Rachel Maddow last night, the night before the oral arguments that the Supreme Court heard today (audio here) on California’s Prop. 8:
“…The politics surrounding this legal matter are increasingly weighty and predictable on the left. And on the right, they are increasingly incoherent and low-rent and even occasionally pathetic.”
“Traditional marriage has been around for thousands of years. Same-sex marriage is very new. I think it was first adopted in The Netherlands in 2000. So there isn’t a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a — a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe.
“But you want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution, which is newer than cell phones or the Internet? I mean we — we are not — we do not have the ability to see the future. On a question like that, of such fundamental importance, why should it not be left for the people, either acting through initiatives and referendums or through their elected public officials?”
Alito’s argument seems to be one focused on the calendar. Perhaps, the theory goes, millions of Americans can be denied equal rights for an indefinite period of time, and jurists can revisit the issue in the future. At that point, they can revisit whether or not allowing two consenting adults to get married is “a good thing.”
Remember the fine print in the Declaration of Independence? We have an inalienable right to liberty and the pursuit happiness, just so long as the specific type of happiness is older than mobile telephones.
These are rights we’re talking about. Equality. Civil rights, equal rights, marriage equality.
The phrase “tyranny of the majority” (or “tyranny of the masses“), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, envisions a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots.[1] In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process.
I was one of many who called Reid’s office yesterday to insist on a vote so we can see exactly which Democrats (and of course, Republicans) will not support a ban.
This was one of those pressers you want to watch. I teared up.
Biden:
“[Background checks] worked. They all had a positive impact on public safety. They all had a positive impact on public safety.
“I did an interview… saying, ‘Well the impact on each one was only this, that, or the other.’ That’s like saying we shouldn’t have taken lead out of gasoline because it didn’t end global warming. It had a positive impact. It wasn’t the whole answer. Combined, these are common sense approaches…
“Three months ago a deranged man walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School with a weapon of war… And that weapon of war has no place on American streets, and taking it off American streets has no impact on one’s constitutional right to own a weapon… Justice Scalia… acknowledged that the government has a right to limit certain weapons from being able to be possessed by American citizens.
“So let’s get this straight: This is not about anybody’s constitutional right to own a weapon.
“This same young man… came loaded with one thirty-round magazine after another. One after another. An estimated 150 bullets were fired by this young man. And the police responded in two and one half minutes.
“Tell me that you can’t take off the street these weapons of war?
“Think about how many of these children and teachers may be alive today had he had to reload 3 times as many times as he did. Think about what happened… where Gabby Giffords… was shot… Think about when that young man had to try to change the clip. Had he only had a ten round clip, when he changed the clip and fumbled and had it knocked out of his hands, how many more people would have been alive?
“And tell me, tell me how it violates anyone’s constitutional right to be limited to a clip that holds TEN rounds instead of 30. Or in Aurora, 100.
“The vast majority of the American people, the vast majority of gun owners, even close to a majority of NRA members who only represent 4 million of the gun owners of America, think what the … president has proposed is simple common sense.
“It matters if even one of their children were alive because of what we’ve done.
“I’m not gonna rest, nor is the president, until we do all of these things. All of these things. Enhance the safety of the American people and do not diminish one iota, not one iota, any constitutionally guaranteed right of any American.“
Thank you @MzYun for linking me to this tweet from NBC’s Domenico Montanaro (@DomenicoNBC):
Ann Coulter:
“The keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention this year was forcible rapist, Bill Clinton.”
Did you catch the audience reaction? Everything from gasps and ooohs to laughter and applause. Yes, you all heard it, many in the audience expressed their approval of Coulter accusing former President Bill Clinton of forcible rape, loudly and clearly.
Additionally, I’m sure rape victims everywhere (not to mention the Clintons) got a real kick out of Ann’s little remark. Of course, she’d deny that there’s a GOP war on women (or anything else, for that matter), but she’s there for the attention and book sales, not political correctness. Sensitivity and taste have nothing to do with her self-serving agenda.
Coulter’s oral flatulence urped up so many offensive things that I lost count. I will not post the entire video (nor did I watch it), so you’ll have to find it for yourselves; but if you do, make sure you have some Valium and/or a good stiff drink and/or some Pepto Bismol handy.
As I’ve said before, the above lame attempts at wit (or in their cases, half wit) by Republicans inexplicably continue to get laughs… from other Republicans. And each time this occurs, these pathetic clowns get a pass on this particular brand of what passes for humor.
Every now and then on Twitter, I get a notification of an impending “Twitter bomb.” That means that at a specified time, as many people as possible organize to tweet a certain hashtag (#) so that a message will be sent out in large numbers, simultaneously, get a lot of attention, and hopefully trend.
Last night I got word that #WhyRepublicansNeedToGo would be the hashtag du jour. I decided to jump in for the heck of it and posted a couple of tweets like (if I remember correctly): “#WhyRepublicansNeedToGo Two words: Eric Cantor. Two more: Paul Ryan” and “#WhyRepublicansNeedToGo Gay rights, civil rights, women’s rights, voting rights, and that’s just for starters.”
I mentioned nothing about Rand Paul (who delivered the ninth longest filibuster in U.S. history), other than to retweet breaking news updates. I didn’t say whether I agreed or disagreed with him or with the speaking filibuster or with his efforts to block John Brennan’s confirmation. I offered no opinion one way or the other.
However, had anyone bothered to ask, which nobody did, I would have said that I support a speaking filibuster (and oppose incessant GOP obstruction), I am not thrilled with Brennan, I am against the use of drones to target Americans, I am for major oversight of the use of drones by any president, I am for due process, getting a fair trial in a U.S. (civilian) court of law, and against assassinating Americans and denying them the option to give themselves up.
That said, I got an onslaught of trolls, all of them Rand Paul devotees, sending inane, nasty, baiting, and/or stupid tweets last night shortly after Twitter Bomb Thirty.
I’m sharing a few of them with you because 1) I’ve been meaning to do expose you to some of the extreme comments I get for awhile now to show you what many of us deal with on a daily basis, and 2) to point out the mentality of most of the tweets I get from Republicans and Libertarians. They always initiate these direct “conversations,” I never do.
What concerns me is not so much the infantile nature of the tweets, because that’s easy enough to ignore, but that so many people (or perhaps bots, accounts created solely for this purpose) have such hostility, anger, misinformation, ignorance, and feel the necessity to repeatedly direct it at those with whom they disagree. Even after I inform trolls that they are being blocked, they continue to obliviously tweet me as if I can see their tweets (there are ways to see them, which is how I know they do this).
Their irrationality and rage infects nearly every tweet.
Republicans, be careful what and whom you rile up, incite, and embrace. As the Southern Poverty Law Center is warning, this is fast becoming another Oklahoma City bombing waiting to happen:
Below are a few samples of what I was bombarded with last night. Notably, a recurring theme is that, after they enter my stream with intentionally provocative tweets and/or misinformation and I choose to block, they default to phony outrage. They get huffy and whiny over being deprived of their First Amendment rights, which of course, pertain to government censorship, not Twitter’s option to block tweets:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I didn’t know that I lacked rights as a woman. Are you referring to little women in the womb? (I remember commenting about how developed the fetus must be if she’s referring to it as a little woman)
Another liberal that hates free speech if it means having a different opinion: @GottaLaff who blocks people she’s too ignorant to debate.
@JustinYoung30 (who apparently thinks teachers are worthy of disdain):
@GottaLaff no shit you’re not a republican. That’s your problem. I’m gonna guess you’re a teacher or leaching the system
@goodolick (3 followers, and please note the spelling of “you’re” from the account who called me stupid.):
@GottaLaff your a special kind of stupid aren’t you?
@KicheMalko (Bio: hard and raw with no regard for the law):
@GottaLaff “civil rights” like letting illegal immigrants live have welfare and food stamps? “voting rights” like let illegals vote?
@GottaLaff i dont know how im being rude but i think you need to be a little more educated on something called the constitution (I believe I reminded Malko that civil rights are indeed constitutional and that nobody has ever suggested that anyone should be allowed to vote illegally.)
What is the cause of all their anger? Why do they feel so afraid? Is it our African American president? Is it that whites are becoming a minority? Is it that they have an unhealthy reliance on firearms and solving problems with violence, so they feel common sense gun safety measures are a threat? Is it the “civil war” within their own party that makes them uneasy? They’re feeling powerless, so they have to dominate in inappropriate and dangerous ways?
Whatever it is, it is not good for this country, and they need to start listening more, agree to disagree, grow up, read and become aware of facts instead of relying solely on sources like Fox for their talking points, educate themselves, research, become more willing to hear opposing views, try using some civility, empathize, and realize we’re all in this together.
There are so many violence-based stories in the headlines these days, so bleak, so wrong, and how insane is that. Shattering lives at the point of a gun is becoming epidemic… spread by irrational fear and paranoia instead of disease.
Sleepyhead, close your eyes. Mother’s right here beside you. I’ll protect you from harm, You will wake in my arms. Guardian angels are near, So sleep on, with no fear. Guardian angels are near, So sleep on, with no fear.
The White House has released a very cool photo of President Obama editing his inauguration address in what appears to be very legible (albeit too small for us to see clearly) handwriting.
Is anyone else geeking out in a good way over this image?
(CNN) –The official White House photo was taken by Obama’s top photographer Pete Souza. The caption says Obama was working with Jon Favreau, his outgoing speechwriter, in the Oval Office on January 16.
I zoomed in and tried to sharpen it up a little, but it’s still too small to read. Follow the CNN link for more:
Would you like to donate to The Political Carnival monthly? You can on our Support TPC page.
The Political Carnival is a fast paced Progressive political site that combines humor with dead serious, dementia with politics (synonymous?), and sprinkles in idiosyncratic posts with breaking news.
Lt. Col Barry Wingard is the lawyer for Gitmo detainee Fayiz Al-Kandari. For their ongoing story + related topics, please click on the link below: Kuwaiti Citizen Detained at Guantanamo since 2002
You can read the complete story here or on Wikipedia.
Subscribe to The Political Carnival Newsfeed via Wikio
The Political Carnival is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com.
Photographs on The Political Carnival site (please read):
Photographs from other sources sometimes appear on TPC for humorous or illustrative purposes. As it is not our intention to use these images in any inappropriate manner or to infringe upon any rights held by others, anyone holding legal rights in the use of these images who wishes to have them taken down please contact us immediately requesting such removal, with which we will comply promptly.
Link
TPC RSS Posts Feed
TPC Comments Feed
