One of the advantages of having attended law school is that when I read judicial opinions interpreting the Constitution, I almost understand them...Sorry, Jeff Cronin, I'm just not seeing it.
That aside, even without a legal education, I have a reasonable amount of common sense and a pretty good nose for hypocrisy.
You seem like just another run of the mill neo-Marx ... uh ... "progressive" with a reading comprehension problem to me.
Although I will buy into your "counterintelligence" claim...
10 comments:
He went to law school? He should oughta ask for a refund.
The Constitution itself, of course, requires no law degree to understand.
Aw, c'mon David, you can say it:
M A R X I S T (there's no "neo")
Outwardly clothed in many stripes, colors and shades, but the core remains the same.
Otherwise known as a stinking Communist.
Careful now, it does seem to to be somewhat contagious.
"Jeff Cronin is a Boise attorney and counterintelligence agent in the Army National Guard."
Counterintelligence agent...indeed.
I'm with Oldsmoblogger on this one; wherever he studied law, he should ask for his money back. Either that or get some help with his dyslexia.
I'm going to have to change my opinion on the ruling. There is much more good coming from the decision than I anticipated. It seems that the lights are on, and we've caught the cockroaches in the middle of the kitchen floor. Now we can step on a few of them before they scurry under the cover of "public [sector] safety" and "reducing gunviolence".
If it was Idaho Statistman Mr. Cronin that chose the title, then he has chosen to include at least one fact in his piece. Yes, the right of defense has been highly politicized -- mainly by a class of elected, disposable politicians who believe this indelible right to be a threat to their current and future plans.
No one has yet mentioned that Washington DC is under federal control. This is an exclusion of profoundly relevant information which is the foundation of Mr. Cronin's piece.
Oldsmoblogger:
Good point. You'll note that no federal flunky has ever suggested that any section of the NFA '34 or GCA '68 needed "interpreting" where there was a possibility that it would encroach on government power. Creative interpretation that expands government power is quite common -- it's hard to believe that the government put someone in prison for 12 years because he was on one side of a transaction where neither party paid a $200 tax.
The aforementioned transaction took place within state boundaries, yet the federal government punished the people involved. Considering Mr. Cronin's displeasure with federal interference at local levels, he no doubt felt compelled to write a piece which dismissed the charges against David Olofson in a similar manner. Anything less and Idaho Statistman Mr. Cronin would be "practically dripping" with hypocrisy.
"It is no coincidence the majority's conclusion closely tracked the political viewpoints of the Republican presidents who appointed them."
Excuse me as I hoist the Bullsh*t flag on that one!
Let look at the court vote and whether a Republican or Democrat appointed them.
Voting to affirm:
The Chief Justice John Roberts, was appointed by George W. Bush. Republican
Antonin Scalia was appointed by Ronald Reagan, Republican.
Anthony Kennedy -- again Ronald Reagan, Republican.
Clarence Thomas, George Herbert Walker Bush, Republican.
Samuel Alito, appointed by George W. Bush, Republican.
Voting against
John Paul Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford -- a Republican.
David Souter, George Herbert Walker Bush, Republican.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed by William Jefferson Clinton, Democrat.
Stephen Breyer, appointed by William Jefferson Clinton, Democrat.
Two of the four Justices that voted against were appointed by Republican Presidents. The fact that 7 of nine Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents assures that ANY vote in the majority has more Justices appointed by Republicans voting together.
DUH!!!
Jeff Cronin should stop calling himself an attorney. He's not a member of the Idaho bar.
http://www2.state.id.us/isb/mem/attorney_roster.asp
Unless he's licensed somewhere else, or let his credentials expire, he's merely a law school graduate. Calling himself anything else is fraudulent.
"uniquely urban, modern problem - a problem the Framers could have never contemplated."
Arrogant, too.
Short version: Murder in a RURAL county. Accused triggerman a known delinquent, was supposed to have been IN juvenile CUSTODY at the time of the killing for violating conditions of probation for a previous offense.
Hands off MY rights. Deal with punks and thugs who laugh at authority and the sanctity of life, repeatedly, before you turn more of us into them. The MISuse of authority Cronin champions -- the MISreading of one of the greatest documents ever conceived -- could result in an uprising that, truly, "the Founders could have never contemplated."
I think Mr. Cronin qualified his idiocy very well in the first sentence: "One of the advantages of having attended law school is that when I read judicial opinions interpreting the Constitution, I almost understand them. Not entirely, mind you, but enough at least to seem like I do in casual conversation."
The essay that follows his disclaimer demonstrates several things. The first, as Cranky cited, is that he likely couldn't pass the bar.
The second is he's incapable of actually understanding the English language. In sum, he's an idiot.
His essay and qualifications - (he's allegedly a counterintelligence agent in the Army National Guard) demonstrate why our "intelligence" services have fallen flat on their faces in fighting the so-called "War on Terror." And there's little wonder that with folks like this working in that capacity that the only effective thing these agencies do is to spy on the American public. And their answer to the "War on Terror" since 9/11 is to redouble their efforts to spy on the American public.
Correction: In my post above, "12 years" should read "2 years". Quite a diff.
Post a Comment