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: