Saturday, February 7, 2009

Irony Trebled

It is a given that most conservatives claim to despise activist judges (which is any judge that upholds the law over the conservatives' special interests).

It is also a given that most conservatives claim to be staunch defenders of the Constitution, especially the Second Amendment.

Thus, it is trebly ironic that conservative bloggers Owen Robinson and Dad29, neither of which live in the City of Milwaukee, are both celebrating an activist judge shredding the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights (emphasis mine):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

7 comments:

  1. Surely the suburban elites have the First Amendment right and the moral obligation to tell Milwaukee how they should live. It's like the White Man's Burden.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Umnnnnhhhh....

    You need your meds.

    1) "The Government" in the 1A is the Feds, not the City of Milwaukee. You obviously went to the Publick Screwels.

    2) Direct/referendum legislation is NOT "a petition."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Are you saying municipal governments don't have to follow the U.S. Constitution?

    The direct referendum came via petition.

    You're the one getting your meds mixed up again.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Did someone prevent the petition?

    nope.

    Did someone prevent the referendum?

    nope.

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

    So what YOU are trying to say is that the 1A (in your construction of it) allows override of all other pertinent laws?

    You think that a referendum ORDINANCE is a Constitutional Amendment?

    Not just your meds, Capper. You need high doses. See your shrink.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lord love a duck, but don't some people need to be hit with a board to wake up to reality...

    Didja ever think that the ordinance is in response to that Constitutional right? The big C states we have that right, it does not give policy on how to exercise it.

    The MMAC had ample opportunity to bring up issues with it before hand. They could have approached the organizers with their concerns, they could have presented their own arguments to the voters on why it is bad, whether it is vague wording or fear of losing money, or whatever. They chose not to, and are not given the chance to thwart the will of the people.

    I wonder how loudly you'll be screaming when the anti-gay marriage amendments are repealed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. All that happened. So what?

    Your rant is hot air; no substance.

    Unless you want to tell us that Judge Cooper is also a conspirator.

    Is that where you're going, cap?

    ReplyDelete
  7. My, what amazing leaps of illogic your mind does take. I was merely pointing out the duplicity of the right.

    ReplyDelete