Blog powered by Typepad

« Your Monday Funnies: 8.10.18 | Main | 'Where have all the black 'Peeps' gone?' »

Monday, 08 October 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The ACLU had a fine reputation for many decades but began to soil itself with the arrival of Himself- Barack H. Obama. After eight years, the election of Trump sent them into psychological withdrawal. The former ACLU emerged under Trump and finally was outed during the Kavanaugh lynching for what they have become: Atheists, Communists, Liberals Union. Principles fall away when loads of money are at stake.

On the ACLU supposedly becoming partisan, the article ends by stating "Today, too few people are asking: Is it good or bad for civil liberties?" A corollary would be: Is outsourcing the pick of Supreme Court justices to The Federalist Society good or bad for civil liberties?

Sorry, Bob, I thought it was the POTUS who picked the Supremes and the Senate who confirmed, or not, the choice. And are you happy that ACLU has is in the back pocket of George Soros?

David, you thought wrong:

Politics doesn't make me happy or not. There's much less to it than meets the eye.

Bob, the opening paragraph states:
"One of President Donald Trump's most important outside advisors assured a group of top Koch network donors over the weekend that the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is just the beginning of an even bigger effort to load up the federal judiciary with conservative judges."

I am tempted to repeat my tedious catch-phrase 'WHODATHUNKIT?' but for a change, I will describe that 'non-news paragraph' in the old-fashioned English phrase as an example of "stating the bleedin' obvious"!

Of course, Trump will pick conservatives for the Bench, that's what he's for! Mind you, I am not at all sure just how conservative Kavanaugh is. For me it is sufficient that he bases himself on the Constitution.

You're aware Bob that our Executive branch features a cabinet? Operates however, pretty much, whichever individual is occupying the office at a particular time however that individual has set it up to operate?

And aside from the regular run-of-the-mill cabinet heads, State, Commerce, Energy, there's also, depending on the Executive's whim there may even be Czars? (Some go with the plain ol' timey label 'Advisors'?)

Why you reckon Bob any President might wish to surround himself with people in an advisory capacity? Reckon it could have something to do with his (so far, his) needing expertise outside his usual field?

Now Bob, have you noticed Presidents of either of our usual suspects political party persuasions tend to, dipping into the "advisor pond" pick out advisors most generally pick out people likewise affiliated? Or at least predisposed?

Now Bob consider, a Clinton nominates a Ruthie Ginsberg while a Reagan nominates a Tony Scalia. You reckon Bill was well acquainted with Ruthie from back in his "hide the sausage" (picture that David!) days governing the state he was born in and Ronnie knew Tony from the days when Tony was Bonzo's trainer?

Don't know about you Bob but from my vantage, providing you've mulled the same thoughts in consideration of where all the advisors came from, it oughtent not be so surprising (or, "wrong") that a Constitutional Originalist minded bunch of folks would be advising an Executive bent on nominating originalist judges.

Harry Truman had his Kitchen Cabinet you'll recall?

Oops. Harry's "Poker Players Cabinet."

David, no one is surprised the Republicans have been loading the courts with partisans. Neither is anyone surprised they've been increasing their own power through gerrymandering, voter suppression, propaganda, and so on. It's what they do.

Are you and JK proposing it's OK for The Federalist Society and their big donors to have a role in government but not the ACLU and their big donors? To say the ACLU are left partisans is nonsense. "Civil liberties" is in their name. Do you imagine they only stand for "conservative" civil liberties? If they are bought off by the left, which isn't likely, they'd be something like the Federalist Society.

Bob, further to the status of ACLU, may I suggest you check the link I offered to Alan Dershowitz.

David, I looked at it. Since he's become a Fox News contributor, Dershowitz has no credibility to comment on politics. Alan is all about Alan keeping a high profile.

Oh, Bob, I'm beginning to worry about you! Are you saying that being a Fox News contributor wipes out years of study and investigation of legal philosophy and the innumerable closely argued Liberal (and I mean REAL 'Liberal') views he has espoused over the years? Get a grip, man!

The comments to this entry are closed.