...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* ... I fear for the President's safety. Every right wing "news" site I've viewed over the last few weeks has links to articles assuring readers that Obama will not finish out his second term because it has been "prophesized." I think they are trying to goad some nutcase into fulfilling that prophecy.
* You have that correct. The nut-jobs on the religious fringe would love to have some whack-a-doodle carry out such a scenario so they could get what they want and put the blame on someone else. I'm also pretty sure that attempts have been made, and foiled, that we know nothing about and never will. Let's hope they don't get their wish.
* More appropriate title: "Christian Conservative Bullsh!t Begins"
* The only backlash is one of their own making. The youth of this country got to see first-hand what that religion is all about and many want nothing to do with it.
* The problem for conservative Christians is that they have no sense of proportionality. Everything is "the end of the world" in their world. Every day the "sky is falling" for one reason or another. It's always been that way for them. They live their lives in fear of judgment from their angry God, and they take that out on the rest of us (unfortunately). It's why they're so harsh and judgmental of others imo. One would think, given how badly they want Jesus to come back and judge the wicked among us, that they would be glad for the latest development, given how irredeemably evil they think marriage is for gay people.
* It was supposedly the end of the World when desegregation happened. Again when interracial marriage was legalized. Radical Christian extremists vehemently fought both using the Bible as their weapon.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Christian Conservative Backlash Begins
By Jonathan Bernstein, June 29, 2015
1. Let’s start with Obergefell: Here’s Andrew Sullivan on marriage equality.
2. Jonathan Rauch at Time on marriage equality.
3. Ed Kilgore on the Christian conservative backlash -- although I’ll stick (and I’m not saying that Kilgore disagrees) with my sense that any backlash will be short-lived.
4. Sarah Posner on the decision, the dissents and religion.
5. While Philip Klein warns his fellow conservatives not to overreach in their language condemning the decision.
6. At the Monkey Cage, Michael Bailey on why King turned out to be a 6-3 decision and what it tells us about the Court.
7. Also at the Monkey Cage, Jonathan Oberlander and Eric Patashnik have a good overview of the ACA after the King case.
8. A nice Robert Farley speculation at The National Interest about a world without a U.S. invasion of Iraq.
9. HuffPollster has a nice look on what the early nomination polls mean (or don’t mean).
10. And James Fallows on Barack Obama’s funeral oration Friday.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
Scalia obviously didn't think through all the aspects of his dissent and how it could have affected Thomas in other times. [snicker]
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* If consistency were a priority, a value, or even a sometimes-consideration for "conservatives," they would be entirely unable to weave together the crazy quilt of kooky tribal social policy "issues" and Koch Brothers policy preferences that combine to form the Republican "platform."
* I am sure Thomas would argue that Loving v. Virginia would not have affected his relationship with his wife because they simply would have traveled to another state to be married. But that would contradict his other argument regarding dignity. What's dignified about having to run from one state to another to be afforded the same rights as others?
* Scalia should not be on the supreme court, neither should Thomas. They ALWAYS vote against civil rights being granted. There is no way they could know what the founding fathers intended. I believe the founding fathers understood times change and wrote the constitution as they intended it to stand during changes in society.
* Scalia is the prime example of the species he says he hates--"broad interpreters" of the Constitution. He demands "literalism," as in his dissent over the definition of "state" in the ACA case, but has no problem finding "corporation" in the Constitution--look as I might, I can't find it--and is quite willing to accept the premise that one man's speech is more valuable than another, based on the contents of his wallet.
* He is just like those preachers that pick only parts of the bible and then interpret it to justify their prejudices.
* We have had separation of religion in our schools for a long time. Oklahoma is removing the Ten Commandments statue from the State Building. Why do we have to bring religion into equal rights and discrimination laws? Not everyone believes in God or a religion. But everyone should have equal rights in America. Black or white, all ethnicities and Gay and Lesbians..
...................................................................................................................................................................
Scalia's Dissent in Obergefell (Same-Sex Marriage) Case Would Criminalize Justice Thomas's Marriage
By Paul Abrams, June 30, 2015
Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in Obergefell v Hodges -- the case that declared that denying same-sex couples marriage licenses violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment -- is best known for its tantrums and, as usual for the politician Scalia is rather than the jurist he is supposed to be, its hypocrisy.
Missed in Scalia's childish histrionics was his so-called 'originalist' approach for interpreting the Constitution (when it suits him, that is -- those who voted on the Second Amendment could not possibly have been thinking about semi-automatic assault weapons or 25 bullet magazines, but Scalia holds that those are protected).
In Obergefell, Scalia asserts that he knows that the people who voted to approve the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 were not thinking about same-sex marriage when they voted, and, therefore, the original intent of that Amendment prevents Scalia from finding a right to same-sex marriage in its guarantee of equal protection under the laws.
That same approach, however, would make Justice Clarence Thomas's interracial marriage illegal, and subject to criminal prosecution in Virginia, the Thomas's state of residence. As assuredly as voters in 1868 were not thinking about gay marriage when they voted for the Amendment, they certainly were not approving it to enable interracial marriages.
Interracial marriage, "miscegenation," was not only impermissible in Virginia, it was a criminal offense subject to time in jail. Citing the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court overturned the Virginia and other state statutes in the poetically-named case, Loving v. Virginia, in 1967.
According to Justice Scalia's reasoning, the people voting on the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 did not contemplate interracial marriage as what they were protecting by passing it. Hence, Scalia would have to say that Loving was wrongly decided.
That would make Scalia's right-wing buddy, Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginny, subject to imprisonment in Virginia.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* If consistency were a priority, a value, or even a sometimes-consideration for "conservatives," they would be entirely unable to weave together the crazy quilt of kooky tribal social policy "issues" and Koch Brothers policy preferences that combine to form the Republican "platform."
* I am sure Thomas would argue that Loving v. Virginia would not have affected his relationship with his wife because they simply would have traveled to another state to be married. But that would contradict his other argument regarding dignity. What's dignified about having to run from one state to another to be afforded the same rights as others?
* Scalia should not be on the supreme court, neither should Thomas. They ALWAYS vote against civil rights being granted. There is no way they could know what the founding fathers intended. I believe the founding fathers understood times change and wrote the constitution as they intended it to stand during changes in society.
* Scalia is the prime example of the species he says he hates--"broad interpreters" of the Constitution. He demands "literalism," as in his dissent over the definition of "state" in the ACA case, but has no problem finding "corporation" in the Constitution--look as I might, I can't find it--and is quite willing to accept the premise that one man's speech is more valuable than another, based on the contents of his wallet.
* He is just like those preachers that pick only parts of the bible and then interpret it to justify their prejudices.
* We have had separation of religion in our schools for a long time. Oklahoma is removing the Ten Commandments statue from the State Building. Why do we have to bring religion into equal rights and discrimination laws? Not everyone believes in God or a religion. But everyone should have equal rights in America. Black or white, all ethnicities and Gay and Lesbians..
...................................................................................................................................................................
Scalia's Dissent in Obergefell (Same-Sex Marriage) Case Would Criminalize Justice Thomas's Marriage
By Paul Abrams, June 30, 2015
Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in Obergefell v Hodges -- the case that declared that denying same-sex couples marriage licenses violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment -- is best known for its tantrums and, as usual for the politician Scalia is rather than the jurist he is supposed to be, its hypocrisy.
Missed in Scalia's childish histrionics was his so-called 'originalist' approach for interpreting the Constitution (when it suits him, that is -- those who voted on the Second Amendment could not possibly have been thinking about semi-automatic assault weapons or 25 bullet magazines, but Scalia holds that those are protected).
In Obergefell, Scalia asserts that he knows that the people who voted to approve the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 were not thinking about same-sex marriage when they voted, and, therefore, the original intent of that Amendment prevents Scalia from finding a right to same-sex marriage in its guarantee of equal protection under the laws.
That same approach, however, would make Justice Clarence Thomas's interracial marriage illegal, and subject to criminal prosecution in Virginia, the Thomas's state of residence. As assuredly as voters in 1868 were not thinking about gay marriage when they voted for the Amendment, they certainly were not approving it to enable interracial marriages.
Interracial marriage, "miscegenation," was not only impermissible in Virginia, it was a criminal offense subject to time in jail. Citing the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court overturned the Virginia and other state statutes in the poetically-named case, Loving v. Virginia, in 1967.
According to Justice Scalia's reasoning, the people voting on the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 did not contemplate interracial marriage as what they were protecting by passing it. Hence, Scalia would have to say that Loving was wrongly decided.
That would make Scalia's right-wing buddy, Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginny, subject to imprisonment in Virginia.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... when your party’s base is out of touch with most of the country, you must publicly challenge that base or else be lumped together with it."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Republicans remain anti-black, anti-gay, anti-women, anti-Hispanics, anti-Asian, anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-education, anti-union, anti-middle class, anti-working class, anti-poor, anti-elderly and anti-everybody and everything except the 1%.
* After offending and antigonizing everyone except old white men, conservatives will claim they are the victims and bemoan the fact that the country is divided.
* The GOP, The "Morality" Party has failed the empathy test for decades. As a result they will continue to be marginalized until they are a tiny minority. The only reason they are still here is due to gerrymandering and voter supression but that will come to an end before too long.
* "empathy test????" Given the ramblings emanating from their clown car and their constituency Its a good thing literacy tests are illegal because they wouldn't pass those either
* The GOP has remade itself into the Party of Fear, Hate and Bigotry as well as adopting the moniker: Party of Stupid.
* Republicans by definition lack empathy, how could they possibly pass an "empathy test?"
...................................................................................................................................................................
The GOP Fails Its Empathy Test
By Peter Beinart, June 29, 2015
After Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012, the Republican National Committee published an “autopsy.” “When it comes to social issues,” the autopsy declared, “the Party must in fact and deed be inclusive and welcoming. If we are not, we will limit our ability to attract young people.” The autopsy also added that, “we need to go to communities where Republicans do not normally go to listen and make our case. We need to campaign among Hispanic, black, Asian, and gay Americans and demonstrate we care about them, too.”
The last two weeks, more than any since Romney’s defeat, illustrate how miserably the GOP has failed.
Start with June 17, when Dylann Roof, a young white man enamored of the Confederate flag, murdered nine African Americans in church. Within three days, Romney had called for the Confederate flag’s removal from South Carolina’s capitol. Four days later, the state’s Republican governor and senators called for its removal too. But during that entire week—even as it became obvious that the politics of the flag were shifting—not a single GOP presidential candidate forthrightly called for it to be taken down. Instead, they mostly called it a state decision, a transparent dodge politicians deploy when they don’t want to make a difficult call.
Once South Carolina Republicans came out against the flag, the GOP presidential candidates largely followed suit. But by playing it safe, they forfeited their chance to “demonstrate” that they “care” about African Americans at a moment of deep racial trauma. The presidential campaign has been underway for months now. Yet with the exception of Rand Paul, who has talked bluntly about racism in the criminal-justice system, not a single GOP presidential candidate has done anything bold enough to change the political calculus of a community that consistently votes 90 percent Democratic.
Then, on June 26, the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was a constitutional right. If the politics of the Confederate Flag shifted radically over the course of a few days, the politics of gay marriage have been shifting radically over the last few years. Young people, including young Republicans, overwhelmingly back marriage equality. Key conservative writers years ago conceded the fight was lost. Yet not a single major GOP candidate risked alienating the Christian right by endorsing the idea. Instead, they sullenly acquiesced, thus forfeiting another opportunity to redefine their relationship with a group of Americans whose support Republicans desperately need.
But those aren’t the only moments in which the GOP presidential field failed. On June 16, Donald Trump announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination. In recent years, Trump has obsessively questioned whether President Obama was born in the United States and suggested he only gained admission to Columbia and Harvard because he’s black. In his presidential announcement speech, Trump declared that, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. ... They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”
For Trump’s GOP opponents, his comments created a perfect “Sister Souljah” moment, an opportunity to confront the offensive comments of someone on your own ideological side and thus win the respect of those they offend. No one took it. The Republican National Committee called Trump a “high-caliber candidate.” Rand Paul’s spokesperson quipped, “the more the merrier.” Mike Huckabee said, “I personally like him.” Ted Cruz praised Trump’s “experience as a successful businessman and job creator.” Jeb Bush called Trump merely a “rich guy.”
In its autopsy, the RNC called on Republicans to embrace comprehensive immigration reform in an effort to win more Latino votes. More than two years later, not only does every major GOP candidate except Jeb Bush oppose it, but none will even condemn a fellow candidate who slurs Mexican immigrants in the crudest of ways.
The rise of Millennials—who are more ethnically and racially diverse and more secular than any generation in American history—is making America a far more culturally tolerant nation than it was when Ronald Reagan, or even George W. Bush, occupied the White House. For the Republican presidential candidates, that means they’re starting from behind. They begin the 2016 race burdened by their party’s reputation for intolerance, a reputation that becomes more politically costly every year as the result of generational change.
In such an environment, Republicans do not have the luxury of caution. They can’t afford to run like Mitt Romney, whose pandering to the GOP base during the primaries doomed him with younger and minority voters in the general election. One lesson of Bill Clinton’s election in 1992—an election in which Clinton endorsed welfare reform, attacked George H.W. Bush from the right on foreign policy, flew back to Arkansas from the campaign trail to execute a mentally retarded murderer and picked a fight with an African-American rapper who mused about killing white people—is that when your party’s base is out of touch with most of the country, you must publicly challenge that base or else be lumped together with it.
Yet the Republican candidates are running like this is their election to lose. It’s not. The economy is improving. Obamacare is growing more popular. Middle class Americans are angrier at the rich than the poor. And culturally, the country is racing left. Winning presidential candidates are smart enough to sense the country’s mood at a given moment in time and bold enough to channel it, even when that entails risk. The last two weeks offered GOP candidates a crucial opportunity to do that. And they blew it, every one.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Republicans remain anti-black, anti-gay, anti-women, anti-Hispanics, anti-Asian, anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-education, anti-union, anti-middle class, anti-working class, anti-poor, anti-elderly and anti-everybody and everything except the 1%.
* After offending and antigonizing everyone except old white men, conservatives will claim they are the victims and bemoan the fact that the country is divided.
* The GOP, The "Morality" Party has failed the empathy test for decades. As a result they will continue to be marginalized until they are a tiny minority. The only reason they are still here is due to gerrymandering and voter supression but that will come to an end before too long.
* "empathy test????" Given the ramblings emanating from their clown car and their constituency Its a good thing literacy tests are illegal because they wouldn't pass those either
* The GOP has remade itself into the Party of Fear, Hate and Bigotry as well as adopting the moniker: Party of Stupid.
* Republicans by definition lack empathy, how could they possibly pass an "empathy test?"
...................................................................................................................................................................
The GOP Fails Its Empathy Test
By Peter Beinart, June 29, 2015
After Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012, the Republican National Committee published an “autopsy.” “When it comes to social issues,” the autopsy declared, “the Party must in fact and deed be inclusive and welcoming. If we are not, we will limit our ability to attract young people.” The autopsy also added that, “we need to go to communities where Republicans do not normally go to listen and make our case. We need to campaign among Hispanic, black, Asian, and gay Americans and demonstrate we care about them, too.”
The last two weeks, more than any since Romney’s defeat, illustrate how miserably the GOP has failed.
Start with June 17, when Dylann Roof, a young white man enamored of the Confederate flag, murdered nine African Americans in church. Within three days, Romney had called for the Confederate flag’s removal from South Carolina’s capitol. Four days later, the state’s Republican governor and senators called for its removal too. But during that entire week—even as it became obvious that the politics of the flag were shifting—not a single GOP presidential candidate forthrightly called for it to be taken down. Instead, they mostly called it a state decision, a transparent dodge politicians deploy when they don’t want to make a difficult call.
Once South Carolina Republicans came out against the flag, the GOP presidential candidates largely followed suit. But by playing it safe, they forfeited their chance to “demonstrate” that they “care” about African Americans at a moment of deep racial trauma. The presidential campaign has been underway for months now. Yet with the exception of Rand Paul, who has talked bluntly about racism in the criminal-justice system, not a single GOP presidential candidate has done anything bold enough to change the political calculus of a community that consistently votes 90 percent Democratic.
Then, on June 26, the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was a constitutional right. If the politics of the Confederate Flag shifted radically over the course of a few days, the politics of gay marriage have been shifting radically over the last few years. Young people, including young Republicans, overwhelmingly back marriage equality. Key conservative writers years ago conceded the fight was lost. Yet not a single major GOP candidate risked alienating the Christian right by endorsing the idea. Instead, they sullenly acquiesced, thus forfeiting another opportunity to redefine their relationship with a group of Americans whose support Republicans desperately need.
But those aren’t the only moments in which the GOP presidential field failed. On June 16, Donald Trump announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination. In recent years, Trump has obsessively questioned whether President Obama was born in the United States and suggested he only gained admission to Columbia and Harvard because he’s black. In his presidential announcement speech, Trump declared that, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. ... They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”
For Trump’s GOP opponents, his comments created a perfect “Sister Souljah” moment, an opportunity to confront the offensive comments of someone on your own ideological side and thus win the respect of those they offend. No one took it. The Republican National Committee called Trump a “high-caliber candidate.” Rand Paul’s spokesperson quipped, “the more the merrier.” Mike Huckabee said, “I personally like him.” Ted Cruz praised Trump’s “experience as a successful businessman and job creator.” Jeb Bush called Trump merely a “rich guy.”
In its autopsy, the RNC called on Republicans to embrace comprehensive immigration reform in an effort to win more Latino votes. More than two years later, not only does every major GOP candidate except Jeb Bush oppose it, but none will even condemn a fellow candidate who slurs Mexican immigrants in the crudest of ways.
The rise of Millennials—who are more ethnically and racially diverse and more secular than any generation in American history—is making America a far more culturally tolerant nation than it was when Ronald Reagan, or even George W. Bush, occupied the White House. For the Republican presidential candidates, that means they’re starting from behind. They begin the 2016 race burdened by their party’s reputation for intolerance, a reputation that becomes more politically costly every year as the result of generational change.
In such an environment, Republicans do not have the luxury of caution. They can’t afford to run like Mitt Romney, whose pandering to the GOP base during the primaries doomed him with younger and minority voters in the general election. One lesson of Bill Clinton’s election in 1992—an election in which Clinton endorsed welfare reform, attacked George H.W. Bush from the right on foreign policy, flew back to Arkansas from the campaign trail to execute a mentally retarded murderer and picked a fight with an African-American rapper who mused about killing white people—is that when your party’s base is out of touch with most of the country, you must publicly challenge that base or else be lumped together with it.
Yet the Republican candidates are running like this is their election to lose. It’s not. The economy is improving. Obamacare is growing more popular. Middle class Americans are angrier at the rich than the poor. And culturally, the country is racing left. Winning presidential candidates are smart enough to sense the country’s mood at a given moment in time and bold enough to channel it, even when that entails risk. The last two weeks offered GOP candidates a crucial opportunity to do that. And they blew it, every one.
...................................................................................................................................................................
For the sake of our foreign policies, we must NOT elect Donald Trump or any other Republican who holds similar views!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rick Sanchez: Donald Trump has single-handedly united Latinos from coast to coast
By Rick Sanchez, June 29, 2015
As one of 54 million Latinos in America, I have a message for Donald Trump — and chances are it's not what you would think. In fact, all of us who describe ourselves as Hispanic Americans owe Donald Trump a debt of gratitude. Why? Because, he’s been able to do what nobody (and heaven knows many of us have tried) has ever been able to accomplish in America.
Donald Trump has single-handedly united Latinos from coast to coast.
Unintentional as it may have been, Trump has pulled off what may seem just short of a miracle. By insultingly describing people who cross the border as “bringing drugs... bringing crime... rapists,” he does what even Ann Coulter wasn’t able to accomplish when she called Mexicans “a deficient culture made up mostly of peasants who are much more dangerous than ISIS.”
Coulter and Trump’s one-two punch cuts to the core with Hispanics as much for what it says as what it doesn’t say. What their unsolicited Latino critique lacks, as documented recently on Fox News Latino, is perspective. By not mentioning Latino contributions to America, they make all those who have made those contributions feel disrespected. Latinos all throughout America, no matter which border they or their ancestors crossed to come here, seem to be taking Trump’s words personally—almost as if he’s calling every one of them “criminals and rapists.”
If you listen carefully, you can hear a collective “¡No más!” screamed all over America. Enough is enough. Hell hath no fury like 54 million people scorned. East coast Latinos like Dominicans and Puerto Ricans in New York; Cubans in South Florida and Mexicans in California have always blended, but never mixed. That is until now. Trump words have catalyzed some sense of solidarity and “I got your back mentality” among Hispanics.
Maybe it’s because we’ve heard it all before, but never so rudely stated by someone running as a Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States.
Suddenly, Cubans and Puerto Ricans are embracing for one cause. Venezuelans are dancing with Colombians. Argentinians, Uruguayans, Peruvians and Ecuadorans are all coming together. The usual lines of cultural demarcation between Central and South Americans are gone, replaced by a spirit of unity in defiance of a man the majority of Latinos now see as offensive and repulsive.
Remember after the 911 attacks, when the whole world seemed to be behind us? When even the French’s best paper often critical of U.S. policies wrote: “Today, we are all Americans”? Because of Donald Trump’s statement, Latinos everywhere seem to be saying “today we are all Mexicans!”
In Los Angeles, much of the talk is about Trump’s unwillingness to apologize and his apparent declaration of war against Univision and its anchorman Jorge Ramos. (Trump’s lowest blow may have been releasing Ramos’ personal cell phone to the public as a way of punishing the network that has chosen to cancel his Miss USA pageant.) By the way, Trump’s attacks on Ramos are the equivalent of LBJ attacking Cronkite. It’s a losing battle.
In Miami, the Pichy Boys, who are the Spanish digital equivalents of The Daily Show, are blasting a very un-Cuban message of solidarity with Mexicans and other Latinos across the U.S. Cubans tend to vote Republican and rarely see eye to eye with their counterparts out west. That is until now. Donald Trump’s slurs have most of Miami’s Hispanics incensed to the point where there’s even talk of boycotting the Doral Golf Resort, Trump’s crown jewel of golf.
In New York, it’s more of the same with even the late night shows getting in their blows. On “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” sidekick Guillermo Rodriguez told Trump “where to stick it” while an audience cheered wildly.
Politically, Trump’s slurs can do one of two things. Because he’s running as a Republican and is now coming in second in some New Hampshire polls, he may set even further back the GOP’s chances of winning Latino voters, which are crucial to the upcoming 2016 general election.
But it could go the other way, Trump may be providing a huge opportunity for a Republican candidate who dares to take him on and call him out, thereby increasing his or her chances of carrying the Latino vote. It’s a softball right down the middle. All Bush, Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Fiorina or any other candidate has to do is swing, but will they have the nerve? Their electability may depend on it.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rick Sanchez: Donald Trump has single-handedly united Latinos from coast to coast
By Rick Sanchez, June 29, 2015
As one of 54 million Latinos in America, I have a message for Donald Trump — and chances are it's not what you would think. In fact, all of us who describe ourselves as Hispanic Americans owe Donald Trump a debt of gratitude. Why? Because, he’s been able to do what nobody (and heaven knows many of us have tried) has ever been able to accomplish in America.
Donald Trump has single-handedly united Latinos from coast to coast.
Unintentional as it may have been, Trump has pulled off what may seem just short of a miracle. By insultingly describing people who cross the border as “bringing drugs... bringing crime... rapists,” he does what even Ann Coulter wasn’t able to accomplish when she called Mexicans “a deficient culture made up mostly of peasants who are much more dangerous than ISIS.”
Coulter and Trump’s one-two punch cuts to the core with Hispanics as much for what it says as what it doesn’t say. What their unsolicited Latino critique lacks, as documented recently on Fox News Latino, is perspective. By not mentioning Latino contributions to America, they make all those who have made those contributions feel disrespected. Latinos all throughout America, no matter which border they or their ancestors crossed to come here, seem to be taking Trump’s words personally—almost as if he’s calling every one of them “criminals and rapists.”
If you listen carefully, you can hear a collective “¡No más!” screamed all over America. Enough is enough. Hell hath no fury like 54 million people scorned. East coast Latinos like Dominicans and Puerto Ricans in New York; Cubans in South Florida and Mexicans in California have always blended, but never mixed. That is until now. Trump words have catalyzed some sense of solidarity and “I got your back mentality” among Hispanics.
Maybe it’s because we’ve heard it all before, but never so rudely stated by someone running as a Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States.
Suddenly, Cubans and Puerto Ricans are embracing for one cause. Venezuelans are dancing with Colombians. Argentinians, Uruguayans, Peruvians and Ecuadorans are all coming together. The usual lines of cultural demarcation between Central and South Americans are gone, replaced by a spirit of unity in defiance of a man the majority of Latinos now see as offensive and repulsive.
Remember after the 911 attacks, when the whole world seemed to be behind us? When even the French’s best paper often critical of U.S. policies wrote: “Today, we are all Americans”? Because of Donald Trump’s statement, Latinos everywhere seem to be saying “today we are all Mexicans!”
In Los Angeles, much of the talk is about Trump’s unwillingness to apologize and his apparent declaration of war against Univision and its anchorman Jorge Ramos. (Trump’s lowest blow may have been releasing Ramos’ personal cell phone to the public as a way of punishing the network that has chosen to cancel his Miss USA pageant.) By the way, Trump’s attacks on Ramos are the equivalent of LBJ attacking Cronkite. It’s a losing battle.
In Miami, the Pichy Boys, who are the Spanish digital equivalents of The Daily Show, are blasting a very un-Cuban message of solidarity with Mexicans and other Latinos across the U.S. Cubans tend to vote Republican and rarely see eye to eye with their counterparts out west. That is until now. Donald Trump’s slurs have most of Miami’s Hispanics incensed to the point where there’s even talk of boycotting the Doral Golf Resort, Trump’s crown jewel of golf.
In New York, it’s more of the same with even the late night shows getting in their blows. On “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” sidekick Guillermo Rodriguez told Trump “where to stick it” while an audience cheered wildly.
Politically, Trump’s slurs can do one of two things. Because he’s running as a Republican and is now coming in second in some New Hampshire polls, he may set even further back the GOP’s chances of winning Latino voters, which are crucial to the upcoming 2016 general election.
But it could go the other way, Trump may be providing a huge opportunity for a Republican candidate who dares to take him on and call him out, thereby increasing his or her chances of carrying the Latino vote. It’s a softball right down the middle. All Bush, Walker, Rubio, Cruz, Fiorina or any other candidate has to do is swing, but will they have the nerve? Their electability may depend on it.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Monday, June 29, 2015
"Never before under modern nomination rules have so many plausible contenders been in the mix." Hmmmm, "plausible"? I doubt it!
...................................................................................................................................................................
And Christie makes 16: Why are so many people running for president?
By David Greenberg, June 30, 2015
As of Tuesday, with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie squeezing into the clown car that is the race for the Republican presidential nomination, 15 men and one woman are competing to carry the GOP standard. Never before under modern nomination rules have so many plausible contenders been in the mix.
While it’s tempting to ridicule this colorful cast of characters, these candidates — with the profound exception of real-estate mogul Donald Trump — aren’t fools chasing free airtime. All but three are former or current senators or governors who, in a smaller group, would be considered viable contenders. If all these candidates hang in there for eight to 12 months, GOP voters will find that every vote counts.
So why is the 2016 race so crowded? The key reason is that the authorities who used to be gatekeepers have lost power.
In past, elite political leaders wielded considerable influence over the election process. Which candidates receive enough money to wage a full-fledged campaign? Which bathe in the media spotlight long enough to ensure that the public knows them?
It’s true, there are often surprises — surges by long-shots, flops by front-runners. But the campaign’s main contours were typically drawn by the influential figures who can bestow standing, funds and media attention.
Since the early 1970s, however, when the political parties began to place ever-greater weight on voters’ choices in the primaries, power has shifted to the public. In the last few election cycles in particular, the influence of several sets of gatekeepers has ebbed.
The first big losers are party leaders. Traditionally, the candidate who gets support from the key panjandrums can bigfoot rivals out of the race. By lending logistical support, knowledge of local politics and endorsements, these power brokers can shore up a favored contender – say, a vice president or a leading candidate in the previous election.
This year looks different. For one thing, in 2016, there’s no Republican heir who can peremptorily claim the front-runner mantle – as George H.W. Bush, did in 1988 or Al Gore did on the Democratic side in 2000. Nor has any strong finisher in previous nomination fights pulled ahead, as Senator Bob Dole did in 1996 or Senator Gary Hart did in 1988 (until he was caught in a sex scandal). This year looks more like one of those wide-open races where an outsider emerged victorious — as Georgia governor Jimmy Carter, a relatively obscure Democrat, did in 1976.
Some GOP insiders hoped that former Florida governor Jeb Bush would emerge as the 2016 consensus choice. To the extent that Bush can claim top-tier status, it’s because many big shots have stood by him. But at this early stage, most Republican voters don’t seem to be taking cues from their leaders.
A second diminished group is the financial gatekeepers. This might sound odd, given how much money campaigns must now spend. But there’s been a critical change since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling.
The consensus judgment of big donors used to help pare down the field. Now, eccentric contributors with extreme wealth can keep longshot candidate in the race. Citizens United gave rise to the super-PACs — organizations that, though legally and operationally distinct from a candidate’s campaign, could spend unlimited amounts on his or her behalf, and can take unlimited donations from one person.
In 2012, both former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were kept alive through the largesse of a single superrich sponsor: Santorum by financier Foster Friess and Gingrich by casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. This election cycle, Friess is again backing Santorum, while mega-car dealer Norman Braman is helping to keep Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) awash in cash. The billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch have talked about supporting several candidates, though are reported to be favoring Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.
Finally, media gatekeepers have also declined. In recent years, the news environment has fractured. The nightly network news broadcasts no longer reign supreme. More and more voters get political information from a combination of cable channels — including partisan outlets like Fox and MSNBC — and social media.
As a result, a candidate with little experience who can get airtime to voice forceful opinions, like neurosurgeon Ben Carson, or someone who goes viral for being outrageous, like Trump, can surge in popularity — or at least name recognition — distinguishing himself from the pack. The wave of mainstream media attention that once conferred credibility on a candidate is ever more elusive.
Without gatekeepers to pump up perceived winners and strike down perceived losers, any candidate with a plausible case to make can calculate that, at least at this early stage of the race, jumping in is worth the risk. In fact, the sheer number of aspirants encourages more to run, creating a snowball effect.
Many of this year’s hopefuls surely don’t expect to begin as front-runners (though all it takes to be a front-runner in a dense pack may be 11 percent in a poll). Rather, the mavericks may envision the mainstream vote being sliced and diced by several contenders, while they remain viable thanks to a plurality of diehard fans.
Former business executive Carly Fiorina, for example, would likely never win a race against a few big-name opponents. But as the only woman in the Republican race, if she fares well among female voters, she might rise to the top tier. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is distrusted by vast swaths of the GOP electorate, but if traditionalist conservatives divide their votes, his libertarian backers could propel him to the endgame. With few moderate Republicans remaining today, former New York George Pataki may hope that a fractured conservative vote will position him to win.
In other words, the gates are wide open.
...................................................................................................................................................................
And Christie makes 16: Why are so many people running for president?
By David Greenberg, June 30, 2015
As of Tuesday, with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie squeezing into the clown car that is the race for the Republican presidential nomination, 15 men and one woman are competing to carry the GOP standard. Never before under modern nomination rules have so many plausible contenders been in the mix.
While it’s tempting to ridicule this colorful cast of characters, these candidates — with the profound exception of real-estate mogul Donald Trump — aren’t fools chasing free airtime. All but three are former or current senators or governors who, in a smaller group, would be considered viable contenders. If all these candidates hang in there for eight to 12 months, GOP voters will find that every vote counts.
So why is the 2016 race so crowded? The key reason is that the authorities who used to be gatekeepers have lost power.
In past, elite political leaders wielded considerable influence over the election process. Which candidates receive enough money to wage a full-fledged campaign? Which bathe in the media spotlight long enough to ensure that the public knows them?
It’s true, there are often surprises — surges by long-shots, flops by front-runners. But the campaign’s main contours were typically drawn by the influential figures who can bestow standing, funds and media attention.
Since the early 1970s, however, when the political parties began to place ever-greater weight on voters’ choices in the primaries, power has shifted to the public. In the last few election cycles in particular, the influence of several sets of gatekeepers has ebbed.
The first big losers are party leaders. Traditionally, the candidate who gets support from the key panjandrums can bigfoot rivals out of the race. By lending logistical support, knowledge of local politics and endorsements, these power brokers can shore up a favored contender – say, a vice president or a leading candidate in the previous election.
This year looks different. For one thing, in 2016, there’s no Republican heir who can peremptorily claim the front-runner mantle – as George H.W. Bush, did in 1988 or Al Gore did on the Democratic side in 2000. Nor has any strong finisher in previous nomination fights pulled ahead, as Senator Bob Dole did in 1996 or Senator Gary Hart did in 1988 (until he was caught in a sex scandal). This year looks more like one of those wide-open races where an outsider emerged victorious — as Georgia governor Jimmy Carter, a relatively obscure Democrat, did in 1976.
Some GOP insiders hoped that former Florida governor Jeb Bush would emerge as the 2016 consensus choice. To the extent that Bush can claim top-tier status, it’s because many big shots have stood by him. But at this early stage, most Republican voters don’t seem to be taking cues from their leaders.
A second diminished group is the financial gatekeepers. This might sound odd, given how much money campaigns must now spend. But there’s been a critical change since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling.
The consensus judgment of big donors used to help pare down the field. Now, eccentric contributors with extreme wealth can keep longshot candidate in the race. Citizens United gave rise to the super-PACs — organizations that, though legally and operationally distinct from a candidate’s campaign, could spend unlimited amounts on his or her behalf, and can take unlimited donations from one person.
In 2012, both former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were kept alive through the largesse of a single superrich sponsor: Santorum by financier Foster Friess and Gingrich by casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. This election cycle, Friess is again backing Santorum, while mega-car dealer Norman Braman is helping to keep Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) awash in cash. The billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch have talked about supporting several candidates, though are reported to be favoring Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.
Finally, media gatekeepers have also declined. In recent years, the news environment has fractured. The nightly network news broadcasts no longer reign supreme. More and more voters get political information from a combination of cable channels — including partisan outlets like Fox and MSNBC — and social media.
As a result, a candidate with little experience who can get airtime to voice forceful opinions, like neurosurgeon Ben Carson, or someone who goes viral for being outrageous, like Trump, can surge in popularity — or at least name recognition — distinguishing himself from the pack. The wave of mainstream media attention that once conferred credibility on a candidate is ever more elusive.
Without gatekeepers to pump up perceived winners and strike down perceived losers, any candidate with a plausible case to make can calculate that, at least at this early stage of the race, jumping in is worth the risk. In fact, the sheer number of aspirants encourages more to run, creating a snowball effect.
Many of this year’s hopefuls surely don’t expect to begin as front-runners (though all it takes to be a front-runner in a dense pack may be 11 percent in a poll). Rather, the mavericks may envision the mainstream vote being sliced and diced by several contenders, while they remain viable thanks to a plurality of diehard fans.
Former business executive Carly Fiorina, for example, would likely never win a race against a few big-name opponents. But as the only woman in the Republican race, if she fares well among female voters, she might rise to the top tier. Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is distrusted by vast swaths of the GOP electorate, but if traditionalist conservatives divide their votes, his libertarian backers could propel him to the endgame. With few moderate Republicans remaining today, former New York George Pataki may hope that a fractured conservative vote will position him to win.
In other words, the gates are wide open.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"While the brothers have said they will likely provide financial support to several Republican candidates, it appears they’re happy to wait a bit longer before weighing in."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Source: Koch brothers have yet to give money to any GOP candidate
By CNN, June 29, 2015
The race to win the backing of some of the GOP’s most prominent mega-donors will end in a stalemate this month.
Charles and David Koch have not cut a check to any of the Republican presidential hopefuls, according to a person familiar with their political activities. Nor do the brothers plan to jump into the fray ahead of a June 30 fundraising deadline that has candidates scrambling for cash.
Those campaign finance reports, which will become public in July, offer the first snapshot of how donors are lining up behind Republicans now that the field has expanded to include more than a dozen contenders.
The Koch brothers, who run the multibillion-dollar corporation Koch Industries, along with their network of donors, have pledged to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on 2016. On their short list of GOP favorites: former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
While the brothers have said they will likely provide financial support to several Republican candidates, it appears they’re happy to wait a bit longer before weighing in.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Source: Koch brothers have yet to give money to any GOP candidate
By CNN, June 29, 2015
The race to win the backing of some of the GOP’s most prominent mega-donors will end in a stalemate this month.
Charles and David Koch have not cut a check to any of the Republican presidential hopefuls, according to a person familiar with their political activities. Nor do the brothers plan to jump into the fray ahead of a June 30 fundraising deadline that has candidates scrambling for cash.
Those campaign finance reports, which will become public in July, offer the first snapshot of how donors are lining up behind Republicans now that the field has expanded to include more than a dozen contenders.
The Koch brothers, who run the multibillion-dollar corporation Koch Industries, along with their network of donors, have pledged to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on 2016. On their short list of GOP favorites: former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.
While the brothers have said they will likely provide financial support to several Republican candidates, it appears they’re happy to wait a bit longer before weighing in.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Today, Ann Coulter is just political white noise." And I don't feel sorry for her!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Wish i could save readers trouble by posting this above the article: the article is difficult to track - read the last four paragraphs first, then circle back to the top. It makes more sense then. [Ed.: last four paragraphs included after major snippage below]
* ... This is the problem with Ann Coulter and it is not a liberal or conservative thing. Ann Coulter is a serial liar and has always been one. Her problem now is that she has devolved into nothing more than a caricature of herself. Republicans, Democrats, and the country would be better served if Ann just faded away.
* Coulter has always represented that strain of American conservatism whose "ideology" consisted of whatever would outrage liberals and was otherwise devoid of actual policy content. Coulter's appeal to her right-wing fans -- like Sarah Palin's -- seems to be fading along with her looks.
* Coulter had looks? I always had the urge to feed her oats.
* Just another vile republican cashing in on other peoples ignorance and hatred.
* Cashing in? Account overdrawn. Check bounced. NSF.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ann Coulter has fallen from grace — and the reason why is terrifying
Ten years ago, Ann Coulter was featured on the cover of Time magazine with an article entitled “Ms. Right.” At the time she was a very big presence in the political media but the article pushed her into the realm of popular culture; thus, she became more than just a political bomb thrower. She’d always had the looks and the confidence, and now she had the imprimatur of the mainstream media. Coulter became a full-fledged star.
The article caused a tremendous stir. After all, Coulter was among the most flamboyant of the newer, edgier breed of right-wing provocateurs. In 2000, she had won the Media Research Center-presented “Conservative Journalist of the Year” award, and the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute gave her its annual conservative leadership award “for her unfailing dedication to truth, freedom and conservative values and for being an exemplar, in word and deed, of what a true leader is.” It seemed as if she and her incendiary polemics were everywhere, from daily personal appearances on television, her weekly newspaper columns and a series of books that were extremely popular among right-wingers.
From 1998 to 2005, when the magazine cover appeared, she had published a series of books — “High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton,” “Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right,” “Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism,” and a collection of her columns, called “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter” — all of which were very successful. The theme of these books is obvious from the titles. She was famous for her cleverness in hating and baiting liberals. And in those heady days of conservative apotheosis, with sex scandals, stolen elections, terrorist attacks, unnecessary wars and liberalism on the run as never before, Coulter was the most deliciously vicious of all the haters. Among her famous quotes of the era were:
And one of her most memorable (to me at least) was this one:
[major snippage]
It’s not as if Coulter is the only right-wing political pundit who is making this case. Talk-radio hosts such as Laura Ingraham are pushing nativism hard as well. But Coulter’s style is much uglier even than theirs. For example, she spends a lot of time in the book trying to prove that Mexicans are prone to child rape.
Lowrey thinks Coulter is pretty much an act that’s gone sour in the age of polarization and she may be right. She compares her to Donald Trump (who Coulter extols for his “immigrants are rapists” comments, which she believes he got from her) and there is a certain kind of scary-clown aspect to both of them. But I think it’s something else — she just isn’t all that shocking anymore. And the reason is that, after all these years — through which she and her fellow right-wing bomb throwers have been poisoning the discourse and polluting our politics with the most egregious dehumanization of just about everyone on the planet who doesn’t look and sound like them — nobody is listening anymore.
Today, Ann Coulter is just political white noise. Sure, she’ll sell her books to the small group of people who can’t get enough of her bilious humor and hatred but her days of being a mainstream pop culture phenomenon are over. Everybody’s heard it all before. There’s almost a whiff of noxious nostalgia about it now.
The question is whether or not there’s anyone left in the Republican Party who can crawl out from under the pile of offal that people like Coulter have buried them under and say something new to America. For the first time in nearly two decades they are ignoring her provocations. Whatever else happens that’s very good news.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Wish i could save readers trouble by posting this above the article: the article is difficult to track - read the last four paragraphs first, then circle back to the top. It makes more sense then. [Ed.: last four paragraphs included after major snippage below]
* ... This is the problem with Ann Coulter and it is not a liberal or conservative thing. Ann Coulter is a serial liar and has always been one. Her problem now is that she has devolved into nothing more than a caricature of herself. Republicans, Democrats, and the country would be better served if Ann just faded away.
* Coulter has always represented that strain of American conservatism whose "ideology" consisted of whatever would outrage liberals and was otherwise devoid of actual policy content. Coulter's appeal to her right-wing fans -- like Sarah Palin's -- seems to be fading along with her looks.
* Coulter had looks? I always had the urge to feed her oats.
* Just another vile republican cashing in on other peoples ignorance and hatred.
* Cashing in? Account overdrawn. Check bounced. NSF.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ann Coulter has fallen from grace — and the reason why is terrifying
The right-wing hate-monger has fallen on hard times. This should be a cause for celebration -- but it's far from it
By Heather Digby Parton, June 29, 2015Ten years ago, Ann Coulter was featured on the cover of Time magazine with an article entitled “Ms. Right.” At the time she was a very big presence in the political media but the article pushed her into the realm of popular culture; thus, she became more than just a political bomb thrower. She’d always had the looks and the confidence, and now she had the imprimatur of the mainstream media. Coulter became a full-fledged star.
The article caused a tremendous stir. After all, Coulter was among the most flamboyant of the newer, edgier breed of right-wing provocateurs. In 2000, she had won the Media Research Center-presented “Conservative Journalist of the Year” award, and the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute gave her its annual conservative leadership award “for her unfailing dedication to truth, freedom and conservative values and for being an exemplar, in word and deed, of what a true leader is.” It seemed as if she and her incendiary polemics were everywhere, from daily personal appearances on television, her weekly newspaper columns and a series of books that were extremely popular among right-wingers.
From 1998 to 2005, when the magazine cover appeared, she had published a series of books — “High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton,” “Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right,” “Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism,” and a collection of her columns, called “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter” — all of which were very successful. The theme of these books is obvious from the titles. She was famous for her cleverness in hating and baiting liberals. And in those heady days of conservative apotheosis, with sex scandals, stolen elections, terrorist attacks, unnecessary wars and liberalism on the run as never before, Coulter was the most deliciously vicious of all the haters. Among her famous quotes of the era were:
- The “backbone of the Democratic Party” is a “typical fat, implacable welfare recipient.”
- “My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that’s because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism.”
- “If you don’t hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don’t love your country.”
- “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity”
- “Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave… We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males.”
And one of her most memorable (to me at least) was this one:
“We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors,”Coulter later clarified what she meant;
“When I said we should ‘execute’ John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was ‘We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV’. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred.”If that reminds you of certain fundamentalists operating today in the Middle East, you wouldn’t be alone.
[major snippage]
It’s not as if Coulter is the only right-wing political pundit who is making this case. Talk-radio hosts such as Laura Ingraham are pushing nativism hard as well. But Coulter’s style is much uglier even than theirs. For example, she spends a lot of time in the book trying to prove that Mexicans are prone to child rape.
Lowrey thinks Coulter is pretty much an act that’s gone sour in the age of polarization and she may be right. She compares her to Donald Trump (who Coulter extols for his “immigrants are rapists” comments, which she believes he got from her) and there is a certain kind of scary-clown aspect to both of them. But I think it’s something else — she just isn’t all that shocking anymore. And the reason is that, after all these years — through which she and her fellow right-wing bomb throwers have been poisoning the discourse and polluting our politics with the most egregious dehumanization of just about everyone on the planet who doesn’t look and sound like them — nobody is listening anymore.
Today, Ann Coulter is just political white noise. Sure, she’ll sell her books to the small group of people who can’t get enough of her bilious humor and hatred but her days of being a mainstream pop culture phenomenon are over. Everybody’s heard it all before. There’s almost a whiff of noxious nostalgia about it now.
The question is whether or not there’s anyone left in the Republican Party who can crawl out from under the pile of offal that people like Coulter have buried them under and say something new to America. For the first time in nearly two decades they are ignoring her provocations. Whatever else happens that’s very good news.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... five of Bush's business associates have been convicted of crimes." If you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Jeb Bush did business with crooks, traded on his family connections, Washington Post reports
By Peter Weber, June 29, 2015
Before he was elected governor of Florida in 1998, Jeb Bush "often benefited from his family connections and repeatedly put himself in situations that raised questions about his judgment and exposed him to reputational risk," report Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Tom Hamburger in The Washington Post, noting that five of Bush's business associates have been convicted of crimes.
Bush, who cites his business experience to bolster his run for president, says that he was taken advantage of by unscrupulous businessmen and had no knowledge of wrongdoing. The Post found that Bush's intervention with federal officials helped one later-convicted fraudster get a government loan, and it opened its exposé with Bush's work with Florida company MWI, focusing on a trip he took to Nigeria right after his father was inaugurated in early 1989.
"My father is the president of the United States, duly elected by people that have an interest in improving ties everywhere," Bush told a group of Nigerian officials, while trying to secure an $80 million deal for water pumps financed by the federal U.S. Export-Import Bank. "The fact that you have done this today is something I will report back to him very quickly when I get back to the United States." He did, and President George H.W. Bush wrote a letter to Nigeria's president thanking him for hosting his son. MWI got the deal, and was later convicted on U.S. civil charges related to the Nigeria business. Jeb's speech was recorded, and The Post features it in this video on Bush's dealings:
Video
Bush has never been convicted of any wrongdoing, and his moderate success (by his family's standards) turned into a financial windfall after he left office in 2007. He has given more than 100 speeches for $50,000 or more, and earned millions sitting on corporate boards. You can read more about his spotty business history at The Washington Post.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Jeb Bush did business with crooks, traded on his family connections, Washington Post reports
By Peter Weber, June 29, 2015
Before he was elected governor of Florida in 1998, Jeb Bush "often benefited from his family connections and repeatedly put himself in situations that raised questions about his judgment and exposed him to reputational risk," report Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Tom Hamburger in The Washington Post, noting that five of Bush's business associates have been convicted of crimes.
Bush, who cites his business experience to bolster his run for president, says that he was taken advantage of by unscrupulous businessmen and had no knowledge of wrongdoing. The Post found that Bush's intervention with federal officials helped one later-convicted fraudster get a government loan, and it opened its exposé with Bush's work with Florida company MWI, focusing on a trip he took to Nigeria right after his father was inaugurated in early 1989.
"My father is the president of the United States, duly elected by people that have an interest in improving ties everywhere," Bush told a group of Nigerian officials, while trying to secure an $80 million deal for water pumps financed by the federal U.S. Export-Import Bank. "The fact that you have done this today is something I will report back to him very quickly when I get back to the United States." He did, and President George H.W. Bush wrote a letter to Nigeria's president thanking him for hosting his son. MWI got the deal, and was later convicted on U.S. civil charges related to the Nigeria business. Jeb's speech was recorded, and The Post features it in this video on Bush's dealings:
Video
Bush has never been convicted of any wrongdoing, and his moderate success (by his family's standards) turned into a financial windfall after he left office in 2007. He has given more than 100 speeches for $50,000 or more, and earned millions sitting on corporate boards. You can read more about his spotty business history at The Washington Post.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Running for president, Cruz is discovering, is a lot harder than running for statewide office." Too bad, so sad.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* I worked for Lorimar when they produced Peoples Court. There was a poll at the time, where a quarter of all respondents thought that Judge Wapner was on the Supreme Court. I think that tells you everything you need to know about the wisdom of voting for Supreme Court justices.
* It is an absolute terrible idea to vote on Supremes. With a life time appointment the Supremes are beholding to no one not even the president who appoints them of the congress that okays the appointment. They are beholding to the Constitution and the American people. If they were elected they would be bought and paid for same as our politicians. And they would be beholding to those groups, pacs and corporations.
* A President is supposed to take the oath of allegiance on the Bible..to preserve the Constitution. and these Bozos are spouting civil disobedience.. oh dear..
* It's always good to have a few dipsticks like Cruz front and center spouting inanities and generally acting like a clown. I believe it wakes up a certain silent minority whom otherwise wouldn't pay attention but become committed to pushing against his particular nonsense by voting.
* this new extremist t party of republicans, is born of decades of republican corruption, and political corruption in general. nothing more, nothing less. we need republican leaders. not phony idiots
* Ted and all the other clowns in the Republican Presidential Running Car are "cruzing for a losing"!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ted Cruz Finds Demagoguery Harder Than It Looks
By Jonathan Bernstein, June 29, 2015
Ted Cruz is claiming that his fellow Republicans are secretly happy with the Supreme Court rulings on marriage equality and Obamacare, even though they publicly condemned them.
Cruz doesn't give us any reason other than his say-so to believe this accusation. Why should we have faith that his denunciations are any more sincere?
But he didn't stop there. The Texas senator also recently proposed a constitutional amendment to put Supreme Court justices through popular votes every eight years.
This is a terrible idea. Not many people would cast informed votes (at present, few Americans can name as many as half the members of the current court). Retention elections would center on a handful of controversial decisions, ignoring the remainder of each justice's body of work. Money -- unconstrained by campaign-finance laws -- would be the largest factor in the outcomes. And voters, already heavily overworked by the U.S. political system, would find themselves with an extra burden of choices to make.
It's one thing to support an amendment on marriage, as Cruz also does, on the grounds that the current court has misread the Constitution. It's another to attack the basic constitutional system -- and this from a presidential candidate who claims to adhere strictly to the document.
Running for president, Cruz is discovering, is a lot harder than running for statewide office. It's hard to out-demagogue a full field of Republicans desperately trying to differentiate themselves as the True Conservative in the race. Sure, Cruz came up with an original idea for opposing the court that sanctioned gay marriage and Obamacare. But in a landscape in which Bobby Jindal, a 2016 rival, has said, "If we want to save some money, let's just get rid of the court," it's hard to believe that Cruz's convoluted mechanism for theoretically punishing justices will give him much traction.
Cruz isn't going to win the GOP nomination by monopolizing institutional conservative support (as he did in his statewide race in Texas), since the party actors have so many other options. These include candidates who engage in fewer intraparty feuds, who are less likely to stab their fellow Republicans in the back, and who have fewer strategic fiascos on their records. For what it's worth, Cruz has now fallen to eighth place in HuffPost Pollster's current national estimate of the Republican field, giving him only a tenuous hold on one of the 10 spots in the first party debate in August.
Alas, all that Ted Cruz is going to prove with his amendment idea is that it's easier to get ahead by peddling nonsense in the Senate than it is on the presidential campaign trail.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* I worked for Lorimar when they produced Peoples Court. There was a poll at the time, where a quarter of all respondents thought that Judge Wapner was on the Supreme Court. I think that tells you everything you need to know about the wisdom of voting for Supreme Court justices.
* It is an absolute terrible idea to vote on Supremes. With a life time appointment the Supremes are beholding to no one not even the president who appoints them of the congress that okays the appointment. They are beholding to the Constitution and the American people. If they were elected they would be bought and paid for same as our politicians. And they would be beholding to those groups, pacs and corporations.
* A President is supposed to take the oath of allegiance on the Bible..to preserve the Constitution. and these Bozos are spouting civil disobedience.. oh dear..
* It's always good to have a few dipsticks like Cruz front and center spouting inanities and generally acting like a clown. I believe it wakes up a certain silent minority whom otherwise wouldn't pay attention but become committed to pushing against his particular nonsense by voting.
* this new extremist t party of republicans, is born of decades of republican corruption, and political corruption in general. nothing more, nothing less. we need republican leaders. not phony idiots
* Ted and all the other clowns in the Republican Presidential Running Car are "cruzing for a losing"!
...................................................................................................................................................................
Ted Cruz Finds Demagoguery Harder Than It Looks
By Jonathan Bernstein, June 29, 2015
Ted Cruz is claiming that his fellow Republicans are secretly happy with the Supreme Court rulings on marriage equality and Obamacare, even though they publicly condemned them.
Cruz doesn't give us any reason other than his say-so to believe this accusation. Why should we have faith that his denunciations are any more sincere?
But he didn't stop there. The Texas senator also recently proposed a constitutional amendment to put Supreme Court justices through popular votes every eight years.
This is a terrible idea. Not many people would cast informed votes (at present, few Americans can name as many as half the members of the current court). Retention elections would center on a handful of controversial decisions, ignoring the remainder of each justice's body of work. Money -- unconstrained by campaign-finance laws -- would be the largest factor in the outcomes. And voters, already heavily overworked by the U.S. political system, would find themselves with an extra burden of choices to make.
It's one thing to support an amendment on marriage, as Cruz also does, on the grounds that the current court has misread the Constitution. It's another to attack the basic constitutional system -- and this from a presidential candidate who claims to adhere strictly to the document.
Running for president, Cruz is discovering, is a lot harder than running for statewide office. It's hard to out-demagogue a full field of Republicans desperately trying to differentiate themselves as the True Conservative in the race. Sure, Cruz came up with an original idea for opposing the court that sanctioned gay marriage and Obamacare. But in a landscape in which Bobby Jindal, a 2016 rival, has said, "If we want to save some money, let's just get rid of the court," it's hard to believe that Cruz's convoluted mechanism for theoretically punishing justices will give him much traction.
Cruz isn't going to win the GOP nomination by monopolizing institutional conservative support (as he did in his statewide race in Texas), since the party actors have so many other options. These include candidates who engage in fewer intraparty feuds, who are less likely to stab their fellow Republicans in the back, and who have fewer strategic fiascos on their records. For what it's worth, Cruz has now fallen to eighth place in HuffPost Pollster's current national estimate of the Republican field, giving him only a tenuous hold on one of the 10 spots in the first party debate in August.
Alas, all that Ted Cruz is going to prove with his amendment idea is that it's easier to get ahead by peddling nonsense in the Senate than it is on the presidential campaign trail.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Is this an example of Republican "abstinence"?
...................................................................................................................................................................
This was just too good not to share here:
"Remember folks, have your republicans spayed or neutered."
This was just too good not to share here:
"Remember folks, have your republicans spayed or neutered."
Comment posted on an article about Bristol Palin and her "unplanned" or maybe "planned" second pregnancy (after working as an “abstinence ambassador” for the Candie’s Foundation). Bristol seems to be confused about whether or not this pregnancy was planned; she made statements covering both situations....................................................................................................................................................................
Sunday, June 28, 2015
"Conservatives are fighting a losing battle of moral arithmetic."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Today's GOP is on the wrong side of history on almost every issue, and the requirement to stay that way in order to do well in the early caucuses and primaries is going to keep them there.
* But without the hyperbole, nuttiness, selfishness, victimhood, and hypocrisy, how would we know someone was Republican?
* The republicans only have fear to sell. And when people are no longer afraid, the game is over.
* Hell no. They also cornered the market on "hate".
* I think hate may be a subcategory of fear.
* As the GOP continues to whittle away at their base, all that will remain is a fragile coalition of gun nuts, Tea Partiers, and Christians with self-fulfilling prophecies of the End Times. Just the kind of leadership we need.
* The wingnuts have been acting like warmongering xenophobic knuckledragging bigots for years. Why do you expect it to suddenly start having different results?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Seven conservative mistakes
By Jennifer Rubin, June 28, 2015
In the reaction to the Confederate flag controversy and Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage and Obamacare we saw some of the best and some of the worst rhetoric for conservatives. For someone who wants to be seen as capable of presidential leadership it isn’t acceptable to hide from touchy issues. But candidates should think carefully before they pop off. There are lessons to be learned here.
First, the intensity with which one utters disapproval is not a measure of one’s conservative bona fides. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s hysterical rhetoric suggesting we defund the Supreme Court does not make him more conservative or more anti-gay marriage than other conservatives who disagreed with the court. Former Texas governor Rick Perry said, “I’m a firm believer in traditional marriage, and I also believe the 10th Amendment leaves it to each state to decide this issue. I fundamentally disagree with the court rewriting the law and assaulting the 10th Amendment. Our founding fathers did not intend for the judicial branch to legislate from the bench.” The former version not only turns off people who disagree with Jindal on this issue but a great many others who think now think he’s reckless.
Second, disobeying the Supreme Court is not an option. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and other GOP governors recognized this. (“Like many Hoosiers, I believe marriage is the union between one man and one woman, and I am disappointed that the Supreme Court failed to recognize the historic role of the states in setting marriage policy in this country. Nevertheless, our Administration will continue to uphold the rule of law and abide by the ruling of the Court in this case. Under our system of government, our citizens are free to disagree with decisions of the Supreme Court, but we are not free to disobey them.”) Inciting people to disobey the law or actually refusing to obey the law is not conservative and not acceptable. If Jindal can’t follow the law he needs to resign as governor. Threatening lawlessness turns off both people who disagree and people who agree with you on the underlying issue.
Third, hyperbole can make you sound like a nut. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) on Friday made this pronouncement: “Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history.” That is preposterous considering wars, stock market crashes, presidential assassinations, 9-11, natural disasters, riots and more. Speaking in such terms tells voters your priorities are screwy and your historical judgment is off-kilter.
Fourth, conservatives cannot rely on appeals to authority. In making the case against gay marriage conservatives consistently invoked history and religious precepts. But that is not enough. As Arthur Brooks argues, “citizens across the political spectrum place a great importance on taking care of those in need and avoiding harm to the weak. By contrast, moral values such as sexual purity and respect for authority — to which conservative politicians often give greater emphasis — resonate deeply with only a minority of the population. . . . Conservatives are fighting a losing battle of moral arithmetic. They hand an argument with virtually 100% public support — care for the vulnerable — to progressives, and focus instead on materialistic concerns and minority moral viewpoints.” There may not have been arguments other than moral and religious authority with respect to gay marriage (and hence a reason anti-gay marriage forces lost), but it should be a reminder in other contexts that “it’s the way we have always done it” is not going to win converts.
Fifth, playing victim is unattractive. When presented with an outcome they don’t like (e.g. gay marriage, getting rid of the Confederate flag) some conservatives reflexively adopt the badge of victimhood. It’s not African Americans who are the injured party when it comes to the flag, you see; it’s we who are victims of liberal hectoring. This is a loser on three counts: It sounds whiny; it’s an insult to real victims (of institutional or social discrimination, for example); and it’s not true. In the case of the Confederate battle flag, it wasn’t “liberals” but a great many people of all political persuasions who came to see the symbol as deeply hurtful and historically inappropriate (e.g. the flag came into use as a symbol of resistance to discrimination).
Sixth, avoid calls to run head long into a brick wall. This was the lesson of the government shutdown in 2013 and it should be a warning not to incite voters to take up Constitutional amendments (to redo Article III or to allow states to ban gay marriage). Conservatives don’t make ground losing unwise battles; they succeed by winning the fights that are winnable. Once again these self-destructive calls are not conservative in the least. If conservatism is preservation of the best in our history and institutions and skepticism of rash and extreme solutions, then these sorts of appeals are the antithesis of conservatism. Once again, conservatives who pursue these gimmicks only wind up convincing their fellow citizen that they (and even other conservatives) are bonkers.
Seventh, understand when you are in the minority and when you are in the majority. I don’t mean merely in legislative bodies, although it is important there, too. Inside the conservative bubble impassioned voices come to believe that a majority of Americans agree with them on shutting down the government, on gay marriage, on immigration and on many other topics. The polls say otherwise, and insisting there is a silent majority for extreme stances skews ones vision and prompts miscalculations.
Now it is possible that the pols who make these mistakes know they are counterproductive to the GOP, to the conservative movement and to the country. They may simply be cynically exploiting anger and fear and trying to make themselves stars in a sliver of the political universe. Everyone is entitled to make a buck or take their chance at fame, but the rest of us should not confuse hucksterism with leadership. Conservatives who want to win elections and promote conservative ideas should be able to separate political exploitation and entertainment from serious policy debates. That means making compelling and lively arguments, employing good humor and showing respect for fellow citizens’ intelligence. If they don’t, they will wind up in a permanent minority and see their ideas and their candidates marginalized.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Today's GOP is on the wrong side of history on almost every issue, and the requirement to stay that way in order to do well in the early caucuses and primaries is going to keep them there.
* But without the hyperbole, nuttiness, selfishness, victimhood, and hypocrisy, how would we know someone was Republican?
* The republicans only have fear to sell. And when people are no longer afraid, the game is over.
* Hell no. They also cornered the market on "hate".
* I think hate may be a subcategory of fear.
* As the GOP continues to whittle away at their base, all that will remain is a fragile coalition of gun nuts, Tea Partiers, and Christians with self-fulfilling prophecies of the End Times. Just the kind of leadership we need.
* The wingnuts have been acting like warmongering xenophobic knuckledragging bigots for years. Why do you expect it to suddenly start having different results?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Seven conservative mistakes
By Jennifer Rubin, June 28, 2015
In the reaction to the Confederate flag controversy and Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage and Obamacare we saw some of the best and some of the worst rhetoric for conservatives. For someone who wants to be seen as capable of presidential leadership it isn’t acceptable to hide from touchy issues. But candidates should think carefully before they pop off. There are lessons to be learned here.
First, the intensity with which one utters disapproval is not a measure of one’s conservative bona fides. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s hysterical rhetoric suggesting we defund the Supreme Court does not make him more conservative or more anti-gay marriage than other conservatives who disagreed with the court. Former Texas governor Rick Perry said, “I’m a firm believer in traditional marriage, and I also believe the 10th Amendment leaves it to each state to decide this issue. I fundamentally disagree with the court rewriting the law and assaulting the 10th Amendment. Our founding fathers did not intend for the judicial branch to legislate from the bench.” The former version not only turns off people who disagree with Jindal on this issue but a great many others who think now think he’s reckless.
Second, disobeying the Supreme Court is not an option. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and other GOP governors recognized this. (“Like many Hoosiers, I believe marriage is the union between one man and one woman, and I am disappointed that the Supreme Court failed to recognize the historic role of the states in setting marriage policy in this country. Nevertheless, our Administration will continue to uphold the rule of law and abide by the ruling of the Court in this case. Under our system of government, our citizens are free to disagree with decisions of the Supreme Court, but we are not free to disobey them.”) Inciting people to disobey the law or actually refusing to obey the law is not conservative and not acceptable. If Jindal can’t follow the law he needs to resign as governor. Threatening lawlessness turns off both people who disagree and people who agree with you on the underlying issue.
Third, hyperbole can make you sound like a nut. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) on Friday made this pronouncement: “Today is some of the darkest 24 hours in our nation’s history.” That is preposterous considering wars, stock market crashes, presidential assassinations, 9-11, natural disasters, riots and more. Speaking in such terms tells voters your priorities are screwy and your historical judgment is off-kilter.
Fourth, conservatives cannot rely on appeals to authority. In making the case against gay marriage conservatives consistently invoked history and religious precepts. But that is not enough. As Arthur Brooks argues, “citizens across the political spectrum place a great importance on taking care of those in need and avoiding harm to the weak. By contrast, moral values such as sexual purity and respect for authority — to which conservative politicians often give greater emphasis — resonate deeply with only a minority of the population. . . . Conservatives are fighting a losing battle of moral arithmetic. They hand an argument with virtually 100% public support — care for the vulnerable — to progressives, and focus instead on materialistic concerns and minority moral viewpoints.” There may not have been arguments other than moral and religious authority with respect to gay marriage (and hence a reason anti-gay marriage forces lost), but it should be a reminder in other contexts that “it’s the way we have always done it” is not going to win converts.
Fifth, playing victim is unattractive. When presented with an outcome they don’t like (e.g. gay marriage, getting rid of the Confederate flag) some conservatives reflexively adopt the badge of victimhood. It’s not African Americans who are the injured party when it comes to the flag, you see; it’s we who are victims of liberal hectoring. This is a loser on three counts: It sounds whiny; it’s an insult to real victims (of institutional or social discrimination, for example); and it’s not true. In the case of the Confederate battle flag, it wasn’t “liberals” but a great many people of all political persuasions who came to see the symbol as deeply hurtful and historically inappropriate (e.g. the flag came into use as a symbol of resistance to discrimination).
Sixth, avoid calls to run head long into a brick wall. This was the lesson of the government shutdown in 2013 and it should be a warning not to incite voters to take up Constitutional amendments (to redo Article III or to allow states to ban gay marriage). Conservatives don’t make ground losing unwise battles; they succeed by winning the fights that are winnable. Once again these self-destructive calls are not conservative in the least. If conservatism is preservation of the best in our history and institutions and skepticism of rash and extreme solutions, then these sorts of appeals are the antithesis of conservatism. Once again, conservatives who pursue these gimmicks only wind up convincing their fellow citizen that they (and even other conservatives) are bonkers.
Seventh, understand when you are in the minority and when you are in the majority. I don’t mean merely in legislative bodies, although it is important there, too. Inside the conservative bubble impassioned voices come to believe that a majority of Americans agree with them on shutting down the government, on gay marriage, on immigration and on many other topics. The polls say otherwise, and insisting there is a silent majority for extreme stances skews ones vision and prompts miscalculations.
Now it is possible that the pols who make these mistakes know they are counterproductive to the GOP, to the conservative movement and to the country. They may simply be cynically exploiting anger and fear and trying to make themselves stars in a sliver of the political universe. Everyone is entitled to make a buck or take their chance at fame, but the rest of us should not confuse hucksterism with leadership. Conservatives who want to win elections and promote conservative ideas should be able to separate political exploitation and entertainment from serious policy debates. That means making compelling and lively arguments, employing good humor and showing respect for fellow citizens’ intelligence. If they don’t, they will wind up in a permanent minority and see their ideas and their candidates marginalized.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... Huckabee urged his supporters to 'resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat.'" We aren't asking you to retreat, just to step aside!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* How dare he compare his rhetoric to the works of Dr. King!!!
* I felt the same indignation -- how dare he cite "Letter from Birmingham Jail"? As a white, straight male, Huckabee has no concept of "unjust law."
* ... attempting to legislate with your own personal religious ideology makes you a tyrant.
* It's the law, huckster. And you're cynical disregard for the law and you're slimy attempt to use Martin Luther King as a source is shameful.
* Mike Huckabee is the 21st century George Wallace.
* Someone clearly doesn't understand Separation of Church and State. Those county clerks and government officials have no right to deny people their legal and civic rights based on their personal religious beliefs.
* Mike Huckabee forgets that Religious Liberty has been protected. No Pastors or Churches are being asked to officiate or hold weddings for same-sex couples. Those working in tax payer paid Government jobs, that is a different story. Judges, Registrars, License Bureaus, are all Civic, NOT Religious. To deny what is now LEGAL Civil Law , is committing an offense. Those in Government Jobs, LEAVE your religion at home. WE pay your salaries. YOU work for the people in this capacity, NOT God.
* Huckabee is the leader of CRISIS, you know, the Christian branch of ISIS.
* Imagine his reaction if NON Christians decided they no longer wish to give FAT TAX subsidy's to Churches...his head would explode...he's more upset about people being happy, than he was about kids being raped and molested by Christian Priests...
...................................................................................................................................................................
Mike Huckabee Explains How To Resist Gay Marriage Decision
By Elise Foley, June 28, 2015
The Supreme Court may have made marriage equality the law of the land, but that doesn't mean people should go along with it, 2016 Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said Sunday, comparing those opponents to civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.
"I don't think a lot of pastors and Christian schools are going to have a choice" but to resist, Huckabee said on ABC's "This Week." "They either are going to follow God, their conscience and what they truly believe is what the scripture teaches them, or they will follow civil law."
"They will go the path of Dr. Martin Luther King, who in his brilliant essay the 'Letters from a Birmingham Jail' reminded us, based on what St. Augustine said, that an unjust law is no law at all," he continued. "And I do think that we're going to see a lot of pastors who will have to make this tough decision."
After the Supreme Court ruled Friday against bans on same-sex marriage, Huckabee urged his supporters to "resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."
"This Week" host George Stephanopoulos asked Huckabee to explain what that would mean in practice and whether he was calling for civil disobedience.
Along with pastors, Huckabee said that he expects to see Christian business owners, university presidents and school administrators resist. He said county clerks should not be required to issue licenses for same-sex marriages if they do not want to.
Huckabee, like many Republicans, has said that the Supreme Court's ruling will usher in an age of discrimination against Christians who oppose same-sex marriage and may be forced to acknowledge or serve gay and lesbian weddings.
"I'm not sure that every governor and every attorney general should just say, 'Well, it's the law of the land because there's no enabling legislation,'" Huckabee said. "For the states who have a constitutional amendment that affirms marriage, as has been affirmed by the courts for 135 years since the ratification of the 14th Amendment, right up through the first time we've seen same-sex marriage enacted by any state, which was Massachusetts, in many states you have overwhelming majorities of the people who voted to say that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman."
Earlier on the show, Stephanopoulos talked to Jim Obergefell, one of the plaintiffs in the same-sex marriage cases that went before the Supreme Court. Obergefell was fighting to have his name listed on the death certificate of his husband, John Arthur, who died in 2013.
Huckabee said he was "deeply moved" by Obergefell's story, but still convinced the Supreme Court overstepped.
Obergefell had a message during his appearance for Huckabee and others who oppose same-sex marriage.
"I would simply like to say, think about your brother, your son, your sister, your daughter, a dear friend," he said. "If one of them were gay, they would still be the same person. You would still love them. And wouldn't you want them to enjoy the same rights that you do and that everyone else in this country does? We're simply asking to be treated equally and fairly and to enjoy the institution of marriage and to be able to commit to the ones we love."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* How dare he compare his rhetoric to the works of Dr. King!!!
* I felt the same indignation -- how dare he cite "Letter from Birmingham Jail"? As a white, straight male, Huckabee has no concept of "unjust law."
* ... attempting to legislate with your own personal religious ideology makes you a tyrant.
* It's the law, huckster. And you're cynical disregard for the law and you're slimy attempt to use Martin Luther King as a source is shameful.
* Mike Huckabee is the 21st century George Wallace.
* Someone clearly doesn't understand Separation of Church and State. Those county clerks and government officials have no right to deny people their legal and civic rights based on their personal religious beliefs.
* Mike Huckabee forgets that Religious Liberty has been protected. No Pastors or Churches are being asked to officiate or hold weddings for same-sex couples. Those working in tax payer paid Government jobs, that is a different story. Judges, Registrars, License Bureaus, are all Civic, NOT Religious. To deny what is now LEGAL Civil Law , is committing an offense. Those in Government Jobs, LEAVE your religion at home. WE pay your salaries. YOU work for the people in this capacity, NOT God.
* Huckabee is the leader of CRISIS, you know, the Christian branch of ISIS.
* Imagine his reaction if NON Christians decided they no longer wish to give FAT TAX subsidy's to Churches...his head would explode...he's more upset about people being happy, than he was about kids being raped and molested by Christian Priests...
...................................................................................................................................................................
Mike Huckabee Explains How To Resist Gay Marriage Decision
By Elise Foley, June 28, 2015
The Supreme Court may have made marriage equality the law of the land, but that doesn't mean people should go along with it, 2016 Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said Sunday, comparing those opponents to civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.
"I don't think a lot of pastors and Christian schools are going to have a choice" but to resist, Huckabee said on ABC's "This Week." "They either are going to follow God, their conscience and what they truly believe is what the scripture teaches them, or they will follow civil law."
"They will go the path of Dr. Martin Luther King, who in his brilliant essay the 'Letters from a Birmingham Jail' reminded us, based on what St. Augustine said, that an unjust law is no law at all," he continued. "And I do think that we're going to see a lot of pastors who will have to make this tough decision."
After the Supreme Court ruled Friday against bans on same-sex marriage, Huckabee urged his supporters to "resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat."
"This Week" host George Stephanopoulos asked Huckabee to explain what that would mean in practice and whether he was calling for civil disobedience.
Along with pastors, Huckabee said that he expects to see Christian business owners, university presidents and school administrators resist. He said county clerks should not be required to issue licenses for same-sex marriages if they do not want to.
Huckabee, like many Republicans, has said that the Supreme Court's ruling will usher in an age of discrimination against Christians who oppose same-sex marriage and may be forced to acknowledge or serve gay and lesbian weddings.
"I'm not sure that every governor and every attorney general should just say, 'Well, it's the law of the land because there's no enabling legislation,'" Huckabee said. "For the states who have a constitutional amendment that affirms marriage, as has been affirmed by the courts for 135 years since the ratification of the 14th Amendment, right up through the first time we've seen same-sex marriage enacted by any state, which was Massachusetts, in many states you have overwhelming majorities of the people who voted to say that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman."
Earlier on the show, Stephanopoulos talked to Jim Obergefell, one of the plaintiffs in the same-sex marriage cases that went before the Supreme Court. Obergefell was fighting to have his name listed on the death certificate of his husband, John Arthur, who died in 2013.
Huckabee said he was "deeply moved" by Obergefell's story, but still convinced the Supreme Court overstepped.
Obergefell had a message during his appearance for Huckabee and others who oppose same-sex marriage.
"I would simply like to say, think about your brother, your son, your sister, your daughter, a dear friend," he said. "If one of them were gay, they would still be the same person. You would still love them. And wouldn't you want them to enjoy the same rights that you do and that everyone else in this country does? We're simply asking to be treated equally and fairly and to enjoy the institution of marriage and to be able to commit to the ones we love."
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... Friday's decision ... was a quantum leap forward in how we see each other-- with a very healthy respect. We mind our own business." Yea, verily!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Expressing a differing viewpoint is one thing but taking action against the minority is another. We know your view point and you have right to your opinion and both us have the right to be wrong. Now that the law allows gay marriage, you have the right not to have one.
* Just as people want to speak out loud and have parades and nativity scenes out in public to celebrate their religion during Christmas time. If you support openly gay parades then you support that also, correct? If not then that is a problem.
* Two men or two women getting married has ZERO impact on your own marriage. It NEVER will. It does NOT cheapen, lessen, wreck, ruin, your own marriage. Only the people involved in YOUR marriage can do that. You need to accept that.
* Mind your own business is only half of an understanding; the other half is none of your business.
* The gays I know personally don't care about acceptance OR approval.....they just want the nay-sayers to stop trying to push their religious views on them. So, "Mind your own business" is a nice rule of thumb.
...................................................................................................................................................................
A Good Rule of Law: Mind Your Own Business
By Rep. Alan Grayson, June 28, 2015
Friday's U.S. Supreme Court decision was a great victory for LGBT rights. But it also was a great victory for something that rests right at the heart of the human experience, the paramount legal doctrine of M.Y.O.B.
Mind Your Own Business.
Reporters love to generate controversy. In a TV interview on Friday, a reporter asked me, "What do you have to say to all of the millions of opponents of gay marriage?"
I replied thusly: "Mind your own business."
OK, I'll admit that that response will not earn me the Nobel Peace Prize. But I'm making an important point here. What difference does it make to Person X if Person Y marries Person Z? Seriously.
I sometimes give a speech where I go through a mock agenda for a Tea Party conference. One of the items on the agenda, from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m., is a colloquium on "How Gay Marriage Destroyed My Straight Marriage," moderated by No One. And attended by No One.
(Now that I think about it, most Tea Partiers who might attend that colloquium wouldn't know what a colloquium is. And for sure, they couldn't spell it. Or as they would write, "spel it.")
Let's face it: Whenever anyone sticks his nose into other people's business, something bad happens. The war in Iraq. The NSA spying on everyone because I-don't-know-why. Chinese cyberattacks. Even the Patriots stealing opponents' signals. Hey, everyone, just mind your own business!
One of the basic functions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which we just saw in spades, is to prevent a prejudiced majority from employing the law as a device to stick their noses into the business of "discrete, insular minorities." That phrase comes from the most famous footnote in U.S. Supreme Court history, footnote 4 of the decision United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938). Here's the good part:
In Carolene terms, the LGBT community is a discrete, insular minority. Prejudice against gays means that they cannot rely exclusively on political processes to protect them from prejudice and inequality. Therefore, in Friday's decision, after a "searching judicial inquiry," the U.S. Supreme Court did so. Q.E.D.
So Friday's decision was not merely a victory for our LGBT friends. It was a quantum leap forward in how we see each other- - with a very healthy respect. We mind our own business.
Or, as Pope Francis put it, "Who am I to judge?" A very good question, for all of us.
Courage,
Rep. Alan Grayson
"It doesn't matter much to me." -- The Beatles, "Strawberry Fields Forever." (1968).
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Expressing a differing viewpoint is one thing but taking action against the minority is another. We know your view point and you have right to your opinion and both us have the right to be wrong. Now that the law allows gay marriage, you have the right not to have one.
* Just as people want to speak out loud and have parades and nativity scenes out in public to celebrate their religion during Christmas time. If you support openly gay parades then you support that also, correct? If not then that is a problem.
* Two men or two women getting married has ZERO impact on your own marriage. It NEVER will. It does NOT cheapen, lessen, wreck, ruin, your own marriage. Only the people involved in YOUR marriage can do that. You need to accept that.
* Mind your own business is only half of an understanding; the other half is none of your business.
* The gays I know personally don't care about acceptance OR approval.....they just want the nay-sayers to stop trying to push their religious views on them. So, "Mind your own business" is a nice rule of thumb.
...................................................................................................................................................................
A Good Rule of Law: Mind Your Own Business
By Rep. Alan Grayson, June 28, 2015
Friday's U.S. Supreme Court decision was a great victory for LGBT rights. But it also was a great victory for something that rests right at the heart of the human experience, the paramount legal doctrine of M.Y.O.B.
Mind Your Own Business.
Reporters love to generate controversy. In a TV interview on Friday, a reporter asked me, "What do you have to say to all of the millions of opponents of gay marriage?"
I replied thusly: "Mind your own business."
OK, I'll admit that that response will not earn me the Nobel Peace Prize. But I'm making an important point here. What difference does it make to Person X if Person Y marries Person Z? Seriously.
I sometimes give a speech where I go through a mock agenda for a Tea Party conference. One of the items on the agenda, from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m., is a colloquium on "How Gay Marriage Destroyed My Straight Marriage," moderated by No One. And attended by No One.
(Now that I think about it, most Tea Partiers who might attend that colloquium wouldn't know what a colloquium is. And for sure, they couldn't spell it. Or as they would write, "spel it.")
Let's face it: Whenever anyone sticks his nose into other people's business, something bad happens. The war in Iraq. The NSA spying on everyone because I-don't-know-why. Chinese cyberattacks. Even the Patriots stealing opponents' signals. Hey, everyone, just mind your own business!
One of the basic functions of the U.S. Supreme Court, which we just saw in spades, is to prevent a prejudiced majority from employing the law as a device to stick their noses into the business of "discrete, insular minorities." That phrase comes from the most famous footnote in U.S. Supreme Court history, footnote 4 of the decision United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144 (1938). Here's the good part:
"[P]rejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry..."(Congratulations, you just passed the bar exam. Now good luck finding a job.)
In Carolene terms, the LGBT community is a discrete, insular minority. Prejudice against gays means that they cannot rely exclusively on political processes to protect them from prejudice and inequality. Therefore, in Friday's decision, after a "searching judicial inquiry," the U.S. Supreme Court did so. Q.E.D.
So Friday's decision was not merely a victory for our LGBT friends. It was a quantum leap forward in how we see each other- - with a very healthy respect. We mind our own business.
Or, as Pope Francis put it, "Who am I to judge?" A very good question, for all of us.
Courage,
Rep. Alan Grayson
"It doesn't matter much to me." -- The Beatles, "Strawberry Fields Forever." (1968).
...................................................................................................................................................................
Saturday, June 27, 2015
"... Regulations are supposed to protect people from corporations, not corporations from people." But no, "eat shit and die."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Bill Maher Calls Out Republicans For Valuing Corporations Over People On 'Real Time'
By Lily Karlin, June 27, 2015
Bill Maher isn’t pleased about the current state of American corporate regulation.
On "Real Time with Bill Maher" Friday night, the host skewered the "Republican-led House" for voting to end the requirement that meat labels include information about the origin of the product.
"I think I found the perfect slogan for the Republican Party, combining their two great goals: erasing meat labels and repealing the estate tax," he said. "And that slogan is: eat shit and die."
"Next time you hear Republicans say they want to protect you from burdensome regulations, this is what they mean,” he continued later in the segment. "But this isn’t really deregulation … Regulations are supposed to protect people from corporations, not corporations from people."
Elsewhere in the episode, Maher spoke with Judd Apatow about the sexual assault allegations leveled against Bill Cosby.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Bill Maher Calls Out Republicans For Valuing Corporations Over People On 'Real Time'
By Lily Karlin, June 27, 2015
Bill Maher isn’t pleased about the current state of American corporate regulation.
On "Real Time with Bill Maher" Friday night, the host skewered the "Republican-led House" for voting to end the requirement that meat labels include information about the origin of the product.
"I think I found the perfect slogan for the Republican Party, combining their two great goals: erasing meat labels and repealing the estate tax," he said. "And that slogan is: eat shit and die."
"Next time you hear Republicans say they want to protect you from burdensome regulations, this is what they mean,” he continued later in the segment. "But this isn’t really deregulation … Regulations are supposed to protect people from corporations, not corporations from people."
Elsewhere in the episode, Maher spoke with Judd Apatow about the sexual assault allegations leveled against Bill Cosby.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... a primary season with a candidate who makes inaccurate, racist comments about Latin Americans is unlikely to elevate the discourse ..." Well, he is a Republican, after all, so how COULD the discourse be elevated?
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Ole Mop Head spreading his racism and hatred as usual. We are all foreigners in some respect anyway. Get a job as president of a new mop company and get lost you Republican nutcase.
* Let Trump go home. He is nothing but a joke. Republicans don't need a distraction like TRUMP to trump the effort to dethrone liberal twits.
* Every day this bozo lives he somehow manages to make of himself a greater idiotic spectacle than the day before.
* Trump is here for Trump only to get further name recognitions so he could put his names on more products in order to get richer, Trump doesn't care about America, in matter of fact he is weakening America's foreign policies by degrading about 1 billion Spanish speaking people by calling them rapist. Very soon every Spanish speaking country will call US ambassador for explanation, and apologize for this fish-head and brain damaged comments..
* Keep it up Donald. It proves to all of us how trivial the Republican party is and how it doesn't have a chance of ever electing another president. Yeah Donald.
* I can't believe there are people who back this guy. He is, after all, a raving lunatic who hustled himself some money by bankrupting multiple corporations so he didn't have to pay his bills. He gets a younger wife every 10 years and represents the worst part of our country, the greedy ego fueled 1%.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump Is Taking All His Toys and Going Home
By Samantha Cowen, June 27, 2015
A lot of people don’t want to work with Donald Trump—and not just because he’s known for firing people on national television.
Responding to comments the business mogul made about Mexican immigrants when Trump announced his candidacy for the 2016 Republican nomination for president, partners and performers are refusing to participate in the Miss USA pageant, owned by Trump and NBC Universal.
Broadcast company Univision announced Thursday it would not simulcast the pageant on its Spanish language channel, UniMas. Then Trump sent a letter to the company’s CEO on Friday, barring its employees from stepping his Miami golf course and country club, which are adjacent to Univision’s headquarters.
He also added a rather threatening P.S. to the typed letter.
"Please congratulate your Mexican Government officials for having made such outstanding trade deals with the United States. However, inform them that should I become President, those days are over. We are bringing jobs back to the U.S. Also, a meaningful border will be immediately created, not the laughingstock that currently exists." Trump wrote.
These remarks are relatively tame compared to his previous comments.
“When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best,” Trump said during his kickoff speech last week. “They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
The comments incensed many of Trump’s peers, with both UniMas cohosts withdrawing from the simulcast as well as Colombian performer J. Balvin, whose performance would have aired on both UniMas and NBC.
NBC, however, is moving forward with its broadcast of the pageant on July 12. A long time partner of Trump’s—it also airs his reality series Celebrity Apprentice—even the peacock network had to assert its dissenting views from Trump.
“Donald Trump’s opinions do not represent those of NBC, and we do not agree with his positions on a number of issues, including his recent comments on immigration,” the network said in statement issued late Thursday.
Trump has remained unapologetic, and threatened to sue Univision from pulling out of the multi-million dollar contract.
So, Why Should You Care? Trump leads all GOP candidates except Jeb Bush, according to a recent poll of New Hampshire Republicans. Though initially considered a long shot, he may have a legitimate chance of placing strongly in the first primary of the 2016 election, which would likely prolong his campaign. Regardless of your stance on immigration policies, a primary season with a candidate who makes inaccurate, racist comments about Latin Americans is unlikely to elevate the discourse, distracting from the real problems the U.S. faces and damaging relations with Latin American countries.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Ole Mop Head spreading his racism and hatred as usual. We are all foreigners in some respect anyway. Get a job as president of a new mop company and get lost you Republican nutcase.
* Let Trump go home. He is nothing but a joke. Republicans don't need a distraction like TRUMP to trump the effort to dethrone liberal twits.
* Every day this bozo lives he somehow manages to make of himself a greater idiotic spectacle than the day before.
* Trump is here for Trump only to get further name recognitions so he could put his names on more products in order to get richer, Trump doesn't care about America, in matter of fact he is weakening America's foreign policies by degrading about 1 billion Spanish speaking people by calling them rapist. Very soon every Spanish speaking country will call US ambassador for explanation, and apologize for this fish-head and brain damaged comments..
* Keep it up Donald. It proves to all of us how trivial the Republican party is and how it doesn't have a chance of ever electing another president. Yeah Donald.
* I can't believe there are people who back this guy. He is, after all, a raving lunatic who hustled himself some money by bankrupting multiple corporations so he didn't have to pay his bills. He gets a younger wife every 10 years and represents the worst part of our country, the greedy ego fueled 1%.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump Is Taking All His Toys and Going Home
By Samantha Cowen, June 27, 2015
A lot of people don’t want to work with Donald Trump—and not just because he’s known for firing people on national television.
Responding to comments the business mogul made about Mexican immigrants when Trump announced his candidacy for the 2016 Republican nomination for president, partners and performers are refusing to participate in the Miss USA pageant, owned by Trump and NBC Universal.
Broadcast company Univision announced Thursday it would not simulcast the pageant on its Spanish language channel, UniMas. Then Trump sent a letter to the company’s CEO on Friday, barring its employees from stepping his Miami golf course and country club, which are adjacent to Univision’s headquarters.
He also added a rather threatening P.S. to the typed letter.
"Please congratulate your Mexican Government officials for having made such outstanding trade deals with the United States. However, inform them that should I become President, those days are over. We are bringing jobs back to the U.S. Also, a meaningful border will be immediately created, not the laughingstock that currently exists." Trump wrote.
These remarks are relatively tame compared to his previous comments.
“When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best,” Trump said during his kickoff speech last week. “They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
The comments incensed many of Trump’s peers, with both UniMas cohosts withdrawing from the simulcast as well as Colombian performer J. Balvin, whose performance would have aired on both UniMas and NBC.
NBC, however, is moving forward with its broadcast of the pageant on July 12. A long time partner of Trump’s—it also airs his reality series Celebrity Apprentice—even the peacock network had to assert its dissenting views from Trump.
“Donald Trump’s opinions do not represent those of NBC, and we do not agree with his positions on a number of issues, including his recent comments on immigration,” the network said in statement issued late Thursday.
Trump has remained unapologetic, and threatened to sue Univision from pulling out of the multi-million dollar contract.
So, Why Should You Care? Trump leads all GOP candidates except Jeb Bush, according to a recent poll of New Hampshire Republicans. Though initially considered a long shot, he may have a legitimate chance of placing strongly in the first primary of the 2016 election, which would likely prolong his campaign. Regardless of your stance on immigration policies, a primary season with a candidate who makes inaccurate, racist comments about Latin Americans is unlikely to elevate the discourse, distracting from the real problems the U.S. faces and damaging relations with Latin American countries.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... each dissent feels like a kind of Rorschach test of each justice’s own anxieties."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Well, to be fair, elected judges are easier to buy and keep bought. A lifetime Supreme Court Justice might occasionally decide to settle things on constitutional bases rather than simply voting for the straight Republican ticket.
* Amusing to see Scalia suddenly in favor of affirmative action -- provided it's for Westerners, rural residents, and Bible-thumpers.
* People like Scalia, and Jindal and Cruz who are now calling for abolishing the Supreme Court (are they serious or joking?), are part of that seriously deluded bunch of right-wingers who have no idea what actual American people think. They have walled themselves up in their air- and light-tight compartment, in which everyone seems to them to think just the way they do, that they think they are still back in 1950, or maybe 1910 or 1850. But the world has moved on without them, and will continue to do so forever. It's astonishing that people like them, who seem to have gotten degrees from pretty good universities, have lost all of the ability to do simple thinking that they should have had long before they even matriculated there. Where have their scintillating intellects gone?!
* "This vitriol—personal, slashing, and relentless—is the kind of thing that reportedly pushed Sandra Day O’Connor from the right to the center of the court." Scalia is his own worst enemy. It's not as if he couldn't make his points without such offenses. Maybe he should read How to Win Friends and Influence People.
* Exactly, but also if you're a lawyer and you can't make your point without abusive language, ordinarily you would be considered not to be a very good lawyer. When someone uses words like "applesauce", that usually means they can't actually think of anything relevant to say.
* And where was the hysteria about "five unelected judges" when they usurped the 2000 election in Bush v Gore? This will be Jebby's Achilles' Heel if he ends up the GOP nominee.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Where was all this “five unelected judges” chatter when they handed down Citizens United?
By Dahlia Lithwick, June 26, 2015
I was also quite struck, as you were, Mark, by the language in the various dissents in Obergefell, not just for their vehemence, but for the ways in which each dissent feels like a kind of Rorschach test of each justice’s own anxieties.
Chief Justice John Roberts doesn’t want people to hate him, and he doesn’t want them to hate judges. (See, for example, his decision in Williams-Yulee, the Florida judicial speech case from earlier this term.) Then there’s Justice Samuel Alito: He doesn’t want to be called a bigot, and he doesn’t want people with strong conscience objections to marriage equality to be called bigots, either. And Justice Clarence Thomas doesn’t want the government to be in the business of conferring and taking away his dignity, or the dignity of others. He also doesn’t want his religious liberty trammeled. So everyone writes about how this opinion will hurt them and people like them.
And Justice Antonin Scalia? Well, one friend of mine suggested that between “applesauce” and “fortune cookies,” he might just really need a nap and a snack. But his dissent in Obergefell—whatever else it may be—is a piece of performance art by the guy who will never relinquish the claim to being the smartest guy in the room. This vitriol—personal, slashing, and relentless—is the kind of thing that reportedly pushed Sandra Day O’Connor from the right to the center of the court. And why wouldn’t it? It disputes whether the scorned one even deserves to be on a court in the first place. (Scalia on Friday, directed at Justice Anthony Kennedy: “If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the court that began, ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag.”)
I mention this because one striking commonality in most of the dissents Friday is that weird vein of professional judicial self-loathing the dissenters choose to mine when they really want to go for the jugular. Whether it’s the chief justice’s jarring “Just who do we think we are?” to Scalia’s odd discursion on the lack of evangelical justices or real Westerners on the Supreme Court. (“Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner [California does not count]. Not a single evangelical Christian [a group that composes about one-quarter of Americans], or even a Protestant of any denomination.”) Scalia is just dripping with contempt for this “select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine.” He takes a whack at his colleagues—and, I guess, himself—for separate and concurring opinions loaded with “silly extravagances.” He invites his readers to feel as impotent in the face of this judicial tyranny as he feels.
Thomas also rails at the fact that a “bare majority of this court” is able to “grant this wish, wiping out with the stroke of a keyboard the results of the political process in over 30 states.” And all I could keep thinking was, “Where was all this five unelected judges chatter when you all handed down Citizens United? Or Shelby County? Why does this rhetoric about five elitist out-of-touch patrician fortune-cookie writers never stick when you’re in the five?”
Recall back at oral argument when Elena Kagan said, “We don’t live in a pure democracy, we live in a constitutional democracy.” Isn’t that the answer to the dissenters’ political process questions? Or is that only the answer on campaign finance reform?
Mark, I wonder if you would talk more about the failure of the majority holding to lay down any coherent doctrine. Kenji writes so powerfully about what Kennedy is doing at the interstices of Equal Protection and Due Process, but I wonder what your dream Obergefell would have said, and how it would have applied the 14th Amendment.
Read the previous entry and the next entry, both by Mark Joseph Stern.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Well, to be fair, elected judges are easier to buy and keep bought. A lifetime Supreme Court Justice might occasionally decide to settle things on constitutional bases rather than simply voting for the straight Republican ticket.
* Amusing to see Scalia suddenly in favor of affirmative action -- provided it's for Westerners, rural residents, and Bible-thumpers.
* People like Scalia, and Jindal and Cruz who are now calling for abolishing the Supreme Court (are they serious or joking?), are part of that seriously deluded bunch of right-wingers who have no idea what actual American people think. They have walled themselves up in their air- and light-tight compartment, in which everyone seems to them to think just the way they do, that they think they are still back in 1950, or maybe 1910 or 1850. But the world has moved on without them, and will continue to do so forever. It's astonishing that people like them, who seem to have gotten degrees from pretty good universities, have lost all of the ability to do simple thinking that they should have had long before they even matriculated there. Where have their scintillating intellects gone?!
* "This vitriol—personal, slashing, and relentless—is the kind of thing that reportedly pushed Sandra Day O’Connor from the right to the center of the court." Scalia is his own worst enemy. It's not as if he couldn't make his points without such offenses. Maybe he should read How to Win Friends and Influence People.
* Exactly, but also if you're a lawyer and you can't make your point without abusive language, ordinarily you would be considered not to be a very good lawyer. When someone uses words like "applesauce", that usually means they can't actually think of anything relevant to say.
* And where was the hysteria about "five unelected judges" when they usurped the 2000 election in Bush v Gore? This will be Jebby's Achilles' Heel if he ends up the GOP nominee.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Where was all this “five unelected judges” chatter when they handed down Citizens United?
By Dahlia Lithwick, June 26, 2015
I was also quite struck, as you were, Mark, by the language in the various dissents in Obergefell, not just for their vehemence, but for the ways in which each dissent feels like a kind of Rorschach test of each justice’s own anxieties.
Chief Justice John Roberts doesn’t want people to hate him, and he doesn’t want them to hate judges. (See, for example, his decision in Williams-Yulee, the Florida judicial speech case from earlier this term.) Then there’s Justice Samuel Alito: He doesn’t want to be called a bigot, and he doesn’t want people with strong conscience objections to marriage equality to be called bigots, either. And Justice Clarence Thomas doesn’t want the government to be in the business of conferring and taking away his dignity, or the dignity of others. He also doesn’t want his religious liberty trammeled. So everyone writes about how this opinion will hurt them and people like them.
And Justice Antonin Scalia? Well, one friend of mine suggested that between “applesauce” and “fortune cookies,” he might just really need a nap and a snack. But his dissent in Obergefell—whatever else it may be—is a piece of performance art by the guy who will never relinquish the claim to being the smartest guy in the room. This vitriol—personal, slashing, and relentless—is the kind of thing that reportedly pushed Sandra Day O’Connor from the right to the center of the court. And why wouldn’t it? It disputes whether the scorned one even deserves to be on a court in the first place. (Scalia on Friday, directed at Justice Anthony Kennedy: “If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the court that began, ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag.”)
I mention this because one striking commonality in most of the dissents Friday is that weird vein of professional judicial self-loathing the dissenters choose to mine when they really want to go for the jugular. Whether it’s the chief justice’s jarring “Just who do we think we are?” to Scalia’s odd discursion on the lack of evangelical justices or real Westerners on the Supreme Court. (“Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South-westerner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner [California does not count]. Not a single evangelical Christian [a group that composes about one-quarter of Americans], or even a Protestant of any denomination.”) Scalia is just dripping with contempt for this “select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine.” He takes a whack at his colleagues—and, I guess, himself—for separate and concurring opinions loaded with “silly extravagances.” He invites his readers to feel as impotent in the face of this judicial tyranny as he feels.
Thomas also rails at the fact that a “bare majority of this court” is able to “grant this wish, wiping out with the stroke of a keyboard the results of the political process in over 30 states.” And all I could keep thinking was, “Where was all this five unelected judges chatter when you all handed down Citizens United? Or Shelby County? Why does this rhetoric about five elitist out-of-touch patrician fortune-cookie writers never stick when you’re in the five?”
Recall back at oral argument when Elena Kagan said, “We don’t live in a pure democracy, we live in a constitutional democracy.” Isn’t that the answer to the dissenters’ political process questions? Or is that only the answer on campaign finance reform?
Mark, I wonder if you would talk more about the failure of the majority holding to lay down any coherent doctrine. Kenji writes so powerfully about what Kennedy is doing at the interstices of Equal Protection and Due Process, but I wonder what your dream Obergefell would have said, and how it would have applied the 14th Amendment.
Read the previous entry and the next entry, both by Mark Joseph Stern.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)