Alberto Gonzales & His Gigantic Balls

Courtroom murmurs: “Jesus! What balls!”

I can’t believe this was actually said out loud. Did it sound better in his head or something? Fifth graders have a better grasp on the Constitution than that.

Shift6: Is it okay if we impeach him?

Actually, courtroom murmurs, “Jesus, what a sorry fucking excuse for an American.”

2008 can’t come soon enough.

Can we make it official that our government is headed up by terrorists? This seems to be pretty substantial proof that it is.

Well, one would think the 6th amendment, assuring everyone a right to a speedy trial would pretty much kill that legal notion.

Nazis in our govt.

The other guy who has gigantic balls (and hits gigantic balls) is Fernando Gonzalez, aka “Gonzo,” who just blasted his way to the semifinals at the Australian Open, thrashing Rafael Nadal in straight sets in the quarters.

Ok, I’ll go away now.


He didn’t read that far.

Maybe we need to rewrite the constitution in simpler language so that if we get another administration as stupid as this one they can understand it.

With the advent of machine programming strict lexical rules can be defined and used. If it were impossible to actually pass laws that violated existing rules without getting the votes needed to change the parsing rules (amending the constitution for example), then a lot of this crap would be solved.

“'Scuse me, 'scuse me, a man with huge balls has just been made the Attorney General.”

“If you watch the tape in reverse, we’re actually giving the American people their civil rights and sending them on their way.”

What an asshole. Everyone knows that habeas corpus is expressly granted under Article III.

Uh…say what? Habeas is only expressly mentioned in Article I, Section 9, clause 2.

“The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Of course, this doesn’t make Gonzalez less of an asshole (with huge balls).

Next he’ll argue about what the word “is” means.

But yes, Gonzales has been Public Enemy Number One in the assault on our freedoms for quite a while. This is the guy who thought stripping citizens that “support terruh” of their citizenship was a nifty idea.

Ever thought you’d be nostalgic for John Ashcroft? All he wanted to do was cover nekkid breasts.

It’s kinda late, I’m kinda tired. So I must not be reading this right.

The right shall not be taken away. But that doesn’t mean you have the right.

The right of a free press cannot be taken away. But that doesn’t mean you have the right to a free press. Etc.

I can’t even imagine what point he is trying to make.

Basically, that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly GRANT habeas corpus, because it was part of English common law and considered not something that needed enumeration.

Thus if you ignore every precedent of law, ever, you could possibly buy this argument.

Anyway, the Supreme Court already ruled that Guantanamo detainees had the right of habeas corpus in Hamadi v Rumsfeld. Maybe Gonzales is arguing Guantanamo inmates have more civil rights than we do.

These words of his sounds like treason. Can we try him for treason?

Oh, so now you are arguing that it isn’t expressly granted within the Constitution itself? Asshole.

Yeah, I take back almost everything bad I’ve said or thought about Ashcroft when compared to Gonzales.

The thing about Gonzales is that he’s basically a Bush tool. His entire career has centered around Bush, and like all faithful Bush lackeys he was promoted to positions of power. See also Condi Rice and what he tried with Harriett Miers. At least Ashcroft was a senator and a bit independent in that regard.