As promised, I wanted to scribble a few lines about the loss of Justice Scalia and the consequent shit-storm that has engulfed our nation’s political landscape. I’m sure that most of your conservative friends have shared 10 and 20-year-old speeches by Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden as support for the insupportable position taken by the G.O.P. leadership in the Senate. You could do worse than to remind them that (1) both of those speeches were made in a year when there was no vacancy on the court, and (2) both speeches came something like a year after extremist justices were appointed by a Republican president and approved by the Senate without filibuster – in the case of Biden’s speech, it was Clarence Thomas, who was approved by a Democratic controlled Senate. (Though it’s hard to tell because he’s so deathly quiet, Thomas is to the right of their sainted Scalia.)
All that said, Obama’s natural inclination will be to offer an olive-branch appointment, something like the one he trial-ballooned this week, namely the Republican governor of Nevada. Seriously … what is it with this president’s Pangloss-like insistence on attempting to curry favor with the Republicans? Hasn’t he been burned enough times in the last seven years? He’s like freaking Charlie Brown trying to kick the football again. Earth to Obama: they hate everything you want to do … doesn’t matter what it is. Best to nominate someone that might energize the Democratic base for the upcoming election; make the point that the election is, in substantial measure, about this issue. It’s about a lot of things, but the Supreme Court is a biggie.
The remaining G.O.P. candidates discussed this during the CNN debate on Thursday night. I say “discussed”, though it was more a pissing contest. Apparently John Roberts is now too liberal for Donald Trump’s taste. I wish I could say that this food-fight was the worst display of the entire debate, but that’s not even close to being true. Anyone watching was treated to a rehash of John McCain’s health plan (i.e. let insurance companies sell their products across state lines), resurrection of the ultimate neocon foreign policy (apparently Marco Rubio is now the little tin car Bill Kristol drives around in), and rabid celebration of trickle-down economics. And a lot of good yelling and screaming, of course.
One thing’s for certain, people … if anyone on that stage in Texas gets anywhere near the White House, don’t buy any green bananas. You’d just be throwing your money away.
luv u,
jp
Marriage equality is seen by some evangelical Christians as a threat to their beliefs. Those who confer marriage licenses in some official capacity as well as those whose businesses serve the wedding market want the option to deny service to gay couples. Religious liberty statutes are cropping up everywhere. So, my question for these folks is, let’s consider the potential harm on either side. For the evangelicals, if gays can marry, their forfeit is being outraged and offended; it may affect their mood around the dinner table at Christmas. On the other hand, for gay couples, being denied the right to marry means not being able to share your life with the one you love, tend to them when they’re sick, build a life with them, etc. Far greater harm, I would argue.
Iran Pact. A framework agreement on Iranian nuclear development was arrived at on Thursday. This will be the subject of a great deal of hand-wringing, even garment rending, and some full throated protests from the usual folks. There is a strong impetus in the United States towards war with Iran. It is not a popular option amongst the American people at large, but pundits and politicians appear to savor the idea. None of them would suffer in the event of a war, of course, so their clamoring comes at a very low potential cost.
Now, technical issues like this have historically been corrected by an act of Congress. This was the case with many major pieces of legislation, such as Medicare. But because our Congress is ideologically driven and dysfunctional in the extreme, this is not even a remote possibility. So it is left to the courts, thanks to the determination of many on the right to hobble and destroy the ACA, as well as many thousands of families who depend upon it. It’s manifestly obvious that disallowing subsidized coverage through the federal exchange will dramatically drive up the cost of health insurance in the affected States, crashing the system and throwing 9 million subscribers into chaos. Just as bad, it will initiate a death spiral of rising rates and canceled policies that will affect many millions more.
Lest you think I’m unfairly blaming Bush II, just consider – most Supreme Court vacancies occur according to plan. To the greatest extent possible, a justice now plans his/her (usually his) exit based on the likelihood that his/her successor will be appointed by a president who shares the Justice’s general political orientation. (Hence Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s reported election night 2000 angst over the apparent election of Al Gore.) That pattern was disrupted in 2005, when illness compelled Chief Justice William Rehnquist to step down. Had Bush not been re-elected the year before, John Kerry would have nominated Rehnquist’s replacement and the political balance of the court would very likely have shifted to the center-left for perhaps the next generation. Instead, thanks to Dubya, we have Citizen’s United, McCutcheon v FEC, and now Hobby Lobby, Harris v Quinn, and McCullen.
Once again, thank you, George W. Bush, for locking in this reactionary Supreme Court majority for the rest of my natural life. It’s the gift that keeps on giving, like the Iraq war (motto: killing people from Fallujah to Fort Hood since 2003). So we should expect more of this sort of thing; ultimately, I am sure, the remaining flaccid constraints on the outright purchase of our elections by billionaires will be condemned as violations of “speech” and stripped away. McCutcheon was delivered with the same Panglossian assurances offered in Citizens United that, in essence, the market will govern itself. We’ve seen where that goes.
them spar. Of course, Cato guy is much further to the right than the Obama person is to the left, so it’s kind of a straw man argument at best. How is this news? They pulled the same thing with the “Fast and Furious” faux-scandal. Even though 
That’s as it may be. But this FLORENCE v. BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS OF COUNTY OF BURLINGTON ET AL. decision is truly odious, particularly at this moment in our political-cultural history. Think of it: we are in the grips of a national debate about the Trayvon Martin killing – a young man who likely would be alive today if he hadn’t been black. The Martin case is far from unique. 
relationship between the government and the people. Many take this as confirmation that it is constitutional overreach. But even if it were, why pick that out of the crowd? We have undeclared wars that last ten years and more. We have routine violations of fourth amendment rights. Our government kills, detains, and spies on people at will without any discernible limit. Why aren’t these same people attacking those excesses? Or is it just that they are attacking the ACA because they disagree with it politically? Thought so.