Too Enraged to Think Straight
Dear Readers,
I, Theodore Trumblebunks, I, Esq., have no doubt that you have heard the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. If you haven't, let me sum it up for you: a bunch of liberal activist judges said that terrorists should be able to roam freely on our streets, because the President cannot try them in military tribunals; they want us to have to fight them here rather than fighting them there. Now, some say the Court's decision is broad and opens the door for the President to do the same things as we've been doing, so long as he has Congressional approval. These west-coast, liberal elite, liberal activist judge apologists fail to convince us real Americans, though.
Dear readers, this is just another example of a liberal activist Court run amuck. Now, west-coast, liberal elite, Constitutional law scholars want to tell me that the Court is made up of 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats. But if that's true, how can we keep getting all of these liberal activist decisions? I think these Justices are wolves in sheep's clothing, wearing the Republican persona only so they can become a Justice on the Court.
I, Theodore Trumblebunks, I, Esq., apologize to you, my dear readers, for being unable to provide more analysis. I'm simply too enraged at the moment to think or type straight. I hope to provide more analysis later.
Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, thank you for loving America!
Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy, and Breyer, why do you hate America?
-Theodore Trumblebunks, I, Esq.
I, Theodore Trumblebunks, I, Esq., have no doubt that you have heard the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. If you haven't, let me sum it up for you: a bunch of liberal activist judges said that terrorists should be able to roam freely on our streets, because the President cannot try them in military tribunals; they want us to have to fight them here rather than fighting them there. Now, some say the Court's decision is broad and opens the door for the President to do the same things as we've been doing, so long as he has Congressional approval. These west-coast, liberal elite, liberal activist judge apologists fail to convince us real Americans, though.
Dear readers, this is just another example of a liberal activist Court run amuck. Now, west-coast, liberal elite, Constitutional law scholars want to tell me that the Court is made up of 7 Republicans and 2 Democrats. But if that's true, how can we keep getting all of these liberal activist decisions? I think these Justices are wolves in sheep's clothing, wearing the Republican persona only so they can become a Justice on the Court.
I, Theodore Trumblebunks, I, Esq., apologize to you, my dear readers, for being unable to provide more analysis. I'm simply too enraged at the moment to think or type straight. I hope to provide more analysis later.
Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, thank you for loving America!
Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy, and Breyer, why do you hate America?
-Theodore Trumblebunks, I, Esq.
posted by Theodore Trumblebunks, I, Esq. at 4:47 PM
13 Comments:
Those justices are patriots!
I heard Scalia speak at my high school. One of my oldest looking English teachers called him a pompous ass and James Roland III couldn't come in and watch him speak! Mr. Trumblebunks, that should give you hints towards whom I am referring to.
On a personal note, I enjoyed his lecture and wish he could have spoken for longer. What a gifted and special man; he's been an asset to the Supreme Court for 20 years--I hope he'll be there for 20 more, if not, even more than that!
Jack X
Jack X, you're speaking my language again. No one is more gifted than Nino Scalia! Some people argue that he hurts the conservative movement by being so vicious in his opinions, driving borderline voters to vote "liberally." I say, though, that he speaks truth and even if he does cause Justices to vote in a non-conservative manner, so be it! One day, the liberals will learn, and he'll be the one teaching them.
-Theodore Trumblebunks, I, Esq.
1st: This ruling will not allow these people to "roam freely on our streets." Even the President acknowledges this. So that point's out.
2nd: The court's ruling simply said that, as US law is written now, it would be illegal to try them before a military tribunal. To do so would break the very laws the President has swore to uphold.
3rd: The Supreme Court Justices are not supposed to base their decisions on being either a Republican or a Democrat. They should be based on what is legal and Constitutional. If there is a need to change the law, then it should be changed. Before that happens, the Court must respect the law as it is now.
I'm sure there will be disagreement here, but these are my views and I will stand by them.
-HPL IV
HPL IV, welcome! Please come back often. Here, you'll learn all all you need to know about how to love America and how to stick boots up the asses of those who don't! Unfortunately, I can see that you hate America at the moment, so please allow me to enlighten you.
Let's get a few facts straight here. Like the liberal media, these west-coast, liberal elite, tree-hugging, baby-killing, drum-circlr-lyaing, activist Justices want nothing more than to embarass and frustrate our divinely-inspired President. They want to render him impotent in fighting the war on terror. Like the liberals, they would prefer that we fight them here, rather than there. The Court has made it so that they're let out of Gitmo and crossing the Mexican border with the other homosexual Uruguayans. Let's be real.
Secondly, we're in a time of war! The Preisdent has a blank check. The rules are different in war time. Real Americans are trying to win this war.
Third, the Court should uphold the Constitution, which requires an originalist reading. As we all know, only conservatives like my hero Nino know how to read the document in a strict constructionist matter. Rather than trying to embarass the President, they need to start upholding the Constitution!
HPL IV, you strike me as an intelligent but misguided person, and I hope I am able to teach you how to love America. Please come back and provide your thoughts as often as you would like!
HPL IV, thank you for trying to love America (you'll get there, with a little help from old Teddy!)
-Theodore Trumblebunks, I, Esq.
HPL IV,
Thank you for helping to set Trumblebunks straight! You are a true patriot yourself.
Willington, I've got a boot with your name on it.
wow...this whole blog is at war.
Ok, to get serious, yes, there is a War on Terror. But terror, like it or not, is not a concrete person, even though many people associate it with bin Laden and al-Qaida. It's a strategy--Bush declared war on a strategy. Yes, it has been done before--a war on a strategy. Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter's War on Inflation comes to mind. Inflation is an occurrence, not a person, just like terror. Theoretically, if you declare war on terror, you are declaring war not only on terrorists but anything else that is "terrifying," such as Halloween, horror movies, your grandma at 3 AM, etc. Declaring war on "terror" is like declaring war on "Christmas," which has been seen as happening before. This is not a real war, especially when you compare it to the likes of World Wars I & II, Civil War, American Revolution, etc. You are dealing with a bunch of Islamic weirdos who believe that if they blow themselves up along with others, that their god, Allah, will reward them with 20 virgins in heaven. But, my friends, I had a dream, that I was sent up there in place of one of these terrorists and the 20 "virgins" were the ugliest broads you've ever seen! They were fat, hairy, rude--the only one who was remotely pretty farted in my face! I guess the notion isn't all that it is hyped up to be. For example, back in the day, I made the trek out to Liberty Island one day--this was back when you could walk up the stairs and into the Statue's head. Well, I didn't expect a spectacular viewing, but the experience I got to get to there was horrifying and disappointing. First off, it was claustrophobic! Second of all, there were people walking slow and park rangers inside yelling at people to move. I was in line for two hours to get a view, and what did I see? I saw the Big Apple, but it was behind some thick, dirty glass! It was like I received a photograph of the city, yet it was very blurry! That is what my dream was like! I guess my point is that some things aren't as hyped up as they really are, and some things are overhyped such that when you experience them for yourself, you become sorely disappointed.
Did I make any sense? Probably not because I am poor at explaining situations sometimes.
Look, I view myself as a conservative person, registered Republican, voted for W., Baker, Vitter, Simpson, etc., my extended family is about as conservative as you can get. But even I have questions about the entire situation. They are just questions, some are about Bush, Iraq, military, congress, tax dollars at work (or not at work). I am an American, yet I do have these questions. I ask what my country can do for me and what it has done for me thus far, and I ask what I can do for my country as a college student with a bad leg, shoulders that pop and dislocate every so often, and corrective lenses. To complain? To inform? To take action? It's hard to determine. Yes, I was in fear of the draft's rumored return, since I registered weeks before the last election when the rumor was in the spotlight, and worries come to me still, such that I have made visits to counselors to control my fears and worries with issues that have involved me and can potentially involve me. Now, unless these questions get answered, if one invited me to participate in a survey asking if I approve of the current leader's work, then I would have to answer "no."
As a resident of a state that experienced a major crisis that is talked about daily on local news stations, I began to really question the government on all levels: local, state, and federal. I felt that Hurricane Katrina, while I did not lose any personal property and came out much luckier than many, it really was a personal voyage of growing up. Since then, I have questioned and, to the dismay of my family, have become more vocal and critical of the things around me, such as the university's awful agenda trying to make it "look" better to the rest of the world, my local parish priest and some of his different "customs" are also ones I question. Yes, thanks to many people, including the rival blogger, I have learned to come and question my leaders and how they failed, on August 29 of last year, to partake in their primary job as a government: to serve and protect the rights of the people, which, of course, is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Ok, I am going to get off this soapbox and end this satrical rant, and I'll get the contents of a hotel soap dish.
Truthfully,
MCCD2KMG
PS: I am not being serious in this story so please don't chew me down. I just felt like ranting for a while.
Welcome, MCCD2KMG! Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and feel free to come back and comment as often as you wish.
If you don't mind me asking, why do you question our divinely-inspired President, thereby showing that you hate America?
-Theodore Trumblebunks, I, Esq.
Well, while I do not agree with your views, I respect your right to voice them.
I would, as a professional and practicing historian, like to point out one more thing, however. You said "the Court should uphold the Constitution, which requires an originalist reading." The idea of "an originalist reading" is not very accurate. From the very beginning, there have been (in general terms) two different readings. One says that the various branches of the government have only the powers which are specifically written out and granted to them in the Constitution. The other view is that the branches can do whatever they feel is necessary as long as they are not specifically prevented by the Constitution. And when I say this debate has been going on from the beginning, I do mean it. The debate was already in full swing by the 1790s.
My point: in the course of American history, there have always been differing views on how things should be run. The success of the United States is that we have been able to maintain a relative balance between the branches of the federal government, which prevents either side from going too far. The extremes - on both sides are always pulled toward the middle, which is how it should be.
-HPL IV
HPL IV,
Thank you for your comments once again. While I disagree with your America-hating, I respect you for phrasing your argument coherently, which is rare for the west-coast, liberal elite!
I would send you an email, as I have a comment I'd like your take on, but I can't get your address since you weren't logged in as a registered user. Would you please send me an email at teddytrumbles@yahoo.com?
-Theodore Trumblebunks, I, Esq.
Trumblebunks, if you love America, why do you attack those of us who use our right to free speech to question the president?
Willington, there are limits to free speech. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't attack the President and America in a time of war.
Post a Comment
<< Home