The right wing nuts, including the fringie white supremacists they include and embrace, have some funny (funny strange, not ha ha funny) notions about race and ethnicity that are out of date and scientifically bad and wrong.
But what those notions really amount to is more dog whistling of the 'us versus them' divisive variety, the 'you people', 'those people' and 'them' variety. Previously epitomized as the view of white 'country club republicans' (which included my family and upbringing) and commonly found in southern conservative 'white trash' in only slightly different variation, it has now become even more pervasive with the advent of the bigots and racists in the Tea Party.
From think progress:
Too little, too late; those staffers should be fired, and Brown should apologize - a real apology, not one of the non-apology apologies.
That conservatives live in an us vs them world is not just my observation as a former insider now viewing this from the outside looking in. It is the view of people on the inside of the GOP and Tea Party as well.
But what those notions really amount to is more dog whistling of the 'us versus them' divisive variety, the 'you people', 'those people' and 'them' variety. Previously epitomized as the view of white 'country club republicans' (which included my family and upbringing) and commonly found in southern conservative 'white trash' in only slightly different variation, it has now become even more pervasive with the advent of the bigots and racists in the Tea Party.
From think progress:
Chief Of Cherokee Nation Blasts Brown Staffers: ‘Downright Racist’
The Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation on Wednesday released a statement condemning the employees of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) after a video surfaced of three campaign staffers mocking Brown’s opponent’s Native American heritage.
“The conduct of these individuals goes far beyond what is appropriate and proper in political discourse,” said Chief Bill John Baker in his statement, “The use of stereotypical ‘war whoop chants’ and ‘tomahawk chops’ are offensive and downright racist.”
Baker called on Brown to “apologize for the offensive actions of his staff and their uneducated, unenlightened and racist portrayal of native peoples,” and said, “A campaign that would allow and condone such offensive and racist behavior must be called to task for their actions.”
Warren’s Cherokee and Delaware Native American ancestry has been a frequent line of attack for Brown, with the campaign even running ads on the topic. The Senator did say Tuesday, however, that he did not “condone” their actions.
That conservatives live in an us vs them world is not just my observation as a former insider now viewing this from the outside looking in. It is the view of people on the inside of the GOP and Tea Party as well.
Former Republican National Committee head Michael Steele claimed Tuesday night that the GOP is ignoring minority voters. Outreach to minorities is "not part of the mainstay of the party," Steele said, speaking on Hardball. "That's the one area were I do have a great deal of concern."
Steele agreed that Republicans are not making an effort to woo minority voters in urban centers and that they are not going to African-American and other minority communities to make inroads. "They're not," he said. "And that's the problem."
It didn't mark the first time that Steele has criticized his own party for excluding non-whites from its coalition. When he was RNC chairman, he said that African-Americans had no reason to vote for Republicans. "For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South," Steele said in 2010.
This guy is right; the GOP and especially the rabid ignornt tea party, is alienating women as well as people of color. More than that, by going to far right, by purging moderates and embracing extremists, and by waging culture war on women - and it is real - the right is even alienating a lot of white men across a range of ages. That includes many of our commenters here on Penigma, who were at one time conservatives. We didn't leave the party; the party left us - left us as it became extremist and more racist, left us as it became more misogynist, left us as it detached from fact, objective reality, valid science, economics and turned away from knowledge and education.
I don't think Massachusetts has enough angry ignorant bigoted old white men to elect Scott Brown; unfortunately for him, he and his staff are offending everyone else.
Blah, blah, blah, is “Fauxcahontas” or “Dances With Identity Theft”, gonna cough up her Law licence info.....
ReplyDeletehttp://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-accused-of-lying-2012-9
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/professors-bombshell-charge-elizabeth-warren-practiced-law-in-mass-without-a-license/
Elizabeth Warren was key in asbestos case
THIS STORY APPEARED IN May 01, 2012|By Noah Bierman 3847E-mailPrint
http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-01/metro/31499452_1_asbestos-case-asbestos-victims-travelers/2
It is clear that Warren received a substantial amount of money to help the company win immunity from all future lawsuits, with the expectation that the company would have to pay the settlement. But Warren’s work on the case may also have helped Travelers indirectly lay the groundwork for its current position, a position Warren and several other lawyers involved on both sides of the case say they did not foresee: where Travelers has immunity from most suits without having to pay the settlement.
Her campaign would not release a full list of cases she has been involved in.
Her campaign detailed six Supreme Court cases in which she has filed so-called friend of the court briefs. They include two briefs on behalf of the AARP: one of which supports protecting individual retirement accounts in the event of a bankruptcy and another that fights to allow judges to lower consumers’ credit card interest rates in the event of personal bankruptcies.
http://americandigest.org/sidelines/2012/09/#a019494
http://stupidisafiveletterword.blogspot.com/2012/09/because-it-must-be-seen.html
The drubbing will be an epic....
http://www.businessinsider.com/final-q3-gdp-2012-9
OMG2012 = Obama Must GO 2012
And remember to send your wampum to the Warren campaign....
Hi Thomas - welcome to Penigma and thank you for your comment, although of course I'm going to correct your errors of fact.
ReplyDeleteWarren has spent most of her career doing research and teaching, not practicing law.
Lets begin with the articles you've linked; I actually like Business insider quite a bit, and have quoted them myself. The Blaze however is as discredited as it's founder Glenn Boo hooo hoo Beck, and is a joke site like the Onion, only not as funny.
As the business insider noted, quoting the top lawyer for the state, which I assume is their AG, although no name was given, I believe it is legal for her to do certain things without a license - like file an amicus brief or offer an opinion as a law professor or legal expert which may not qualify as 'practicing law'. If she filled in a form indicating where she practices her profession of law PROFESSOR, as the closest approximate answer to where she is based rather than claiming a legal practice, then it would seem that this is trying to make something out of nothing.
What I'm seeing from sources like factcheck.org and politifact.com, which is citing other accusations against Warren as false.
If she did something wrong under the requirements for practicing law - then she should be accountable.
But the attacks on her for what appear to be legitimate answers to inquiries about her heritage on applications is not one of the things where she can really be faulted. She appears to have been more than qualified for everything she has done without relying on affirmative action, contrary to Brown's claims, and she does appear to be legitimately part Native American -- which neither Brown nor anyone else has proven otherwise.
So if there are legitimate criticisms of Brown, bring them. If she did something wrong - hold her accountable. If there is enough to merit an investigation - one should be done.
Being part Native American, or lying to benefit from affirmative action however do not appear to be legitimate or valid accusations. There is no excuse for the conduct of Brown's senate staffers that insult not only Brown but every person of Native American descent in this country.
Present proof here Thomas; none of the above qualifies, and some of it is so bad it is stinking up my monitor.
FACTS, please Thomas -- F-A-C-T-S, which is a word that does not belong anywhere near Glenn Boo hooo hooo cry-baby and LIAR Beck, or some of your other sources.
An addendum, Thomas -- where someone is not the lead lawyer, they are often not required to have a law license to perform duties that would otherwise be considered practicing law.
DeleteFor example, if you have a law degree, but are acting in another state than one where you are or have been licensed, so long as you are working with a lawyer who IS licensed in that state, a lawyer doesn't need a law license in that state (or any other state) to practice in that other jurisdiction. This is done all the time.
What effectively happens is that in a variety of legal matters, a person who is qualified otherwise is effectively given umbrella legal status under the law license of another attorney for limited action. In none of the claims I've seen so far has Warren been the primary or lead attorney on any actual case, and what little I've looked at, it appears more that she has provided expert opinion or research, which also do not require a law license. There are instances where that applies as well in the state where one is resident.
I suspect that whatever 'legal work' Warren did, it will be of that variety, and her claims of being a lawyer will be of the holding a JD degree qualification not a claim of being licensed when she was not.
This woman has proven to be squeaky clean; the only people getting dirty are the ones trying to sling mud.
You have proof she's not part Native American - bring it. It has to be better than she doesn't look it - see the photos. You have conclusive proof that she acted outside the law - show us; legal documents are widely available online. Get us those links, and I'll ask Laci to give us a real legal opinion on the accusations. He has practiced and is licensed in multiple jurisdictions, U.S. and otherwise, so he knows how all this works. REALLY works, not the alternate reality that conservatives inhabit that is detached from fact and objective reality.
OK, Thomas, I think it's safe to assume that your overwhelming ignorance also includes the practise of law.
ReplyDeleteWarren is a LAW PROFESSOR, FYI, LAW PROFESSORS DON'T NEED TO BE PRACTISING ATTORNEYS IN THE US.
For example, Eugene Volokh, as far as I know is not a practising attorney and never has been. But, that's an aside. Although, I would point out it is an important and on topic aside since Law Professors often offer their "expertise" in legal matters.
Even licensed attorneys are allowed to practise in jurisdictions where they are not licenced under something called pro hac vice, or they can work with an attorney who is licensed in that Jurisdiction.
Also, under the federal system, one can practise in other federal court systems outside the home jurisdiction by asking for admission to that other states bar. Admission to a state bar does not automatically entitle practice in federal courts, such as the United States district courts or United States court of appeals. In general, an attorney is admitted to the bar of these courts upon payment of a fee and taking an oath of admission. An attorney must apply to each district separately.
For instance, a Texas attorney who practices in federal courts throughout the state would have to get admitted separately to the Northern District of Texas, the Eastern District, the Southern District, and the Western District. To handle a federal appeal the attorney would also be required to be admitted separately to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for general appeals and to the Federal Circuit for appeals that fall within that court's jurisdiction. As the bankruptcy courts are divisions of the district courts, admission to a particular district court usually includes automatic admission to the corresponding bankruptcy court. However, the bankruptcy courts require attorneys attend training on electronic filing before they may file motions.
FYI, I am admitted to practise in both Pennsylvania and DC, but I am only admitted in the US Eastern and Middle District Federal trial courts. I would need to apply to practise in either DC's Federal, or PA's Western District.
I'll add that some federal district courts have extra admission requirements. For instance, the Southern District of Texas requires attorneys seeking admission to attend a class on that District's practice and procedures; the Southern District of Florida administers an entrance exam, and the District of Rhode Island requires candidates to both attend classes and pass an examination.
Here are some exceptions to the rules for being admitted in a jurisdiction:
3.1 Pro se litigants
3.2 Waiver
3.3 Diploma privilege
3.4 Reciprocity
3.5 Limited license to practice law
3.6 Admission pro hac vice
3.7 Military lawyers
3.8 Admission of foreign-educated lawyers
But, the ultimate upshot is that if the court permit someone to practise in front of it under one of the various exemptions, then you are allowed to practise without violation the rule against practising without a licence.
I should add that my blog was named for my dog since someone made the comment that she had been in more courtrooms than Harriet Miers!
DeleteIf you are going to rip people's credentials to practise law, then I strongly suggest that you get (1) a better knowledge of legal practise and
(2) know about some of the judges out there who have never seen the inside of a courtroom.
Of course, since I take it that you have no problem with Heller-McDonald since they said that it was "an individual right" and ignore Bush v. Gore that you have no problem with that sort of thing as long as the judge is on your side.
Laci found this, after confirming that so long as the court accepts someone to appear in their court in a legal capacity, no one can legitimately make the claim of practicing without a license. There are plenty of 'exemptions' that allow someone to be part of a legal team, especially in federal court.
ReplyDeleteHere's what the regulatory/investigating board for lawyers conduct in MA determined:
"But according to a post on The Docket, the blog of the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, Jacobson's charge has been rejected by Michael Fredrickson, the general counsel of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, which is "an independent administrative body to investigate and evaluate complaints against lawyers." According to The Docket:
Rule 5.5 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct states that an attorney cannot, without a license to practice in Massachusetts, "establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law." It also states an attorney cannot, without a license, "hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction."
Michael Fredrickson, general counsel for the BBO, says he does not believe a law professor would be considered to have "a continuous presence" or "an office practicing law."
"If they actually practice here - as some part-time law professors at some of the smaller schools do - they might," Fredrickson says. "But being a professor at one of the large schools, their office is a professor's office, and the fact that they tend to dabble in the practice of law doesn't run afoul of our rule. I don't think Elizabeth Warren would fall within that, such that she would have to register here."