Can you believe those damned longhaired activist liberal judges on the Supreme Court? I’m still fuming. I suppose in their ivory tower/ commune there on the hill those decisions might make sense, but here in the real world, in America, things are a little bit different.
So let’s get this straight: We’re not allowed to hold prisoners without accusing them of something and giving them the right to legal representation? We can’t imprison people indefinitely without proving they committed some kind of crime? Do those dope-smoking, dress-wearing hippies on the Court realize that we’re at WAR? Do they?
Look, it’s simple [and you can feel free to cut and paste this, friends and neighbors, feel free] - We are at War. And the only way to preserve our freedoms is to eliminate them, at least for awhile. You know, until the War on Terror is over, which’ll be when… when… when Terror surrenders. Then we’ll have our whole “way of life” thing back because Terror will be safely behind bars. It’s common sense.
When the founders of this whole “America” thing said that freedom was worth dying for, they didn’t mean for us to get KILLED for it, did they? Nah, they woulda said, “Take a break from freedom so that you don’t get hurt, then return to the whole ‘right to due process’ thing and ‘innocent until proven guilty’ hooha when it’s safe.” That’s probably what they would’ve said. Because they knew that the idea of America was too precious to risk it for luxuries like “liberty” and “freedom.”
I think it was Thomas Jefferson himself who said, “Remember that individual liberty can only work if there’s no risk involved. Otherwise, forget it.” Okay, I’m paraphrasing, but you get the idea. These are tough times, and the brave and patriotic thing to do is to renounce liberty for awhile so that we don’t get hurt. That’s obvious. YOU know it. I know it. But apparently those out-of-touch unelected so-called “justices” don’t get it.
It might be time to rethink the whole “Supreme Court” and “checks and balances” thing. You know, just until things settle down a little. We can become a courageous beacon of uncompromising principles again when it’s safe, right? Right.





32 comments
DugSteen
June 30, 2004 at 1:05 pm
1And wasn’t it John Adams who said, “I can’t even pronounce habeous corpus! What do I care if we don’t honor it!?”
Stuart
June 30, 2004 at 1:07 pm
2At least 3 of the 9 were true patriots. I haven’t seen what their arguments were, but that doesn’t matter because they got the RIGHT answer — and by that I mean the one Bush wanted them to get. Perhaps if he gets another term he can replace a few of these pinko judges with ones willing to safeguard our freedoms by eliminating them.
Raymond Chen
June 30, 2004 at 1:21 pm
3The rethinking of “checks and balances” is already under way:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3920:
tim
June 30, 2004 at 1:40 pm
4Habeus schmabeus, I just want to personally thank Clarence Thomas for letting me look at all the porn I want! Woo-hoo! Way to go, C!
changetion
June 30, 2004 at 1:56 pm
5And it was Patrick Henry who said “Give me liberty or give me a color coded threat system”
Bill
June 30, 2004 at 2:48 pm
6Is it just me, or is the sidebar encroaching on the text for everybody?
Murray
June 30, 2004 at 4:50 pm
7Those Supremes must be confused.
They may think that they put W in power, but just ask W, he’ll tell you it was God. And seeing as how God directly intervened on W’s behalf why should they question things now. If those terrorists weren’t guilty why would the administration charge them?
W hasn’t made any mistakes, just ask him.
Pat R.
June 30, 2004 at 5:55 pm
8It might be time to rethink the whole “Supreme Court” thing. Er, that is, after the elections it’ll be time to rethink the whole “Supreme Court” thing.
Anonymous
June 30, 2004 at 7:03 pm
9Thanks for that link Raymond. THAT’S Scary
POORWARREN
June 30, 2004 at 9:54 pm
10Re: Raymomds link.
Doesn’t anybody realise the “Founding Fathers” weren’t really anymore serious about “checks and balances” than they were about “separation of church and state”. Ask Dubya, he’ll explain it to you.
POORWARREN
June 30, 2004 at 10:00 pm
11Sorry about the spelling RAYMOND, it’s been a long 3 1/2 years, I’m burnt. I just pray for 8 years when I don’t have to go ballistic every time I listen to the news!
Paul
June 30, 2004 at 10:51 pm
12So what happens if HR 3920 (the link provided by Raymond) passes and the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional?
Don
June 30, 2004 at 11:15 pm
13Everybody start filling up the bottles with gasoline and collecting rags and matches.
That is, if anybody can still afford to buy the gasoline.
Farberwear
July 1, 2004 at 1:14 am
14Hey, it’s July 1! Happy Birthday Adam!
dan
July 1, 2004 at 3:28 am
15i’m more concerned with the fact that free porn should be protected at all costs, but free speech in the form of campaign ads should be censored vehemently.
happy canada day!
Jerry
July 1, 2004 at 4:05 am
16Will someone enlighten me? HR3920 says “This Act is enacted pursuant to the power of Congress under article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.” No matter how I read that section, the only power Congress has under it is to set the place of trial of crimes not committed withing the US.
I think this bill will be allowed to die in committee. It would take a constitutional amendment to accomplish what this frightening bill is attemting.
And the Yellow Rose, being a strict constructionist, would veto it anyway…right?
craig
July 1, 2004 at 7:29 am
17What happens if: HR 3920 passes. The Supreme Court overturns it for being unconstitutional. The Congress uses HR 3920 to overturn the SC’s decision. Then the President vetoes Congress (because Constitutional crises are fun).
Who votes for these Congresspeople?
Mr. LEWIS of KY
Mr. DEMINT of SC
Mr. EVERETT of AL
Mr. POMBO of CA
Mr. COBLE of NC
Mr. COLLINS of GA
Mr. GOODE of VA
Mr. PITTS of PA
Mr. FRANKS of AZ
Mr. HEFLEY of CO
Mr. DOOLITTLE of CA
Mr. KINGSTON of GA
Anonymous
July 1, 2004 at 9:30 am
18Happy Birthday to you, even n California!
(does that make you a little youngr or older than us here at home?)
Luv,
Mommie the numerically impaired.
Mary
July 1, 2004 at 9:33 am
19I was going to A) wish Adam a happy natal anniversary, and B) suggest that perhaps W would appoint Ashcroft as the Supreme Court, but the fact Craig knows who votes and how they vote has me rattled.
Murray
July 1, 2004 at 9:46 am
20Hey Adam,
Happy Birthday!
We’re glad you’re around to brighten our days!
littlebit
July 1, 2004 at 9:56 am
21Happy Birthday, Adam lad!
So party like it’s, well . .
tess
July 1, 2004 at 1:25 pm
22wait, it’s your b-day? um, happy b-day? hope you don’t get arrested under the patriot act? it’s not like we’re going to be freeing anyone from guantanmo anytime soon . . .
X @
July 1, 2004 at 7:42 pm
23Coincidentally perhaps, there is talk that the EPA plans on withholding oxygen from american citizens for a few years until things in the atmosphere get back to normal. ‘Understand’ said one high place official of the condition of anonymity ‘we have a duty to protect the air, it is an essential part of living a good life, and we must do whatever it takes to ensure that americans have access to it in the future’.
Lindsay
July 2, 2004 at 10:55 am
24Hippies nothing. Anyone can see this is the work of those dastardly Commies.
changetion
July 2, 2004 at 2:46 pm
25re: who votes for these people?
I don’t know about the others, but DeMint is running for Hollings senate seat right now in SC against Inez Tenenbaum, having won the primary. He’s popular, too. So be afraid. Be very afraid.
bellatrys
July 2, 2004 at 6:43 pm
26Stuart wrote: “Perhaps if he gets another term he can replace a few of these pinko judges with ones willing to safeguard our freedoms by eliminating them.”
So, does this mean safeguard our freedoms by eliminating [the freedoms], or did it mean safeguard our freedoms by eliminating [the judges] ?
They’re both worryingly plausible.
bellatrys
July 2, 2004 at 6:44 pm
27Bill, are you using Exploder, I mean, Explorer? I have to use Mozilla to see FA correctly.
Erik
July 3, 2004 at 7:57 am
28Dan, maybe there’s the solution: Put boobs on campaign ads.
dubya
July 3, 2004 at 6:09 pm
29Sorry this is off topic but I just had to share it. Just one more example of our rulers thought processes and his rudeness when things do not go his way.
Apparently GW thinks that the war in IRAQ is wrong and that the world would be better if Saddam was still in power.
The following is just a snippet from an interview he gave with an Irish reporter in the whitehous on June 24.
BUSH: (Saddam) was a brutal dictator who posed a threat. Such a threat that the United Nations voted unanimously to say, Mr. Saddam Hussein. . .
COLEMAN: Indeed, Mr. President, but you didn’t find the weapons of mass destruction.
BUSH: Let me finish. What — may I finish? He said — the United Nations said disarm or face serious consequences. That’s what the United Nations said. And guess what? He didn’t disarm, he didn’t disclose his arms….And no one can argue that the world is better off with Saddam Hussein — if Saddam Hussein were in power.
An excerpt of the interview can be found here
http://www.irishabroad.com/news/irishinamerica/news/colemanbush.asp and the video of the complete interview can be found at this address
http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0624/cowen.html the link is at the bottom of the page.
Chris
July 4, 2004 at 2:42 am
30Yeesh, that interview was painful. Painful for him because he bungled *every single bit of it* so badly, and painful to watch because he kept blaming the reporter for his own ineptitude.
canadian
July 6, 2004 at 5:24 pm
31Mr. Felber, please tell me you were being sarcastic when you wrote, “the only way to preserve our freedoms is to eliminate them, at least for a while.”
….Of course you were being sarcastic. After all, who would believe such a ridiculous statement…?
Leslie
July 6, 2004 at 11:43 pm
32Yes, Canadian, that was part of Adam’s satire. Unfortunately, our administration appears to believe that statement, or we wouldn’t have the Patriot Act.