Harvard Law School Article on Rand Paul:

[Andy_MIT]

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2010/06/01_mack.html

OK

 

[Matt Collins]

There ya go, the leftist bastion of liberal propaganda in this country is starting to trash Rand too.... uhh...err... oh... wait a minute! This has got to be a trick.

 

[BlackTerrel]

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

 

[t0rnado]

Thus, it is a mistake to assume that anyone who, for constitutional reasons, would have paused at the prospect of voting for Title II was simply an opponent of racial equality.

Didn't expect this from a Harvard professor.

 

[sailingaway]

Their political journal (student org) had two pieces, one in favor of Rand, one opposed.

 

[Andy_MIT]

Didn't expect this from a Harvard professor.

OK

 

[Inflation]

Jack "Who Cares" Conway

Their political journal (student org) had two pieces, one in favor of Rand, one opposed.

But, when are they going to have a very special Jack Conway issue?

 

[TheFlashlight.org]

Lawyers = parasites.

 

[silus]

Didn't expect this from a Harvard professor.

Thats only because you know nothing about Harvard professors. I get the same shit with people thinking they know how Californians are just based on it being a "democrat" state. People just accept the most minute indicators to help them predict how people are in places they know jack shit about.

 

[bew2005]

Lawyers = parasites.

I understand why you might have that belief considering how lawyers are portrayed by the media. Also, there are bad lawyers out there which can give the profession a bad name. However, many attorneys are good and honest people. Judging people based on their individual merit is usually more accurate than stereotypes and generalizations. Just my two cents.

 

[BenIsForRon]

But to make that statement as a candidate for the Senate at a time when those particular constitutional questions have long been settled—as most such questions are—in the court of public opinion, raises suspicions that he is speaking more about the present than the past.

I keep saying this, but no one listens to me. The media will ask questions about Rand's position OSHA, the minimum wage, health codes, and workplace discrimination laws. Rand needs to be ready to answer this stuff. He's had two weeks of warning so far, I hope he's paying attention.

 

[Thargok]

This is a guy who personally knows Obama, is fairly left leaning, but most of all seems to observe questions from all sides. It is absolutely a great article.

 

[low preference guy]

But to make that statement as a candidate for the Senate at a time when those particular constitutional questions have long been settled—as most such questions are—in the court of public opinion, raises suspicions that he is speaking more about the present than the past.

Why are you all taking it as a positive? Doesn't the phrase "raises suspicions" suggest that Rand is doing something inappropriate?