The Rule of Law?

Are judges the protectors and upholders of the rule of law or are they one of the greatest threats to the rule of law in a just society? A judge that bends the law to suit her political ideology and to protect her favored political allies is not upholding the rule of law but is rather making a mockery of the very idea of a rule of law. That is what has occurred in the Courtroom of a Federal Judge in New York.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline Blog says:

A federal district judge, the Honorable Nina Gershon of the Eastern District of New York, has found that congressional legislation that restricts funding by the federal government of ACORN is unconstitutional by virtue of being a “bill of attainder.” Judge Gershon is best-known, at least until now, as the judge who ruled that Mayor Giuliani could not cut the Brooklyn Museum of Art’s funding after it displayed sickening pornography.

The Judge’s ruling that Congress cannot cut off funding for a criminal organization such as ACORN makes just such a mockery of any pretense to a rule of law, or that we are are a nation of laws and not a nation of women. The basis for the decision, that the funding cut off is an unconstitutional bill of attainder is silly and probably won’t survive an appeal (if there is one) unless the appellate panel is as ideological and politically driven as Judge Gershon.

For a very good analysis of how wrong this decision is please read the whole Powerline post.

UPDATE: Bertha Lewis, the chief executive officer of ACORN, is celebrating now, but when Congress opens hearings about what her organization has done with federal funds, and starts subpoenaing records, account books and receipts for expenditures, she may rue the day Gershon made her ruling. Gregory Kane, writing in the Washington Examiner.

Copenhagen A Bust?

copenhagen

Headline in today’s Times of London:

Copenhagen Stalls Decision on Catastrophic Climate Change for Six Years

Jane Jamison in Climategate TKO in Copenhagen? at The American Thinker says “This could be the most important headline in the world for the last 20 years and the most hopeful news for the next 20 years if it is correct.”

A possible paradigm shift as a result of the new evidence of “fudgeable facts” may be in the works. The Times of London story reports that when Tony Blair spoke at the conference yesterday and in reference to the leaked email about climate change research he said:

“When you come to very precise dates, percentages and so on [. . .] then the figures are somewhat more fudgeable.”

See also Paradigms and Weltanschauung (German for “Worldview”):

My knowledge of science and the scientific method has led me to have serious doubts about the entire theory of AGW and especially of the derivative and elaborate structure for redress. When scientists hide their raw data and their statistical manipulations, they have forfeited their right to be referred to as scientists.

I commented here (When Scientists Act Like Lawyers) on Scientists pursuing a new theory the way lawyers set out to win a court case rather than seeking truth by the scientific method.

Open Letter to Bob Schieffer

From Cafe Hayek:

An Open Letter to CBS Newsman Bob Schieffer

Schieffer said over the weekend that “none of the senators really knows what’s in the health-care bill they’re debating.”

Congress is trying to design something they themselves admit they don’t know very much about. I don’t know if hubris is a strong-enough word to describe this. Maybe “chutzpah” would be more like it.

Cafe Hayek says, of the health system in the U.S.:

That industry is one of billions of unique, often personal, relationships, each of which is part of countless long chains of efforts to transform raw materials and human effort into life-improving and life-saving drugs and treatments. Like weather, these long chains of human relationships weren’t designed by anyone.[emphasis mine]

Read the whole thing, and take another look at my Quote of the Day, below.

New Study Confirms What I Already Knew

Byron York reports on a new study that confirms what I already knew: liberals are fantasists.

Byron York is having a productive Monday. Elsewhere he reports:

Congressional investigators looking into the abrupt firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin have discovered that the head of AmeriCorps met with a top aide to First Lady Michelle Obama the day before Walpin was removed.

And then lied about it.

McCain Vulnerable in Arizona?

Anything is possible, but McCain is only 2 points ahead of J.D. Hayworth, 45% to 43%, in this Rasmussen Poll. And Hayworth hasn’t even announced whether he is running.

An incumbent is usually thought to be in trouble when under 50% in the polls. To be under 50% and only 2 points ahead of someone who is not running yet is ominous. Sure wouldn’t make me sad. It isn’t McCain himself so much that I’d like to see defeated. It’s his style of RINO Republicanism and constantly sucking up to Democrats and their friends in the state-run media that I would really like to see go down in flames, for good. I’d like for other Republicans to see the McCain style doesn’t work, just in case ’08 didn’t do it for them.

Republicans and Democrats both wanted McCain to be the Republican nominee last year. Republicans because they thought McCain was the only one who could win, Democrats because they knew McCain would be the easiest to beat.

McCain will be 74 next year. He’s had an eventful life. He is rich. You wonder what it is about Washington politics that makes a guy like that want to stay in that maelstrom instead of sitting on the beach somewhere with a good book and a Mint Julep.

This is just one poll, the election is almost a year away, so I won’t get too excited at this point.

Lieberman Says No Deal

Lieberman tells Harry Reid he won’t vote for the bill with the Medicare expansion in it. Lieberman told Reid to talk to Olympia Snowe? It might work.

None of this means a thing. It certainly doesn’t mean Lieberman won’t vote for the bill. We should not believe anything that comes out of their mouths, only their actions matter. It ain’t over ’til it’s over.