[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTuhf9_YGhQ[/youtube]
(And there are over fifty more clips from the past week in politics posted at Hominid Views.)
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
She’s getting a fraction of what Bork got. Quit your bitching.
“Americans grew tired of being thought to be dumb by the rest of the world,
so they went to the polls November, 2009 and removed all doubt.”
—Joe Biden
and WHERE are the soundbites of the Dems attacking the lying fascist synchophants?
there aren’t any, or there ain’t enough!
(well, unless you count Carl Levin’s tortured long winded jibes at cheney as ‘soundbites’)
ya see, we’re the party of really smart people, and we don’t lower ourselves to do anything effective cuz then we wouldn’t be creating the fucking tomes that got us into our Ivy or Ivy-wannabee universities!
(see mondale, dukakis, clinton health care and clinton DLC sell out policies, gore ’00, iraq war, kerry ’06, nancy dishrag ‘impeachment is off the table’)
what a worthelss ass ‘opposition’ party, UNLESS you’re part of the fascists.
rmm.
Did anyone see the video of the black man getting on a Metro bus and attacking a blind woman? Here it is. Notice how the white passengers on the bus don’t harm the black man? Notice how they merely restrain him?
What do you think would happen if a white man got on an all black bus, then started punching a blind black woman? Do you think the black men on the bus would simply restrain the white attacker?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFGIl6820qc
@2 Typical smartass comment from a brainwashed wingnut fool. Would you like to defend the GOP’s recent accomplishments? Are you feeling a bit insecure about how profoundly your cherished conservative ideology has been discredited and shown not to work in the real world? Are you embarrassed by the depth and breadth of Republican corruption and their systematic looting of the American economy on a gigantic scale? Have you so blinded yourself to reality that you still can’t see why your party’s approval rating is down to 20% and voters rejected your candidates across the board, including in congressional districts that had never voted Democratic before? Keep spouting your drivel, KlyniKalKlown! You’re like a man running naked through the town square insisting he has clothes on — everyone is laughing at you.
@5 We can always count on you for some racist remark that’s as off-topic as it’s irrelevant to the topic of racism even if racism was the topic. Everyone else has filed this news item under the heading “mental illness,” not “racism.” I guess you didn’t get the word on that, which isn’t surprising, because you miss the boat on everything else, too. Do you even know what your own fucking name is? Are you capable of taking a piss without written instructions?
Bitch and moan all you want, rightys! She’s going to be confirmed! We’ve got 59 seats in the Senate. That’s what 8 years of Bush’s idiocy cost you.
Think about that the next time your party is selecting candidates! If you fools don’t get your act together we’re going to become a one-party country. Which is fine by me, because you guys are useless. No, you’re worse than useless.
@6
Very slick. You didn’t answer my question, so I’ll ask it again. What would happen to a white man if he got on an all-black bus, then started punching a blind black woman? What would the black men on the bus do to the white attacker? Would they merely restrain him? Or would they beat him to within an inch of his life?
What IS it with republicans and sex with animals??? First Rick Santorum…now THIS!!!
h/t http://www.americablog.com/
Thinds that make ya go “hmmmmmmmm”…
OKOKOK…
What if a guy calls himself “the troll” yeahyeah….goes on a public forum and makes up a bunch of asinine “what if” questions…
…oh wait, that happened…
@8 If your hypothetical white guy was in the same mental condition as the actual black guy he, too, would be shipped to Western State for a mental evaluation to determine whether (a) he was culpable for his actions, and (b) is able to assist in his defense.
I realize you may find my straight answer to your loaded question less than satisfying. As always when you post in this blog, you have a chip on your shoulder; but rather than accomodate you by accepting your invitation to knock it off, I choose to provide you with a lawyer’s answer; and I hope my doing so aggravates the hell out of you.
A story in today’s Seattle Times reports that an Oklahoma pharmacist wounded a (black) teenaged robber by shooting him in the head. Then, after the youth was sprawled unconcious on the floor, the pharmacist walked behind the counter, retrieved another handgun, and finished off the incapacitated robber by pumping 5 more rounds into his belly. The prosecutor has charged him with first-degree murder.
Needless to say, the rightwing vigilante crowd are piling into this one. Calls to talk shows, letters of support, checks, an anonymous donor even posted his bail. And the usual belching on rightwing blogs …
My guess is the guy will walk, because they won’t be able to find a jury willing to convict him — not in Oklahoma. But he shouldn’t. This is, in fact, a crime. Everyone agrees the first shot to the robber’s head was legally justified, and I agree with that. But once the robber was disarmed and incapacitated, the robbery victim had no right to finish him off. That isn’t self-defense, it’s revenge. You have no right to use deadly force in self-defense after the threat no longer exists. This was a vigilante killing, pure and simple, and while it may have much visceral appeal to the whole rightwing crowd, if we want to live in a civilized society we can’t let individuals take the law into their own hands, it’s that simple. Vigilantes ought to be prosecuted, period. That’s my view of things.
As long as they don’t try to create the laws, I don’t care who’s on the SCOTUS. Their job is to interpret, not create. Oh yeah, they should actually stick to the Constitution and not make it up as they go along.
@12,
He’ll get off, just like O.J. did. It’s called “jury nullification.”
You know squat about constitutional interpretation. If SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution your way, we’d all still be living by the light of kerosene lamps. How do you expect a document written when 98% of Americans were farmers and the only means of transportation were walking or riding a horse to serve the governance needs of a modern technological society, unless judges uses their intelligence and good judgment to adapt it to society’s current conflicts and needs? That’s why we try to choose judges with intelligent and good judgment. The Constitution is not a cookbook, and you are an idiot for thinking it is.
So, we should just get rid of the Constitution: it just gets in the way of having a totalitarian government, and that’s what we truly want: total government control over every aspect of our lives. Yeah, screw that Bill of Rights shit! Let’s submit to total government control. Yeah, that’s the ticket!
And what about this “democracy” shit? Hell, that was thought-up by a bunch of fucking Greeks thousands of years ago. Democracy doesn’t have any place in a “modern technological society.”
Yeah…..right!
re 13: The constitution is open to different interpretations. I suspect that, in your mind, jurists interpreting your way are simply interpreting the law, while those interpreting it differently are ‘legislating from the bench’.
If someone asks me ‘How’s it hanging?’, I would probably interpret that as a question asking me the equivalent of : ‘How are you?’
A conservative might answer: ‘To the right and slightly shriveled.’
Whose interpretation is correct? That’s open to interpretaion….
PI @ 13:
As long as they don’t try to create the laws, I don’t care who’s on the SCOTUS. Their job is to interpret, not create. Oh yeah, they should actually stick to the Constitution and not make it up as they go along.
That’s an entirely wonderful, yet completely vacuous, sentiment. I have no idea what you mean by “create the laws” in this context, and I further have no idea how Justice are even capable of “creating” laws solely through the process of deciding controversies under the law.
But, I’m sure you’ll explain it to me in a way that actually corresponds to reality, won’t you? Perhaps you can start by telling us whether you think the law is always abundantly clear to anyone who would read the law or if ambiguity is an inherent part of any law, the Constitution included?
troll has moved from “some say” to “what if”
The Republicans have lost all contact with reality.
Obama’s strategy is brilliance and is, as usual, at least two steps ahead of his opposition.
First, he chooses a judge who is by any standard exceptionally qualified, and who has, in addition, a fairly conservative judicial temperament. She sticks close to the law; she follows precedent; she as often as not agrees with her Republican-appointed colleagues.
HOWEVER, she is also a Puerto Rican woman. Because of this, Republicans are unable to see anything about her besides her ethnicity and her gender. The idea that she must be a practitioner of identity politics, a person whose every success is due to preferential treatment, etc., is apparently one they absolutely cannot resist.
Obama nominates a qualified, careful jurist. GOP goes apeshit, ignoring her sterling academics and decades-long judicial record to focus on twisting a single statement into “racism” and dragging out all of the usual misogynist and racial sterotypes they can along the way.
Both Gandhi and the Civil Rights movement made brilliant use of the following method: you do something right, which you suspect might lead your opponents to do something wrong. If you are right about them, they discredit themselves, without your having to lift a finger. If you’re wrong, you are pleasantly surprised. But you do not have to do anything wrong or underhanded yourself, nor do you in any way have to hope that your opponents are bad people.
The GOP is bringing their inevitable bad end upon themselves.
I’m surprised that we see nothing about the health care battle going on in Washington, and what roles Murray and Cantwell are playing in that. Murray is up for re-election next year, while Cantwell is on the Senate Finance Committee.
As usual, they’ve gone dark on us. I haven’t heard any statement from either pol. Cantwell, who ran a populist campaign, sits on a Committee that banned representation by single payer advocates from Committee workgroup sessions…perhaps she has an opinion on the subject that she would like to share with her consituents?
Murray, who originally ran as a “Mom in tennis shoes”, sent out a newsletter that did not mention health care at all, but did tout her vote for a credit card bill that basically puts limits on how fast banks can raise the interest rate on your card (she didn’t mention that she voted against a stronger bill, which would have simply capped interest rates at 15%, restoring the usary laws that were standard in this nation until the early ’80s).
28 Senate Democrats signed a bill calling-not for single payer-but for a robust public option…and neither of our two senators had their name on it.
Step up, state what you believe, and face your constituents.
Yup, there’s a big fight on health care with the finance committee trying to beat the govt. option out of the plan. Kennedy leading the charge to have the govt. option.
Where is Murray on this? Cantwell?
They’re damn sure not leading anything.
The reason there’s a Supreme Court is that over time situations are encountered where despite the wisdom with which it was written, the Constitution doesn’t specifically elucidate a solution. In such instances, someone has to make a judgment based on interpretation of the document to devine what the framers might have desired, had they anticipated the issue in question. The Constitution specifies that nine of the best legal minds be selected to make such judgments. That the Constitution provides for such a body suggests that the framers themselves were wise enough to realize that their own powers of anticipation were not absolute…or that there were issues that they knew would need to be dealt with in the future, which were so contentious in their own time (such as slavery) that they knew fully engaging them would be a barrier to ratification.
Dammit, those old, dead guys were smart.
I LOVE it the GOP is actually working hard to find a way to be LESS RELEVANT. You’d think that’s nearly impossible but the righties – being stooooooopid asswipes – our out to prove it. Bring it on bitches – keep attacking PRESIDENT OBAMA’s nominee. This is tearing the GOP apart and making sure Dems win. Keep it up – PLEASE!
The number of justices on the supreme court is set by statute, not in the constitution. And the constitution didn’t even specify that the supreme court could strike down a decision of the state supreme courts or a law of congress, so don’t let’s admire the founders overly. Lots of the admiration has to go to our activist, legislating judges like Marshall, who used their power to shape the constitution from the bench where it was unclear and made it work pretty well for all of us.
Fortunately, judges like him weren’t afraid to be judicial activists!
@14 That’s the correct terminology to describe when a jury ignores the facts and/or the law in favor of mob justice, but O. J. got off because of incompetent prosecutors, not because of jury nullification.
@16 I repeat, you are an idiot. You don’t know a damn thing about the Constitution. Your every comment proves it.
@24 The Constitution doesn’t actually say the Supreme Court has authority to declare laws passed by Congress unconstitutional. Way back in 1802, John Marshall’s Supreme Court invented that idea. We might well have had a dictator by now if they hadn’t, as several presidents visibly had totalitarian aspirations.
@26 Oops, GK beat me to the punch on what the source of judicial review is.
@26: And don’t overlook the activist decisions flowing from the activist (mis?)interpretation of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad.
Where does it say in the Constitution that “corporations” are “persons” wingnuts?
But for truly outrageous conservative judicial activism, see Bush v. Gore.
They have no shame, and will never acquire any.
The Constitution, like the Bible, is open to interpretation. The notion of “strict constructionism” is, of course, nonsense. Summoning the ghosts of those who wrote the Constitution, then the Bill of Rights a bit later, then laying the 14th Amendment over all of that, and then getting those ghosts to sing in perfect harmony today to tell us what the Constitution means will never happen. We need to bury the notion of “strict constructionism.” That notion was never anything but a ploy for perpetuating the status quo.
PL–
The Bible is the Word of God.
The Constitution was inspired by God.
Both are clear…it’s the uninspired by God human factor that has screwed both up too often.
Poor Klynical says:
Really! Thanks for proving how stupid you are. I suppose that “clarity” in the bible is why we have Muslims, Jews, Protestants and Catholics all killing each over the same book.
And the “correct” interpretation is……the one Klynical chooses.
Do you really beleive that the bible should taken completely literally? If so, I can then make a complete fool of you……simply by quoting the bible.
But, alas, you already make a complete fool of yourself.