May 2, 2016

"As I read the transcript of Wednesday’s Supreme Court oral arguments in the corruption case of the former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, I thought of the movie 'Wayne’s World.'"

"There’s a scene halfway through the film in which Wayne and Garth, the lovable public-access TV hosts, argue with Benjamin, the slick corporate producer, about giving their sponsor airtime. As they make their case against selling out, Wayne and Garth serve as pitchmen. 'I will not bow to any sponsor,' Wayne says, sticking his hand into a Pizza Hut box and pulling out a slice. Before the Court this week, McDonnell’s lawyers made a similarly convincing claim that he couldn’t be bought."

Writes Gilad Edelman in The New Yorker.

17 comments:

Ron said...

In the distant future, I expect Wayne and Garth will be assigned the same gravitas as Washington and Adams....and will be viewed as funnier!

Chuck said...

"Politics is not a crime."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/politics-is-not-a-crime-1461712254

damikesc said...

I'm shocked nobody argues that the law is unjust as the really powerful never have to abide by it. McDonnell is a piker next to Hillary and McAwful.

Franklin said...

Ugh. Now that the New Yorker has weighed in on it I'll have to push back when I hear middlebrow, half-informed morons recount an article they've only partially understood at cocktail parties.

"The New Yorker had a really good piece where they described McDonnell's argument like Wayne and Garth in that movie, remember? Wayne's World?"

tim in vermont said...

I assumed the comment would apply to those prosecuting him for political reasons, but that would have been too honest and transgressive towards the wrong side.

traditionalguy said...

Politics is the trading of favors at the highest level. As long as it is not hidden Clinton cash, who cares.

Jackson, the Realist, just laughed and said to the victor go the spoils.

MikeR said...

The law shouldn't be "quid pro quo"; I'm surprised that it is. It should forbid taking bribes, that is, gifts, from people who need something to people who can provide it. There should be no need to prove the quo.
Are judges allowed to take "gifts"?

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

I never cared much for "Beavis and Butthead."

I think Sheldon's "Fun with Flags" is generally pretty funny. I especially liked the bit where Kripke did the flag/not flag speed challenge.

I don't know that I've ever seen "Wayne's World" except maybe little segments out of context here and there.

Chris N said...

I'm with Franklin.

n.n said...

We really need a separation of pro-choice and state. This religion sets an ever lower bar for what could be considered morality, ethics, and logic. It's really a race to the lowest common principle.

David said...

We have two broad trends involved in this case. The first is the gotcha trend, which is a game in itself, but also part of the tendency to destroy political opponents. Instead of letting the voters decide how McConnell's conduct will affect their votes and support of his programs, jail the bastard. The second is the continuing grasp for power, influence and gain by government prosecutors. The government prosecutorial system is out of control, and efforts to restrain it are meek and tentative. Why? Partly people seem not to care unless their faves are the victims, but it also has to be fear of the prosecutors themselves. It's going to be hard for the courts, even the Supreme Court, to end this abuse. The courts can help but the real need is for adult supervision in the government agencies, state and federal. I'm not hopeful.

cubanbob said...

Considering the prosecutor enabled the replacement of one "crooked" governor with a really crooked governor the prosecutor should be prosecuted for aiding and abetting.

The time has come to strip prosecutors and government officials of immunity. To be sure a higher standard of proof should be required (for civil prosecution) and for the requirements to bring an action to avoid infinite harassment suits but the immunity under the color of law must go.

Rex said...

The main legal issue isn't whether or not he could be bought, but whether the prosecution showed that he WAS bought.

damikesc said...

The time has come to strip prosecutors and government officials of immunity.

Absolutely. If your "official duties" require you to violate the law, then that is a problem you have to deal with. Perhaps work on changing laws and all.

To be sure a higher standard of proof should be required (for civil prosecution) and for the requirements to bring an action to avoid infinite harassment suits but the immunity under the color of law must go.

Look at Mike Nifong.

Look at what he did to the Duke lacrosse team.

His jail sentence, if memory serves, was ONE DAY.

One of the most systematic destructions of civil rights couldn't give somebody a sentence of even a week.

tim in vermont said...

The prosecutors of Ted Stevens got a letter in their file as punishment, a badge of honor to them no doubt a boon to their CV.

The Godfather said...

This case exemplifies the reality that the public interest may be damaged more by politically-inspired legal actions against office-holders than by politically-inspired payments to office-holders. Did this issue come up in the argument?

Sammy Finkelman said...

traditionalguy said...5/2/16, 8:56 AM

Politics is the trading of favors at the highest level. As long as it is not hidden Clinton cash, who cares.

No, no, you have it backwards. Editorial boards of newspapers care, so long as it is not hidden Clinton cash. That's the only thing nobody cares about.