And then there's Rehberg Can it get any worse?

Let's stop and think about Denny Rehberg, scion of a family which has done well in Billings, Mont., so he's become the ninth richest person in Congress. But again, he's third generation and that means the blood is weakening as is the interest in his home town, witness his suit against the taxpayers of his strongest political base, Billings. For those who don't know, Denny is suing the city of Billings for leaving his land for other fires before, he says, the fire was really out. Then it flared up and took out some of the trees and sagebrush he owns on top of the Rimrocks. He is suing for damage. Since I almost set a nearby area on fire myself (by breaking a shovel handle many years ago), I am aware of about how much damage you can do up there. The land's worth very little unless there is a building on it. And some of the buildings in the area are worth very little themselves. So why doesn't he spend some of his own money to replace trees and grass instead of sagebrush instead of suing his constituents? Except for some trees, the land repairs itself in a hurry. I've seen some aftermaths of fire in the same type of land a few years later. People of Montana who would normally contribute to Denny's campaign might want to think about it. They may have to contribute to his land "repair" later if he gets an "activist" judge.

And then he goes up to the Legislature and tells his fellow stupids there that he favors eliminating activist judges. By whose definition of activist judges will he operate? I happen to think that the federal judge of a few years ago in Cheyenne (he may still be there) who bent over every time a right winger asked him to is just as much an activist as a judge who swings from the environmental side or the left wing pastures. Actually, the ones on the left may have a clearer view of the "general welfare" than the right wing. (For an explanation of the quoted material, read the preamble to the Constitution. You'll also find it in the body of that document.)

And while we're at it, let us consider the question of strict constructionists (which presumably would include those who would eliminate the 14th amendment to bring back slavery as well as the so-called tea party "patriots.") If we're going to go back to what they consider the strict construction of a document written in the 18th Century, then the Second Amendment gun slingers should beware. Seems to me (and not just me) that strict construction would limit them to the weapons available at that time.