So now no one will read me. For some reason when I go on and on about how pathetic I am, my readership goes up tenfold. I write something political and it drops. As a political commentator, I’m an unknown voice screaming among many. I would think I am the same thing as a pathetic wreck, but apparently not. Or else people like reading about all the pathetic wrecks, so adding me to the mix is okay.
So here is my political blog comment of the day. Well, actually there will be two. First of all, I went to McCain’s site yesterday. His first paragraph says that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. Then he says he will appoint judges to fix this decision. Then he says he does not believe it is right to appoint activist judges who legislate from the bench.
Problem number one: Is he, or the person who wrote this drivel since McCain is apparently unable to use the “innernit,” completely unable to see the hypocrisy in this statement? I will appoint judges to overturn this, but I do not believe in appointing legislating activist judges? He obviously thinks appointing someone to overturn a decision is not appointing an activist judge, thereby immuning him from his own hypocrisy, or else he completely misses that what he says is hypocrisy. In either case, it’s a problem.
Problem number two: When judges interpret a law, which is their job, it is not “legislating from the bench.” It is doing the job of a judge. Congress (or another lawmaking body) writes a law, executive branch gives it the stamp of approval, judges interpret. Very little of what is written is 100% clear. Facts need to come along and give a law some teeth and meaning. Freedom of speech? This does not mean you have the right to encourage someone to rape someone else. And on and on. All the words in a law need to be interpreted. That is the job of the judicial branch. Lawmakers jump up and down and throw a fit because judges do exactly what they are supposed to do. That is the POINT of a three-branch system. If lawmakers do not like how a judge interpreted a law, then the problem is not with the judge but with the way a law is written. If lawmakers want judges to interpret a law a certain way, then they need to write that way into the law. Otherwise judges are left trying to determine what the hell the lawmaker meant. If an executive does not want a law to be interpreted a certain way, then the executive should not sign the damn bill into law until it is written more clearly.
It’s basic civics McCain. Maybe instead of focusing on your time in the military 40 years ago, you ought to spend some time going back and relearning basic US governmental structure.
This leads me to the other McCain criciticism of the morning. Why is it that we constantly have to hear all about McCain’s military service? Is this all the guy has done? Uh, yes. The other 60-some odd years of his life are irrelevant, at least that seems to be what he wants us to believe. Let’s focus on the fact he was a POW and ignore all the other crap he’s done in between because if we focused on that, we know it would be hard to sell him as a leader.
Annoying. That’s all I have to say about that.