Posts Tagged ‘supreme court’

Hearing Aid

21 June 2012
Please speak directly into the horn. (And, gentlemen: please stop using it as a urinal. It’s beginning to affect my mental processes…)

“I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day. I’m not kidding. There’s a prison here in the Capitol. If we had spotted him in the Capitol, we could have arrested him. …Oh, any number of charges could have been brought against Rove. But there were some specific ones for his being in contempt of Congress.” – Fantastic Nan Fantasizing Again

Oh, Nan, Nan, Nan…

Apparently, Nan, you cannot take advice. Maybe, at your age, there is a hearing difficulty? Shut up – stop embarrassing yourself. Stop pulling information that reeks so strongly that we don’t even have to give it the “sniff test” to tell where you’ve pulled it from. There is no comparison here between what that criminal in the DOJ has been doing with anything out of any administration since Clinton. Probably not even anything from the Clintons, either, but we’ve really never fathomed the bottom of that one – what with all those involved mysteriously dying. You remember: Whitewater and all…

And the habits of you and your contemporary party members abusing their positions to enrich themselves and their friends? Waters? And even your own sweet deals? And then to squelch any investigations, or have them end in a friendly slap on the wrist. Or the DOJ refusing to pursue prosecution ala Edwards? C’mon, Nan. In bakery terms, your dough of credibility comes nowhere near passing the window-pane test – way too thin, and no structure.  Unfortunately, the manner in which you choose to work that dough it isn’t improving it at all.

Watch closely, Nan. There is Supreme Court precedent for what Øbama has done. Remember that guy Richard “Tricky Dick” Nixon? Being from the age of dinosaurs, I’m sure you do. Remember when he attempted to invoke executive privilege over information related to Watergate? Yeah. The Supremes said that executive privilege cannot be invoked to cover illegal actions.  And no-one died as a result of Watergate…

And that glaring “I” with which you start out.  You could not have unilaterally arrested Karl Rove for anything – that is not a perk or power of The Speaker of The House. This just provides proof  that you’re just as deluded and narcissistic as Øbama. But there’s no surprise there – it seems to be a prerequisite to hold power in your party.

-Pateratic

Beliefs

20 June 2012
…and your little Rule of Law, too!

 “I think we are ironclad on the constitutionality of [ObamaCare]. We believe in the Constitution. We believe in judicial review. … But I think it’s also important for the public to know that obstruction is the agenda of the Republican party. If they win, that will be their agenda. They don’t believe in a government role, clean air, clean water. You name it.” -House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

I’m with you, Nan! For instance, like your belief in the Constitution, I believe there is a thing called the Q’ran. And, like with you and the Constitution, I have no intent of implementing or defending anything in the Q’ran.

Of course, the major discrepency here is that never took an oath to support and defend the Q’ran. You, on the other hand, took an oath to support and defend the constitution- an oath that clearly had no meaning to you.

I think you can shut up, now.

-Pateratic

Judicial Activism vs. Unconstitutionalism

2 April 2012

Oh, boy – a rarity. Two Pateratic posts in one day.

The would-be dictator at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue cautions that, should the Supreme Court rightfully reject the individual mandate and, with it, Øbamacare, that they will have been guilty of judicial activism.

Really?!

By doing what they’re supposed to do – defend the constitution – they are activist in his eyes. While, I guess, redefining the Constitution through, say, Roe v Wade isn’t? Redefining marriage from what it has been for literally millenia is not judicial activism? Overturning results in which the majority of the people have made a decision is not judicial activism, but overturning a decision made merely by the majority of congressmen would be? Of course! It’s only judicial activism when it doesn’t suit his purposes.

And, I suppose, an executive branch that ignores constitutional limits – and the court and congress that lets him get away with it – are not activist, either?

What kind of twisted logic is this jackass operating under?

In any case, if The Supremes do not overturn Øbamacare, then it is up to we, the people. This must not stand. The individual mandate in Øbamacare removes any limit from what the federal government can do to us under interpretation of the Constitution today. It must not stand!

-Pateratic