In Althouse’s thread on the news that the Obama administration will ignore* the subpoena for Solyndra documents, he said;
Most transparent, ethical administration evah!
I concur. Between this and running guns to Mexican drug gangs to build up support for domestic gun control**, they’re doing a bang up job.
*Since when can you just flat out ignore subpoenas? I thought that was the whole damn point?
**BTW CNN (and WSJ, for that matter), it wasn’t a “botched probe.” Repeating it doesn’t make it true***.
***Unless by botched they mean it was actually found out. If it was supposed to be under the radar, and now it’s manifestly not, then that’s pretty damn botched.****
****I don’t actually have a fourth note; consider this a botched footnote.
I don’t know if she’s as guilty as sin or not (I didn’t follow the media hooplah at all, and still haven’t read much about the case); she certainly did everything she could to make herself look guilty. But merely looking guilty is not a crime.
The government did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don’t know if it was cause of the CSI effect or not, but what I’ve read makes it sound like the prosecution completely flubbed. It looks like they were going for a high-profile career-making sensational case, instead of proving what they could.
Whether Anthony killed her child or not, she definitely could have been brought up on negligence charges; given her behavior, those would have been almost sure to stick.
I should also remind readers that we don’t have a justice system.
We have a legal system.
P.S. Don’t talk to the cops. They are not your friends.
At the Supreme Court.
Yes, running from the cops is now a violent felony. Does this mean that they’ll send SWAT teams on chases? Or to kick in the doors of people who evade capture?
The NYT says, “The law defines violent felonies as including burglary, arson and other ‘conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.’”
That seems vague and overbroad, ripe for exploitation by that bane of the rule of law, prosecutorial discretion.
Regarding the Washington Times’s article on Obamacare waivers, Say Uncle said:
Selective enforcement of Obamacare indicates it’s a bad law for everyone. Selective enforcement of the law is the first sign of tyranny.
I’m inclined to agree; while this might be a bit hyperbolic, it’s also true. Unelected bureaucrats with no accountability deciding whether some people must obey the law while others get a pass might not fit the classical definition of tyranny, but it’s just as destructive to the rule of law.
The more this becomes commonplace, the more we gain a government of men and not laws.
I am no lawyer, but as I understand preemption, it means that states can’t ban something allowed by federal law (or cities by state law, etc.); the Arizona statute does no such thing; it parrots federal law.
If the government is going to make the case that the Arizona law is superseded by the federal law that they are choosing not to enforce, I don’t think they will be successful. All that will do is draw attention to the glaring incompetence of the federal government with respect to fulfilling its obligations.
And they are obligations; the law is the law. If the law is the problem, it should be changed; merely pretending the law we have doesn’t exist (or is unenforceable) isn’t the solution.
On the other hand, perhaps this means that all states with more restrictive firearms laws than federal firearms laws are invalidated because of preemption! I don’t think the administration has any idea of what it’s doing here, and it could backfire on them in a big way (definitely if they lose, and probably even if they win).