Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Majority Proves Stupidity
Another poll proving that a plurality of Americans are idiots, courtesy of USA Today.
Well, it sure was a big deal when Starr and his buddies in Congress were busy checking Bill Clinton's testicles a few years ago, though.
A majority of Americans say Roland Burris should be blocked from taking a U.S. Senate seat and Illinois should hold a special election to fill the vacancy he was appointed to fill.After eight long painful years of Bush eavesdropping, rendition, torture and other illegality, Americans are so inured to leaders breaking the law that it's no longer a big deal. Imagine if anytime a secretary of state decided he or she didn't like some appointed senator and refused to sign a legally executed appointment?
Well, it sure was a big deal when Starr and his buddies in Congress were busy checking Bill Clinton's testicles a few years ago, though.
// posted by Howling Latina @ 3:10 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
As usual, a moonbat blames Bush for the action of another official that she doesn't like.
BTW, isn't the Illinois Secretary of State a DEMOCRAT?!?!?!
It would seem to me that, if this were a truly clear question, Burris' remedy would be to seek a mandamus from an appropriate court to compel the Illinois Secretary of State to execute the requisite document. That he has not done so suggests that the question is not quite so clear as your complaints would suggest.
I know nothing of Burris' integrity or qualifications --- for all I know, he's a fine, upstanding guy, albeit a Democrat --- but the taint of Blagojevich renders Dingy Harry's caution warranted.
Oh, and another BTW: we don't have to "Imagine if anytime a secretary of state decided he or she didn't like some appointed senator and refused to sign a legally executed appointment." It's actually happened before: those are pretty much the facts of Marbury v. Madison (1803), and the person who you are savaging for doing something similar is James Madison, the father of the Constitution.
BTW, isn't the Illinois Secretary of State a DEMOCRAT?!?!?!
It would seem to me that, if this were a truly clear question, Burris' remedy would be to seek a mandamus from an appropriate court to compel the Illinois Secretary of State to execute the requisite document. That he has not done so suggests that the question is not quite so clear as your complaints would suggest.
I know nothing of Burris' integrity or qualifications --- for all I know, he's a fine, upstanding guy, albeit a Democrat --- but the taint of Blagojevich renders Dingy Harry's caution warranted.
Oh, and another BTW: we don't have to "Imagine if anytime a secretary of state decided he or she didn't like some appointed senator and refused to sign a legally executed appointment." It's actually happened before: those are pretty much the facts of Marbury v. Madison (1803), and the person who you are savaging for doing something similar is James Madison, the father of the Constitution.
James, as you know, senators used to be appointed by the state legislatures but that changed after the seventeeth amendment. So that's comparing apples to turd blossoms.
No one has been able to cast ANY aspersions on the character of Burris. Bottom line. Was Blagojevich the governor? Did he have the constitutional power to appoint? Is there anything in Burris' character that precludes him from serving?
Yes, yes, and no. End of story.
No one has been able to cast ANY aspersions on the character of Burris. Bottom line. Was Blagojevich the governor? Did he have the constitutional power to appoint? Is there anything in Burris' character that precludes him from serving?
Yes, yes, and no. End of story.
Blago has the power and Burris was a legal appointment. You don't get to choose which laws to obey; if that were true, then the smell of pot would be everywhere. Congress, taking its cue from Bush the Lesser, is acting illegally in not enforcing the Constitution, but then what else is new?
"No one has been able to cast ANY aspersions on the character of Burris."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/16981.html
What would motivate someone to execute an innocent man?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/16981.html
What would motivate someone to execute an innocent man?
The aspersions you cite are applicable to St. Craig Deeds are a whole slew of Dems, including Bill Clinton.
Would I vote for Burris? Probably not. But that's not really the point; it's whether he was legally appointed or not. And as we're learning Reid, Obama, Durbin and any person who supported the idea that Burris shouldn't be seated were as wrong as the folks who said Bush needed to go to war, spy, torture, whatever, to keep us safe.
Obey the law and change it if you don't like it.
Post a Comment
Would I vote for Burris? Probably not. But that's not really the point; it's whether he was legally appointed or not. And as we're learning Reid, Obama, Durbin and any person who supported the idea that Burris shouldn't be seated were as wrong as the folks who said Bush needed to go to war, spy, torture, whatever, to keep us safe.
Obey the law and change it if you don't like it.
<< Home
