Virginia attorney general and Republican gubernatorial candidate/wingnut Ken Cuccinelli is asking the 4th Circuit to reconsider a previous ruling that found a prohibition against oral sex unconstitutional. Since this has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being reheard, guess old Ken is just performing for the anti-sex fundamentalist flying monkeys who make up so much of the state's electorate.

According to Buzzfeed, the alleged reason is that a 47-year-old man solicited a 17-year-old girl for a BJ. She refused, and the man then accused her of "performing oral sex against my will." That charge was later dropped, but apparently was enough for an ambitious crusading prosecutor who's running for governor. Via Mother Jones:

Last month, three judges on the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit deemed a Virginia anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. The provision, part of the state's "Crimes Against Nature" law, has been moot since the 2003 US Supreme Court decision overruled state laws barring consensual gay sex, but Virginia has kept the prohibition on the books.

Now Virginia attorney general and Republican gubernatorial candidate Ken Cuccinelli is asking the full 4th Circuit to reconsider the case. Cuccinelli wants the court to revive the prohibition on consensual anal and oral sex, for both gay and straight people. (The case at hand involves consensual, heterosexual oral sex.)

Here's more from the Washington Blade:

Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli has filed a petition with the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Richmond asking the full 15-judge court to reconsider a decision by a three-judge panel last month that overturned the state’s sodomy law.

The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 on March 12 that a section of Virginia’s "Crimes Against Nature" statute that outlaws sodomy between consenting adults, gay or straight, is unconstitutional based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2003 known as Lawrence v. Texas.

A clerk with the 4th Circuit appeals court said a representative of the Virginia Attorney General's office filed the petition on Cuccinelli's behalf on March 26. The petition requests what is known as an en banc hearing before the full 15 judges to reconsider the earlier ruling by the three-judge panel.

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 »

No matter how many times Bible-thumpin' fetus worshippers insist contraceptives cause abortions, they just don't. But they do like to torture themselves (and everyone else) with their insistence that they do. When this case and the ones like it make their way to the Supreme Court, we will see the reality vs. non-reality split the court once again:

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court declined Wednesday to put a temporary hold on a controversial provision in the new health care law requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives.

Two businesses challenging the act -- the nationwide chain of 500 Hobby Lobby Stores and Mardel, a chain of Christian bookstores -- contended that the law violates their religious freedom. Their legal battle is continuing over the merits of their claim. In the meantime, they asked the US Supreme Court to put a temporary hold on the law, which takes effect January 1, 2013.

On Wednesday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who handles emergency appeals from the courts where the companies are based, declined to grant an injunction.

In a brief written opinion, she said the Supreme Court has never addressed similar freedom-of-religion claims brought by for-profit corporations objecting to mandatory provisions of employment benefit laws.

"Lower courts have diverged on whether to grant temporary injunctive relief to similarly situated plaintiffs," she said, "and no court has issued a final decision granting permanent relief with respect to such claims."

If the two companies ultimately lose in the lower courts, the justice said, they can still appeal to the Supreme Court.
Lawyers for members of the family that owns the two businesses, based in Oklahoma, told the court that the law will expose them to "draconian fines unless they abandon their religious convictions."

While they do not object to the provision of insurance coverage for all contraceptives, they do object to coverage for "certain drugs and devices that they believe can cause abortions," their lawyers said.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) seems to think that Republicans in the House of Representatives were given a “mandate” by voters allowing them to prevent tax cuts for the rich from expiring, despite exit polls showing voters overwhelmingly support tax hikes. “[T]he fact is, in Congress, the American people have returned a Republican House of Representatives. So we also have, if you want to call it, a mandate.”

Except that’s not quite true, Mr King, and you know it. The American people didn’t vote for a Republican House, the Republicans didn’t actually win the House, and therefore there is no mandate. 53,952,240 votes were cast for a Democratic House candidate compared to 53,402,643 cast for a Republican; in other words, over half a million more Americans voted for Democratic House candidates than for Republican candidates. Republicans received less than half of the vote for members of the House of Representatives, and even lost seats in the House this election. Yet Republicans still took 55 percent of the seats in the House. In effect, they had to steal the House. Here’s how:

In 2010, Republicans won a substantial majority of state governments. Once they were in power, they then deliberately redrew congressional district lines in order to manipulate the 2012 House election for a Republican victory. It’s called gerrymandering, a very old, very nasty technique that has long been successful in affecting the outcome of elections, for both sides. And it’s getting worse now that computer modelling can precisely calculate districts to maximize political advantages. Citizens, advocates and political parties have filed 194 lawsuits challenging congressional or state district maps in 41 states. Lawsuits are still pending in eight states.

Gerrymandering is the process of manipulating geographic borders to create a political advantage for a particular party, obstructing the ability of voters who oppose a state’s ruling party to influence future elections. It works on the principle of “wasted voting” – a numbers game where opposition voters are shifted, or “packed” into districts where their party would win anyway even without their vote, then “cracking” any remaining opposition voters by moving them into districts where they are a significant minority, rendering their vote futile. Voters, of course, aren’t physically moved, just the lines on a map where they officially live, which end up bizarrely twisted and distorted out of any natural proportions. And it’s technically legal.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (421)

PLAYS: (1845)

Embed

Joe Biden not only showed Paul Ryan as the Galtian fool that he his, he showed viewers just how extreme Paul Ryan is, and he used women's health as the contrast. Martha Raddatz asked a question of both candidates relating specifically to their Catholic faith, and how that shapes their view on abortion rights for women. Here's Paul Ryan's response (not on the video):

That's why -- those are the reasons why I'm pro-life. Now I understand this is a difficult issue, and I respect people who don't agree with me on this, but the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. What troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. Look at what they're doing through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They're infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals.

Joe Biden had a response to that, which is at the beginning of this video:

BIDEN: My religion defines who I am, and I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who -- who can't take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to -- with regard to abortion, I accept my church's position on abortion as a -- what we call a (inaudible) doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life.

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the -- the congressman. I -- I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that -- women they can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I'm not going to interfere with that.

He goes on to rebut Ryan's lie about the infringement on religious freedom, and then hits the truth about the danger of a Romney-Ryan administration, particularly with regard to the shape of the United States Supreme Court. Ryan's extreme views come through loud and clear here:

Continue reading »

This Fall, the Supreme Court will be taking up a case that can really affect all of us. The case will determine if you actually have the right to sell a used product that was made or contains parts from overseas:

At issue in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons is the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture, as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products.

Under the doctrine, which the Supreme Court has recognized since 1908, you can resell your stuff without worry because the copyright holder only had control over the first sale.

Put simply, though Apple Inc. AAPL -0.62% has the copyright on the iPhone and Mark Owen has it on the book “No Easy Day,” you can still sell your copies to whomever you please whenever you want without retribution.

That’s being challenged now for products that are made abroad, and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling, it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (166)

PLAYS: (1068)

Embed

There's something smarmy about a Supreme Court Justice opining from the television interview pit about decisions the court has made. No, not opining. Selling it. The whole nation loathes Citizens United, and so Scalia has taken to the airwaves with the hard sell. Of course, it doesn't hurt that he's also pimping his latest book for CNN viewers to rush right out and buy either.

No, our esteemed Supreme Court Justice actually did an interview with that respected legal scholar celebrity hack guy, Piers Morgan. Yes, surely Piers was up to that challenge. Or not.

After declaring that if he were King, Justice Scalia would ban flag-burning, he moved on to Citizens United, where Piers showed himself completely out of his league. The questions were almost custom-designed to let Scalia convince the adoring public that the Billion Dollar Presidential Campaign is AOK.

Here's the punch line:

SCALIA: You can't separate speech from -- from -- from the money that -- that facilitates the speech.

MORGAN: Can't you?

SCALIA: It's -- it's -- it's utterly impossible.

Piers Morgan let him get away with that! I cannot believe it.

Opening your mouth and saying something is speech. One does not require one billion dollars to say whatever the hell they want. Hey Piers and Justice Scalia, THE MONEY IS THE MICROPHONE. Nowhere does it say in the Constitution that the microphone is an integral part of speech.

What the heck does he think they did in the 17th century, walk around with a boom box?

Why is this so difficult for people to understand. We open our mouths, move our lips, and words come out. That is speech. We light a match, burn a flag, that is expression. Nowhere in either of those two events is it required that three cameras linked to a worldwide satellite hookup be part of the element of speech. Nowhere. It's simply intellectual dishonesty to say otherwise.

It would appear, however, that the good Justice is on the record with regard to disclosure, which makes the constant Republican blockage of the DISCLOSE Act that much more wanton and cynical:

SCALIA: Oh, I certainly think not. I think, as I think the framers thought, that the more speech, the better. Now, you -- you are entitled to know where the speech is coming from, you know, information as -- as to who contributed what. That's something else.

But whether they -- whether they can speak is, I -- I -- I think, clear in -- in the First Amendment.

Funny how we only get the "Money is Speech" part in this country and not the "You're entitled to know where the speech came from, eh? No, not funny. Pathetic.

And with regard to limits on speech, this little gem:

MORGAN: Is there any limit, in your eyes, to freedom of speech?

SCALIA: Oh, of course.

MORGAN: Is -- is there -- what are the limitations in -- to you?

SCALIA: I'm a textualist. And what the provision reads is, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." So they had in mind a particular freedom. What -- what freedom of speech? The freedom of speech that was the right of Englishmen at that time. And--

So I'm curious as to how Justice Scalia reconciles the English Bill of Rights with his interpretation as stated in that answer. Here's the snippet from the English Bill of Rights:

...the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament...

Further, since he specifically referred to "the Englishman", I can only assume he gives no weight to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen adopted by France, which granted far more expansive rights of speech:

The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.

Whatever Justice Scalia sees as the originalist meaning within our Bill of Rights, I simply fail to see how the amplifier becomes speech. Speech is an individual act of forming words and either saying or writing them. Expression is still an individual act, whether it's speech or a human being doing something which speaks to the crowd. But whether it's verbal, written, drawn, painted, acted, sung or danced, the act is the speech, and costs nothing.

The amplifier, on the other hand, costs plenty. It is that failure on Justice Scalia's part that has possibly cost us our democracy.

Susie Sampson asks what appear to be fairly representative examples of right-wing Southern males (and one female) what they think of the Supreme Court's health-care ruling this week. It's amazing the things you learn from these folks. (Did you know that Lincoln destroyed the country?)

Poor, pathetic Grover. Grover, the same dude who actually tweeted that an expansion in the Christian Science religion would probably bend the cost curve on medical costs. Regardless of Grover's erroneous assumption that Christian Science bars all medical practice, it's a cynical and toothless critique of a law that expands access to health care for people.

Grover's new schtick is ZOMG, OBAMACARE IS OBAMATAXMAGEDDON. Dive under your desks, folks, pull up the convertible roof, get yourself some survival gear and step up to Grover's Funhouse, where you can be told how terrible, horrible, and awful taxes are.

Yawn. Grover published a list of "taxes" he claims are terrible, awful, awful tax hikes in Obamacare. Before I tackle his stupid list, let me list a few tax benefits of the law:

• Tax credits for businesses with less than 50 employees who cover them.
• Continued tax subsidies for large businesses in the form of tax deductions for health insurance benefits.
• Subsidies for low to middle-income families who purchase health insurance on the exchanges

In fact, middle-income families and small businesses are some of the biggest beneficiaries of the tax cuts in the Affordable Care Act. Funny how Norquist overlooked those entirely.

Here are some of the "stealth tax hikes" Norquist is touting as some evil liberal plot to kill the middle class, and the truth about them. Some I have not included, like the "economic substance doctrine" codification, or the fees on medical equipment manufacturers, pharma, hospitals, and the like. This is because they were agreed to in advance by the stakeholders and should not come as a surprise, nor are they horrible, awful tax hikes. I'll give you a few rebuttals just to prove how stupid his entire list is.

• $50,000 excise tax on charitable hospitals which fail to comply with requirements to modernize their billing procedures and standardize with Medicare codes or discriminate as to those in their community they will treat. Hint: Excise taxes are intended to be sticks for non-compliance. This excise tax is a choice not to comply.
• "Black-liquor" tax credit eliminated. Yes, this was a back-door subsidy to the paper industry, and the tax credit for manufacturing sludge called "fuel" was removed.
• Tax on Tanning Salons - The Boehner Tax is more rightly termed a "Personal Responsibility" Fee, because frequent users of tanning salons are actually more prone to skin cancer.

You get the idea. Factcheck.org has a much longer, more complete, and well-documented list. I recommend bookmarking it for own satisfaction, but don't bother sending it to your wingnut uncle or handing him a copy at the family BBQ on July 4th because it's far too long and detailed and chock full o' facts for him to digest with his burgers.

So much for facts and wonkery. Listen up, because what I'm about to say next is what has to change in this country.

Paying taxes is the patriotic duty of every citizen living in this country. Grover Norquist is no patriot. He's anti-tax and he's anti-American.

Grover Norquist has undermined the foundation of our democracy with his ridiculous fetish about taxes. He has led elected representatives to commit treasonous acts like putting the full faith and credit of the United States at risk, and the result has made this country ungovernable. Anything he might have to say about the Affordable Care Act should be viewed through the lens of his unpatriotic acts, and discarded as sedition.

That's all you need to know about Grover Norquist, taxes, and Americans for Tax Elimination...er...Reform.

DOWNLOADS: (174)

PLAYS: (1265)

Embed

When CNN and Fox both sent out text message alerts and erroneously reported that the Supreme Court had overturned the Affordable Care Act, I had my doubts about whether that news came to them in real time. When Tea Party True Wingnut Richard Mourdock published his "Yay! ObamaCare is unconstitutional!" video prematurely a week before the decision was actually released, my hair stood up on end because it dovetailed with numerous celebratory emails I was receiving from different Tea Party groups.

At the time, I speculated that if there was a leak from the court, it came via Ginni Thomas. I remain somewhat convinced that might be the case, since leaking anything from the US Supreme Court is widely considered to be a career-ending act.

Like everything else, though, this Supreme Court is unlike others, and CBS has two confirmed insider reports that Chief Justice John Roberts "flipped" from the conservative decision to overturn the entire law to the final decision which preserved the mandate, and thus the law, under the taxing power of the constitution.

In her report for "Face the Nation" today, reporter Jan Crawford claims to have two sources inside the Court who confirm that Roberts flipped his vote on the mandate (aka Personal Responsibility Donation), much to the chagrin of the other four justices, Kennedy in particular.

Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."

But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

Leaks or speculation?

I might shrug at this report if it had come from any reporter but Jan Crawford. As ThinkProgress notes, Crawford is a conservative reporter with ties to the Federalist Society.

The Federalist Society is a favorite of Justices Scalia and Thomas, so it's not all that difficult to imagine leaks walking out of the court a little ahead of time, especially if those leaks actually spark some news reports that might find their way back to a "wobbly" Chief Justice.

Crawford notes that around Memorial Day, there were many reports emerging in the media about how damaged the Roberts Court would be if they struck down the entire law along partisan lines. Examples here, here, here, here, here and here.

And then on June 2, 2012, this tweet from Barton Gellman, quoting Ramesh Pannoru of National Review:

Continue reading »