CREEPING CHENEYISM.
Ah, good. The husband of the Republican vice-presidential nominee displays utter contempt for the rule of law in a democratic society. It's almost as if he should support the secession of his state and the alternative governance structure that would no doubt require.
Feeds: 


COMMENTS (15)
Alaska is a Republican society with a Republican attorney general. Therefore, "rule of law in a democratic society" reference does not apply. Please correct your post Ezra. ;)
Posted by: gocart mozart | September 19, 2008 11:46 AM
I wonder how long this is going to take to trickle down, just as it has with the US attorney firings, where people are challenging their prosecutions as politically motivated.
Who will be the first drug dealer, mobster or crooked CxO to laugh at a subpoena and then file for an injunction barring the arrest on the grounds of arbitrary and capricious enforcement?
Posted by: paul | September 19, 2008 11:53 AM
As Cheney told us, the VP is not part of the executive branch and thus not subject to the rules. It is the same for the First Dude, as the founding fathers intended.
http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Matthew | September 19, 2008 12:05 PM
The husband of the Republican vice-presidential nominee displays utter contempt for the rule of law in a democratic society.
Don't we all have utter contempt for the rule of law in a democratic society? Think speeding, pot smoking, running that red light late at night, driving without a seat belt, cheating on taxes etc.
I am not siding with Todd, his is a more serious matter, just with you wording.
Posted by: floccina | September 19, 2008 12:05 PM
Is the defiance really Todd Palin's idea? I get the impression from other stories that the McCain campaign is calling the shots for the family in troopergate.
Not a defense of Todd, just a matter of what seems most probable.
Posted by: Kyle | September 19, 2008 12:22 PM
To fully understand Sarah Palin, we will have to wait for a modern-day Sherwood Anderson to write an epic novel on Alaska. But as the story of Governor Palin's tenure spills out, one thing is abundantly clear: She does a terrible job of working with the legislature - a legislature led by her own party. The Republican State Senate leader hates her!
The VP has one duty- preside over the US Senate. Leave aside the issue of whether Palin is qualified to be President. What is clear is that she is exceedinly unsuited to be Vice President.
Posted by: Michael A. Shea | September 19, 2008 12:23 PM
the palins are a travesty, a mockery to our whole system.
watching barack obama speaking this morning about our economy and addressing the most serious economic crisis of most of our lifetimes, and then thinking about sarah and todd palin is enough to make anyone sick.
i hope and pray that after a few weeks time, they will disappear from our memory like a bad dream.
that these two people could come so close to the presidency of the united states is terrifying.
john mccain has shown a complete absence of conscience, and has endangered all of us by choosing sarah palin as his running mate. a shameful and completely unpatriotic act.
(the caribou, coyote, moose, polar bear, bear,whale, dall sheep, arctic wolf and ukpik spirits are watching.
for all of our hubris and laughter at the gods, we are not the only forces that affect this world. there are mysteries and sanctities beyond us.)
Posted by: jacqueline | September 19, 2008 12:30 PM
Ezra, on the one hand you understand that McCain, his advisors, his running mate, and his party have utter contempt for the rule of law in a democratic society. On the other hand, you think that the consequences of handing the power of the federal government - control of the army, the criminal law apparatus, the taxing authority - isn't really all that important.
Think about what your own words mean. Utter contempt for the rule of law. Concern only for raw power.
How could any election be more important than this one?
Posted by: Bloix | September 19, 2008 12:30 PM
The "rule of law" is in question here, and that's what the courts are for. Todd believes it says one thing...and you apparently think it says another.
So, let it go to court. It's the proper way to resolve this legal dispute.
As to all of the caterwalling about "rule of law" from the left, where is the outrage about gays in the military when it's clearly a legal violation to even serve? Where is the outrage about people who are in this country illegally?
It seems the lefties have selective outrage about the "rule of law", especially when it serves their agenda.
Posted by: El Viajero | September 19, 2008 1:02 PM
ElV, that is like my refusing to pay you for your work as I was supposed to, outlined in a contract, and then, when you demand your money, saying, "let this go to court. It's the proper way to resolve this legal dispute."
Under the rule of law, I'm suppose to acknowledge the rule of law and do what is required from me by law, rather than dare the courts to shut me down everytime I feel like ignoring it.
The law says that Palin has to testify. That's not in dispute. He's just saying that he won't do it until he is physically forced by the authorities, since he knows that he cannot be physically compelled until the legislature reconvenes.
The rule of law does not JUST require that the law function fairly to punish lawbreakers. It requires that people aknowledge the law and follow it without having to be punished. It requires that people show up for their supoenas and answer truthfully without having to be arrested first before they do so.
Posted by: Tyro | September 19, 2008 1:21 PM
tyro
what we have learned over the last eight years is that republicans in high places are above the law and unlike the rest of us, they are not held accountable.
didnt sarah palin say two weeks ago, that she welcomed transparency in this matter?
i dont know how anyone who lived through the last eight years of lies and criminal deception can be of sound mind and consider supporting mccain and palin.
i bet many republicans in high places will be voting for obama, even if they dont endorse him publicly.
Posted by: jacqueline | September 19, 2008 1:39 PM
Todd believes it says one thing
Where at all does the law say that you can ignore a subpoena?
Posted by: Gregory | September 19, 2008 2:05 PM
I'm not defending Todd Palin. My personal opinion is that he should testify.
That being said, Todd should also have the same access to lawyers, courts, etc. that everyone else has and if his legal counsel believes they have a leg to stand on....
Posted by: El Viajero | September 19, 2008 3:55 PM
Dems touting the "rule of law"? That's a laugh riot for sure. There's hardly any human institution this side of the CPSU that has less respect for that high principle than the Donkeys. Eee-awww. Or is that Hee-Haw?
Posted by: Demokleptocratic Conspiracy against Humanity | September 19, 2008 6:04 PM
@Demokeptowhatever. You just called Democrats Donkeys? I'm scared now. I guess you showed me. Very weak sauce.
You showed me that you can't argue on the merits, because there aren't any on your side. Just the usual silly name calling. You forgot to insult my mother.
ElV at least makes a game try. But it's still weak sauce. They are stalling and we all know it. There are no merits to his case. There is no partisan angle to it, it's being run by other Republicans.
I want to see Todd go to jail for contempt. You know, the way that Susan McDougal did. Does he have the guts? Or is he a guy who can act tough but folds in the end?
Posted by: Doctor Jay | September 19, 2008 6:21 PM