Will Smith appeals to original intent to get us to rally 'round Obama
June 23, 2008 04:59 PM
No seriously, he really did. Here he is being interviewed by Matt Lauer on the Today show (which after this interview they should just go ahead and rename "Dumb and Dumber"):
LAUER: Do you think people can't get behind America led by John McCain?
SMITH: You know I just, there, there are, there are certain ideas that I believe Barack stands for that are fundamental that the forefathers of this country wrote down on paper that we're all supposed to pay attention to, we're not supposed to ignore it and do what we want to do 'cause we have different ideas. And I believe just at his core the, that those ideas just they, they just come of his pores. And I'm, I'm excited to support him.
Yep, that's it. Obama will put us back on the Founder's Path! He's just oozing James Madison. Out of his pores! Was that flop sweat? No, it was the Federalist No. 10.
Meanwhile, over at Politico we learn how wonderful Obama was. As editor of the Harvard Law Review. This headline made me snort at its ridiculousness:
Obama Kept Law Review Balanced
Mostly liberal publication ran progressive pieces alongside ones from a Reagan official and a right-wing judge.
Another snort. What are we supposed to think, that his administration will be a conservative happy land because he published an article written by a Reagan official and right wing judge? Is the point that Obama was sooooo brave for printing articles by conservative scholars?
The pretentiousness (and the utter untruth) of this passage made me snort a third time:
In Obama's time, as it is today, the Harvard Law Review was one of the most important and distinguished legal publications in the world. Founded in 1887, it is the rare self-supporting legal publication compiled and edited completely by students, typically those attending their second or third year at the prestigious school.
The Harvard Law Review is not even a remotely important legal publication. No law review is. Lawyers rarely, if ever, read law review articles. And if you cite to one in a brief it is highly suspect. Judges frown on it. It's kind of like, "What else have you got? Any actual case law?" Why cite to some professor's personal or political agenda? That's what they all are.
Also, pretty much every law review I am aware of is "compiled and edited completely by students." That does not make them great, it just makes them possible. They're basically just vehicles academics use to advance their careers by "getting published," courtesy of indentured servants working for a future pay off (a highly profitable line for their resumes).
And yes, I have that line on my resume. What did we run articles on during my law review days? I don't know, and I don't care. You just suck it up and work on them. No one pays the slightest bit of attention to what they are actually about. In law school, you don't have time to care, and I'm sure Obama didn't.
But lets not let these facts get in the way of talking about how Obama was such a great law review editor. He let two conservatives get articles past his desk. Nobless oblige!