Another Setback for Marcus Bachmann

Supreme Court declines to hear new LGBT-related cases

“The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Monday it won’t take up new cases related to LGBT rights: one a challenge to a state ban on “ex-gay” therapy, the other a lawsuit seeking gender reassignment surgery for a transgender inmate.”

To be clear, as far as I know, that jitterbugging fool Marcus Bachmann, beard to our old pal One-L, is not in prison awaiting gender reassignment surgery, however, he is in the forefront of the Pray-Away-Teh-Gay conversion therapy.

What makes this news so delish is that it is a direct smack-down to listed hate group Liberty Council’s odious tubesock-sniffer Matt Staver, a solid 2 on the Bristol Scale:

SCOTUS: An Odds-on Betting Guide

image: courtesy of Scissorhead Wagonjak

image: courtesy of Scissorhead Wagonjak

So last night at one of the (many) family gatherings this week, I managed to horn my way into the lawyers conversation about the SCOTUS and Marriage Equality case, lowly and squat mere mortal that I am. After assuring them that I would not blog about it (haha, they believed me!), I can report the following:

  • Anyone who tells you that they know, Know, KNOW how the case will be decided should get a job at The Hoover Institute (Wingnuttian think tank high command) as a Kremlinologist. (100% of all lawyers in the discussion)
  • Justice John Roberts is likely to be the surprise switch vote; his question about sex discrimination apparently cut through the noise. (80% of all lawyers in the discussion.)
  • Kennedy might not be the sure thing everyone thinks he is. (60% of all lawyers in the discussion.)
  • However the case goes, Scalia’s opinion (for the majority or dissent) will be one for the ages (100%). They were split (50-50!) on whether or not Scalia will be opposed, which sort of shocked everyone.
  • And as always, Thomas will echo whatever Scalia says, you know, what with being so independent and best qualified to be on the SCOTUS (that was unanimous opinion of all the lawyers present, so drink-up bitches).

Odds are good that Chief Justice John Roberts will being signing Garland at the SCOTUS piano bar, Pink Squirrel in one hand, feather boa in the other. Though Clarence Thomas will not say anything, his wife will drunk dial someone.

So there you have it: 5-4 the SCOTUS will affirm that being married in one state will mean you are married in all states, regardless if that state allows gay people to marry, which as I understand it, this is the real issue that even Scalia will stand up for.

If Money Is Free Speech, Then…

KKKupcakes

KKKupcakes

…when you donate to political campaigns, you should have to take the consequences:

The justices on Monday let stand a lower court ruling against ProtectMarriage.com, the National Organization for Marriage and other supporters of a 2008 ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriages in California until the ban was overturned five years later.

The groups sought to conceal their past and future campaign finance records because they feared harassment of donors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them in part because the names have been publicly available for five years.

State law requires political committees to identify those who contribute more than $100 during or after a campaign, along with the donor’s address, occupation and employer.

Maggie Gallagher’s Pity Party was suing to keep the names of the donors for Prop 8 private. The bigots should wear their hatred proudly. And just as a reminder: Free Speech does not mean free of consequences. We can say all the stupid stuff we want (“I’m a Merkin, you can’t shut me up!”), but we also have to own what we say.

Takes One To Know One

The Death of the Media

clarence.jpgFrom Juan Williams writing in the Wall Street Journal, who sings the praises of Clarence Thomas as a race healer:

 

“Justice Thomas, who has been on the court nearly a quarter-century, remains a polarizing figure—loved by conservatives and loathed by liberals. But his “free”-thinking legal opinions are opening new roads for the American political debate on racial justice.

His opinions are rooted in the premise that the 14th Amendment—guaranteeing equal rights for all—cannot mean different things for different people. As he wrote in Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), he is opposed to “perpetual racial tinkering” by judges to fix racial imbalance and inequality at schools and the workplace. Yet he never contends racism has gone away. The fact that a 2001 article in Time magazine about him was headlined “Uncle Tom Justice” reminds us that racism stubbornly persists.

…Justice Thomas, meanwhile, is reshaping the law and government policy on race by virtue of the power of his opinions from the bench. Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American on the Supreme Court, stood up as a voice insisting on rights for black people. Justice Thomas, the second black man on the court, takes a different tack. He stands up for individual rights as a sure blanket of legal protection for everyone, including minorities.”

That the Uncle Ruckus of the Supreme Court is reshaping the law and government policy on race is by dismantling The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act clause-by-clause, of this there can be no doubt. Thomas’ fix to all societal problems is telling minorities to pull themselves up by their own societal bootstraps, even though (as Williams points out) he knows that racism exists. He gives a fig leaf of coverage to institutional racism.

Thomas’ one-size-fits-all world view will be put to the test with Marriage Equality this term, and I suspect he will absolutely be against it.

Why Fox News contributor Juan Williams is writing a mash note to Clarence Thomas is the real question here. Or maybe it’s not.

Your 3-Martini Stupid Is Served: Unpeech Ginsberg!

0eb2c-cari-lw-patrioticdonutholes

Well, now we’ve seen it all. Earlier in the year Wingnuttia was debating canceling the State of the Union Address because they didn’t want to invite The Kenyan Usurper to visit them in the hollowed halls of Congress, and now they are obtusely arguing that Justice Ginsberg should be impeached because she fell asleep during the speech:

You may recall pictures of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sitting on the front row in the House Chamber sleeping during President Obama’s State of the Union Address. News recently broke explaining why: “I wasn’t 100 percent sober.”

A State of the Union message is a constitutionally mandated duty (Article II, Section 3), and for those who respect the Constitution, this address is serious stuff. But apparently not to Justice Ginsburg – which probably is not surprising given that her rulings routinely reflect a general dismissal of the Constitution and that she publicly advises leaders in other nations to seek something better than the U. S. Constitution for their country.

…The first federal judge to be removed from the bench came at the behest of President Thomas Jefferson. That judge, John Pickering, was no obscure lightweight. Originally placed on the federal bench by President George Washington, Pickering had been a framer of the New Hampshire Constitution, served as the state’s governor, was selected as a delegate to frame the U.S. Constitution (but declined) and was subsequently a ratifier of the federal Constitution. So why was he removed? Among the reasons given was public intoxication (as well as a public disrespect for God). The Founding Fathers considered this to be bad behavior for a judge.

Don’t think I am calling for the removal of Ginsburg for her recent faux pas. Rather, I am pointing out that the current notion that federal judges are unaccountable because they have lifetime appointments is one of the greatest lies of our lifetime.

One Lump of Stupid or Two, Mr. Sessions?

Sessions

“I think it’s an unhealthy trend that judges feel that they’re somehow reflecting popular opinion when first of all, it’s not popular opinion, and secondly, who are they to be ruling on cases based on how they feel.”

“The attorney general of the state of Alabama has appealed, which I support. And while a number of courts have held the way [the] Alabama court has, others have not, and to me this line of cases … represents an activist judiciary. No Congress has ever passed a law or a constitutional amendment that would ever would ever have been thought to have this result.”

“So, I think the proper role of the federal courts is to follow the law as it is, not as they wish it, might wish it to be.”

–Magically delicious, Sen. Jeff ‘Dixie’ Sessions commenting on the SCOTUS not extending the stay and thus forcing Alabama to allow Marriage Equality to come to that state.

And, yeah, I’m sure that thick-fingered vulgarians Antonin Scalia and his cohorts ‘The Pride of the Judiciary’ Clarence Thomas and Capo di Monte enthusiast Sam Alito are worried about popular opinion.

UPDATE: Most of the counties in Alabama, 52 of 67, are refusing to process paperwork, required by law, to issue marriages to same-sex couples. So, Mr. Sessions, who exactly are the activists now?

News That Will Drive You To Drink: Clarence Thomas Edition

So why should you fill up the I.V. bags (not bread bags) with booze for this tweet? Take it away Jeremy Hooper:

Robert George is the cofounder (along with Maggie Gallagher) of the National Organization For Marriage and one of the authors of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Ryan T. Anderson is a Heritage Foundation staffer and a top voice against marriage equality.

But you know, no one will ask Ol’ Clarence to recuse himself from the upcoming ruling on same-sex marriage unlike the chorus of Y’all Qaeda who are screaming for the women of the SCOTUS to recuse themselves because they know gay people.

Caterers in 30+ States Rejoice…

liza-minnelli-gay-marriage

…as the SCOTUS declined to take up Marriage Equality cases for this term, leaving lower court rulings intact. This means that now 30 states and D.C. will let people marry whomever they love.

This does not, however, nationalize marriage equality, but surely that day is coming. (I know, quit calling you Shirley…)

The Sunday Talkies

Meet David Gregory's hair

Crooks and Liars has the run-down, per usual, and when you look at the guest list (mostly Wingnuts) you see that the discussion is going to be mostly about immigration. There is hardly anyone listed that is likely to talk about how all of our rights were taken away by the theocrats on the Supreme Court.