Trying to put a dress on a pig & fresh cat vomit
72. January 28th,2008 4:44 pm
How… disingenuous.
Judges are appointed with the intent of serving the political ends of the people appointing them. No more, no less. Trying to assign these complex motivations to judicial selection is like trying to put a dress on a pig.
Judicial politics are those things which have taken the commerce clause, which specifically lays out that the federal government has authority over what commerce transpires between the states, and turned it into legislation that magically pretends that said clause “means” that the fed has authority for *anything* that transpires intra-state. Black is white; up is down. Alice would be right at home, albeit just as confused as usual.
Judicial politics are those things that have taken the explicit constitutional prohibition against ex-post-facto law and instructed the judges to nod like bobble-headed idiots when retroactive offender registration came before them. Which they then proceeded to do. One is tempted to ask, quite seriously, “What part of “no ex post facto law shall be passed” did these fine legal scholars not understand?”, but of course that is superfluous; they knew precisely what they were doing. The pretense that adding horrifyingly dangerous, invasive and onerous requirements to a sentence after the fact is “not adding to punishment” caters to the politically correct fear of the day while serving as the most transparent of outright lies. Judicial politics are those things that, using no higher metric than sophism, claim that “interpreting” the constitution is legitimate, when the framers took the time and care to specify a way to change the constitution, that process called amendment; “interpretation” is specifically and *only* an end-run around the requirement and opportunity to amend. Philosophically speaking, “interpretation” has the approximate intellectual heritage of fresh cat vomit.
Please don’t try and tell us that supreme court judge appointments are anything but political exercises, with the intent and effect of installing political tools. The court’s actions tell the explicit, vicious truth - even while you dissemble with your fine words, they fail us all as they erode the honorable structure from which the federal government derived its only legitimate authority.
In the end, we have a government with immense and growing power, and almost no remaining authority at all. The congress makes any laws it wants to make, and the supreme court rubber stamps them, roundly ignoring (or completely re-imagining) the constitution more often than not.
High crimes, indeed.
— Posted by Ben Williams
Judges are appointed with the intent of serving the political ends of the people appointing them. No more, no less. Trying to assign these complex motivations to judicial selection is like trying to put a dress on a pig.
Judicial politics are those things which have taken the commerce clause, which specifically lays out that the federal government has authority over what commerce transpires between the states, and turned it into legislation that magically pretends that said clause “means” that the fed has authority for *anything* that transpires intra-state. Black is white; up is down. Alice would be right at home, albeit just as confused as usual.
Judicial politics are those things that have taken the explicit constitutional prohibition against ex-post-facto law and instructed the judges to nod like bobble-headed idiots when retroactive offender registration came before them. Which they then proceeded to do. One is tempted to ask, quite seriously, “What part of “no ex post facto law shall be passed” did these fine legal scholars not understand?”, but of course that is superfluous; they knew precisely what they were doing. The pretense that adding horrifyingly dangerous, invasive and onerous requirements to a sentence after the fact is “not adding to punishment” caters to the politically correct fear of the day while serving as the most transparent of outright lies. Judicial politics are those things that, using no higher metric than sophism, claim that “interpreting” the constitution is legitimate, when the framers took the time and care to specify a way to change the constitution, that process called amendment; “interpretation” is specifically and *only* an end-run around the requirement and opportunity to amend. Philosophically speaking, “interpretation” has the approximate intellectual heritage of fresh cat vomit.
Please don’t try and tell us that supreme court judge appointments are anything but political exercises, with the intent and effect of installing political tools. The court’s actions tell the explicit, vicious truth - even while you dissemble with your fine words, they fail us all as they erode the honorable structure from which the federal government derived its only legitimate authority.
In the end, we have a government with immense and growing power, and almost no remaining authority at all. The congress makes any laws it wants to make, and the supreme court rubber stamps them, roundly ignoring (or completely re-imagining) the constitution more often than not.
High crimes, indeed.
— Posted by Ben Williams
No comments:
Post a Comment