Think It But Don't Say It
A couple of folks have found trouble lately speaking that which everyone knows. The dimwit Congressperson from Texas caused a brouhaha by apologizing to the BP executives for the governmental "shakedown". This is a no-no and it is amazing how some people just "didn't get the memo". Everyone knows Big Energy demands respect at every level of capitalist government but you are not supposed to blurt it out on national TV. Just like the Big Bad Bankers, these execs are in the "doghouse" and the public expects humility and shame. Law Makers are to chastise and shame them for a week or so. This is how it is played and Texas Dufus better learn the rules.
The next culprit guilty of speaking his mind is the careless General. Didn't he see Jimmy Carters lust piece in Rolling Stone? I thought these guys were the best and the brightest! P
Now we have the Genius General and perhaps Patreaus can buy off enough Taliban to get another Surge Victory but I'm still unclear on how that gets bin Laden out of his cave or prevents a terror attack from some other nether region of the globe. Mc Crystal can start working on the book and perhaps there is a Budweiser commercial in his future as well.
I see where the Supremes let Enrons Jeffrey Skilling off (or was he Savings and Loan?, I keep mixing up my crises) Turns out the Government used too wide a net to prosecute these white collar types, that they didn't actually MISREPRESENT the product they were selling. Like aluminium siding salesmen, they were perhaps a tad over zealous but hey! that's how you get the sale! Business is business and the government better not forget it.
posted by troutsky @ 8:19 PM
13 comments
13 Comments:
Only commies can say stupid and bigoted things and keep their job.
The General should have declared fealty to Trotsky and then he would
have been given a free pass for idiocy.
You can add today in the Kagan hearing, someone in the GOP attacked Thurgood Marshall as an activist judge, signaling opposing Brown vs Board of Education.
I missed that. Must have been Sessions or Kyl.
... and I wouldn't worry too much about the Skillings ruling, trout. They were probably correct saying it is unnecessarily broad.
He's still going to stay inside on a bunch of other charges.
I think Marshall had a long history of judicial activism that goes far beyond Brown v Board of Education, which was a unanimous decision. I don't think anyone opposed it then, or now.
Unanimous decisions are one thing Kagan should be familiar with. Her move to ban military recruitment at Harvard was rejected by an 8-0 vote, something that is almost unheard of with this Court especially.
I guess the idea that the military shouldn't be held accountable for a government law they had no choice but to abide by never occurred to her. Yet Obama wants this fruit loop on the court.
Might as well have a whole box of fruitloops. After all, we have BEAK!
Actually Beak. You say stupid and bigoted things all the time, and you still... oh wait, maybe you don't have a job!
I think these "hearings" are pure theater. "Activist judge"? Is that like an activist citizen only with real power? Thats a joke, activist judge is a totally meaningless phrase to consume the masses and for them to consume.
KKKulture Clown I am gainfully employed unlike you. You are a product of mediocrity withing the Old Bolsheviks Club in higher ed. As for your opinion on stupid comments this can be considered expertise as all of your comments are stupid. Your comments are so stupid that Al Queda fired you as their idiotic rant writer "John Wayne Obama" is a classic idiotic comment.
Only commies have license to be bigoted and stpid.
A judge is supposed to rule on whether a law is or is not constitutional, based on what is or is not expressly written in the constitution. They are not supposed to let their own personal beliefs and philosophies get in the way. If they do, and it can be shown they have a history of doing so consistently, then they are said to be activist judges, or "legislating from the bench". Given the right circumstances, they could be impeached.
The only legitimate recourse if one wishes to pass a law that is inherently unconstitutional is by amending the constitution, a mechanism for which is provided in the document itself.
Anything else is judicial activism, something that by its nature is contradictory. A judge simply follows the law as it is, they do not enact laws or approve them based on political preference or sentiment.
A judge is nothing but a schmuck with an opinion.
Cases come before the court because language in the Constitution is NOT clear, take that ridiculous train wreck called the 2nd amendment as an example.
So cases come up and there is an attempt to clarify them and a body of precedent is accumulated. Now there is so much precedent that the judiciary pretty much decides how it wants to rule and fudges an opinion. It's ALL a political exercise now and Scalia and Thomas are no less activist than (and actually much more so) than that scary lady Ruth Ginsberg who drives the right so crazy.
... now it's debatable whether Brown vs. Board of Education was activist but if it was then you have a serious situation where basic rights can be held hostage to the bigotry of a minority of states.
A clear defect in the "brilliance" of the Founding Bourgeois.
Michael Steele.
Post a Comment
<< Home