Thursday, July 17, 2003
OK, I've banged a bit against S.U.V.'s, and bashed a little against Bush's syntax skills (or appalling lack thereof). It's time to invite Bandit into the mix. Bandit is my Constructionist/Conservative friend I promised would make his appearance at some point. But be forewarned. I cannot simply command his appearance no matter how much 40-something-sass I dish out. Bandit shows up when he wants to and you just never know what will spark a response. And let me tell you he can spark.... Imagine a glass tower intellect well versed in the Constitution arguing against someone with intuitive intelligence from the gut...
Maybe I can bait him here with something very dear to his heart: the Constitution.
There was a very interesting article recently in my beloved Atlantic Monthly magazine (right up there with Harper's and which used to be right up there with the New York Times before they went homogenized bland).
The intro from the Atlantic Monthly article in question: "As the legal counsel to Texas Governor George W. Bush, Alberto R. Gonzales, widely regarded as a likely future Supreme Court nominee, prepared fifty-seven confidential death-penalty memoranda for Bush's review. They suggest that Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise Bush of some of the most salient issues in the cases at hand" --
by Alan Berlow -- http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/07/berlow.htm
What say thou Bandit? We seem to have come to a point where we have entrusted nine people with all the decisions Congress is too chicken-shit to make on behalf of the American constituents they purportedly represent (your words more or less). By all accounts, Alberto Gonzales is a serious contender for the next Supreme Court slot (even so no one from the present Supreme Court has stepped up to the plate to retire [thank god]). . .). What's your take, and what do you think of the recent shift towards America's acceptance of nine people having the power to decide elections, affirmative action, gay affairs, and perhaps the ultimate: the right of a society to take another life?
Maybe I can bait him here with something very dear to his heart: the Constitution.
There was a very interesting article recently in my beloved Atlantic Monthly magazine (right up there with Harper's and which used to be right up there with the New York Times before they went homogenized bland).
The intro from the Atlantic Monthly article in question: "As the legal counsel to Texas Governor George W. Bush, Alberto R. Gonzales, widely regarded as a likely future Supreme Court nominee, prepared fifty-seven confidential death-penalty memoranda for Bush's review. They suggest that Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise Bush of some of the most salient issues in the cases at hand" --
by Alan Berlow -- http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/07/berlow.htm
What say thou Bandit? We seem to have come to a point where we have entrusted nine people with all the decisions Congress is too chicken-shit to make on behalf of the American constituents they purportedly represent (your words more or less). By all accounts, Alberto Gonzales is a serious contender for the next Supreme Court slot (even so no one from the present Supreme Court has stepped up to the plate to retire [thank god]). . .). What's your take, and what do you think of the recent shift towards America's acceptance of nine people having the power to decide elections, affirmative action, gay affairs, and perhaps the ultimate: the right of a society to take another life?
Comments:
Post a Comment
