Don't get mad, get even!
Ace points to yet another complaint about the federal judiciary. Today's installment features the liberal Ninth Circuit, which has struck down parts of the law the government frequently uses to prosecute people and groups that support terrorist organizations.
There's no question in my mind that Ninth Circuit opinions would be tempered if the judges there were subject to retention elections. If you agree and find that a desirable thing to achieve, sign the petition over on the right.
Also in the "Don't get mad, get even" category:
Patterico asks: "Who out there will make this pledge":
And rounding out the "don't get mad, get even" theme, we have yesterday's New York Post column by Ryan Sager. Captain Ed has extended excerpts. Outrageous behavior on the part of these foundations, but not too terribly unusual. They've put together front-group financing before on other issues, and there are business, labor and trade association groups that do the same thing.
But the scandal here, again, is the one that's gone largely unremarked. The Supreme Court agreed to the evisceration of the First Amendment. We can punish the politicians involved. We can withhold our contributions from these foundations. But we have, short of impeachment, no course of action against the justices who see the words "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" and read them "Congress shall make laws regulating speech." Not yet. Sign the petition!
Update: Overlawyered notes the case too. I used to go there a lot when I had a tort-conscious client. It's a real treasure-trove of outrageous lawsuits and jury awards. Used to be a standard website, now it's a blog!
Other comments at: Key Monk, the Agitator, Tapscott, IPCentral, New World Man, Bunker Mulligan, Cheat Seeking Missiles, and from Tom Palmer.
There's no question in my mind that Ninth Circuit opinions would be tempered if the judges there were subject to retention elections. If you agree and find that a desirable thing to achieve, sign the petition over on the right.
Also in the "Don't get mad, get even" category:
Patterico asks: "Who out there will make this pledge":
If the FEC makes rules that limit my First Amendment right to express my opinion on core political issues, I will not obey those rules.I'm in. Now, who out there will sign the petition to rein in the judges who made speech regulation constitutionally acceptable?
And rounding out the "don't get mad, get even" theme, we have yesterday's New York Post column by Ryan Sager. Captain Ed has extended excerpts. Outrageous behavior on the part of these foundations, but not too terribly unusual. They've put together front-group financing before on other issues, and there are business, labor and trade association groups that do the same thing.
But the scandal here, again, is the one that's gone largely unremarked. The Supreme Court agreed to the evisceration of the First Amendment. We can punish the politicians involved. We can withhold our contributions from these foundations. But we have, short of impeachment, no course of action against the justices who see the words "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" and read them "Congress shall make laws regulating speech." Not yet. Sign the petition!
Update: Overlawyered notes the case too. I used to go there a lot when I had a tort-conscious client. It's a real treasure-trove of outrageous lawsuits and jury awards. Used to be a standard website, now it's a blog!
Other comments at: Key Monk, the Agitator, Tapscott, IPCentral, New World Man, Bunker Mulligan, Cheat Seeking Missiles, and from Tom Palmer.

<< Home