I lol’d. It’s hysterical, in both senses of the word; you can practically smell the fear coming off her.
The underlying issues of the trial aside, it’ll give a big win to the Democrats and make the Republicans look incompetent in the “war on terror”; not only that, it’ll take an important political weapon away from them – the military fetishism which has been so in vogue over the past thirty years has been a Republican vehicle, and turning anti-terrorism efforts into police actions (as they should be) at a stroke deals a major, if not crippling, blow to the whole “Why don’t you support the troops”? shtick.
En passant, there’s a certain historical irony in seeing Phyllis Schlafly of all people refer to the most ‘activist’ SC judge ever as “The great Chief Justice John Marshall”. I wonder what she’d say if the SC tried to introduce judicial review today.
Oh, no need to wonder: she’d flip her shit! Judicial review has always had its intellectual detractors, but Phyllis isn’t among them. Her only concern is that minorities not have a means of redress, anywhere, which judicial review thankfully provides. Boo.
As to the article itself I’ll have to take a closer look, but jurisdiction stripping IS legit, it’s just a nuclear option… and the one time it was ever used successfully was to strip review of Civil War combatants. So there’s “kind of” precedent for this insanity of hers.
Well at least this post wasn’t about Hoffman.
Posted by Pi | November 25, 2009, 8:59 pmWas for Technorati. And oh boo! That was exciting business!
Posted by ACG | November 25, 2009, 9:02 pmWhilst I have your attention, what do you think of Phyllis Schlafly’s brilliant take on Constitutional Law?
Posted by Pi | November 25, 2009, 9:37 pmI lol’d. It’s hysterical, in both senses of the word; you can practically smell the fear coming off her.
The underlying issues of the trial aside, it’ll give a big win to the Democrats and make the Republicans look incompetent in the “war on terror”; not only that, it’ll take an important political weapon away from them – the military fetishism which has been so in vogue over the past thirty years has been a Republican vehicle, and turning anti-terrorism efforts into police actions (as they should be) at a stroke deals a major, if not crippling, blow to the whole “Why don’t you support the troops”? shtick.
Posted by That Other Mike | November 26, 2009, 5:56 amEn passant, there’s a certain historical irony in seeing Phyllis Schlafly of all people refer to the most ‘activist’ SC judge ever as “The great Chief Justice John Marshall”. I wonder what she’d say if the SC tried to introduce judicial review today.
Posted by lanfranc | November 26, 2009, 6:57 amOh, no need to wonder: she’d flip her shit! Judicial review has always had its intellectual detractors, but Phyllis isn’t among them. Her only concern is that minorities not have a means of redress, anywhere, which judicial review thankfully provides. Boo.
As to the article itself I’ll have to take a closer look, but jurisdiction stripping IS legit, it’s just a nuclear option… and the one time it was ever used successfully was to strip review of Civil War combatants. So there’s “kind of” precedent for this insanity of hers.
Posted by ACG | November 26, 2009, 1:40 pmPhyllis Schlafly isn’t an intellectual detractor because she isn’t an intellectual anything…
Posted by That Other Mike | November 26, 2009, 2:56 pm