Powered by TypePad

« So What About That Confederate Battle Flag? | Main | When Life Hands You Lemons... »

June 26, 2015



That's not enough beer.


This won't go anywhere, but bill to put SC & staff on Obamacare. (& the hill has gone autostart vids-- damn them!!)


"This won't go anywhere.."


Miss Marple

Thanks, Jeff! Have a great trip!


Ann Coulter, 2005:


After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.

So all we know about him for sure is that he can't dance and he probably doesn't know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah ... We also know he's argued cases before the Supreme Court. Big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney.

But unfortunately, other than that that, we don't know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.

It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said:

"In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-'93 term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States."


Finally, let's ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That's just unnatural.

By contrast, I held out for three months, tops, before dropping my first rhetorical bombshell, which I think was about Goldwater.

It's especially unnatural for someone who is smart, and there's no question but that Roberts is smart.

If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, he'd better be pursuing the Miss America title.

Apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever. It's as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell. Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that.

If the Senate were in Democrat hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate!

Miss Marple


Miss Marple


Old Lurker

No Obamacare. No minimum wage. No Green Cards. No unions. No Workers Comp.

"An Australian engineer has built a robot that can build houses in two hours, and could work every day to build houses for people.

Human housebuilders have to work for four to six weeks to put a house together, and have to take weekends and holidays. The robot can work much more quickly and doesn’t need to take breaks.

Hadrian could take the jobs of human bricklayers. But its creator, Mark Pivac, told PerthNow that it was a response to the lack of available workers — the average age of the industry is getting much higher, and the robot might be able to fill some of that gap.

“People have been laying bricks for about 6000 years and ever since the industrial revolution, they have tried to automate the bricklaying process,” Pivac told PerthNow, which first reported his creation. But despite the thousands of years of housebuilding, most bricklaying is still done by hand.

Hadrian works by laying 1000 bricks an hour, letting it put up 150 houses a year.

It takes a design of the house and then works out where all of the bricks need to go, before cutting and laying each of them. It has a 28-foot arm, which is used to set and mortar the brick, and means that it doesn’t need to move during the laying.


No matter how low your opinion of Washington DC, it's nothing compared to Washington DC's low opinion of you.

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) June 25, 2015

Unabomber or Pope Francis?

"The idea of promoting a different cultural paradigm and employing technology as a mere instrument is nowadays inconceivable. The technological paradigm has become so dominant that it would be difficult to do without its resources and even more difficult to utilize them without being dominated by their internal logic. It has become countercultural to choose a lifestyle whose goals are even partly independent of technology, of its costs and its power to globalize and make us all the same."
Miss Marple

The snark grows strong on Twitter:

Daniel Foster ‏@DanFosterType 20h20 hours ago

Congress should pass a bill the entire text of which is “Flying cars, bitches.” And then be like, let SCOTUS deal with it.
52 retweets 42 favorites


Official seal.


Cispigmented Heteronormative Microagressive Ignatz

Yuval Levin on King v Burwell.

Barry--So five years in, what we are talking about is no longer just a law. It’s no longer just a theory. This isn’t even just about the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare. This isn’t about myths or rumors that folks try to sustain. There is a reality that people on the ground day to day are experiencing. Their lives are better. This is now part of the fabric of how we care for one another. This is health care in America.--

Levin--We will no doubt hear from some on the Left that the law is now entrenched and the debate should now end, as, again, they have been arguing from day one.--

Those quotes not only explain that the Left is even more reactionary and conservative than the right; they just save their knee jerk reactions and instinct to conserve for their own sick institutions, once in place.
They also explain why the Dems, the left and progressives were so enamored of slavery and state enforced segregation.


Buckle up, more SC rulings on tap.

Old Lurker

No sweat Henry. Their work is done. Nothing left to save now anyway. It's just cleanup remaining.

Captain Hate

OL, are you on board with me for Article V?


OL, only question is will they remember to turn off the lights in the EPA thing.

Old Lurker

I am Cap'n, though I hold little hope it would resolve anything since there are not many Founders among us anymore, and memories are so short and history now distorted that even fewer appreciate what our Founders were fleeing in the mess Europe had become. What MIGHT result, though, is a proposed rewrite by Conservatives/Libertarians which might become a founding document of a country to be formed by breakaway states. Think how little tinkering just you and I could add to the original documents now that we see how they have corrupted what we have.

Jack in Bah'sten


How do you limit Article V conventions to just one or two Amendments? If there is a way, I am all for it but if it opens up the 2nd, and even 1st or God forbid the 22nd then I am with JamesD.


CH, why would anyone pay attention to the results given :

The Chief Justice has the principal dissent, which is 31 pages long. Toward the end of it, he says, "If you are among the many Americans--of whatever sexual orientation--who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not Celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it." (from scotusblog live chat, my emphasis)

Cispigmented Heteronormative Microagressive Ignatz

Gay marriage legalized by judicial fiat.


That from Roberts, after yesterday.

Captain Hate

JiB, the only limit is the will of the voters. I still say a 2/3 majority wards off the chances of anything too extreme happening. Having Wyoming, Texas and Utah being on the same footing as New York, Massachusetts and California is a powerful deterrent to the extreme libs.

Cispigmented Heteronormative Microagressive Ignatz

Kennedy and the four horse's asses of the apocalypse in the majority.


The end.

Captain Hate

Anybody want to join me in burning a rainbow flag?


Apparently I can now marry Kiwi in all 50 states!

Cispigmented Heteronormative Microagressive Ignatz

At some point as we are fundamentally transformed from the Constitutional republic the founders established we will have to resolve to burn the American flag.

Miss Marple

Local radio guy asks, "If gay marriage is a civil right, then does speaking against it or refusing it in your church become a civil rights violation?"


Jack iis Back!

Damn it. I am no longer in Boston. Thought I had changed it last night.

So SCOTUS is an evolving political apparatus from defender of the Constitution to the political enforcement arm of the Democrat criminal enterprise.

Article V? How about an updated version of the Declaration of Independence? I wonder what village or town will be our new Lexington or Concord?

Jack is Back!


Miss Marple

Since the country is obviously in the grip of some mental breakdown, I am gong to go run my errands.

Given the events of the morning, I will keep an eye out for terrorists armed with Confederate Battle Flags. One can't be too careful, you know.

Back after lunch.

Cispigmented Heteronormative Microagressive Ignatz

Why couldn't that Roof guy have done something useful and plugged four five white creeps wearing black robes and not inclined to pray at all?

The majority began its opinion with the line. "The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity."

Scalia wrote that if he ever were to join an opinion that began with that sentence he "would hide my head in a bag," saying such language was more like the "mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie," than John Marshall.


Scalia pokes fun at the language the majority used in its opinion.

The majority wrote "The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality."

To which Scalia responded.

Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.

Yeah ext, unless that identity incldes a flag with an X and some stars on it.


Apparently I can now marry Kiwi in all 50 states!

No offense, Jane, but I’ll save you, Kiwi!


Funny: Yahoo News reports two self-driving cars almost collide as a Google car cuts off a Delphi car.

Competition in the marketplace!


I want to know if you are going through Cairo and Paducah. It looks like it from the map, but I can't really tell.


Wait. What? The Four Dems voted as a block? Impossible.

Marlene on the phone

I'm just going to sit here in the woods and start drinking.
Jack,if you have time tomorrow,take the overland route thru the mountains.


This is interesting -

Prior to this ruling, in how many states was same-sex marriage already legal?

37. Of those 37, 26 were decided by court decision, 8 by the state legislatures, and 3 by popular vote. The breakdown is as follows:

By Court Decision

Alabama (Feb. 9, 2015), Alaska (Oct. 17, 2014), Arizona (Oct. 17, 2014), California (June 28, 2013), Colorado (Oct. 7, 2014), Connecticut (Nov. 12, 2008), Florida (Jan. 6, 2015), Idaho (Oct. 13, 2014), Indiana (Oct. 6, 2014), Iowa (Apr. 24, 2009), Kansas (Nov. 12, 2014), Massachusetts (May 17, 2004), Montana (Nov. 19, 2014), Nevada (Oct. 9, 2014), New Jersey (Oct. 21, 2013), New Mexico (Dec. 19, 2013), North Carolina (Oct. 10, 2014), Oklahoma (Oct. 6, 2014), Oregon (May 19, 2014), Pennsylvania (May 20, 2014), South Carolina (Nov. 20, 2014), Utah (Oct. 6, 2014), Virginia (Oct. 6, 2014), West Virginia (Oct. 9, 2014), Wisconsin (Oct. 6, 2014), and Wyoming (Oct. 21, 2014).

By State Legislature

Delaware (July 1, 2013), Hawaii (Dec. 2, 2013), Illinois (June 1, 2014), Minnesota (Aug. 1, 2013), New Hampshire (Jan. 1, 2010), New York (July 24, 2011), Rhode Island (Aug. 1, 2013), and Vermont (Sep. 1, 2009).

By Popular Vote

Maine (Dec. 29, 2012), Maryland (Jan. 1, 2013), and Washington (Dec. 9, 2012).

How many states had banned same-sex marriage?

13. Of those 12 were by constitutional amendment and state law and 1 by constitutional amendment only; 8 of them have had their bans overturned by the courts, but the appeals were still in progress at the time of this ruling. The breakdown is as follows:

By Constitutional Amendment and State Law

Arkansas (2004, 1997), Georgia (2004, 1996), Kentucky (2004, 1998), Louisiana (2004, 1999), Michigan (2004, 1996), Mississippi (2004, 1997), Missouri (2004, 1996), North Dakota (2004, 1997), Ohio (2004, 2004), South Dakota (2006, 1996), Tennessee (2006, 1996), and Texas (2005, 1997).


"We the people" are done. Courts & advocacy organizations are runnin' America.


Kennedy is the weak link
Term limits for justices. 15 years max


Gay. Marriage no longer a were issue for Dems
This ruling will hurt them down south


Should be wedge

Pagar a bacon, ham and sausage supporter

I thought the leftists just took over the South? Are they going to allow Southerners to think like they used to?

The comments to this entry are closed.