Friday, July 22, 2005

Moron Mail: Mimicking MoveOn's Monstrously Misinformed Malarkey

Here's the latest from the "reality-based community":

President Bush's choice for the Supreme Court, Judge John G. Roberts, wrote a dissenting opinion that the Endangered Species Act is unconstitutional. In other words, he believes that
Congress doesn't necessarily have the power to pass environmental laws.

To those who vote Republican and consider themselves environmentalists: nice going.

Eric Jaffa, Brooklyn Center.

You've probably heard murmurs of this trope going around - something having to do with an endangered toad. In fact that whole first paragraph sounds like a talking point. Let's check:

Yep (from MoveOn):

Environmental protections when the dissent he wrote on an Endangered Species Act case, had it been in the majority, would have struck the Act down as unconstitutional in many cases, and would have threatened a wide swath of workplace, public safety and civil rights protections.

And lest you have any doubt that Mr. Jaffa actually reads the moonbat rantings from MoveOn, be informed that he does donate to the organization.

Wow! Judge Roberts wanted to strike down the Endangered Species Act. What a radical wingnut!

Er, no. It's all bullshit. An assertion of uninformed stupidity at best; a blatant, evil, baldfaced lie at worst.

I thought people like Eric Jaffa fancied themselves intellectuals - you know, smarter than all of us drooling rubes in Jesusland. Well, a hallmark of intelligence is not taking at face value every assertion shot your way by a bunch of moonbat activists. Someone with intellectual curiosity might have actually read the opinion.

Had Mr. Smartie Pants actually read Roberts' dissenting opinion in Rancho Viejo v. Norton, he would have discovered that:

1) The dissent was from an order of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (DC CCA) denying a petition to rehear the case en banc (that is, in front of the whole court, not the typical three-judge panel). Thus his dissent was of a procedural matter, not a substantive one;

2) Roberts was concerned that the DC CCA's was in conflict with a decision by the Fifth Circuit, and he thought that that the DC CCA's decision (which he did not hear - remember this was an opinion dismissing a petition for rehearing) was wrongly decided based on the common Supreme Court precedents that both courts applied. ;

3) As close as Roberts got to "declaring the Endangered Species Act unconstitutional" was to opine that the Constitution's grant of power to regulate interstate commerce may not have empowered Congress to regulate IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, since the toads in question lived wholly within the borders of California and the development in question likewise did not cross state borders;

4) His dissenting opinion did not once use the term "endangered";

5) Or "species".

6) Here's the death blow, from the Roberts' dissent itself (yeah, I read it, moonbats. You should try actually reading something sometime instead of mindlessly parroting talking points):

En banc review is appropriate because the approach of the panel in this case and NAHB now conflicts with the opinion of a sister circuit - a fact confirmed by that circuit's quotation from the NAHB dissent. [citations] . Such review would also afford the opportunity to consider alternative grounds for sustaining application of the Act that may be more consistent with Supreme Court precedent.

Got that, moonbats? No? I'm sorry, I forgot that you won't - or can't - read. Let's look at that last sentence again, with emphasis added:

Such review would also afford the opportunity to consider alternative grounds for sustaining application of the Act that may be more consistent with Supreme Court precedent.

Not only was he not trying to invalidate the Endangered Species Act, he was proposing that the court search for ways that, within precedent, NOT invalidate it. Roberts' dissent in this case is exactly 180 degrees opposite of what the drooling idiots like Eric and MoveOn purport it to be.

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Man are you people stupid. Or evil.

To those moonbats like Eric who think that they're smart and know what they're talking about: nice going.

No comments: