Defying the Courts

So, I don't know if you noticed, but recently the Supreme Court ruled that America has to stop treating same-sex couples like second-class citizens. When it comes to marriage, anyway. So naturally, a lot of Bible-thumpers have their Fruit of the Looms in an uproar over this development. And some of them are county clerks and judges who will now have to issue marriage licenses or perform weddings for couples even if they're both guys (Agh! The horror!) But not to worry, they've found a solution. They've come up with a very clever plan to say "nuh-unh" and "you can't make me" and "you're not the boss of me, Supreme Court."

Clerk won't issue same-sex marriage license

GRANBURY — The Hood County Clerk says she will not issue same-sex marriage licenses.
"Morally, this is wrong," Katie Lang said Monday from her office in Granbury.  "The truth is, it is in the Bible that marriage is between one man and one woman."

Um, ya know, the ironically-named Katie Lang, you might want to check your Old Testament

Solomon “had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines.” I Kings 11:3

Also, you might want to check your America, because our laws don't get based on what the Bible says, or on what Katie Lang thinks it says. 

And seriously, your name is Katie Lang? And you're a homophobe? What, did you change it from Birkenstock B. Toklas?

And it's not just her, of course. 

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis is one of a handful of local officials across the country who have refused to comply with the court's order. Davis and others say it violates their religious beliefs. Davis told the Louisville Courier-Journal said that her "deep religious convictions" prevent her from complying with the Supreme Court's decision, and so she has decided to issue no more marriage licenses to any couple -- gay or straight.

And some clerk in Texas has actually published what she seems to think is a legal basis for giving the Supreme Court the finger.

July 4, 2015

Declaration of Obedience to Law and Defense of Natural Marriage

Whereas, the County Clerks of Texas are tasked with upholding the Constitution and Laws of the State of Texas and the written United States Constitution; and Whereas, on June 26, 2015, in Obergefell v. Hodges, five justices of the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion with no basis in the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment, American law, or Western history, purporting to overturn Natural Marriage and inventing a false "right" to same-sex "marriage;" and

Of course she issued this bullshit on July 4. Of course she did. Because this is an act of courage tantamount to the Founding Fathers disavowing any allegiance to the British monarchy who were sure to respond with military action. What a brave, brave woman. She could actually lose the job she's refusing to do and be forced to raise a million dollars of Go Fund Me.

But, sure. The Supremes decision had no basis in the Constitution. Obviously a low-level state functionary with no legal background knows that better than a group of experienced jurists. And yes, obviously, by allowing same-sex couples to have the same marriage rights as heteros, the Supreme Court has "overturned" "Natural" marriage. That's why no heteros can get married anymore.

Whereas, two justices essential to the majority, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, failed to recuse themselves from Obergefell after publicly showing personal bias, in violation of federal law mandating that "Any justice...shall disqualify h[er]self....[where her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned."   (28 U.S.C.A. § 455);

And no one could possibly question the impartiality of Scalia or Thomas or Alito. Why, they're the very picture of objectivity!

Whereas, in contrast, the Declaration of Independence explicitly recognizes that the Creator has endowed mankind with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, under the Rule of Law, consistent with the created order; and

Okay, how many times do we have to cover this? The Declaration of Independence is NOT a legal document. It was a piece of p.r. designed to convince the other monarchies of Europe not to intervene on the behalf of Britain. And I'm pretty sure that the pursuit of happiness should include being able to marry the person of your choosing. I know it was for me.

Anyway, it goes on and on like this.

But here's the thing I don't get.

Your religious beliefs make it impossible for you to, in good conscience, issue marriage licenses to gay couples? Fine. That's your right, more power to you. Then you resign in protest. You don't say "I'm only going to do the parts of my job that I feel good about."

It's great that you want to take a stand for what you believe, but why would you think that there would not be consequences?
 I was raised fundamentalist Christian. We were always told that there were going to be things out in "the world" that were going to be problematic for us, and we might have to have the courage of our convictions to stand up and say "no, I can not do this great wickedness and sin against God." But we were told that this kind of stance would have consequences. We might lose our jobs, we might lose friends, etc. Why would you think you could stand up for what you think is right and not face any repercussions?
Jesus told his disciples (somewhere in Acts, I think) that they needed to be prepared to suffer for his sake, that they would  risk persecution on his behalf. And he meant actual persecution. By the Romans. Like imprisonment, floggings, even death. Not having protesters with rainbow flags trying to make you feel bad.

But, as always, conservatives want to have it both ways.
They want to stand up for discrimination and be spared any consequences.
So enjoy the unemployment line, homophobic assholes!





a

JEB! thinks you're lazy

Had some trouble with the wi-fi for a few days. Fortunately, the Missus is good at technological things, so she got it working again. So, I've been out of the loop a bit.

Anywayyyyyy. . . .

Here's a thing that happened while I was offline:

Jeb Bush: People Need to Work Longer Hours

Jul 8, 2015, 6:35 PM ET

By CANDACE SMITH

JEB! Bush, a man who has never had a real job in his life because he was born with a silver spoon up his ass, thinks Americans need to work more hours.
Let's see his reasoning:

“My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours” and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in.” 

Geez, where to begin?
First of all, Americans already work more hours than people in  the rest of the modern world.






Secondly, I know you've never actually had a real job, so let me explain how it works. There are two kinds of jobs in the real world. Hourly and salaried. (for the most part. I know there's piece-work and commission, but mostly there are two types.) If your job is of the salaried variety, no amount of extra hours you work is going to result in "more income for your family." It may result in more profits for your company, but that absolutely does not translate into more monies for you.
If your job is of the hourly variety, you do not have the option to work more hours. You can't say to your boss "I'm a little light on cash this week, so I'm just gonna go ahead and put in some overtime." Every company I've ever worked for has had a strict "no unauthorized overtime" policy. You can actually get fired for working extra hours that weren't requested by your boss.

Even if you're a part-timer and your extra hours wouldn't be overtime, you're not allowed to choose to work extra. The first thing members of management learn in their training is that the number-one controllable expense for the company is payroll. There are always targets they have to meet for the number of man-hours used per day, per week, per month, and it's fine to come in under target, but they're going to catch hell if their department comes in over hours.


Third, the whole "increased productivity" thing is a scam. We're always told that by increasing their productivity, workers make themselves more valuable and are therefore able to command higher wages. It's bullshit. Increased productivity means that your company can now do more work with fewer employees. And if you think that entitles you to a raise, well there's a bunch of guys we just laid off that would love to come in here and do your job for less.

So, to whom is this campaign talking point supposed to appeal? Certainly not voters. I can't imagine the electorate wants to be told that it's your fault the economy isn't better because your lazy ass isn't working more hours. Is this just to appeal to the Kochs and the other big donors who like the idea of Bob Cratchit having to work on Christmas and he'd better shut up about wanting more coal?

Because this seems to be the sort of thing you would say to them privately. praying that none of the waiters has his cameraphone on. You know, if you actually want to win.

So is JEB! trying to win? I mean, I'm sure he'd like to, but I don't think even he thinks he has a chance. I don't remember who said it, but someone said that this campaign is not about JEB! actually winning the White House, because he's not delusional enough to think he could. And he probably isn't in this race to increase his media profile, because he already has the name recognition. The theory is that this campaign is for his son. To show him the ropes, introduce him to important people, teach him which asses to kiss to make money fall out of them.Makes sense to me. Because there's no way he can possibly think he has a chance to actually win this.

I'm Back. What'd I Miss?

Did I mention I was going out of town? 'Cuz I kinda feel like I forgot to mention that I was going out of town. Anyway, I'm back now. So what did I miss?

let's see. . .

1. Jim Webb announced his intent to run for President, despite having absolutely no constituency.  A pro-Confederate Democrat? You're about 150 years too late. The Dixiecrats are gone. They've all become Republicans and the Reagan Democrats joined them 30 years ago. Who's your target market?

2. Zero Republicans have spoken out against Donald Trump's blatant racism. And as far as I know, none have been asked to do so. Because it's not like he's Rev. Wright, or Sista Souljah. I mean, how hard is it? It's not like coming out against racism is exactly a stance that requires a lot of courage. You wouldn't even have to get on your high horse or anything. You'd just have to roll your eyes and say "Yeah, that's why no one takes Trump seriously. He's a freakin clown." But not one of the seventy thousand declared Republican candidates have had even that miniscule amount of courage. They are all so terrified of offending the racist fringe that they can't even do that.
In fact, at least two of them have stepped up to defend him

‘I SALUTE Donald Trump!’ – Ted Cruz DEFENDS comments on illegal immigration

Rick Santorum Jumps On Donald Trump Bandwagon, Says Immigrants ‘Are Coming With Bad Intent’

 Pathetic!

 3. Texas governor Greg Abbott continues his plunge off sanity cliff.
He has apparently created  a sort of local Fort Knox to store all of Texas's gold.


He doesn't seem to have a plan for where the gold is going to come from, or where it's going to be stored, or what the hell the point of any of this is supposed to be, except to pretend that Texas is it's own country that don't need no dern Federal Guv'mint.

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) 
The law doesn't say where the depository would be or how it should be built or secured. No funding was provided for those purposes or for leasing space elsewhere. Further complicating matters is a provision allowing ordinary people to check their own gold or silver bullion into the facility.
"We are honestly at the phase where the questions we are answering are creating more questions that we have to answer," said Chris Bryan, a comptroller's office spokesman.

4. A nutty racist asshole from the upper Midwest was arrested for threatening the life of the President. And it wasn't Ted Nugent.

.

Brian D. Dutcher, 55, is accused of threatening to kill President Barack Obama.

“I have been praying on going to D.C. for 3 months and now the upsurper is coming HERE. saving me a 800 mile trip,” Dutcher further explained. “Doing what I do for my daughter, so she can live free. pray for me to succeed in my mission.”
The warrant also says Dutcher posted on Facebook on June 30 "that's it! Thursday I will be in La Crosse. Hopefully I will get a clear shot at the pretend president. Killing him is our CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY!"

Clearly, this guy is just a looney and not at all influenced by a steady diet of Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and FOX.

And the most important news story I missed while away:




In case there was any doubt, American women are the best women in the world.

Another abstinece-only success strory!

So the queen of "traditional family values" is soon to have yet another conceived-out-of-wedlock grandchild.

Big News

June 25, 2015 by Bristol Palin

 I wanted you guys to be the first to know that I am pregnant. . . But please respect Tripp’s and my privacy during this time. I do not want any lectures

Oh, you don't want any lectures? Said the woman who made a buttload of money giving abstinence lectures. I'm sure a lot of the kids who were forced to sit through them didn't really want any lectures either.

I'm sure President Obama wasn't really looking for a lecture from a little nobody like you when you posted this snide little shot:

While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads.  In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage.  Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home.

Yes, kids must have both parents in the home, says the woman who will soon be raising two small children with zero fathers in the home.

At the end of the day there’s nothing I can’t do with God by my side, and I know I am fully capable of handling anything that is put in front of me with dignity and grace.

Dignity and grace? Well, there's a first time for everything!

My little family always has, and always will come first.
Tripp, this new baby, and I will all be fine, because God is merciful.

 Um, yeah, you'll be fine because there's a bottomless supply of wingnut welfare. There are probably still some people who will pay you to moralize about abstinence, there will be book deals and reality TV shows and God knows what else.

Also, remember this?

Put a Ring on It

April 18, 2012 by Bristol Palin
Have you ever heard of “shacking up?”  Now, people describe living together with a more complimentary phrase: “a trial marriage.” And apparently, it’s all the rage:

Um, no one has used the phrase "trial marriage" since the Carter Administration. And living together isn't exactly "all the rage," it's just something people do.

In fact, you may have even recently heard rumors I’m living with my boyfriend. . .
Here’s the thing.  It’s not true. As I mentioned before, I recently bought a home across the lake from my parents’ house.  While it’s under renovation, I’m actually living in an apartment on their property.  Rest assured — there’s no way on earth my mom and dad would allow a guy to spend the night here with me.

In a wine-cooler-soaked tent at  a campground, sure, but not here!

But even if I weren’t temporarily living on their property, I wouldn’t move in with someone. Why? Well, new evidence reported in the New York Times suggests what the Bible has already told us: living together before marriage does not lead to happiness.

Sure, you're much happier if that bum goes back to his own place after knocking you up!

These so-called “trial marriages” hurt men, women, and children.  So, all of you girls who’ve said yes to sex in the wrong context know this: you don’t have to say yes to living with someone in the wrong context too.
I guess it’s unanimous.  Because now we have the Bible, the New York Times, and even Beyonce suggesting the best way to secure relationship success is to… “put a ring on it.”

Yeahhhh. . . by my count, there've been two fellas now to put a ring on ya. And yet. . .

But don't worry. None of this is your fault. Because you're a conservative, so nothing can ever be your fault.

World's worst judge dissents

Earlier today, the Supreme Court decided 6-3 that the Affordable Care Act's subsidies can not be taken away from people who are unfortunate enough to live in red states because of one line of unfortunate phrasing in the million-word legal document that is the ACA. Naturally, corrupt slovenly bag of rage Antonin Scalia was one of the three who disagreed for totally non-partisan not-at-all-hacky reasons. And he wrote the dissent. Which he apparently red aloud from the bench to preserve his jackassery for posterity.

Here are a few of his gems of legal wisdom.

(I had to copy these from pdf to a Word document to blogger, so I apologize for any weird formatting that results)

This case requires us to decide whether someone who

buys insurance on an Exchange established by the

 Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would

be obvious—so obvious there would hardly be a need for

the Supreme Court to hear a case about it.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? But here we are.

Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is

not established by a State is “established by the State.” It

is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits

to state Exchanges than to use the words “established by

the State.” And it is hard to come up with a reason to

include the words “by the State” other than the purpose of

limiting credits to state Exchanges.

 Hmm, why would they have included those 4 words? Why why why? If only there were some way to reach back through the mists of time and ask the authors of this bill what they intended. But, alas, their intent is lost to history.  Oh, wait. They're all still alive? And some of them actually testified before the Supreme Court? In this very case? But how?

The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges.

It accepts that the “most natural sense” of the phrase “Exchange established by the

State” is an Exchange established by a State.

Ante,at 11.

(Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Afford-

able Care Act!) Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that “it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchanges—both State and Federal.”

Ante, at  13.

(Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the

Affordable Care Act!)

 Okay, first of all, don't try to be funny. You're not funny. And even if you were funny, it seems a bit beneath the dignity of a Justice of the Supreme Court to add snide little asides to his opinion.
Secondly, holy fuck, are you seriously going to pretend that thos four little words override the entire intent of this jillion-word law? Seriously?

The Court claims that “the context

and structure of the Act compel [it] to depart from what

would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

Ante,at 21.

I wholeheartedly agree with the Court that sound interpretation requires paying attention to the whole law, not homing in on isolated words or even isolated sections.

Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms ofthe law, not an excuse for rewriting them.

He little thinks how successfully he has pleaded his rival's cause!"

Thank you, Josephine! If anyone is trying to "re-write the law" it's Scalia and his fellow right-wing hacks.

The Court’s next bit of interpretive jiggery-pokery involves other parts of the Act that purportedly presuppose the availability of tax credits on both federal and state  Exchanges.

 I'm sorry, the next bit of interpretive what now? "Jiggery-pokery?" Hey, dumb it down a little, yer honor, we didn't all go to law school!

Jiggery-pokery.

 Jiggery-pokery?

You're supposed to be one of the top legal scholars in the nation. You've famously claimed to be too smart for the Supreme Court. Jiggery-pokery? Is that some legal term you thought up whilst tinkerin' with yer tractor out'n the cornfield?

The Court persists that these provisions “would make little sense” if no tax credits were available on federal Exchanges.

Ante,at 14.

Even if that observation were true, it would show only oddity, not ambiguity. Laws often include unusual or mismatched provisions. The  Affordable Care Act spans 900 pages; it would be amazing if its provisions all lined up perfectly with each other.

Um. yeah. That's the whole point. Are you sure you're arguing the dissent?

Compounding its errors, the Court forgets that it is no more appropriate to consider one of a statute’s purposes in isolation than it is to consider one of its words that way.

Exactly! It is not appropriate to consider one i-of the law's words in isolation. Just like you said. But yet, your entire dissent is based on the fact that "they used the word state, so that means state and state only," without any consideration of the other bajillion fucking words in this 900-page law.

Our only evidence of what Congress meant comes from the terms of the law, and those terms show beyond all question that tax credits are available only on state Exchanges

Oh fer fuck sake.
You know, these conservative judges never tire of talking about "original intent." How we must be forever bound by the intentions of the founding fathers, and how only they, the "Constitutional Conservatives" can interpret that intent. But when they have a chance to actually pick up a phone, call Ms Pelosi's or Mr Reid's office and ask what the intent of this law is, suddenly there's just no way to tell except what is written upon this sacred parchment. That's "our only evidence of what Congress meant." What a sad, pathetic hack Scalia is!










a
a
a
a