So Much Nonsense, So Little Time
The ongoing right wing & bush administration psychosis was running rampant this week. What to talk about?
The folks who wanted Clinton lynched for Monica-related sins begging the white house to pardon Scooter? The Justice Department finally noting that the FBI has been having its way with us through various patriot act laws? Bush's assertion that people have to be paid to protest against him & his policies?
No, I think I'll talk about the recent ruling here in DC that our no handguns in the home law is somehow unconstitutional. You know all of those people who spend weeks running around and shreaking on FOX newsless about activist judges? I've stood for a while with a hand to my ear, waiting and listening for their outrage. But all I hear is silence. Because apparently if the judge's rulings go your way, they're not activist judges. As a longtime DC resident, I'm used to being a Congressional plaything. We're the place Congress goes to make a point, making laws that rule how we live in DC to show off for the folks back home.
But this wasn't the usual Congressional rape of DC. This was a panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. It's a ruling that seems primed to head to the Supremes, which would mean the rest of the country would soon be paying attention. But for now, I can rest comfortably in my apartment, knowing that it's ok for the guy next door to have a gun. It's ok for us all to have guns. But we'll be ok, because as we all know, guns don't kill people, lunatic people with drinking and behaviorial problems kill lots of people when they have easy access to something more deadly than a stick or a knife.
The folks who wanted Clinton lynched for Monica-related sins begging the white house to pardon Scooter? The Justice Department finally noting that the FBI has been having its way with us through various patriot act laws? Bush's assertion that people have to be paid to protest against him & his policies?
No, I think I'll talk about the recent ruling here in DC that our no handguns in the home law is somehow unconstitutional. You know all of those people who spend weeks running around and shreaking on FOX newsless about activist judges? I've stood for a while with a hand to my ear, waiting and listening for their outrage. But all I hear is silence. Because apparently if the judge's rulings go your way, they're not activist judges. As a longtime DC resident, I'm used to being a Congressional plaything. We're the place Congress goes to make a point, making laws that rule how we live in DC to show off for the folks back home.
But this wasn't the usual Congressional rape of DC. This was a panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. It's a ruling that seems primed to head to the Supremes, which would mean the rest of the country would soon be paying attention. But for now, I can rest comfortably in my apartment, knowing that it's ok for the guy next door to have a gun. It's ok for us all to have guns. But we'll be ok, because as we all know, guns don't kill people, lunatic people with drinking and behaviorial problems kill lots of people when they have easy access to something more deadly than a stick or a knife.
posted by Anonymous at 4:09 PM
5 Comments:
Because several other Appeals panels (ones with fewer Bush appointees than DC) have ruled the exact opposite, that almost insures a Supreme Court battle.
You're right on the issue of "activist" judges. if he/she agrees with me, he/she is a reputable jurist, in the best American tradition. If the ruling offends me, well, obviously, the judge is one of those "activists" who will stop at nothing to impose a personal view of the Constitution on all of us unsuspecting proles.
the same dynamic is at work with people who listen to Rush Limbaugh for an "unbiased" view of contemporary events. "unbiased" means "agrees with me!"
on the handgun issue, molly ivins had it right: knives are the preferred weapon, because if it's only knives, no one dies without a good footrace first.
I liked the way you began your post, L., (as well as the main section, of course). As a D.C. resident, do you hold out any hope for getting an official U.S Representative, now that the Dems have the majority? The Senate has proven to be a particularly tough arena for action, given the built-in power of the minority.
There have been talks off & on over this for many years. The current discussion would be to create TWO new representative positions. One for DC, and one for Utah (so the Republicans have balance, believe it or not).
But you're right, the Senate is not very supportive of this proposal, and I don't think it will go anywhere.
Persoinally, I thong DC should have a representative.
Post a Comment
<< Home