![]() |
Assault on the Judiciary
Here's DeLay's latest salvo in the neo/theocon war on judicial review:
Quote:
|
Per the constitution, we don't. No matter how ridiculous it sounds, it's not specifically enumerated.
|
The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Ninth Amendment</a> covers a lot of ground without much specific enumeration.
Even considering who he was talking to (the Moonie Times), I'm still shaking my head at this excerpt. (Most of the rest of the interview was wonkspeak.) If Democratic campaign wonks aren't busy hammering out ads _right now_ that say: <i>"...The Republicans don't think church and state SHOULD be separated. ...The Republicans don't think that two-hundred-year-old legal principles should still apply. ...The Republicans don't think YOU SHOULD HAVE a right to privacy. What do YOU think about that?"</i> then the lot of them should be fired. |
Just a clarification, when he's talking about "the right to privacy" in this context I'm certain he's talking about abortion. Roe v. Wade centered on a rather liberal (dictionary-definition, not political-definition) interpretation of what constituted an invasion of privacy, specifically that abortion could not be outlawed because it was an invasion of privacy. A woman's right to privacy = her right to have an abortion.
Honestly, I'm pro-choice. But I've read a lot on the subject and it was a biiiiiiig stretch to interpret the clauses they did in the way that they did. I still think they should have done it because it was the right thing to do, but it doesn't have a legitimate Constitutional basis. |
Quote:
|
From my (probably ill-informed) point of view, privacy is at the root of the concept of "presumed innocent until proven guilty". Think about it...we are all supposed to be law-abiding citizens who are doing nothing wrong until we are suspected, investigated and a probable cause is discovered, right? Well, in the name of national security, that whole presumption of innocence thing is being slowly turned on its head. You pretty much have to prove at every turn that you *aren't* doing anything wrong before you can actually *do* anything.
Give up the right to privacy, and you are under the thumb of your government, all in the name of security, or morality, or finance, or whatever. A controlled population makes it easy to keep things running smoothly, and the money flowing into the right people's pockets. I'm pretty disillusioned with the current administration by now. A greedier, more controlling bunch of powermongers I have never seen. |
Except for the last bunch of greedy, controlling, powermongers.
|
No, this group is worse on all fronts, with the possible exception of white house nookie.
|
One group wants my guns and my cigarettes, the other wants my soul and my money.
Decisions, decisions...how about we kick all of the useless SOBs out of government and elect some freaking unaffiliated moderates who actually care about the country and their electorate, and not their political donors and special-interest cronies? |
Short of a nuclear bombardment I don't see that happening.
|
ok, TS - you work on the nuclear solution and Els and I will start looking for suitable replacements for the asshat brigade.
|
|
Quote:
|
You could probably add John Bolton to the list. He's pretty damn scary. Check him out in his own inimimimimitable fashion here.
|
Bolton is just a halfwit. He has the political nouse of a grapefruit on a good day but he makes for a good laugh, delay is a slimy piece of shit.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:19 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.