Yup Censure of the Emperor isn't just wrong, it is unconstitutional--- Hey Whaaat!
Orrin (nut) Hatch is often off the wall, even when on message and the message is getting wider off reality every day. As reported in Hatch friendly home town paper in a hometown School Ole Orrie really let his hair down on his legal expertise.
At times his language was humorous -- he talked of "Sith judges on the Dark Side wielding their gavels like sabers" -- but he was also stern, warning that an unchecked judiciary could usurp the powers of other branches of government and spell doom for liberty.
That some of those powers are actually spelled out in the constitution as being Judicial, is not a fact that he would let get in the way of the official spin.
"The Constitution governs the Supreme Court, not the other way around," Hatch said. "The Supreme Court does not have the last word. The people do.
"I would like to restore the Constitution to what it was."
Uhhh, The constitution says the Supremes have the last word, no matter how crazy (unfortunately) short a constitutional amendment to the contrary. If that were not true, we might still have both a Democracy and (likely) a Democrat as President.
"Judicial activism represents a radical departure from the way we govern ourselves in this country," Hatch said. "If it continues, it means the Constitution won't be worth the paper it's written on."
While Bush said "its just a piece of Paper" and in Bush vs Gore The Supremes wouldn't even stand behind their reasoning in "newspeak" activist judges mean those who actually respect, the constitution and law much less honor.
Of course for Hatch, as all Republicans, talking is mostly just making noises. Coherence, much less reason, much less actual principals, are not part of the agenda, but a means to an end that has nothing to do with what the founders of the country had in mind.
I wrote this and cross posted it at the links noted:
I recall when the meme was "us versus the Communists" there were many speeches about why the Communists were different than a usual party, and why even if we supported a lot of thugs in the world "our thugs were better than their thugs"
Top of their list was that the Communists were Totalitarian. It was not enough to do as you were told, but they expected you think as you were told as well.
High on the list was that "their" principals were for the current situation only and could rotate 180 degrees if the situation was different.
Another point was that there was a spin of the day and everyone was supposed to stay "on message", only one voice allowed no matter who was talking.
A fourth was an obsession with party loyalty, people who disagreed, or worse, changed their minds were dealt with harsher than even critics.
Those are all now typical Republican descriptions. I guess it is that part about making principals fit the situation. It is not hypocrisy- it is the totalitarian way of thinking.