Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reason Magazine)   Kagan law review article argued that campaign finance laws "easily can serve as incumbent-protection devices." Wait... Kagan wrote a law review article?   (reason.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Fe C, Charles Schumer, Jacob Sullum, independent expenditures, Human Rights First, government contractor, foreign national, limited resources  
•       •       •

626 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jun 2010 at 1:28 PM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2010-06-02 01:30:24 PM  
I don't C what subby did there.
 
2010-06-02 01:30:34 PM  
i would totally do cookie monster.

/kagan...notsomuch
 
2010-06-02 01:45:30 PM  
Subby, have you onsidered orrecting your ontributions prior to licking the "add link" button?
 
2010-06-02 01:48:12 PM  
I guess I'm a little slow, but why is it surprising that a lawyer who went to law school wrote a law review article?
 
2010-06-02 01:51:51 PM  

Arkanaut: I guess I'm a little slow, but why is it surprising that a lawyer who went to law school wrote a law review article?


Perhaps because The President didn't write one when he was at Harvard? But I agree, I don't see the shok on this artile. an you tell me what I am missing Subby?
 
2010-06-02 01:52:28 PM  
is ampain finance reform worse than campaign finance reform? Or did the subby accurately quote Kagan thus finding some real dirt on her that she can't spell.

Also I thought Cookie monster stopped eating cookies, he is a cookie traitor according to Colbert since Cookie monster says cookies are a sometimes food. What is up with that?
 
2010-06-02 01:54:01 PM  

Shut up subby, you o k!

 
2010-06-02 01:55:20 PM  
subby: Kagan law review article argued that ampaign finance laws "easily can serve as incumbent-protection devices." Wait... Kagan wrote a law review article?

Subby can't say the letter "b" (c). It's all part of a trauma he suffered as a sbhoolboy (schoolboy) - he was attacked by a bat (bat).
 
2010-06-02 01:55:48 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Shut up subby, you o k!


lOL win.
 
2010-06-02 01:57:12 PM  
I'd like a glass of ampaign and some hocolate ake
 
2010-06-02 01:57:23 PM  
Cuz you can't spell treason without "Reason"

/amiduinthisrite
 
2010-06-02 01:57:53 PM  

BuckTurgidson: subby: Kagan law review article argued that ampaign finance laws "easily can serve as incumbent-protection devices." Wait... Kagan wrote a law review article?

Subby can't say the letter "b" (c). It's all part of a trauma he suffered as a sbhoolboy (schoolboy) - he was attacked by a bat (bat).


What if he replaced the letter C with the letter K?

/Her real name is Cagan.
 
2010-06-02 01:59:19 PM  
I read the article and they seem to be mad at someone, I think Kagen and/or Obama is to blame but I can't make out why.
 
2010-06-02 02:03:15 PM  
The article writer isn't mad at Kagan, in fact they are agreeing with the given quote ... so they can attack Obama.
 
2010-06-02 02:03:41 PM  
Subby didn't want to use the C word in a headline, apparently.
 
2010-06-02 02:04:05 PM  

BuckTurgidson: subby: Kagan law review article argued that ampaign finance laws "easily can serve as incumbent-protection devices." Wait... Kagan wrote a law review article?

Subby can't say the letter "b" (c). It's all part of a trauma he suffered as a sbhoolboy (schoolboy) - he was attacked by a bat (bat).


What a silly bunt.
 
2010-06-02 02:05:54 PM  

Corvus: I read the article and they seem to be mad at someone, I think Kagen and/or Obama is to blame but I can't make out why.


It starts out with subby's headline, and then goes off topic into something about how Democrats want to stifle the first amendment rights of corporations even though they corporate personhood. Reason supports corporate personhood apparently.
 
2010-06-02 02:08:05 PM  

ArthGuinness: The article writer isn't mad at Kagan, in fact they are agreeing with the given quote ... so they can attack Obama.


Yeah after the set up a false dichotomy of either you can give money to a campaign directly or that you must do it through a corporation.

Those are not your only options. They pretend it is. There are non campaign political organizations that you can give to that are made specifically for certain political philosophies or positions.


I don't know many people who invest in a company solely to forward their political views. Which it seems like they are pretending what people do.
 
2010-06-02 02:12:37 PM  

Rapmaster2000: Corvus: I read the article and they seem to be mad at someone, I think Kagen and/or Obama is to blame but I can't make out why.

It starts out with subby's headline, and then goes off topic into something about how Democrats want to stifle the first amendment rights of corporations even though they corporate personhood. Reason supports corporate personhood apparently.


They are deeply concerned about the first amendment rights of foreign stockholders.
 
2010-06-02 02:20:33 PM  

joni mnemonic: i would totally do cookie monster.

/kagan...notsomuch


I hate pod six.
 
2010-06-02 02:22:09 PM  

joni mnemonic: i would totally do cookie monster.

/kagan...notsomuch


Dirty furry! Get your ass back to 4chan!
 
2010-06-02 02:28:03 PM  

Arkanaut: I guess I'm a little slow, but why is it surprising that a lawyer who went to law school wrote a law review article?


Law students and lawyers don't usually write law review articles. Law school PROFESSORS write law review articles.

And Kagan did write a handful - not many, but they are doozies. I believe one of them is the most-cited law review article written this millenium, or close to it.

Her scholarly career was short but influential.
 
2010-06-02 02:32:20 PM  
Can it, she's fat and gay, there's no way she's not going to be appointed.
 
2010-06-02 02:35:43 PM  
Yeah, boy, how's that incumbent-protection device working out? Anyone? Bennett? Specter? Griffith? McCain, Lincoln, you have anything to say?
 
2010-06-02 02:43:45 PM  

Triaxis: Can it, she's fat and gay, there's no way she's not going to be appointed.


Gay I have no problem with, fat and ugly on the other hand....
 
2010-06-02 02:46:48 PM  

Gosling: Yeah, boy, how's that incumbent-protection device working out? Anyone? Bennett? Specter? Griffith? McCain, Lincoln, you have anything to say?


I'd be interested to know how many sitting senators have lost an election in the last 40-50 years...primary or general.

And then compare to the trends we are seeing currently with a FEW (seriously, if it is only 4 or 5, that WON'T make much different in Washington) senators losing primary bids.

/Hey subby, C how hard that was?
 
2010-06-02 02:48:26 PM  

Rambino: And Kagan did write a handful - not many, but they are doozies. I believe one of them is the most-cited law review article written this millenium, or close to it.


I won't pretend to have read all she's written, but I read this one (giving a CLE on the Citizen's United case and this came up). It's really a surprisingly poor bit of scholarship. Well researched and all, but the core reasoning is really insipid and forced. She has a single point to make - that our First Amendment doctrine is the result of a secret code of judging that goes to the question of governmental motive underlying the speech restrictions at issue - and she proceeds to force everything she sees to fit that model. It relies primarily on straw men and fiat.

I've heard a lot of people talk about how brilliant Kagan is, but she wasn't showing it here.
 
2010-06-02 02:50:47 PM  

PinkFuzzyBunny: I'd be interested to know how many sitting senators have lost an election in the last 40-50 years...primary or general.


The tricky part is factoring the convenient "retirements" (Dodd) where the incumbent doesn't run so s/he doesn't lose.
 
2010-06-02 02:52:01 PM  
Every time I browse past the Politics tab, I read this headline as 'Krogan law' and do a double-take.

i.imgur.com

Evidently I'm the only one.
 
2010-06-02 03:04:31 PM  
"Wait... Kagan wrote a law review article? "

Well she certainly wasn't busy practicing law in a courtroom...
 
2010-06-02 03:33:23 PM  

BuckTurgidson: subby: Kagan law review article argued that ampaign finance laws "easily can serve as incumbent-protection devices." Wait... Kagan wrote a law review article?

Subby can't say the letter "b" (c). It's all part of a trauma he suffered as a sbhoolboy (schoolboy) - he was attacked by a bat (bat).


A cat?
 
2010-06-02 04:15:38 PM  
Elena Kagan wrote that piece in 1996.

There was not this massive amount of incumbent loathing and just all around contempt for the political system.

Politics really was a nicely protected and cozy racket for quite some time.

For instance, a senator was statistically more likely to resign due to old age or just flat out die in office than lose a re-election campaign.

Some House districts were gerrymandered to be R or D immortal locks.

Do you really believe a typical house rep could get elected once every other year for 2 or 3 decades just because he was that damn good?
 
2010-06-02 04:55:34 PM  
Well, they certainly can be if they're poorly, or purposely, written.
 
2010-06-02 05:25:06 PM  
nothing to lose your head over...

/it's a kind a magic
 
2010-06-02 08:05:05 PM  
The misspelled headline is the most interesting thing about this.
 
2010-06-03 01:49:43 AM  

MuadDib: Subby can't say the letter "b" (c). It's all part of a trauma he suffered as a sbhoolboy (schoolboy) - he was attacked by a bat (bat).

A cat?


No, a bat.
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report