Florida Senator Marco Rubio has indicated that he is flirting with the Tea Party Movement, which helped to elect him to the Senate in 2010, by his threat to refuse to support a continuing resolution to fund the federal government through the end of the fiscal year, unless ObamaCare is defunded completely, which would cause great harm to tens of millions of Americans.
Rubio joins Tea Party radicals Ted Cruz of Texas and Mike Lee of Utah in this disgraceful tactic, and in so doing, he is rapidly destroying any chance of being the GOP Presidential nominee in 2016, and even if the GOP was crazy enough to nominate him, he would lose in a landslide!
These Tea Party radicals have no conscience, no ethics, no sense of propriety in their public actions, and have absolutely no concern about those less fortunate, only adding to the horrible public image of the Republican Party!
Oh the never ending bureaucracy! This paper work is surely going to reduce the cost of healthcare! http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-applying-health-care-not-easy-171510320.html
The Progressive Credo: “I believe that government should keep its “Hands off my body,” with the one exception of ObamaCare’s 160 new government agencies that control my medical care.”
Ted Cruz is trying too hard to be a standout in the crowd.
Mike Lee and his home state have pretty much no power.
Marco Rubio’s state’s governor now welcomes “ObamaCare.”
It’s empty. We have the bulk of states’ governorhips on schedule for the 2014 midterms elections. The Republican governors, all over the map, want to win re-election to second terms. (I’m referring especially to those who prevailed in 2010 for the first time, yes, but also from “blue” presidential states.)
These three are to be dismissed.
Oh, and let me add one more thing: Marco Rubio will not be a future president or vice president of the United States.
D, you are absolutely right about these three Senators making noise to draw attention to themselves, and it will not reflect, long term, very well upon them, particularly the two who “dream” of being President of the United States, even though they are both going to fail to become President–referring to Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Rubio is, obviously, competing with Cruz all of the time, so has to act as reckless as Cruz. Who knows, maybe Rubio will start speaking about “Communists” at universities other than Harvard, a totally reckless tactic by Cruz, a la Joseph McCarthy!
Ron: Do you know what Critical Legal Theory is? Have you ever heard of the Frankfurt School of sociological thinkers? Harvard, like so many institutions of higher learning across America, is infected with Marxist fellow travelers who are ideologically sympathetic to communism. To distinguish such people from actual CPUSA members, they are often referred to as small-c communists or neo-communists. Like most Americans, Ted Cruz wasn’t using the plural form of the word communist with the precision of a political theory scholar. He was referring to people who believe that markets are fundamentally unjust and that physical force should be used to create a classless society. They believe in extreme, forced equality and boring sameness at the expense of freedom and individual rights. Harvard Law School faculty included numerous self-described proponents of ‘critical legal studies’ — a school of thought explicitly derived from Marxism — and they far outnumbered Republicans. Critical legal theory takes the neo-Marxist perspective that the law is concerned with power, not justice. Because the law is a fraud perpetrated on the people, an oppressive tool of capitalism, imperialism, sexism, racism, and whatever other ism it is currently fashionable to attack, the legal system should be criticized endlessly as a means of tearing it down. If you’re a communist it’s natural to embrace critical legal theory as a way of changing American society.
Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals eloquently describes critical legal studies (CLS) as “horse manure.”
“As I understand this so-called theory, the notion is that because legal rules don’t mean much anyway, and judges can reach any result they wish by invoking the right incantation, they should engraft their own political philosophy onto the decision-making process and use their power to change the way our society works.”
There are more than a few Harvard Law academics associated with critical legal studies.
Harvard has been ground zero for the CLS movement for decades, a fact Time acknowledged in 2005. The magazine identified Harvard law professors Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Morton Horwitz, and Duncan M. Kennedy as “three of the best-known” CLS adherents. (Kennedy is also a member of the far-left Democratic Socialists of America and the radical, pro-terrorist National Lawyers Guild. Bernardine Dohrn, incidentally, used to be an organizer for the NLG.)
Other Crits on the Harvard faculty are Mark Tushnet and David W. Kennedy. In a 1981 law review article titled “The Dilemmas of Liberal Constitutionalism,” Tushnet wrote that if he were a judge he “would decide what decision in a case was most likely to advance the cause of socialism.”
Crits Northeastern University law professor Clare Dalton and University of Wisconsin law professor emeritus David Trubek taught at Harvard Law but failed to earn tenure.
CLS-friendly law professors with ties to Harvard are easy to find. Yale’s Jack Balkin and Georgetown’s Gary Peller and Louis Michael Seidman (author of the infamous column “Let’s Give Up On the Constitution”) all received their law degrees from Harvard. So did academic Peter Gabel (who is also associate editor at leftist magazine Tikkun).
Stanford professor Robert W. Gordon, who has a Harvard law degree, organized a campaign at Harvard Law in support of Dalton and Trubek when they were trying to get tenure. Gordon whined at the time that Harvard had engaged in “red-baiting” the two academics.
CLS enthusiast Mark G. Kelman, a highly cited law professor and vice dean of Stanford Law School, also earned his law degree from Harvard.
And don’t forget that while Barack Obama was a law student at Harvard, he studied under CLS guru Unger. Moreover, Derrick Bell, Obama’s racist, Marxist mentor at Harvard Law, was a proponent of critical race theory, the multiculturalist Left’s race-obsessed spinoff of critical legal theory.
Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has described critical race theorists as the “lunatic core” of “radical legal egalitarianism.”
At the heart of this ugly, destructive, balkanizing worldview is the idea that the white-dominated American system is hopelessly racist. To remedy this imbalance, the views of non-whites on the system should be given greater weight.
This perspective appears to be shared by Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia “Wise Latina” Sotomayor, along with Attorney General Eric Holder who is reluctant to investigate civil rights complaints when the victim is white.
Harvard is not the only university infected by CLS-loving communists.
Virtually all major colleges and universities across the fruited plain are dominated by small-c communists. Far-left insurrectionists such as Northwestern University School of Law professor Bernardine Dohrn, a leader of the Weather Underground terrorist group, are not outliers. In the groves of academe today communists are mainstream or close to it. It’s been this way for decades.
I am not a lawyer as you are, Juan, and do not have legal training, but I am appalled that you are labeling a whole group of professors, some well known, as somehow “dangerous” because they agree with the vision of the Warren Court, and specifically, Chief Justice Earl Warren, and Associate Justices William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
This is a constant battle over interpretation of the Constitution, and it is clear that you might see most of these Justices as having been influenced by “communist” or “socialist” professors, and I think that is totally off the wall, and ridiculous! And you fail to see a massive difference between “socialism” and “communism”! This is the “McCarthy” tactic now being utilized by you, thinking Ted Cruz is just fine in being a demagogue, similar to the infamous Wisconsin Republican Senator!
It is the right wing philosophy of Justices such as William Rehnquist, Lewis Powell, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, plus the decisions of Reagan and the two Bushes Circuit Court judges which are distorting our legal system, trying to bring back the America that existed legally before the New Deal. Your comments demonstrate that the battle is intense, as nothing will satisfy you until we negate the last 80 years of legal precedent and the movement to make the law reflect the way America has evolved.
We are not the same nation we were in 1933, and we cannot afford to go backwards, as that would lead to potential social unrest that would be dangerous for the nation’s stability and safety! This is not a nation just for the top two percent!
And I will say that my historical training was influenced by my dissertation adviser, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr, who was a liberal and a progressive, which is precisely what I am proud to declare myself as being. I repudiate communism as it was practiced in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and elsewhere, but I have no problem with, for instance, Vermont Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, who I think is one of the great members of the Senate! The right wing will never stop in its vicious attacks, without just cause, in its desire to take us back to a century ago! So the fight goes on!
Ron: What do the proponent of Critical Legal theory have to do with the Warren Court!? Or with any of the Justices you mentioned, save maybe Sotomayor and Kagan? These people are way out there in left field my friend. And even they do not deny the Marxist philosophical and fundamental origins of their school of thought which originated in the Frankfurt School of sociology! You actually believe there are no Marxist inspired professors? Why they don’t even deny it! It’s doesn’t mean they are Communist with a capital “C” , nor card carrying members, but it does mean that their legal philosophy has a Marxist root which they do not deny. Their worldview is based on the Marxist worldview of society, economy and law. That doesn’t mean they will take up arms and fight for the revolution, though some went that far as terrorist, like Bernadine Dohrn. Just so you have a feel of what I’m talking about here is Harvard law professor Roberto Mangabeira Unger one of the big three in CLS talking about Obama and why he should not be reelected. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neuxJeud2cY As you see he is way out there in left field, farther left than you I believe. This is the kind of people Cruz was talking about. This is not you average everyday progressive/liberal. This has nothing to do with the Warren Court!
Glad to hear, because I had the impression that you were implying that.
It is clear when Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg retires from the Court, and if there are any other retirements in this term, there will be a massive battle between the left and the right over who should be the replacements. I doubt that Barack Obama would select anyone so radical for the Court, as it would undermine much of what he still hopes to accomplish in his second term.
Juan, I will have you know that I considered law school as an alternative to a doctorate in history and a minor in political science, leading to a college teaching career. I have often wished I had been able to pursue both avenues, but was not able to, logistically and financially. But I am fascinated by Constitutional History, and have taught a broad survey (one term), touching on the major highlights over two and a half centuries, something very difficult to teach for lack of time to devote detail to many issues. But I really enjoy legal history and issues very much! But you are more the master of the details, although you and I, obviously, disagree in many ways! 🙂