Yonivore
01-14-2011, 11:05 PM
..."blood libel" critic goes to:
Andrew Cohen, a Murrow Award–winning legal analyst and commentator.
Why Sarah Palin Should Have Just Left the 'Blood Libel' Alone (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/why-sarah-palin-should-have-just-left-the-blood-libel-alone/69382/)
"Sarah Palin may or may not be the victim of unwarranted criticism in the wake of Jared Lee Loughner's shooting spree in Tucson last Saturday. As far as I'm concerned, that is a non-justiciable "political question"-- as federal judges get to say -- and one that I will gladly leave to the legions of inspired commentators who have been gnawing on that particular bone for the past few days.
But whatever Palin is, or is not, neither she (nor anyone else) is the victim here of a "blood libel," as she claimed Wednesday in responding to the tragedy in Arizona and the way she perceives it was handled by the media."
"If Palin did not know what a "blood libel" means she should not have included the phrase in her remarks. And if she did understand its dark significance she should not have included the phrase in her remarks. Either way, It was inappropriate and insensitive."
"The blood libel is one of the most pernicious and deadly lies in human history. For the sake of the Tucson victims, if not our own, we should all agree to leave it there."
He even tweeted his disapproval...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_A24UZctD--E/TTB4XDqlkXI/AAAAAAAACGg/WvnDC6Z2ewE/s1600/Twitter+_+Andrew+Cohen_+Blood+libel_+Really_+Does+ ....jpg
Hmmm....well, just two short years ago, Cohen had this to say about Presidential Candidate John McCain:
McCain Sings Same Old GOP Song On Justices (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/07/opinion/courtwatch/main4077336.shtml)
"In a campaign speech Tuesday outlining his judicial philosophy, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain offered his supporters - and/or the conservative wing of his party - only more of the same tired and empty rhetoric that has come over the past few decades to mark the mindless partisanship over the appointment of federal judges. It was as though he had been given a list of misguided clichés about the judiciary and its role in constitutional theory and dared by his handlers to read them all in a single speech on a single stump.
Did McCain repeat the Shibboleth about “activist judges” and how they are ruining the meaning of the law? You bet he did. Of “activist lawyers and activist judges” McCain said: “They want to be spared the inconvenience of campaigns, elections, legislative votes and all of that. They don't seek to win debates on the merits of their argument; they seek to shut down debates by order of the court. And even in courtrooms, they apply a double standard. Some federal judges operate by fiat, shrugging off generations of legal wisdom and precedent while expecting their own opinions to go unquestioned.”
I wonder if the Arizona senator and his speech writers know that the late, great conservative polestar, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and perhaps the most popular Supreme Court Justice of all time, Republican-nominee Sandra Day O’Connor, both expressed disdain for the threat of the “activist judge” charge. After all, a judge acts anytime he or she does or does not make a ruling, whether the ultimate result is considered “liberal” or “conservative” or something in between. So-called “judicial activism” occurs, in other words, when it’s your side that lost the case and it is nothing short of a blood libel against judges to accuse them of operating by fiat."
If Cohen can use the term to refer to nothing more than a politician's characterization of the judiciary, in the heat of an election, who is he to attack Sarah Palin for using it to describe the libelous narrative that says she and the Tea Party caused the deaths of 6 people in Tucson?
I wonder if he reads his own columns. And this guy, unlike Nbadan and clambake, is supposedly smart and all that.
Andrew Cohen is a Murrow Award–winning legal analyst and commentator. He covers legal events and issues for CBS Radio News and its hundreds of affiliates around the country and is a frequent contributor to the op-ed pages of the nation's leading newspapers and online sites. From 2000-2009, Andrew served as chief legal analyst and legal editor for CBS News and contributed to the network's coverage of the Supreme Court, the war on terrorism, and every high-profile civil or criminal trial of the decade. He is also an avid horseman, a Standardbred owner and breeder, and the winner of the 2007 John Hervey Award for distinguished commentary about harness horse racing.
Andrew Cohen, a Murrow Award–winning legal analyst and commentator.
Why Sarah Palin Should Have Just Left the 'Blood Libel' Alone (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/why-sarah-palin-should-have-just-left-the-blood-libel-alone/69382/)
"Sarah Palin may or may not be the victim of unwarranted criticism in the wake of Jared Lee Loughner's shooting spree in Tucson last Saturday. As far as I'm concerned, that is a non-justiciable "political question"-- as federal judges get to say -- and one that I will gladly leave to the legions of inspired commentators who have been gnawing on that particular bone for the past few days.
But whatever Palin is, or is not, neither she (nor anyone else) is the victim here of a "blood libel," as she claimed Wednesday in responding to the tragedy in Arizona and the way she perceives it was handled by the media."
"If Palin did not know what a "blood libel" means she should not have included the phrase in her remarks. And if she did understand its dark significance she should not have included the phrase in her remarks. Either way, It was inappropriate and insensitive."
"The blood libel is one of the most pernicious and deadly lies in human history. For the sake of the Tucson victims, if not our own, we should all agree to leave it there."
He even tweeted his disapproval...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_A24UZctD--E/TTB4XDqlkXI/AAAAAAAACGg/WvnDC6Z2ewE/s1600/Twitter+_+Andrew+Cohen_+Blood+libel_+Really_+Does+ ....jpg
Hmmm....well, just two short years ago, Cohen had this to say about Presidential Candidate John McCain:
McCain Sings Same Old GOP Song On Justices (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/07/opinion/courtwatch/main4077336.shtml)
"In a campaign speech Tuesday outlining his judicial philosophy, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain offered his supporters - and/or the conservative wing of his party - only more of the same tired and empty rhetoric that has come over the past few decades to mark the mindless partisanship over the appointment of federal judges. It was as though he had been given a list of misguided clichés about the judiciary and its role in constitutional theory and dared by his handlers to read them all in a single speech on a single stump.
Did McCain repeat the Shibboleth about “activist judges” and how they are ruining the meaning of the law? You bet he did. Of “activist lawyers and activist judges” McCain said: “They want to be spared the inconvenience of campaigns, elections, legislative votes and all of that. They don't seek to win debates on the merits of their argument; they seek to shut down debates by order of the court. And even in courtrooms, they apply a double standard. Some federal judges operate by fiat, shrugging off generations of legal wisdom and precedent while expecting their own opinions to go unquestioned.”
I wonder if the Arizona senator and his speech writers know that the late, great conservative polestar, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and perhaps the most popular Supreme Court Justice of all time, Republican-nominee Sandra Day O’Connor, both expressed disdain for the threat of the “activist judge” charge. After all, a judge acts anytime he or she does or does not make a ruling, whether the ultimate result is considered “liberal” or “conservative” or something in between. So-called “judicial activism” occurs, in other words, when it’s your side that lost the case and it is nothing short of a blood libel against judges to accuse them of operating by fiat."
If Cohen can use the term to refer to nothing more than a politician's characterization of the judiciary, in the heat of an election, who is he to attack Sarah Palin for using it to describe the libelous narrative that says she and the Tea Party caused the deaths of 6 people in Tucson?
I wonder if he reads his own columns. And this guy, unlike Nbadan and clambake, is supposedly smart and all that.
Andrew Cohen is a Murrow Award–winning legal analyst and commentator. He covers legal events and issues for CBS Radio News and its hundreds of affiliates around the country and is a frequent contributor to the op-ed pages of the nation's leading newspapers and online sites. From 2000-2009, Andrew served as chief legal analyst and legal editor for CBS News and contributed to the network's coverage of the Supreme Court, the war on terrorism, and every high-profile civil or criminal trial of the decade. He is also an avid horseman, a Standardbred owner and breeder, and the winner of the 2007 John Hervey Award for distinguished commentary about harness horse racing.