Those French Revolutionary Mobs Had It Right: Dumb Congressmen Who We Oughtta Behead

My name is Ron Lewis, and
I'm a fucking moron.

There's this whacko congressmen from Kentucky (I'll give you one guess as to which party he's from). He's pissed off that some "crazy liberal" judges won't let him write laws that don't guarantee equal rights to every citizen ("Me and this lady can get married and we can have a disfuctional family and raise lots of fucked up kids, but I don't care if you two love each other, since marriage is between a man and a woman"), and he's pissed that they won't let him turn America into a theocracy. So he's got this idea...

"Screw Federalism!" says Congressman Ron Lewis. "I didn't like it much anyway, ever since we started giving away rights to blacks, Jews, fags, and Catholics. I got no use for the Supreme Court. What we need in this country is a tyranny of the majority!"

So he proposes this law, The Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004, which gives Congress the right to overrule the Supreme Court of the United States.

"Screw checks and balances!" says Congressman Lewis. "I failed 8th grade civics anyway!"

According to a press release on Congressman Moron's website, "The bill was drafted in an effort to redress recent cases of activist judicial rulings."

“America’s judicial branch has become increasingly overreaching and disconnected from the values of everyday Americans,” said Lewis. “The recent actions taken by courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere are demonstrative of a single branch of government taking upon itself the singular ability to legislate. These actions usurp the will of the governed by allowing a select few to conclusively rule on issues that are radically reshaping our nation’s traditions.”

This guy seriously needs a beating. It turns out that the University of Kentucky granted the Congressmen a Bachelor of Arts degree in History and Political Science in 1969. I think they oughtta revoke that degree, seeing as he understands the American political process about as well as Jayson Blair understands the truth.

The following people are co-sponsors of this bill. If it is in your power, you should have them entered -- against their will -- in the Running of the Bulls in Pamplona, Spain. They should have to wear all red, and they should be forced to run the route in 6" Blahniks: Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), Terry Everett (R-Alabama), Richard Pombo (R-California), Howard Coble (R-North Carolina), Mac Collins (R-Georgia), Virgil H. Goode Jr. (R-Virginia), Joseph Pitts (R-Pennsylvania), Trent Franks (R-Arizona), Joel Hefley (R-Colorado), John T. Doolittle (R-California), Jack Kingston (R-Georgia)

I think that we should also have these distinguished gentlemen (notice how they're all men... maybe all the women in Congress paid attention in junior high and understand the idea of checks and balances) go back to eighth grade.

Dahlia Lithwick is not a big Ron "Big Idiot" Lewis fan, either. She went off on him today on Slate... An excerpt:

Legal scholars far smarter than Lewis and me devote lifetimes to thinking about this stuff. And reasonable minds can differ on the merits. Antonin Scalia recently expounded on the strict constructionist view. Stephen Breyer has argued for the living model. And there are democratic ways to make Lewis' point, especially if you are a congressman: If you don't like judges who aren't strict constructionists, work hard to keep them off the bench.

But Lewis wants to upend the whole bench instead. His plan represents a categorical refusal to be bound by the decisions of any judge holding a "living Constitution" view. It says, and increasingly pundits on the far right have argued, that anyone who interprets the Constitution using a theory that differs from one's own is simply not a judge, and that law as decided by such judges is simply not law. That goes beyond demagoguery to arrogance and lawlessness. Whatever I may think of Justice Scalia and strict constructionism, I would never suggest for a moment that his decisions do not bind me.

Len over at esoterically.net says this is all a prequel to a fight over gay marriage:

The stage is being set. The Republicans are well aware that the issue of same sex marriage is going to eventually end up in the Supreme Court and they are aware that the Court is going to have to rule in favor of it based on the equal protection clause of the Constitution. They want to be prepared.

Once again I find it amazing that the Republican party labels any court that chooses to uphold the Constitution as "activist." It is good that they are around to protect us all from these activists, right?

I agree with Dahlia and Len, but I add on that we should ask all right-thinking... er, correct-thinking gay men in America to go to the homes of these Congressmen and have lots and lots of anal sex on their front lawns. You know... just for fun. Shit... hetero couples should joy the anal sex festivities too!

Comments

[Rachael Adele]

Manolo Blahnik doesn't make a 6 inch heel. Trust me. That's way too fetish-y for that fashionisto! More accurate: a 4 inch Blahnik.

[Joe]

I'm on my way right now, bottle of Wet and a handful of condoms...wonder how long of a drive it is to Kentucky...

Barkin, do you have any rugs? I don't want to be picking Ron Lewis' front lawn out of my crotch for weeks afterwards...

[mike mohr]

i put down the blanket, got with the anal, only to realize i was in RAY Lewis's front yard.

the only real surprise came when the 245 lb. linebacker donkey-punched me and forced me to watch as he teabagged uncle lester. Over and over and over again.

[Rob McMillin]

United States Constition, Article III, Para. 3:

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

In other words, the Constition gives Congress the power to limit the scope of the Court's jurisdiction. It has never been used, but the proposed legislation is certainly not unconstitutional on its face. Now, what's sad is that the legislator in question thought it necessary to write such a law, which likely means this was done to prove a point.

[Josh Barkin]

How 'bout Marbury v. Madison, Rob?

It reads:

"It is competent for congress to prescribe the forms of process by which the Supreme Court shall exercise its appellate jurisdiction, and they may well declare a mandamus to be one. But the power does not depend upon implication alone. It has been recognized by legislative provision as well as in judicial decisions in this court.

Congress, by a law passed at the very first session after the adoption of the constitution, vol. 1, p. 68, s. 13, have expressly given the Supreme Court the power of issuing writs of mandamus. The words are, 'the Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts, and courts of the several states, in the cases hereinafter specially provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.'"

While you're at it, check out Federalist vol. 2, p. 239.

[James R MacLean]

My name is Ron Lewis, and I'm a fucking moron.

You are too kind.

Richard Pombo (R-California), [...]John T. Doolittle (R-California),...

How humiliating. Josh, this is slightly off topic but you might be interested in something called the "National Endowment for Democracy" and in particular the way it works as a holding company to channel federal monies to the International Republican Institute (IRI). Here's what I had to say about it.

Now, remember the USSR? State, party, media and economy controlled by the same entity?

[Daniel Day]

What does "teabagged" mean?