The level of your stupidity never ceases to amaze me. Do you know how to read basic English? Squint your eyes and concentrate on these sentences:

The important point here is neither Morrissey nor the Kucinich decision. The court didn't yet issue a written ruling and I have no idea whether the court's decision is reasonable, defensible, or right. The contract claims require application of Nevada contract law to the specific communications between Kucinich and MSNBC, and the Section 315 claim requires all sorts of analyses as to whether its mandates apply to a cable channel such as MSNBC, whether Kucinich can be excused by the time imperatives from the statutory requirement of first seeking relief from the FCC before suing, etc.

I'm focusing here on the reaction to the decision, not the decision itself, because it's so illustrative of what happens every time there is a court ruling that conservatives dislike.

Precisely with morons like you in mind, I went out of my way to explain slowly what any literate person would have understood without the explanation: namely, that I was not writing "in support of Dennis Kucinich's attempt to sue his way into the Nevada Democratic debate." My post had nothing to do with that issue.

Yet even with the slow, clear explanation I provided, you still waddled away confused and disoriented -- thinking that the post you read included a defense of Kucinich's claims. Seriously ponder the level of stupidity required for that to happen.

And you might want to see this

Had to have been that cough syrup again.

CY, it appears you've been sissy-slapped by a crusty sock.

It's on, baby!

Um, CY? You wrote: "Second, MSNBC claims that an invitation does not constitute a contract."

Yeah, so, I didn't need to go to law school to figure this out (although I did go to law school), but an issue of whether a valid contract exists isn't settled as a legal matter just because one party says there was no contract. I'm not saying one way or the other whether I think there was or was not a valid contract between Kucinich and MSNBC, just that it's patently absurd to simply take a defendant's word for it without applying Nevada contract law to the underlying facts to determine whether a contract exists.

I could just as easily write this: "Second, Kucinich claims that the invitation constitutes a contract," and then claim that my point has been proved, and that therefore you have "an awfully poor understanding of the law."

So... the point of your bile was "focusing here on the reaction to the decision, not the decision itself," and doing so as an excuse to attack Morrissey and other "right-wing ideologues," while completely passing on "whether the court's decision is reasonable, defensible, or right."

You have to know or at the very least suspect, that the judge rendered a very flawed decision and that MSNBC's lawyers have very strong arguments, but you pass on examining the very issues you bring up so that you can go on the attack against conservatives.

What a passive aggressive coward you are.

CY: Again, and this is from a professional viewpoint, when you write that "[y]ou have to know or at the very least suspect, that the judge rendered a very flawed decision and that MSNBC's lawyers have very strong arguments," you're assuming way too much. It's not really possible to know anything about the strengths of MSNBC's case, or whether the judge's decision is flawed.

Contract law differs from state-to-state, so even you were an expert in contract law in, say, New York, you would first have to read the relevant statutory and case law in Nevada before you could make such a judgment. And while it is more reasonable to "suspect that MSNBC's lawyers have very strong arguments" (primarily because they've got deep pockets and likely brought in a very qualified team of very bright lawyers), it is not unreasonable to also suspect that Kucinich's lawyers made "very strong arguments," since Mr. Kucinich also likely has access to some very fine legal minds, who may well have been willing to work the case on a pro bono basis.

Making up your mind about the relative strengths of these competing arguments takes a lot of reading, and a lot of time. Simply assuming that one side in complex litigation made "very strong arguments," without extending the same benefit to the other side is naive; especially when you haven't taken the time to read and digest the filings in the case, as well as the relevant case law cited in those filings...and without the benefit of a published written decision from the judge (it takes time for those to come out, and they aren't always published), it's not exactly prudent to reasonably call the judge's decision "very flawed."

Surely, CY, you think that the quality of thought and discourse on the right is a subject worthy of discussion? That's what Glenn was addressing.

And do you really think that the notorious judicial activists of Nevada only decided this way because they're biased for Dennis Kucinich? And/or filled with righteous, left-wing anger for MSNBC?

Consider the possibility that sometimes court cases are decided on legal grounds, and that a case that doesn't come out the way you want it to isn't only explicable by bias.

Jeez, CY, the first rule when you're in a hole is to stop digging. GG quite clearly states that, as the court's decision hasn't been published, he can't make a good judgement as to the merits.

GG wasn't "going on the attack against conservatives," he was critiquing the response of one specific and very stupid conservative. God only knows why you felt the need to proudly don your dunce cap alongside Ed, but I'm sure he appreciateds the company. But you've just added to Glenn's point: both you and Ed are opining on the merits of the case despite knowing absolutely nothing about the relevant laws. Hell, the reason we have courts is so that someone with expertise can judge the strength of each side's arguments. Why bother with all that if we could just let some jackass on the internet take a glance at a lawsuit and give it a thubs up or down?

Couldn't he claim detrimental reliance on the contract and thus sue for performance?

Credits, however slim, for having the b*lls at minimal honesty to at least attempt to discuss GG's points on the merits, or at least something sort of relating to the merits.

Demerits for misinterpreting GG's point, which is that Captain Ed's post and reasoning was wildly ignorant of basic facts. You don't confirm or deny this, you sail right past it.

Cowardice and honesty added, then subtracted.
Sadly, it puts you ahead of a lot of your compatriots, but still not worth regularly reading for intelligent nonpartisans.

And out of the woodwork come the moonbats. Don't you people have some ranting for Ron Paul to get busy with today?

Shorter Conservative CBU: "Look -- a jackalope!"

For the record, I am supporting CY, just posing a question. No sock puppet supporter here.

Can I sue Kucinich for wanting to be on a Cable TV program when I only get broadcast?

You know, generally speaking, at the most elementary level, offer + acceptance = contract.

But what do I know? I've only been practicing law for 28 years. Doubtless you have some superior insight . . . .

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jan/1/241463.html

I predict that in November Kucinich will sue every American voter for not voting for him to be President

Geez, I missed the excitement. It was a democrat primary debate so why the hell was Greenwald concerned about conservative reactions in the first place. Were they voting?

How did it work out for Dennis the Menace? The Nevada Supreme Court slammed the door shut. No contract, no jurisdiction. CY 1, Greenwald 0.

Nice overwrought rant on Greenwald's part though. Will he admit he was wrong - never.

Greenwald specifically says he is not looking at whether the judgement was "defensible or right." He says the judgment could be legally wrong. Thus, the ruling getting overturned does not make Greenwald wrong in the slightest. He was not arguing that the first ruling was correct. He clearly states that is not his objective. What he does clearly state is that one must know quite a bit about Nevada contract law before one can pass judgment in any sort of intelligent manner.

Any kneejerk reaction to equate "Kucinich losing = Greenwald is wrong" only highlights the complete lack of critical thought that Greenwald was discussing since Greenwald did not once even attempt to "defend" the decision. The issue is not whether or not the Kucinich loses, but whether or not conservatives will look at the legal framework vs. instinctively labeling any decision they do not like as "activist".

Kucinich winning or losing has nothing to do with the point. In the decision to "support" CY or GG, the two sides can be represented as:

GG: "Lets take a close look at what the law is and what the case is and then decide whether a judgement was correct or incorrect. Kucinich winning or losing is irrelevant. The important thing is to not jump to any conclusions that are not rooted heavily in fact and legal analysis."

CY: "We do not need a thorough examination of the law in order to know that any decision I disagree with must be the work of an activist judge. Kucinich losing means I win!11one!"

Daley - why should he? he wasn't wrong. His post, since you obviously haven't taken the time to read it, was about the favorite right-wing bogeyman, "judicial activism" - something the wingnut pundits love to evoke, even when they have no idea what they're talking about.

"Nobody can opine meaningfully on the propriety of the court decision here without first knowing about, and then analyzing and resolving, those legal claims. That's how the law, when properly applied, works. You don't get to pick which outcome you think is most desirable or "fairest" in some vague philosophical sense and then, based on those preferences, decide if the court correctly adjudicated the questions before it. A court adhering to the rule of law, by definition, applies the law and legal principles. Self-evidently, to know if the court acted properly, a basic knowledge of those laws and legal principles -- at minimum -- is first necessary."

- snipped discussion about Ed Morrisey's article and how it had no basis in fact -

"Our public discourse has taught conservatives that any time a court issues a ruling that produces an outcome that they dislike, that's "judicial activism." But that's a cruelly ironic lesson because, to the extent "judicial activism" has any meaning at all, it means doing exactly what right-wing ideologues have learned to do when talking about court rulings: judge the rulings based solely on their affection for the outcome."

THAT, my pet, is why Greenwald isn't wrong and why CY is a buffoon for his assertion that Greenwald's article was about the case, itself, when it so clearly wasn't - well, it wasn't for anyone with reading comprehension and retention skills above those of a 4-year-old.

As "rea" says:
offer + acceptance = contract

Funny, I thought that conservatives were, like, all in favor of upholding the validity of contracts. But I guess I neglected that other important equation:

conservative + keyboard = moron

which just goes to show that you have to take all of the relevant factors into account.

Greenwald's kneejerk reaction to CY's post and the continuing support of his drooling unthinking minions is amusing to see.

Greenwald claims:

"Then -- without bothering even to learn what those issues are, let alone bothering to read anything about them -- they start condemning the court's decision as some sort of lawless expression of "judicial activism.""

For those sockpuppet fans who bothered to read CY's post, Bob dissected both the contract claim and the 315 claim.

Greenwald standard that people shouldn't write or express opinions about things without knowing all the facts if actually applied it to himself would force him to go silent half the time. His ridiculous posts on the mechanics of the TSP and the interrogation of prisoners of war, where it is absolutely clear he does meet his own standards of knowledge claimed in this post related to the Nevada primary would force him to go silent. Put that in your socks and smell it puppets in training.

Bob dissected both the contract claim and the 315 claim.

Are you really that dense, Rocks?

Okay, really simply for ya. GG stated:
The court didn't yet issue a written ruling and I have no idea whether the court's decision is reasonable, defensible, or right.

You are talking about the decision. GG is discussing a specific reaction of a conservative blogger and its relationship to the bastardized, right-wing term "judicial activism" based soley on desired outcome, not the facts of the case which can't be known until without full understanding of Nevada contract law and the text of the full Judges opinion.

Typical: Ignore the actual point being made to continue to push your irrelevant agenda.

Once you get on the same page as the rest of us we can chat more.

Cheers

Bob dissected both the contract claim and the 315 claim.

Are you really that dense, Rocks?

Okay, really simply for ya. GG stated:
The court didn't yet issue a written ruling and I have no idea whether the court's decision is reasonable, defensible, or right.

You are talking about the decision. GG is discussing a specific reaction of a conservative blogger and its relationship to the bastardized, right-wing term "judicial activism" based soley on desired outcome, not the facts of the case which can't be known until without full understanding of Nevada contract law and the text of the full Judges opinion.

Typical: Ignore the actual point being made to continue to push your irrelevant agenda.

Once you get on the same page as the rest of us we can chat more.

Cheers

daleyrocks, no one in the US is interrogating prisioners of war. There are no prisoners of war. Only unlawful combatants. Please polish your doublespeak.

Defenders of the good Captain are trying to reduce this to "Glenn agreed with Kucinich; Ed disagreed with Kucinich; The state Supreme Court disagreed with Kucinich; Ed wins!"

This is a blatant distortion of Glenn's original post. He pointed to Ed's claim that "constitutionally, this case belonged in federal court, which has jurisdiction on any interstate commerce complaints" and that Kucinich "filed his tort in state court hoping to find a sympathetic, activist judge who didn't know much about the law, and apparently succeeded." He pointed out that there was a CONTRACT claim involved, not a tort, and that this meant state law would prevail.

The higher court overturned the decision of the lower court - a decision which Greenwald had not taken a position on - because the federal law at issue did not create a private cause of action, and because they did not believe that a contract had indeed been created. They arrived at this decision via reasoning that has little if anything to do with Captain Ed's.

This isn't about whether Kucinich had a good case or not. It's about the fact that too many people feel free to opine on the merits of such cases without any understanding of the legal principles that govern the decision. The ultimate decision in this case, if you read it, was based on legal rules and precedent governing administrative law and contract law. Ed clearly had no grasp or even awareness of these, yet saw fit to declare that the judge's decision was not only wrong, but an outrageous instance of judicial activism.

It still doesn't sound like any of the Gluppets have read CY's post and are merely repeating what Clenn said, which is incorrect. CY took a position on the law. That position turned out to be correct. Glenn claims he didn't take a position in his Salon post because he didn't know the facts, but when has that ever stopped Glenn before, as I pointed out in the case of FISA asnd the TSP, the MCA and the interrogation of prisoners, Plamegate. Glenn has the audacity to command when others should and should not write on certain subjects yet does not follow the same protocols himself. He is a model of HYPOCRISY.

His claim that he was not supporting Dennis the Menace's right to speak is debatable, presenting only one side of the argument, Dennis'.

Who let the socks out?

Bob, you know you are doing something right when you get under their skin like this. Perhaps it was all your good work last year exposing media malfeasance that put them over the edge.

Have you checked the ISP's to make sure that the comments are coming from more than one sender?

In summary, Capt'n Ed remains a dunce, CY is dumber than Capt'n Ed and GG blog is like catnip to the dumb and the dumber.

Same as it ever was...

No, daleyrocks, not quite. Let's go to the CY post, shall we?

Its thesis starts out with a statement that's not only false to fact ("he bloviates in support of Dennis Kucinich's attempt to sue his way into the Nevada Democratic debate"), but is actually contradicted by the quote from Glenn he includes.

CY also did not so much "take a position on the law" as cut and paste parts of MSNBC's opposing argument and link to another unqualified commentator's opinion on the law.

Try again.

DarrenG - Weak, very weak.

Did you happen to notice CY's opening sentence? It reads as follows:
"For a reputed legal scholar, Glenn Greenwald has an awfully poor understanding of the law that even this layman can poke gaping holes in."

The fact that he uses excerpts from others to achieve his end does not mean he did not get there.

Greenwald's assertion that he did not want Dennis K to participate in the debate and publicly call for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney is, as I mentioned earlier, highly debatable in spite of his disclaimer to the contrary. That's one of Glenn's favorite tactics, to slant a post one direction and then claim he is not favoring one side or another. If he had truly wanted to do that, any reputable lawyer could have pounced on the failing in the Kucinich claims which CY pointed out.

Greenwald's claims about right wing bloggers not knowing what they are talking about also ring false, especially in the case of CY, given that he has no idea who they may have talked to or the research they may have done before posting. It more narcissistic pearl clutching on the part of Glenn in an attempt to preserve what little there is of his reputation on the loony left.

Nobody can opine meaningfully on the propriety of the court decision here without first knowing about, and then analyzing and resolving, those legal claims.

And that isn't possible because? Seems that's exactly what CY did, Gleens. And by golly, he got it right! And that's without being a Constitutional law expert with an NYT bestseller who broke a story reported on the front page of major newspapers and whose blog has been quoted on the Senate floor.

Good DAY, sir!

CY? Don't you have some posts on Beauchamp to get back to? We need a Beauchamp update.

Pablo,

Opine means to give your own opinion. The only opinion of his own that CY gave was that GG's credibility is low, everything else was the opinion of others.

And a good day to you, Sir.

Twisted - Of course words mean what YOU want them to mean, but take a another look at CY's first sentence. He accomplishes his goal through the use of the material of others.

Greenwald is a hack lawyer and a hack idealogue blogger. Have you ever noticed when legal developments arise that Glenn is reluctant to express an opinion without first checking Balkinization, Lawyers,guns and Money and others. He doesn't have original thoughts. He's a chickenblogger.

It still doesn't sound like any of the Gluppets have read CY's post...

Oh, we read it.

We just can't stop laughing about it.

Reading is Fundamental, Twisted_Color. You might want to try it for comprehension.

I know, I know. You're shocked by referential links that actually say what the linker tells you they say. But it's OK to use such things in support of your own opinion. You really don't have to misrepresent other people to express an opinion of your own. Maybe a glass of warm milk would help soothe you.

dave - I don't blame you for laughing. I would have too, wondering why that idiot Greenwald, who claims to be a lawyer, couldn't analyze the situation the way CY, a layman did in his post. No wonder Greenwald doesn't get any respect. The fact that the Nevada Supreme Court backed CY up makes Greenwald's post even more laughable, doesn't it?

And Greenwald's claim that he wasn't supporting Kucinich's right to be in the debate, another laughable claim. Take a look at the following comment from Greenwald from the comment thread to his post where he states he has problems with Kucinich's exclusion. As usual, Glenn fails to tell the truth.
________________________________________________

Associative Individualist:
it fails to address the cardinal issue involved in the objection to giving Dennis Kucinich a platform like the Democratic debate for espousing his views: the man is, as one of the authoritarian commenters in this forum so incisively and eloquently puts it, a "nutjob."
I know you're speaking ironically here, but still, with regard to his exclusion -- I don't think it's fair to say that he's being excluded based on his views. After all, MSNBC originally decided to include him.

It was only after he got less than 1 % of the vote in the first two states -- less than 1% -- that they sought to exclude him. This isn't like Fox's exclusion of Ron Paul -- where Paul surpassed other included candidates using every relevant metric.

Having said that, what's bothersome about the MSNBC decision is that it was made retroactively, with the specific intent to exclude Kucinich. I have no problem with networks having objective criteria to determine inclusion. That has to happen, given the huge numbers of people "running for President." But where -- as here -- it's applied inconsistently and retroactively, that's when the problems arise.

-- GlennGreenwald [Read GlennGreenwald's other letters]Permalink Tuesday, January 15, 2008 08:34 AM
________________________________________

Elsewhere in the comments Greenwald states that MSNBC has cited what appears to be firm case law in favor of their position, but he (Glenn) doesn't know.

The man is a blatant hack. He wants a result and is willing to deceive his readers in support of it. Business as usual for Glenn.

Apparently daleyrocks is so bewitched bothered and bewildered over Greenwald's appearance here that he can't even think straight. Must Kill The Evil Librul! Smash! Swing! Smash! Flail!

Yet another informed comment from a Gluppet! Heh.

Accepting what Greenwald writes requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

This is an amazing thread. I never would have thought so many conservatives would so deliberately and presistently argue away from the point and ignore matters of clearly established fact--just because they don't like those facts.

This is actually scarey.

daleyrocks, do you have a link to the Greenwald quotes you posted? The material is not in the 1-15-08 blog post under discussion. Your stuff has the same date, but it ain't in his blog.

Makes it look like you're quoting out of context to distort the mans position.

zak - Straight cut and paste. Time stamp is on the comment. Look again. Can't post complete links here.

Does arguing away from the point mean ignoting the fact that Glenn didn't have the testicular fortitude to take a position on the legal issues involved in Tinfoil Dennis' challenge while others did and that the positions of others, whether or not exactly mirrored by the Nevada Supremes, prevailed? Does arguing away from the point mean pointing out that Glenn lied about wanting Dennis in the debate?

What exactly are you saying zak? Please elaborate.

daley, found it in the comments.

daley, found it in the comments. My error.

daleyrocks,

It is possible to post complete links here.

"...ignoting the fact that Glenn didn't have the testicular fortitude to take a position on the legal issues involved in Tinfoil Dennis' challenge..."

Flailing around, looking for something to be angry about.

"Does arguing away from the point mean pointing out that Glenn lied about wanting Dennis in the debate?"

Mind-reading, point-missing. Flailing. You're beating the hell out of that strawman. Good job.

shorter, way to say absolutely nothing while attempting to take the high ground.

High five, dude! And here's a pudding cup for you.

iamwil,

Once again, Greenwald is babbling. The Fox criteria for inclusion was double digit national polling. Ron Paul didn't make the cut. Paul did NOT surpass "other included candidates using every relevant metric", despites The Gleens' bleatings.

But where -- as here -- it's applied inconsistently and retroactively, that's when the problems arise.

shorter, shorter - Glenn's got to be right about something, I just haven't figured out what. Meanwhile, I'll take a few potshots.

I guess, according to Mr. Greenwald et al, if I invite Mr. Kucinich to my home for dinner, then change my mind and cancel the invitation, that Mr. Kucinich has a right to sue me to force me to provide him a free dinner.

Is that not essentially what the case boils down to?

And lawyers wonder why they're so disliked.