Define “Ludicrous”

In case you haven’t noticed, the S.C. political blogosphere has plunged headlong into an exceedingly shrill “anti-FITS hissy” over the past few days.

Apparently, our articles addressing the various judicial conflicts of interest related to the “stimulus” lawsuits (i.e. here and here) have struck several extremely sensitive nerves, as bloggers from the left and (cough, cough) the right have assailed our founding editor along innumerable avenues of attack.

One of the most popular is that Sic is somehow “in the pocket” of S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford.

You know … the guy whose face Sic ripped off earlier today.

Anyway, our stories have also begun to generate significant mainstream media attention, which let’s face it, is what we do around here.

For example, La Liberbad (a.k.a. The Greenville News) picked up on our story about the S.C. Supreme Court’s conflict, which was dismissed by one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys.

From their story:

Dick Harpootlian, a lawyer for two students whose case will be one of those argued today, called any implications that the court would be influenced by the $4 million or by legislators “ludicrous.”

“Ludicrous?” Really?

Just to get this straight … S.C. Supreme Court Justices are elected by and serve at the pleasure of the Legislature, which has prescribed a $4 million cut for the agency if it rules against lawmakers and in favor of Sanford.

But it’s “ludicrous” to assume there’s a conflict?

Whatever you say, Harpo …

Comments