Jengie's latest Viking alias is peddling the same old nonsense, in the same old non-style. Still, what can you do? He'll be a Limbo dancer until El Bloatoso of the Three Failed Marriages finally croaks. Twenty million listeners - with an average IQ of 7 on good days. As for aleatico, well, he very occasionally makes sense on other issues, but on this one, I suspect he just dislikes Latinos. Nothing racist, of course. Why else would he repeat empty allegations against Sotomayor without a shred of proof?

Mike, would you mind explaining why the Democratic base should object to the law being upheld? You seem to have some magical insight into what the base wants, and I'd like to know the basis for it. Frankly, my impression is that the base is more level-headed, and more concerned for rule of law than you suggest. Or were you just trying to throw the right-wing kooks on here a bone, for some inscrutable reason? Honestly, they've got four paws, a tail, and a big wet nose each- they'll find a bone of their own, given a couple of minutes.

Mitt Romney gave a shout-out to the Guardian:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/01/1949562.aspx

At a speech today in DC sponsored by the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, Mitt Romney called for increased defense spending, and also again criticized President Obama for going on a "tour of apology" while traveling abroad.

"Its not because America hasnt made mistakes -- we have -- but because Americas mistakes are overwhelmed by what America has meant to the hopes and aspirations of people throughout the world," he said, adding: "Britains Guardian newspaper noted that Mr. Obama has been more critical of his own country, while on foreign soil, than any other president in American history. That would be a most unfortunate distinction at any time."

So...one has to wonder if Rush Limbaugh reads the Guardian as well. O'Reilly? Hannity? Coulter? I'm pretty sure Buchanan reads the Guardian. Why don't you ask all the various rightwing U.S. commentators to write columns for some sort of a special section one day? Message to the World, or something.

The opinions of Rush Limbaugh are of little interest other than as an indicator of exactly what level of despicable nonsense is still acceptable in mainstream political discourse in the United States.

Thankfully there are many Americans who do realise how utterly strange, and not a little frightening, the presence of people like Limbaugh, Coulter et al in the mainstream media makes their nation appear to people around the world.

and by the way, today on his show he affirmed the "racist" accusation. sorry, but you're wrong, AGAIN

Well what a triumph. *rolls eyes*

No rational and honest person could possibly give credence to an accusation made on such a ludicrously flimsy basis. Utterly laughable.

blogviking

jealous of Limbaugh? 20 million listeners tune in to him at some point each week -- stick that in your pipe, smoke it, and inhale.

Yes, but with a combined IQ that just about makes it into three figures.

Funny/sad how "20 million listeners" get their political and social marching orders from a drug addict on the radio.

However, it does explain blogviking.

If the literature wasn't inciting to violence (and I assume it wasn't) then of course it was within his free speech rights. NYC would have had to demonstrate his beliefs affected his work. (Or if they thought they did but couldn't prove it, assigned him a job where his personal beliefs wouldn't matter.)

That's interesting. It brings to mind the fact that BNP members are banned from being members of the UK police:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3930175.stm

Maybe this is a case of differences between the UK and US, with the latter country placing greater value on freedom of speech as enshrined in the Constitution.

tg= Hola back and how are things in Beantown today? Sox in 2d to the Yankees, I see.

Blogviking has tried to be civil here and there and actually had a pretty funny line on one board yesterday. In that regard there is a distinction from He Who Must Not Be Named.

I don't actually care if Jengis does make his way back, or if he is abck as blogviking, if only he would just gear it back a notch and not repeat some of his past behaviors. I mean we need a diversity of viewpoint on the board.

However, then we see a snap-out post like this one and we have to wonder.

I am not sure what has aleatico's goat so much about Sotomayer.

Jeff Sessions:

"I do think that it is very important that anybody that serves on the U.S. Supreme Court be committed to faithfully execute the law, they show restraint, that they are modest, that they are objective, that they call the balls and strikes fairly no matter what teams are on the field. They don't favor one team over another and so, there are some things that have been raised that are serious that we need to explore sooner or later."

I read 'modest' and immediately thought 'Justice Scalia'?!?!?!

As for Limbaugh's audience, I suspect at least half his listeners are those following his program only so they can post rebuttals (that would include both journalists and non-journalists). After all, he is the spokesman for the Republican Party, is he not? </snark>

Look at the Guardian's circulation for April:

Guardian.co.uk has regained its place as the most visited national newspaper website with 27,324,309 unique visitors in April. The figure is up 2.59% on March and 47.33% year-on-year.

I don't know how many are American, but based on previous counts I suspect more than half.

blog- please note that I held out the possiblity that you are not jengis. My pal TG suggest thta there have been a number of viking names as there ahve been a number of jengis names.

If so, then the evidence might lie against you. However to be honest, I don't really care.

Even if you are Jengis, I'll still talk with you as long as you are reasonably civil. We need a diversity of views and jengis, when he not being a dick, often has a certain force to his arguments, mistaken though he is.

Fair enough?

lefthalfback--

You're kidding me, right? Did you do a Vulcan mind-meld with Judge Sotomayor, or are you simply able to infallibly peer into the souls of people? Are there no closet racists in your world, or do you just prefer to believe that's the way things are in your particular Nut land? Or can you not distinguish between evidence and fact?

It's as absurd to hold that you know her every secret as it is for Gingrich to call her racist on the basis of an overinterpreted comment.

Oh, wait. I forgot. She's a Latina. By definition she can't be racist. My bad. I'll say three Hail Marys at the shrine to Our Lady of Perpetual Political Correctness.

aleatico- The
"latina Racist" theme is a right-wing slander. You're dallying with it. that does not become you.

go read TNR's The Plank. Gingrich has withdrawn the "racist" remark and the re is a definitive analysis of ther panel decisons on which she sat whwere racila discrimination was alleged.

There have been 100. In 78 htere was unanimous rejection of the claim. There were 19 cases where the underlying claim of discrimiantion was sccepted. Thos edecisions were also all unanimous.

A Republican appointee was on like 75% of the panels.

Read the facts aleatico-

Re-read my first post. Sotomayor will have more grief from a reversed Ricci decision than from any attempt, via nearly non-existent evidence, to make the case that she is a racist -- that question will be irrelevant to her confirmation.

I've actually read quite a bit on Ricci, including the district court ruling, the Sotomayor panel endorsement, the amici briefs, and the various opinons and dissents revolving around the en banc refusal. There are some issues there, as a 7 to 6 vote would suggest, so this might prove interesting after all.

Does the state have an interest in avoiding a lawsuit which it had gone to great lengths to prepare a victorious ground for -- an interest that trumps the state interest in actually staffing a fire department upon which the safety of the community depends, and in avoiding a lawsuit from Ricci et al? The paradox is too funny for words. New Haven claims it had an interest in avoiding a lawsuit it would win, in order to invite a lawsuit it might actually lose. Cue Lewis Carroll.

BTW, she was on the board of La Raza when it initiated a group defamation lawsuit. What is your understanding of the law in reference to such suits? Does she endorse this new ground? Are we going the way of Canada? Did she oppose it, or did she endorse it knowing it would fail? In other words, does she believe in indulging in abuse of process for essentially public relations ends?

This last series of questions strike me as the only interesting ones, as she seems blameless on other nonsense. I wonder what her answers will be? The MSM portrays La Raza as a civil rights group, rather than an etnocentric lobby. Do groups have civil right to be free of defamation? What say you?