Rove, Conyers Duke It Out; I Put $500 On Rove

John Conyers, the highly qualified stand up public servant who only has the people's best interest in mind (unless they happen to be his staff), has written an article for that bastion of fair and balanced reporting, the Huffington Post. It is a 'rebutal' article taking on Karl Rove's editorial over at the Wall Street Journal. Conyers takes the opportunity to complain about how Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the WSJ is playing politics with his newspaper. This is important becuase John Conyers would never play politics! There's no doubt that Conyers runs a tight ship, and therefore has position to lecture others on how to run theirs.

I've written about the nonstory surrounding the political firing of political appointees, who serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States, and fail to understand why the libtards have their hemp panties in a wad over this. One thing is for certain, they are making a mistake by having Conyers as the face-man on this deal. Don't the Democrats have anyone who doesn't have an ethics complaint in their past who can lead this charge... Oh wait, nevermind.

Since the Demotards are all into the Bible now, someone should tell Conyers to check out Matthew 7:5...

Rush Limbaugh Makes Gay Joke; Everyone With A Sense of Humor Laughs

Borrowed from Attila the Honey

The Huff'nPuff is in a tizzy over Rush's latest joke at the expense of The House's most predominate queen, Bawny Fwank.

Making sure to point out that Fwank's pointed response was to a woman who'd questioned why he would support the President's health care reform bill, while holding a poster of Obama with a Hitler mustache. They failed to point out, however, that as has been proven multiple times that the people comparing Obama to Hitler are the leftist LaRouche PAC.

It's okay to smear Conservatives as supporting claims of Fascism against PeeBo, but it's not okay to make a Uranus joke about a gay Democratic Representative.

Update: HotAir says, 'Rush not being helpful.' Commenter's appear to disagree.

Libtards For Justice... Or Something

Nicholas Stephanopoulos at the Huff'nPuff tries to put words together in order to fashion sentences, but fails miserably. In his hackneyed piece he claims that conservatives not only have adopted a non-constitutional/common law approach toward the role of the judiciary, but have embraced the french revolutionary philosophy regarding judicial constraint.

Stephanopoulos writes:

...[W]hat document said that "the courts may not directly or indirectly take any part in the exercise of the legislative power," adding that "judicial functions... will alyaws remain separate from the executive functions?" Was it a proposal by President Bush's Department of Justice? Or perhaps a bill submitted by congressional Republicans to prevent "legislating from the bench?" Actually, no. It was France's famous Law on Judicial Organization, enacted at the height of the French Revolution

Pop Quiz: What major European revolution was inspired by the American Revolution?
Bonus Question: Which country did Thomas Jefferson assist in writing their 'Declaration of the Rights of Man?'

That's right, FRANCE.
You see, the French were not always douche bags, like they are now. At one time, they understood that rights were a gift from G_d and inalienable, just like a few pretty famous Americans. The french, after helping the United States in it's own Revolution, soon launched their own and leaders from the new Democratic Republics shared philosophies and ideals on where rights came from and how man was to be governed. All this to say, the revolutionary french shared constitutional ideologies (including judicial philosophy) with the United States. So, to insinuate that the quotes above are completely foreign to our way of governing or judicial philosophy is ignorant.

Stephanopoulos then goes on to claim that the common law method allows for judges to interpret law and legislate, or "...consult non-textual sources and take policy considerations into account in their decisions." Small problem

The problem with this claim is that the 'common law method' although practiced in the United States today is no where to be found in the enumerated powers of the Judicial Branch within United States Constitution. The Constitution is clear, the Legislative Branch is the body which proposes new law and the Judicial Branch interprets those laws.

The other flaw in this theory is that there are somehow documents crucial to the rule of law in the US which lie outside of our legal founding documents... I'm not even going to waste my breath on that one

Verdict: Huff'nPuff, FAIL again!