From the absurd to... the absurd

[stakebait]

14th century baby named Diot Coke.

Link comes from emmett_the_sane, as does this: Another fucking scary bill to hamstring the judiciary. Yikes, part two. Specifically, this one prohibits the courts, including the Supreme Court, from having jurisdiction over any part of government or member of it "by reason of that element's or officer's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." Separation of church and state? Is for wusses, apparently.

It also prohibits US courts from "relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than the constitutional law and English common law."

It also makes any decision that goes against the first part non-binding on the states, and says any judge or Justice who does it can be removed from office.

Write your Congresscritters if you got 'em? This and the bill to let Congress overrule the Supreme Court are like killing a flea with an elephant gun. On a pressurized space station.

Mer

Comments

[sangpassionne.livejournal.com]

Your government is really starting to scare me. If, let's say for example, Iran was to pass a law like this, Bush would be talking about sanctions or invasion to preserve democracy. All hail the double standard!

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

*nodsnods* It hasn't been passed, yet. Just introduced. Here's hoping it never will be, because eeep! I'm scared too.

Mer

[barking-iguana.livejournal.com]

I know sometimes I'm too sanguine, but I think maybe we should save our adreniline for real threats, and that these don't qualify. Congress can't overturn Madison. It can claim to, but the courts just say it doesn't count. That's what happened the first time, 200 years ago. And this latest nonsense is just that: nonsense. Plainly unconstitutional.

Thses bills are probably being introduced so somebody in Congress can tell an interest group that they're pushing for it. They might also get a kick out of seeing us scurry and be distracted from more pressing issues.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

Yes, the Courts can claim it doesn't count, and then Congress can claim the Courts' opinions don't count, and then what? "Plainly unconstitutional" doesn't do much when the whole premise here is that Congress no longer accepts the Courts' right to decide that.

If Congress decides to ignore the Courts' decrees, who exactly is going to make them stop? The president? The army, paid by Congress? Or does Congress pass a law, the Courts invalidate it, and the police/funding agency/beauracrats at lower levels decide for themselves which they want to follow? This, if it passes, will be a snafu of heroic proportions.

You're welcome, of course, to be as sanguine as you like, but I won't be joining you. The "more pressing" short term issues are always with us, and while I take them seriously I also know that we've survived them before and we'll survive them again. To me, the process is what helped us survive them, and an attack on that is about the most pressing issue there is.

That is, of course, assuming it passes. It may well not, and that's certainly the outcome we're looking for. But there are plenty of things I thought would never pass that have, starting with the Patriot Act, so I'm not willing to assume that and not do anything. It wouldn't be the first time something got in because its opponents assumed it never could. Highland Park got its Republican mayor that way.

Hell, one of these bills has something like eleven co-sponsors from different states. We're not dealing with a grandstanding lone nutcase here. This nutcase has friends. Now granted maybe they're all just putting their names on this for quid pro quo and/or easy PR, but who's to say enough of them won't vote for it for the same reason?

Mer