Praise be to Judge Antonin Scalia, for he sees what the rest of us do not. The man for whom nasty, brutish and short is not simply a political formulation, but a mirror image, can look at hundreds of years of slavery, 100 more of legalised segregation and another 50 of daily discrimination and see "racial entitlement" in the basic right to vote in America. I guess it's kind of like the right-wing-clown entitlement enjoyed by our current Supreme Court.

Scalia, of course, was a modern Republican (in a robe) before it was even cool. I mean that in the sense that it's clear to anyone taking so much as a gander at what animates the GOP of 2013 - as well as Scalia's immunity to legal reasoning - that it's not any set of policy ideas, but simple emotion: all-consuming, blood-curdling, vein-bulging-out-of-the-forehead, Mel Gibson-watching-Fiddler-On-The-Roof ANGER.

Policy-wise, the GOP is an entity that literally lacks any new ideas, has no interest in governing and has rejected all of its own policy positions from as recently as early 2008 as "oh-my-God-we're-all-doomed!" creeping Socialism (see: cap and trade, earned-income tax credit, individual healthcare mandate). Rejecting anything right wingers sneeringly see as created by them-there libruls is the secret handshake of modern conservatism.

You believe in global warming? Then they don't, dang it! You accept that human beings didn't ride saddleback on a brachiosaurus into the Battle of Little Bighorn? They have an App for that, the Creation Museum, where you can ride Noah's Ark with your friendly Triassic-period imperial walker. You offer them way-too-friendly a deal on the budget? Then as Cartman from South Park says, "screw you guys... I'm going home".

The most potent example is the rise and fall of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as conservative heartthrob. He was a Republican Superhero just a year ago, when he headlined what Republican consultant Steve Schmidt called "The Star Wars Bar" of conservative gatherings, the CPAC Conference. Yet, he was quite publicly not invited to this year's CPAC.

Continue reading »

This is classic. At last month's tea party protests during the Supreme Court arguments on the Affordable Care Act, tea partiers were asked what specific constitutional provisions were being violated.

Despite having their pocket constitutions firmly at hand, they couldn't seem to articulate their constitutional objections to the Affordable Care Act at all. Among the responses were some truly ignorant ones, like "the commerce clause was added to the Constitution" (it wasn't), or that the Constitution didn't specifically mention health care. Hey, it doesn't specifically mention nuclear weapons either, but I don't see them out there protesting against those.

The response that chuffed me the most was the lady who, when confronted with the facts about the commerce clause, said "Well, we probably shouldn't argue about that anyway, since neither of us really knows." Hey, lady! Yes, one of us knows, and anyone who cares to know can easily find the answer by going to look at the images of the original constitution and looking carefully for traces of 18th century correction fluid. Hint: there isn't any.

What this video proves is what we've been saying all along. There is no "Tea Party," per se. There are just lots of Republicans who respond to fearmongering and manufactured nonsense in order to fight anything, even if they don't know what they're fighting. I'm sure they're trying to be good citizens and participate in their democracy, but really, it does help to do that armed with something besides the feeling that it's a bad thing because a Democrat did it.

Can we stop referring to this group as something legitimate and simply acknowledge they represent the easily-led group of card-carrying Republicans?

For the third time, a federal judge has upheld the provisions of the Affordable Care Act relating to the individual mandate. This time, the lawsuit was brought in Virginia by Liberty University.

US District Judge Norman Moon dismissed the lawsuit and held that Congress has the authority to impose a penalty on anyone who does not maintain the minimum standard of coverage beginning January 1, 2014. Ruling text here (PDF).

For the reasons provided below, I hold that Congress acted in accordance with its constitutionally delegated powers under the Commerce Clause when it passed the employer and individual coverage provisions of the Act, and I will dismiss Count One. Because I find that the employer and individual coverage provisions are within Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause, it is unnecessary to consider whether the provisions would be constitutional exercises of power pursuant to the General Welfare Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause.

After affirming Congressional authority to regulate the business of insurance, the court further found that there was "a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals' decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market." Further, Judge Moon concluded that "failure to regulate the uninsured would undercut the Act's larger regulatory scheme for the interstate health care market."

Michigan and Virginia down, several more to go, including Florida.