Patterico's Pontifications

8/13/2010

Patterico Vindicated on the Constitutionality of Stripping ACORN of Funding

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:01 pm



It’s not that I’m always right, mind you. It’s just that when I’m vindicated on a point, you can bet I’m going to point it out.

Back in March, when a silly federal judge ruled that Congress’s decision to strip ACORN of funding violated the Bill of Attainder Clause, I said:

I don’t find the decision convincing. It seems to me that the opinion essentially establishes some sort of ongoing right to federal funding. . . . Congress is simply saying: we choose not to fund a particular organization. Such decisions, it seems to me, are for Congress to make, and not some federal judge.

. . . .

Does Judge Gershon believe that Congress must wait until ACORN is convicted of criminal violations in a court of law before Congress can choose not to give my tax dollars to ACORN — or that Congress has to set up some kind of quasi-judicial review of misconduct allegations before it can defund an organization? Does Judge Gershon believe that Congress can set no parameters on how our tax dollars are spent, and must leave all discretion on that issue to federal bureaucrats?

Neither proposition makes sense to me.

Guess what? It appears that the Second Circuit agrees:

The withholding of appropriations, however, does not constitute a traditional form of punishment that is “considered to be punitive per se.” . . . . Congress must have the authority to suspend federal funds to an organization that has admitted to significant mismanagement. The exercise of Congress’s spending powers in this way is not “so disproportionately severe and so inappropriate to nonpunitive ends” as to invalidate the resulting legislation as a bill of attainder.

Duh.

Oh . . . there’s just one more thing . . .

IN YOUR FACE, BRAD FRIEDMAN!

P.S. I went to the Brad Blog (no links for liars!) and couldn’t find Brad’s item on this. I’m sure I just overlooked it . . .

UPDATE: Friedman has now posted on the decision. (No links for liars!) You’ll never believe this . . . but his post actually gets everything completely wrong.

Seriously. I know: it’s shocking.

127 Responses to “Patterico Vindicated on the Constitutionality of Stripping ACORN of Funding”

  1. It seemed a pretty ludicrous decision by the district court, the memorandum opinion being one of the sillier I’ve read. Thankfully, the Second Circuit still has some basic common sense.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  2. I think Brad is still busy trying to figure out how to successfully use an electronic voting machine. They usually have people to assist technology challenged voters, at least in my area. He should avail himself of that help next time.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  3. PF have last laugh…

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIrhVo1WA78

    ColonelHaiku (2deed7)

  4. bradfreidmand and crissyhooten are thinking up new ways to blame diebold for your racisms.

    JD (3dc31c)

  5. My prediction: Rehearing, rehearing en banc, and certiorari will all be denied without comment or dissent.

    Beldar (6921f4)

  6. Why don’t we just skip legislatures and citizen initiatives and ask the Judges what is best for us.

    JD (3dc31c)

  7. It is the sign of a TRUE IDIOT that does not understand technology enough to KNOW that those windows-based voting machines, and especially the CENTRAL TABULATORS, are a security nightmare, waiting for someone to come along and take control of our elections. The more you know about computers, the more you know what I am talking about, and wouldn’t dare peep “comspiricy theorist.” There is copious amounts of data suggesting vote manipulation. Look at the Alvin Greene issue. They had a 6 hour hearing including expert testimony from numerous computer experts suggesting that the results were not accurate. They decided to ignore all that, rather than open up the can of worms that is election fraud (NOT VOTE FRAUD, which basically does not exist in any significant amount) The Absentee ballots that actually had ballots they could count, showed the other guy winning buy over 80%, yet all the un-auditable touchscreen machines chose Greene by an almost equal margin. There were numerous complaints of people trying to choose the other guy, just to have “Greene” pop up. Trust me, that is a canary in a coal mine as far as election manipulation. Oh, but go on poo-poo-ing something you clearly know nothing about.

    Chris Hooten (d26948)

  8. #7

    There aren’t too many things in this world more amusing than listening to a Dembot express concern about the possibility of rigged elections.

    I guess a liberal judge trying to act like they know what a Bill of Attainder is is close, but not quite as funny, in my opinion.

    Dave Surls (5fa02d)

  9. Having a heck of a time finding Braddy’s post on this, Chris Hooten. Help a brother out?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  10. “They had a 6 hour hearing including expert testimony from numerous computer experts suggesting that the results were not accurate.”

    Chris – All sorts of people can suggest things and get dumb people like you in a lather. That’s what Brad’s blog specializes in. What does that have to do with him not being able to operate a voting machine the way the rest of the population can, repeatedly?

    What does it have to do with the subject of this post?

    Following Baghdad Bob Gibbs’ suggestion, have you been drug tested recently Chris?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  11. I think using purple dye on the index finger is a good idea. And absentee ballots need to be signed with a purple index finger print close enough to the election that it won’t wash off. We will see how many ghosts there are with purple fingers.

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  12. Judge Gershon exemplifies the mindset of the modern liberal Judiciary. Law is meaningless, the out come can be justified by fancy, sympathetic verbiage.

    pat (ea80c1)

  13. If that had been upheld, the oil industry would have had a good case regarding the “punitive” drilling moratorium.

    Kevin Murphy (5ae73e)

  14. OTOH, considering Obama and the 111th Congress, thank God for Article I, Section 9.

    Kevin Murphy (5ae73e)

  15. Oh, wait. They are doing all these things:

    No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

    Obamacare includes a direct tax, not based on the census (and not levied on income).

    No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

    Luckily, Arizona doesn’t have ports, if you are narrowly inclined here.

    No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

    Bwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaha!

    Kevin Murphy (5ae73e)

  16. If nothing else, you’ve got to admire Hooten’s ability to type with his toes while attempting to chew his way out of the straitjacket.

    Icy Texan (cdf587)

  17. hooten make a good
    federal judge he wrong most
    of time and preener

    ColonelHaiku (2deed7)

  18. colonel coffee now
    all over screen and keyboard
    thanks bunch icyT

    ColonelHaiku (2deed7)

  19. The 2nd Circuit obviously has not seen the unpublished amendment stipulating that anything limiting liberal causes is unconstitutional.

    Amphipolis (e01538)

  20. Why don’t we just skip legislatures and citizen initiatives and ask the Judges what is best for us.

    That’s what we keep telling you! Remember, judges know best.

    The Judges (e8b159)

  21. Chris Hooten, still embarrassing yourself I see.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  22. I didn’t embarrass anyone. If someone is knowledgable, and understands how the systems work, they would understand what I am talking about. You clearly don’t. You merely embarrass yourselves with sheer ignorance on this issue. Go talk to a damn computer security expert, sheesh. You probably have visions of millions of brown-skinned people voting that shouldn’t be voting in each election. Sorry, not happening! You guys don’t even know what a central tabulator is, so why am I even bothering with you? This is a clear example of an issue where you are completely misinformed, and yet you think that you know what you are talking about. Pathetic.

    Chris Hooten (18317a)

  23. Clearly don’t know Dick
    about hackability
    of voting machines

    2004 in
    Ohio, the results were
    re-routed around

    Right through GWB
    dot com, the same site used in
    Attorney scandal.

    Mike Connel built it
    was supposed to testify
    but killed in plane crash

    Rove warned, “take the fall.”
    for the apparent election
    manipulation.

    But the only fall
    that he took on that issue
    was out of the sky.

    Chris Hooten (18317a)

  24. Chris – You are the one who introduced hackability to this thread. You are talking to yourself.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  25. hooten dont know dick
    about much of anything
    that never stop him

    ColonelHaiku (2deed7)

  26. Chris Hooten, you are an idiot. I spent 15 years writing software, including 5 years developing embedded systems. And your attempt to call me a racist is the kind of despicable trash we’ve learn to expect from you.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  27. You merely embarrass yourselves with sheer ignorance on this issue.

    You have just managed to drop the IQ of the entire Internet almost 5 points all by yourself.

    Dumbass.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  28. Oh, and fire can’t melt steel.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  29. fire can melt the steel
    rosie o’pumpkin say you
    can google it now

    ColonelHaiku (2deed7)

  30. IANAL, but as someone who has studied American and British history, the bill of attender argument always seemed nonsensical to me. Bills of attainder were used by Parliament to declare someone guilty of a crime. That’s what the Constitution rejected. Declining to do business with an entity isn’t a criminal conviction.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a948e1)

  31. “Back in March, when a silly federal judge ruled that Congress’s decision to strip ACORN of funding violated the Bill of Attainder Clause…”

    Dude, here’s how liberal judges “reason”.

    A liberal judge sees a canary and notes that it has feathers. A liberal judge sees a featherduster and notes that it also has feathers. A liberal judge thus rules that a canary is a featherduster.

    A liberal judge sees a Bill of Attainder and notes that people don’t like Bills of Attainder. A liberal judge sees that ACORN’s funding has been cut off and notes that people also don’t like having ACORN’s federal funding cut off. A liberal judge thus rules that ACORN’s federal funding being cut off must be a Bill of Attainder.

    This is what comes of putting irrational people (aka liberals) in positions of authority.

    Dave Surls (679c60)

  32. if I were Brad I’d be all like but I don’t want it in my face

    happyfeet (19c1da)

  33. Nuts!

    daleyrocks (940075)

  34. Friedman has now posted on the decision. Shockingly, he gets it completely wrong.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  35. They had a 6 hour hearing including expert testimony from numerous computer experts suggesting that the results were not accurate.

    Where’s the link?

    Gerald A (2b94cf)

  36. Quoting out of context, Patterico misrepresents to his readers the content of the 2d Circuit Court of Appeal decision. No surprise.

    You’d learn why if you link to the article, then read my comment, but truth is the last thing Patterico wants you to see.

    No doubt, he’ll block this comment as well.

    Ernest A. Canning (3998fe)

  37. Reproduce your comment here, Ernie. I’m not linking some blog where I’m banned. We’ll discuss it here. Make sure to explain how Brad’s characterization was correct!

    Patterico (c218bd)

  38. EAC….he didn’t block the comment, and I’ve read Brad’s article, as well as the ruling of the court, and I don’t see what you’re referring to…

    Please explain your point.

    reff (176333)

  39. P….great minds think alike….

    reff (176333)

  40. Here is Ernie’s comment over there. Have fun with it.

    COMMENT #7 [Permalink]
    … Ernest A. Canning said on 8/14/2010 @ 6:07 pm PT…

    So in comes Pathetic Patterico (aka Deputy LA County DA Patrick Frey) pulling an out of context quote from the court’s opinion:

    “[W]e doubt that the direct consequences of the appropriations laws temporarily precluding ACORN from federal funds are “so disproportionately severe’ or ‘so inappropriate’ as to constitute punishment per se. . . . In sum, the plaintiffs have failed to show that the appropriations laws constitute “punishment” under the functional test. . . . Nor is the legislative record sufficient to demonstrate ‘punishment’ cumulatively with the historical and functional tests of punishment analyzed above.”

    Frey, then follows up with yet another unprofessional and childish remark that makes me ashamed to admit that he is a fellow member of the CA state bar:

    “IN YOUR FACE, BRAD FRIEDMAN!”

    Fry, of course, chooses to ignore the underlying facts which have exposed the scurrilous and libelous right-wing smear job that led to the defunding of ACORN — a libelous smear that he happily echoed at his site, repeatedly — just as he refused to acknowledge federal criminal James O’Keefe’s violations of CA Penal Code 632, a law which Fry, as a Deputy DA, took a solemn oath to uphold.

    Brad then writes, above:

    The appellate court determined that Congress can target a specific group for punishment…”

    Fry repeats his out-of-context quote and, in his typically unprofessional “in your face” fashion, calls Brad a “liar.”

    That sends two of Fry’s under-informed, wing-nut followers over here (Aaron Worthing @2 and Steve @4) to repeat that Brad is either a liar or that Brad is “not terribly intelligent.”

    Obviously, neither of these blinded-by-the-right wing-nuts bothered to read the decision. They simply accepted, at face value, the representation made by their propagandist-in-chief, Patrick Fry, that the court had actually found that the defunding legislation was not punitive.

    But the actual decision [PDF] reveals that it was Patrick Frey and not Brad Friedman who has been deceptive.

    The court of appeal stated:

    “The withholding of appropriations does not…constitute a traditional form of punishment that is considered punitive per se. …There may well be actions that would be considered punitive if taken against an individual, but not if taken against a corporation….The Harshbarger report reveals that ACORN only derives 10% of its funding from federal grants. Thus, we doubt that the direct consequences of the appropriations laws temporarily precluding ACORN from federal funds are ‘so disproportionately severe’ or ‘so inappropriate’ as to constitute punishment per se.”

    Thus, the court is stating that if this identical statute were applied to an individual, it may well have been considered punitive per se. If one isolates the 10% figure, as this court did, it might be reasonable to conclude that the action was not “disproportionately severe.” But the truth is that the Congressional ban, combined with the deceptively edited video smear job, led to a drastic reduction of ACORN revenues from states and from traditional private donors. It indeed proved the economic death knell for this benevolent community organization.

    Next, the court of appeal conceded that “there is some evidence of record that ACORN was precluded from receiving federal funds upon the legislature’s determination that ACORN was guilty of abusive and fraudulent practices. This evidence points in the direction of a traditional form of punishment.”

    The District Judge made a determination that such evidence was persuasive. Rather than extend to the district court the deference this finding was entitled to, the court ruled that ACORN had failed to prove punitive intent by “unmistakable evidence” because that the law itself does not mention ACORN’s guilt and “there was no Congressional trial to determine ACORN’s guilt.”

    But the absence of a trial actually underscores the grave injustice that occurred.

    A blind man can see what happened here. The hard right came charging into Congress with their deceptively edited videos. The Republicans in Congress openly labeled ACORN a criminal organization, and the corporate media, corporate Congressional Dems and the Obama White House did what they have consistently done in the face of the hard-right noise machine — at least until this latest fiasco over Shirley Sherrod blew up in Andrew Breitbart’s smug little face — they turned turtle.

    Shame on you Patrick Frey!

    Patterico (c218bd)

  41. Turns out “Steve” is not one of my readers, but just a Democrat who can recognize a liar/moron when he sees it.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  42. Ernie, I missed the part where Brad’s description was right. Can you elaborate on that, please, Mr. Lawyer sir?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  43. I don’t see the part where the court reaffirmed that punitive action could be taken against specific groups. The court specifically said this wasn’t punitive.

    Concocting a scenario where it might have been punitive and then hanging your hat on that when it was not part of the decision is a very Olbermannesque trick.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  44. Is Ernie coming back?

    I want to hear how since the appellate court found that the defunding was not an unconstitutional bill of attainder that made he and Brad anything but deadass wrong.

    Splain that Ernie the attorney.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  45. Just so we’re clear, Ernie:

    Brad said:

    The appellate court determined that Congress can target a specific group for punishment . . .

    Can you please give us a quote from the appellate opinion that substantiates Brad’s claim that they “determined” this?

    See, I have given several quotes that show they “determined” the opposite.

    I await your stunning legal wizardry showing me wrong.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  46. Is Ernie saying that because there was “no trial” that Congress could do what it did….but, if there had been a trial, they couldn’t???

    I do see where he is saying there is an “if/then” statement in HIS interpretation of the court’s ruling….in other words, P, you are wrong because HE (ERNIE) thinks you would have been if they had looked at it the way he did….

    Damn, P, I thought you were a better lawyer than that…..

    sarc, of course…..except for the “absent” Ernie…

    reff (176333)

  47. reff – I think you’ve got Ernie’s approach down. Basically if a whole lot of stuff happened that the court did not mention happening, Patterico would be wrong. Otherwise Brad and Ernie are pantsed once again but are too chickenshit to admit it.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  48. Oh Errrrrrrrrnnnnnnniiiiiieeeeee . . .

    Patterico (c218bd)

  49. Damn….and I’m just a Marine and an elementary PE teacher….maybe I should practice law in front of the judge…..

    reff (176333)

  50. I’m sure, Mr. Frey, that as a Deputy DA you understand the difference between an “acquittal” and a finding of “innocence”.

    For the benefit of your under-educated, blinded-by-the-right readers, that difference can be explained with just two letters–“O.J.”

    If Brad Friedman intended to say that the appellate court found that the defunding legislation was “punitive”–and that isn’t entirely clear when one reads the entirety of his remarks as opposed the out-of-context, partial sentence excerpt you culled–then Mr. Friedman erred, just as you erred in your representation that the appellate court found that it was not punitive.

    The appellate court simply ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to prove “punitive intent” by way of “unmistakable evidence.”

    With all due respect to the appellate court, its reasoning is exceedingly suspect.

    First, contrary to standard appellate practice, it failed to give deference to a factual determination by the district court. Second, the two reasons advanced by the appellate court–the absence of an express finding of criminality in the legislation itself and the absence of a Congressional trial are insufficient to overturn the trial court’s factual determination when the record is viewed as a whole.

    And no, I did not suggest that Bills of Attainder are lawful when Congress conducts a trial.

    What occurred here typifies what occurred during the dark days of the early 50s when Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-WI) destroyed the lives and careers of numerous innocent individuals on nothing more than unsubstantiated “allegations” and innuendo.

    Whether we deal with McCarthy or with the 21st Century right-wing smear machine, truth is irrelevant. And, to their shame, the corporate Dems in Congress and the Obama White House have repeatedly turned turtle in the face of the smear merchant onslaught.

    The Congressional rush to judgment without so much as a hearing into whether there was any “truth” in the “allegations” in the deceptively edited videos is a fact in aggravation of the injustice that occurred.

    Finally, Mr. Frey, I have not weighed in sooner at your site for two vital reasons.

    1. I do not find our dialogue especially stimulating. I regard you as my intellectual inferior. Typical of such inferiors, you resort to name calling and “in your face” tactics to compensate for your intellectual impotence.

    Your inability to observe appropriate decorum is the reason Mr. Friedman placed your comments into “moderation.” You were never “banned” from his site.

    2. The quality of your site is such that, whenever I visit Ponterico’s Pontifications, even briefly, I feel the urge to take a shower.

    Ernest A. Canning (3998fe)

  51. Ernie…not only do you think you are smarter than P, you think you are smarter than the Appellate Court, as you so elloquently stated here…

    But, I have a question or two, if you’d like to continue to prove that you are smarter than all of us (I can’t believe that a liberal would actually say what conservatives believe about them, but, I digress….)

    First, I’ll quote you: Brad then writes, above:

    The appellate court determined that Congress can target a specific group for punishment…”

    Fry repeats his out-of-context quote and, in his typically unprofessional “in your face” fashion, calls Brad a “liar.”

    That sends two of Fry’s under-informed, wing-nut followers over here (Aaron Worthing @2 and Steve @4) to repeat that Brad is either a liar or that Brad is “not terribly intelligent.”

    Obviously, neither of these blinded-by-the-right wing-nuts bothered to read the decision. They simply accepted, at face value, the representation made by their propagandist-in-chief, Patrick Fry, that the court had actually found that the defunding legislation was not punitive.

    But the actual decision [PDF] reveals that it was Patrick Frey and not Brad Friedman who has been deceptive.

    The court of appeal stated:

    “The withholding of appropriations does not…constitute a traditional form of punishment that is considered punitive per se. …There may well be actions that would be considered punitive if taken against an individual, but not if taken against a corporation….The Harshbarger report reveals that ACORN only derives 10% of its funding from federal grants. Thus, we doubt that the direct consequences of the appropriations laws temporarily precluding ACORN from federal funds are ‘so disproportionately severe’ or ‘so inappropriate’ as to constitute punishment.”

    Maybe I can’t read English, but the Court said that the action of Congress did not constitute punishment. I thought you said that P was wrong when he said the court did not say that.

    Of course, you did say that “With all due respect to the appellate court, its reasoning is exceedingly suspect.” In English, you are saying the court is wrong. So, are you saying that, while P said what the court said, that since YOU think the court was suspect, that you think the court’s logic was suspect, that P is wrong because of that?????

    Of course, your reasoning that the court was “suspect” in its ruling, one of which is that Congress should have had a trial….doesn’t that mean that Congress can’t change a law without a trial??? Where is that one located, if you please….

    Ok, I’ll stop for a while so you can tell me that I’m not as smart as you either….that’s ok, cause I’ll still pick up the gun and take a post just so you can tell me that….

    reff (176333)

  52. P.S. I’m sorry that this came out as one paragraph. I promise I didn’t write it that way. I’ll have to figure out why it did that. (I will now hit “enter” and try to make a new paragraph; let’s see what happens…)

    Guess I can’t type either….or, I have to hit it more than once (which I did, by the way…)

    reff (176333)

  53. Oh, ok…that’s the site loading the post. After I refreshed, it came out the right way….

    Good, I’m not as stupid as some people have already told me I am….

    reff (176333)

  54. Oh noes, why can’t this site capture the special “decorum” they have over there with all the perma-fried brain dead fringe lefty lying losers at Bradblog?

    daleyrocks (940075)

  55. reff – Shorter Ernie the Attorney is that Patterico is right only because the court got it wrong.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  56. “I feel the urge to take a shower.”

    Lefties should probably yield to that urge at least once a week.

    It might help wash away some of the stench left behind by their constant lying, and their utter hypocrisy.

    Dave Surls (04f338)

  57. “I regard you as my intellectual inferior.”

    For myself, if I wanted to get the opinion of a lower order of life on the level of my intelligence, I’d go to the zoo.

    That way I could solicit the opinion of liberals as well as other semi-sentient creatures like chimps and rhinos.

    Dave Surls (04f338)

  58. ernietheattorney joins bradfreidman and crissyhooten in the ranks of the tirelessly and aggressively dishonest. Bradblog seems to breed them.

    JD (803412)

  59. “Whether we deal with McCarthy or with the 21st Century right-wing smear machine, truth is irrelevant. And, to their shame, the corporate Dems in Congress and the Obama White House have repeatedly turned turtle in the face of the smear merchant onslaught”

    On the contrary, the truth is relevant, and the truth is that we’re under no obligation whatsoever to give ACORN money extorted from the U.S. taxpayer.

    They’re not entitled to one thin dime and never were, and we, through are representatives in Congress, can vote to defund those crooks anytime the urge hits us.

    And that’s exactly what we did do, and rightly so. And, any judge who tries to twist and pervert the law by calling what Congress did a Bill of Attainder, when their action had absolutely nothing to do with attainder (which hasn’t even existed in this country for about 200 years) ought to be impeached and barred from ever again drawing a federal paycheck.

    Dave Surls (04f338)

  60. daley…I was trying to impress myself with my logic…I KNOW I’m not smart enough for Ernie, but, I wasn’t trying to be….of course, I don’t have to be to make my point….

    I thought this point from Ernie bears noting…

    But the truth is that the Congressional ban, combined with the deceptively edited video smear job, led to a drastic reduction of ACORN revenues from states and from traditional private donors. It indeed proved the economic death knell for this benevolent community organization

    I thought it bears noting because first, he left it at the end of a paragraph where he tries to make the “combined” point of reduction of Congressional funds led to the downfall of ACORN…the straw man climbing up on the back of Ernie’s intelligence…

    But, since the court in it’s ruling accepted the Hershberger number of 10% of ACORN funding from Congress it was easy for the court to accept that this was not punishment, punitive or not….

    Ernie, for you….why didn’t ACORN just continue working with a 90% acceptance of the funds they were receiving????

    (SIMPLE ANSWER: because Congress wasn’t the only one who ran from ACORN….there were alot of people on that but running over the “nut”….)

    reff (176333)

  61. Canning: “I regard you [Patterico] as my intellectual inferior.”
    — Gee, can you sense the patronizing elitism oozing from every pore of this person’s being?
    Of course, he does recover a bit by using some comedy: suggesting that Obama’s problem is that he isn’t far enough to the left.

    Icy Texan (d9d69b)

  62. Thus, the court is stating that if this identical statute were applied to an individual, it may well have been considered punitive per se.

    You say that after quoting the court to the effect that –

    “The withholding of appropriations does not…constitute a traditional form of punishment that is considered punitive per se.”

    I don’t don’t think the word “thus” means what you think it means.

    Subotai (365578)

  63. I wish Ernest took a shower more often after posting.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  64. Although the appropriations laws may have the effect of alienating ACORN and its affiliates from their supporters, Congress must have the authority to suspend federal funds to an organization that has admitted to significant mismanagement. The exercise of Congress’s spending powers in this way is not “so disproportionately severe and so inappropriate to nonpunitive ends” as to invalidate the resulting legislation as a bill of attainder.

    [emphasis added]

    My reading of this is that the court ruled that Congress had not created a bill of attainder.

    But I guess I’m under-educated.

    Some chump (e84e27)

  65. “I regard you [Patterico] as my intellectual inferior.”

    That may be . . . and yet, I am able to grasp that Brad Friedman’s statement:

    The appellate court determined that Congress can target a specific group for punishment . . .

    is incorrect. I am able to grasp that the appellate court determined that Congress cannot target a specific group for punishment, but that the evidence did not demonstrate that happened here.

    And I am able to demonstrate that in simple language, without circumlocutions, lawyerly redefinitions, elitist insults, and the other rhetorical tricks you types resort to, when the facts aren’t on your side.

    Not bad for your intellectual inferior.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  66. Your inability to observe appropriate decorum is the reason Mr. Friedman placed your comments into “moderation.” You were never “banned” from his site.

    Let me respond with as much decorum as I can muster:

    Bullshit. You either don’t know what you’re talking about, or you’re lying. I’m not sure which, but neither one is particularly flattering to you.

    He stopped publishing my comments entirely — which counts as a “ban,” regardless of how you and he might want to dishonestly redefine it — for the alleged offense of posting “knowing misinformation.” (He admits this in the latest ACORN thread. You might want to read it before you go misrepresenting the facts yet again.) Since I have never done that, what my offense actually was, was showing him up — with facts and logic.

    If you do that, he will ban you, under the “knowing misinformation” excuse. Did it to me, did it to daleyrocks, has done it to several others, and is planning to do it to another guy over in the latest ACORN thread.

    It’s what liars do when they can’t handle responding to factual arguments that reveal their assertions to be dishonest.

    Decorum ain’t got nothing to do with it, Ernie.

    Now: why did you misrepresent the facts of my banning, Ernie? Were you lying, or just ignorant?

    Patterico (c218bd)

  67. Do we have to pick just one, Patterico?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  68. I regard you as my intellectual inferior. Typical of such inferiors, you resort to name calling and “in your face” tactics to compensate for your intellectual impotence.

    This is such a standard technique of the weak left that it should be in a textbook. First, he insults you with an unprovable assertion that is insulting (I regard you as my intellectual inferior) and then accuses YOU of “name calling and “in your face” tactics”.

    I would really like to conduct a quiz of some of these weenies who come over here, or reside at sites like Wash Monthly, where I was banned for explaining why Obamacare wouldn’t work. It could be history, math, physics, law (I would defer to Patrick here) or even logic.

    The anonymity of the internet provides a valuable forum for those who might be harassed by trolls but it also allows the gross inflation of qualifications by kids masquerading as intellectual superiors.

    Mike K (d6b02c)

  69. “Bradblog seems to breed them.”

    I think you’re a little off base on that one. Obviously a lefty blog can’t breed more lefties.

    However, it does provide a congenial enviroment where lefties can congregate and flourish, in much the same way that a festering pile of dung provides an attractive enviroment for flies and maggots.

    “My reading of this is that the court ruled that Congress had not created a bill of attainder.”

    My reading of it is is that they’re just as clueless as the first judge was when it comes to knowing what a Bill of Attainder is, but they managed to stumble on the right decision by pure dumb luck anyway. But, that’s o.k. since dicta is a bunch of meaningless bloviating hogwash in the best of circumstances, and the final ruling is really all that counts.

    Dave Surls (04f338)

  70. Geniuses these people are not.

    I miss Ernie. I asked him a coupla questions and was hoping he’d respond.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  71. Nope, Patterico, hilariously the faster they claim to be smarter than us, ( e.g., Hooten, JEA, Ernie …) the less likely that they can actually stand up cerebellum to cerebellum.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  72. What were the appellate court judges wearing when they rendered the decision? If they weren’t wearing pimp outfits maybe Braddy will try to get the decision invalidated as a scam the way he and Boehlert cooked up their post hoc campaign against the ACORN tapes after the Harshberger report came out.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  73. #70 Patterico:

    I miss Ernie.

    Me too.

    I was trying to spell … that big, long word he used? But I can’t find his picture in the dictionary anywhere to let me know I got the right one.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  74. I miss ernietheattorney. I also miss having malaria, I miss stepping on rakes, I miss Wham concert, and I miss timmah. They complete me.

    What?!

    JD (04ebf2)

  75. Wham? JD, dude, I’ll get you for that.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  76. Thus, the court is stating that if this identical statute were applied to an individual, it may well have been considered punitive per se.

    No, that doesn’t follow at all. What the court said was that sometimes something that would not be punitive for a corporate entity would be punitive for an individual. But it didn’t say that this statute would have been punitive for an individual.

    Some chump (e84e27)

  77. Ernie is prolly busy chasing ambulances right now or polishing his secret military/industrial complex conspiracy decoder rings.

    Impressive he is not.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  78. “They complete me.”

    JD – Like a Viking, I’m sure.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  79. What in the world did crissyhooten’s ALL CAPS delusional rant above have to do with, well … anything?

    JD (c33623)

  80. Hey Chrissy Hooten,

    If you wrap your head in tin foil, you will block out the alien thought control rays. just a helpful tip.

    JD

    Well, chrissy is paranoid, of course, but i do think we need better systems to protect our vote. i have long thought we should do this. we issue to each voter a “voter identification number.” its not the SS number and its on you to keep it to yourself. then we literally publish the votes, next to those numbers. so then each citizen can see how their votes were registered, without telling your boss, your spouse, etc.

    there is obviously a danger from hacking. nothing is hack proof. but no, greene is not part of a conspiracy.

    Aaron Worthing (A.W.) (e7d72e)

  81. Anyone else want to speak for me, or tell me what I think and feel? You guys are great at that. Not very accurate, though. And don’t worry, JD, stepping on rakes is like breathing air for Republicans, so it will surely happen again soon… and again… and again… and again…

    Chris Hooten (99b794)

  82. “There is obviously a danger from hacking. nothing is hackproof.”

    Well lets just ignore it, then, and stick our heads in the sand. I’m sure it will go away and not be a problem. Silly conspiracy theorists. What? Statistical evidence of something gone awry in countless elections lately? Let’s just gloss over that, and pretend like it’s not a real issue. I’m sure it will go away, like virus’s and worms and spyware all did… err wait. What, they have actually found virus’s specifically targeting the working innards of nuclear power plants? That sounds complicated. I’m sure there is nothing like that going on with the completely unsecured and unupdated windows-based machines used for touchscreen voting and optical scan voting and final vote tabulation. Why worry about the cornerstone of democracy. Let’s just point fingers and cry out “tin foil hat!”

    Chris Hooten (99b794)

  83. It really sucks that I keep losing arguments, and that bradblog is infested and even appears to breed stuck up jerks who are paranoid and angry.

    It also kinda kills my soul that I defended would-be child rapists like ACORN. In truth, I admire O’Keefe for having the courage to stand up to people who would happily see him dead in a ditch if they could get away with it.

    But I’m voting for Obama and pals anyway, because that’s the only way I will ever convince myself I’m elite.

    Speaking for Chris Hooten (b54cdc)

  84. Let’s make sure we use the internet to transfer all of the results, also, because we know how incredibly safe it is! No man in the middle attack possibility there, right? I love China deciding who our leader is, or hackers, or Republicans, or democrats. Do you see my point? It doesn’t matter who is doing the hacking, it is a danger to democracy when the results do not match the actual votes of the people.

    Chris Hooten (99b794)

  85. Someone is cranky this morning.

    Also, a such a crazy poster has a last name brimming with verisimilitude.

    Reynolds Wrap Patroll (82995c)

  86. Well lets just ignore it, then, and stick our heads in the sand. I’m sure it will go away and not be a problem. Silly conspiracy theorists. What? Statistical evidence of something gone awry in countless elections lately? Let’s just gloss over that, and pretend like it’s not a real issue.

    What statistical evidence? Got a link?

    I’m still waiting for the link to this:

    They had a 6 hour hearing including expert testimony from numerous computer experts suggesting that the results were not accurate.

    Gerald A (2b94cf)

  87. See, in the current scheme, all cheating seems to benefit democrats. Trunk loads of ballots never push right wingers over the line at midnight, after all. Felons don’t vote for Coleman.

    So lets be extremely scared of a reform that could make it much, much harder for democrats to steal elections, under the guise of ‘either party could cheat, and that would be bad!’. It’s better to leave things as they are, broken, but in my favor.

    Speaking for Chris Hooten (b54cdc)

  88. “I’m sure it will go away, like virus’s and worms”
    — There. Spoke for you, using your own words.

    Or was that “about” you?

    Icy Texan (b2a478)

  89. Tin-foil Propeller Hats
    3 for a dollar
    guaranteed to pick up hacker signals at YOUR local polling place
    no patriot should be without one!

    Horton Hears A Hooten (b2a478)

  90. Can anyone name one innocent person whose life was destroyed by Sen McCarthy? I’m not aware of any, let alone numerous persons. But liberals keep making assertions like that.

    Douglas Dubh (71d127)

  91. CriSsyhooten sure does lurv some conspiracy theories.

    JD (92df48)

  92. “Hey Chrissy Hooten, If you wrap your head in tin foil, you will block out the alien thought control rays.”

    Turns out that won’t work if the rays are originating INSIDE your head, so it ain’t going to help Hooten any.

    Dave Surls (a42ec5)

  93. Gerald A: They actually had the hearing online. It was 5 hours, though, not 6. I watched part of it. There wasn’t much coverage of it, but there is a thing about it at bradblog. Now before you say it was a big lie, remember this was all done live online, and many watched it, including me. bradblog article when the hearing was streamed as for statistical anomalies in recent election results try here.

    Chris Hooten (865f0b)

  94. Statistical anomolies? Like the number of voters in Milwaukee? What other whackjob tinfoil hat theories do you have for us todya? And how do your paranoid fantasies have anything to do with your hero bradfreidman lying about the findings ?

    JD (3dc31c)

  95. LOL, it’s news when “democrats” allow the vote of the people to control their nomination process. If they had done so in 2008, Hillary would be the president today, btw.

    Hey, Democrats, you know how you think it’s just an infantile joke when the “ic” is dropped from the term “democratic party”? It’s actually a commentary on how your party couldn’t care less about democracy, and an attempt at honesty. The democrat party is about democrats, not democracy.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  96. No, actually, it is an infantile joke that is so ingrained in the right-wing psyche, that most people don’t even notice they are doing it.

    Chris Hooten (865f0b)

  97. Dustin – crissyhooten does not know much, but infantile is right up his alley.

    JD (3dc31c)

  98. No, Chris. I just explained it to you. You can’t say it’s infantile anymore, since you now know the rationale. In fact, you proved the rationale is quite accurate.

    All too often, democrats who are not up for election soon will express deeply undemocratic ideas. It’s cliche at this point, and it’s a lie to call their party “democratic”. It exists to empower democrats, not to empower democracy. It’s as simple as that, and for you to call it infantile after I just explained it to you say a lot.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  99. Rethuglican is pretty damn infantile. MIHOP was really infantile too, in particular the redundant ‘on purpose’ section. Bushitler: infantile.

    But Teabaggers makes all that sound like pure class.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  100. Not only do they not notice they are doing it, they don’t notice WHY they are doing it.

    Chris Hooten (865f0b)

  101. You are really going to give such a rich reasoning behind such a transparently infantile habit?

    Chris Hooten (865f0b)

  102. I’ve talked about this ‘democrat’ party thing with perhaps 1500 republicans. That’s no exaggeration.

    Chris Hooten is willing to lie about the motives of people that I know, for a fact, are actually pretty thoughtful. It really does feel like a lie to call this party ‘democratic’. That’s a value statement. It’s saying the democrat party stands for the ideals that are actually popular.

    That seems like rhetorically overpraise to many republicans. They just feel more comfortable identifying the party without complimenting how they are actually democratic… since, ya know, they don’t appear to be at all.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  103. Save it, Dustin. crissyhooten is not an honest interlocutor.

    JD (3dc31c)

  104. Oh, and denying the truth when it’s staring you in the face and inventing the mental state of all Republicans is far more infantile.

    Bradblog looks horrible lately. They were proven completely wrong about ACORN… and protecting would be child rapist conspirators. What horrible, horrible people.

    Every time I check out that blog, it’s sad. Paranoia, hate, bigotry… that’s what brad blog is all about.

    Chris Hooten’s generalization of Republicans is, of course, a reflection of utter intolerance of the differing creed of the GOP. He can’t abide the fact that they have informed criticisms of the democrat party, for example.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  105. JD, you’re right.

    My bad, yet again.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  106. Maybe it is “infantile commentary” that is being misperceived by me as “infantile joke” Sometimes the commentary is quite a joke.

    Chris Hooten (865f0b)

  107. Chris Hooten, I provided the rationale, and you repeatedly call it infantile instead of explaining your justification for that view.

    Why would it possibly be ‘infantile’ to refuse to call an undemocratic party democratic? your view is absurd, and you have obviously lost this argument. Which you probably don’t care about, since it’s yet another defense of the GOP.

    Brad blog was wrong again, and you can’t handle it. Call us all the names you like, Brad Friedman will go to his grave remembered for defending ACORN with lies. That’s pathetic.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  108. Are you really going to have a serious discussion about how that is anything other than infantile to leave off the “ic” at the end of “democratic?” That’s funny.

    Chris Hooten (865f0b)

  109. My argument, Dustin, is with your use of the word, “informed,” when referring to criticism lodged at the democrats by the GOP.

    Chris Hooten (865f0b)

  110. So, you are basically just going to ignore everything he wrote, and continue to blaze your trail of ignorance.

    JD (3dc31c)

  111. JD, just mock and scorn, as you say. After all, Chris Hooten is oven tempered. For flexible strength. And blocking out those Diebold mind control rays.

    Reynolds Wrap Patrol (82995c)

  112. Are you really going to have a serious discussion about how that is anything other than infantile to leave off the “ic” at the end of “democratic?” That’s funny.

    Comment by Chris Hooten

    The discussion already ended. Your rebuttal of my argument was a failure. Infantile humor is more like saying ‘teabagger’ or ‘pull my finger’. It obviously is not ‘Your actual policies do not appeal to most people, so you are not really democratic, but merely posing as one in order to win power for democrats’.

    You’re changing the subject away from ACORN. It’s quite transparent.

    You are so afraid, all the time, of basically any expression of conservative argument. You just can’t tolerate it in any dose.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  113. It is so transparently childish. Trying to come up with some high-brow reasoning behind it falls flat on its face because no one ever explains that they are “giving commentary” on the democrats by mispronouncing their name. They just do it, because they don’t even realize they are doing it. It is just one of those stupid childish Beavis and Butthead things that Republicans do. Heh heh heh, the democrat agenda is terrible, heh heh heh.

    Chris Hooten (865f0b)

  114. I’ve heard little babies make up silly names. I’ve never heard one point out that something isn’t democratic enough.

    Strand, Chris, but you seem to not want to actually talk about ACORN, even though you and Brad defended those monsters. It’s almost as if you want to change the subject.

    I applaud that notion. It shows shame.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  115. Hmmm.

    Good thing that Mr. Hooten never uses childish or offensive language, isn’t it?

    http://test.bradblog.com/?p=7544#comment-415388

    Eric Blair (82995c)

  116. The truth is so clouded around here as to make discussion of those issues a moot point. You are convinced ACORN was some nefarious organization, facts be damned. I’m not going to waste my time or your time.

    Chris Hooten (865f0b)

  117. Unless crissyhooten says the word truth as a part of a sentence saying he would not know the truth if it crawled out of his squeakhole he should prolly avoid it.

    JD (3dc31c)

  118. Milky nostril squirts!

    daleyrocks (940075)

  119. So, seriously, here is the question. Why do people like Mr. Hooten post at all, if not to just play troll? To convince? To debate in good faith? To score silly undergraduate points?

    There are some people who are angry posters who say their thing and move on. Then there are people who post and post bizarre commentary.

    But why? Troof to powder?

    Some things can never been known, I suspect.

    Eric Blair (82995c)

  120. ernietheattorney is almost as funny as crissyhooten

    JD (3dc31c)

  121. Eric Blair, they don’t want Brad Blog to be criticized by lots of commenters. That goes a bit further to the idea that they want to prevent a coherent discussion of Obama and democrat party failures.

    That’s why he wants to argue on and on about something that was a passing comment, completely ignoring every letter I type that was on-topic. Hooten and several similar do this exact thing. They simply pretend I didn’t say a word about the actual topic of the thread, and make nutty points about some ancillary issue. They seem strangely stubborn, and not all that bothered that they obviously are making stupid points. That’s because, in their system, Hooten beat the hell out of me. I wanted to talk about ACORN and bradblog, and he didn’t.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  122. Well, when the odd and trollish get to be too much, there is always this:

    http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=25039048

    Eric Blair (82995c)

  123. ‘Hey, Democrats, you know how you think it’s just an infantile joke when the “ic” is dropped from the term “democratic party”? It’s actually a commentary on how your party couldn’t care less about democracy, and an attempt at honesty. The democrat party is about democrats, not democracy’

    Exactly.

    I won’t call them the “Democratic” party, ’cause they ain’t, and I don’t like to say things that aren’t true.

    I will, however, call them the Democra-tick Party, due to the fact that they are bloodsucking parasites.

    Dave Surls (5f2f3d)

  124. JD, just mock and scorn, as you say. After all, Chris Hooten is oven tempered. For flexible strength.

    Comment by Reynolds Wrap Patrol — 8/16/2010 @ 9:20 pm

    Whoa … sixties flashback. I remember infuriating my mom by yanking out a length of aluminum foil to duplicate that demonstration in the commercial.

    L.N. Smithee (db32b1)

  125. Seems like someone in this general vicinity is pretty proud of themselves.

    Natty Dark (ab4eb5)

  126. #123 Dave Surls:

    I won’t call them the “Democratic” party

    Whole lot of sound and fury up there, signifying that at least one Democrat doesn’t understand the difference between a noun and an adjective.

    Nor does it even know the name of its own party.

    But I’m with you, no need to dignify that hate group with an incorrect adjective when it’s bad enough already that they have coopted an otherwise perfectly good word as an appellation.

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  127. 116. The truth is so clouded around here as to make discussion of those issues a moot point. You are convinced ACORN was some nefarious organization, facts be damned. I’m not going to waste my time or your time.
    Comment by Chris Hooten — 8/16/2010 @ 9:41 pm

    — Just wanted to point out that this ^^^ is the closest Hooterville has come to actually COMMENTING ON THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD. And even here he pulls the [in Bart Simpson voice] “I could rationally refute your points, but I don’t wanna” dodge. Pathetic.

    Icy Texan (4f3a8e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1100 secs.