The opinion is available here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
While the ruling is good news, as usual with Supreme Court opinions, it's a tour de force of sophistry. Why does it take 214 pages to say that all Americans are protected by the Bill of Rights? Why are the rights of all Americans subject to the opinions of five people? When did I ever consent to a system of governance that subjects my liberty to a vote of five people? Why does the Supreme Court feel itself entitled to ramble in its rulings, its babblings creating law and authority, along the way, free to be cited by other sophist lawyers and judges who, though having at least seven years of college, find the plain meaning of documents opaque? Why cannot the Supreme Court tersely answer the question before it, and shut up?
What has happened to the rule of judicial restraint that judges claim to obey? How did we ever let this country become a place where judges can boundlessly opine, and their ruminations are given the force of law?
This ruling ought be read for its essence, only, and the remainder, the surplusage, dismissed as irrelevant obiter dictum.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Great Article on the Perils of Endless War
Simply, the wars are bad. We need to come home, now. We cannot sustain this level of spending, and we are destroying the purpose of the military by engaging in permanent wars and occupations. We still have troops in Germans and Korea, making WWII and the Korean War now 60 and 50 years old, respectively. We flatly cannot afford permanent occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The national debt is at 14 trillion dollars, and rising. The only way out of this may be to repudiate the debt, and doing that will set off a deep depression in this country.
From the Washington Post.
The national debt is at 14 trillion dollars, and rising. The only way out of this may be to repudiate the debt, and doing that will set off a deep depression in this country.
From the Washington Post.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Republicans Are Becoming Nuttier and Nuttier
It's becoming increasingly difficult to see this party as anything but the party of hate, the party of angry old White men.
Check out this latest bit of nuttery from Texas. The Texas Republicans actually want to recriminalize sodomy, you know, getting a blow job from your girlfriend, and they want to make gay marriage a felony.
Seriously.
This the the Texas GOP's new platform:
"We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."
The article continues. Read on. There's more good batshit crazy Republican nuttery in there.
Check out this latest bit of nuttery from Texas. The Texas Republicans actually want to recriminalize sodomy, you know, getting a blow job from your girlfriend, and they want to make gay marriage a felony.
Seriously.
This the the Texas GOP's new platform:
"We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."
The article continues. Read on. There's more good batshit crazy Republican nuttery in there.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
How is it That an Embassy and a Football Stadium Both Cost One Billion Dollars?
This week, we saw news that the United States government is going to build a new, fancy, whiz-bang embassy in England. No expense is to be spared on this embassy, and it even has a moat. It will cost one billion dollars. Its cost is seen as excessive.
By contrast, the Indianapolis Colts stadium, built right here in the heartland, cost one billion dollars. Hoosiers cheered it as "essential to our downtown."
How does an embassy, a building of unsparing technology, fortified with the best anti-terrorism engineering, a building worthy of representing its country and built to be a structure of enduring utility cost the same as a big barn, with a lawn down the middle, flanked with poured-concrete grandstands and having a roof overhead that is partially on garage-door tracks?
Why Hasn't Mitch Daniels Opted Out of Real ID
I love the ACLU. Sometimes, they irk me, but far more often than not, they're on the right side of civil liberties. Here they are again railing against the big-government boondoggle that is Real ID.
http://www.realnightmare.org/news/105/
This Real ID came out of Bush and has made applying for a driver's license an absolute ordeal.
Far too frequently, the self-advertised party of limited government is engaging in some form of big-government activity that runs afoul of someone's civil rights. More often than not, the ACLU is trying to protect someone from the limited-government folks. Ironic, indeed.
If Mitch wants to claim any sort of Conservative, limited-government, credentials, he ought to get opposition to Real ID in high gear before he makes Hell out of Hoosiers' lives. Of course, the Republicans are the same party that wants ID restrictions prior to voting. Ted ("Todd") Rokita stumped with the fallacious "since you need a driver's license to do x, y, and z, you should need one to vote" argument. Thankfully, that horrible requirement was stricken by the federal courts. If Indiana is to have Real ID, let the trials of such national identification not pollute other areas of a person's life.
Better yet, be a Conservative, Mitch, and strike down Real ID.
http://www.realnightmare.org/news/105/
This Real ID came out of Bush and has made applying for a driver's license an absolute ordeal.
Far too frequently, the self-advertised party of limited government is engaging in some form of big-government activity that runs afoul of someone's civil rights. More often than not, the ACLU is trying to protect someone from the limited-government folks. Ironic, indeed.
If Mitch wants to claim any sort of Conservative, limited-government, credentials, he ought to get opposition to Real ID in high gear before he makes Hell out of Hoosiers' lives. Of course, the Republicans are the same party that wants ID restrictions prior to voting. Ted ("Todd") Rokita stumped with the fallacious "since you need a driver's license to do x, y, and z, you should need one to vote" argument. Thankfully, that horrible requirement was stricken by the federal courts. If Indiana is to have Real ID, let the trials of such national identification not pollute other areas of a person's life.
Better yet, be a Conservative, Mitch, and strike down Real ID.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
This Is Really Obvious
Well, I told you so. Three series and one pick. Not a good day for Manning. It's not difficult to see what's going on in the NFL.
I'm interested to see if the NFL gives the Colts a tough schedule, next year, or if it keeps giving them these cakewalks, despite supposedly basing scheduling on prior year performance.
It's good to see the Colts on a losing streak.
I'm interested to see if the NFL gives the Colts a tough schedule, next year, or if it keeps giving them these cakewalks, despite supposedly basing scheduling on prior year performance.
It's good to see the Colts on a losing streak.
I TOLD YOU SO!
For weeks, I've been having fun with the crying Hoosiers, telling them that their Colts are a weak team with a weak quarterback, both of which is sheltered by the NFL from having to play outside in the cold. Last week's loss against the Jets was a nice confirmation that I'm still the best handicapper of the back-room dealings at the NFL.
We all know what the Colts threw last week's game - they couldn't afford to have their weak QB get exposed as such in a bitterly cold game where he needed the win for a record and isn't good enough to pull it off. Manning is awkward and frail in the cold, and he simply couldn't be exposed to an injury. It's going to be 10 at game time, today.
Well, the NFL can't keep cold weather games off the Colts' schedule, entirely, since it is a cold-weather league, played during the coldest part of the year, so the NFL helped the Colts by putting their lone cold-weather game at the end of the season where chances were high that the Colts could rest the starters.
Now, after much confusion, someone let Kravitz at the Indy Pravda in on the reason for benching Manning during the Jets game.
"BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Just sit, baby. After last Sunday's fiasco, how can the Indianapolis Colts justify playing any of their top people in today's abjectly meaningless game against the Buffalo Bills? Can you imagine the fan revolt if Indy uses its starters beyond one series, much less one play? We will hear the cries as far as Orchard Park, N.Y.:"
You just figured this out now, Bob? Did you deduce this on your own, or were you fed today's column by the Colts' front office?
The Colts have to lose today. If the Colts win with a backup QB, their fans will be howling for someone's head for causing the Colts to miss the Perfect Pats' record. The problem for the Colts is that there's another record at stake, today: most wins on a season, held by the '84 49'ers, the '85 Bears and the 'o7 Pats. If the Colts lose, today, they lose a shot at moving into that highest level of NFL greatness.
Buffalo's pretty horrible, and Painter played at Purdue and other Big 10 stadiums, where he became decent playing in the cold. He's certainly not afraid of it. The Colts could legitimately win, today, despite their own attempts to throw the game.
We'll see if the Colts read my article in time to realize that the real NFL record is still on the line. If they give Painter some weapons, we'll know that they're actually trying to match the record only the big boys hold. If Painter does well, and if the refs don't cheat and give him a win, as they do with Manning, Painter will have legitimately accomplished something.
We all know what the Colts threw last week's game - they couldn't afford to have their weak QB get exposed as such in a bitterly cold game where he needed the win for a record and isn't good enough to pull it off. Manning is awkward and frail in the cold, and he simply couldn't be exposed to an injury. It's going to be 10 at game time, today.
Well, the NFL can't keep cold weather games off the Colts' schedule, entirely, since it is a cold-weather league, played during the coldest part of the year, so the NFL helped the Colts by putting their lone cold-weather game at the end of the season where chances were high that the Colts could rest the starters.
Now, after much confusion, someone let Kravitz at the Indy Pravda in on the reason for benching Manning during the Jets game.
"BUFFALO, N.Y. -- Just sit, baby. After last Sunday's fiasco, how can the Indianapolis Colts justify playing any of their top people in today's abjectly meaningless game against the Buffalo Bills? Can you imagine the fan revolt if Indy uses its starters beyond one series, much less one play? We will hear the cries as far as Orchard Park, N.Y.:"
You just figured this out now, Bob? Did you deduce this on your own, or were you fed today's column by the Colts' front office?
The Colts have to lose today. If the Colts win with a backup QB, their fans will be howling for someone's head for causing the Colts to miss the Perfect Pats' record. The problem for the Colts is that there's another record at stake, today: most wins on a season, held by the '84 49'ers, the '85 Bears and the 'o7 Pats. If the Colts lose, today, they lose a shot at moving into that highest level of NFL greatness.
Buffalo's pretty horrible, and Painter played at Purdue and other Big 10 stadiums, where he became decent playing in the cold. He's certainly not afraid of it. The Colts could legitimately win, today, despite their own attempts to throw the game.
We'll see if the Colts read my article in time to realize that the real NFL record is still on the line. If they give Painter some weapons, we'll know that they're actually trying to match the record only the big boys hold. If Painter does well, and if the refs don't cheat and give him a win, as they do with Manning, Painter will have legitimately accomplished something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)