Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: "O'Keefe takes his case against John Doe to U.S. Supreme Court" 30

Journal by smittyoneeach

As promised, Eric O'Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth are taking their First Amendment fight with prosecutors of a secret John Doe investigation to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I guess our favorite Pavlovian degenerate will claim this is just a stunt, there's no "there" there, and it doesn't matter until certiorari is granted.
What's the difference between a mallard with bird flu and a Wisconsin Lefty?

Oh, and I guess the WSJ urging SCOTUS to take the case is just an example of conservative media bias, or something.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"O'Keefe takes his case against John Doe to U.S. Supreme Court" More

"O'Keefe takes his case against John Doe to U.S. Supreme Court"

Comments Filter:

  • These people don't give a damn about 'John Doe' until they become a target. I don't sympathize with them any more than any other victim of this abuse, but anything (or anybody) that can get the law overturned can be seen as a good thing.

    • people don't give a damn about 'John Doe' until they become a target

      So you seem to imply that there is substantial "there" about which to give a damn?
      Instapundit likes to link about prosecutorial abuse in general, but I haven't seen much other than WI where they run around like loose cannons and muzzle the targets.
      Were those prosecutors conservatives operating against liberals, mind you, the Codpiece Media would be wall-to-wall with reporting about it.

      • Were those prosecutors conservatives operating against liberals...?

        Who the fuck cares?? Abuse is abuse.

        • Who the fuck cares?? Abuse is abuse.

          So, just a Mellencamp [youtube.com] tune, then?

          • Yeah, whatever. I just don't see this case as anything special. The solution is to change the law, otherwise expect more of the same.

            • I guess the law I'd change is tenure in these positions. The more likely you are to be on the receiving end eventually, the less exciting it is to abuse power.

              • I guess the law I'd change is tenure in these positions.

                You control tenure with your vote. There is no need to change that law. Besides term limits are useless against the incumbent institutional party that grooms the cyclical replacements and campaign seasons that never end. The law that needs changing is in the US Code, and you gotta vote for people who will do it without mucking it up with all that religious craziness and bigotry. That's if you actually want to get anything done in a positive fashion.

                • Yeah, I pretty much agree with everything you say there, except "term limits are useless". I think you're overstating matters. Why not expand the 22nd Amendment a bit and see?

                  • Because we already know that it hasn't helped the presidency one little bit. The institutional party is still running the circus, just like in Mexico. The individual will follow party policy or will not receive any support. This makes term limits nothing more than a pacification measure. It is a *feel good* law. It is the voters' responsibility to oversee their politicians and vote them out when they screw up. Every problem we have with the system lies squarely on their shoulders. When they reelect corrupt

                    • Do you see the contradiction? You claim that

                      The institutional party is still running the circus

                      and then follow immediately with

                      It is the voters' responsibility to oversee their politicians and vote them out when they screw up.

                      Are you arguing that this government is a closed loop, or that it is not a closed loop?
                      My contention is that it is a "mostly closed" loop, and that recycling all of the bums, while insufficient, is a useful component of an overall solution.
                      People cash out of real involvement because they feel government is a closed loop. You go swapping out the bastards more frequently, and two things are likely to occur:
                      * Greater involvement in

                    • The voters had abdicated...They have been convinced they are helpless, that a conscientious vote is a wasted voted. That is why the party rules. The power is handed to it on a silver platter. To see if there is an iron fist inside that velvet glove, people have to push back a little.

                    • Oops! Second reply again:

                      No, term limits will not work. Different names under the same party accomplishes nothing. We know this. The individual politician is totally and completely irrelevant. He will follow his marching orders, or go nowhere. The voters must take it upon themselves to improve their ability to delegate.

                    • You're asserting that people are 100% fungible.
                    • If the voters abdicated, how do they retain any responsibility?
                      I don't think you've resolved the contradiction.

                    • It was their choice. There is nothing to stop them from reversing it.

                    • You are asserting there is a break in tradition.

                    • Technology enables points of inflection, if not full-on discontinuities, in tradition.
                    • But you had said

                      The institutional party is still running the circus

                      so, clearly, there is something stopping the voters from reversing the situation. Or am I missing something?

                    • Yes, you are missing something...

                    • Inflection, adaptation, but not direction... That has not changed. The human animal remains an animal. Evolution will determine how that goes.

                    • We're back to that discussion, then? Sure, the chromosome model is constant. But the chip is not the application, the individual is not the group. Wake up.
                    • Oh, back to the Cheshire cat game again? It's OK; I've got your number.

                    • ...the individual is not the group.

                      Oh back to that again, eh? Tell me then, what is the group without the individual? Is this your basis for evasion of responsibility?

                    • Tell me then, what is the group without the individual?

                      Um, a symbol pointing to a null set? The evaluation of AVERAGE({0})?

                      Is this your basis for evasion of responsibility?

                      Clearly it's your launching point for the Non Sequitur Of The Day.

                    • No non sequitur from me. It all ties in. I am still very fascinated by all your excuses though.

                    • Would that I were excusing anything. I guess I'm amused at both your contradictions and your accusations.

  • BTW, from just seeing your side of the conversation I'd have to guess that you were talking with fustawhatever. Because while DR tries to confound and confuse Conservatives by saying everything that's up is down and vice-versa, fusta's trademarked tactic against Righties as I recall is to pelt with accusations (none of which s/he can hold up, of course). I guess the idea is to take you off your game and from thinking clearly about the issues to thinking about how on earth someone could accuse you of such

    • Sure. d_r is a commie; fustakrakich is a troll.

      • Well summed-up. The only nuance that might be missing is what they have in common (besides being a waste of time, that is). And that is, whether or not fusta is an equal opportunity troller (across the political spectrum) or only targets Conservatives like DR.

        • I think d_r is a doctrinaire Commie, which his why his feelings were so hurt by telling it like it is about Karl Marx. Fustakrakich is some kind of a burnout spitballer, who just likes to poke people. A lapsed Catholic, I think.

Slashdot Top Deals

One person's error is another person's data.

Close