Tuli Can't Stop Talking

These are just my thoughts on contemporary issues and an attempt to open up a dialogue.

My Photo
Location: New York City

A citizen who cares deeply about the United States Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Friday, April 29, 2005

Counting the Cost!

Listen up folks!

Ralph, at Newsfare.com (one of my favorite sites for info on the energy crisis), has posted the link to the Counting the Cost campaign. Here is a blurb:
We are entering the third year of the war in Iraq.

Increasingly, many Americans believe that the war is over. They think that relatively few civilians and soldiers have died. They think that U.S. interests and Iraqi interests are best served by the continued occupation of Iraq.

This is not the reality. We now know that over 100,000 Iraqi citizens have died since the beginning of the war. Over 1,500 U.S. soldiers have died. Countless others have been wounded and maimed. And, although the pictures are not shown on TV, large numbers of Iraqi citizens and U.S. soldiers continue to die.

Let’s tell the truth about the war and continuing occupation in Iraq.

You can purchase a number of a casualty through this campaign, for a measly $10.00, and proudly display it on May 15. I think that it is a “reality-based” idea.

The U.S. public is very misinformed as to the devastation and human cost of this disastrous Mess-O-Potamia. William Rivers Pitt has a very informative piece in Truthout that lays out how the media and administration are keeping “Hostile Information” and the horrors of war from the public to protect our delicate sensibilities.

We need to make the reality of this war evident. Please participate and really support our troops!

Sunday, April 24, 2005

Blog Links!

This is the really problematic part of blogging. Who do you link to?

There are so many wonderful sites out there that it is really a Solomon’s Choice. And let us not forget space is a consideration, as well as time.

So, as one who has just started to figure out how to create a link roll, it is making me crazy. I have started to put up links in a rather limited way. I will be adding the many blogs and sites that I love when I have time. Where any particular link is on the list is not reflective of my devotion. It is reflective of when I found it and where it rests on my “Favorites List.” I have made a half-hearted attempt to categorize the various sites that I love, but it is half-hearted. I love some of the eco sites as much as I love the humorous sites. But all of the sites I will put up are essential.

Enjoy and let me know what I have missed.

Some One in A Red State Gets It!

Again, as that optimist who believes that the glass is always half full, not half empty, I am heartened that someone in the very Red State of Kentucky has figured out what is going on in Washington.

This means that there is hope for all of us who believe in the U. S. Constitution, the First Amendment, and the Separation of Church and State.

As one who is deeply involved in the Thoroughbred racing establishment, which in Kentucky is extremely conservative, I can say that this editorial is mind boggling.

Here is the Editorial in its entirety:

Holy war Sunday

At the rate things are going in American politics, next week will bring ads by the Noah's Ark Veterans for Truth claiming that the two Democrats on board were actually stowaways, whom God had intended for drowning but who snuck on cross-dressed as gayals.

That wouldn't be much more bizarre than what's planned for today: Bill Frist, the majority leader of the United States Senate, is going to Sunday meeting to preach that some deeply flawed and highly ideological judicial nominees are actually bloodied victims of religious persecution.

"Justice Sunday: Stop the filibuster against people of faith," the revival's being called.
It should be called, "Injustice Sunday: Demean the holy and foment schism for partisan gain."

Whatever you think of these nominees and the Democrats' filibuster of them, it is not the religious faith they possess, but the judicial qualities they lack -- restraint, balance, experience, respect for law -- that have brought the nation to this sorry point
Otherwise, they would have fared just as well as the more than 200 other conservative nominees that President Bush has successfully appointed to the bench.

As you hear the Christian soldiers' trumpets of holy war and hymns of righteous rage today, keep in mind exactly who some of these nominees are.

There's Priscilla Owen, the token white woman and Texas judge whose eagerness to substitute her own values for the rule of law was too much for even Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who rebuked her for it when both served on the same court.
There's Janice Rogers Brown, the token black woman and California judge who believes that our vibrant nation of free-market capitalism -- this economy of Wal-Marts, Pfizers and Enrons and of Googles, Yahoos and Apples; this home of a pitiful $5.15 minimum wage and of a staggering 44 million people without health insurance; this land of soaring CEO pay and declining real wages for workers -- has actually been crushed by the boot of collectivism ever since what she calls the 1937 "triumph of our own socialist revolution."

There's Brett Kavanaugh, who has never tried a case, but rose from Ken Starr's impeachment crusade to become a White House operative.

There's William G. Meyers III, who also lacks trial experience but who has put in plenty of time rabidly fighting against environmental laws and in favor of mining interests.
And there's William Haynes II, whose meager courtroom work is offset by his considerable contribution, as the Defense Department's counsel, to the shameful abandonment of America's deepest legal principles regarding the treatment and rights of prisoners of war and detainees.

It's no wonder their advocates are so intent on diverting attention from their legal limitations, ideological excesses and partisan activism with claims of anti-Christian discrimination.

But religious martyrs, they're not -- nor jurists worthy of the damage their nominations are doing to both politics and religion.

I heartily support this editorial position, who would have thunk that Kentucky hardboots would have put this out?

Saturday, April 23, 2005

Bolton May Be in Trouble!

I can only hope so!

The most important part of this whole “Kerik” like debacle is that Bolton tried to intimidate intelligence analysts into changing their findings on WMD. Also, very troubling, and outrageous, is his withholding of information from his State Department bosses (calling General Powell.) His being a bully, and basic asshole, is just a side story.

As a person who likes to say the glass is half full, I am heartened that the White House might be starting to get nervous about this nomination. The latest spin from the White House, via poor, unarmed, Scott McClellan, is that the “allegations” are “unsubstantiated.” That can only mean they are calling everyone who testified under oath, and provided evidence as to the truth of the “allegations,” liars.

The Republicans on the committee are getting so nervous that they are holding closed interviews, of said “liars,” and keeping the Democrats on the Committee out. Here are a couple of graphs from the Washington Post:

In a sign of partisan tensions on the committee, Republican staff members yesterday interviewed Thomas Hubbard, a former U.S. ambassador to South Korea, without Democratic staff members present. Hubbard has said he clashed angrily with Bolton.

A senior Democratic committee aide said the interview was unfortunate, because Democrats thought they had an agreement between committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Vice Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) for proceeding with interviews that would allow both sides to be present, along with a court reporter.

"When we asked to participate, we were refused," the aide said. "We hope this was an aberration, and that from now on they honor the rule that we proceed jointly. The proof will be in the pudding." He added: "We found out five minutes before it happened."

So, do you think that John Bolton might have a “Nanny” problem? Let’s hope so!

But just to make sure: Call your Senator!

Sunday, April 17, 2005

Guido Was Right!

Mark Hamblett, who had taken over the reigns of covering the Second Circuit for the New York Law Journal from Debbie Pines several years ago, did what I think was a terrific job of reporting on the recent development in the Guido Calabresi versus George W. Bush controversy.

On June 19, 2004, Judge Guido Calabresi made what many think were intemperate remarks at the American Constitutional Society. The story was broken by the New York Sun and not exactly widely covered contrary to the Second Circuit’s opinion in the case, In re Charges of Judicial Misconduct, 04-8547.

Now rumor has it that Guido is not exactly a fave at the Second Circuit. Rumor has it that other judges are not exactly thrilled to serve on panels with him. After all, the benchmemo has been written and we all know where this case is going so what is with the Socratic method and pontificating at oral argument Guido? It is thought to be a waste of judicial recourses, or time as they say. But, none-the-less, Guido perseveres as if oral argument really made a difference much to the dismay of his cohorts. Not to mention, though I will, that Mr. Bush’s cousin, John Walker, is the Chief Judge of this austere “conclave.”

So, having set the stage, just what exactly did the former dean of Yale Law School, and perennial scholar, and former resident of fascist Italy, have to say.

Bush, he said, "came to power as a result of the illegitimate acts of a legitimate institution."

He continued, "That is what the Supreme Court did in Bush v. Gore. It put somebody in power. Now, he might have won anyway, he might not have, but what happened was that an illegitimate act by an institution that had the legitimate right to put somebody in power [sic]. The reason I emphasize that is because that is exactly what happened when Mussolini was put in by the king of Italy, that is, the king of Italy had the right to put Mussolini in though he had not won an election and make him prime minister. That is what happened when Hindenburg put Hitler in.

"I'm not suggesting for a moment that Bush is Hitler. I want to be clear on that, but it is a situation which is extremely unusual. When somebody has come in that way they sometimes have tried not to exercise much power. In this case, like Mussolini, he has exercised extraordinary power. He has exercised power, claimed power for himself that has not occurred since Franklin Roosevelt, who after all was elected big and who did some of the same things with respect to assertions of power in time of crisis that this president is doing.

"It seems to me that one of the things that is at stake is the assertion by the democracy that when that has happened it is important to put that person out, regardless of anything else, as a statement that the democracy reasserts its power over somebody who has come in and then has used the office to…build himself up.

"That is what happened after 1876 when Hayes could not even run again. That is not what happened in Italy because, in fact, the person who was put in there was able to say 'I have done all sorts of things and therefore deserve to win the next election.' That's got nothing to do with the politics of it. It's got to do with the structural reassertion of democracy."

So, Guido made an accurate historical reference. No one disputes the accuracy of his statements.

Everything hinges on the issue of whether his statement, violated Canon 7 of the Cannons of Judicial Ethics.. And when Judge Calabresi wrote an apology to Walker a week later, in “which he expressed his "profound regret" for his comments. Calabresi said he understood how his remarks "too easily" could be interpreted as taking a partisan position and that he strongly deplored the "politicization of the judiciary," the deal, in judicial misconduct parlance, was sealed.

Walker responded with a memo of his own saying that, while the remarks were meant to make "an academic point with various historical analogies," the issue was whether Calabresi could have been understood as making partisan comments, which are violations of the conduct code.

Then the big news came this week, and big it must have been, because when was the last time the news reported on a judicial misconduct complaint from the Second Circuit, or any court federal court for that matter?

An admonition from the chief judge of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and a public apology by 2nd Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi were found to be an appropriate sanction for a speech given by Calabresi in which he made an "academic" analogy between Bush v. Gore and the use of legitimate institutions by fascist leaders to cement their rise to power.

Acting on a report filed by a special committee charged with investigating complaints about Calabresi for his comments last year at an American Constitutional Society event, the circuit's Judicial Council concluded that his apology -- coupled with his public admonition by Chief Judge John M. Walker -- was an appropriate sanction for violating the proscription in the Canons of Judicial Ethics against political behavior by judges.

Complaints filed against the judge alleged that his speech advocated the defeat of President George W. Bush in November's election; compared Bush to Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini; evidenced political "bigotry" or bias; and demonstrated incompetence by disagreeing with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore.

Well, it seems to me that a sign of competence on Guido’s part is that he disagreed with the Supreme Court on Bush v. Gore. That said, it is a rare thing that I agree with the theory expounded on by Judge Calabresi in his decisions, though often on the outcome. But he cut right to the chase with his disagreement on Bush v. Gore. No question about his competency there.

And surprise, the vaulted Second Circuit agreed:

The council rejected claims that Calabresi was not competent to serve because of his criticism of Bush v. Gore, of which the council said, "As shown by the closely divided vote in the Bush v. Gore decision itself, and the numerous analyses of that decision, reasonable people disagree over the soundness of the opinions in that case." The council dismissed the complaints "in all other respects."

Well, it would seem to me that when a citizen of this country, albeit a judicial officer, states the historical facts, and the SCOTUS diverges from it job to decide legal precedent, and instead decides a case and says that the case is not legal precedent and puts an individual, who is not elected by the democratic will of the people, in the highest office of the most powerful country in the world, that perhaps judges of a higher court than the Second Circuit should be apologizing.

What is the process for a Judicial Misconduct Complaint at SCOTUS?

Saturday, April 09, 2005

Bush’s Social Security Bamboozlepalooza and Why are We Paying for It?

So, just how much is this extravaganza costing tax payers, and why isn’t someone finding out? This Barnstorming of the President, “60 days over 60 states,” with hand picked audiences, is a marketing ploy to sell Bush's Privatization of Social Security (and the destruction of the New Deal) on tax payer’s dollars and time.

Oh, that's right I forgot, no checks and balances as all three of the branches of goverment are in the control of the GOP!

Okay, so we haven’t any evidence of attendees having to swear to “Our Leader” in writing, or having to raise their hands and swear to “Our Leader” verbally at these rallies like we did in the Bush/Cheney Campaign. But, the structure appears to be the same.

There have been repeated reports of folks who haven’t signed the allegiance pledge to “Our Leader” being ejected from the “Town Hall Meetings” which are “Conversations with the President on Social Security.” And these folks have been removed for the skimpiest of reasons. I guess being a citizen is not enough of a reason to attend a rally with your President of all the people, not just some of the people?

David Sirota has a good piece on the cost to democracy of these “Goebbels” like staged events.

And it is costly, not just in dollars, but in democratic ideals.

Why is the American Pubic putting up with this?

Is there Soma out there and I don’t know about it? Were Huxley and Orwell right?

Okay, so many folks seem to think that the Soma is TV. I don’t watch commercial TV much, so I wouldn’t know. But, from what I hear, Soma, as in Reality TV, or whatever Americans like, is definitely out there.

Are we a bunch of idiots or what?

As one who believes in universal suffrage (unlike the GOP), I now have to ask myself: should there be a test to vote and just how invested is the corporate media in keeping the public in an infantile state?

Even “Pravda of the West” Gets it!

Okay, okay, I can’t stay away from this.

The New York Times, often considered the Liberal voice of the Main Stream Media, but most often just the stenographer of the Administration, hence the moniker “Pravda,” has finally gotten the message.

Okay, I admit that their editorial page can be quite liberal, ala Krugman, Herbert, and Dowd, but its actual news reportage is quite timid. Sad to say, I often have to run screaming to the WaPo for actual news about what is going on in D. C. Indeed, sad to say! Thanks to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, I knew, apparently before the administration, Colin Powell and The New York Time’s Judith Miller, that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

None-the-less, Carl Hulse, no fool, and his compatriot, David Kirkpatrick, report on the latest attack by Congressional folks on the Federal Judiciary and the U.S. Constitution, the very constitution that each member of the U. S. Congress is sworn to uphold. But, maybe these Congressional folks see the U. S. Constitution, as merely a technicality? They wouldn’t be alone, as someone who works in criminal defense, I hear constantly how any constitutional infraction is merely a technicality and of no concern.

Here it is in all its ugliness:

April 8, 2005
DeLay Says Federal Judiciary Has 'Run Amok,' Adding Congress Is Partly to Blame

WASHINGTON, April 7 - Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, escalated his talk of a battle between the legislative and judicial branches of government on Thursday, saying federal courts had "run amok," in large part because of the failure of Congress to confront them.

"Judicial independence does not equal judicial supremacy," Mr. DeLay said in a videotaped speech delivered to a conservative conference in Washington entitled "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith."

Mr. DeLay faulted courts for what he said was their invention of rights to abortion and prohibitions on school prayer, saying courts had ignored the intent of Congress and improperly cited international standards and precedents. "These are not examples of a mature society," he said, "but of a judiciary run amok."

"The failure is to a great degree Congress's," Mr. DeLay said. "The response of the legislative branch has mostly been to complain. There is another way, ladies and gentlemen, and that is to reassert our constitutional authority over the courts."
Mr. DeLay's comments are the latest evidence of his determination to follow through on his vows to hold federal judges accountable in the aftermath of the failure of the federal courts to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube as Congressional conservatives intended.

He spoke against the backdrop of a looming confrontation in the Senate over potential changes to the chamber's rules that would end the power of the Democratic minority to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees. But Mr. DeLay's confrontational tone differed starkly from that of Senator Bill Frist, the Republican majority leader, who says he seeks only to preserve the current independence of the courts and hopes a compromise can avoid a fight to change the rules.

Judges, including Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and one member of the federal appeals court who heard the Schiavo case, have already been sharply critical of Congressional efforts to interfere with their authority as a violation of the Constitution's separation of powers. In a recent report, Chief Justice Rehnquist called one such measure "unwarranted and ill-considered" and said "a judge's judicial acts may not serve as a basis for impeachment."

Democrats and other critics are accusing Republicans of seeking to undermine the courts just because they do not like their decisions.

"The first lesson we teach children when they enter competitive sports is to respect the referee, even if we think he might have made the wrong call," Senator James M. Jeffords, independent of Vermont, said Thursday in a Senate speech. "If our children can understand this, why can't our political leaders? We shouldn't be throwing rhetorical hand grenades."

Mr. DeLay criticized Congress as failing to act vigorously enough. "I believe the judiciary branch of our government has overstepped its authority on countless occasions, overturning and in some cases just ignoring the legitimate will of the people," he said. "Legislatures for too long have in effect washed our hands on controversial issues from abortion to religious expression to racial prejudice, leaving them to judges who we then excoriate for legislating from the bench. This era of constitutional cowardice must end."
Mr. DeLay alluded to Congressional authority to "set the parameters" of courts' jurisdictions and its obligation "to make sure the judges administer their responsibilities."

The organizers of the conference and Congressional staff members who spoke there called for several specific steps: impeaching judges deemed to have ignored the will of Congress or to have followed foreign laws; passing bills to remove court jurisdiction from certain social issues or the place of God in public life; changing Senate rules that allow the Democratic minority to filibuster Mr. Bush's appeals court nominees; and using Congress's authority over court budgets to punish judges whom it considers to have overstepped their authority.

"I am in favor of impeachment," Michael Schwartz, chief of staff to Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said in a panel discussion on abortion, suggesting "mass impeachment" might be needed.

In an interview, Jeff Lungren, a spokesman for Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the panel was likely in some way to take up the issue of how the federal judges handled Ms. Schiavo's case.

But Mr. Lungren said Mr. DeLay had not requested a hearing and the committee had not decided on a course of action. "There does seem to be this misunderstanding out there that our system was created with a completely independent judiciary," he said.
Dr. Rick Scarborough, chief organizer of the conference, called on Congress "to protect us from an overactive judiciary," saying: "Right now they are ruling as an oligarchy. They are the kings of the land."

Mr. DeLay, who was previously criticized by some Democrats who said his open-ended remarks about holding judges accountable might incite violence, took care to warn the few dozen attendees at the conference to keep their emotions in check.

"As passionately as we all feel, especially about issues of life and death, the fact is that constitutional rule of law is a matter for serious and rational discussion," he said. "People on all sides of this debate need to approach the issue for what it is: a legitimate debate by people of good will trying to clarify the proper constitutional role of courts."

And so, dear reader, that is why we need to eliminate the filibuster and let the nominations of the President’s judicial political hacks, who will hue to their sponsor’s, and the administration’s line, have a mere up and down vote. Because, as we all know, the minority under our republican form of democracy is not supposed to have a voice.

Okay so, probably none of those in Congress, right now, have ever read the Federalist Papers, or for that matter the U. S. Constitution, but they are dead wrong and have completely missed the Founding Father’s fear of the majority. The Founding Fathers enshrined the idea of checks and balances, in these three equal branches of government, and the voice of the minority was part of that scheme.

After all, the GOP seems to be saying, we don’t want judicial in-activism, we need judicial activism! Why do we need judicial activism you say? Because the GOP is now in power, as it controls all three of the equal branches of government, and they demand it.

Up is Down, and Down is Up!

Absolute Power, Corrupts Absolutely!

Yes, Justice Kennedy is Guilty!

Taking a break from my break, I must weigh in on this discussion, if you can even call it a discussion.

Now, I am no fan of Justice Kennedy. He is, I believe, responsible for this nation’s slide down that slippery slope from the rule of law with his decision, and actions, in Bush v. Gore. So, it is ironic that the religious right has taken on Justice Kennedy as their “poster boy for impeachment.” For, after all, it was Justice Kennedy who concocted the legal theory that put this crowd in charge, and unleashed their supporter’s and supplicant’s fury at the U. S. Constitution and the separation of Church and State.

Note to Supremes: Beware what you wish for, as contrary to your opinion in Bush v. Gore, you have set precedent!

Dana Milbank has written an informative, and thoughtful, piece on the latest attack on the Judiciary. I am posting the entire article, as I just couldn’t figure out what part of this reporting of an outrageous display of Anti-Americanism at this conference to eliminate.

Here it is:

“And the Verdict on Justice Kennedy Is: Guilty

By Dana MilbankSaturday, April 9, 2005; Page A03

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a fairly accomplished jurist, but he might want to get himself a good lawyer -- and perhaps a few more bodyguards.

Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.

Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."

Next, Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said Kennedy "should be the poster boy for impeachment" for citing international norms in his opinions. "If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy, they ought to be impeached as well."

Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."

Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

The full Stalin quote, for those who don't recognize it, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." Presumably, Vieira had in mind something less extreme than Stalin did and was not actually advocating violence. But then, these are scary times for the judiciary. An anti-judge furor may help confirm President Bush's judicial nominees, but it also has the potential to turn ugly.

A judge in Atlanta and the husband and mother of a judge in Chicago were murdered in recent weeks. After federal courts spurned a request from Congress to revisit the Terri Schiavo case, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) mused about how a perception that judges are making political decisions could lead people to "engage in violence."

"The people who have been speaking out on this, like Tom DeLay and Senator Cornyn, need to be backed up," Schlafly said to applause yesterday. One worker at the event wore a sticker declaring "Hooray for DeLay."

The conference was organized during the height of the Schiavo controversy by a new group, the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. This was no collection of fringe characters. The two-day program listed two House members; aides to two senators; representatives from the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America; conservative activists Alan Keyes and Morton C. Blackwell; the lawyer for Terri Schiavo's parents; Alabama's "Ten Commandments" judge, Roy Moore; and DeLay, who canceled to attend the pope's funeral.

The Schlafly session's moderator, Richard Lessner of the American Conservative Union, opened the discussion by decrying a "radical secularist relativist judiciary." It turned more harsh from there.

Schlafly called for passage of a quartet of bills in Congress that would remove courts' power to review religious displays, the Pledge of Allegiance, same-sex marriage and the Boy Scouts. Her speech brought a subtle change in the argument against the courts from emphasizing "activist" judges -- it was, after all, inaction by federal judges that doomed Schiavo -- to "supremacist" judges. "The Constitution is not what the Supreme Court says it is," Schlafly asserted.

Former representative William Dannemeyer (R-Calif.) followed Schlafly, saying the country's "principal problem" is not Iraq or the federal budget but whether "we as a people acknowledge that God exists."

Farris then told the crowd he is "sick and tired of having to lobby people I helped get elected." A better-educated citizenry, he said, would know that "Medicare is a bad idea" and that "Social Security is a horrible idea when run by the government." Farris said he would block judicial power by abolishing the concept of binding judicial precedents, by allowing Congress to vacate court decisions, and by impeaching judges such as Kennedy, who seems to have replaced Justice David H. Souter as the target of conservative ire. "If about 40 of them get impeached, suddenly a lot of these guys would be retiring," he said.

Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who wrote "How to Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary," escalated the charges, saying a Politburo of "five people on the Supreme Court" has a "revolutionary agenda" rooted in foreign law and situational ethics. Vieira, his eyeglasses strapped to his head with black elastic, decried the "primordial illogic" of the courts.

Invoking Stalin, Vieira delivered the "no man, no problem" line twice for emphasis. "This is not a structural problem we have; this is a problem of personnel," he said. "We are in this mess because we have the wrong people as judges."

A court spokeswoman declined to comment.”

So, Justice Kennedy, you must be really proud of your handy work in 2000. You, with your disregard for the rule of law in that disgraceful decision, have emboldened those who never had any regard for the rule of law.

And now they are turning their disregard against its author, YOU!

Friday, April 08, 2005

I'll Be Back!

Too much happening right now! So, I need to take a breather. Luckily for you there are wonderful folks to read everyday. Don't miss Billmon, Newsfare, TalkLeft, Ann Althouse, Atrios, Kos, Wolcott, Mediagirl, Talkingpointsmemo, and Truth Out, etc., etcetera.

I'll leave you, for the time being, with this article in Rolling Stone about Peak Oil and The Long Emergency. It will scare the bejesus out of you, as well it should. Peak Oil is coming and much sooner than expected. China's and India's recent massive increased energy needs have helped to hasten the coming emergency. And it is an emergency, and we are unprepared. This doesn't seem to be getting much MSM coverage and I think that it is because it is too scary.

Kuntsler says:

"Carl Jung, one of the fathers of psychology, famously remarked that "people cannot stand too much reality." What you're about to read may challenge your assumptions about the kind of world we live in, and especially the kind of world into which events are propelling us. We are in for a rough ride through uncharted territory.

It has been very hard for Americans -- lost in dark raptures of nonstop infotainment, recreational shopping and compulsive motoring -- to make sense of the gathering forces that will fundamentally alter the terms of everyday life in our technological society. Even after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, America is still sleepwalking into the future. I call this coming time the Long Emergency."

Please read this article.

That said, my sister thinks that I am not funny enough in my posts. She thinks that my snarky, and sarcastic, self doesn't shine through enough, and that my humor is my strongest point. Well, she maybe right, but what is going on, and coming down the pike, doesn't lend itself, in my humble opinion, to humor. At least I can't see it that way right now.

One thing that does seem to be going well are our horses. Diligent Gambler is so full of heart and a real gem. Who would have thought that our little group would have a horse that was competitive at his level? He is the 2004 Florida-Bred Claiming Horse of the Year and he is running in Allowance races. Flip de Lite is also quite promising. He has won his maiden race and seems quite competitive running against winners. Also, we have a new two-year old filly by Senior Speedy that that we are quite excited about. So, there are some things that are quite promising coming down the pike in my small world.

I'll be back when things loosen up a bit (pun intended.)