. . .
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
e-commentary 