There was plenty of unintentional absurdity at the Supreme Court yesterday, which is, as we say in bowling, about par for the course. But one particular eruction from the Solicitor of the Court of His Majesty Barack Obama caught my eye like Johnny Weir's ass under a pair of sheer leggings, except, um, not in a good way:
Ms. Kagan gave examples of prohibited conduct. A lawyer would commit a crime, she said, by filing a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a terrorist group. Helping such a group petition international bodies is also a crime, she added.So. His Obamitude, having already arrogated to Himself the established Presidential perquisites of oublietting or guillotining anyone anywhere for anything, has now claimed the less flashy but no less totalitarian right to forbid the legal defense of any animal, vegetable, or mineral that His government predetermines to be a terrorist, or terrorish, or terroresque.
It's an astonishing and sweeping proposition, really. It's illegal to file amicus briefs?
Why not just make it illegal to provide counsel to the guilty? I mean, we already know that they're guilty.
Right?
14 comments:
Eight-year-olds, Dude.
Here's the most ridiculous part:
"Ms. Kagan said Mr. Fertig was free to say anything he wanted and to lobby anybody he liked so long as he did it independently of the banned group. She also said he might meet with the Kurdish group to discuss ideas. It was even all right, she said, to become a member of the group."
It's OK to become a member of the group that's been labeled a terrorist organization, but it's not OK to tell them to "Buy low and sell high!"??
The best part is Scalia channeling Walter Sobchak: "Say what you will about the Communist Party..."
could you file a friend of the court bvd to have a group removed from the DOS watch list?
Be kind of awesome for THE CATO INSTITUTE to be deemed a terrorist organization, and Roger Pilon to be imprisoned for writing op-eds.
Otherwise, bummer.
Thread music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf9W6cOtB7k
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/24/us/24scotus.html This is the article that's based on. The blog seems to skew things slightly. Ms. Kagan is providing a literal interpretation of a statute that is already in place. She is doing her job. It's the statute which claims these things, for which she is giving a legal explanation: "The law makes it a crime to provide not only aid like money and guns but also four more ambiguous sorts of help: “training,” “personnel,” “service” and “expert advice or assistance.”"
I would have liked to see her advocate that legal advice should be added as an exclusion to this, but I think it's pretty clear that if the wording of the law states that "expert advice or assistance" is strictly prohibited, to interpret it is to say that to provide legal advice in this circumstance is (de facto) illegal. She didn't pass the law (to my knowledge), or create it, or even strictly agree with it. She just clarified a point of it.
Personally I'm wondering how such laws get passed. It's absolutely ridiculous to me that we would not allow an accused person legal counsel. I remember being angered by my Republican aunt deciding that she could not vote for John Kerry because his wife's foundation provided funding for legal aid to people accused of terrorism. I wonder what could be more American than allowing someone the right to defend themselves properly in a court of law.
"Ms. Kagan is providing a literal interpretation of a statute that is already in place. She is doing her job." I mean, hell, so was Albert Speer.
I hardly think the two are comparable, but nice evocation of Godwin's Law there. Yes, it's awful as a law. IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PASSED. But rather than persecute a woman who could not possibly win regardless of what she said in this interpretation, why don't you try making a stand against the existence of the legislation?
I mean, let's face it. If she had said that legal counsel is NOT expert advice or assistance, it's a flat out lie. What needs to happen is an amendment to the law, not a woman to get flamed for reading what's already in print in front of her.
they're gonna kill that poor woman!
Jackson's Mom, please. she kidnapped herself.
why don't you try making a stand against the existence of the legislation?
we prefer to sit here, thanks. you know, take a load off. relax. pour a tall hoppy one, rip a bong hit. Monsieur, do you smoke or use a heat gun? heat guns are cool.
here, dear, take this, before you hurt yourself. we're just trying to help, so keep that in mind. the more you fight the tighter the straps get.
bonus points for referencing the NY Times, though. especially with me. I love the NY Times. I get all my advice and information there. it informs me and my biases.
Sesli sohbet Sesli chat
Seslisohbet Seslichat
Sesli sohbet siteleri Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli Chat
Sohbet Sesli siteler
Sohbet siteleri Chat siteleri
Sohbet merkezi chat merkezi
Sesli merkezi sesli Sohbet merkezi
Sesli chat merkezi Sohbetmerkezi
Sesli Sohbet Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli sohbet siteleri SesliChat
Sesli Sesli siteler
Seslimuhabbet sesli muhabbet
sesli sohbet sesli chat siteleri
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslisohbet seslichat
seslikent sesli kent
sesli sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli chat sesli chat siteleri
seslisohbet seslichat
It help me very much to solve some problems.Its an informative topic. It help me very much to solve some problems.Good luck to the author!Thanks a lot for enjoying this beauty blog with me.Its opportunity are so fantastic and working style so speedy.
Post a Comment