It's Over - Romanelli Edition

Via the P-G: 

The prospect of a three-way U.S. Senate race in Pennsylvania appeared all but over yesterday as the state Supreme Court rebuffed Green Party Senate candidate Carl Romanelli's bid to get on the November ballot.

The ruling, in a one-sentence order, was good news for the Bob Casey campaign, which had feared that Mr. Romanelli's presence on the ballot would siphon votes from the Democrat. For the same reason, it was a blow to Sen. Rick Santorum and to the Republican donors who had funded the petition drive that sought to establish the Green hopeful's access to the November ballot.

This is usually where someone would say something about politics and "strange bedfellows" but considering the problems the GOP is having with Foley's underaged pages, I think I'll forgo that particular line.

But something else happened.  The Santorum camp insulted the judicial process - again.

Mr. Santorum had sharply criticized the Commonwealth Court order throwing Mr. Romanelli off the ballot, describing it as the work of "partisan judges."

Denouncing that characterization, Mr. Levine said, "I think it's important to note that he blamed it on partisan judges without knowing the facts or the law.

"Now we have a decision by the Supreme Court which has a majority of Republican justices applying the law, not partisan politics. It was a disservice to the appellate courts to suggest otherwise."

Give me a second, you'll see where I'm going in a minute.

Virginia Davis, Mr. Santorum's press secretary, had no comment on Mr. Leaven's criticism, but she expressed disappointment at the court's action.

"It is a shame how difficult it is for someone who's demonstrated a sincere interest in being part of the democratic process to actually be on the ballot," she said. "Bob Casey and his cohorts should be ashamed at the efforts they went to knock someone off the ballot who's actually willing to say what he believes."

Take a look at that.  To them the issue is that Romanelli wanted to get on the ballot.  Too bad the issue is about what the law allows.  In order for Lil Ricky to get what he wanted, the law would have to have been circumvented and the issue reframed.

I know it's a bit of a stretch, but can someone say Terri Schiavo?  From the P-G:

"I absolutely do not regret going there," said Santorum, a conservative Republican who faces a difficult race for a third term next year.

"I stood up for what I believe was right in defending a disabled person from being executed. I don't think we should execute disabled people who have not expressed their desire as to how they should be handled, how their life should be dealt with.

"I don't think we should end their life simply because they are disabled. That's a very telling thing about a society that is willing to say that because they are not someone that is normal in the eyes of the world, that they have a life not worth living."

See what Rick did there?  The issue was not (as it was for most everyone else) about the rule of law but about something completely different.  It was about ending someone's life simply because that person is disabled.  

He reframed it into the "execution" of the disabled.  In order to get what he wanted, the law would have to be circumvented.  It's a pattern, I tell ya!

Rick Santorum - doesn't care about the law, he knows what's best for the rest of us.