The Obameter

About: politifact | sorting out the truth in politics

Kool site, presumably independent of M$M & Whitehouse.gov.

~~ a couple of samples....

One more

Tags

  1. obameter
  2. ogden
  3. senate judicary committee

Comments


Mark de LA says
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/30/barack-obama/some-economists-disagree-obama/

Mark de LA says
Yep, Seth you & Bill Clinton are probably the only ones that read Playboy & Penthouse for the literary stories. I'm sure you probably dont look at their websites or jack-off either!


Seth says
M 2009-02-06 14:09:17 11389
Yep, Seth you & Bill Clinton are probably the only ones that read Playboy & Penthouse for the literary stories. I'm sure you probably dont look at their websites or jack-off either!

That of course is not the point.  The point would be to what extent did Odgen's work for those soft core publications further immorality.  I suspect it was rather unrelated to that matter - hence it is irrelevant - even though it can be made to look relevant for hyperpartisan goals.  For example if his work had to do with matters of accounting then that might have nothing to do with irrorality.  Even if his work had to do with matters of free speech, then that still does not mean he was working to further immorality. 

My point and question is whether this process is becomming hypercritical in the sense that good people are being excluded from service for triveal reasons just for political gain?

Seth says
Well from their own page ...
source: Poliifact
The conservative group Fidelis says David Ogden, Obama's nominee for deputy attorney general, did legal work for Playboy. We find they're right, although it's a stretch to sum him up as a "porn lawyer."
....
According to a press release from Fidelis, "President Obama's Choice for Deputy Attorney General has represented Playboy, Penthouse, the ACLU and others."
And from that finding they get a "mostly true" to the proposition: "Obama taps porn lawer to the #2 at justice".  One wonders what kind of justification they would need for a "mostly true" finding that he beats his mother.  There is no truth in composing a hyperpartisan proposition and justifying it with irrelivant facts.  A better inquiry would ask the question:  Did Ogden work to spread imorality? 

Based on that sample i give the site a rating for persuit of real truth.

Mark de LA says
seth 2009-02-06 14:41:19 11389
M 2009-02-06 14:09:17 11389
Yep, Seth you & Bill Clinton are probably the only ones that read Playboy & Penthouse for the literary stories. I'm sure you probably dont look at their websites or jack-off either!

That of course is not the point.  The point would be to what extent did Odgen's work for those soft core publications further immorality.  I suspect it was rather unrelated to that matter - hence it is irrelevant - even though it can be made to look relevant for hyperpartisan goals.  For example if his work had to do with matters of accounting then that might have nothing to do with irrorality.  Even if his work had to do with matters of free speech, then that still does not mean he was working to further immorality. 

My point and question is whether this process is becomming hypercritical in the sense that good people are being excluded from service for triveal reasons just for political gain?
Yep, you might revisit the Larry Craig story & see if you still feel that way or is it just for partisans of the liberal persuasion. Larry didn't even get any if that is really what he was there for in the first place.  You can find a 1000 extra reasons why an Obama appointee didn't pay his income taxes or supported or failed to support something. The facts are that he worked for those corporations - those are the only allegations.  BHO's attorney general worked to get pardons for terrorists. I object to that one strongly. I don't care to much about Fidelis as long as he doesn't spew all over the keyboads.


Mark de LA says
Sorry, Ogden is the man & Fidelis is an opposing organization. Here is a whole article which details Ogden's career. Apparently he argued against child pornography laws.
 

Ogden's career includes a long record of arguing against child porn laws and in favor of racial preferences and virtually unlimited abortion on behalf of clients including Penthouse, the ACLU and Playboy.


...


Mark de LA says
choy 2009-02-07 05:41:23 11389
seth 2009-02-06 22:06:21 11389
source: ...
Sorry, Ogden is the man & Fidelis is an opposing organization. Here is a whole article which details Ogden's career. Apparently he argued against child pornography laws.
now why did i know in advance that was cumming from worldnetdaily.  I'll wait for what he says in the actual Senate confirmations before repeating such claims, if you don't mind.
Perfect example of sphinctermindedness (head in the sand or somewhere else). The man is lying in order to get confirmed. Tell the people what they want to hear & they will elect you or select you - BHO has proven that little ditty.

Try this article, then:
source: ... It is right and proper, however, to inquire of Ogden during his Senate confirmation hearing concerning his views on international sources of law and give him an opportunity to explain his beliefs regarding the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Such inquiries could include: .....
... mostly on the use of foreign law & whether it trumps US laws.
e.g....
  • The legal systems of the world greatly vary from one another and from the U.S. criminal justice system. The criminal laws, social mores, and cultural traditions of other nations are also considerably divergent. Under what circumstances should the United States adopt the normative values and laws of other nations?

  • ...

     

    Mark de LA says
    ... Sharia for example!

    Mark de LA says
    Here is some of the stuff on Eric Holder & the FALN terrorists who (Eric) made it through anyway & is now your attorney general!

    Mark de LA says
    seth 2009-02-07 14:59:32 11389
    M 2009-02-07 13:22:02 11389
    Did he or did he not argue against child porn laws? Yes or No ?

    No.
    Apparently you are ill-informed:
    source: ...

    For instance, he once filed a brief on behalf of a group of library directors arguing against the Children's Internet Protection Act. The act ordered libraries and schools receiving funding for the Internet to restrict access to obscene sites. But Ogden's brief argued that the act impaired the ability of librarians to do their jobs. He called it "unconstitutional," though the Supreme Court later disagreed with him and upheld the act. 

    And he argued, on behalf of several media groups, against a child pornography law that required publishers of all kinds to verify and document the age of their models (which would ensure the models are at least 18). The provisions were struck down. 


    ...  Those that argued for Larry Flint's being able to publish pictures of nude women spread eagle with their cunts in the air were also arguing the first ammendment, but in fact Flynt was publishing porn ! Not that I have anything against cunts, porn or anything of the sort. I think that children should not be exploited by the porn industry, however. 


    Seth says
    M 2009-02-07 13:22:02 11389
    Did he or did he not argue against child porn laws? Yes or No ?

    No.

    Seth says
    FYI you can listen to the Senate Judiciary Hearing on Deputy A.G. Nominee David Odgen in it's entirety at C-Span here.   I think that Senator Orrin Hatch's questions are the most applicable to Odgen's defense of his clients.  They start at about 54 minutes into the hearing but i have cut them out for your convience and uploaded them here.   I did listen to a lot of the hearing and found nothing objectionable in his testimony and certainly nothing to justify characterizing him as a "porn lawyer". 
    So after due study of the facts of the matter i restate my 2 thumbs down for the Obameter. That site is just a partisan site which states partisan views and does not persues the actual truth.  If they wanted to state the truth they should have rated the proposition "Obama taps porn lawer to the #2 at justice" as mostly false.  In fact were we to cut an appropriate quote from his testimony, this would be an excellent exemplar ...
    source: transcript by Seth
    Odgen: I fully intend to to, if i am fortunately enough to be confirmed, aggressively enforce these laws. I have a record of doing so as the assistant general for the civil division. I defended as aggressively as i could the child online protection act.  I defended the child pornography act of the time and did so with full support.

    Hatch: I appreciate that.
    Another pertinent quote from the hearing can be found in the actual article quoted by Obameter:
    source: PolitiFact.com
    "I want to make it very clear that the laws against child pornography are extremely important laws," Ogden said.  "I think that child pornography is abhorrent. I think the efforts to exploit children is abhorrent and deserves the full sanctions of the law. And that is my strong view."
    ... yet the site still brands him as porn lawyer.


    Seth says
    seth 2009-02-07 14:59:32 11389
    M 2009-02-07 13:22:02 11389
    Did he or did he not argue against child porn laws? Yes or No ?

    No.
    Note that your question is ambiguous - answering "yes" would imply erroneous attitudes.  What he did was to argue specific points of specific acts on behalf of his clients.  He did not argue against child porn laws [in general].  The one argument that he explained at the end of the passage i cut out was that he argued for "a clear line as to what was illegal and what was legal".  That doesn't sound bad to me.  If you want to know his attitude toward porn laws, please read the passages that i have already quoted. One test will be whether Orrin Hatch ends up voting to affirm his nomination or not.  Hatch is totally informed about these child porn laws because he authored them.  Imho, if Ogden is acceptable to Hatch, then these questions have been answered.

    Mark de LA says
    IMHO, the stronger problem with Ogden is the foreign law thingy previously cited above. You started the argument calling the Obameter site suspect in the truth area.  But, since all truth is relative in your mind this argument will not reach a conclusion anytime soon.


    Seth says
    M 2009-02-07 17:23:33 11389
    IMHO, the stronger problem with Ogden is the foreign law thingy previously cited above. You started the argument calling the Obameter site suspect in the truth area.  But, since all truth is relative in your mind this argument will not reach a conclusion anytime soon.

    If that is the case, then you should listen to how Ogden answered the Senators concerns about the bearing of foreign law on the interpertation of the constitution and bring up any critical issues you might have in that regard.  The purpose of my study here was just to show the proposition that "Odgen is a porn lawyer" is not mostly true and i have done so in my estimation.  If you want to delve into any other matters in a factual manner than i will be glad to continue such a pursuit  with you; however, i am not interested in trading hacked truths and innuendo. That truth is relative does not mean that people with a common purpose cannot examine facts and arrive at a conclusion.  Ask yourself: what has been your purpose in this discussion?

    Seth says
    What Ogden said about courts using foreign law it is at the end of the hearing at about 2:17:40.  I take it that he was arguing that the courts might want to take into consideration foreign practices to determine what is "cruel and unusual punishment".  What fault do you find it what Ogden actually said or wrote in this regard?

    Mark de LA says
    Using foreign law depletes the soverignty of the United States of America. Some places in this country are beginning to use sharia for some domains. It's a bad idea. You can have it in your household but not in mine!


    Seth says
    M 2009-02-08 10:35:04 11389
    seth 2009-02-08 09:39:37 11389
    M 2009-02-07 22:16:47 11389
    Using foreign law depletes the soverignty of the United States of America. Some places in this country are beginning to use sharia for some domains. It's a bad idea. You can have it in your household but not in mine!

    Yeah sure ... how is that related to Ogden?
    Next time read the research provided in the links I made from the Heritage Foundation.

    I read it and also read the pertinent portion of Roper.  I still don't see what your comments above have to do with it. 

    Mark de LA says
    seth 2009-02-08 09:39:37 11389
    M 2009-02-07 22:16:47 11389
    Using foreign law depletes the soverignty of the United States of America. Some places in this country are beginning to use sharia for some domains. It's a bad idea. You can have it in your household but not in mine!

    Yeah sure ... how is that related to Ogden?
    Next time read the research provided in the links I made from the Heritage Foundation.


    Mark de LA says
    You must not be familiar with the distinction about using foreign law instead of the US Constitution. There are even movements for the Supremes to use foreign law.


    Seth says
    M 2009-02-12 09:32:42 11389
    You must not be familiar with the distinction about using foreign law instead of the US Constitution. There are even movements for the Supremes to use foreign law.

    Don't make this about me ... it is about Ogden.  There are cases where foreign laws and treaties become the law of the land, but that was not what Roper was about.  Ogden's argument in Roper dealt with determining what is "cruel and unusual" punishment.  He argued that several foreign bodies had determined that executing a minor was cruel and unusual.  Why shouldn't our courts consult those agreements when determining that sensitive issue?  Where i agree with the courts (and perhaps you) is that we are not bound to follow those accords especially if we have not signatures to them.  But by all means read the actual brief ... this is not about what i am familiar with, but about the Roper brief.  My point is that it is a stretch to get from that Roper argument, whether or not you agree with it, to your comment about "depleting "the sovereignty of the United States" or "beginning to use sharia".  My claim is that you have gone way beyond the facts as given. 

    Btw, welcome back ... how was your vacation?

    Mark de LA says
    Whether we select a government official, supreme court member or a president we have to speculate upon their future behavior & judgements based on previous behavior & judgements - elsewise democracy is at best a beauty contest (at worse a quest for free bread & daily circuses)! Those being confirmed have a tendency to say & disclose just what will get them their job, knowing full well that they can do what they want once they are in the job itself & few will hold them to account. I barely trust US law given some lawsuits that are filed. I certainly don't trust foreign law. If someone argues that foreign law is the basis for some US judgement he is on my shit list - regardless of how he spins or argues it.  He should argue from US law & the culture of the United States or out of his own humanity for the context.  If he can't do that - fuck him (or her) !

    - M has left the building (Colorado) - more details when I feel like it!

    Mark de LA says
    For an analogy, precedent is like trying to find authority by saying we while referring to yourself & a turd in your back pocket!


    Seth says
    seth 2009-02-07 16:12:23 11389
    seth 2009-02-07 14:59:32 11389
    M 2009-02-07 13:22:02 11389
    Did he or did he not argue against child porn laws? Yes or No ?

    No.
    Note that your question is ambiguous - answering "yes" would imply erroneous attitudes.  What he did was to argue specific points of specific acts on behalf of his clients.  He did not argue against child porn laws [in general].  The one argument that he explained at the end of the passage i cut out was that he argued for "a clear line as to what was illegal and what was legal".  That doesn't sound bad to me.  If you want to know his attitude toward porn laws, please read the passages that i have already quoted. One test will be whether Orrin Hatch ends up voting to affirm his nomination or not.  Hatch is totally informed about these child porn laws because he authored them.  Imho, if Ogden is acceptable to Hatch, then these questions have been answered.
    The committee finally sent Ogden's nomination for deputy attorney general to the full Senate.  The vote was 14-5 with Orrin Hatch voting no for the following reason ...
    source: The BLT

    Hatch noted that he usually defers to a president's nominees, including Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., whom he supported even before Holder's nomination was announced. But, calling Ogden's nomination a "close call," he said he was troubled by Ogden's representation of the pornography industry and other controversial clients in private practice.

    "Mr. Ogden has consistently taken very liberal positions over a long period of time on issues that are very important to me," Hatch said.

    Acknowledging that his objection is an exception to the general distinction between a lawyer's personal views and those of his clients, Hatch added, "The pattern here is so consistent and the record is so long that it does give me pause."

    Thanks to Google Alerts for keeping me informed.

    Mark de LA says
    nothing there!

    Seth says
    MR 2009-02-26 10:21:43 11389
    nothing there!
    Nothing where?

    Mark de LA says
    seth 2009-02-26 10:28:22 11389
    MR 2009-02-26 10:21:43 11389
    nothing there!
    Nothing where?
    Why, your post. 

    Seth says
    MR 2009-02-26 10:33:16 11389
    seth 2009-02-26 10:28:22 11389
    MR 2009-02-26 10:21:43 11389
    nothing there!
    Nothing where?
    Why, your post. 
    You would have to be following the details of the train.  I told Google to alert me when Hatch voted for or against the confirmation so that i could answer this question:
    source: Seth above
    One test will be whether Orrin Hatch ends up voting to affirm his nomination or not.  Hatch is totally informed about these child porn laws because he authored them.  Imho, if Ogden is acceptable to Hatch, then these questions have been answered.
    I had though that he might have seen his objection to prior clients as unimportant - apparently it was a "close call". 

    Mark de LA says
    O, I thought something would detail exactly what Ogden did vis-a-vis porn laws.  Whether Hatch votes for or against is still politics as usual & mostly irrelevant (a faulty premise) as is whatever he did himself on porn laws. Nobody on this blog actually knows what exactly is in the porn laws or budgets or anything else. If Hatch actually came out & detailed what Ogden argued & what was in the porn laws then I would probably accept it over what a reporter, commentator or blogger says.


    Seth says
    source: M wonders above
    O, I thought something would detail exactly what Ogden did vis-a-vis porn laws.
    That was already covered in my research above ... see links above to actual cases.  All he did was to argue to clarify points of law.  If you prejudices against defendants are to cloud your judgments against their lawyers, then very few layers would ever be accepted into the Justice department.  That is not the way the system is supposed to work. Imho, Hatch made the wrong call.  For me this case is closed sans any actual new tangible evidence.

    Seth says
    Continuing to track this through to Senate confirmation ... Republicans may filibuster Ogden's confirmation. 

    Seth says
    source: LegalTimes
    The Senate voted 65-28 today to confirm David Ogden as deputy attorney general, pushing aside criticism of his clients in private practice as senators inch toward filling the top ranks of the Justice Department.
    ... just completing the tracking on this item.

    C says
    Ever wonder why Obama is always in a big hurry to get a bill passed? There is the Obamacost when passed & signed & then there is the reality check!