Calling John Bambenek, the STACLU contributor who claimed that the 5th circuit court of appeals case that Tom DeLay lost last week was proof of "differing application of the law" to Republicans than Democrats and of "judicial activism"? I wonder what he'll say now that none other than Justice Scalia has refused DeLay's request for a stay of that court order? It took him only 3 hours to deny the request. I guess Scalia is just motivated against Republicans too, eh? Or maybe Bambenek was peddling nonsense from the start. The Teas Republican Party has dropped their bid to replace DeLay on the ballot. Will he go back to Texas and run for the seat he resigned from? Of course he will, despite declaring himself ineligible a few weeks ago.
More like this
Another STACLU contributor, John Bambenek, has jumped into the dispute over HR 2679 and the fee shifting provisions in establishment clause cases.
Before I ever read the STACLU response to yesterday's ruling by Judge Taylor, I could easily predict two things:
1. They would declare her an evil, activist, terrorist-loving liberal demon.
2. They would either misunderstand or misrepresent the ruling.
Perhaps I should say lack of depth, since, like most political partisans, they rarely look beyond the surface level of immediate reaction to really think about an issue. This post is a textbook example, where John Bambenek declares a simple double standard:
Maybe not... there's speculation that the Texas GOP will back a write-in candidate.