Neo-Confederate Judges? Who Knew?

Posted on | January 27, 2013 | 32 Comments

Why did Scott Lemieux reach for the “neo-Confederate” epithet (he clearly means it as such) to describe the three federal judges who ruled against President Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board? I’m old enough to remember when liberals claimed to oppose the “imperial presidency,” but I suppose that was because Nixon was president back then. Liberals are OK with imperial authority when that authority is wielded by Barack Milhous Obama.

Lemieux may have gotten “neo-Confederate” from the Random Epithet Generator software that is installed on the laptops of progressive bloggers, to help them express their Manichean worldview.

It is not true that liberals are moral relativists. In their worldview, that which helps Democrats is good; that which helps Republicans is evil.

Because the appeals court ruled against the Democratic president, the court is evil, and the question for the Random Epithet Generator to solve is, “What kind of evil is this?” Racist? Sexist? Homophobic? Greedy? Reactionary? Climate change denialist? These possibilities were crunched through the algorithmic progression of the Random Epithet Generator and rejected in favor of “neo-Confederate.”

Does the word actually mean anything in this context? Go read Lemieux’s rant: He doesn’t even try to justify the term. It is mere name-calling.

But who cares about credibility, when you’ve already been denounced by Glenn Greenwald as ”a cesspool of unprincipled partisan hackdom”?

Category: Constitution

Comments

32 Responses to “Neo-Confederate Judges? Who Knew?”

JeffS
January 27th, 2013 @ 10:51 am

Ah, there’s nothing like the smell of leftie heads ‘splodingin the morning!
rmnixondeceased
January 27th, 2013 @ 11:27 am

Did someone mention my name?
McGehee
January 27th, 2013 @ 11:36 am

Hey Dick, some anonymous commenter in my local paper claims (en route to bashing conservatives in 2013) to have voted for you in 1975. What were you running for in 1975?

I suspect his grasp of politics is every bit as good as his grasp of history.
Charles Johnson
January 27th, 2013 @ 11:37 am

It is almost like I was writing Lemieux’s copy!
Steve Skubinna
January 27th, 2013 @ 11:37 am

“,,,to help them express their Manichean worldview.”

Okay, and here’s another question: anyone remember when “Manichean” was one of the left’s favorite pejoratives against conservatives? It was especially well regarded during the War on Terror, circa 2001-2008 to describe Bush’s idiotic insistence that terrorists were evil.
jsn2
January 27th, 2013 @ 11:44 am

According to my epithet generator, defenders of those who accept illegal recess appointments are Stupid, allah-loving unintelligent hooker loving Meat-headed fried-chicken-licking douche brains.
rmnixondeceased
January 27th, 2013 @ 11:46 am

My last campaign (prior to my current one!) was in 1972. I resigned on August 9, 1974 as a result of the Watergate scandal.
Proof
January 27th, 2013 @ 11:54 am

When it comes to things “Neo”, liberals have taken the red pill, and keep trying to see how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
joethefatman
January 27th, 2013 @ 12:14 pm

Seems on par. I mean how is it different than Hill claiming she was under fire upon landing in Bosnia(?) or Biden claiming to hear the gunfire from the Amish school shooting whilst on the golf course. Give a lib a chance and they can think of several ways to say “Me Too”.
joethefatman
January 27th, 2013 @ 12:15 pm

Hiya Dick! How’s the campaign going?
Christy Waters
January 27th, 2013 @ 12:53 pm

I always wondered what “neocon” meant. I’m glad someone finally clarified it.That must be the new rebrand for the “racist” tag.
K-Bob
January 27th, 2013 @ 1:06 pm

Re, Prof Jacobson’s post:

What the hell is going on with all of these knotheads claiming we need to be less “negative” or “angry?”

Are these people unable to distinguish between grim determination, and the optimism we will succeed, and some idiot Occupy shouter who just wants to destroy things?

We can be as mad as we want without letting it run away with our senses. After all, the right is not the side that thinks using emotion and tone. We use logic, facts, reason, and an understanding of history, tactics, and the human psyche.

The left is always ginning up fear, hate, and anger.

Anyone on the right who only sees only anger and negativity is looking in the wrong place, with the wrong sense of perspective.
K-Bob
January 27th, 2013 @ 1:11 pm

It’s just an ‘n’ word people feel safe using.
McGehee
January 27th, 2013 @ 1:17 pm

That’s how I remembered it too. I love how people who can’t even get the dates right think they’re qualified to lecture on subtler points of intellectual endeavor.
Adjoran
January 27th, 2013 @ 1:31 pm

If you were named “Scott Lemieux” you would probably have rage issues, too. Sounds like a Canadian trannie hooker. NTTAWWT.
DaveO
January 27th, 2013 @ 2:01 pm

When judges uphold abortion, or ruled that Terry Schiavo must die of starvation and dehydration – with armed guards to prevent any act of humanity – I guess these are neo-Yankee judges.

Apparently Lemieux is not bothered at all by the declaration that the NLRB will not abide by the court’s decision.

The declaration to go Outlaw has nothing to do with the judges – and everything to do with the Outlaw intending to break the law.

So, for the lawyers in the group. If an Outlaw gives a decision in a matter of labor relations, is either party obligated to honor that decision?
Finrod Felagund
January 27th, 2013 @ 2:13 pm

Actually, I use that analogy the other way. Conservative Republicans took the red pill and see the truth about the world, whereas the liberals took the blue pill and are still living in a dream world.
WJJ Hoge
January 27th, 2013 @ 3:09 pm

If I remember my history correctly, much of federal labor law has its roots in racism. The Davis-Bacon Act, for example, was specifically adopted to keep non-union (read, black) workers from take jobs from union (read, white) workers. That’s the sort of thing I’d expect a Confederate judge would have upheld.
richard mcenroe
January 27th, 2013 @ 3:41 pm

I for one always welcome Glenn Greenwald’s informed moral judgements from the boy-buggering capital of the Western Hemisphere, Sao Paulo.
richard mcenroe
January 27th, 2013 @ 3:47 pm

A certain amount of confrontasi is both necessary and sadly missing in the conservative movement. It’s not enough to hold conferences, posh, rowdy or otherwise, or publish books no lefty or low-info voter will read (because they never hear about them), or even try to push “our” candidates through a party machine that does not want them.

Get out on a street corner. Write at least one comment on a network or newspaper blog for each one you write to Stacy or Ace or Twitter. Get in their faces. Be seen and be heard. MAKE them try to silence you, don’t just LET them ignore you.
richard mcenroe
January 27th, 2013 @ 3:49 pm

Do you think he got called LayMoo or LeemyUx in school? Something must have scarred them.
Bob Belvedere
January 27th, 2013 @ 5:06 pm

K-Bob is quite right. It’s another word the meaning of which the Left is trying to hijack. But this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to fight for it’s actual definition: a group within conservative thinking – often refugees from the Left – who believe that (1) big government is not pure evil and (2) it is one of the duties of the US to help create representative governments in other counties [not encourage, but actually intervene to help found].
Rick Bulow
January 27th, 2013 @ 5:09 pm

I subscribe to the Neal Boortz definition of a Neo-Con, as he posited in his book “Somebody’s Gotta Say It” from 2007. (p. 401 in the paperback)

“Neo-Con

Excuse me, but just what in the hell is a “neo-con”? I’m sure there’s a definition of that term out there somewhere, but it’s my experience that most of the people who bandy the “neo-con” line about can’t tell you what that definition is.

Basically, I believe that “neo-con” is simply intended to be a derogatory epithet used to define anyone-not-liberal.

I can say this: since the word “neo-con” came into our vocabulary I have not received one single on-air phone call, e-mail, or letter from anyone who had any ability to use that phrase in any manner that sounded even marginally intelligent.”

Damn I miss Boortz, but am glad Herman Cain is on the air!
rmnixondeceased
January 27th, 2013 @ 6:31 pm

Swimmingly! Want a membership card in the new Dead Republicans Party (DeRPP)?
Lions and Tigers and Neo-Confederate Judges? Oh my! « The Daley Gator
January 27th, 2013 @ 6:49 pm

[…] don’t they? Stacy McCain notes that one Scott Lemieux, no, I have never heard of him either has contracted a serious case of C.O.S. Why did Scott Lemieux reach for the “neo-Confederate” epithet (he clearly means it as such) […]
Quartermaster
January 27th, 2013 @ 6:59 pm

The left are the Manicheans and were when they started using the word. The word doesn’t mean what they think it means.
Quartermaster
January 27th, 2013 @ 7:05 pm

A Neocon is one of a species of mislabeled conservatives who are mostly refugees from the Dimocrat Party that were of the hawkish wing of the party that got run out during the 70s by the McGovern faction. It also includes the so called “big government conservatives” like Juan McAmnesty and Lindsey Graham. It’s looking like it includes Rubio now.

Neocons actually are liberals just trying to pass themselves off as conservatives.
McGehee
January 27th, 2013 @ 7:13 pm

And yet it was typical for proggs to label as neo-cons people who were never liberal. And for a while it enjoyed a brief term substituting for “Zionist” as the Left’s favorite dog-whistle word for da JOOOOOOOOOZ.
Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKs (Think outside of the box edition) | SENTRY JOURNAL
January 27th, 2013 @ 10:30 pm

[…] THE OTHER McCAIN: Neo-Confederate Judges? Who Knew? […]
Don’t Know Much About History | hogewash
January 27th, 2013 @ 11:23 pm

[…] 2013 by wjjhoge Stacy McCain offers a verbal spanking to Scott Lemieux for his use of the Liberal Random Epithet Generator. Mr. Lemieux does not approve of the Circuit Court ruling in the National Labor Relations Board […]
Bob Belvedere
January 28th, 2013 @ 11:29 am

It still is used by many on the Left to mean Jooz or ‘Jew-Lovers’.
Bob Belvedere
January 28th, 2013 @ 11:30 am

I guess I’m one, then.