Recess Appointments -
Hypocrisy by Silence?

Back in 2006, the NYTimes had this to say about some recess appointments made by then President Bush:

"It is disturbing that President Bush has exhibited a grandiose vision of executive power that leaves little room for public debate, the concerns of the minority party or the supervisory powers of the courts. But it is just plain baffling to watch him take the same regal attitude toward a Congress in which his party holds solid majorities in both houses.

Seizing the opportunity presented by the Congressional holiday break, Mr. Bush announced 17 recess appointments -- a constitutional gimmick that allows a president to appoint someone when Congress is in recess to a job that normally requires Senate approval. The appointee serves until the next round of Congressional elections...."

Recently, President Obama made 15 recess appointments.

It may that the NYTimes will say, "well those recess appointments were for people who were unqualified but these recess appointments are for people who are qualified."

This would require, seemingly, a case by case study of each appointment which is somewhat tedious.

Thus it may be that the NYTimes will be silent on the issue of Obama's recess appointments. If they remain silent, I think I can't legitimately say they are being hypocritical - nicely gamed NYTimes.

NYTimes 2006 editorial here
NYTimes 2010 news report (from the AP) of Obama's recess appointments here.

Marjorie Dannenfelser is not a hypocrite. Just not a good guesser.

and Bart Stupak may not be a hypocrite either, if he believes what almost nobody else believes


A few days ago, Marjorie Dannenfelser had an op ed in the Washington Post praising Representative Bart Stupak on the abortion issue. Here is the beginning of the op ed

"The health-care debate has come down to a fight over abortion. And the face of that fight is Bart Stupak, a nine-term congressman from Michigan who supports the reform effort but has said he won't vote for a bill without a strong prohibition on federal funding for abortions -- even if it means no reform at all. "They know I won't fold," Stupak told me late Thursday. ..."

Ultimately, Representative Stupak voted to support a bill that would allow federal funds (or possibly more federal funds or possibly alternate federal funds - no one is absolutely sure what the ultimate affect will be) to be used for abortion. Subsequent to his vote, the organization headed by Marjorie Dannenfelser revoked the award. Here is the Foxnews report on this,

"...Susan B. Anthony List Candidate Fund President Marjorie Dannenfelser said the group was revoking its "Defender of Life" award to Stupak, which was to be awarded at its Wednesday night gala..."

Representative Stupak claims to be satisfied on the abortion issue by citing a promise by President Obama to issue an executive order (the EO is widely considered by both the pro abortion and the anti abortion sides as being meaningless as EOs can't overturn statute and, in any event, unlike statute, may be revoked easily and quickly). So Representative Stupak is not necessarily a hypocrite either if he has an honest view of the EO that is counter to the normalistic interpretation.


Washington Post Op Ed is here.

Article from Fox news about the revocation of the award is here

Leftist and pro choice Slate columnist admits the EO on abortion is meaningless is here

Pro life org states the EO on abortion is meaningless here

The Slaughter Solution -
Is it Hypocrisy?

Back in 2005, Representative Louise Slaughter (image on left) joined a lawsuit that challenged use of the 'self executing' solution (a vote that deems a bill passed without actually voting on the bill) for a bill that would raise the debt ceiling.

This month, Representative Slaughter has authored a solution to the Health Care legislative situation that used a 'self executing' solution.

Although I haven't seen anyone use the word 'hypocrisy', I certain would expect to see that if the issue were not so arcane.

Notwithstanding the fact that I can't find anyone specify charging Slaughter with hypocrisy, I will defend her against that charge.

Here is the defense: that 2005 lawsuit lost (the decision is complicated and does not actually make a judgment on the constitutionality of the 'self execution' but instead declines to get into legislative stuff).

Thus Slaughter is entitled to impute that she was factually wrong in 2005 and thus shifting her position is simply a realignment based on the facts.

I personally can't see any reason why the 'self execution' bill would be easier to pass than the health care measure that would be executed but, then again, that's not the subject of the blog.

UPDATE: Ultimately, the Slaughter solution was not used.


Information on the 2005 situation here
The decision on the lawsuit is here

Lawyers and Their Clients and the NY Times

Apparently a number of attorneys who are appointed officials in the Department of Justice represented, or assisted the representation of detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detainment Camp.

A group seeking to know who these attorneys are and what their current role in the Department of Justice led to an editorial in the NYTimes (March 2010) saying, in part,

".... these lawyers did nothing wrong. In fact, they upheld the highest standards of their profession and advanced the cause of democratic justice."

Interestingly, the NYTimes said this (in May 2009) about the Department of Justice officials who represented the President of the United States in their work which led to enhanced interrogation of a half dozen detainees,

"...They deliberately contorted the law to justify decisions that had already been made, making them complicit in those decisions. Their acts were a grotesque abrogation of duty and breach of faith: as government officials sworn to protect the Constitution; as lawyers bound to render competent and honest legal opinions; and as citizens who played a major role in events that disgraced this country...."

These editorials might lead me to accuse the NYTimes of hypocrisy. However, there are some differences between the two cases.

1. In the first (2010) case, the lawyers were presumably working for free. In the second case, they were being paid.

2. In the first case, the lawyers were working for people who were not citizens of the U.S. and who were suspected of carrying out war against the U.S., and furthermore doing so outside the 'laws of war' (that is they were hiding amongst civilians and not wearing uniforms). Their work was confined to representing the detainees in hearings examining the lawfulness of their detention, not in military trial since there have been no military trials (if the detainees had been tried in military court the military would have provided them with counsel for free although it might have been that the detainees would have wanted the same lawyers who represented them in detension hearings). In the second case, the lawyers were working for the U.S.

3. In the first case, the current position in the Department of Justice of some of the attorneys who represented detainees was unknown (that is, it was possible that a lawyer who represented a detainee was working in the area of detainee law and this would represent the same problem as if a lawyer who recently represented organized crime was working for the Dept of Justice in prosecuting organized crime).

It seems to me that almost any normal citizen would be more concerned about the 2010 case than the 2009, but the NYTimes evidently goes the other way. Since this blog is not about policy nor about ideology but simply about hypocrisy, I'll leave it at that.

The NYTimes editorial praising lawyers for representing detainees is here
The NYTimes editorial criticizing lawyers for representing the President is here.

Paul Krugman on Unemployment Insurance

Dr. Krugman (shown in the image accepting a Nobel prize in economics) has a column in the N Y Times.

On Mar 5 he said that Sen Kyl (R_AZ) was wrong for saying that extending unemployment benefits increases unemployment. Krugman also said that Democrats use a textbook theory that this is wrong.

Krugman, however, is an author of a textbook which supports Sen Kyl's argument (the coauthor is Krugman's wife).

Krugman has been on both sides of the social security issue. He has said it was a crises at sometimes and at others said it was a minor problem easily managed.

Hypocrisy? Actually this is more like being a servant of the ideology he identifies with (the Democrats).

Here is his "Sen Kyl's theory is wrong" opinion piece.

Here is the textbook supporting Sen Kyl's theory.

here is a column by Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post in which she lays out the various Krugman positions on the social security crisis.

Elijah the P.prophet (aka Eliyahu hanavi) Didn't Much Like Hypocrisy

The image is a painting called Elijah on Mt Carmel.

It turns out that just before this scene occured, Elijah said something to the general public.

It is in I Kings 18:21

The translation is uncertain (but the sense of it is obvious). Here are some translations (I'm starting in the middle of the verse),

(new international) "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him."

(KJames rev) "How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him."

(Y.young's literal) "Till when are ye leaping on the two branches? -- if J...vah [is] God, go after Him; and if Baal, go after him;"

(new Living Bible0 “How much longer will you waver, hobbling between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him! But if Baal is God, then follow him!”

It seems plain enough that Elijah would rather the people honestly worship Baal then worship both Baal and the God of Israel.

Given that worshiping the God of Israel would entail accepting the various verses condemning idolatry, other gods, etc., it seems to me that worshiping both would be hypocritical from the point of Judaism. I'm not sure if Baal allows multi god worship.