Posts
The judge claims, weirdly, that there is a separation of powers issue that somehow restrains Congress from exercising its constitutionally-specified power to raise and spend money. Huh? The judge claims some sort of finding of guilt by a court or an executive administrative magistrate is required before Congress can exercise its major constitutionally-specified power.
It's this kind of Through-the-Looking Glass weirdness -- where people have a right to taxpayer money -- that boggles the mind. The caterpillar smoking the hookah may understand it, but I evidently didn't do enough dope back in the day, because this makes zero sense to me. Then again, I don't understand why 14-year-olds need fisting lessons, so I guess I'm a clueless old fuddy-duddy.More at Memeorandum, Politico and the The Hill.
UPDATE: "Oy," says Michelle Malkin, aggregating some analysis of the case. I'm looking at this Hill story and shaking my head:
Judge Nina Gershon concluded that the ban amounted to a "bill of attainder" that unfairly singled out ACORN.Permit me to quote a distinguished expert, namely my late father, Bill McCain:
"Boy, who ever told you life was gonna be fair?"If it is indeed true that anything "unfair" is automatically deemed unconstitutional -- please Mr. Caterpillar, pass the hookah!
UPDATE II: Headline on an item by Alison Roh Park at the Center for Constitutional Rights:
Historic Win for Constitutional Rights!Which tells you . . . ? Exactly. The Center for Constitutional Rights is a partisan left-wing outfit, either a front-group for labor unions or part of the Soros-funded "progressive" network of organizations who act as wing-men for each other's scams. Anyone care to research their funding?
Why are we shocked? Just wait for this Bolshevic Regime’s reaction to losses in the 2010 elections. They require Acorn’s muscle and election fraud expertise to hold power, and that might not be sufficient. PJTV did a story last week on an online game titled Obama coup 2011 or something like that. I haven’t checked it out yet but it sounded like a primer to me
ReplyDeleteCourts, don't work.
ReplyDeleteElections don't.
Soap box being cut off.
We're running out of boxes.
Awww, Smitty, help a brother out. I made a reply to your FMJWA article that was meant to go here. Can you switch it for me?
ReplyDeleteI love the separation of powers, except when I don't like the result.
ReplyDeleteWaaahhh.
With great trepidation, awed by those on the right who will disagree with me, I (tentatively) agree with the liberal judge. I think this WAS punishment without a trial by jury and other judicial safeguards.
ReplyDeleteIf (as we all believe) ACCORN was guilty of breaking laws, then try them, and have them duly convicted in a court of law, and punish them according to existing laws. Some at ACCORN (I assume, perhaps without reason) are innocent, but they too are being punished by Congress. If Congress can single out ACORN for punishment, then they can single you or me out.
Don't judge what is or isn't Constitutional merely by "whose ox is being gored." See the big picture. Next time it could be a conservative group being punished. What if Congress made a law taking away the FCC license to broadcast of all stations that broadcast Rush Limbaugh (or your favorite pundit)? Having an FCC license is a "privilege", not a right. We all hate ACCORN, but next time it might be a conservative group that is being unfairly singled out for punishment!
I agree it is wrong for congress to punish anyone because it is the popular thing to do. Acorn IS being tried in court several times over for election fraud and abuse. If found guilty I hope congress already has the powers to refuse contracts to and withdraw contracts from known felons but courts can go on forever. Congress should then have authority to delay awarding contracts to contested Acorn affiliates until the court decides on their case so that crooks don't benefit from their crimes. Doesn't Congress have that right?
ReplyDelete