Spare Me Your Strict Interpretation of the Law

Nate Kennedy had some great commentary on a leaked memo of GOP talking points. Of course, this memo contained the most traditional GOP talking point, that they believe:

judges should interpret rather than make law...

Yes, yes. We all know, that Republicans think anyone who is progressive is completely incapable of interpreting the law. They even have the nerve to act as if this train of thought is common knowledge, mainstream.

And for some reason, we never seem to ask what a person's interpretation of the law actually is. Yes, judges should interpret the law not make it. That is what judges do, whether progressive or conservative. It is merely a distraction to discuss whether or not a person will interpret the law. We must discuss how that person will interpret law.

Frankly, I find it hilarious that Republicans have the balls to talk all high and mighty about interpreting the law.

On December 1, 2005, Yoo appeared in a debate in Chicago with University of Notre Dame professor Doug Cassel. During the debate Cassel asked Yoo, "If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?", to which Yoo replied "No treaty." Cassel followed up with "Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...", to which Yoo replied "I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that."

So the party of "Yes You Can (crush his testicles)" is going to talk down to me about interpreting the law? You have to wonder where these people learn so well to ignore fact and reason.