Borowitz writes: "Roy Moore's defeat in Alabama's special election means that the Texas senator Ted Cruz will easily retain his status as the most despised person in the United States Senate, congressional insiders confirmed on Wednesday."
Senator Ted Cruz. (photo: Getty Images)
Roy Moore's Defeat Means Ted Cruz Retains Status as Most Despised Person in Senate
16 December 17
The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report." 
oy Moore�s defeat in Alabama�s special election means that the Texas senator Ted Cruz will easily retain his status as the most despised person in the United States Senate, congressional insiders confirmed on Wednesday.
According to those insiders, Cruz had been secretly hoping that Moore�s election would displace him from his unenviable position as the most vilified pariah in the upper chamber.
�Cruz was praying that, if Moore got in, that might change the daily conversation around here from �Who has to sit next to Ted?�?� one Republican colleague said.
Cruz, whom colleagues deem even more insufferable than such other senatorial ass-clowns as Mitch McConnell and Tom Cotton, was reportedly �distraught� upon learning that Moore would not be joining him in the U.S. Senate.
�Ted was absolutely positive that Roy would have been more hated than he is,� one Senate colleague said. �But, to tell you the truth, it would have been close.�
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
They had their fingers crossed when they took the oath.
It depends upon who is reading the Constitution. It is unconstitutiona l to deprive anyone of life, liberty or property without due process of law. What process is due? That's for the justices to decide. The Supreme Court, in furtherance of police powers, has signed off on forfeitures. There are several forms of forfeiture including IRS seizures, civil and criminal seizures- tools for law enforcement for decades. If the property is alleged to be part of a criminal enterprise, everything can be taken - bank accounts, cars, boats, houses, cash, businesses, everything. The IRS can take your property without showing much proof. There is no requirement that the allegation be accurate or that the property seized be proportional to the offense. This began as a tool to fight organized crime, but over the years, it has become a cottage industry for local law enforcement. The right wing Supreme Court has expanded the powers of the police in this area. Another area of taking is the condemnation of land by municipalities allowing local government to take your home so that a mall can be built where you lived. No one cares much about the civil liberties of criminals, that is until law enforcement gets you in their sights. In Oakland, your lose your car for cruising prostitutes. Forfeitures have grown from a tool to stop drug cartels to a justification for taking stuff the police want.
The Fifth Amendment, among other things, states, "Nor] shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." But if cops simply seize and hold it, that's not "use"--and if they take it for themselves, it's not "public use."
Police therefore have ways of justifying what is, in effect, theft by law enforcement.
"Reasonable" does not mean what it means in common usage; it means the cop has to to supply a valid reason. Suspicion that you are going to use it to commit a crime has been held to be a valid reason.
1) no charges are filed,
2) charges are filed but dismissed,
3) the charges are adjudicated in their favor,
4) the property seized is greater in value than the fines resulting from any conviction.
Second, since they don't know these seizures are legal, they don't know there is a problem until THEIR property gets confiscated.
Third, in not knowing there is a problem, people don't realize that the best remedy is to seek to have their State laws governing seizure of property amended. In States that do not have a ballot measure process, this means the only course of action is to persuade the State legislature to act, not an easy thing. For States like California, should the legislature prove unresponsive, people could organize to write amendments to State law and submit them to the voters. Frankly, if I were a California legislator, I would much prefer my house amend the law rather than trust amending to a group whose focus was on retrieving personal property and who probably didn't give a rat's ass about the valid reasons to allow seizure AND RETENTION of personal property.
In many cases, i.e. "U.S. v.s. $4,000", or "U.S. v.s. White Cadillac", the costs to the citizen in both time and money will far exceed the value of either the cash or the property described above.
Local Statutes will also see to that.
The New Mexican Clown is not kidding.
It *IS* a "gold mine".
The ACLU is the only organization fighting this insanity.
https://downsizedc.org/blog/lets-attack-asset-forfeiture-in-the-supreme-court
https://downsizedc.org/blog/asset-forfeiture-laws-endanger-your-right-to-an-attorney
Indeed.
"None are more helplessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
~ Goethe
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken
Also we have voted in a bunch of scientific deniers so the things that have to be done to prevent the exponential rise in the climate crises ,
will be on the back burner, possibly until it is too late.