Replies

I reject your assertion that violating the spirit of the law cannot be punished just as severely as violating the letter of it. To do otherwise is to Clintonize...

I think you have it backwards. Wasn't it the conservatives, the Republicans, back during the Clinton years, who insisted that perjury was perjury, and wasn't it the Democrats who were insisting that since the lie was "just about sex" it didn't matter that it was under oath and a "technical" violation of the law?

And during the Florida fiasco in 2000, wasn't it the conservative Republicans who insisted that the election law be enforced as written, and the Democrats who wanted to follow the "spirit" of the law by trying to divine "the intent of the voter"?

And in 2002, in New Jersey, was it not again the conservative Republicans who wanted to uphold the state law, with the deadlines it had for replacing candidates, and the Democrats who insisted that the rules didn't really mean anything, that "fairness" was what mattered?

Aren't the Republicans the strict constructionists? Aren't we the ones who say you must play be the rules as written, and not just make them up as you go along so that you get the results you want?

This girl and her father followed the rules as written. As far as I can tell from the article, no one is disputing that, and no one is arguing about interpretation of the rules, or claiming that they are ambiguous. They just don't like the outcome -- and if the facts are as reported in the article, neither do I. But you don't change the rules after the game has started. As far as I can see, that's the conservative, Republican, strict constructionist philosophy. It's the other side who want to stand things on their head everytime they find themselves 537 votes behind.

You are comparing apples and oranges. The results of which you speak violated both the spirit and letter of the law. The attempt to "divine" the intent of ballots is not increasing the franchise; it is an attempt to steal an election. And Clinton wasn't lying under oath to keep his kidnapped daughter from being murdered, he was lying to escape the consequences of an affair, so no reasonable person would consider his lying justified.

I'd be willing to bet that you have no idea how the special ed scam works. I teach, and I see parents warp the system every day to get their child an unfair and unwarranted advantage. I would hazard a guess, based on my experience, that less than 20% of the IEP's written are actually legitimate and needed. You cannot take a process that is flawed at every step and then declare the final product somehow inviolable...