Warren or Taitz: Double Standards, Fuzzy Thinking, and Fact Averse

Orly Taitz.
Elizabeth Warren.

Orly 'Bat Shit Crazy' 'Birther Queen' Taitz is a licensed lawyer in California who has while not licensed in other jurisdictions, has been permitted to appear on her federal birther wacko law suits.

She has never prevailed.  In point of fact, she appears never to have won a single case, including losing a suit defending herself against litigation for dental malpractice - one of those things she does on the side when not selling real estate or running unsuccessfully for public office, or of course, being the queen of the lunatic fringe birthers.

Orly arguably does NOT do a good job at any of her licensed occupations.  She has been sanctioned, she has been fined, she has been sued, she has been fired, past clients have complained, colleagues and peers have filed multiple complaints, she has been substantively accused of fraud and deception and misrepresentation by her clients.  She trolls for clients at machine gun shoots, trying to persuade other right wingers, especially people in the armed forces, that she is legitimate and that they should let her act as their attorney.  She has legally appeared in cases in federal court in states where she is not licensed through a process where courts waive that requirement, granting recognition to licenses or in a few cases other credentials, from another state.

It's a legal process, that happens routinely.  Essentially so long as a court opts to accept your legal credentials, you are allowed to appear in that case as an attorney, or as 'of counsel' (or whatever bad imitation of lawyering/dentistry/real estate sales Orly Taitz performs).

Orly is a right wing joke, of the not-funny, not ethical, not successful variety.  She rightly (pun intended) embarrasses some conservatives, but she is the heroine of a lot of others, a slight majority in fact. Politico noted in February 2011 that 51% of GOP primary voters believed Obama was foreign-born, and only 28% knew more factually that he was born in the U.S. of A.


A year later, YouGov did a similar survey, 9 months AFTER President Obama had released his long form birth certificate.  The numbers of Republicans who believed Obama was born in the U.S. of A. had gone down.........but then it went back up again, even higher than before, noting:

This trend is again especially pronounced among Republicans – the percentage of respondents who accept the Birther myth is, if anything, even higher than it was before Obama released his long-form certificate.

And in May of this year, the Nation in an article "Return of the Birthers" noted that other polls showed a similar trend:

But now the birthers are back. One of their main hubs is World Net Daily, a popular website on the conspiracy-minded far right. Through WND Books they have recently published a compendium of discredited and newly invented birther assertions called Where’s The Birth Certificate: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President, by leading birther Jerome Corsi. On May 17 WND reported that Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, who has become famous for his mistreatment of prisoners and his distaste for immigrants, is investigating the president’s citizenship but being met with “stonewalling” from federal authorities. “Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse says Selective Service System officials apparently are trying to dissuade the Arizona investigative team from attempting to obtain original documentation to determine whether Barack Obama’s draft registration form is authentic,” wrote WND’s Art Moore.

 And YouGov revisited the birther question in July 2012:

As I noted back in February, the incidence of Birtherism is especially pronounced among Republicans. Immediately following the release of the birth certificate, twice as many Republicans believed Obama was born in the United States than thought he was not born in the United States. Today, by contrast, a plurality of Republicans believes that Obama was not born in the United States.

One could argue that - given the consistent numbers - this represents what is usually characterized as the low-information ideology driven right wing voter.  Which ironically, especially given the predominance in southern states among conservatives, is the same region that comprises a higher percentage of that 47% of government dependent income tax shirking red state conservative voters.

In contrast, Elizabeth Warren is a credible leading legal expert, as recognized by peer journals. She has successfully participated in numerous federal cases in conjunction with other attorneys, where she appears to have full permission and recognition of those courts to participate.  So far as I can discern, none of her clients, nor the opposition in those cases, have ever complained about her qualifications or credentials or her ethics in participating in those litigations.

But given that the right wingnuts believe birther bullshit, and have continued to promote the legal career of Orly Taitz as if she actually could practice law successfully or ethically, it shouldn't be surprising that people like the right wing gun nut Thomas who commented here recently were unable to produce any evidence other than a right wing ideology driven law professors's claims that Warren has committed some sort of legal and ethical violation in practicing without a law license in Massachusetts.

I would hope that silly accusation would not distract Professor Warren from her senate campaign; but equally, I would hope that the good professor would consider suing the gutless ideologue for slander and libel. While there is much greater latitude in what can be said about a public figure, surely such unprofessional conduct from a member of that same profession should not go unchallenged.

Even the increasingly desperate Scott Brown in his campaign against Warren has not touched that accusation, only doubling down on his claims that Warren is not Native American, and that she has improperly benefited by lying from affirmative action.  The latter claim is directly contradicted by ALL of the people responsible for hiring Elizabeth Warren having confirmed that no affirmative action or consideration of minority status or heritage EVER was a factor in any hiring of Elizabeth Warren by any of her employers, nor can I find any indication anywhere that it was a factor for that matter in her acceptance into any academic institution as a student.  The chief legal counsel for the body which investigates claims of improper conduct in Massachusetts has repudiated any claims of improper legal practice by Warren as well.

Yet Scott Brown has apparently doubled down on his claims on the basis of Warren's appearance in a second campaign ad.  He isn't making any arguments about her policy or other political differences with him -- just blowing for all he's worth on the right wing affirmative action/ minorities are the enemy dog whistle.  From a brief survey, even if it were being promoted by surrogates, the unethical unlicensed law practice claims don't appear to have gained any traction in Massachusetts.

I would hope that Elizabeth Warren would consider my suggestion that she seek objective genome testing proof of her ancestry with the assistance of another Harvard Professor, Louis Henry Gates.

The contrast between Warren and Taitz, between eminent law expert and professor and crackpot public joke (except to far right conservatives, which appears to be most of them numerically) is stark.  The right will believe any fool who says something vile and not only unsubstantiated, but PROVEN false.  This is the epitome of the folly of the right, personified by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, and blindly embraced by stupid birthers and other conservatives.

I have frequently expressed the lack of critical thinking skills and the aversion to facts found on the right.  I can't think of any better examples than these to demonstrate that assertion.  We have the class and competence of Warren contrasted with the clownish, unethical incompetence of Taitz.

What a shocking difference between who and what the left will support, and who and what the right chooses.