Because he writes for the National Review Online.
h/t Zach Dubbya.
[Avoid inflammatory terms like "moron." Rather, strive for moderation and gentility like Ed Whelan and John Derbyshire — ed.]
Showing posts sorted by date for query "ed whelan". Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query "ed whelan". Sort by relevance Show all posts
September 25, 2010
June 26, 2010
Beauregard's Bibliolator Boykin bounced
Monday's Republican circus is off to a flying start:
Oh well, he's still got Tony Perkins and Ed Whelan.
"Although General Boykin’s prior comments concerning the war on terror are unrelated to his scheduled testimony on Dean Kagan’s nomination, it is clear that these comments would be used to distract from the very important issues surrounding Ms. Kagan’s actions at Harvard Law School," said Stephen Boyd, a spokesman for ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions.Nice try, Sessions.
Oh well, he's still got Tony Perkins and Ed Whelan.
November 7, 2009
I didn't really want to say it
So I'll leave it to this letter to the editor:
* Prior to the (third) reelection of Shirley Abrahamson, that is.
Incidentally, for all the nut-right handwringing over Obama's nomination of former Justice Louis Butler to the federal district court, it's rather astonishing that Wisconsinites keep returning the at-least-equally "radical" Chief Justice to the court, is it not.
Indeed, this past April, Abrahamson won 69 of the State's 72 counties despite joining in every single one of the handful of decisions conservatives continually raise against Butler. Conveniently, several million dollars worth of character assassination is carefully excluded from the calculus underlying the right's "theory" of radicalism.
Nary, either, a mention of what the Wisconsin Judicial Commission calls "lying" committed by Butler's politically ambitious opponent in service of ascending to his present seat on the State Supreme Court.
Yet Ed Whelan, John Fund, and the Washington Moonie Times's editorial board are considered by some to be competent and effective assessors of Wisconsin judicial politics and law. Gimme a break.
Locally we are pleasured by Charlie Sykes and Patrick McIlheran, but all you get from them is effluvia recycled from PowerLine.com.
Having recently read the ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court's four conservative justices regarding no recusal in cases involving their financial contributors, I now feel that it would be appropriate for those justices to give up their robes for NASCAR-type uniforms.Contributors' impact is apparent, 11/04/09.
Of course, for our two most recently elected justices,* there wouldn't be many names on their uniforms but just three letters: WMC.
Tom Gilson
Lomira
* Prior to the (third) reelection of Shirley Abrahamson, that is.
Incidentally, for all the nut-right handwringing over Obama's nomination of former Justice Louis Butler to the federal district court, it's rather astonishing that Wisconsinites keep returning the at-least-equally "radical" Chief Justice to the court, is it not.
Indeed, this past April, Abrahamson won 69 of the State's 72 counties despite joining in every single one of the handful of decisions conservatives continually raise against Butler. Conveniently, several million dollars worth of character assassination is carefully excluded from the calculus underlying the right's "theory" of radicalism.
Nary, either, a mention of what the Wisconsin Judicial Commission calls "lying" committed by Butler's politically ambitious opponent in service of ascending to his present seat on the State Supreme Court.
Yet Ed Whelan, John Fund, and the Washington Moonie Times's editorial board are considered by some to be competent and effective assessors of Wisconsin judicial politics and law. Gimme a break.
Locally we are pleasured by Charlie Sykes and Patrick McIlheran, but all you get from them is effluvia recycled from PowerLine.com.
July 10, 2009
Like I said ...
Judicial conservatives, like Edward Whelan and Wendy Long, think that empathy should have nothing to do with constitutional decision-making. Apparently, the Republican minority on the Senate Judiciary Committee disagrees. Why else would the Senators add to the list of witnesses testifying against Judge Sotomayor a New Haven firefighter whose promotion was invalidated when a second circuit panel including Judge Sotomayor upheld the invalidation of the exam? I doubt that this firefighter has much to say about the complex legal issues raised by his case. Surely, he was chosen to testify because he is a sympathetic figure and because opponents of Judge Sotomayor’s nomination think that she should have been more empathetic toward him.h/t Terrence Berres.
And Wendy Long and Ed Whelan? Seriously?
Is the Federalist Society that desperate?
June 11, 2009
Top blogger hoodwinked
By the Washington Times.
Not surprisingly, the Times misstates the ABA Canon 2C, which makes reference not just to discrimination, but "invidious discrimination," a term of art and an important distinction.
And what doesn't count as practicing invidious discrimination, according to the Canon, sounds a lot like the Belizean Grove:
July 13, when Sonia Sotomayor's Senate hearings are set to begin, can't come soon enough to prevent any further embarrassment for some of these characters. Another NRO top blogger actually criticized Judge Sotomayor for using too many commas after perusing a New York Times transcript of a law journal transcript of a speech.
How come nobody ever mentions that Justice Samuel Alito's after-dinner toasts before his "all-male eating club"* associates were riddled with semicolons, ampersands, and even the occasional tilde.
Or Roger Taney's inordinate fondness for air quotes: "Property."
* I don't wanna know.
Not surprisingly, the Times misstates the ABA Canon 2C, which makes reference not just to discrimination, but "invidious discrimination," a term of art and an important distinction.
And what doesn't count as practicing invidious discrimination, according to the Canon, sounds a lot like the Belizean Grove:
[I]t is in fact and effect an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could not be constitutionally prohibited.Top blogger, Andrew Sullivan, doing his best Ed Whelan impersonation. Ed Whelan the classic oppressed Caucasian male was ahead of the fauxtrage curve, but all he could manage was splutter.
July 13, when Sonia Sotomayor's Senate hearings are set to begin, can't come soon enough to prevent any further embarrassment for some of these characters. Another NRO top blogger actually criticized Judge Sotomayor for using too many commas after perusing a New York Times transcript of a law journal transcript of a speech.
How come nobody ever mentions that Justice Samuel Alito's after-dinner toasts before his "all-male eating club"* associates were riddled with semicolons, ampersands, and even the occasional tilde.
Or Roger Taney's inordinate fondness for air quotes: "Property."
* I don't wanna know.
June 8, 2009
More Ed Whelan
The definitive assessment, from Anonymous Liberal:
Why Ed Whelan is so concerned about Andrew Sullivan is a mystery. Sullivan knows practically nothing about the law. Whelan's admirers know even less, and he revels in exploiting that fact. Eugene Volokh, on the other hand, knows quite a lot about the law indeed, which is why his critique of Ed Whelan's transparent hackery is priceless.*
* Especially the section below the asterisks.
[Whelan] pores over their record, finds some trivial fact that, when distorted and taken totally out of context, makes that person look like some sort of extremist.A conservative technique familiar to all of us here in Wisconsin.
Why Ed Whelan is so concerned about Andrew Sullivan is a mystery. Sullivan knows practically nothing about the law. Whelan's admirers know even less, and he revels in exploiting that fact. Eugene Volokh, on the other hand, knows quite a lot about the law indeed, which is why his critique of Ed Whelan's transparent hackery is priceless.*
* Especially the section below the asterisks.
June 7, 2009
April 3, 2009
Shorter Iowa Supreme Court
"Sixty-nine pages of blather" — Ed Whelan
Compelling! (And after all, Mr. Ed "I find it difficult to make sense" Whelan is the conservative blogger's numero uno legal resource.)
The bottom line: If religion is to be subject to heightened equal protection scrutiny (which it is) then so should sexual orientation.
It's hardly "blather." Even Ted Haggard could convert to Hasidic Judaism easier than he could shake off The Gay. Good for Iowa, and good for the conservative Republican who authored the court's unanimous opinion in Varnum v. Brien (.pdf; 69 pgs. of blather).
On teh web: The Recess Supervisor canvasses Freeper Island.
Compelling! (And after all, Mr. Ed "I find it difficult to make sense" Whelan is the conservative blogger's numero uno legal resource.)
The bottom line: If religion is to be subject to heightened equal protection scrutiny (which it is) then so should sexual orientation.
It's hardly "blather." Even Ted Haggard could convert to Hasidic Judaism easier than he could shake off The Gay. Good for Iowa, and good for the conservative Republican who authored the court's unanimous opinion in Varnum v. Brien (.pdf; 69 pgs. of blather).
On teh web: The Recess Supervisor canvasses Freeper Island.
November 6, 2008
Deep thinkers will ponder GOP future
Conservative intellectuals plan to meet
A prominent group of conservative thinkers ... Rich Lowry, Bill Kristol, David Brooks, Ramesh Ponnuru, Jonah Goldberg, Maggie Gallagher, Ed Whelan and Andy McCarthy.If this is what passes for intellectuals these days, then the Republicans are in far worse condition than anticipated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
