From today’s NYT editorial on the Justice Department’s decision not to bring charges against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay comes this gem:
Mr. DeLay, the Texas Republican who had been the House majority leader, crowed that he had been “found innocent.” But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.
Well, yes. That’s the way it works.
(Hat tip: Ramesh Ponnuru)
MnZ says:
Ahh…this brings back fond memories of a former Vice President and Nobel Prize winner who once said, “There is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law.”
August 22, 2010, 10:46 pmll says:
I wonder if the current Austin DA is ever going to act on the Ronnie Earle indictment of Delay from what, 6 years ago, for improperly using campaign funds. Earle retired without acting on his indictment.
August 22, 2010, 10:48 pmCarl The EconGuy says:
And remember … there’s lots of innocent stuff that is illegal only because some jackass law makers made them so. Type I and Type II errors, ya know.
August 22, 2010, 10:50 pmkrs says:
Out of context, that’s a stupid pair of sentences. The op-ed makes the point, though, that what DeLay appears to have done is unethical and scummy and perhaps should be illegal.
August 22, 2010, 10:50 pmJeff S. says:
Thank goodness the NYT is demanding Charles Rangels head for being scummy in much larger print as well… Oh, wait…They certainly want scummy politicians representing NY. Their concern for Texas is touching.
August 22, 2010, 10:57 pmleo marvin says:
I haven’t read the editorial, but out of context that sounds like a pretty stupid thing for the Times to say. If I read the editorial and find the context matters, you’ll disappoint me, Jonathan.
[Edit: Apparently krs anticipated my comment, but I'll still reserve judgment (i.e., disappointment) until I read the editorial.]
August 22, 2010, 11:00 pm1040 says:
actually, they’ve long been critical of rangel in op-eds since his misdeeds got out – first asking him to step down as ways and means chairman, and second slamming him once the actual allegations were listed. and.. iirc, it was the nyt that broke the story of his misdeeds in the first place.
August 22, 2010, 11:01 pm1040 says:
prepare to be disappointed. although one shouldn’t be surprised that ponnuru behaved like the pathetic hack that he is.
August 22, 2010, 11:02 pmBarb says:
“But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.”
I’m no lawyer, but isn’t this a rather convoluted way of saying Mr. DeLay did not break the law, after all– while spinning to make it sound like he really got away with something illegal?
August 22, 2010, 11:06 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Yes, the Hammer was “found innocent.” Not as much as O.J. was found innocent, but still . . . found innocent.
August 22, 2010, 11:12 pmkazinski says:
But in Al Gore’s case the conduct was clearly against the law, the Hatch act. He was making fund raising calls from his government office, in clear violation of the act. But the only “Controlling legal Authority” would have been Congress via impeachment, and there is no way Congress was going to act based on a fund raising violation by a sitting Vice-President.
Tom Delay skated on a technicality, but the Justice Department would have to build a new 535 bed Federal prison if federal prosecutors ever started applying “honest services fraud” to Congress.
August 22, 2010, 11:21 pmwrit small says:
Fortunately for the NYT, lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize overweening churlishness.
August 22, 2010, 11:31 pmOrin Kerr says:
That line is hilarious out of context, but, like others, I think that they’re actually making a coherent point when the context is recognized.
August 22, 2010, 11:54 pmMike G in Corvallis says:
Even in context, that’s a stupid pair of sentences.
Prosecuting someone on the basis that something he has done “perhaps should be illegal” sets the bar pretty low, don’t you think?
August 22, 2010, 11:55 pmFun with Tautology | Little Miss Attila says:
[...] Adler delivers it martini-dry: From today’s NYT editorial on the Justice Department’s decision not to bring charges against [...]
August 22, 2010, 11:56 pmJeff S. says:
1040 says:
I stand corrected then. My recollection was they were offended he was scarfing up a lot of rent-controlled apartments.
August 23, 2010, 12:05 amJ.T. Wenting says:
Maybe. But more worrying it displays a mindset where people think everything should be illegal unless explicitly allowed.
August 23, 2010, 12:10 amReaderY says:
This whole “law” thing is so inconvenient!
August 23, 2010, 12:11 amJ.T. Wenting says:
A sitting vice president of the same party as the one controlling congress…
August 23, 2010, 12:12 amRandy says:
Many conservatives like to argue that law is all about morality, and that what is immoral is illegal, and what is moral is legal.
I guess this one confounds them, right?
August 23, 2010, 12:44 amrpt says:
Not at all. There are certain “heroes of the movement”, like Gingrich, who are above the rules which govern others.
August 23, 2010, 12:49 amrobert says:
I think you got them there. Only conservatives conflate law with their moral vision. Further, those who disagree with you (and me) on this issue are simply arguing in bad faith.
August 23, 2010, 12:53 ambbbeard says:
Name one conservative who has said or written that.
The conservative position is that morality is the basis of law, not that the two are congruent.
BBB
August 23, 2010, 12:59 amJRL says:
Really? I’m not familiar with these “conservatives”. How do they propose these immoral acts be prosecuted?
August 23, 2010, 1:00 ambbbeard says:
Shouldn’t that read, “…only because lawmakers have not chosen to criminalize them”? There is a difference between choosing to let something remain legal and failing to choose to make it illegal. Did any of the transgressions the Times believes should be illegal ever come to a vote? Did the lawmakers really choose “not to criminalize” or did they simply never face the question?
BBB
August 23, 2010, 1:04 amerp says:
You can’t make up this stuff folks!
Randy, I too would like to know who all these conservatives of whom you speak are. Lefties really should really get information from sources other than the mainstream media on the nonce, so they don’t all sound like they were programmed by the same puppet masters.
August 23, 2010, 1:12 amAlan K. Henderson says:
Law is all about a subset of morality – what the State is morally obligated to do and morally obligated to refrain from doing.
August 23, 2010, 1:18 amMichael J. Myers says:
Okay I read the whole editorial. The NYT starts from the viewpoint that Tom Delay’s ethical lapses represent an all time low for congressional figures. I’d talk about John Murtha, Chris Dodds, Barney Frank, William Cold Cash Jefferson, Charlie Rangel, Maxine “Gate Mouth” Waters etc, and conclude that Tom Delay may not be the absolute bottom feeder. He’s got lots of company.
Then, having read the whole piece, and putting that sentence in context and all–it’s still a gobsmackingly stupid comment.
August 23, 2010, 1:29 amleo marvin says:
I read it. I’m officially disappointed.
August 23, 2010, 2:12 amJames Gibson says:
Larger, since there are plenty of retired Congressmen and women who haven’t been out of office long enough for statute of limitations to apply. Come to think of it, we would probably have to include some administration officials like the White House Chief of Staff.
August 23, 2010, 3:12 amJames Gibson says:
You mean they should get their information from someone other then a writer on Media Matters, who then free-lances under assumed names to the Daily Koz and Huffington Post, and then would blog on Journolist telling other leftwing journalists about this great story he saw on several sights.
August 23, 2010, 3:18 amJ. Aldridge says:
That is the same twisted logic Pelosi used when she suggested if you want to know what is in a bill you have to first pass it.
August 23, 2010, 5:23 amRodger Lodger says:
It sounds tautological and silly, but it is not. Suppose there is a bribery statute (there is). And suppose Congress enacted an exception to it for members of Congress. Get it? It’s legal only because they decided to make lobbyists’ contributions or what not an exception to criminal definitions. That is a useful picture of how Congress treats itself in the legal area.
August 23, 2010, 7:15 amKharn says:
I wonder how society would be different if there was a law that stated: “It shall be illegal to act in a manner similar to a jackass.”
August 23, 2010, 7:27 amJonathan H. Adler says:
Several commenters suggest I am being unfair to the NYT. I don’t think so. Read in context, the editorial is making a coherent point about the problems of Congressional ethics rules and Delay’s conduct. Agreed. But, as Mike G. notes, even in context, it’s a ridiculous sentence, and the Times could well have made its point another way.
When politicians make similar misstatements, we are treated to endless blog posts ridiculing them. (See, e.g., the various series on Bushisms, Obamateurisms, Palinisms, etc.) And yet here we have a written editorial from one of the nation’s most prestigious newspapers. Surely they can be held to a higher standard.
As someone much wiser than me (I believe it was Bill Niskanen) said, conservatives too often forget the difference between a sin and a crime, while liberals too often forget the difference between a virtue and a requirement.
JHA
August 23, 2010, 7:46 amStephen Lathrop says:
DeLay took bribes from Abramoff and delivered on them. The Times got it wrong. The sentence should read, “Mr. DeLay’s actions didn’t put him in jail only because the Justice Department chose to defer to Congress, and never put his actions in front of a jury.”
The Constitution criminalizes bribery without defining it. Juries should be trusted to recognize it, and to find it where it exists. Prosecutors should give them the chance. The current condition of Congress says all you need to know about the cost of not doing that.
August 23, 2010, 8:07 amkrs says:
I don’t think anyone’s arguing that DeLay should be prosecuted if what he did was not against the law when he did it.
August 23, 2010, 8:18 amOwen H. says:
Interesting. What happened to the outrage over this administration refusing to press charges?
August 23, 2010, 8:30 amCheckEnclosed says:
The point seems to be that in Washington, the real scandal is about what’s legal.
But if you put it that way, it’s obvious that you have added nothing to the debate and are wasting newsprint.
August 23, 2010, 8:49 amBlue says:
My takeaway from the article is that the Times editors are supposed to be part of our intellectual elite, but so often their reasoning and analysis is sophomoric at best.
This article is a great example of that.
IMHO, that is the context.
August 23, 2010, 9:12 amgreat unknown says:
JT Wenting: Maybe. But more worrying it displays a mindset where people think everything should be illegal unless explicitly allowed.
This parallels the idea – I suspect by the same set of people – that all your money belongs to the government unless explicitly allowed [i.e., what's left after taxes].
Ultimately, this can be stated as “You belong to the government.”
August 23, 2010, 9:14 amzippypinhead says:
It probably sounds worse than the intended meaning in context because there’s nothing in the English language that neatly captures the distinction the editorial writer is trying to make. Perhaps NYT ought to try Latin, where the phrases malem in se versus malum prohibitum nicely capsulize the conceptual point?
Thus, as a moral proposition, DeLay’s unethical, self-dealing antics are arguably malum in se, but because of flaws in our system, at most they could be malum prohibitum – if Congress had criminalized them.
IMHO, the words “Tom DeLay” and “innocent” should never be used in the same sentence. Not even by Tom DeLay…
August 23, 2010, 9:16 amGullibleFool says:
The NYTimes, it’s owners, editors and writers have done things that are unethical and scummy, and perhaps should be illegal, as well…
And have been doing it for far longer than Delay did.
Yet they have no dudgeon to spare?
August 23, 2010, 9:21 amA.W. says:
Now you are forcing me to defend the NYT.
It is a valid and perfectly reasonable thing to give this syllogism:
1, This man did the following bad things.
2. These things were legal.
3. But they are bad for the following reasons.
4. Therefore they should not be legal.
And that is pretty much all the article said.
August 23, 2010, 9:28 amArthur Kirkland says:
Not even, “Tom DeLay is just as innocent as OJ?”
August 23, 2010, 9:32 amDaniel Suraci says:
Entirely – even in context, what else does it mean to break the law if it’s not a law?
We aren’t in the Soviet Union with a ‘mischief’ law as a catch-all for all wrongdoing. There is no legal mandate to be ‘good.’
The sentence is a tautology. Everything I do legally is legal because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize it.
August 23, 2010, 9:34 amBlue says:
I wonder if it occurs to anyone at the Times that Delay may not have taken the actions he did if there had been laws making those actions illegal.
August 23, 2010, 9:37 amStephen Lathrop says:
Most of these comments seem strangely beside the point. Bribery is illegal. DeLay took bribes and delivered a quid pro quo. Like many others in Congress who do the same thing, from both political parties, DeLay has not been prosecuted. That’s where the Times should focus.
Seems like the elephant in the room has gotten so big that people think it’s part of the architecture.
August 23, 2010, 9:49 amuh_clem says:
Context. Perhaps Mr Adler and Mr Ponnuru would like to acquaint themselves with the concept.
Here’s the opening two sentences from the editorial, which says basically the same thing as the lifted quote:
August 23, 2010, 9:50 amQuote of the day – it’s legal because it’s not illegal | Radio Vice Online says:
[...] the New York Times with a hat tip to Jonathan Alder at Volokh Conspiracy. Mr. DeLay, the Texas Republican who had been the House majority leader, crowed that he had been [...]
August 23, 2010, 9:58 amSmooth, like a Rhapsody says:
Randy:
I suspect that you are just letting off steam because most Americans are meanies who don’t enthusiastically support SSM; but, really…
It is the stereotypical liberal who believes that people should be allowed to do anything—a long as it is mandatory. The conservative argument is that any free civilization worth the name has to permit a margin between law and morals.
August 23, 2010, 10:00 amRowerinVA says:
OK, I just read the whole string above. Defenders of the NYT seem to say:
Critics of the NYT seem to say:
I tend to agree with the second view but regardless, there isn’t much disagreement here. The NYT’s statement was amateurish and dumb. If the editorial is good overall, it would be much better without that howler of a statement, which means the editors goofed. And that’s a fair subject of criticism.
Just imagine if Ari Fleischer had said something like this. The rotten tomatoes would still be flying — and for good reason if so.
August 23, 2010, 10:00 amjust becausality says:
1. Too many in Congress do it (cheat and lie about sex and money), for which dots get connected, their corruption sometimes officially documented, but most get away with it.
August 23, 2010, 10:06 am2. Dirty, but powerful Delay kept the GOP in control of the House.
3. Democrats aggressively went after GOP transgressions– real, imagined or just business as is their usual.
4. Delay’s indictment helped bring about Democratic control of the House in 2006.
5. Democrats take both Houses and the WH in ’08.
6. Justice ends its six-year long Delay investigation in ’10.
7. The NYT that famously soft pedals Democratic lies, ethical lapses and conflicts of interest cries into their
whiskey neatswine of the month that no law would convict Delay.8. Meanwhile, the rest of us know there’s “no law” because we wouldn’t have a seated Congress, anymore.
Anon23 says:
There’s enough egg to spread around on everyone’s faces here. “Insufficient proof for conviction” does not equal “found innocent” ….
August 23, 2010, 10:07 amDisinterested Observer says:
Definitely poorly worded. I think the idea was that, in contrast to his claims of being “found innocent,” DeLay actually did do what he is accused of doing, it just was not a crime. The phrase “found innocent” – to the public – often equates to a finding that the prosecution was factually unfounded, and that wasn’t the case here. That’s my take on what was trying to be said. Poorly worded, though.
August 23, 2010, 10:08 amShelbyC says:
So politicians are engaging in scummy conduct that should be illegal? Man bites dog. But it’s still a dumb statement, even in context.
August 23, 2010, 10:11 amalkali says:
Here is a more complete quote, with the portion omitted from the quote in the post shown in bold face:
August 23, 2010, 10:11 amMartinned says:
Ah, that takes me back. The Four Material Questions of my 1st year Criminal Law. (It’s an issue that never comes up in most countries, since Juries make these some of these questions impossible to disentangle.)
1. What did the defendant do?
2. What crimes, if any, do these acts add up to?
3. Have any factors of justification/mitigation/aggravation been proven?
4. What should the punishment be?
Dutch courts have to answer each of these questions in turn when they render verdict in a criminal case, with extra heavy motivation requirements in certain circumstances. (For example under (4) when imposing a heavier sentence than requested by the prosecution.) In legal lingo, if the defendant wins at question (1), he is aquitted, and if he wins on (2) or (3) he is OVAR-red, i.e. discharged of all prosecution. (A win at (4) means a conviction without a sentence, but that is pretty rare.)
August 23, 2010, 10:37 amJoe says:
Something of a cheap shot and sadly not atypically so for this blog. Orin Kerr again feels a need to say this, but in a nicer way.
The op-ed opens:
The Justice Department decided last week not to bring charges against Tom DeLay, whose unethical conduct represented a modern low among Congressional leaders. The decision is a reminder that some of Washington’s worst big-money practices remain either legal or far too difficult to prosecute.
Thus, the theme is set — DeLay did unethical things, things the op-ed believes should be targeted and probably illegal too, but current rules and laws don’t adequately address them.
August 23, 2010, 10:39 amgeorg felis says:
Please note the context that is missing from this quote: The number of years that the relatives really spent providing these services, what exact services were provided, and the relative expense of hiring a comparative worth employee to provide these services. For example, if I hire my wife to plan events for ten years, at a cost of $50,000 per year, where it would have taken an employee $70,000 for the same services, I’ve saved money. If I do the same for my wife who does not lift a finger to actually help the people I really hire to do the job, I’m ripping off my contributors.
Context. Look to where it is missing in a New York Times article and you can quickly see where they’re hiding something.
August 23, 2010, 10:39 amCarl N. Brown says:
The New York Times editorialized about the DOJ not bringing criminal charges against Tom DeLay: “But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.” The NYT points out that DeLay and “Others in Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have put family members on the payroll” for instance.
NYT attitude goes beyond “I don’t approve of it, and there oughta be a law against it” to almost “I don’t approve of it, there’s no law against it, but charge ‘em anyway.”
The real problem is that when the gap between right & wrong and legal & illegal gets too wide, when what is wrong is finally made illegal, the laws often overstep the boundary of what is needed for balance.
It would be nice if Congress just did the right thing, irregardless of what the law is, because so many Congressmen are lawyers that if a law were passed they would find legal ways around it.
August 23, 2010, 10:39 amTHESMOPHORON says:
Mr. Adler, et al.: The word “only” has a pretty heavy semantic payload here. Stop disregarding it. For the overwhelming majority of cases, behavior is criminalized after achieving a high level of public attention regarding its ethical implications, public welfare impact, morally condemnable aspects such as greed, etc. Whether something is legal carries with it implications outside the enactment of legislation; to describe something as “criminal” when it is not in fact prohibited by the penal code does not cause cognitive dissonance. A good faith reading of the editorial leads to the conclusion that the author literally meant “only” – that is, all the other characteristics of illegal behavior are met here, save the prior action by the legislature. Your readings are uncharitable at best.
August 23, 2010, 10:46 amyankev says:
Shades of the gun show loophole.
August 23, 2010, 11:09 amMichael says:
Being against the law is the only necessary condition, and the only sufficient condition, for behavior to be illegal. What are these “other characteristics of illegal behavior” of which you speak?
August 23, 2010, 11:15 amyankee says:
You people need more of a sense of humor. This is the Internet: we’re allowed to mock when people say something really stupid, even when it’s in the service of a coherent point.
August 23, 2010, 11:18 amUrso says:
You make it sound like “being against the law” is something that fell out of the heavens, and that no one has any control over what is and isn’t against the law, or exercised any judgment in deciding that certain things were wrong and therefore deserved to be criminalized.
August 23, 2010, 11:20 amCan't find a good name says:
I agree, and the paragraph from the editorial reads like a non sequitur. If hiring relatives is not illegal for a member of Congress, and if it is not considered particularly unusual or improper there (as can be seen by the fact that the Speaker of the House does it too), why should we believe that it is something that might need to be criminalized? As Georg indicates, the question is whether the relative is really doing the work and receiving a reasonable rate of pay, not just whether they were hired in the first place.
Also, the article says that DeLay took a trip to the South Pacific island of Saipan that was paid for by Jack Abramoff’s clients. However, Saipan is at approximately 15 degrees north latitude; it’s not in the South Pacific.
August 23, 2010, 11:32 amMichael says:
Silly comments evoke silly responses (of which my reply was one, I admit). What is legal or illegal does not “fall from the sky,” it’s decided by a legislature. All the word “illegal” means is that something is against the law. So to say that something has all the characteristics of illegal behavior except the property “being against the law” is to say that it has none of the characteristics common to all illegal behaviors. From what I can tell, you are saying that a lot of people view what Delay did as slimy, unethical, and morally wrong. That plus a law against his behavior would make his behavior illegal. The absence of any such law is pretty important, and not just some technicality.
I understand your point, but like the Times, you could have made it more precisely. Moral wrongness is neither necessary nor sufficient for illegality, although there is plenty of overlap. If you want to say that what Delay did was morally wrong and that it should be illegal, then say that. If you want to say that the reason Congress has failed to make it illegal is that they are all self-serving and corrupt, then say that. But to say that the only reason it is legal is that there is no law against it, well that’s a stupid statement in any context (at the very least it expresses a thought that would be better expressed in another way).
August 23, 2010, 11:49 amht4 says:
I think some people are missing the point (as I understand it). If you want to say that the guy is a scumbag or that his actions should be illegal, then the NYT should say it directly. Surely they can find the correct words. The lesson in legal tautology, however, makes the NYT editors look like illiterate clowns.
August 23, 2010, 11:50 amRoger says:
Out of context? The rest of the editorial is exactly what you would expect from reading those two sentences. The excerpt is a fair summary.
August 23, 2010, 12:07 pmA. Criminal says:
But many of Mr. DeLay’s actions remain legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize them.
Rest assured, I would’ve been on the internet within minutes registering my disgust throughout the world – if it weren’t just some typical spew from the NYT.
August 23, 2010, 12:09 pmBrian G. says:
Thank God lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize sitting on your butt and watching football for 12 straight hours on Sundays in the fall. I would be doing 9 or 10 life sentences concurrently.
August 23, 2010, 12:24 pmMike G in Corvallis says:
The subtext I took was that the NYT editors believe this country would be a much better place if only we peasants would allow them to replace that pesky “rule of law” stuff with the judgment of our betters — i.e., themselves.
August 23, 2010, 12:33 pmSonicfrog says:
Just This.
August 23, 2010, 1:16 pmJ Cole says:
The idea that the legislature must act to make behavior criminal ignores a huge body of common law. A generous reading (perhaps overly so) of the editorial would be that the behavior is arguably illegal under current law, but that better and more targeted legislation is required to address this kind of conduct.
August 23, 2010, 1:23 pmI Callahan says:
Let’s try something fun
I put extra butter on my popcorn last night. This remains legal only because lawmakers have chosen not to criminalize it.
I’m thinking that sentence falls into the whole “fake but accurate” type of category.
August 23, 2010, 1:25 pmKamal says:
Obviously the point was that Mr. DeLay’s behavior was unethical. Not that interesting.
August 23, 2010, 1:33 pmSonicfrog says:
You obviously don’t live in either New York or San Francisco!!! :-)
August 23, 2010, 1:44 pmArthur Kirkland says:
That was the conservative argument before conservatives outsourced that part of the platform to religious nanny-staters. If you pine for the return of conservative emphasis on reason, competence, and fiscal responsibility, I join you.
August 23, 2010, 1:51 pmyankee says:
True, but there is no federal common law of crimes and I don’t think there ever has been. I think every U.S. jurisdiction has abolished the common law of crimes by statute too.
August 23, 2010, 1:53 pmJim Miller says:
Two points: (1) If the New York Times were to follow its own standard, they would be calling for stricter laws on the publication of secrets during war time. And they would have asked for several high profile editors and reporters to resign.
(2) Their first example is hiring a relative. (As others have said, we can’t know whether that was a bad deal for the contributors without knowing more details.) But, if that is the standard at the New York Times, then they should say goodbye to “Pinch” Sulzberger. (Which would be a good thing for the newspaper and the country.)
August 23, 2010, 2:12 pmTed says:
When does “wartime” begin and end? Is it “wartime” today? What about tomorrow?
August 23, 2010, 2:20 pm1040 says:
it is hilarious to see commenters suddenly forget all about their concerns about misuse of govt money when it comes to de lay hiring his own relatives, and being perfectly willing to equate it with actions by private companies.
also, i assume adler and ponnuru find the phrases “who will bell the cat” and “conflict of interest” hilarious.
August 23, 2010, 2:31 pmKazinski says:
That is what the whole tea party movement is about, focusing on fiscal issues, and leaving the moral issues off the agenda. But somehow I expect you are not a tea party supporter.
August 23, 2010, 3:21 pmFrank L. Moyne says:
Kazinski:
I get the impression that the Tea-Partiers are a bit more Buchananite/pitchfork-populist than you are describing. Granted the term came out of a rant about fiscal profligacy from that guy on CNBC(?), but as it stands now, it looks more like a party for Sarah Palin than for Robert Taft.
August 23, 2010, 3:33 pmEnrique says:
According to the editorial, the relatives were hired by Delay’s private campaign committee and PAC, so there’s no “govt money” involved.
August 23, 2010, 3:40 pmMoneyrunner says:
The point of the stupid comment by the editors of the NY Slimes – run into the ground by relatives of the founder (“there out to be a law”) – is to take a shot at Tom DeLay. Having examples of Democrats neck deep in corruption, being investigated even as we speak, they decide that what DeLay did is the worst thing ever done in politics. Lower than failing to pay your taxes, lower than hiding your income, lower than stashing your bribe money in the freezer, lower than having a roommate run a gay sex service out of your apartment. Lower than trying to sell a Senate seat – oh wait, according to the jury that was just business as usual in Chicago.
August 23, 2010, 4:04 pmSarcastro says:
I agree with Moneyrunner. You cannot disapprove of something unless you first disapprove of everything that is worse.
August 23, 2010, 4:07 pmHarry Eagar says:
Even now that you bring it up, it still does not occur to me.
As for morality and conservatives, if Reagan was a conservative, he said a person could not be moral if he did not believe in god.
It was always hard to figure out if Reagan understood the things he said, but I inferred that he believed that law should be congruent with holy roller theology. Possibly I put more in Reagan’s mind than was really there, though.
August 23, 2010, 4:13 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Harry Eager,
As for morality and conservatives, if Reagan was a conservative, he said a person could not be moral if he did not believe in god.
It was always hard to figure out if Reagan understood the things he said, but I inferred that he believed that law should be congruent with holy roller theology. Possibly I put more in Reagan’s mind than was really there, though.
If that is what you “inferred” from the statement you attribute to Reagan, what was in his mind ought to be the least of your worries.
August 23, 2010, 5:17 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Sarcastro,
I agree with Moneyrunner. You cannot disapprove of something unless you first disapprove of everything that is worse.
I think Moneyrunner was alluding to this, from the top of the editorial:
Tom DeLay, whose unethical conduct represented a modern low among Congressional leaders
I mean, maybe “a modern low” just means something along the lines of “we have highlands and lowlands, and DeLay is in the lowlands, modernly speaking.” But to the average reader what it conveys is “this is as bad as it gets.”
August 23, 2010, 5:23 pmMoneyrunner says:
Or perhaps the NY Slimes does not consider Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd or Barney Frank Congressional leaders.
August 23, 2010, 5:28 pm1040 says:
or maybe moneyrunner should actually read the NY Slimes (how creative!) before opining about what they have or have not said about rangel, dodd and frank. but that would probably be too much to expect.
August 23, 2010, 5:35 pmMoneyrunner says:
It never fails, let a Volokh thread get long enough and some asshole decides that it’s time to begin bashing Christians.
August 23, 2010, 5:36 pmMoneyrunner says:
Is all you need to know, 1040.
August 23, 2010, 5:39 pmleo marvin says:
And how many of the counter-examples Moneyrunner alluded to were “Congressional leaders”, i.e., Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader? (Hint: Work down from >0, because that’s too high.)
August 23, 2010, 5:39 pmyankev says:
I was against the law before I was in favor of it.
August 23, 2010, 5:41 pmleo marvin says:
No, I assume they don’t. I assume by “leaders,” they’re referring to the leader of each chamber, the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader.
August 23, 2010, 5:42 pmyankev says:
Holy roller? Like in the last scene in Guys and Dolls: “Brothers and sisters, life is a crap game, and the devil is using loaded dice!”
I see that play many times and I always enjoy it. But I think your remark offends Moneyrunner considerably more than somewhat and for myself I do not blame him one bit.
August 23, 2010, 5:46 pmMoneyrunner says:
BTW 1040, I do read the NY Slimes, now 7% owned by Mexican Billionaire Carlos Slim. It’s a job requirement. Watching it die by inches is rather fun.
August 23, 2010, 5:47 pmMoneyrunner says:
Always ready to cover for Democrat corruption, Liberals now limit leaders in Congress to 2. Everyone else is a peon. Talk about moving the goal posts!
August 23, 2010, 5:53 pmyankev says:
Do not be upset. I simply assume Harry Eagar is talking about a floating crap game that temporarily relocates to a salvation mission when they cannot raise a grand to use the back of a garage. My proposition may sound far fetched but it is no less likely than Harry Eagar’s proposition.
August 23, 2010, 6:00 pmleo marvin says:
Alright, Moneyrunner, expand it to the so-called “leadership” (i.e., majority leader and whip of each chamber, caucus chair and co-chair, campaign chair, etc.) How many of the people you alluded to qualify now? The answer is still zero. So the problem isn’t that the Times was wrong (they weren’t), or that Liberals are moving goalposts (we aren’t). The problem is that your accusation is wrong.
August 23, 2010, 6:11 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
leo marvin,
You aren’t seriously telling me that every time someone calls (say) the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee a “Congressional leader,” you’re all “Liar, liar, pants on fire”?
The NYT, from 1994:
Representative Dan Rostenkowski, the powerful House leader under investigation for possible misuse of Congressional funds, has reimbursed the Government $82,000 for office supplies purchased by his office at public expense, lawyers following the case said today.
Rostenkowski never held any of the leadership positions you mention; he was merely chair of Ways & Means. Like Rangel.
August 23, 2010, 6:23 pmnuff said says:
Jim Wright (TX-D).
August 23, 2010, 6:39 pmwinthrop says:
Tip O’Neill (Mass-D): Tongsun Park and Koreagate, questionable connections and birthday parties.
August 23, 2010, 6:56 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Social conservatism is part of the Tea Partiers’ stated agenda and appears to motivate many participants.
Are most Tea Party candidates pro-choice advocates of equal treatment of gays? How many propose legalization of marijuana? The Tea Parties appear to march in line with standard social conservatism.
August 23, 2010, 7:20 pmian maclure says:
Miiister John Conyers ( he of the wife currently doing time for municipal corruption in Detroit ) has opined from his seat at the head of the House Judiciary Committee that Delay’s innocence won’t stop any investigation said Miiister Conyers cares to initiate. Now one may hold differ opinions about just what Conyers should have known about his spouse’s doings but can you imagine the uproar emanating from the Dhims if a Republican were in a similar situation. The Republican would be burnt at the stake.
August 23, 2010, 7:31 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Arthur Kirkland,
Social conservatism is part of the Tea Partiers’ stated agenda and appears to motivate many participants.
I presume this “stated agenda” is stated somewhere where others may see it, yes? A link would be helpful here; no doubt you’re right, but what you say is news to me.
TEA is allegedly for “taxed enough already.” That doesn’t sound like a party founded on social conservatism to me; again, though, no doubt you’re right.
If you are going to argue that not advocating gay marriage or marijuana legalization is equivalent to pushing social conservatism, though, you’ve chosen a hard row to hoe; every major figure in both major parties turns out to be a social conservative. Who knew?
August 23, 2010, 7:40 pmMoneyrunner says:
You aren’t seriously telling me that every time someone calls (say) the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee a “Congressional leader,” you’re all “Liar, liar, pants on fire”?
Michelle Dulak Thomson, oh yes, he is. Pitiful little apologist for Democrat corruption, isn’t he? Don’t blame him, it’s what they do. Until recently, thanks to the fact that the NY Slimes set the MFM agenda, they got away with it. But like a fooball team with only one play, even after it stops working, they continue to play it. After a while, it’s funny to watch.
August 23, 2010, 8:39 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Moneyrunner,
No offense intended, but if I ever had a side, I wouldn’t really want you on it. It’s not that I question your sincerity or anything; it’s just that I’d rather make common cause with people who don’t argue like boorish teenagers.
August 23, 2010, 8:52 pmMoneyrunner says:
Sarcastro has convinced me that The Holy and Indisputable NY Slimes™ for which Enron advisor Paul Krugman writes is right when they name Tom DeLay the WORST CONGRESSIONAL LEADER IN THE WORLD®. Forget all I ever wrote about others in Congress, they were simply not leaders and did nothing wrong, at least nothing as heinous as that damned Tom DeLay whose entire crime spree is laid out here, including his incestuous relationship with Abramoff referenced by Stephen Lathrop … uhh … Oh, he wasn’t accused by Ronnie Earle of having sex with Abramoff? How about with Abramoff’s hat?
Never mind.
August 23, 2010, 9:06 pmMoneyrunner says:
Michelle, your rejection cuts me to the quick. I’ll try to make up to you. Spinster schoolmarms are just my type.
I haven’t felt this young since I was carded at 30.
August 23, 2010, 9:14 pmSarcastro says:
Aww, but your construction of the hated newspapers’ statement to make it a clear lie when another plausible construction exists was really making me feel the victimhood!
Next talk about what would have happened if the parties were reversed and how it woulda been totally unfair.
August 23, 2010, 9:20 pmMoneyrunner says:
But Sarc, my man, the situation will never be reversed. That’s the way it is. And it’s a “good thing” as Martha Stewart would say. If the Old Grey Whore ever got its virtue back it would stave off death. And that’s not a good thing.
Oh, before I hit “submit” I realized that that virtue I was referring to was never there. Two words: Walter Durante.
Different day, same tune.
August 23, 2010, 9:32 pmMoneyrunner says:
And Sarc, you’re never the victim ’cause you’re always above the fray. It’s a comic routine now: sling insults and if someone objects, tell them to lighten up, you’re just having fun.
The reason you don’t have your own late night show is because the routine’s already old.
August 23, 2010, 9:38 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Sarcastro,
Aww, but your construction of the hated newspapers’ statement to make it a clear lie when another plausible construction exists was really making me feel the victimhood!
Enh. Sarcastro, Moneyrunner is right on this one. Try Googling ["congressional leaders" "New York Times"]. For the NYT, as for most people, a “Congressional leader” is a powerful Congressman, not only the Speaker, the Whip, &c. There is no “plausible construction” under which the NYT doesn’t regard Rangel as a “Congressional leader.”
That said, the NYT has said repeatedly, albeit delicately, that Rangel needs to disappear, and the sooner the better.
August 23, 2010, 10:01 pmleo marvin says:
Not at all. It’s semantically correct, and I’m sure people use it that way. My point was the same as Sarcastro’s. You have to rule out other perfectly plausible meanings to turn the Times into the liars Moneyrunner tries to. Especially since “Congressional leadership” is a well-known political term of art.
August 24, 2010, 12:06 amleo marvin says:
Moneyrunner,
As I’ve said before, your aspersions are a badge of honor, so please don’t stop on my account.
August 24, 2010, 12:08 amMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
leo marvin,
My point wasn’t that “people” use it that way, but that the NYT itself has, repeatedly. It’s very easy to check.
August 24, 2010, 12:40 amSarcastro says:
[This was an editorial. As such, I do not believe they are subject to the Times' usual language choices.
I'm going to continue to go with the construction that does not make them clearly lying idiots (idiots because the lie is so obvious). I try to do that with everyone, though I will admit it is easier to be unfair to folks that are not in my ideological camp.]
August 24, 2010, 12:48 amInnocent? Or just not guilty yet? « Joint Stock Company says:
[...] took the opportunity to stand up for DeLay and put down the Times. Jonathan Adler briefly snarked, “Well, yes. That’s the way it works.” Megan McArdle took the game further, calling [...]
August 24, 2010, 1:48 amleo marvin says:
I don’t doubt the Times has used it that way. The question is whether they’ve never used it another way. In other words, again, what Sarcastro said.
August 24, 2010, 3:09 amUrsus Maritimus says:
Ah, the Jack McCoy theory of jurisprudence.
August 24, 2010, 3:13 amGordon Langston says:
Congress is weak on ethics. They choose not to have a bright line and if they do, it is thin and one that sufficiently protects them from themselves.
August 24, 2010, 1:35 pmeyesay says:
The New York Times editorial includes this: “The Justice Department won convictions of 20 lobbyists and Congressional aides in connection to Mr. Abramoff, but only one member, Bob Ney, a former Ohio congressman.” That may be true, but that’s only because at least one member of Congress pled guilty and received a sentence of eight years and four months in prison and an order to pay $1.8 million in restitution.
The sentence mocked by Mr. Adler and Mr. Ponnuru is simply a restatement of what the editorial says just before: “some of Washington’s worst big-money practices remain either legal or far too difficult to prosecute.”
August 25, 2010, 2:01 ameyesay says:
kazinski wrote “But in Al Gore’s case the conduct was clearly against the law, the Hatch act. He was making fund raising calls from his government office, in clear violation of the act.” It wasn’t the Hatch Act that was alleged, it was the Pendleton Act that was alleged, but it was legal, as explained here:
Senator Fred Thompson is a Republican, and the Republican-controlled committee acknowledged that Democrat Al Gore did not break the law.
August 25, 2010, 2:27 amHarry Eagar says:
Reagan offended me with his holy roller theology.
I think ‘Guys and Dolls’ is funny, too, but it’s only a play. In real-life. people with Reagan’s backwoods beliefs are no fun to be around.
August 25, 2010, 3:12 am