383. Judge Heckler
CNN is reporting that the Congressman from South Carolina, Preston Brooks, who attacked and beat Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner with a stout cane, has raised a million dollars from his admirers in just the past couple of days.
I suppose we should be grateful that, while the Palmetto State's tradition of political thuggery remains intact, it has evolved over the decades from attempted murder to Fox News-style attribution of bad motives.
After all, what explanation other than hatred of America could account for disagreement? "Delusion of reformism," perhaps? No, seriously. Want to know how bad the liberals are? As of 2007, "calling the President of the United States a liar is now a sure way to cement ones bona fide's [sic] in the growing secular progressive community."
But all this indignation about lawyer Joe Wilson, and yet we hear no comparisons to Richard Sanders, the Jack Nance lookalike who serves (if that's the right word for what he does) on the Washington Supreme Court.
We've run into Justice Sanders before (see post 198 and post 282), and we'll do so again soon. My opinion of him has risen since I discovered he considers himself a Goldwater conservative. It turns out that he consistently votes to let vicious people get away with violating laws intended to protect the vulnerable out of his conscious philosophical commitment to survival of the fittest, and not because, like Robert Gordon, he thinks violence against the disadvantaged is a liberal thing to tolerate.
Last fall, attending a black-tie Federalist Society dinner, Sanders heckled then-Attorney General Mukasey, shouting "Sic semper tyrannis," except in English: "Tyrant! You are a tyrant!"
He was responding to a Mukasey laugh line about the Geneva Convention (perhaps you had to be there). Later, after mulling it over, Sanders reflected that he should have shouted "Tyranny!" instead.
The incidents have much in common, beginning with their incivility and what that says about our society, and continuing through the challenge to the fundamental legitimacy of the American government itself.
Also, their nonsensicality. Sanders made his shout on November 20, 2008, 16 days after the election. We in the 21st century have had a lot of experience with tyrannies, and one thing they have in common is that they don't lose elections. A government that peacefully hands over power to its ideological opponents is not a tyranny.
Similarly, whether or not Obama's statement in his speech was true is an objectively-verifiable fact, and also something uniquely within Congress's control, since Congress rather than the President drafts legislation.
But Wilson didn't say: "The current draft would permit illegals to purchase health insurance on the open market!", which is apparently what he meant (assuming he meant anything at all except: "You Democrat, you!")
He said Obama lied: that he intentionally spoke a falsehood with intent to deceive. And what evidence did Wilson have about Obama's inner state of mind? I mean, other than his party affiliation?
Sanders and Wilson were exactly alike not just in their action, but in the way they used some of the most meaningful words in the English language as empty terms of abuse.
Saturday, September 12, 2009 at 05:18PM in Individual judges, Rhetorical inflation
Reader Comments (2)
Furthermore, the democrats have consistently voted down amendments to add fraud prevention systems (in party line votes). Presumably, Obama is aware of these votes. Does this not imply that he was aware of the lack of fraud prevention systems and that though technically, illegal aliens were not permitted to receive benefits under the bill, they would be able to nonetheless? In that case, does it not seem a bit disingenuous to claim that illegal aliens would not be able to receive benefits under this bill? Or, does one have to be a mind reader to establish whether one lied?
The WH has also issued further press releases (after the statement) essentially saying that a fraud prevention system would be needed to prevent illegal aliens from getting medical services that they would technically not be entitled to. Presumably, these measures will now be added. Better late than never. However, does this not also corroborate the statement that the president lied?
I will readily admit that the delivery was crass and idiotic but that is nothing new from either side of the isle. This is also the first time this matter has actually gotten any attention in the wider public.