You must be a pretty damn despised Conservative Republican when even BushCo won’t agree with you. Tom DeLay is the only man in the world who can make Dick Cheney look good.
It seems to me there are at least three ways of answering your question:
- Did the Supreme Court rule in 1950 that these laws were unconstitutional? No.
- Would the Supreme Court have ruled in 1950 that these laws were unconstitutional? No.
- Should the Supreme Court have ruled in 1950 that these laws were unconstitutional? Yes.
Which of these three questions most closely approximates what you mean by asking whether the laws were unconstitutional? If none of them do, can you elaborate on what you mean by that question? It seems to me that, until the constitutionality of a law is tested, the law is Schrodinger’s Cat: we don’t know its status until the lid’s opened.
Daniel
Brilliant! Kudos!
Well, lookee here! Guess who’s calling for DeLay to answer ethics questions? None other than that shining paragon, Rick Santorum!
Of course, being skilled in the political art of CYA, the asswipe from Pennsylvania leaves himself an out if DeLay survives:
“I think he has to come forward and lay out what he did and why he did it and let the people then judge for themselves,” said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference.
“But from everything I’ve heard, again, from the comments and responding to those, is everything he’s done was according to the law,” Santorum told ABC’s “This Week.”
“Now you may not like some of the things he’s done,” Santorum said. “That’s for the people of his district to decide, whether they want to approve that kind of behavior or not.”
Gosh, what a cute little weasel Ricky is, huh?
Well, lookee here! Guess who’s calling for DeLay to answer ethics questions? None other than that shining paragon, Rick Santorum!
Of course, being skilled in the political art of CYA, the asswipe from Pennsylvania leaves himself an out if DeLay survives: Gosh, what a cute little weasel Ricky is, huh?
Well this is part of an oft-repeated pattern, which is that the people at the top are never, ever, ever responsible for anything. There will be some vague statements about “Perhaps if he did something wrong (which I’m sure he didn’t) then maybe he should be accountable by his backers” and that’s where it’ll end. It will get swept under the carpet, the buck will stop WAY before “here”, and it’ll all go away. Only people complaining will be subtly dismissed as ‘the liberal media’ or ‘anti-American radicals’.
It’s faux concern designed to make sure that the people who ought to share some responsibility for their party’s actions are never held accountable and can still say “But golly, I did express some concern over that”.
Oh, I think you’re wrong on that. I think it’s possible we’re seeing the beginning of the end for DeLay.
Brilliant! Kudos!
Thanks! Now for Bricker to come back and clarify…
Daniel
Oh, I think you’re wrong on that. I think it’s possible we’re seeing the beginning of the end for DeLay.
I sure hope it’s the end. Maybe some will think it is a sign that some politicians still have some weak grasp on sanity. I see it more as ‘blood is in the water and the sharks are closing in for the feeding frenzy’. No matter, either way DeLay needed to go anyhow.
As I mentioned in the GD thread, my money is on the ‘blood in the water’ school of thought. He’s currently controversial and troubling to his party and they can make some hay out of tossing him over the side.
[
I think the years of inhaling pesticide fumes have finally caught up to Tom. His cerebral cortex is being eaten away…<snip>
Wonder if he’ll insist on a feeding tube…
I think the years of inhaling pesticide fumes have finally caught up to Tom.
My brain has started filtering out Tom DeLay and replacing his statements with Dale Gribbin quotes, as a sanity self-defense mechanism.