Pages

Sunday, May 16, 2010

"Tim Pawlenty appoints his middle finger to the Minnesota Supreme Court." "Great choice, Gov. Pawlenty." Consistent statements only if his middle finger were superior to David Stras. And you know, it could be.

Spotty nails truth:

I was alarmed when Governor Gutshot appointed Lorie Gildea as the the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, after she authored the sophomoric dissent in Brayton v. Pawlenty. But when I found out who he appointed to fill Gildea’s spot as an associate justice, well, now I’m with Rep. Ryan Winkler.

I’m nauseated. And I’m ashamed.

If you do the calculation, you will see that new Associate [gag] Justice David Stras, has been a lawyer in Minnesota just long enough to have participated in the Brayton v. Pawlenty case. It is apparently the only Minnesota case he ever worked on. He wrote an amicus curiae brief for the governor in that case when it was before the Supreme Court.

He never picked a jury in Fergus Falls, nor argued a case to one in Owatonna; he never sought an injunction in Worthington, nor pleaded for the rights of anybody in Minneapolis.

So, it would be fair to say that Stras was moved to become a practicing lawyer in Minnesota only when the prospect that poor people might get the nutrition they need reared its ugly head. It will be — well, interesting — to see what new depravities the new justice will bless.

Or try the view in favor of taking and dispensing only the blue pill, over and over again in little differing ways; this link.

Sure, poor people needing special diet to be healthy are dispensible. Who'd ever expect them to vote Republican anyway?

For a somewhat more dispassionate report, Eric Black, i.e., giving that link once again to his exceptionally well reported Minn. Post link; here.

And to the classic question -- Yes, there is the difference - Pawlenty does not come with a sack.

________UPDATE_________
And for those who would claim, "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun," and that judges will be judges, low road travelers rather than statesmen, there is this. That wording, "tending to prostitute the high judicial character with which he was invested, to the low purpose of an electioneering partizan." Why is the wording ringing my liberty bell?