Supreme Court Ignorance

Stupid comment of the day goes to three Supreme Court Justices who don't know the meaning of the words they use.

Supreme Court justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor objected to the court's haste in declining Muhammad's case Monday, saying it "highlights once again the perversity of executing inmates before their appeals process has been fully concluded."

Haste? Really, haste? Haste would be carrying out the execution before the trial concluded. This is a case of a mass murderer who was convicted of killing 10 people in 2002. If you can not finish the appeals process in seven years (heck, two weeks) then you're incompetent and should find another line of work. Further highlighting the stupidity of the justice's complaint is Justice Stevens' comment that "he did not disagree with the court's ultimate decision that Muhammad's petition did not warrant the court's consideration." Huh? The prevailing mindset of justices like these is reason the appeals process takes so long.

Only thing dumber than the comments of Stevens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, is the statement of the killer's lawyer:

"In its effort to race John Allen Muhammad to his death before his appeals could be pursued, the state of Virginia will execute a severely mentally ill man who also suffered from Gulf War Syndrome the day before Veterans Day," he said.

This liar (or lawyer or whatever) is trying to push all the buttons, isn't he? My client is crazy. Wait a second, I meant he's got a disease. How about "he's a veteran let's honor his service before we execute him." Hey, guess what? Being a veteran is not a get out of jail free card. Benedict Arnold was a veteran. So was Lee Harvey Oswald. Heck, Ted Kennedy joined the Army for a couple years after getting kicked out of Harvard for cheating. Here is an idea. You could have argued that nonsense at his trial. I'm almost surprised the lawyer didn't argue that his client shouldn't be executed for these ten murders because he hasn't gotten his day in court for the other ten murders he and his accomplice are suspected of but were never charged with committing.

One last point: If there are more openings on the court you can count on President Obama naming replacements like Stevens, Ginsberg, Sotomayor instead of ones who would read and uphold the Constitution faithfully.

Goofy Quote of the Day

Rep. Don Young (R-AK) gave his response to the conviction of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK). Even though he is his longtime friend and a strong supporter, I don't think he did Stevens any favors with these comments:

"I'm deeply disappointed," he said in an interview. "It surprises me. I don't think he had a jury of his peers. That's the way it goes. I'm sure there will an appeal. If you watch the conduct of the court and with the one juror leaving and going out and of course the action of the prosecutors themselves, there will definitely be an appeal and it will go for a long period of time."

Can Stevens still win?

"I think he can win. He's the best thing for that, for the Senate. Alaskans know this. This is a trumped up charge. If you look at not reporting, supposedly gifts -- he reported everything he got. I think it was wrong when they prosecuted him on this issue."

Daily News: You worked with him all these years. Some people will look at the verdicts as a statement on his years of services.

"I think that's going to be, you know, a matter of opinion. I can remember Richard Nixon, you know, his years of service, what he's done, and everybody were ridiculing him and he ended up being the greatest president in the history of our century.

"The senator will be reelected. He will appeal it. When he does go, he will win it because there's no way this is a jury of his peers."

Now, I'll admit to thinking Nixon's true record was much better than how history has judged him. However, even through my somewhat biased glasses I don't see Nixon as a top ten president (he certainly isn't the worst either). Beyond that the sentence is just oddly worded and linking the recently convicted senator to a president who was forced to resign can not help his case with the voters.

BREAKING NEWS: Sen. Stevens Guilty

CNBC is reporting that Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) was found guilty on all counts in his corruption trial. Making this all the more interesting is Stevens is up for reelection next month. I've argued for years that Stevens should resign from the senate mainly because his penchant for pork barrel spending is a contributing factor to our growing national debt. He definitely should have stepped down when he was indicted so someone else could run in the election. I'm sure we will all be treated to a protracted appeals process since guys like this never let go easily.

Side note: During the trial, former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell was a character witness for the defense. We can only hope that voters think as little of his endorsement of Sen. Obama as the jury thought of his attesting to the honesty of a crooked politician.

Asked by lead defense attorney Brendan Sullivan if he could describe Stevens' character and integrity, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and secretary of state described them as, "in a word ... sterling."

"If you made a deal with Ted Stevens you knew it was good," Powell said. "[He] never would do anything that was improper."

Breaking News: Sen Stevens Indicted

It was just announced on CNBC that Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) has been indicted by the Justice Department. Stevens has long been an example of what's wrong with national politics. For many politicians once elected it becomes all about how can my position help my bottom line. Public service should be just that a temporary service to the nation to ensure the government is properly run. Public service should not be a lucrative career. Fortunately, Stevens actually has a primary challenger this cycle. He should resign his seat now to prepare his defense or to get his affairs in order before starting his prison term. Either way good riddance.