Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

chevydriver1123 said:

I love how Paleocons are always bitching and whinning about identity politics but yet Buchanan is bitching about the fact she's a jew. Then again it is Pat Buchanan so I really shouldnt be that surprised. Its not like there are other things to complain about; anti-second amendment, not too keen on the first to name two. Stay classy asshole

Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench | Raw Story

Click to expand...

Well he is right. That is IF religion mattered in 99% of the rulings on the court, and it does not matter. Only time it does matter is if it is about abortion and the conservative judges cant get past their bible classes.

The Supreme Court does not reflect the US population, both in ethnicity, sex and religion.. then again it never has.

chevydriver1123 said:

I love how Paleocons are always bitching and whinning about identity politics but yet Buchanan is bitching about the fact she's a jew. Then again it is Pat Buchanan so I really shouldnt be that surprised. Its not like there are other things to complain about; anti-second amendment, not too keen on the first to name two. Stay classy asshole

Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench | Raw Story

Click to expand...

Actually, I would say there are too many Catholics on the Supreme Court. Bill Maher brought this up on his show "Real Time" and mentioned that an agnostic or an atheist should be appointed. I'd have to agree with that, although that might be a tough appointment and would give more ammo to evangelical conservatives for the next election.

I know that the Supreme Court is made up only of nine Justices, and not every group can be represented on it all the time, but I think in this day and age we try to increase the diversity of the bench in some way when we can.

If one wanted to emphasize that there were too many jews, one would compare the amount of jews in the SC vs the population (like Buchanan did). If your objective is the underrepresentation of other groups, why not simply talk about the underrepresentation of other groups?

That's why I'm also inclined to agree with mbig, Buchanan's clearly talking about too many jews.

Officer, I didn't shoot that man, I simply pulled the trigger on my gun in a precise trajectory that propelled a bullet between his eyes.

In this world of equality why do people demand fair-representation when it's a person's DECISION to become a politician or judge?

You can't force people to do something that they don't want to do :shrug: I think proportional balance when you're discussing gender/race/culture/religion is impossible and ridiculous.

Aunt Spiker said:

In this world of equality why do people demand fair-representation when it's a person's DECISION to become a politician or judge?

You can't force people to do something that they don't want to do :shrug: I think proportional balance when you're discussing gender/race/culture/religion is impossible and ridiculous.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between proportional balance and over-representation. While it's impossible to have the former, especially for a 9-person panel such as the Supreme Court, I think we should try to avoid the latter, especially for a group as powerful as the Supreme Court.

its ridiculous to claim one group is represented over another, they're not there to represent their groups, and trying to balance it simply means a better judge may be passed over for one of a more correct race/gender/religion etc.

spud_meister said:

its ridiculous to claim one group is represented over another, they're not there to represent their groups, and trying to balance it simply means a better judge may be passed over for one of a more correct race/gender/religion etc.

Click to expand...

When it comes to politics, "better" is quite the subjective term.

samsmart said:

There's a difference between proportional balance and over-representation. While it's impossible to have the former, especially for a 9-person panel such as the Supreme Court, I think we should try to avoid the latter, especially for a group as powerful as the Supreme Court.

Click to expand...

Representation?
I just don't grasp this 'representation' concept.

We're all suppose to *be* equal - so why can't a black male "represent" me (a white female?) Why do people think that only ONE person's race or ONE person's gender or ONE person's religion have to be 'balanced' or 'represented' in politics.

You are represented by your Representative in the House of Representatives - because, barring race, gender, etc etc - these people answer directly TO you (the constituent). They make decisions on behalf of YOU, they answer to YOU and consider YOU when taking a stance.
They don't know your race from poo!

The supreme court judges merely interprets the Constitution and JUDGES based on their values and beliefs - NOT based on their race or gender. In fact, if race and gender are playing a HEAVY role in a judge's decisions then they shouldn't BE a judge. Not all "jews" think alike in all sorts of matters - so how can they be 'represented' properly or improperly? Just because someone is ___ doesn't mean they're JUST like YOU.

To suggest that race/gender CONTINUES to hold STRONG merit is going against various social movements that have been geared towards making everyone EQUAL and, instead, back peddles and makes everyone, again, unequal.

(sorry for my caps-habit to emphasize meaning, I'm trying to start using bold, instead, but it's an old habit - I'm not yelling )

I have to agree with mbig and Kandahar. Seems to me Buchanan was complaining of Jewish over-representation rather than merely proffering a statement of fact. The two methodologies here are not equivalent.

I honestly don't care if the entire court is Muslim or atheist. I just want judges who will rule objectively and according to Constitutional Law (However, my statement is not one supporting Kagan). The Supreme Court was never intended to represent diversity or be proportional to the American population. If Kagan gets the seat that will mean that only Jews and Catholics are on the court, no protestants or agnostics. However, this doesn't bother me. It's absurd to disqualify someone from a position because of their religion (the exception would be appointing someone to a religious position, like places a Muslim in charge of a Christian organization). I don't care if 33% of the Supreme Court justices are Jewish, and I think we should all hold the religious makeup of the court to be irrelevant. They weren't nominated and appointed because they were Catholic/Jewish, they were nominated and appointed and happened to be Catholic/Jewish.

chevydriver1123 said:

I love how Paleocons are always bitching and whinning about identity politics but yet Buchanan is bitching about the fact she's a jew. Then again it is Pat Buchanan so I really shouldnt be that surprised. Its not like there are other things to complain about; anti-second amendment, not too keen on the first to name two. Stay classy asshole

Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench | Raw Story

Click to expand...

Jews invented the law and Buchanan is an anti-Semite, isn't that a well known fact? :doh

Kandahar said:

Those articles seem to be pretty even-handed. How are they different from Buchanan? Buchanan was clearly LAMENTING the fact that there were so many Jews on the court, not merely observing it. After he pointed it out, his very next sentence was "Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?"

Click to expand...

It tends not to be something people make an issue out of, at least publicly, but some liberals do have concerns about such a Catholic court.

"There is some fear that they might perhaps, on some issues like abortion, carry out a kind of Catholic jurisprudence rather than reflecting a broader point of view," said John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Click to expand...

From the moment that President Bush announced Alito's nomination, there has been an undercurrent of debate about the prospect of a five-member Catholic majority.

After Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said that women, Latinos and people of "other religions, not to mention nonbelievers" would be underrepresented on the court,

Click to expand...

Also:

Back when the nominee was Sam Alito, talk was about the "fifth Catholic" on the bench. Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, complained that "with Alito, the majority of the Court would be Roman Catholics."

Click to expand...

I don't see how those statements aren't at least as strong as what Buchanan said. Whereas he makes no clear value judgments about the demographics of the court, those statements seem to be making clear that the authors are opposed to the idea of having 5 catholics.

If Buchanan had authored a piece impartially showing the statistics of various demographic groups on the court, that would be one thing (although I'd probably view anything Pat Buchanan has to say about Jews with suspicion given his past record). But when it's part of an article entitled "Are liberals anti-WASP?" and is followed up with "Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?" I think it's pretty clear that he's sorry there will be yet another Jew on the court.

Click to expand...

Except just 3 lines in the entire piece referred to jews. He also said:

"A chorus of black commentators and civic leaders has begun expressing frustration over (Elena) Kagan's hiring record as Harvard dean. From 2003 to 2009, 29 faculty members were hired: 28 were white and one was Asian-American." CNN pundit Roland Martin slammed "Kagan's record on diversity as one that a 'white Republican U.S. president' would be criticized for." This is an excerpt from the Washington Post about the rising anger in a black community, which voted 24-1 for Obama, that one of their own was once again passed over for the Supreme Court. Not since Thurgood Marshall, 43 years ago, has a Democratic president chosen an African-American. The lone sitting black justice is Clarence Thomas, nominated by George H. W. Bush. And Thomas was made to run a gauntlet by Senate liberals.

Click to expand...

What of the record of Republican presidents? Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford made seven nominations. All were white Protestant males: Warren Burger, Clement Haynsworth, Harrold Carswell, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, William Rehnquist and John Paul Stevens. The diversity Nixon sought was first to put a Southerner on the court. He succeeded in his third try, with Powell. And he sought to put the first woman on the court, but pulled back from nominating Judge Mildred Lillie of California when the American Bar Associated rated her unqualified. With Ronald Reagan and Bush I came Republican diversity. Reagan's first choice was Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman ever nominated. His second was Antonin Scalia, the first Italian-American. When his third nominee, Robert Bork, a Protestant, was rejected, Reagan chose Bork's Jewish colleague on the U.S. Appellate Court for the District of Columbia, Douglas H. Ginsburg. When Douglas Ginsburg was pulled because of a marijuana incident in college, Reagan chose the Irish Catholic Anthony Kennedy. George H. W. Bush picked David Souter, a Protestant from New Hampshire, and Clarence Thomas, the second African-American to sit. George W. Bush chose John Roberts, a Catholic; Harriet Miers, the first Evangelical Christian of our era; and Sam Alito, the second Italian Catholic.

If Kagan is confirmed, the Court will consist of three Jews and six Catholics (who represent not quite a fourth of the country), but not a single Protestant, though Protestants remain half the nation and our founding faith. If Kagan is confirmed, three of the four justices nominated by Democratic presidents will be from New York City: Kagan from the Upper West Side, Sotomayor from the Bronx, Ruth Bader Ginsburg from Brooklyn. Breyer is from San Francisco. What kind of diversity is this – either in geography or life experience?

Click to expand...

It sounds to me like the point of the piece is to mock liberals for a pseudo-commitment to diversity while arguing that recent republican selections have truly been diverse. He doesn't appear to be praising the early republican leaders for picking 7 white protestants. He also notes the disproportionate representation of catholics, though I haven't seen a firestorm of criticism about that point.

Does a black SCOTUS judge represent all black people?

Does a male SCOTUS judge represent all men?

@RightinNYC


This is the exact quote.

If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats.

Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?

Click to expand...

While the first sentence, taken by itself would simply be factual, it becomes normative coupled with the sentence that immediately follows it. A legitimate paraphrase of the two sentences together would be:

"There ought to be diversity on the supreme court, but there are currently too many Jews." Implying there ought to be fewer Jews. This paraphrase fits with the tone of the entire rest of the article. Your claim that his statement was merely factual does not.

As for people supposedly not getting upset about people making similar observations about Catholic predominance on the court, it really is irrelevant. So, maybe people aren't as sensitive about anti-Catholic sentiment. Would that make Buchanan's statement somehow less anti-Jew?

However, not only do you lift his statement out of it's immediate context, you lift it out of the context of the speaker. Buchanan, IS anti-Jew, according to my memory of conclusions I drew many years ago. Others here are of the same opinion. Whether his arguments are reasonable on the surface, we must discern which arguments to give ear to (there are so many, after all).

We hear from a known anti-semite that there are too many Jews on the SCOTUS. Are we supposed to listen?

There are 24 hours in a day. Even if we had all that time to listen to political and social argumentation, there wouldn't be enough time to listen to and think about Buchanan's, really. So, when Buchanan is remembered as what he is, and then that he IS saying there are too many Jews on the SCOTUS, don't be surprised that people dismiss him along with his arguments.

It is the natural and intelligent thing to do.

Criticizing an argument's soundness by ad hominem attack is of course a fallacy. Refusing to consider at all whether an argument is sound or not due to the reputation of the giver is not. It is a form of intellectual thrift, actually. This is what people are doing when they dismiss Buchanan, even though they sometimes do come up with fallacious reasoning to justify it.

A person might occasionally miss the exceedingly rare nugget of truth amongst all the noise out there by filtering this way. But, ask yourself this: Why fish in a dead zone?

Aunt Spiker said:

Representation?
I just don't grasp this 'representation' concept.

We're all suppose to *be* equal - so why can't a black male "represent" me (a white female?) Why do people think that only ONE person's race or ONE person's gender or ONE person's religion have to be 'balanced' or 'represented' in politics.

You are represented by your Representative in the House of Representatives - because, barring race, gender, etc etc - these people answer directly TO you (the constituent). They make decisions on behalf of YOU, they answer to YOU and consider YOU when taking a stance.
They don't know your race from poo!

The supreme court judges merely interprets the Constitution and JUDGES based on their values and beliefs - NOT based on their race or gender. In fact, if race and gender are playing a HEAVY role in a judge's decisions then they shouldn't BE a judge. Not all "jews" think alike in all sorts of matters - so how can they be 'represented' properly or improperly? Just because someone is ___ doesn't mean they're JUST like YOU.

To suggest that race/gender CONTINUES to hold STRONG merit is going against various social movements that have been geared towards making everyone EQUAL and, instead, back peddles and makes everyone, again, unequal.

(sorry for my caps-habit to emphasize meaning, I'm trying to start using bold, instead, but it's an old habit - I'm not yelling )

Click to expand...

No problem. I understand the emphasis. Allow me to justify and clarify my position.

I personally am not saying that there are too many Jews on the Supreme Court, and I would like to make that clear right now.

However, I do think that there may be too many Catholics on the Supreme Court. Now I don't think there shouldn't be religious people on the Supreme Court. However, I do think that if we have so many religious people on the Supreme Court then we should have at least one Justice who is agnostic or an atheist.

The reason being is that, theoretically, you are in right in that the Justices should be unbiased. However, realistically, it is next to impossible for anyone to be totally unbiased on an issue. Especially the controversial issues the Supreme Court rules on.

Take, for instance, one thread I read on this debate forum. It was a link to a news site saying that Chief Justice Roberts believes he has found ways in which Roe v. Wade can be overturned. Now, I don't think it's the purpose of a Justice, especially the Chief Justice, to state how he can decide a case that hasn't yet been brought up before him. I also don't think that it's a coincidence that Chief Justice Roberts is 1) conservative, 2) religious, 3) Catholic, and 4) believes he could rule against abortion in the United States.

So whether you want to admit it or not, a person's beliefs does affect their judgments, whether those favor conservatives or liberals.

Which is why in a constitutional democratic republic such as ours it is important to give weight to diverse array of opinions.

Now you are correct in that Congress is the primary government body by which our nation achieves the most diversity. However, you also have to remember that Congress
1) Has 535 members
2) Has terms of 2 years for the House and 6 years for the Senate

This means that not only is power in Congress diluted, it is rather easier to kick out unwanted, unethical, or unpopular Congressmen.

The Supreme Court, however, has more concentrated power because
1) It has only 9 Justices
2) Appointments to the Supreme Court are lifetime appointments.

That means that power in the Supreme Court is far more concentrated and it is more difficult to kick out unwanted, unethical, or unpopular Justices.

And the reason why this is a concern to me is because I believe that all people and groups look after their own interests than the interests of others. I also believe that the Founding Fathers designed our three branches of government with that in mind, and would prefer a balance in the branches to ensure every interest has a say in government so that no one particular interest unduly interferes with the rights of those with other interests.

For example, while employers have rights in this nation, so too do workers have rights. Why? Because both have the right to vote.

That's why I would like to ensure that there is a diversity on the Supreme Court. I think that because the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review over Congress and the Presidency, it is even more important that there is a diversity of interests for the highest court in our nation. That way, the Supreme Court as a whole will be better able to discuss, debate, and finally rule on matters of law in our country.

Now I'm not saying that every group should be represented on the Supreme Court. That is quite unrealistic, and I don't think we should have any kind of hard quota system. However, I do think that when a new seat opens up then the next appointment should be one that brings an added diversity or increased balanced to it, and diversity and increased balanced on multiple levels.

For example, all the Justices are religious, and the majority are Catholics. However, they rule on issues that impact religious people along with atheists. So I ask why not appoint someone who is agnostic or atheist?

However, I don't want that to be the sole reason of appointment. I also think that there are too many Justices who have been giving too much power to the Presidency, and one criticism of Kagan is that she supports providing more powers to the executive. So not only would I want someone appointed who is agnostic or atheist, I also want someone who bolster the power of Congress to act as a check on the President.

But that's not what we get, realistically. What we realistically get is an appointment who will support the policies of whichever President nominates them and the Senate doesn't mind too much. And I, for one, think that giving lifetime appointments for short-term judicial justifications is worse than having a quota system for SCOTUS.

RightinNYC said:

We've heard the exact same things said by people who said the court was disproportionately white, disproportionately male, or disproportionately catholic. No one seemed to get riled up over those statements, so I'm not sure why this is a big deal.

Click to expand...

Yep, which is why its funny now.

The people who used to bitch, complain, whine, and moan about people complaining the court is to white, too male, too catholic, etc are now the people bitching about it being too jewish.

And the people who used to actually do the complaining that the court was too white, too male, too catholic are now the ones bitching, complaining, whining, and moaning about people complaining.

Its hilarious and just shows the hyper partisan nature of both sides and why the majority of ideology bound drones on both sides aren't worth listening to let alone having a conversation with.

This is one of those "Did I say that out loud?" moments. Buchanan has them more and more, these days.

Watching him defend it is almost as interesting...

Zyphlin said:

Yep, which is why its funny now.

The people who used to bitch, complain, whine, and moan about people complaining the court is to white, too male, too catholic, etc are now the people bitching about it being too jewish.

And the people who used to actually do the complaining that the court was too white, too male, too catholic are now the ones bitching, complaining, whining, and moaning about people complaining.

Its hilarious and just shows the hyper partisan nature of both sides and why the majority of ideology bound drones on both sides aren't worth listening to let alone having a conversation with.

Click to expand...

So very true! LOL.:rofl

Basically, the Jewish people seem to be highly gifted, as a whole. Here are some other statistics indicating that they are over represented in many prestigious fields of endeavor:

Jewish Statistics

By Percentage
----------
100% CA Senators 1996
85% College age jews in college
76% Most influential intellectuals Alan Dershowitz
60% Yale Grad students
60% Top Hollywood positions 60 min
58% Directors, writers, producers in 2 or more TV series
50+ Clinton Cabinet
50% Greg McDivitt estimate of "Millionaire" contestants
50- nearly half of money spent in democratic primaries from jewish contrib
40% Partners at best NY and DC law firms
40% American Nobel laureates science economics
20-30% Westinghouse Science Prize
30% Faculty at elite college
30% Supreme Court law clerks
27% Ivy League Survey
26% Reporters, editors, execs in print broadcast media
26% US Law Professors (Volokh UCLA)
25% ACM Turing Award
23% 1982 Forbes 500 richest Americans
23% Top 100 wealthy Canadians
21% High level civil servants
17% Boston Symphony Strings
17% Nobel Physiology and Medicine
16% Time Most Important 25
15% McArthur "Genius" Awards 1981-97
15% Time 20 20th Century Inventors
15% USA Today College Academic Team
14% Clinton Cabinet 1997
13% senior corp exec under 40
11% Nobel Physics Prize
10% Pulitzer 1997
10% US Senate
10% US college faculty
8% Who's Who 1975
7.7% Corporate Boards
7.4% senior corporate exec
7.0% Forbes HiTech 100 1997
3.0% US Voters 1996
2.0% US Population
2.0% Who's Who 1944
0.25% World Popluation

Click to expand...

More info from above site:

ASHKENAZIM HAVE HIGHEST IQ OF ANY KNOWN ETHNIC GROUP
\clip\2005\09\rushrevisit.txt
Rushton Revisited
Andrew Duffy
The Ottawa Citizen
October 1, 2005
Research that supports Philippe Rushton includes the work of
anthropologist Henry Harpending. Mr. Harpending led a study that
The researchers, led by anthropologist Henry Harpending, found
that Ashkenazim score higher on IQ tests than any other ethnic
group to which they can be reliably compared. Six times as many
Ashkenazim as Europeans score in the "genius range" above 140 on
IQ tests.
Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud and Gustav Mahler are part of the
Ashkenazim bloodline, as are half of the world's chess
champions. In the U.S., Ashkenazim have won 27 per cent of the
Nobel Prizes awarded to Americans, while making up just three
per cent of the population.

Click to expand...

chevydriver1123 said:

I love how Paleocons are always bitching and whinning about identity politics but yet Buchanan is bitching about the fact she's a jew. Then again it is Pat Buchanan so I really shouldnt be that surprised. Its not like there are other things to complain about; anti-second amendment, not too keen on the first to name two. Stay classy asshole

Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench | Raw Story

Click to expand...

If anything it's disproportionally theist.

Kandahar said:

Umm for a couple reasons:
1. White males are not an historically oppressed group.

Click to expand...

Really? So Irishmen were never historically oppressed? At one time or another every persons ethnicity falls into the category of "historically oppressed."

Dezaad said:

@RightinNYC


This is the exact quote.


While the first sentence, taken by itself would simply be factual, it becomes normative coupled with the sentence that immediately follows it. A legitimate paraphrase of the two sentences together would be:

"There ought to be diversity on the supreme court, but there are currently too many Jews." Implying there ought to be fewer Jews. This paraphrase fits with the tone of the entire rest of the article. Your claim that his statement was merely factual does not.

Click to expand...

You're completely ignoring the things that came before it. Here's the FULL context:

"A chorus of black commentators and civic leaders has begun expressing frustration over (Elena) Kagan's hiring record as Harvard dean. From 2003 to 2009, 29 faculty members were hired: 28 were white and one was Asian-American."

CNN pundit Roland Martin slammed "Kagan's record on diversity as one that a 'white Republican U.S. president' would be criticized for."

This is an excerpt from the Washington Post about the rising anger in a black community, which voted 24-1 for Obama, that one of their own was once again passed over for the Supreme Court.

Not since Thurgood Marshall, 43 years ago, has a Democratic president chosen an African-American. The lone sitting black justice is Clarence Thomas, nominated by George H. W. Bush. And Thomas was made to run a gauntlet by Senate liberals.

Indeed, of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, Marshall; one was Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor. The other five were Jews: Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats.

Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?

Click to expand...

Given that, the best paraphrase of what he's saying is this:

"Elena Kagan only paid lip service to diversity at harvard, hiring almost all white people. Even mainstream reporters agree that she had a terrible record on diversity. This comes from a WashPost article about how the black community is angry at Obama for not upholding his promises of diversity, despite the fact that they disproportionately supported him. Democrats have not backed up their words with actions. The only black supreme court justice came from the Republicans, and Democrats tried to stop it. Of the last seven justices nominated by democrats, one was black, one was puerto rican, and five were jews. That means that jews will account for 1/3 of the court, while only being 2% of the nation. Is this the democrats idea of diversity?"

When you look at it with the full context, it's clear that the whole jewish bit is just a part of his larger point: That democrats don't practice what they preach on diversity.

As for people supposedly not getting upset about people making similar observations about Catholic predominance on the court, it really is irrelevant. So, maybe people aren't as sensitive about anti-Catholic sentiment. Would that make Buchanan's statement somehow less anti-Jew?

Click to expand...

If people claim that his statement is "anti-Jew" but that an identical statement referring to catholics would not be "anti-catholic," then yes, it's absolutely relevant. It helps point out that they're hypocrites.

However, not only do you lift his statement out of it's immediate context, you lift it out of the context of the speaker. Buchanan, IS anti-Jew, according to my memory of conclusions I drew many years ago. Others here are of the same opinion. Whether his arguments are reasonable on the surface, we must discern which arguments to give ear to (there are so many, after all).

Click to expand...

Again, I'm not a fan of Pat Buchanan, nor do I doubt that he has said some pretty absurd things. That doesn't mean that anything he says is automatically "anti-Jew," just like the fact that someone has been anti-XYZ in the past doesn't mean than any later statement mentioning XYZ is automatically bigoted.

We hear from a known anti-semite that there are too many Jews on the SCOTUS. Are we supposed to listen?

There are 24 hours in a day. Even if we had all that time to listen to political and social argumentation, there wouldn't be enough time to listen to and think about Buchanan's, really. So, when Buchanan is remembered as what he is, and then that he IS saying there are too many Jews on the SCOTUS, don't be surprised that people dismiss him along with his arguments.

It is the natural and intelligent thing to do.

Criticizing an argument's soundness by ad hominem attack is of course a fallacy. Refusing to consider at all whether an argument is sound or not due to the reputation of the giver is not. It is a form of intellectual thrift, actually. This is what people are doing when they dismiss Buchanan, even though they sometimes do come up with fallacious reasoning to justify it.

A person might occasionally miss the exceedingly rare nugget of truth amongst all the noise out there by filtering this way. But, ask yourself this: Why fish in a dead zone?

Click to expand...

I don't care if you listen. I'm not arguing that Buchanan is some brilliant scholar whose words should be engraved into our hearts. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy that I see in claiming that this statement alone constitutes bigotry.

chevydriver1123 said:

I love how Paleocons are always bitching and whinning about identity politics but yet Buchanan is bitching about the fact she's a jew. Then again it is Pat Buchanan so I really shouldnt be that surprised. Its not like there are other things to complain about; anti-second amendment, not too keen on the first to name two. Stay classy asshole

Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench | Raw Story

Click to expand...

This Paleocon is very disappointed in Buchanan. Looks like he wants to be the Joe Biden of the Conservatives. LOL.