Comments on: Lawsuit Filed Alleging Hillary Clinton Is Ineligible To Serve As Secretary Of State

By: Quincy

Quincy — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 06:26:13 +0000

Doug –

Thanks for the background. I’d not heard of them before this, but from the looks of it I kinda thought that’d be the case.

By: Doug Mataconis

Doug Mataconis — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:02:17 +0000

Quincy,

Judicial Watch has always been, how shall I say it, quirky in the battles it chooses to fight.

Don’t hold your breath on them getting involved in a real issue like the Montana case.

Ironically, I went to law school with one of the guys who signed the Complaint in the Hillary case.

By: Quincy

Quincy — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:47:41 +0000

Of all the Constitutional battles to pick, this one seems quite useless. Personally, I’d rather see groups like Judicial Watch standing up for Montana’s recently-enacted gun law that challenges the gross abuse of the commerce clause by Congress.

By: Joshua Holmes

Joshua Holmes — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 04:22:50 +0000

Who gives a shit?

By: Miko

Miko — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:24:45 +0000

This case relies on a rather tortured definition of both the words “emolument” and “increased.” First off, emolument means “returns from office,” not “money as measure in U.S. dollars,” so once adjusted for inflation the salary adjustment isn’t necessarily an increase in the actual returns. Second off, they need to define the word “increased” in such a way that if the salary when she became a senator was x$ and it’s x$ now it can still be said to have increased. No judge will or should accept either definition.