The House of Representatives announced today that it is creating a select committee to investigate new evidence that Barack Obama (with Hillary Clinton's help) may have been responsible for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed 241 American military personnel. Darrell Issa (R-Pinocchioville) did not disclose the evidence but said, "If Barack Obama was able to fabricate his birth in Hawaii while in the womb, he is certainly capable of causing this catastrophe at age 22. It's about time that the American people are told what really happened in that tragedy, and why Barack Obama failed to heed the warnings."
Friday, July 18, 2014
Thursday, July 3, 2014
That Didn't Take Long
Well, it took less than a week and what Justice Ginsburg predicted in her dissent is already coming to pass. (The story is here.)
This story also produces today's quote of the day, from Justice Sotomayor: “Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today.”
This story also produces today's quote of the day, from Justice Sotomayor: “Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word. Not so today.”
It's Official: I Am Evil (Charles Murray Says So)
The American Right's favorite racist, Charles Murray, had a piece in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago pointing out the differences between the good Liberals and the evil Progressives. Since even most people on the Left are to the right of me, I suppose I fall in with the latter, i.e., among the evil ones.
In general, I don't really mind this kind of article. It's entertaining to watch C-Span panels where right wingers list all the things that people like me believe...except that I don't believe any of them. It's quite comical watching them create this monster that is me. Murray's piece is just more of the same in this regard. But what I do object to are statements like this toward the end of his article: "But liberalism as I want to use the term encompasses a set of views that can be held by people who care as much about America's exceptional heritage as I do."
Here's my question to Murray: Who the f**k do you think you are to question how much anyone cares about America? It looks like being an American Enterprise Institute "scholar" puts you on the same rhetorical plane as Sarah Palin.
In general, I don't really mind this kind of article. It's entertaining to watch C-Span panels where right wingers list all the things that people like me believe...except that I don't believe any of them. It's quite comical watching them create this monster that is me. Murray's piece is just more of the same in this regard. But what I do object to are statements like this toward the end of his article: "But liberalism as I want to use the term encompasses a set of views that can be held by people who care as much about America's exceptional heritage as I do."
Here's my question to Murray: Who the f**k do you think you are to question how much anyone cares about America? It looks like being an American Enterprise Institute "scholar" puts you on the same rhetorical plane as Sarah Palin.
Specious Argument
I keep reading this week--in discussions about the Hobby Lobby case--about how people don't "check their beliefs at the door" when they go to work. Well, of course that's true, but it's a specious argument for this particular case.
First, let me be clear that my discussion here is philosophical and theoretical, rather that legal. Unlike most of my friends on the Right, I don't consider myself a constitutional scholar. But most of the discussions I'm seeing aren't legal in nature anyway.
The issue is whether Hobby Lobby--as a corporation--has religious beliefs to be protected. The notion of corporate "personhood" as concocted by the current activist Supreme Court is created out of whole cloth. Indeed, corporations are created by owners so that they will not be treated as "persons". We the people allow them to exist for purposes of the common good and efficient commerce. In return, we the people can set whatever conditions we the people deem necessary. (At least that was the original social compact.) So, to the point...YES, Hobby Lobby's owners have checked their religious beliefs at the door.
But with recent Supreme Court rulings, Hobby Lobby enjoys all the advantages of being a corporation (limited liability, tax advantages, etc.) when it suits them, but can also now claim the advantages of "personhood" when it is to their advantage. In effect, the current Court has not only created this new "person", but it has created a "super person" who actually has more rights and protections than actual warm-blooded persons like you and me.
The irony, of course, is that this comes from a Supreme Court bearing the Originalist banner. Apparently that means that if corporations didn't exist when the nation was founded, the Originalists can make up whatever Originalism they see fit.
First, let me be clear that my discussion here is philosophical and theoretical, rather that legal. Unlike most of my friends on the Right, I don't consider myself a constitutional scholar. But most of the discussions I'm seeing aren't legal in nature anyway.
The issue is whether Hobby Lobby--as a corporation--has religious beliefs to be protected. The notion of corporate "personhood" as concocted by the current activist Supreme Court is created out of whole cloth. Indeed, corporations are created by owners so that they will not be treated as "persons". We the people allow them to exist for purposes of the common good and efficient commerce. In return, we the people can set whatever conditions we the people deem necessary. (At least that was the original social compact.) So, to the point...YES, Hobby Lobby's owners have checked their religious beliefs at the door.
But with recent Supreme Court rulings, Hobby Lobby enjoys all the advantages of being a corporation (limited liability, tax advantages, etc.) when it suits them, but can also now claim the advantages of "personhood" when it is to their advantage. In effect, the current Court has not only created this new "person", but it has created a "super person" who actually has more rights and protections than actual warm-blooded persons like you and me.
The irony, of course, is that this comes from a Supreme Court bearing the Originalist banner. Apparently that means that if corporations didn't exist when the nation was founded, the Originalists can make up whatever Originalism they see fit.
Tuesday, July 1, 2014
This Would Be Funny If It Weren't So Sad
Another GOP unfact from Politifact. This quote from Bob Goodlatte (R-Va) earned a "false" rating: "9-0 decision last week was the 13th time the Supreme Court has voted 9-0
that the president has exceeded his constitutional authority." (Apparently, Ted Cruz, [R-Outer Space] has made the same kind of statement.) Well, sorta-kinda if you live in the GOP alternate reality. But it turns out that of these 13 cases, eight originated during the Bush administration. And some really didn't involve "executive overreach". You'd think that once in a while they'd be able to find something real to whine about. Then they wouldn't have to make things up and make such fools of themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)