Scalia: “Yes you can discriminate against women…”

US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave another interview that continued to show how much of an ass he really is and made me wonder why he hasn’t been retired yet. He is yet another conservative that is hypocrisy personified.

In a recent interview Scalia actually said:

“Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.”

The Originalist

The problem is the 14th amendment isn’t as open as Scalia thinks:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Just like if Congress intended God to be in the Constitution it would have put Him in it, probably in 1868 the men who wrote the amendment weren’t thinking of women but don’t you think that if women were not to be protected they would’ve written “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of male citizens of the United States…”

Scalia’s Archie Bunker mentality was rejected by the Supreme Court in 1971 which confirmed women were equally protected.

It’s nice that Scalia falls back on his original intent doctrine but fails to remember that judicial review of laws isn’t specifically in the Constitution and I doubt the framers thought corporations are people covered by the Bill of Rights either.

Ohio GOP sweep tied to low Democratic voter turn out

A report released by the University of Akron’s Bliss Institute of Applied Politics maps out the Republican sweep of Ohio statewide offices and the open US Senate seat in 2010. The report, which includes maps, show the percentages of votes and turn out compared to the results in 2006. The numbers show that the turn out by Democrats was much lower in 2010 and that helped the GOP with their sweep.

“The pendulum has swung, this time in favor of Ohio Republicans,” John Green, Bliss Institute director, said in a press release. “Low voter turnout across the board and a poorly performing state economy contributed significantly to the 2010 Ohio Republican sweep.”

Akron U report maps GOP wins in November; contrasts results with 2006

It is clear that there was less voter turnout in 2010 than 2006 in almost every county. The East-West pattern emerges again in this map. There was, in general, less of a drop in voter turnout in the Republican-leaning western regions of the state as opposed to the Democratic-leaning eastern regions of the state. This indicates that Democratic-leaning counties had less-enthused voters compared to those counties that tend to lean Republican. It helps to explain why Democrats did so well in the 2006 state-wide contests and fared so poorly in the 2010 election.

Mapping the Republican Sweep: The 2010 Election Results in Ohio

The report doesn’t look at why people voted the way they did but it showed that when a particular party doesn’t turn out their candidate loses. It seems that’s election 101.


(click on picture for fullsize version)

President Obama is like an abusive parent

President Obama signed the law that repealed the “Don’t ask Don’t tell” policy that had prohibited gay people from serving in the military. If you read the blogs and websites that lean left you would think it was Bastille Day. Don’t get me wrong I think it’s a good thing but the exuberance of the event outstrips the over all accomplishments of the President so far. He reminds me of a moody abusive parent where one moment it is all loves and hugs and the next minute you get locked in a closet for waking him up from a nap.

Here is one example from Talking Points Memo:

President Obama this morning signed into law the bill repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

“I am just overwhelmed,” Obama said as he took the stage among chants of “Yes we can!” and whoops from the audience. “This is a very good day.”

“No longer will our country be denied the service of thousands of patriotic Americans who were forced to leave the military, regardless of their skills, no matter their bravery or their zeal, no matter their years of exemplary performance, because they happen to be gay,” he said. “No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie.”

Obama was joined on stage by Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, Sens. Joe Lieberman, Susan Collins and Harry Reid and Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Patrick Murphy, an Iraq War veteran who had pushed for DADT repeal.

Obama Signs DADT Repeal Into Law

Or this from Washington Post’s Greg Sargent:

The White House:

Finally, the White House. Obama had been criticized for months on don’t ask don’t tell, with advocates complaining that his administration aggressively defended DADT in court and that he wasn’t doing enough to rally the Senate to pass repeal. But the botton line is that the White House did everything possible to create the political climate necessary to make this happen. The Pentagon report and the testimony by Robert Gates — and his public round of interviews calling on Congress to pass repeal for the good of the military — were major game-changers.

Also: For all the criticism of the Obama tax deal, today’s victory stands as partial vindication of his strategy. Getting the tax deal wrapped up early made the time for repeal, with only days left in the lame-duck session.

This is an important victory for the White House in another way. It will quiet all the talk about Obama’s supposed “triangulating,” because it demonstrates — for the time being, anyway — that even as the White House sees a need to trade away some core liberal priorities to compromise with Repubilcans, Obama seems to want to bring the left along with him, to whatever degree he can. This will make it tougher to argue that Obama’s strategy is to deliberately alienate the left in order to win back the middle of the country.

This moment in the Senate will take its place in the history books alongside other ground-breaking civil rights votes, and stands as an important reminder that as broken as our system seems at times, progress towards a more just and inclusive society is still possible.

DADT repeal wins!

And from “Mark Warner is God” on Daily Kos:

The bottom line is that no one will remember these people in 2 years when Obama crushes….WHOEVER. Members of this very group will either (1) not even remember that they were ever angry at Obama or (2) assign themselves credit for pushing Obama to the Left and facilitating his win. And that’s fine. Because in 20 years – when people take the long view – people won’t call Barack Obama a “dangerous” president. They’ll see things like the DADT repeal (YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!), healthcare reform, and other liberal reforms and rather calmly say things like, “You know, that Obama was kind of annoyingly pragmatic, but he really moved the country to the left on an insanely wide range of issues!”

PS: YEAH DADT REPEAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Left’s Anger at Obama is FASCINATING

And these are just a few examples of the mass celebration over the repeal of DADT.

But for every “bone” like repeal of DADT we then get a sick upside the head like the Bush tax cut deal.

As a friend of a friend on Facebook noted:

The problem with that is [compromise] only works if you extract something of value in return. He’s done that once or twice, most importantly with the tax cuts/unemployment benefits. But too often his foes have no interest in working with him and he winds up either with nothing (the Dream Act for instance) or has to water down and dilute his initial plans to the point where the final product is far weaker than it started out (Health care, net neturality rules).

DADT was one of those public winning laws. Civil rights laws usually are popular with the public. The Tax cut deal was also popular with the public because most people like tax cuts even if they don’t consider the long term effects.

I think I understand what the President is doing but there are many issues he has been short on that can’t be made better by the win on DADT.

I just hope I don’t wake him up from his nap too early.

In GOP fantasy land, state budget woes due only to spending

It amuses me when cheap labor conservative Republicans blame spending for budget problems. They call for cutting state workers or reducing their pay or cutting programs. In their fantasy land, the Republicans fail to even acknowledge that their beloved tax cuts play a part in shortfalls.

As Media Matters pointed out about a one-sided 60 Minutes report on December 19th:

In 2,600 words about state deficits, you won’t find the phrase “tax cuts.” Instead, CBS adopts the Republican framing that deficits are all about spending — frequently with loaded phrasing like “gold-plated retirement and health care packages.” And throughout the report, CBS allows Christie, New Jersey’s Republican governor, to launch attacks on unions and make unsupported claims about budget problems, all without ever challenging his assertions and without including substantive disagreement from Christie critics.

And here’s how CBS addressed New Jersey’s pension problems:

It’s also the truth that some of the responsibility for New Jersey’s pension woes lie at the doorstep of the governor’s mansion. Christie and his predecessors have failed to contribute to the state’s share of its pension obligation in 13 of the last 17 years, one of the reasons the fund is going broke. Christie says it’s ancient history.

“We spent too much on everything. We spent too much. We spent money we didn’t have. We borrowed money just crazily. The credit cards maxed out, and it’s over. It’s over. We now have to get to the business of climbin’ out of the hole. We’ve been diggin’ it for a decade or more. We’ve gotta climb now, and a climb is harder. Gotta do it,” he said.

You’d never know from CBS’ report that a big part of the reason that “Christie and his predecessors” failed to make required contributions to the pension fund is that they decided to use the money for tax cuts instead. (Like I said, the CBS report takes the GOP-friendly stance that deficits are all about spending, not revenue.)

60 Minutes’ one-sided, GOP-friendly report on state budgets

President Obama’s Tax Cut Deal Analogy

In case people don’t understand why a lot of progressives like myself are upset with the proposed tax cut deal brokered by President Obama and the TP/GOP I wrote an analogy:

Look at it this way. I am the Democrats and I have a large pizza cut in 8 slices. You are the GOP and have a six pack of beer. I don’t need the beer because I have soda pop but you really want some pizza since there is no other food in the house. You also have a trigger to a bomb that will blow up the house next door killing the family that lives there.

A rational person in that position would offer a slice for 3 bottles of beer and the family’s freedom but since I am the Democrats I instead open the negotiation by offering 5 slices for one bottle and your promise to think about not blowing up the house next door. You accept and say we compromised and had bipartisanship and in the words of an old cellphone commercial “Daddy got hosed…”

Here’s the old cellphone commercial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmfqpl4-Go8