« January 2006 | Main | March 2006 »
February 23, 2006
It's Funny the Things that Leap Out at you.
I don't have the exact quote, but this is the paraphrase
(concerning the ports) Bush: I know members of Congress are concerned, but I want to assure them that the government looked into this...
The gist: Bush made it sound like "the government" DIDN'T INCLUDE CONGRESS. The port situation is something I'm not really sure about in total: I think there is some racism going on here, but I don't know if I trust Dubai either. They welcomed Michael Jackson with open arms. That has to cause some concern.
But what's more important is that Bush apparently doesn't think Congress is part of the government. That's more disturbing. In the past few months, Congress and the Judiciary has given the Executive more slap downs than in the prior five years. But in comparison to Reagan, Bush I and Clinton, the Congress has been a bunch of suck-ups.
Hopefully, even though I'm not sure on the ports (which are porous anyway), this heralds a return of Congress. But I'm also not holding my breath.
Meanwhile, Bush should pick up a constitution.
Posted by emily at 1:50 PM | Comments (0)
February 16, 2006
Goodnight, Sweet Prince
The Darko Gets Traded Drinking Song
Larry and you
Didn't get on so well
And Flip didn't play you
So they made a sell
CHORUS
Goodnight, Darko
So long,
Farewell
And Amen
We traded your ass.
So we could keep Big Ben
You seemed so angry
You seemed so sad
And your hustle
Was just plain bad
CHORUS
Sill, I will miss the chants
Of your name in the fourth
When Sir Wallace was tired
And we were winning by
a hundred and four
CHORUS
Posted by emily at 12:41 AM | Comments (0)
February 14, 2006
Lock and Load
Honestly, wasn't it only a matter of time until Dick Cheney shot someone?
Posted by emily at 7:53 AM | Comments (0)
February 7, 2006
Laugh-In Looks At The News...
NEWS ITEM!
Around the world, they are rioting. We in this country (or we, the newsmedia in this country) scratches its complex, perfectly coiffed head and shrugs it's Armani shoulders and says plainly: Well, they don't have free speech. They don't understand. Quell reactionaries!
Yet this country, and now I mean the actual people in this country, have become convinced over the last thirty years of Arab hatred of us by one repeated image. People in Tehran, in Palestine, in Damascus, in wherever, burning the American flag. We point at the television, aghast. They burn a piece of cloth! We must buy their oil like a crackwhore and prop up dictators so they don't have free speech.
At least the Prophet Mohammad was a man, not a flag. We hold symbols higher than principles, too, Franny. Witness many, many bills that would hand out jailtime for BURNING A PIECE OF CLOTH.
NEWS ITEM!
Funny to see Bush sitting there at Coretta Scott King's funeral. You know what she and her husband lived under for many years? Wiretaps.
NEWS ITEM!
Not only are we at Fat Charlie mourning the death of Coretta Scott King, but recall that Betty Friedan died recently as well. The sixties icons may be shuffling off the mortal coil, but let us not lose the greater message. Equality, peace, justice... not just advertising lingos or John Lennon songs.
Posted by emily at 4:38 PM | Comments (0)
February 1, 2006
Unenumerated Penumberas Eminating From A Bench
Con Law: If you have background, you start to become even more disturbed. This is what I am finding. It's all peach cobbler that we look up to the bench as some awesome force in our democracy. But the bench is troubling, and it's not just the new justice or the new chief justice I speak of.
I lose more respect for the jurisprudence of Rehnquist everyday and gain a grunging understanding of Scalia's consistancy. (save his total bullshit waivers on state's rights to suit his needs, RE: GLOCKSBURG and three weeks ago, OREGON V GONZALES.) That's not to say I agree with Scalia; HAMDI is the only case thus far. But footnote 6 of MICHAEL H is about the worst piece of baklava I've ever tasted. To say that all fundemental rights must be defined in specific terminology... is I, II, III, IV.... especially XIV amendments specific? Does it say "right to bare arms" or does it say "right to carry this M-16 with a permit?" You can't have your cake and eat it, too, Tony.
But to flail one's arms at the idea that voting practices need to be consistant (and one must prove intent and disperate impact) in all sorts of election cases and THEN go down the one-hit wonder path of BUSH V GORE (which can only be stare decisis for my ass.) RE: DAVIS V BANDEMER (White's opinion): "An equal protection violation may be found only where the electoral system substantially disadvantages certain voters in their opportunity to influence the political process effectively." How can Bush have claimed Equal Protection when the court ruled in this case that "relying on a single election to prove unconstitutional discrimination is unsatisfactory?" How are the voters disenfranchised by a recount? Since when do "vote counting standards" get strict scrutiny?
(Although O'Conner and Rehnquist concurred in the judgement of BANDEMER, they wrote a seperate opinion on justiciability, of which I quote: " to turn these matters over to the federal judiciary is to inject the courts into the most heated partisan issues.")
My prof likes to trash O'Conner's "undue burden" standards in CASEY (I don't know why people whine about ROE; CASEY is much more important in the modern world.) I'd like an "intent" standard; law intends to inhibit a woman's right to choose, it gets struck. If "intent" is the mantra of equal protection (disperate impact seems almost impossible to prove), then why can't intent be the mantra of abortion cases?
And why is Rehnquist defending KORMATSU (spelling wrong, I know)?
The Supreme Court: highest law of the land, inconsistant as the day is long.
Posted by emily at 12:59 PM | Comments (0)