July 15th, 2009

PK Icon

God Really Does Not Need Bullies

I was struck by this bit (lifted from Crooks & Liars) where Wiley Drake explains to Alan Colmes that if Barack Obama does not turn his life around, that God should strike him dead in accordance with various passages of the Bible.

Conservative Christians aren't the only ones who pull this nonsense, of course. Heck, one doesn't even need to be Christian, or even one of the People of the Book, to ask that whatever higher power you serve take note of Your Loyal Servant and strike dead Whoever Loyal Servant Opposes.

As I've observed before, God really doesn't need bullies. If God doesn't like someone's conduct, He is perfectly capable of dealing with the matter on his own. I do, however, feel constrained to observe that Psalm's states: "may sin perish from the Land" not sinners. I must also observe that according to Kohelet: "Because the judgment is long deferred, men's hearts are tempted to sin," which indicates to me at last that one should not hold one's breath for this sort of thing.

But if you are going to call down the wrath of God to prove your own righteousness, you ought to insist on a rather unambiguous sign, as demonstrated in Num: 16:28-35. Otherwise people are likely to remain skeptical.
Edumacte Teh Masses

Franken Asks about Net Neutrality -Sotomayor Babbles Incoherently

_sigh_ If you don't know the case, just say you don't know the case! Don't babble incoherently about a half-remembered case you don't understand. This was an Ad Law case!!!! Hello! Boring, boring Ad Law, with a decent question from Franken that required you to harmonize the trends in First Amendment jurisprudence.

You can see Franken asking Sotomayor about an issue of my own -- Net Neutrality -- here. http://minnesotaindependent.com/39439/franken-sotomayor-3

The hypothetical Franken spins out is not too far off in the smaller market areas, like Duluth. One should also note that the term Franken used 9initially) was "First Amendment interest" -- which is different legally from a First Amendment right (although it is often difficult to quantify the difference).

Sotomayor's answer shows she clearly did not recall the case very well. Granted I don't expect the 2nd Cir. to do much Ad Law, but if you don't know just say you don't know and you would want to see briefs before making an opinion. I don't expect judges outside the DC Circuit to be familiar with the line of cases in this area -- although I would love to see her get questioned on Red Lion and Turner and Associated Press.

Her bottom line, that it is Congress' job to develop the appropriate regulatory scheme to ensure access by all Americans if that is our policy goal, was correct. I just wish she hadn't sounded like a 2L who hadn't done the reading.