Sunday, January 08, 2012

Sunday Funnies

This post was almost comprised completely of Rick Santorum quotes as captions for New Yorker cartoons. But after yesterday's takedown, I didn't want you to think that I was being overly harsh on the man.

Saturday, January 07, 2012

Rick Santorum on pre-existing conditions



Falling ill because you did "things wrong" seems to be in complete contradiction to what Jesus actually said about pre-existing conditions.

Rick Sanctimonious is really not just the worst kind of Republican or even the worst kind of Christian; he's the worst kind of human being. Because he either willfully ignores the teachings of Jesus for the sake of political expediency, or he's a bald-faced liar and prevaricating ass masquerading as a pious man.

But more importantly this reveals in its purest form the rationale (sic) of the ultra-conservative Christian. If you are healthy God has blessed you because you are a devout Christian, if you are sick God is punishing you for something. In this delusion you may also substitute for healthy/sick the words rich/poor -- this particularly is the gospel of Joel Osteen -- and white/any other skin color, etc. Consequently ... why should I pay more in taxes because you sinned?

Understanding it is really as simple as this: My Faith is Better and Stronger Than ANY Science. This in turn explains their disbelief in evolution, climate change, the Frankenstein-like transformation of women's reproductive choice into "baby-killing", and so on and so forth.  When Pat Robertson says that New Orleans was flooded by a hurricane because God perceived the city as full of sin, that's part of it. When Rick Perry says that the nation is in crisis and the only thing that can save it is thousands of people gathering in a football stadium to simultaneously pray, that's part of it too.

This is plain old Christian Science. Most Christians don't want to admit that.

The worst part is that this is not the kind of thinking that can be improved with education. This is chosen ignorance; a lucid rejection of facts and logic. I'm using the word 'lucid' in its most generous definition (#2, here).

I almost want to avoid exposing this charlatan in the hope that the GOP presents him as their presidential nominee -- almost as much as I do Ron Paul -- but rarely does a man this vile provide such an opportunity to crucify himself with his own words.

Just couldn't let that pass.

Friday, January 06, 2012

Texas redistricting case hinges on legal precedent

The case is as cut and dried as the beef jerky at Buccee's.

The U.S. Supreme Court would have to close its eyes to precedent if it agrees with the state of Texas regarding disputed redistricting maps, a voting rights expert said Thursday.

The court will hear arguments Monday on efforts by the state of Texas to stop interim maps drawn by a federal court in San Antonio. The state wants to use maps drawn by the Republican controlled Legislature, which minority and civil rights groups contend discriminate against minorities.

The legislative-drawn maps have not been cleared by the Department of Justice or, alternatively, by a federal court in the District of Columbia. Because the state’s map has not been pre-cleared, it can’t be used for the 2012 election, said Pamela S. Karlan, co-director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at the Stanford Law School. She also made the short list of candidates to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter when he retired.

[...]

“This case, as a sheer matter of law, is such a straightforward case under the Supreme Court’s existing precedent,” Karlan said in a conference call with reporters. “It’s pretty clear what they have to do here.”

We already know that this Court has a fondness for disregarding precedent, between Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.

The state’s map also has a serious flaw in the congressional district (No. 23) stretching from south San Antonio into far west Texas. The court struck down the drawing of that district in a 2006 ruling when (Supreme Court Justice Anthony) Kennedy said it denied Latinos an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice.

An expert witness for the state conceded during a trial last fall that the 23rd Congressional district was not a minority-opportunity district, which the law required.

“This time around the state has gone back and done it again – in exactly the same district,” Karlan said, suggesting the replay could have a powerful effect on the court.

“The Supreme Court, for all the other things it doesn’t like, one of the things they really don’t like is when states disregard the Supreme Court’s own decision,” she said. “And the Supreme Court’s decision was Texas had denied Latinos on the border an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice, and now we see Texas doing it again.”

Let's back up in the article and pull out the specific legal precedent the SCOTUS -- more specifically Justice Kennedy -- would have to overturn:

In a 1991 redistricting case (Clark v. Roemer) Kennedy, writing for a unanimous court*, said: “Section 5 requires States to obtain either judicial or administrative preclearance before implementing a voting change… Failure to obtain either judicial or administrative preclearance 'renders the change unenforceable.'”

Simply stated, the State of Texas, Attorney General Greg Abbott, and his hired gun Paul Clement do not have a case ... unless Anthony Kennedy has changed his mind 180 degrees from Clark v. Roemer twenty years ago. *Note in that link that even Justice Antonin Scalia voted in favor. For many reasons, this one among them, it wouldn't be hard to imagine that either man would reverse himself.

And on the chance that Kennedy has changed his mind, that would represent the epitome of a flip-flopping judicial activist. And the only good thing about that outcome is that we won't have to endure Republicans' cries of agony if Kennedy decides to put on the robe emblazoned "I busted up the Voting Rights Act".

Their confidence in this outcome may have been tipped by Abbott's taking a few days off last week from preparing for the case and rolling up to Iowa to campaign for Governor Oops.

The trial begins Monday and will conclude before the end of the month, with a swift decision expected, possibly by January 31st.

Update: Via Michael Li, from Facebook...

The State of Texas keeps hinting in various courts that there are constitutionality problems with section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (the so-called preclearance provisions). However, in Gov. Perry's Virginia ballot access suit, he argues that Virginia's ballot access rules are not legal because (wait for it) they have not been pre-cleared under the Voting Rights Act.

Thursday, January 05, 2012

Republicans in turmoil following Iowa

Frank Luntz, one of the guys who tells the Republican party what to say, do, and think, is scared. And speaking about it publicly indicates how scared he is.

At Ron Paul's caucus night event in Ankeny, Iowa, most of his supporters were celebrating. Paul finished a strong third in Tuesday night's caucuses.

But one man in the crowd -- famed Republican strategist Frank Luntz-- was much more concerned with what happens next.

"I think over the next 24 to 48 hours, the campaign's gonna get a little bit meaner, a little darker, and a little bit more personal, as the candidates now fight for their life," said Luntz, who spoke with NPR in between television appearances Tuesday night.

For Luntz, the lack of a clear GOP front-runner will make for a protracted primary season that could drag on through April. And he says it won't be pretty: "Republicans are not gonna like what's about to happen. ... I think a war is about to break out within this primary field."

The Christian conservative elitists -- James Dobson, Donald Wildmon, Gary Bauer and many of the people who organized Rick Perry's Prayerpalooza in Houston last August -- have called an executive session with God to help them pick between Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

A group of movement conservatives has called an emergency meeting in Texas next weekend to find a “consensus” Republican presidential hopeful, POLITICO has learned.

“You and your spouse are cordially invited to a private meeting with national conservative leaders of faith at the ranch of Paul and Nancy Pressler near Brenham, Texas, with the purpose of attempting to unite and to come to a consensus on which Republican presidential candidate or candidates to support, or which not to support,” ...

Following Rick Perry's about-face in spandex yesterday, you have to think he's still under prayerful consideration from the God Squad. It's South Carolina we're talking about, after all. Perry still has $3.5 million to spend, and is just the kind of guy they like in SC. Newt is clearly bitter and wants to take a piece out of Romney. Santorum, the luckiest last man standing before Iowa, is already defensive about his earmarks and his racially-charged statements. Ron Paul is, well, Ron Paul. Nobody in the GOP really cares for the man except for his brainwashed caucus, and it turns out most of them aren't Republicans anyway. He will eventually be excommunicated, but that will take another month or two to finish.

This theory that Mitt Romney loses by winning is plausible. Yesterday the Atlantic made the case, and reading that today you can see how the scenarios have been scrambled again just by Rick Perry's forgetting to drop out (yet). I have no doubt that the folks assembling outside of Houston next weekend convinced Governor Oops to stay in the race long enough for them to figure out what God is telling them.

I need another pallet of popcorn delivered by forklift. How about you?