Generally, we here along the River Booze like to keep things fun(ny) and light hearted. Sure we vote, “early and often”, as was advised by a certain political analyst in Chicago, but rather than fill endless globulins of bandwidth beating you folks over the head with our position, we prefer to humor you with the drunken misadventures we don’t go on often enough. However, recent event give us pause to wonder, comment and ask your what your position might be on this particular instance. I refer to the mean-spirited filibuster by the Democratic National Convention (DNC) of Supreme Court Appointee, Miguel Estrada.
What boggles we, the Booze River Contingency are the reasons for the opposition to Mr. Estrada’s appointment as a Supreme Court judge. The argument is that he is “not Hispanic enough” to fully represent that community (now the largest minority in the U.S.) on the bench. Now first, we would like to know exactly what in the hell actually qualifies as Hispanic enough (Mr. Estrada being of Honduran extraction), and secondly, why he would need to represent any community when all he is going to do is interpret the law as applied to a previous court case, which was taken from the original court ruling, through the appeals courts and finally to the top court in the country? He is essentially powerless to legislate on par of any particular group, community, or 3-legged transsexual horse named Betty. And more over, as a judge, by the basic job description, he does not legislate or introduce bills for or about anyone, that’s what Senators and Congressmen are for.
Our general consensus here is that this resistance on the part of the DNC has little to do with any Hispanic in the country, in fact it is our opinion that they couldn’t give less of a damn about any of them, but that Mr. Estrada’s voting past might have something to do with it. There position is of course ill founded, since as an interpreter of law, it matters not whether he votes Pro-Republican, Pro-Democrat or Pro-Neo-Otter every November. As we have stated, his job will be the interpretation of the law as it is prescribed (mainly via the Constitution) not to legislate some new bill banning the use of cigarettes and cell phones while parked on the side of an old logging road in the middle on January in Idaho whilst trying to keep warm a dial up a tow truck because you’re brand new Audi broke down. Also, for those who might argue the point that as a Conservative of some sort he may become an activist judge on behalf of the evil Right-Wing Conspiracy. I would like to kindly direct your attention to the 9th Circuit Court out of California, and politely make the note that the Left-Wing Conspiracy is not without its activist judges.
We shall, however, digress, mainly as we pointed out because our purpose here at the River Booze is not to shove a steaming pile of political commentary/debate/rhetoric, call it as you like, down your collective throats. It is mostly here to simply entertain, but times it does see the need to inspire thought among the general populace, all two of the general populace that visit our site. And so, in the spirit of inspiring thought and debate, we ask you, the viewer for your comments or criticisms on this matter. You can find coverage of the event at the usual locations, C-Span, Fox News, CNN, possibly the network news apparatus, plus all the web sites affiliated with that boring stuff most 20-40 year olds find boring and stupid. Fell free to email us at firstname.lastname@example.org, or simply click the contact button at the top of this page. Oh and worry not, ye faithful few, we shall return soon with a report of this up-coming weekend’s drunken excursion into disaster.