I don’t care if it’s ostensibly targeting conservatives: this is a Lefty agitprop exercise, and should be treated as such.
[Leftist agitprop]
That’s the catchphrase for a media campaign being unveiled Wednesday that targets the Supreme Court — not for what the justices do but for what they don’t do.
As in: They don’t publicize their schedules. They don’t state their conflicts when recusing themselves from cases. They don’t put their financial disclosures online. They don’t bind themselves to a code of conduct. And they don’t let cameras in the courtroom.
Good. And this is why you can’t trust the so-called “Fix The Vote” or the “New Venture Fund:”
“They told us where we can pray, picked our president, allowed billionaires to buy elections and made choices of life and death,” the ad intones.
Bolding mine. Nobody who thinks that the 2000 election was stolen, or that people don’t have the right to political free speech, is a friend to conservatism or the Right. They are lying to you: don’t let them get away with that. And be extremely suspicious of anybody who enthusiastically supports this initiative: they’re either lying too, or dupes.
Via @MikeScarcella.
Moe Lane (crosspost)
PS: Speaking as a partisan Republican hack, and thus in a purely professional capacity, I applaud New Venture Fund’s nigh-demonically brilliant choice of name (‘new venture fund’ is a common-enough phrase in English that it distorts regular Google searches), but the shop’s name – amazingly enough! – keeps cropping up in commentary involving global warming, GMOs (WARNING FLAG), and other Greenie causes*. Oh: and progressive tax reform. Which is another warning flag. I mention all of this solely because USA Today’s Richard Wolf had the effrontery to call this org ‘non-partisan.’ :Rolling eyes: They keep doing this, and we keep pointing it out …and it doesn’t actually fool the voting public for very long, you know.
PPS: I also don’t care about how this might work in theory. In reality the Activist Left cannot be trusted with… Actually, just strike that ‘with.’
*To be fair, much of that commentary involves groups and sites that are, perhaps, a bit enthusiastic in their opposition to radical Green groups.
The power of the courts is ephemeral, if not ethereal; it’s powerful, yes, but it’s based in part on being above reproach, let alone above the fray. “.. made their decision, now let them enforce it …” comes to mind.
.
These street-theater-esque bits blow large holes in the power of the courts. Publish your schedule, and you give someone else power over you, knowledge of where you will be allows quite a bit of manipulation. Disclose finances, and you give someone else knowledge of when to decry your decisions.
.
So .. unless we are interested in transitioning to whatever comes after rule-of-law .. we need to – carefully! – permit the court to protect its’ ephemera.
.
Mew
Oh, 2000! Two facts to remember:
1. The Court ruled 7 to 2 that the Florida’s Court second solution was unconstitutional before ruling 5 to 4 that enough was enough.
2. Major media outlet then sent people to Florida to count the ballots… and found out that Bush had indeed won… and therefore, it was not newsworthy.