ambivalent imbroglio home

« March 29, 2005 | Main | April 03, 2005 »

April 01, 2005

Arrogant and Out of Control

You know, I'm still surprised that I can be surprised by current political events, but today's Republican “leadership” just continues to amaze me. Check out what they're saying about the death of Terri Schaivo:
Joining DeLay in taking issue with the judiciary was Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who said, “The actions on the part of the Florida court and the U.S. Supreme Court are unconscionable.” Also, GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina said the case “saw a state judge completely ignore a congressional committees subpoena and insult its intent” and “a federal court not only reject, but deride the very law that Congress passed.” DeLay said he would make sure that the GOP-controlled House “will look at an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president.”
First, you've clearly lost all perspective on how the American legal system works if you start declaring that it's “unconscionable” for judges to follow U.S. law and the requirements of the Constitution. Second, a U.S. Representative shows a grave lack of respect for both his own elected office and the judiciary by declaring that judges are “arrogant and out of control” just because they made decisions with which he disagrees. Such statements are not only reprehensible, they suggest a downright dangerous view of the principle of separation of powers. Would DeLay prefer a judiciary that simply asks “how high” every time Congress tells it to jump? Sorry, but our system is set up to give judges a healthy measure of insulation from political pressures precisely so that politicians can't tell judges how to decide controversial cases. Um, Tom? Maybe you should take a civics class or something, or maybe some pills. I'm sure there's some drug that could help with your egomania and delusions of grandeur. Finally, who is going to look into the arrogant and out of control Republican Congress that thumbs its nose at the Constitution and the American people? Sheesh.

Posted 09:48 AM | Comments (5) | general politics

Washington Lawyer: Do You Blog?

The Washington Lawyer's April cover story is entitled “Do You Blog?” Well, do you? The article was written by Sarah Kellogg and covers everything from the birth of blogs and RSS to the benefits and perils of professionals publishing online. It's a great article, but it would have been even better if it would have provided links to to all of the many blogs it mentions.* In case you'd like to check out the blogs mentioned in the article, they include: I enjoyed talking w/Sarah a few weeks ago for this article, and I'm flattered to have been included among such company. I do have two small clarifications. First, the article suggests that Blawg Wisdom is where I keep a record of my progress through law school, but actually, to the extent that I do that at all, it's here, on ambivalent imbroglio. Blawg Wisdom is intended to aggregate the advice and experience of other law students. Second, I don't think I usually talk in the short, choppy sentences in which my quotes were rendered in the article. However, I've conducted enough phone interviews to know that sometimes a writer has to take small liberties to translate the interview into the article. In all, “Do You Blog?” is a great summary of where legal blogs have been, where they are at the moment, and where they might be headed—definitely worth checking out. *I had this same problem when I wrote “Join the Blawg Bandwagon” for Student Lawyer magazine. Here's a tip for editors: If you know an article is going to be published both in print and online, ask the writer for two versions—one complete w/links for the web, and one w/out links for print. Or just ask for the one with links and delete the links for the print version. Either way, you'll have a better product in the end.

Posted 07:51 AM | Comments (2) | law general meta-blogging

about   ∞     ∞   archives   ∞   links   ∞   rss
This template highly modified from The Style Monkey.