What good are they then?
by Duckman GR
Okay, I may be crazy, possibly certifiable, annoying, and even rude sometimes. But does this make the least bit of sense? From an AP report via an Atrios commenter I read with lyin eyes this comment from mr. ashkraft:
"Courts are not equipped to execute the law. They are not accountable to the people," Ashcroft said.
Now I want you to think about that comment, especially those of you out there supportive or undecided about bush and his choices.
IF a "Judge" is not equipped to make an executable decision on a law, then who the hell is?
Oh, wait, that's in the first part of the article, Federal judges are jeopardizing national security by issuing rulings contradictory to President Bush's decisions...
...Ashcroft criticized rulings he said ... run counter to the broad discretionary powers given the president by the Constitution.
All power devolves to the Executive Branch. There are no checks and balances. That's how you get a murderous enabler like Abu Ghraib Gonzales saying it's okay to torture people even though he has no standing, experience, or jurisdiction to make such a decision. An opinion sure, but a decision, no.
A Republican Dictated Congress prostrate in bootlicking supplication, a Fundamentalist Judiciary wrapped in the white hooded cloaks of a racist past, and an Immature, Insecure, Sociopath Executive.
We are indeed in the dawning of a new age.