Archive for the Supreme Court Category

« Older Entries

Proposition H8 And The Enduring Appeal Of Fear And Hate (February 13, 2012)

Posted in Congress, Supreme Court, Gay Politics, Civil Rights/Civil Liberties, Miscegenation, Bailout/Bribe, Crime/Punishment, Less Government Regulation Series, Antitrust, Banks and Banking System, Courts, Abortion, Constitution, Judges on February 13, 2012 by e-ssay.org

. . .

K          “In the early 1960s, a constitutional law textbook included a lengthy chapter collecting pivotal decisions challenging Jim Crow laws.  A library in this state, a grammar school in that state, a swimming pool in this state, a drinking fountain in that state.  The campaign was undertaken one institution, one jurisdiction, one decision at a time.  There were successes; there were failures; there were more successes than failures.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA) changed the ground rules.  These outdated cases are of interest to historians today; they are moot asides for lawyers.  The whole chapter was expunged and a new chapter unfolded to detail the legal dispute du jour.”

J          “The unfolding chapter is reading like the old one.  America is gasping its way through the same spasms regarding gay marriages and gay rights.  The long-run outcome is clear, but the path is rocky.  Gay marriages and gay rights will be the norm and the law in thirty years.”

K          “Gay rights are the civil rights issue of this generation.  Instead of passing laws to protect civil rights such as the CRA, however, Congress passes unconstitutional screeds such as the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DoMA).  Perverse group, the gang that legislates congress.”

J          “In thirty years, the kids will dismiss the dispute as ‘weird’ or ‘bizarre’ or whatever the patois is at the time.  Until then, prejudice, hate and fear drives the fight.  The Ninth Circuit decision is another step in the long slog.  And now the outcome likely turns on Kennedy.  Someone observed that Kennedy observed that his gay clerks were . . . human.  He decided that they should be treated that way.”

K          “In Lawrence v. Texas.  Contrast the development of the law regarding gay rights with the development of the law involving abortion.  Last month marked thirty-nine years since the Supreme Court addressed abortion in Roe v. Wade.  Curious circumstances and decision.  The matter was decided not by the Warren Court but by the Burger Court.  Warren retired to go bass fishing or something in 1969.  The seven vote majority opinion was written by a Republican-appointed Justice (Blackmun) and was joined by three Nixon appointees (Burger, Powell, Blackmun), two Eisenhower (Stewart, Brennan), one FDR (Douglas), and one LBJ (Marshall) appointees.  Even with no Democratic-appointed justices at all, Roe would have become the law of the land solely on the votes of Republican-appointed justices.”

J          “Even with a clear precedent, challenges to abortion will still be caroming around the courts in thirty years.  Gay rights will be resolved.”

K          “We would all be better off if the government got out of the bedroom.”

. . .

[See the Ninth Circuit decision in Perry v. Brown at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf.]

[See the “e-ssay” titled Less Government Regulation Series: Love and Marriage (May 19, 2008).]

[See the “e-ssay” titled Fire Your Attorney General (November 7, 2011) and review http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/mortgage-settlement-as-attorney-general-sellout-deal-is-not-done-and-final-version-guaranteed-to-be-worse-than-advertised.html.  The bankers murdered the body politic (and economic) with malice aforethought and all we could offer them is an overdue book fine.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

“All that Proposition 8 accomplished was to take away from same-sex couples the right to be granted marriage licenses and thus legally to use the designation of ‘marriage,’ which symbolizes state legitimization and societal recognition of their committed relationships.  Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.  The Constitution simply does not allow for ‘laws of this sort.’”

Let freedom ring; let love rule

Good to have loved and lost; better to have loved and won

Happy Valentine’s Day

Leave A Comment »

Move To Amend: Occupy The Courts (January 23, 2012)

Posted in Citizens United Decision, Courts, Move To Amend, Occupy Movement, Supreme Court, Vietnam on January 23, 2012 by e-ssay.org

. . .

C1          “Friday was a formal ‘Conference Day’ for the Supremes.  I doubt they conferred and expressed doubts about their decision.”

C2          “Citizens United is uniting citizens.”

C1          “These rallies unite the old Vietnam War protest crowd and the kids who recently were able to drink legally.”

C2          “The gathering of the gray hairs and the long hairs.  I looked around and wondered what the kids of the Vietnam crowd were doing on an overcast day.  And what the parents of the protesting kids were doing.” 

C1          “Working, if they are lucky.  To be have a job and get time off is a rarity today.  You have to hand it to the Supreme Court Police who handled the situation judiciously.”

C2          “The right presence and not a riot presence.  Wearing their blue uniforms and regular hats and not sporting the black Darth Vader riot gear, riot shields and riot clubs was a calming influence.”

C1          “Another day at the office.  The ceremonial barrier ringing the stairs was well positioned to allow the public to assemble and the police to establish a reasonable buffer.”

C2          “That ‘three percent’ is always there and made up what . . . about three percent of the crowd?  The dozen kids who trashed some of the barriers and advanced up the stairs did not advance the cause.  I understand their outrage, yet replacing the broken barriers will require public resources that could be used to provide fencing around a playground.”

C1          “When the group knocked down the barrier and moved up the steps of the Court, the Supreme Court Police had to make a quick decision.  Allowing the group to advance up three steps was about as much real estate as they could reasonably yield.”     

C2          “The violence done inside the Court does not justify or excuse the destruction done outside.  There is something about the right to peaceably assemble.”

C1          “No mace, no beatings, no arrests.  Nice touch.”

C2          “However, there may come a time when it will be necessary for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country and to storm the ramparts.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssays” titled “Bill/Melinda and Warren, It Is Time To Get Into The Game (January 25, 2010)” and “Corporations United (Feb. 15, 2010).”]

[See “www.movetoamend.org.”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Do courts exist for the benefit of judges and corporations or for the benefit of the people?

When money speaks, the Truth is silent.

The system is not broken.  It is fixed.

Negroes are not citizens.  Dred Scott (1857) (mooted by the 14th Amendment); Corporations are persons.  Citizens United (2010) (mooted by the 28th Amendment?)

I won’t believe that a corporation is a person until Texas executes one.

Leave A Comment »

Breaking News: Supreme Court Elects To Decide 2012 Presidential Election (January 16, 2012)

Posted in Constitution, Courts, Elections, Health Care, O'Bama, Presidency, Supreme Court on January 16, 2012 by e-ssay.org

. . .

L1          “It really is so much easier.”

L2          “And they are so smart.  . . . .  Right.”

L1          “The outspoken opponents of judicial activism are awfully active judicially.”

L2          “And their actions and decisions are actively awful.”

L1          “In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that it has the authority to appoint the President.”

L2          “Nothing is inconceivable today.  Laugh at me if you will, but I still maintain that allowing the Supremes to select the President is an ill-advised practice and a terrible precedent.”

L1          “The Five Lobbyists – our friends Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito – announced that they will decide who wins the Presidency in 2012.  They will issue their decision in the context of the health care hullaballoo.”

L2          “Seems so.  When they review the constitutionality of ‘Romney – O’Bama Care,’ they may be confused by Romney’s ever changing positions.”

L1          “From what I hear, first Romney is in favor of Romney Care and then against Romney Care and then in favor and then against and then in favor and then against and then in favor.”

L2          “And then against.  I’m telling you, he is giving flip-flopping a bad name.”

L1          “What if the Five Lobbyists uphold ‘Romney – O’Bama Care’ and don’t taint the campaign?”   

L2          “You mean because ‘Romney – O’Bama Care’ is constitutional, albeit not the most sound public policy.”

L1          “That really should be a relevant consideration.  At least I think so.”

L2          “When do you think they will issue their decision?”

L1          “June.  Before heading off to the beach.”

L2          “They would need to hijack another case to select the President.”

L1          “They come back from the beach in October and could distort any old case lying around to declare the winner in November.”

L2          “I wouldn’t put it past them.”

. . .

[MLK – getting his words right is right and a nice birthday present.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Who says one vote does not matter?  5-4 was enough

The SCOTUS determining the POTUS is decidedly FUBAR

Leave A Comment »

Are Courts Irrelevant? Are Courts Illegitimate? (October 3, 2011)

Posted in Courts, Law, Movie Reference, Pensions, Supreme Court on October 3, 2011 by e-ssay.org

. . .

a          “The Supremes open the doors today.”

b          “Didn’t His Excellency Chief Justice John G. Roberts close the doors to the Supreme Court years ago.”

a          “He did.  They will let themselves in to resume their part-time jobs receiving full-time pay and lifetime tenure via a side door, the service entrance if you will.”

b          “That is the gig of a lifetime.”

a          “The Supremes have not only closed the doors to the Court, they are closing the doors on the American dream.”

. . .  

a          “Hard to dispute that courts exist to incarcerate the underclass and to insulate the ruling class from responsibility.  That isn’t all bad, I guess.  Seems to depend on whether you have class.”

b          “Courts exist to give the pretence of the peaceful resolution of disputes and thereby to keep the masses from rioting.”

. . .

a          “Rating the characteristic judicial attributes is a close call.  Some days it is arrogance, other days it is anger.  It is always a close competition – anger, arrogance, arrogance, anger.” 

b          “I have endured many a nasty temper but few a calm judicial temperament.  Nothing will ruin a morning like appearing before a judge who is mired in a sterile marriage and fulminating over a fertile daughter.  He can use the bench as a bully pulpit for his undigested anger.”

a          “Or she for hers.”

b          “Or she for hers.  Some of these cats are as angry as a fer-de-lance with a hangnail.”

. . .

a          “Some days the judges sport a sourcaustic attitude, other days a condescending tone.  It is always a close competition – sourcaustic, condescension, sourcaustic, condescension.”

b          “I have collected court decisions in a file over the last few years.  The ‘Festschrift of Fear and Anger’ is in galley proofs.” 

. . .

a          “We equip police with batons and judges with gavels.  Both are used to beat.  There must be something in the fabric of the black moo-moo that transforms a person on the bench.”

b          “With increasingly few exceptions, judges are little more than tedious technicians and boorish bureaucrats reaching tendentious decisions.”

a          “Respect is an admixture of admiration and fear.  I don’t admire our judges; I do fear them.”

b          “They are not serving a useful function, yet they consume tremendous resources and waste a tremendous opportunity.  I have increasingly less use for them, yet they are drawing a regular paycheck and will draw a pension and do everything while on the bench to protect their paycheck and pension.”

 . . .

a          “The wrong lawyers are securing judgeships.  The wrong persons are obtaining political office.  Any attempt to reform the legal system must rely on the same raw material.  There is not much there.”

b          “Nothing like what I thought in law school.”

a          “What’s happened?”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled “On Respect, Fear, Admiration and Irreverence (December 17, 2007)” and the "e-ssay” titled “Congress Should Increase Congressional and Judicial Pay; Shareholders Should Reduce CEO/CFO/COO Pay (March 5, 2007)” written at a time when the courts seemed to appear to offer the possibility of being part of the solution.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Judge = FePb

Laws are not etched in stone today, they are concocted with an Etch A Sketch (R)

“. . . And Justice For All” movie with Al Pacino (1979) 

Leave A Comment »

Carefully Courting “Romney – O’Bama Care” Through The Courts (August 15, 2011)

Posted in Banks and Banking System, Constitution, Crime/Punishment, Health Care, Kleptocracy, Law, O'Bama, Supreme Court on August 15, 2011 by e-ssay.org

. . .

Y          “I don’t really like it either.  But it is constitutional, isn’t it?”

X          “Yup.  No big deal, really.  The Constitution does not create a likeability test.  The Constitution establishes a constitutional test.  Governments have been requiring individuals to acquire automobile and other insurance and to undertake duties for decades without whining.  No one opts out of fire protection and thus we all pay for it.  If each of us is left to obtain private fire insurance, all of us must be compelled to obtain and pay for fire insurance.  At its core, health insurance policy clearly involves interstate commerce.”

Y          “It really is about personal liberty and property.  If you don’t have health coverage, I must pay for your health coverage because other laws not challenged as unconstitutional mandate that you receive health care.  Making me pay restrains my liberty and deprives me of my property.  And you know me, a proud taxpayer.  Why all the fuss?  And why all the rampant litigation?”

X          “Someone observed that we are dealing with judges trained in American law schools who want to play legislator without running for the legislature.  More judicial arrogance.  More judicial activism.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

- 11 + 6 = 5:  The Eleventh Circuit says NO*; the Sixth Circuit says YES; the Five Supremes will enact health care policy

A 207 page decision?  Not even 207 words are required.

What are all the state attorneys general doing pursuing the legal challenge to Romney-O’Bama Care while capitulating to the Big Banks and surrendering the major legal issues?

There is no law, there is only ideology

I hope laughter is the best medicine – it is all I can afford

Leave A Comment »

Walmart’s Classy Action (April 11, 2011)

Posted in Courts, Economics, Monopoly, Supreme Court on April 11, 2011 by e-ssay.org

. . .

E          “It keeps getting more surreal.  Walmart whined all the way to the Supreme Court recently that the proposed class of individuals joined in the discrimination law against it is too big.”

F          “So Walmart promotes judicial activism?”

E          “Or is it an admission by Walmart that Walmart is too big?  Walmart could divest itself of a few of its divisions.  Or enter into a ‘consent decree’ with the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and down size.”

F          “Is a ‘consent decree’ one of those legal things that allows an entity to maintain that it did not do anything wrong in the past and it agrees not to do it ever again in the future.”

E          “That’s the animal.  A female spokeswoman with Walmart stated that she never experienced any discrimination while working her way through the Walmart hierarchy.”

F          “But she is not a proposed member of the class?”

E          “Nope.”

F          “What’s the problem?  Seems fair that she is not part of the class.  Large companies with large numbers of employees may have large classes.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

Large is good?

Radiation is democratic and dismayingly indifferent

Leave A Comment »

In Sexy Opinion, Supreme Court Affirms First Amendment (March 7, 2011)

Posted in First Amendment, Journalism, Law, Newspapers, Supreme Court on March 7, 2011 by e-ssay.org

Torn from today’s headlines:

A          “Justices Rule For Anti-Gay Protestors at Funerals” also reported as “High Court Rules For Anti-Gay Protestors at Funerals”  The National Public Radio

B          “Justices Rule For Protestors At Military Funerals”  The New York Times

C          “Supreme Court Rules First Amendment Protects Church’s Right To Picket Funerals”  The Washington Post

D          “Supreme Court Sides With Churchgoers Who Picketed Military Funeral”  The Los Angeles Times

E          “Supreme Court Says Anti-Gay Protestors Have A Right To Demonstrate At Military Funerals”  The Chicago Tribune

F          “First Amendment Protects ‘Hurtful’ Speech, Court Says”  The Wall Street Journal

What is The most correct answer?  F

. . .

G          “Sexy headlines sell.”

H          “Didn’t the Supreme Court simply affirm the First Amendment?”

G          “Exactly.  However, if a sexy headline attracts more readers, go for it.  We need people to read.  And think.  And support the newspaper.”

H          “There are winners and there are losers which may be what the public really is interested in tracking.”

G          “Perhaps the decisions should be posted in the Sports section of the newspaper.”

H          “Judges often make result oriented decisions.  They decide who should win and then spin the facts and law to make the outcome appear to the reader to be a fait accompli and beyond reasonable dispute.”

G          “In this case, the Justices looked at the law.  They acknowledge the hate that motivates the speakers and the hateful message they deliver and reaffirm the fundamental right.  Every attempt to formulate an exception undermines the most important Amendment.”

H          “I read that Democratic and Republicans leaders of the Senate and a few dozen members of Congress filed a brief on behalf of the family.  They endured the vile and evil actions and statements of the protestors.  Can’t they just go away.”

G          “Law should be removed from the political process.  The Supreme Court redeemed itself again in this case and the case involving the Federal Communications Commission and AT&T.  The winds are blowing from a different direction.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssays” dated June 25, 2007 titled “The Supreme Court On Drugs” and dated January 25, 2010 titled "Bill/Melinda and Warren, It Is Time To Get Into The Game" discussing bad hair days at the Court.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

I get along with God just fine; it’s his fan clubs I can’t stand.

I’m a big fan of God; I’m not a big fan of his fanatics.

Leave A Comment »

Is A “Strategic Default” Of A Mortgage Now A Moral Imperative? (February 28, 2011)

Posted in Bailout/Bribe, Banks and Banking System, Courts, Crime/Punishment, Economics, Housing, Kleptocracy, Law, Society, Supreme Court, TARP on February 28, 2011 by e-ssay.org

. . .

S          “You have heard of them.  A ‘strategic default’ is a default by a person who could make the monthly payments on the mortgage yet elects to cease making the payments because the property is underwater financially.”

D          “There are a flood of them today.”

S          “A strategic default may be de rigueur today.  Look at the law.  Start with the indoctrination process in law school.  Young law students are taught the theory of ‘efficient breach’ which counsels one to breach a contract if breaching the contract is worth more than performing the contract.  That is defined as ‘efficiency.’  The students who answer obediently get on the law review, clerk for the Supreme Court and make millions representing banks, big businesses and insurance companies.”

D          “And assist in running them into the ground.”

S          “That’s the plan.  They don’t even understand ‘efficiency.’  In practice, the party breaching the contract is not spawning a more efficient use of global resources.  The breaching party simply does not want to pay or perform and usually has far more money and can overwhelm the non-breaching party in court.  The party not receiving payment or performance loses big and usually has little judicial relief.”

D          “With a few exceptions, the legal system seems to exist to protect and serve the interests of the wealthy and the well-connected. I’ll take my direction from no one other than the MBAs at the MBA (Mortgage Bankers Association) who recommend defaulting on your mortgage if it is not working for you.  The banksters decided not to pay the mortgage on the MBA office building in D.C. (Washington, D.C.), even though the group had the funds to pay.  The banksters strategically defaulted.”

S          “They are indeed an example for all.  When the government bribed and bailed out the banks and other institutions, some contended that the government could not breach the contracts providing for unwarranted and illegal bonuses.  How un-American.  The government should have disregarded every contract and required the banksters to bring suit.  How American.”

D          “Allowing the banksters to file suit would allow them to file in a sympathetic Republican Federal District Court and possibly steer the case to a receptive judge.”

S          “Always a risk in the legal game.  However, before the banksters brought suit, their legion of lawyers would remind them that they could confront defenses and counterclaims.  In court, the government could assert a dozen affirmative defenses and also counterclaim for fraud, deceit, perjury, conspiracy, embezzlement, racketeering, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, obstruction of justice, etc.  Some of the banksters would not file suit which is the least expensive and, yes, the most efficient way of reaching a just resolution.”

D          “Seems that the courts are stacked against the public.  Nonetheless, there is a small chance that an independent judge might hear some of the cases and hold that the bonuses are illegal.  An affirmative award against the banksters is improbable but not impossible.”

S          “Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats ever intended to bring criminal charges against the criminals.  We seem at times to be alone in a lawless world with millions of laws on the books.  We in America have moved from a democracy to a kleptocracy.”

D          “And no one to throw the book at them.  Except that the law and morality are clear.  Homeowners are morally obligated to default on the payment of their mortgages if the property is underwater financially.  The government is morally obligated to default on the payment of the bankster’s bonuses.  In today’s amoral America, a strategic default is both an economic necessity and a moral imperative.”

S          “Perhaps a provision should be added to Title 18 of the United States Code making it a crime not to strategically default if the property is underwater financially.  Not to strategically default is so un-American.  And inefficient.  We just can’t have that.”

D          “Strategically defaulting immanentizes the eschaton.”

S          “Indeed.”

. . .

Mortgage Bankers Association Defaults:  http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-7-2010/mortgage-bankers-association-strategic-default

Home Sales Data Is Overstated:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476604576158452087956150.html

“Three years after a horrific financial crisis caused by massive fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that’s wrong.”  Charles Ferguson upon receiving the Oscar along with Audrey Marrs for the Best Documentary for the movie “Inside Job.”

“Almost everyone counted publicly each and every single day of the event known as the ‘Iran hostage crisis,’ yet no one is counting publicly the days that have passed since September 15, 2008 without a single major criminal indictment of the banksters and their ilk who caused the financial crisis that continues to plague this country today.”

[See the “e-ssay” titled “1000 AUSAs (February 9, 2009).”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Do as I do not as I say

Mortgage Bankers Association: Strategically Default Today

Free $1000 an hour legal advice:  Strategically Default On Your Mortgage Today

Efficiency uber alles

Efficiency is Inefficient

If your property is underwater, should you plant seaweed in the front yard this spring?

Leave A Comment »

Boys and Girls: Providers and Producers (January 31, 2011)

Posted in Courts, Health Care, Law, Society, Supreme Court on January 31, 2011 by e-ssay.org

. . .

M1          “We don’t even know what drives us.  That may be just as well.  Sociobiology, whatever that is, drives us.  It seems simple.  Men seek producers; women seek providers.  Males are looking for good breeders.  Females are looking for good providers.  Some guys are fixated on hair or eye color because, in their subconscious eyes, hair or eye color signals a fecund woman.”

M2          “Even in this age of feminism or post-feminism or whatever age we are in, girls still first pass through the bad boy phase as part of their emancipation from the home.  The journey can be self-destructive or amusing, protracted or passing, but it is a phase.”

M1          “A friend said that they survived the ordeal painlessly yet still hold their breath in case there is a relapse.”

M2          “Based on first hand evidence, fourteen is a four letter word.”

M1          “So once free of the home bonds, they subconsciously hunt for someone who will protect if not provide for them in the new home.  An alliance makes financial sense because few today can hunt and gather enough to support a one wage earner cave.  Pairing off with a strong partner also protects her from threats emanating from the pack itself.”

M2          “They are also looking for sturdy producers.”

M1          “The timeless hunt for good breeding stock with a good stock portfolio.”

M2          “That’s about it.  But here’s the irony I witness in the court room.  When the matrimonial alliance goes asunder, as a general rule riddled with multiple exceptions, the concerns flip.  Men are preoccupied with money; women are preoccupied with the kids.  Men are concerned with what was provided; women are concerned with what was produced.”

M1          “I’m aware of one or two fights over money.”

M2          “Vicious, protracted and often irrational wars.  And often tussles over the kinder.  I know guys who have given up every other interest and pursuit and recalibrated every aspect of their lives to focus on the needs of their kids after the divorce.”

M1          “The 3 p.m. Sunday afternoon kid swap.  Yet the generalizations are the starting point of wisdom.”

. . .

Bumper stickers of the week:

Men seek producers, Women seek providers.  When things go asunder, Men pursue plunder, Women protect kinder.

Wouldn’t it be simpler to use audited financial statements and certified medical records?

This Birth Control Rig Is Paid For

If you don’t believe in evolution, can you embrace Social Darwinism?

A kid from Sacramento, California is America’s Health Care Czar – Associate Justice Anthony McLeod Kennedy

Leave A Comment »

Incite, Sarah, Indict? (January 10, 2011)

Posted in Courts, Crime/Punishment, Elections, First Amendment, Guns, Health Care, Law, Press/Media, Society, Supreme Court, Tea Party on January 10, 2011 by e-ssay.org

. . .

R          “You cannot get out of bed in the morning without violating some section of Title 18 of the United States Code, the federal criminal code.  In fact, and as a matter of law, you cannot stay in bed in the morning without violating some section of Title 18 of the United States Code.”

S          “So why not indict her?  She incited and directed others to kill and targeted the targets by first and last name and address.  She created a mindset and a market for death.  She legitimized killing.  The specific nature of the killer’s mind and his motives are still emerging.  Maybe he did not do it for her or for some specific political purpose.  Nonetheless, he took her specific message and tactics to heart.”

R          “Perhaps her twisted comments about death panels and the like confused a twisted and confused mind.  Others stridently proclaim they have not heard anything inflammatory, yet he heard the shrill dog whistle.”

S          “Her comments were one of the legal, moral and proximate causes of the death and maiming in Arizona.  Look, she took down the targets on her website recently which is an admission of guilt.”

R          “A subsequent remedial measure?”

S          “What about the bull’s eyes?  Listen to others who now opine that political discourse has taken a turn for the worse.  The political discourse has not changed course one degree in recent years.  The entreaties to kill have simply reached their predictable and inevitable outcome.  Why is everyone now so shocked and stupefied?  What happened was intended.  It was only a matter of time.”

R          “During the 2008 and 2010 elections, a few commentators noticed that she promoted and encouraged violence against specific candidates.  Her threats of violence against specific candidates were and are not protected by the First Amendment and were and are clear violations of provisions of Title 18 when they target federal officials or occur on federal property.”

S          “She is white and connected, so she will be given a pass.  U.S. Attorneys expend considerable tax dollars prosecuting some harmless jaywalker on federal property who has the misfortune to be non-white and unconnected.”

R          “The Supreme Court decreed that corporations are legal persons.  The nattering news network is a legal person.  Persons can be indicted.  Another option is to indict the network, the president, the board of directors and the pitch men and women on tv.  We need to return to personal responsibility as a governor of behavior.  Law plays a role.”

S          “White.  Extraordinarily well connected.  And capable of getting a U.S. Attorney fired.  Same story.  Same outcome.  Those in power get a pass.  Carte blanc, the White Card.”

R          “Her vitriolic rants against a sitting President may be her undoing.  Title 18 criminalizes threats against a sitting President.  The grand irony would be to watch on YouTube after one of her tirades as her Secret Service protective detail turns and cuffs her for direct threats against the President.”

S          “That might go viral.”

R          “America sports a billion laws and yet has become such a lawless nation.  In the absence of personal responsibility and without some rules and the rule of law, affairs can and will get worse.”

S          “So why not simply allow a dozen jurors to decide?”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled “In The Land Of Fury And The Home Of The Fearful (November 1, 2010).”]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Incite, Sarah, Indict

Incite, Sarah, Indict Sarah

There oughta be a law; no, there are laws but there oughta be some law enforcement.

What happens when you take an arrow out of the quiver, nock it with care, draw back purposefully, release while slowly exhaling and then look up to see that you have hit the bull’s eye?

I was walking across a bridge one day and saw a man standing on the edge and about to jump off.  So I ran over and said, “Stop! Don’t do it!”  “Why shouldn’t I?” he said.  I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”  He said, “Like what?”  I said, “Well, are you religious or atheist?”  He said, “Religious.”  I said, “Me too!  Are you Christian or Buddhist?”  He said, “Christian.”  I said, “Me too!  Are you Catholic or Protestant?”  He said, “Protestant.”  I said, “Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”  He said, “Baptist!”  I said, “Wow!  Me too!  Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”  He said, “Baptist Church of God!”  I said, “Me too!  Are you Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”  He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God!”  I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?”  He said, “Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!”  I said, “Die, heretic scum!” and pushed him over the edge.

Leave A Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.