All of a piece
Remember how the junta was kicking citizens out of public appearances by our Civil Servant in Chief? Remember the two folks in Denver who were thrown out of a Bush appearance because, they allege, of their political views? They are suing. And you won't believe what the Bush monarchy is arguing in defense.
Puts the whole US Attorney thing into perspective, don't it? When your guiding principle is "l'etat c'est moi," it makes perfect sense to fire prosecutors or exclude citizens for insufficient loyalty.
But I have to say that even I would not have thought the Administration would have the chutzpah to argue that theory in a court of law.
White House officials have the right to exclude dissenters from appearances by President Bush, according to lawyers for volunteers who helped eject three people from a hall where Bush was about to speak.
Defense attorneys made the argument last week in a civil suit filed against Michael Casper and Jay Bob Klinkerman. The suit was filed by Leslie Weise and Alex Young of Denver, who were told to leave just before Bush was to talk about his plans for Social Security at the March 21, 2005, taxpayer-funded event in Denver.
Weise and Young argue they were ejected for their political views. They had arrived in a car bearing a "No blood for oil" bumper sticker. They were also wearing T-shirts saying "Stop the lies" under their clothes but did not show them.
They have said they had no plans to disrupt the event, but Young hoped to ask Bush a question if given the opportunity.
Casper and Klinkerman's lawyers said the government has the same rights as a private corporation when its officials speak.
"The president may constitutionally make viewpoint-based exclusionary determinations in conveying his own message," the attorneys said in the filing. "So in following the instructions of the White House and carrying out its viewpoint-based exclusions, Casper and Klinkerman did not violate any of plaintiffs' constitutional rights."
Puts the whole US Attorney thing into perspective, don't it? When your guiding principle is "l'etat c'est moi," it makes perfect sense to fire prosecutors or exclude citizens for insufficient loyalty.
But I have to say that even I would not have thought the Administration would have the chutzpah to argue that theory in a court of law.
posted by bluememe at 4/17/2007
5 Comments:
One of the few enduring principles of the not-entirely-crazy right is the idea that: if you can postpone defeat long enough, you NEVER lose. Same with answering difficult qestions or any other inconvenience that might arise. Delay, deny then delay some more. If they don't get tired and go home you can paint them as fanactics (throw them out of the tent, apparently) and just keep right on delaying and denying. Simple, workable system. Neat, yeah?
TA
I'm not surprised they argued it - I am surprised the court ruled in their favor.
The article I read only talked about the arguments made, which led me to assume that the court had not yet ruled. Have you seen something more, esoder?
A corollary: Pretend that someone important (preferably the courts) has already issued a finding in your favor, that appeals are pointless, and what's your complaint anyway? Keep acting as though this were true, until it is taken for truth, and you will never have to fire a shot at your enemies.
Hasn't anyone understood yet that the right is not incidentally boring? It is intentional and part of the great plan. People who can think are driven nuts or away (your choice) by someone droning on pointlessly or illogically. Then when all the opposition has left the room you take a vote!
TA
My mistake - I read to fast and didn't pay close enough attention.
Post a Comment
<< Home