Am I a hard-core Democrat? I have no idea, but I don't remember the last time I was of voting age and the Republicans offered a decent candidate for any office higher than county commissioner.
But someone who sends me an endless series of fabricated, fictitious and venomous "articles" proving that Barack Obama is the Devil's evil twin, just told me that's just what I am yesterday and even though I'm a Democrat only by default, I guess I'm flattered. You see, he's yet to send me anything that didn't prove to be a baseless and usually flimsy lie and that makes him mad. He's often told me I "always have an excuse" when I expose him as a gullible idiot and seditious liar as though the truth were an excuse -- and of course if debunking lies makes me a Liberal apologist, telling them must make him, by his definition, a Republican liar, if I might be excused the tautology.
The latest offense was a short video of the President, leaving the podium and kicking open a door under the rubric:
The tantrum!!
| Picture worth ten thousand words -
|
What tax hikes? I guess the media has covered that up too!
It's typical to include rhetoric about the "media" not wanting us to know something to cover up the fact that it never actually happened, but in this case, the video actually was taken from "network TV" because it appeared as a joke on Jay Leno. No, of course it wasn't in the news any more than the previous pictures of a huge arms cache "on the Arizona border" the media didn't want us to hear about, or didn't care about because it actually was found hundreds of miles away in Mexico and had nothing to do with Arizona. Think these good folks know that illegal immigration is way down or that this administration has deported in less than 4 years, more than the Republican liars did in 8? If it's Obama, it's got to be bad.
Then there was the one showing Obama with his feet on the desk and the hysterical denunciation that insisted this desecration of a desk by this "arrogant, immature, self-centered idiot" proved he thought of himself as a king and that "generations to come" would feel the effects of his having had his feet on the desk.
This being another tu quoque attempt at distracting from Bush's naked imperialism, constitutional infractions, financial malfeasance, war crimes and putting his feet on the desk, of course I countered, like a hard core Democrat with this:
Of course one can find many pictures of many presidents with many feet on desks on the Internet. I'll leave that search to you, but I never expect evidence of fraud or the irony attached to it to have any effect on the lower orders of humanity. Inconvenient proof will only generate further rage, further scurrilous attacks and won't begin to stem the flow of fake picture after fake story after malicious and fictitious malediction.
So am I a hard core Democrat? Not really and I do perceive that Democrats have their own shibboleths and conceits and that they aren't always as scrupulous at fact checking as they might be, but I'm comparing apples to road apples here. There is no excuse for the bottomless cornucopia of scurrilous stories, fake videos and doctored photographs that have infested the Internet for the ignorant armies of the angry Right to use as a weapon.
Take the series of fake pictures designed to "prove" that Trayvon Martin was a dangerous thug now filling up the blogs and mailboxes. No, nothing is too racist or too false or too pathetic for the cause to ignore it nor do any of the GOP employees who work overtime creating it really have to worry about their constituents finally catching on to the long con. The left behind, the outmoded, the surplus population of maladapted Republican miscreants simply aren't capable of the level of honesty, the level of cognitive function needed to question anything so delightfully, so soothingly, so self-importantly hateful.
We "Marxist sociopaths" occasionally turn a molehill into Mount Everest, but many Right-wingety folk simply fabricate; they lie consistently, and apparently without conscience or remorse in most cases. Two differences: occasional exaggeration versus persistent and outright invention; some measure of conscience versus utter shamelessness. Just my lizard two-cents' worth.
ReplyDeleteThe amount of factless statements, outright lies and viscious attacks seems to come from a bottomless pit of hate and prejudice. I have been 'defriended' on facebook, dropped from email lists, etc - shunned for having the poor taste to point out the error of the errouneous information along with documentation. My criminal mind...
ReplyDeleteAnd thanks Rockync for sticking by me through most of that!
DeleteTom, you and I have always had a cordial association and civil discussions. I hope you will continue to blog what you want as is your right. This internet is a powerful tool for our use and unfortunately also for abuse. We must simply determine how best to deal with that and be a positive and productive as we can.
DeleteTom, you and I have always had a cordial relationship and civil discussions. I hope you will continue to blog what you want to. The internet is a powerful tool for all to use and unfortunately also to be abused. We must all decide how to deal with that in the most productive and positive way we can.
DeleteJust wondering? Why was my first comment not published?
DeleteIn my opinion, the people who post annoying crap are merely trolls who are not worth the time. Today, for instance, I posted this at Shaw’s blog, TROLL PATROL COMMENT #3,694,256, which states in part:
ReplyDelete“Those of you who have ever visited extremist right-wing blogs are familiar with these phrases: Annoy a liberal! Make their heads EXPLODE!
This is their stated goal. They don’t even believe half their own crap. Their only goal is to stalk you and taunt you, to get under your skin and make your head explode! And those of you who hang onto every word and pay attention to this drivel are allowing yourselves to be played as suckers and fools. You bring this upon yourself when you engage them in conversation.”
There are many types of mendacities, some annoying but innocuous, and some designed to incite or inflict harm. This is the distinction I make when choosing my battles. Like this for example:
Planned Parenthood Bombed In Wisconsin.
In this instance, this is an incident WORTH GETTING ANGRY AND FIGHTING FOR, and I put the blame squarely on the GOP in their war against women, against Planned Parenthood, against contraception and reproductive healthcare, and against their opposition to the Violence Against Women Act. Recently, as I said to a right-winger during a face-to-face confrontation: “If you refuse to respect the rights of women, then maybe you should learn how to stick your dick in your mouth and suck on it!” Yes, I was boiling angry at the time and was ready to flatten him if he pursued this conversation any further.
My point: It is time to choose our battles carefully and hold their feet to the fire … NOT MINCING ANY WORDS. As I said in an earlier post: “If war is what you want, then war is what you'll get. And be damn careful what you wish for!”
Good comment to a most amusing post.
DeleteI remember that video. It had nothing to do with a tantrum, it was actually President Obama being a badass after OBL was killed. It makes me laugh to think about it.
ReplyDeleteI have made some headway. My brother is planning to vote for Obama in November. Another right wing (wealthy) friend is too because of the Republican War on Women and Homosexuals. He is fiscally conservative, but has just realized that he is socially liberal. We will take them all!
LLL,
ReplyDeleteBravo and please extend my thanks to your brother and your friend. For me, this Republican war against women is a watershed moment, and the time has come for ALL MEN to stand up for the rights of women in their lives ... wives, mothers, girlfriends, sisters, cousins, friends and neighbors. This Republican war against women is the most disgusting and despicable display of cheap-shit political demagoguery in memory. I am so angry about this shit, it won't take much more for me to go underground and strike back at them.
LLL and Octo and all,
ReplyDeleteI think the GOP has blown it big time when it comes to female voters of any species. I don't think Mr. Romney actually wants to do any of the primitive nonsense he seems so willing to parrot approval of to gratify his base of Taliban-style morons, but that little distinction is apparently lost on the almost unbelievable number of women who have pretty clearly decided they don't want anything to do with Romney or the horse he rode in on. Just look at the latest polls -- the gender gap is as wide as the Grand Canyon. I'm sure the race will tighten somewhat as the election nears because it always does, but I've no doubt that a good percentage of women of any political persuasion aren't going to come down with collective amnesia about what these phallus-worshiping chuckleheads have gone on record as wanting to do to women's autonomy and physical integrity.
Actually, limited number of president's feet on "the desk" - but the other two available are Republican, so the point becomes a little moot.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I like to spend a little time every so often trolling right-wing sites. I have something of a history of being a dick to right-wing idiots, because it isn't difficult, and I kind of enjoy it. (I've discovered that I'm a searchable term on the Google - just put it in quotes. The "benefit" of using the same name for long enough...)
Your examples bring to mind my occasional forays into the dismal swamp of made-up slime, poisonous bile and BS bilge at Free Republic. The picture of those folks that comes to mind whenever I visit there is that be-addled old hag who, four years ago, tried to insist to John McCain that Obama is a Muslim mole who hates America.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, and to mark the GOP's rapid downward and backward trajectory, in '08 an obviously annoyed McCain walked away from the woman insisting that while he disagreed with Obama about many things, Obama was an intelligent, decent senator, a good family man and loves his country. Now, Santorum and Gingrich just let the loons rant without commenting, at least if reporters and cameras are present.
Step by step, they are moving themselves farther and farther into a position they won't be able to back out of without inciting violence like some Volkisch party in Germany in 1923.
DeleteI have many views that run counter to the Presidents. This aside I have viewed him as an American who whether right or wrong on policy issues (IMO) he nonetheless loves his country.
ReplyDeleteAfter his recent comments with respect to the SCOTUS I have real concern about his views and understanding of what the Court's purpose is.
Perhaps his remarks were merely a gaffe. Even given this possibility they give cause for pause.
RN: “I have real concern about his views [President Obama] and understanding of what the Court's purpose is.”
ReplyDeleteAnd I have real concerns about your comment. How quickly you have forgotten other presidents, namely the Bush clan, who criticized liberal justices for their so-called JUDICIAL ACTIVISM. If the tone of my reply seems angry, it is because I AM ANGRY! DAMN ANGRY over this constant double-fucking standard that always comes from your side. IOW, it is OK when Bush I and BUSH II do it but it is never OK when Obama points out examples CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL ACTIVISM. I’m done with this pettiness and hypocrisy!
And I angry over the latest SCOTUS ruling that allows police officials to STRIP SEARCH people arrested for any offense, no matter how minor, even if officials have no reason.
This case was about a man who paid a traffic fine that was never recorded by his Division of Motor Vehicles. Since the DMV botched their record keeping, an arrest warrant was issued for the man who was subsequently taken into custody and strip-searched MULTIPLE TIMES! IOW, the man did NOTHING WRONG!
RN, you tell me how this case squares with the letter and intent of the U.S. Constitution that states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
It means every citizen of the USA has been stripped of their privacy and human dignity. It means any rogue police officer now has the power to bugger you, your wife and your kids with latex fingers … with impunity!
RN, do you fully fathom the meaning of the Citizens United decision which has LEGALIZED GRAFT in this country? Wanna know what I think of your goddamn conservative court? This:
INCOMPETENT!
PARTISAN!
SMUG!
CORPORATIST!
NEO-FASCIST!
To my fellow Swash Zoners:
I no longer feel up to the task of engaging in civil conservation. I hate the GOP, their ugliness and callous disregard of human decency. Maybe you need to find yourselves another Octopus.
Yes I agree that there is hypocrisy with respect to judicial activism. From both political entities.
DeleteI also recognize GWB and his administration made mistakes and was far from ideal. As you know I have come to a.different position on Citizens United.
However, Obama is now the President and his recent remarks are both disturbing and yes they make me angry.
Which is not unreasonable. Holding the President's feet to the fire on his remarks is not wrong. It is called open and free honest debate.
Since you did not state above what your concerns about President Obama's views of the role of the Supreme Court may be, I can't really comment except to say that the views he expressed are well within the mainstream of American legal thought.
DeleteIt is unfortunate that American politics have veered so far right that even Richard Nixon would be considered a far-left lunatic today, but there is even a solid legal argument, founded on the clear text of our federal Constitution, that "Marbury v. Madison" was wrongly decided. Obama hasn't gone that far, but the Rehnquist/Roberts Court is by any measure the most radical since George Marshall. Even Taney had the excuse that the slavery question couldn't be dodged forever.
Today, due to a decision of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, I just lost a big chunk of rights I used to have. This country is no longer free and no longer a democracy. I hate the Republican Party for what it has done to this country.
ReplyDeleteAnd today I am resigning from this blog.
RN, are you not aware that other presidents have vigorously expressed disapproval over SCOTUS rulings? Reagan:
ReplyDelete"Ronald Reagan ... campaigning in Birmingham, Ala., Thursday, blasted the court’s most recent abortion ruling as “an abuse of power as bad as the transgression of Watergate and the bribery on Capitol Hill.” ...
And this:
"[Imagine] if Eric Holder ever delivered a speech like the one described in this article from the first year of Reagan’s presidency:
Attorney General William French Smith accused the federal courts of “constitutionally dubious and unwise intrusions upon the legislative domain,” and vowed to oppose such “subjective judicial policymaking.”
He outlined the [Reagan] administration’s plan for urging greater judicial restraint in areas including abortion rights, desegregation, the constitutional rights of aliens and prisoners, and environmental protection….
Smith said the department was working “to identify those key areas in which the courts might be convinced to desist from actual policymaking,” so that “errors of the past might be corrected” and “past trends might at least be halted.” ...
Where is the outcry and outrage from the right over the Supreme's judicial overreach on the ruling (O)CT(O) cites, and what will be the outcry over the SCOTUS when they overturn ACA and judicial acitivism? Or is it okay when conservative justices do it?
This court is renegade IMO. One only has to look at the disgraceful behaviors of Scalia, Alito, and Thomas to see what is in front of our noses.
They are egregiously partisan. How do we have any faith in a politicized Supreme Court? I have none.
And I ask the same question with respect to liberal judicial activism. In either case we should be concerned. Even outraged.
Delete"...and what will be the outcry over the SCOTUS when they overturn ACA and judicial acitivism? Or is it okay when conservative justices do it?"
ReplyDeleteNever type while agitated.
CORRECTION:
"...and what will be the outcry over the SCOTUS decision when they overturn ACA--judicial acitivism? Or is it okay when conservative justices do it?"
I suppose it depends on what your opinion is with respect to the constitutionality of ACA.
DeleteMy opinion for whatever it's worth... ACA is likely going to stand. Whether you or I, or anyone else agrees is immaterial really.
As much as I feel the individual mandate is unethical I will respect a court decision I personally disagree with.
Can you say the same?
Octo, I don't know why you would resign from the blog -- SWASH hasn't sided with the SCOTUS, no? Just my lizard view.
ReplyDeleteAs for the principal of judicial review, I think that's somewhat complicated. The Constitution, if I understand correctly, doesn't EXPLICITLY authorize the SCOTUS to void legislative acts if it thinks them unconstitutional, but it seems that the general view of the court's prerogatives has moved in that direction. There's an up side and a down side to judicial review: on the one hand, if it's practiced against some tyrannical overreach on the part of, say, a theocratic-tending administration, it might well protect the people and preserve republican principle. On the other hand, if the SCOTUS comes to consider itself a group of monarchs who can decide things by dint of their own political biases, they could become every bit as tyrannical as any government here is likely to be. I find it chillingly clear that the majority have moved in that direction, and I take it as a sign of the geriatric condition of the republic -- the Court is one of our political organs whose integrity and ability to function has been systematically degraded in recent years, and the prognosis isn't cheerful.
The strip-search decision seems to me an instance where the Court has decided horribly, as if they just can't help themselves when asked to decide a case that pits the average Jane or Joe against "the authorities." Damn it all, this Court almost invariably sides with said authorities: even if you've been arrested for some petty alleged offense, we're going to treat you like a suicide bomber or serial killer. We have to -- after all, you MIGHT be a very bad person, so we're not taking any chances. It's sort of like what some have called the Cheney Doctrine -- roughly, "if there's a one-percent chance they're up to no good, bomb them, waterboard 'em, just do whatever feels right; don't worry about the legal or constitutional niceties." Is there anyone with a functioning brain who can't see why this latest decision is a cowardly and despicable affront to democracy and human dignity? Evidently, five members of the Court cannot, and the worst of it is that the decision was entirely predictable.
With regard to the president's remarks, I wasn't upset with them, but I must admit to some surprise -- it's as if he's warning the court not to strike down his legislation lest they cause the country a hassle and overreach their true authority. That seems to me a bad idea: you CAN'T bully the SCOTUS. They will do what they please, right or wrong, and if you buy the "judicial review" principle, it's their job to decide whether or not a law has gone too far, no matter what the consequences may be. Some of them no doubt see themselves as free to function as judicial formalists or absolutists here, and telling them they can't will only rile them. I also thought the president's direct calling-out of the Court in one of his SOTU addresses was a mistake: chastising and warning a privileged body of people who are not in the least accountable to you can only bring bad results.
Liberty -vs- Tyranny --- Tyranny can be found in many flavors, shapes, and sizes. What is liberty to one may be tyranny to another. And vice versa.
DeleteMy point? This is precisely why debate and disagreement, as long as it remains respectful is highly desirous. It is after all the beginnings of our republic.
For whatever it is worth Octo your voice is needed.
OCTO! Surely you are not considering abandoning us like wayward orphans to be washed out with the next big wave?!?
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court, highest court in the land and the final protection of our constitution and all the rights guaranteed therein has proven itself to be nothing but a sham, a front for rabid conservatism supported by shadowy superpacs to gain control and manipulate the course of what was once a free country.
ReplyDeleteI knew the SCOTUS was severely compromised when they made that disaterous ruling to allow corporations citizenship/personhood status. What nonsense! What gall!
This latest betrayal I did not think would be possible. I thought surely something so fundamentally unconstitutional would never pass SCOTUS approval. Even the most conservative of these people who want our respect and to be seen as the carriers of justice surely would not try to push this pile of dog shit through - and yet, they did it.
This country can no longer count on the checks and balances put into place so long ago. Corruption is now absolute and only a bloody revolution can turn the tide.
I have issues with SCOTUS. There are many decisions with which I fundamentally disagree with their interpretation of the Constitution. However, I do think that there is some fundamental misunderstanding expressed about the nature and scope of SCOTUS decisions.
ReplyDeleteTake for example the Citizens United decision. It wasn't about declaring corporations to be persons, the Constitutional issue was first amendment rights. The Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting political expenditures by corporations and unions. However, the Court did not change the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office. The decision declared section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (known as BCRA or McCain–Feingold Act) to be in violation of the 1st amendment. Section 203 prohibited corporations and unions from using their general treasury to fund "electioneering communications" (broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. The Court declared that the 1st amendment applied to groups such as corporations and unions It didn't change the law as to direct campaign contributions but as to spending for electioneering communications--ads.
I'm not arguing that this was a good thing, merely that the results aren't as dire as proclaimed. If Congress doesn't agree, it has the authority to pass a law that would pass constitutional muster. Perhaps a general prohibition against electioneering communications within the specified time frame by any person or group of persons.
In the strictest application of the constitution, I can see how the court got to its decision. Of course they could have decided it differently--four members reached a different conclusion.
By the way, SCOTUS doesn't make law, only interprets it. SCOTUS can't bully the presidency either. The decision on the constitutionality of the mandate in the ACA has not been made and its premature to draw any conclusions based on the nature of the oral arguments and the questions posed by the Court. The media has stirred up a hornet's nest in its efforts to predict the outcome.
As for the president's remarks that a contrary decision from SCOTUS would be an "unprecedented, extraordinary step," I'm pretty certain that he was referencing the 80 years of jurisprudence that have supported the reach of the federal government to regulate deferred to Congress when it comes to Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause to pass legislation to regulate matters of national economic importance such as health care.
Cheer up, the end of the world as we know it has been highly exaggerated.
Well stated, certainly better than my remarks were. Guess it is best to hold ones tongue, and pen when overly agitated.
DeleteAnd just for the record, judicial activism bothers me irrespective from whence ideology it feeds from.
Something about impartiality. Personally I think ACA, as much as I do not believe the individual mandate constitutional, and the law badly flawed will likely be upheld.
As for the strip search decision, it may help to read the decsion or at the very least the syllabus for the decision. It really is based on interpretations of law not just whimsical notions or political reasons
ReplyDeleteFlorence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders
Sheria,
ReplyDeletefrom the material quoted: "the search procedures at the county jails struck a reasonable balance between inmate privacy and the needs of the institutions"
Hmmmm... I can't say that I buy that statement in the summary. Where's the "balance" in any of this? I mean, balanced and reasonable as opposed to, say, beating all arrestees with hard rubber hoses just for the hell of it? I think the Court's trust in the authorities' "expertise" is dreadfully misplaced, and that such rulings naively give said authorities carte blanche to abandon common decency do whatever they like and call it necessary procedure. I suppose I just don't trust the language of expertise and bureaucratic procedure when it comes to potentially despotic and sadistic power exercised by institutions over everyone who might someday come within their reach.
Violations are open to judicial review are they not? T
ReplyDeleteDino, I respect your perspective.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I will offer this slant. The question that arises from the facts in this case is how should jails and prisons determine who gets a full search and who gets a modified search or no search at all? At the time that the processing of a suspected criminal is done, no one knows if the person is not guilty or guilty. All the jails have to go on is that the person has been arrested as a suspect. Their goal is to make certain that no contraband or weapons are brought into the facility So they search everyone.
Arguably there would be discrimination involved if some people, who didn't seem a threat were exempt from a full body search. What the cases don't include is the number of people who attempt to smuggle drugs, weapons, and other contraband into jails.
It's certainly humiliating but that the particular individual in this case was not guilty of a crime wasn't known and therefore was not relevant at the time of the search done prior to placing him in a jail cell.
The Court's conclusion was that the strip search was no more than what is done to any person in the same circumstances. Getting arrested is not a pleasant experience and the reasonable balance is essentially the best that can be done under unpleasant circumstances for the prisoner and the need to insure safety on the part of the institution.
Imagine the liability if it were standard not to conduct a thorough search and someone entered with a weapon which was later used to dispatch another prisoner or a guard. The court didn't make new law. I didn't rule that strip searches were appropriate just because someone was in custody. The court determined that the use of strip search is for safety purposes and as such is a legitimate tool for use by the institution. Is there an alternative to the comprehensive search of the person that would reach the same level of effectiveness? So far, no one has proposed anything. It's difficult for most of us to imagine, but hiding all sorts of items in body cavities is no uncommon for some of the folks entering lock up and there is no way to determine simply by viewing or asking which persons are trying to smuggle in potentially dangerous items.
This case was not about all prison practices, it specifically addressed the question of the constitutionality of strip searches of arrestees entering the prison/ jail system under all circumstances. The court found the use of such searches to be a "...reasonable balance between inmate privacy and the needs of the institutions."
You're very persuasive Sheria and I'm sad that I have to agree with you, but in a country that has more if it's citizens in jail than just about anywhere, and in a country that keeps demonstrating the tendency of police departments to stretch the law or ignore the law, I have to lament that this new opportunity for intimidation will be another weapon in the arsenal to be used against the public. Can we make a fair prediction on the numbers of people humiliated based on ethnicity? We both know that people are routinely stopped for being black or Hispanic and I know full well that some police departments are on a mission to keep minorities out of town. We've just made it easier, and we've just made it harder for grandma to shop downtown because she might be accused falsely of shoplifting or loitering and be passed from guard to rubber gloved guard. Whether she be exonerated or not, she's already been punished and intimidated and forced to shop elsewhere to the delight of racists everywhere. Add this to "show me your papers" laws and you've found your way around all the protections we've accomplished in a century. Do that to my wife or daughter? I hesitate to describe the consequences.
ReplyDeleteI think you're right that they're not writing law or being arbitrary here, but my long standing line is that the needs of the security industry should be at least secondary to the need of the people to be free from abusive searches and seizures. There are too many reasons already being used to scan, track, wiretap and eavesdrop on us and we need to define "probable cause" a little more precisely and emphatically.
Sheria, I'll say it again and again; I am always so thankful we have a "legal eagle" in our midst. You are the voice of reasonable perspective for sure but like the Capt. I fear the kind of law stretching abuses tied to these SCOTUS rulings.
ReplyDeleteWhile corporations may still not be able to make direct contributions does that really matter when they can steer the direction of politics with multimillon dollar superpac ads?
And while I know on a first hand basis the necessity of strip searches in the jails, how long will it be before being stopped for a traffic violation will become probable cause for a strip search? We have seen abuses of law before and it feels like the SCOTUS is flinging the door wide open on some of these issues.
Thanks, Rocky. I love discussing the law!
ReplyDeleteRest assured that I share the concerns expressed by you, the Captain and others. In my legal opinion this decision does broaden existing law to allow strip searches of detainees charged with minor offenses without there having to be reasonable suspicion as a cause for the search. It doesn't throw the door wide open for searching anyone stopped for a traffic violation, but it does allow for the search of anyone who is arrested. As being arrested is not a proof of guilt, it allows for the invasive search of persons without there being any basis for conducting the search other than that the person has been arrested.
However, I think that it is Congress' job to close the gap by passing laws to do so. That's the intent of three branches of government The Supremes' job is to interpret and analyze existing law; it's up to Congress to make necessary changes to make the law more effective and preserve justice.
Sheria, it is sometimes difficult to remember who is responsible for passing laws so yes, agreed, we need to make a concerted effort to force Congress to keep their promises - how long have we heard from pols that they would outlaw lobbying as it is practiced today? And since this ruling on probable cause/searches has now come to the fore I guess it is up to us to let Congress know we want the language in the law to narrow interpretation. Congress remains quiet because they know if the spotlight is on SCOTUS it is off of them. I think I see a post from a legal perspective in all this Sheria... :)
ReplyDeleteAll,
ReplyDeleteI think Rocky expresses my own concerns better than I did. But whaddya want? She's a mammal and I'm a lizard! Anyhow, my notion isn't that jail authorities can't do invasive searches of anyone -- plenty of inmates are always up to no good, even when they're locked up. It's that I can scarcely imagine any law-&-order circumstance you could put before a SCOTUS majority at present that they wouldn't decide in favor of brute authority (or huge corporations, etc.) against the ordinary citizen. They have earned that suspicion, in my view.