Quote of the Day

Weird. Conservative male says he doesn't feel affected by a boss' ability to deny women birth control coverage at all.

— LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) July 16, 2014

The lack of empathy from conservative men is part of the problem. For instance, the five justices that ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby are conservative Catholic men.

Ginsburg's Hobby Lobby Dissent Made Into A Song

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores has been turned into a song by musician Jonathan Mann.

Side note: there is also an opera called Scalia/Ginsburg by composer Derrick Wang. Justice Ginsberg and Justice Antonin Scalia have heard the opera and both are fans.

The libretto draws heavily from the decisions of the two jurists — good friends who frequently differ in their interpretation of the Constitution but heartily agree in their love of the opera. Scalia is portrayed by a tenor, Ginsburg by a soprano.

After hearing a preview of Wang’s work in progress, the real-life and deeper-voiced Scalia told National Public Radio that “the music was wonderful,” adding, “you know, if I had my choice I’d be a tenor.” Ginsburg remarked that “if God could give me any talent in the world, I would be a great diva.”

President Obama Calls Proposition 8 Plaintiffs

President Barack Obama called Proposition 8 plaintiffs Paul Katami, Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier from Air Force One. Obama congratulated the plaintiffs on their Supreme Court victory. It is a nice moment for three people whom have been fighting for their civil rights.

Special Interest Politics v. Reality

If the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, I would like one card-carrying member of the left -- just one -- to admit that this is about the Constitutionality of the law; not health care.

After admitting that, I would then like that one honest member of the left to admit that the Obama administration royally fucked up by forcing through a health care bill that was unlawful; and instead of advancing the cause of health coverage for all, the Obama administration set this cause back by decades because they fucked up.

This is no longer about idealism, this is about reality. The time for cheerleaders, pom-poms, rah-rahs and sis-boom-fucking-bahs is over. We may vote for a politician, and we may generally like a politician, but if they royally fuck up then it's about time we hold them accountable.

Just saying.

ACLU Challenges Scott's Drug-Testing Policy

The ACLU has filed suit against Florida's new law drug-testing state employees.

Governor Scott’s Executive Order directed all state agencies under the direction of the Governor to develop plans to allow drug testing existing state employees at least quarterly. The order attempts to resurrect a policy previously found unconstitutional by a federal judge in a 2004 ACLU case against the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ). That suit found the random drug testing of state employees without suspicion was unconstitutional. The plaintiff was awarded a settlement t of $150,000.

“I’m not sure if Governor Scott does not know that the policy he ordered has already been declared unconstitutional or if he just doesn’t care,” said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida. “But I do know that the state of Florida cannot force people to surrender their constitutional rights in order to work for the state.”

Existing law and court rulings allow for drug testing of public employees in positions that are safety-sensitive such as police who are required to carry a weapon as part of the job or those in positions while require operating dangerous machinery. But courts have routinely found that testing of all employees without regard for safety-sensitive positions or suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable government searches.

The Supreme Court ruled in Skinner v. Railway Lab. Execs. Ass'n that federal rail road employees could be randomly drug-tested. The court ruled that public safety outweighed the privacy matters of the employees. What Scott's executive order is doing is drug-testing all state employees. Scott is assuming all state employees are doing drugs. Previous legal rulings deemed there must be probable cause before drug-testing a state employee. Translation: the employee has to show signs he is doing drugs.

The ACLU has not said if they will file suit against people receiving unemployment being required to take a drug test.

Marco Rubio: Constitutional Scholar

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the Supreme Court majority opinion for SNYDER v. PHELPS. The Supreme Court ruled that the mean-spirited protests of the Westboro Baptist Church was protected under the First amendment.

Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, “the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.”

Roberts acknowledged that Westboro did the protest of fallen military veterans to gain publicity. Where Roberts drew the line was in restricting free speech. That doesn't stop Marco Rubio from being a co-sponsor of the bill Sanctity of Eternal Rest for Veterans.

Rubio, a first-term Republican from Miami, added his name to the list of senatorial sponsors.

"The men and women of our military who gave the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country deserve to be buried in peace and with honor," Rubio said in a statement issued this week. "I'm proud to support this common sense legislation that honors our nation's heroes."

The proposed bill is backed by a variety of military support groups, including the gold Star Wives of America and the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

"Several of our members have been forced to endure these unseemly, irreverent protests at the funerals of their beloved fallen spouse," said a statement released by the Gold Star Wives. "Losing a beloved husband or wife is traumatic enough without also having to endure these protestors and their nasty signs and obnoxious behavior."

Lawmakers making legislation that is suppose to serve a narrow cause is always a bad idea. Gov. Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature approved Terri's law. The sole goal of the bill was to keep the brain dead Terri Schiavo from being taken off life support. Conservatives lost every legal battle on the Schiavo case. The Supreme Court refused to hear the Schiavo case.

Terri's law was unconstitutional because it violated to Equal Protection clause. All laws are suppose to apply equally. Laws can not be made to apply to a single person. The Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional because they only applied to blacks. What Rubio is co-sponsoring violates the first and 14 amendments of the constitution.

Martin Peretz Has A Dumb Idea To Deal With Dove World Outreach Center

Martin Peretz has the horrible idea that President Obama should have the Supreme Court order an injunction against the Dove World Outreach Center's plan to burn the Koran.

In fact, it is uncivilized. I believe that the Obama administration should go to the Supreme Court or maybe tactically to the most sensible and civilized appellate court and seek an injunction against this atrocity that 1. will encourage Muslim madmen to respond in kind and 2. will also encourage primitive Christians to extend and expand the auto da fé.

The Supreme Court will not even hear the case. As stupid as the plans Pastor Terry Jones and his followers are the Supreme Court is not going to rule against the church's freedom of religion and expression. There has to be a serious constitutional question for the Supreme Court to step in. The Koran burning will likely place U.S. soldiers in harm's way Providing security for U.S. military personal is the role for policymakers and the Department of Defense. The Supreme Court is to be used to rule on the law. Not to give the President free reign to silence people he disagrees with.

A legal way to stop the Koran burning is Gainesville fire ordinances. Deputy Chief Tim Hayes has already stated that the planned burning on September 11th is illegal.

Under Section 10-63, "Open burning and outdoor burning are prohibited in the City of Gainesville unless otherwise specifically permitted as provided by this article."

Peretz is the blogging equivalent of Kanye West. A post will appear online and insanity ensues.

Elena Kagan Endorsed by 2 Live Crew

In 1990, Elena Kagan filed an amicus brief for the RIAA on 2 Live Crew album Nasty As They Wanna Be. Kagan wrote that the album wasn't obscene because no one could feel a tingle between their legs after listening to such classics as Fuck Shop.

Nasty does not physically excite anyone who hears it, much less arouse a shameful and morbid sexual response.

2 Live Crew Frontman Luther Campbell has endorsed Kagan.

She is not going to let any person or group tell her what is right or wrong. Kagan will judge each case based on the law of the land. She has demonstrated she can protect the Constitution by doing the fine work she did to protect 2 Live Crew's freedom of speech.

This has to be the most awesome endorsement ever.

Grassley's Asks Kagan if Second Amendment is Right Given By God

Sen. Charles Grassley asked Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan if the Second amendment is a right given by God. Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are going to use the hearings to pander to the conservative base and not even try to ask Kagan serious questions. Seriously, why doesn't Grassley just ask Kagan if God wrote the Constitution.

Republicans No Longer Heart Up & Down Votes

Americablog has a fascinating video of Senate Republicans blocking every single nominee of President Barack Obama. Republicans bitched and moaned about an "up or down vote" when President Bush was in the White House.

Sen. Bill Frist, speaking on bahalf on Bush nominee Priscilla Owen.

Mr. President, I rise today as the leader of the majority party of the Senate. But I do not rise for party. I rise for principle. I rise for the principle that judicial nominees with the support of a majority of senators deserve up-or-down votes on this floor.

Sen. Lamar Alexander warned the (then minority) Democrats not to oppose Bush's judicial nominees.

"I am beginning to think it is a train and that there is not much way to avoid a train wreck. The train wreck I am talking about is a threat by the minority to 'shut the Senate down in every way' if the majority adopts rules that will do what the Senate has done for 200 years, which is to vote up or down the President's appellate judicial nominees."

With Obama in the Oval Office, Alexander now supports denying an up and down vote on Obama's nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice Stevens. It's amazing how an election can change Sen. Alexander's outlook towards nominees.

“Justice Stevens has had a long and impressive career. I hope President Obama will nominate his successor from the middle and not from the fringe. His nominee will be fairly and respectfully considered. The question is not whether the president’s nominee is politically ‘on my side,’ but whether he or she is well-qualified and has a record of being impartial. In truly extraordinary cases, I reserve the prerogative to vote no on confirmation or even to vote to deny an up-or-down vote.”

Sen. John Cornyn, in an op-ed piece for the National Review. The irony of the op-ed reads like an Onion parody.

After all, it is wrong for a partisan minority of senators to treat good people like statistics; wrong to mistreat distinguished jurists with unprecedented filibusters and unconscionable character attacks; wrong to hijack the Constitution and seize control of the judicial-confirmation process from the president and a bipartisan majority of the Senate; wrong to deny up-or-down votes to judicial nominees simply because a partisan minority of senators cannot persuade the bipartisan majority to vote against a nominee; and wrong not to play fair, follow tradition, and allow a vote. Once is bad enough, and four unconstitutional filibusters is four too many.

Yes, it would be wrong for a legislative minority to oppose nominees strictly for partisan purposes. Thank you for pointing that out, Sen. Cornyn.

Sotomayor Update

The confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor is filibuster proof. 61 Senators support her confirmation. #0 are opposed and 9 are undecided. Republicans up for election are backpeddling from denouncing Sotomayor. Republicans are finally realizing they have Hispanic constituents.

Lindsey Graham Will Vote For Sotomayor

On the Senate floor, Lindsey Graham announced he will vote for Sonia Sotomayor.

With that day here, Graham said he would follow his own advice. “I understand the path of least resistance for me personally would be to vote no. That is probably true anytime you are in the minority party and you lose an election,” he said. “But I feel compelled to vote yes, and I feel this is the right vote for me and, quite frankly, for the country in this case.”

I am not sure that is the case. Graham took the most heat for his questioning of Sotomayor. Graham would please the hard right faction by voting against Sotomayor's confirmation. South Carolina moderates and growing Hispanic population would feel differently.

Side note: Charlie Crist's opposition to Sonia Sotomayor appears increasingly boneheaded.

Specter Defends Sotomayor

Sen. Arlen Specter surprised me with his passionate defense of Sonia Sotomayor. Conservatives have unsuccessfully attempted to label Sotomayor a racist. Specter told Republicans they were making "a mountain out of a molehill."

"There has been a lot of talk about a 'wise Latina woman' and I think this proceeding has tended to make a mountain out of a molehill," Specter said. "We have had a consistent line of people who are nominees who make references to their own backgrounds. We all have our perspective. Justice O'Connor talked about her life experiences. Justice Alito talked about his family suffering from ethnic slurs. Justice Thomas...talked about putting himself in the shoes of other people. And Justice Scalia talked about being in a racial minority. The expectation would be that a woman would want to say something to assert her competence in a country, which denied the women the right to vote for decades, where the glass ceiling limited people, where there is still disparagement of people on ethnic background. So I can see how someone would take pride in being a Latina woman and assert herself."

In related news: Pat Buchanan offers Republicans horrible advise. The Republican Party toattack Sotomayor because Sarah Palin was not given the respect Buchanan felt she deserved. Buchanan urges the GOP to ignore the Hispanic vote and attempt to attain more white voters.

Had McCain been willing to drape Jeremiah Wright around the neck of Barack Obama, as Lee Atwater draped Willie Horton around the neck of Michael Dukakis, the mainstream media might have howled.

And McCain might be president.

Buchanan ignores the negative attacks McCain used hurt his candidacy.

But the clear perception that the Arizona senator has run a more negative campaign than Obama may hurt the Republican presidential nominee's chances of a comeback as the end of the race draws near.

"In previous elections, both candidates have been viewed as attacking the other unfairly, so the penalty for doing so has tended to cancel out in past years," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "But this year McCain faces that problem all by himself, so any blowback affects only him while Obama seems above the fray."

The Census points to Hispanics being the fastest growing ethnic groups. Hispanic voters shifted toward Democrats in 2006 and 2008. Republicans will continue to have minority status if they continue to bash Hispanics.

Sotomayor Questioned on Reproductive Rights

RH Reality Check has a video run down of the Senate Judiciary Committee asking Sonia Sotomayor about legal decisions affecting reproductive rights.

Sonia Sotomayor's Opening Statement

Hat tip to Ray Seaman for the transcript.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank Senators Schumer and Gillebrand for that kind introduction.

In recent weeks, I have had the privilege and pleasure of meeting eighty-nine gracious Senators, including all the members of this Committee. I thank you for the time you have spent with me. Our meetings have given me an illuminating tour of the fifty states and invaluable insights into the American people.

There are countless family members, friends, mentors, colleagues, and clerks who have done so much over the years to make this day possible. I am deeply appreciative for their love and support. I want to make one special note of thanks to my mom. I am here today because of her aspirations and sacrifices for both my brother Juan and me. Mom, I love that we are sharing this together. I am very grateful to the President and humbled to be here today as a nominee to the United States Supreme Court.

The progression of my life has been uniquely American. My parents left Puerto Rico during World War II. I grew up in modest circumstances in a Bronx housing project. My father, a factory worker with a third grade education, passed away when I was nine years old.

On her own, my mother raised my brother and me. She taught us that the key to success in America is a good education. And she set the example, studying alongside my brother and me at our kitchen table so that she could become a registered nurse. We worked hard. I poured myself into my studies at Cardinal Spellman High School, earning scholarships to Princeton University and then Yale Law School, while my brother went to medical school. Our achievements are due to the values that we learned as children, and they have continued to guide my life’s endeavors. I try to pass on this legacy by serving as a mentor and friend to my many godchildren and students of all backgrounds.

Over the past three decades, I have seen our judicial system from a number of different perspectives – as a big-city prosecutor, a corporate litigator, a trial judge and an appellate judge. My first job after law school was as an assistant District Attorney in New York. There, I saw children exploited and abused. I felt the suffering of victims’ families torn apart by a loved one’s needless death. And I learned the tough job law enforcement has protecting the public safety. In my next legal job, I focused on commercial, instead of criminal, matters. I litigated issues on behalf of national and international businesses and advised them on matters ranging from contracts to trademarks.

My career as an advocate ended—and my career as a judge began—when I was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. As a trial judge, I decided over four hundred and fifty cases, and presided over dozens of trials, with perhaps my best known case involving the Major League Baseball strike in 1995.

After six extraordinary years on the district court, I was appointed by President William Jefferson Clinton to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On that Court, I have enjoyed the benefit of sharing ideas and perspectives with wonderful colleagues as we have worked together to resolve the issues before us. I have now served as an appellate judge for over a decade, deciding a wide range of Constitutional, statutory, and other legal questions.

Throughout my seventeen years on the bench, I have witnessed the human consequences of my decisions. Those decisions have been made not to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interest of impartial justice.

In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the law – it is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms; interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress’s intent; and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and my Circuit Court. In each case I have heard, I have applied the law to the facts at hand.

The process of judging is enhanced when the arguments and concerns of the parties to the litigation are understood and acknowledged. That is why I generally structure my opinions by setting out what the law requires and then by explaining why a contrary position, sympathetic or not, is accepted or rejected. That is how I seek to strengthen both the rule of law and faith in the impartiality of our justice system. My personal and professional experiences help me listen and understand, with the law always commanding the result in every case.

Since President Obama announced my nomination in May, I have received letters from people all over this country. Many tell a unique story of hope in spite of struggles. Each letter has deeply touched me. Each reflects a belief in the dream that led my parents to come to New York all those years ago. It is our Constitution that makes that Dream possible, and I now seek the honor of upholding the Constitution as a Justice on the Supreme Court.

I look forward in the next few days to answering your questions, to having the American people learn more about me, and to being part of a process that reflects the greatness of our Constitution and of our nation. Thank you.

Quote of the Day

"The first lesson, simple as it is, is that whatever court we're in, whatever we are doing, at the end of our task some human being is going to be affected. Some human life is going to be changed by what we do. And so we had better use every power of our minds and our hearts and our beings to get those rulings right."

Supreme Court Justice David Souter

The Party of No Can't Agree On How to Say No

Roll Call reports Senate Republicans are so dysfunctional they don't even know how to oppose President Barack Obama's Supreme Court pick.

McConnell, according to a senior leadership aide, has stressed to his colleagues that “it doesn’t make any sense to make any pronouncements in the first 72 hours of a process that could take six months.” Supreme Court Justice David Souter, 69, announced he was resigning the court at the end of this term.

Senate Republican leaders are still fuming over the Conference’s handling of Holder’s nomination for attorney general earlier this year. Leaders had been plotting to ramp up opposition to the nomination but were largely sidelined after several high-profile Senators — including Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) — endorsed the pick.

I wasn't crazy about Eric Holder. The Republicans weren't able to filibuster Holder. Hysterical.

Quote of the Day

"Because Roberts was replacing Rehnquist. And Alito will move the court a click back in the conservative or constitutional direction. And let's have a referendum on that. Let's have a referendum on that in 2006 and 2008. Do they want a liberal Supreme Court, or do they want a moderately conservative Supreme Court?"

Bill Kristol, January 29, 2006.

Kristol's predictions of success for conservative causes continues to be atrocious.

Quote of the Day

"LMRM: The nation loses the only goat fucking child molester to ever serve on the Supreme Court in David Souter's retirement."

Erick Erickson, on the retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

This is the same Erickson that was ready to go into a gun-toting rage. What earned Erickson's rage was a ban on sales of dish washing detergent with heavy contents of phosphate in Spokane County, Washington. Erickson would rather a dangerous product be on the market than have a government recall.

Sarah Palin Stumped On Supreme Court Decisions

Katie Couric asks Sarah Palin what other Supreme Court decisions, besides Roe v. Wade, does she disagree with. Hilarity ensues.

Couric: Can you think of any?

Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.

I give you a hint Gov. Palin. Republicans always cite Dred Scott v. Sandford as a decision they disagree with and link to Roe v. Wade. Couric threw a hanging fastball. Palin could have answered the question and assured anti-choicers by mentioning Dred Scott. Palin failed on both counts