The Roberts Court - Supreme Court Clerks, Like Justices, Lean Left or Right - NYTimes.com

 "“Law is a craft and profession that in many ways transcends philosophy.”"

WASHINGTON — Each year, 36 young lawyers obtain the most coveted credential in American law: a Supreme Court clerkship. Clerking for a justice is a glittering capstone on a résumé that almost always includes outstanding grades at a top law school, service on a law review and a prestigious clerkship with a federal appeals court judge. The Roberts Court - Supreme Court Clerks, Like Justices, Lean Left or Right - NYTimes.com:

The stark political divide among the clerks is recent.

 “The Supreme Court clerkship appeared to be a nonpartisan institution from the 1940s into the 1980s,” according to detailed data in the Vanderbilt study.

At the Supreme Court, Judge Calabresi continued, the ideological leanings of clerks may sometimes have an impact.

“To the extent that justices are really strong, it doesn’t matter,” he said. “To the extent that justices are uncertain or weak, it can make a difference.”

Like to take note of the fact the quote about justices being 'really strong' or 'uncertain or weak' does not translate into being 'right' or 'wrong'. 

However, it's much harder to appear strong when one is a liberal who  realizes life is more complicated than most people care to hear where they were wrong.

GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTIC, TEA PARTY MOVEMENT, & "GILLIGAN!"

Op-Ed Columnist - The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party - NYTimes.com: "The New Yorker article stirred up the right, too. Some of Mayer’s blogging detractors unwittingly upheld the premise of her article (titled “Covert Operations”) by conceding that they have been Koch grantees. None of them found any factual errors in her 10,000 words. Many of them tried to change the subject to George Soros, the billionaire backer of liberal causes. But Soros is a publicity hound who is transparent about where he shovels his money. And like many liberals — selflessly or foolishly, depending on your point of view — he supports causes that are unrelated to his business interests and that, if anything, raise his taxes."

Published this picture (stumbled upon while surfing the Internet) long before deciding to pair with this article which only made slight reference to the global warming debate.

Can't help but feel that "global warming skeptics" and members of

THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT are guilty of too easily allowing themselves to be lead astray, unknowingly or not, by anyone with an argument that helps deny a crisis of their making even exist or allows them less guilt while continuing habits considered responsible as predictions for inaction grows even more dire. 

Even though there is a consensus among scientist, human activity is the most likely catalyse for this global warming cycle,

just the wording alone gives anyone with purely selfish motives, consciously or not, an excuse to deny or believe sacrifice not needed; especially when one will not get to enjoy the returns on his sacrifice... personally!

 As the saying goes,"MONEY

IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL."

Even money one inherits from the investments of  profits made fair and square....legally!

Assuming,

no money needing to exchange hands,
if I had to decide between believing a scientist who thought man 90% most likely the cause of global warming and a businessman who thought no action needed, man falling 10% short of being proven responsible for global warming, I'm placing my bet on the scientist.




But then again.....what would be the point of me doing so if no one willing to bet

against me?

This isn't GILLIGAN'S ISLAND!