dick sanders is a dick? why am i just hearing this now?

Screw this geek stuff. "Devils Advocate" star Keanu Reeves is so fabulously dreamy. Wouldn't you like to suck on that cock?!

@2:
Ahhhhh yes! But can he act???

How could you folks previously endorse this man?

Strip away the content and just judge on the tone. This guy is a pretentious dick. (Which, considering his treatment of woman, seem to be no surprise.)

Then the content itself... "...Dr. King sowed that wind every time he disobeyed a law and said he was right in doing it." The fact the laws were unjust and immoral had no being? Apparently civil disobedience has no bearing to this judge! Nor freedom of speech.

This justice needs to be voted out of office!

@3 true, that is a popular question at times. Suffice to say, 1-he gets the job done, 2-takes on odd subjects, and 3-is rather successful doing what he does. I believe these are qualities that Stranger staff and its readers want so badly. Oh the (ambition of) humanity.

I could forgive this piece easily in a candidate I was considering supporting. It was written 42 years ago. The column is entitled "The Devil's Advocate" one would expect a heterodox position. That being said, bullshit published in one's youth (am I reading correctly that he was a student when he wrote that?) can be revelatory of the content of one's character. Anybody who doesn't acknowledge Martin as having been a Saint really just doesn't understand what he did for all of us, black, white, yellow, and mixed.

this might be a case of a guy being an idiot when he was young and is now not so stupid. i myself have many things i said/wrote in my youth that i now think were the product of youthful bone-headedness, not that i'm not a ranting lunatic now, but i feel i've tempered a bit. the only thing that would make me judge this guy in this case is if he still believed the nonsense he wrote or if he couldn't explain why his arguments were so obviously terrible.

@8: See my feature:

Justice Sanders still stands by much of that column today, though he says he wouldn't write it the same way now. In our interview, summarizing how he once felt about Dr. King, Justice Sanders said: "I was not a fan." He then added: "We all grow in understanding, hopefully, over the years... My attitude today is that I'm very, very supportive of civil rights and civil liberties, and I do what I can to advance them. I think when I was in college, I was less so." His general political philosophy, too, has changed, he said. "If you want to put this on a right–left spectrum, I think I was much more the political conservative in college, whereas I'm the libertarian today."

Still, there is a strong echo between his 2006 frustration with "special interests loudly advocating the latest political correctness" on behalf of gay families in the high court hearing room and his 1968 frustration with Dr. King and the civil rights protesters marching in the streets. "Prior to the passage of every civil rights bill for the last several years had been the spectre of the 'long, hot summer,'" the young Richard Sanders lamented in his column. "The bills were passed and violence erupted just the same." His point, in 1968 and in 2006, was that laws should not be changed under heated pressure or because of some new "political correctness," but only after wise deliberation. If that sounds callously remote to people who are marching and picketing and suffering under unjust laws, so be it. That's the way our system works. The law is the law, and it will not be steamrollered. It will be patiently interpreted and invalidated, if need be, in the quiet, private chambers of high courts—by people like Richard B. Sanders.

What's most shocking to me about this is that the Daily used to publish entire *paragraphs* and *thoughts*. That would never happen today!

While I completely disagree with this article, I wonder whether or not he truly believes this. Originally, after reading Eli's piece, I thought this guy is a complete douche bag (the girlfriend stuff is enough for me). However, the article is titled the Devil's Advocate. As a law student, I wonder whether or not this piece is an exercise of debating an opposite point of view for the sake of debate and taking the devil's advocate approach? Had it not been for the article's title, I wouldn't question the Sander's comments. However, now I'm not so sure these are his true feelings.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm for Cummings all the way.

@12: Cummings?