"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde		 Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Thursday, September 23, 2004

It's called "Checks and Balances", Mr. DeLay
Posted by Jill | 4:00 PM

Look at your U.S. Constitution, asshole.

Don't these fucking morons have anything better to do?

And I had just finished picking up the exploded remains of my head from the floor, too.

The House passed legislation Thursday that would prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on whether the words "under God" should be stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance.

In a politically and emotionally charged debate six weeks before Election Day, Democrats said majority Republicans were debasing the Constitution to force a vote that could hurt Democrats at the ballot box.

Supporters insisted Congress has always had authority to limit federal court jurisdiction, and the legislation is needed to protect an affirmation of religion that is part of the national heritage.

[Note from me: Interesting how it wasn't part of the national heritage until the LAST era of American witch-hunting, the McCarthy years.]

The bill, which the House approved, 247-173, would prohibit federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from hearing cases involving the pledge and its recitation and would prevent federal courts from striking the words "under God" from the pledge.


Here are the members of the Democratic Axis of Weasels who were too chickenshit, or too lazy, to fight against this obvious "Dukakis Redux" Republican scam.

Marion Berry (AR - 1st)
Leonard Boswell (IA - 3rd)
Rick Boucher (VA - 9th)
Allen Boyd (FL - 2nd)
Brad Carson (OK - 2nd)
Ben Chandler (KY - 6th)
James Clyburn (SC - 6th)
Jerry Costello (IL - 12th)
"Bud" Cramer (AL - 5th)
Lincoln Davis (TN - 4th)
Chet Edwards (TX - 11th)
Bob Etheridge(NC - 2nd)
Harold Ford (TN - 9th) (Harold! How could you?)
Bart Gordon (TN - 6th)
Stephanie Herseth (SD) (Herseth is running a tight race for re-election in a Republican state. Hey, Herseth. You think kissing Republican ass is the way to keep your seat? Then how come Tom Daschle is losing too?)
Tim Holden (PA - 17th)
Christopher John (LA - 7th)
Nick Lampson (TX - 9th)
William Lipinski (IL - 3rd)
Jim Marshall (GA - 3rd)
Jim Matheson (UT - 7th)
Mike McIntyre (NC - 7th)
Alan Mollohan (WV - 1st)
Collin Peterson (MN - 7th)
Nick Rahall (WV - 3rd)
Mike Ross (AR - 4th)
Tim Ryan (OH - 17th)
Max Sandlin (TX - 1st)
Ike Skelton (MO - 4th)
Charlie Stenholm (TX - 17th)
John Tanner (TN - 8th)
Gene Taylor (MS - 4th)
Jim Turner (TX - 2nd)
Albert Wynn (MD - 4th)

So 25 of them are from Southern states, which brings up an interesting question: Why are Southerners so concerned about the so-called sanctity of the flag and the pledge thereof, when they are similarly concerned with the Confederate flag? Inquiring minds want to know.

And if the Texas guys think that this is going to make one iota of difference to their now-gerrymandered districts, designed to kick them out and replace them with Republicans, well, see also: Stephanie Herseth.

Disgusting.

UPDATE: Thanks to my good friend Low IQ Canadian for the following:

How Many US Reps Would Flunk Con Law 101?

Two hundred and forty-seven, apparently.

That's how many members (and I use the term advisedly) of the United States House of Representatives voted for a bill that would, among other things, remove the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a First Amendment challenge to the pledge of allegiance.

Day One of Con Law. Any law school in the USA. Case 1. Marbury v. Madison. Wherein the U.S. Supreme Court determined that they had the authority to strike down Congressional enactments that violate the U.S. Constitution. It's just the foundation of our system of checks and balances -- that's no reason any of our legislators would know anything about it.

So why shouldn't Congress end every bill with "and federal courts, including the Surpeme Court, shall not have the jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of this enactment"? That would end judicial review of legislative action entirely. Does anyone other than Bob Bork think they have the power to do that?

Worst of all, a prior version of the bill had excepted the US Supreme Court from the jurisdiction-stripping. While I wouldn't be in favor of any version of this bill, that would at least make constitutional sense -- the lower federal courts are created by Congress, and can be (maybe) barred by Congress from hearing specific issues; the USSC is created by the Constitution and can't have their jurisdiction divested by Congress.

But no, the HORs rushed in with the version of this bill that shows the maximum possible antipathy for horizontal federalism. What a bunch of goddamn idiots.

0 comments
Bookmark and Share