Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rule of Law

The Dangerous Dishonesty of Possible Supreme Court Nominee Pam Karlan

October 11th, 2013 - 6:46 am

People want this woman on the Supreme Court?

Of course they do. There is a budding movement of respectable gangsters to whom dishonesty is no disqualifier as long as the perp is ideologically correct. Gone are the days when dishonesty kept you from the ranks of respectability, let alone higher office.

karlan

Karlan’s Bush-bashing is especially absurd given the total dormancy of Obama administration Voting Rights Act enforcement.

After I filed US v. Lake Park in March 2009 (a case started and almost completed by the Bush DOJ), the Obama Voting Section went into hibernation. No Section 2 cases were brought over the next four years. Naturally, Karlan won’t be publishing a law review article titled: “Lessons Learned: The Sorry History of Voting Rights Enforcement of the Obama Administration.”

Karlan’s attack on the Bush Justice Department was part of the academy’s contribution to a broad, coordinated effort to create a false alternative history about the Bush civil rights record. Whelan describes the rancid pedigree of this tactic in another National Review article, titled “The American Constitution Society’s Purge?“:

In doing research for my post on Pamela Karlan’s textual hallucinations, I was surprised to discover that the hyperlinks on this American Constitution Society page to Karlan’s “insightful — and witty — reflections” at the ACS’s 2006 convention and to the video of her remarks both led nowhere (or, more precisely, to “Page Not Found”). A Google search of the site fared no better.

I had thought that Stalinist airbrushing had fallen out of fashion on the Left, but I think that it’s fair to ask whether ACS, in order to advance the prospects of individuals whom it would like to see nominated and confirmed to judicial office.

No Ed, airbrushing hasn’t fallen out of favor. Sometimes they airbrush out inconvenient transcripts, other times they airbrush out cases filed in United States District Court to protect minority civil rights. Stalin’s airbrush tactics are alive and well.

Couldn’t Karlan’s dishonesty offer the academic left a chance to redeem itself in a small way? Couldn’t responsible left-of-center law professors publicly toss Karlan overboard to demonstrate that intellectual honesty survives on the left side of law schools? Couldn’t Karlan’s dean at Stanford demand that she correct her false scholarship?

Of course not. That’s not how they play ball. When rank academic dishonesty among one of their own is spoken of as a justification to disown her, Karlan’s allies and sycophants call the scrutiny “bizzaro world.” When an esteemed leftist law professor is called out for dishonesty, less-esteemed leftist law professors can’t even begin to process the  possibility. That’s the state of the academy today: dishonesty is processed depending on the political persuasion of the liar. Such evil compounds Karlan’s original lies.

Karlan will still get invited to speak at ACS events.  She will still get calls from Wall Street Journal reporters. Her articles in barely read publications will still be blogged about by left-wing professors. Narrative, uninterrupted.

Perhaps there is still enough credibility and honesty on both sides of the aisle in the United States Senate to ensure that Pam Karlan has hit her career ceiling. Hopefully Democrats and Republicans alike can agree that it is best to keep a dishonest academic in her position as a dishonest academic. Her corrosive and bitter worldview is best kept in the insular world of academia, where her damage can be contained to corrupting scores of would-be lawyers who don’t have a clue about who is really standing at the lectern; where deans like Elizabeth Magill turn a blind eye to outright scholarly dishonesty on their faculty.

Confining her to a life in the academy will limit the damage Karlan could do to the Constitution and the rule of law compared to if she were ever nominated to the federal bench.

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
/squints

Is that male or female?

Ugh.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
JC, why, oh why would you think academic fraud is a problem with this administration?
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
The dishonesty is a feature, not a bug.

Just look at the OCare decision. The attorney arguing against completely creamed the other guy. There was no contest in this case. Did it matter? No. The LIberal Justices voted predictably, and the law and arguments be damned. If Roberts had not switched his vote with his ridiculous, contorted. legal reasoning, OCare would have gone down to defeat. In light of the NSA monitoring, I can only assume they had something on him. The law didn't matter. The arguments did not matter. The fix was in.

Dishonesty rules, today, because the country has lost its moral compass. Honesty is no longer cherished. It is considered optional.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (22)
All Comments   (22)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The president, himself, has set the standard for academic fraud.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Gone are the days when academic fraud disqualified candidates left or right...

Academic fraud. OR any other fraud for example that perpetrated on the Law of the USA by the Triumvirate Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama. In "certification of BH Obama as nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the USA in 2008.

There is a Law, THE Fundamental Law that specifies qualifications for "legal eligibility" for ALL elective offices in the government of the USA.

Noteworthy is that ONE Special requirement for the Office of President and FOR NO OTHER elective office. THAT SPECIFIC qualification, to date neither amended, changed or defined in law by authoritative bodies as guardians of the Law. So presumed extant and limiting.

AND citizens have to date received, despite reservations from informed and disinterested citizens, no authoritative and usual PROOF that BH Obama meets that requirement.

That lack of formal proof compounded by his first act on taking the chair of Executive of the USA in Sealing documents. What and why not known and NEVER to see the light of public exposure to be known by American citizens in whose name and trust he acts.

Would ANYBODY buy a used car with these conditions?

AND such proofs apparently of little or NO concern to ANY of the guardians of the Law, the Constitution, in Legislature or Judiciary.

Who dismiss if they notice it at all the question, the request for authoritative true proofs as irrelevant. Tom Lehrer's "Not My Department"?

Moreover dismiss the quesitoners as disgruntled if not actual lunatic.

Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. OR The entire legal foundations, the Constitiution of the USA. Is THIS then their meaning in their intended "Fundamental Transformation of the Nation"?>
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Don't forget that Elena Kagan was caught red handed at forgery when working as Solicitor General for Prez Barack Hussein. She did this to misrepresent a group of respected scientists on an environmental dispute.

Turned out that the RINOs felt it would've been impolite to bring that up in her confirmation hearings, so she got in anyway. Those RINOs sure are respectful people. Maybe they were impressed by her Ivy League Moron credentials.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Another sociopathic elitist that lies? Should we be surprised?
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
/squints

Is that male or female?

Ugh.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
I went to images.google.com. OOf - dah. That's one nasty piece of work.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
No kidding! Looking at the pic I'd thought it was an older image of Julian Lennon!
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
JC, why, oh why would you think academic fraud is a problem with this administration?
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
per Wiki:
She has described herself as an example of "Snarky, bisexual, Jewish women."
...well rounded, then.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
The dishonesty is a feature, not a bug.

Just look at the OCare decision. The attorney arguing against completely creamed the other guy. There was no contest in this case. Did it matter? No. The LIberal Justices voted predictably, and the law and arguments be damned. If Roberts had not switched his vote with his ridiculous, contorted. legal reasoning, OCare would have gone down to defeat. In light of the NSA monitoring, I can only assume they had something on him. The law didn't matter. The arguments did not matter. The fix was in.

Dishonesty rules, today, because the country has lost its moral compass. Honesty is no longer cherished. It is considered optional.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
If Roberts had not switched his vote with his ridiculous, contorted. legal reasoning, OCare would have gone down to defeat.

True, and this is an important point.

Even more fundamental is that Obamacare was never passed; it was only deemed to have passed. The socialists Pelosi and Reed leveraged the budget approval reconciliation process, itself unconstitutional, to ram through Obamacare after Teddy's death and his replacement by the RINO Scott Brown from the People's Socialist Republic of Massachussetts.

U.S. Consitution Article I, Section 7, paragraph 2.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
I recall reading the original ACA bill wasn't a health care bill at all.

The original bill was a tax break for vets. When Congress kicked the bill up to the Senate it was 'Steve Austin'd'.

True? If so the deception, voluntary economic destruction done under this nonsensical premise- that of 'fairness' - to me is criminal.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Whatever it was or is, the real question is WHAT Kind of Bill or Law or whatever needs more than 2000 pages to record its provisions?

Think about it.

When was the last time ANY of us read 2000 pages of ANYTHING and understood and remembered ALL or even the most important points in those pages?

Do we reallly think Congressmen... did anyything of the sort. Why should they when encourged, "whipped" by the Speaker of the House and then her fellow Praetorian in the Senate with "We have to pass to know what's in it". Tongue in cheek or dismissive response to that reporter who DARED to ask the Speaker of the House, "Third in line for the throne" to respect citizens enough to inform them of laws that were to limit their independent actions in their lives.

Directly Unconstitiutonal whatever the Chief Juistice of SCOTUS decides in what is in LAW a LIMITED Government.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why do we follow along with these Leftists in calling them "Progressives?" Let's start calling them what they really are. Euro-Socialists. Remember that lady who's last name was Brown who worked for this Administration? She IS actually a member and guest speaker for Socialist International. I'm sure many of this Administration if are not members, surely agree with the ideas of Socialist International, along with many in the Democrat party. We should call out these Leftists in their dishonesty to the American citizenry. They are Socialists. Nothing more. Nothing less.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
"...that lady who's last name was Brown who worked for this Administration?"

Carol Browner scrubbed references to her communist leanings/enthusiasm from her website when Barack appointed her in 2009.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Gone are the days when dishonesty kept you from the ranks of respectability, let alone higher office."

Cuts across all layers, nooks and crannies of society and government.

Sits at the base of everything that is completely screwed up, which is close to everything.

40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All