Last week, Judge Nina Gershon judge granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of a recently enacted provision of law that cuts funding to ACORN and its community outreach programs. A temporary freeze on enforcement of the Ant-ACORN law - The Horror!!!!
I found this passage in a piece at the ever charming National Review Online quite amusing.
Ed Whelan’s analysis of Judge Nina Gershon’s pernicious opinion in the ACORN funding case -- Gershon granted an injunction -- is right on the money (pun intended). Gershon’s opinion -- that not receiving discretionary federal funding fits the definition of “punishment” as a prohibited Bill of Attainder -- would be laughable if there were not such serious issues at stake. Of course, that probably does seem like punishment to someone who has never, ever had a job in the private sector and has spent her entire legal career working for the government or as a law professor.
~ The NRO [em-mine]
A Bill of Attainder is expressly prohibited by the Constitution. This is a prohibition against punishment by the legislative act instead of by judicial trial. Basically the Congress can’t pass a law which punishes George and Dick for implementing torture. Advice to Dick and George you may be safe here but avoid vacations in Spain. Especially you, Dick. However if you want to go Dick, I am sure we could pass the hat around to raise the cash for airfare.
Back to the passage, above. I haven’t read much about the decision. I have not even read Big Ed Whelan’s condemnation of the opinion, but the odds are fair to middling that there is a basis for concern. At this point, I really don’t care because a decision on the merits is to come later.
The amusing part is the outrage directed at the Judge for not having held a job in the private sector. Talk about pots and kettles!
No writer at a wingnut welfare operation such as the NRO or at the Think Tanks of the DC swamps should condemn another person’s way of earning a living as being outside of the free market.
Does anyone really think an operation like the unprofitable Washington Times competes freely in the marketplace when it is funded by a Korean Mega-Church Leader who has proclaimed himself to be the second coming of Christ? Not a chance. How about the Heartland Institute which turns tricks in the climate denial circuit while being in bed with Exxon --- would it fare well in the private sector? Doubtfully. These operations are funded through rightwing charity and corporate sponsorship and not by the contributions made to the free market.
I think kicking these wingnut welfare recipients off the dole would be the best thing in the world for them (and us).
Think about it.
They could get to know the dignity of hard work under the conditions of the free market. As it is, these wingnut welfare recipients are trapped in a cycle of dependency. They are rewarded when they are shrill and punished if inconveniently truthful. This is terribly debilitating for the human soul.
Someday we will end wingnut welfare as we know it and set these poor souls free to enjoy the magic of the marketplace. Someday, my Friend. Someday.
Footnote: Gershon’s previous brush with fame came in 2006, when she was the judge during the trial of a Pakistani-American would be terrorist, Shahawar Matin Siraj. Siraj was convicted of plotting to blow up a New York subway station and received 30 years in the big house for his part in the plot.
Looks like all is well that ends well --- a plot prevented, a terrorist off the street and locked, right? WRONG!!!!
The outrageous part of this tale (that nobody knows about, YET) is that Judge Gershon used the Good Ol’ American Legal System during the trial of Siraj. She didn’t use a tribunal or send him to Guantanamo. She presided over the trial right here in America.
Oddly unlike today, when the thought of trying a terrorist in an actual court sends many rightwingers shrieking in anguish, there was no rightwing outrage at time Siraj’s trial. Odd. Very odd.
Maybe it’s like the old timers often tell you. Back in the good ol’days, we were a braver people. Today, the notion of trials for the accused and application of the rule of AMERICAN law frightens some. Would they rather use International law or effete European law? Doubtfully.
It is an odd world.