Exhibit A: Ruth Marcus
Perry’s ideas range from wrongheaded to terrifying: requiring federal judges to stand for reappointment and reconfirmation; and letting Congress override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both houses.
Er…a little help, Ruth? Which is the wrongheaded one and which is terrifying? I honestly have no clue. One of us is remarkably screwed-up in the “hazard comprehension” department.
Imagine what would have happened in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education if the Perry rule were in place.
Certainly! Okay, imagining…and I got…nothin’. I imagine absolutely nothing would have happened. It’s ridiculous to imagine that Congrees would ever have overturned BvBoE by a 2/3rds majority. Is Ruth frightened that Roe v. Wade couldn’t get either 34 Sens. or 14
56 Reps to defend it?
Ruth, bless your little heart, this terrifies you because you’re both a coward and a tyrant. You insist on having your way (being a tyrant) but want it decreed by judicial fiat (being a coward). You don’t like that 2/3rds majority thing because it means that you and your progressive ilk can’t count on tyranny of the minority for your most hated ideas.
If you honestly think federal courts are all that prevent 200 million Americans from stringing up the other 100 million, maybe you should…I dunno…
…flee for your life while you still can?!
And take Exhibit B with you. Though he seems much less terrified than you, probably due to his epic…I don’t think the word “insanity” is sufficiently descriptive.
What Obama is really hoping is that voters in 2012 will end up rejecting the snotty, bratty, tantrum-prone child in the room.
From your lips to God’s…whoa, wait, you mean the Republicans are the babies? Dude, just because recreational chemicals aren’t truly unconstitutional doesn’t mean you should bogart all of them simulta…what’s this…?
…oh. Well, photos never lie. Well played, sir, I walked right into the rhetorical thicket.
Your level of maturity astounds me. Seriously, I mean that.