Monday, January 09, 2006

Ted Kennedy On The Constitution

Today during his comments Ted Kennedy stated, "The Supreme Court must serve as an independent check on abuses by the executive branch and the protector of our liberties, not a cheerleader for an imperial presidency.". Does he not understand that the Supreme Court must also serve as a check against the legislative branch, as well? (See: Any high school civics textbook, for proof.)

During the Roberts hearings I personally heard and remember very well, the sound bite of Charles Schumer (in a press conference, not in the hearing) referring to the Court as an entity that "made law". Nice to see that Charles was wanting to share something, but most high school government students know that the SC interprets law and they have their hands full with that.. Maybe it was a Freudian slip, maybe that's what the Dems want, because they sure cannot win elections.

With that and today's display of ignorance by Teddy (, it's a wonder that anyone wants to be a part of this process, at all. If a person that wants to serve as a SC Justice has to go through a drunken, murderous senator that isn't able to articulate the function of the SC in the first place, it says a lot about the state of our union. It certainly says a lot about the voters that live in Massachusetts.

WitNit has linked to the complete transcripts of today's proceedings.


G_in_AL said...

The constitution is only something to pay attention to when it suits your political agenda... after all, these people dont know whats good for them anyway.

Anonymous said...

LA has once again demonstrated why he is not a member of the United States Senate: he possesses far too much common sense, has a high standard of integrity, and does not allow his personal desires to get in the way of common decency and his sense of responsibility.

Senators Schumer and Leahy, on the other hand, are simply schmucks.

LASunsett said...


It's not the fact that I disagree with them. If they just had a plan that was different than the plan I support and it was an honest disagreement of approaches (to a given issue), it would be okay. I could live with it.

Most politicians are dishonest. They exaggerate, embellish, promise the world and deliver little, and they outright lie. I can accept that, because I know, for a fact, that there is no better form of government.

But what really irritates the hell out of me, is people like Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and all the other schmucks (as Mustang so accurately described them) not giving a rat's ass about the damage they are doing to this country.

And when they conveniently overlook the Constitution to suit their selfish agenda during a war, I take issue with it.

They don't care who they hurt, as long as Bush gets hurt in the process. They don't care what kind of PR damage they do, in a time of war. Nor do they care about giving aid and comfort to the enemy, by doing anything they can to destroy a sitting president, all the while there are troops, under hostile/combat conditions.

I didn't like Clinton as a president. I gave him a chance, he disappointed me. But, I never in a million years thought he deserved to be impeached. It was a waste of money and time to impeach the man for lying, when every damned member of that witchhunt had lied.

LASunsett said...


I have been in middle management for my state's government. And I can say that after that harrowing experience, in the world of owed favors and constant CYA status, I will never accept another management position, save "Supreme Allied Commander Of The World".

(And that sure includes the US Senate) ;)

Gindy said...

"Does he not understand that the Supreme Court must also serve as a check against the legislative branch, as well?"

I would comment, but I know this was rehtorical.