Tag Archives: Civil Rights

Republicans: Judicial Activists in Immigration Reform Clothes


Posted by Omnipotent Poobah
No Immigrant Kids

ARE TOP REPUBLICANS JUDICIAL ACTIVISTS? - Argue for a woman's right to choose and you're a judicial activist. Rewrite the Constitution to dump the 14th Amendment and you're just an honest immigration reformer?

So the Party of No has suddenly become the party of simpering “Judicial Activists”. Those paragons of the rule of law – represented by their Sharia-like interpretation of the Constitution – Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-Nelly Bottom) and Jon Kyle (R-Independent  Duchy  of Arizona), are yapping about repealing the 14th Amendment (the one giving citizenship to babies born in this country).

There’s no legitimate argument that numerous administrations and Congresses from both parties haven’t ignored immigration reform. Performance on the issue has been on par with the handling of Katrina and is well past due. But rewriting the Constitution to do something you’re too weak-willed to do honestly is a tad disingenuous. You can’t just constantly carp about a strict interpretation of the Constitution 250-years removed from its writing and then just argue to rewrite it if something is giving you political heartburn.

Dora the Immigrant Explorer

DORA THE IMMIGRATION DEFORMER

Many people don’t think women are capable of anything, including voting. Why not just repeal the Franchise? Heck, “We’re at war dammit! Let’s repeal the First Amendment because the teabagger’s public statements are offensive.” And that whole habeas corpus thing is a real patriotism buzz kill. Let’s get rid of that too. This is not a case of racism, it’s a case of “Stupidism”.

It’s time for the immigrati to take a dip in the Rio Grande and start dealing with the problem rationally instead of like Lou Dobbs on a Red Bull bender. It’s this type of squeaky wheelism that built the Fence to Nowhere – America’s very own Maginot Line. This thinking led to an Arizona law that essentially requires police to do what they were already able to do voluntarily and does nothing to solve the problem.

The people of this country want solutions to problems, not a bunch of bickering over who is an opportunistic crapweasel looking for votes or who is a racist. There are a number of actions that could be taken with simple discussions by honest negotiators. Others would take a little negotiation. And, there are still others that will only be done by inflicting pain. But have no question. We do have a place to start.

So Gov. Tea Brewer get on with something useful. Jon and Lindsey, stop trying to throw the (immigrant) baby out with the bathwater. And Messiah, get off your duff, corral those cats that pass for a political party, and fix the problem.

We the people thank you.

Related articles by Zemanta

Enhanced by Zemanta

To Smite or Not to Smite Westboro, That is the Question


Posted by Omnipotent Poobah
SMITE THEM GOD, SMITE THEM - Westboro's God Hates Fags campaign is an embarrassment to humanity. Yet they have the right to make idiots of themselves. Even if we do want to smack them down.

SMITE THEM GOD, SMITE THEM - Westboro's God Hates Fags campaign is an embarrassment to humanity. Yet they have the right to make idiots of themselves...even if we do want to smack them down.

There are few things as repugnant as Westboro Baptist’s “God Hates Fags” screeds at military funerals. It’s an understandable impulse to want to thump these yahoos to within an inch of their putrid lives, but if you do, expect to do some time in the pokey. Free speech is allowed, violence isn’t.

The Supreme Court will soon hear the question of whether free speech protections cover Westboro’s lunatic fringing. It’ll be interesting to see how it goes.

Cases like this pose a constitutional dilemma. For the most part – save the whole “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” question – I favor letting people say what they want. Free speech doesn’t mean free to anyone I don’t think is stupid, rude, or just plain wrong. It means free…for everyone…even if they are ignorant pootieheads.

Defending the Rights of the Asshatted
I recently defended the right of gay rights opponents to say what they want and received some not unexpected fallout for my trouble. Several commenters took a zero-tolerance line – they said it’s never OK to oppose anything as important as gay rights…period. However, you could just as easily turn that around to say it’s never OK for Republicans to speak either. No matter how much I fantasize about stopping their unending, infernal chants of NO it would be clearly unconstitutional and just plain wrong. The offense in Westboro’s case owes a lot to where you and your opponents stand.

The Constitution presupposes there is someone on either side who is rational and feels as strongly about others’ rights as they do their own. It assumes these people will speak and not poke each other in the nose. It assumes that words don’t cause permanent damage regardless of how insulting and wrong you may feel they are.

But cases like the Westboro Association of Pinheads’ picketing the funerals of innocent, grieving bystanders who have nothing to do with their “issue” seems to go a step farther. Is this the point where the right of grieving families and friends should be protected from a group if nimrods who have no respect for others? After all, my general rule is that exercising your right is OK as long as you don’t impinge on someone else’s right to exercise theirs. Not respecting their rights takes you one step closer to their values, not farther away.

GOD, ARE YOU LISTENING? - God needs a better PR person on Earth. Fred Phelps and his ilk are damaging God's brand.

GOD, ARE YOU LISTENING? - God needs a better PR person on Earth. Fred Phelps and his ilk are damaging God's brand.

The Slippery Slope
My first impulse is to squash them like the vermin they are. However, in the back of my mind I keep hearing a constitutional voice whispering that depriving Westboro of their idiotic fun may be the first in a series of slip slides down a mucky slope.

Who gets to make these decisions? What are the criteria? How much does asshatery cost per pound when compared with the cost of individual freedom? It’s too simple to just say STFU and be done with it. As clear-cut as it may appear, it’s anything but.

As with many issues, there isn’t a good black and white answer and I don’t profess to have one. At the end of the day, the Supremes will make a decision. In all likelihood, Congress will pass more legislation and the Supremes will have to retest the new version of Constitutional right and wrong. No doubt, this question will come back up repeatedly, if for no other reason than the Westboro loons are unlikely to stop until their God snatches up the last of them and casts them into a lake of fire. This is the juncture between the letter of the law and its common sense application.

The whole sordid affair makes me long to go back to my original thought and thump the stupid bastards to within an inch of their crapulent lives.

But that’s not Constitutional either.

Related articles

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The GOP: Big Tent or Big Top?


Posted by Omnipotent Poobah
BRING IN THE CLOWNS - Republicans aren't the Party of the Big Tent, they're the party of the Big Top, Unable to address real problems with an answer other than no and constantly dragging out non-issues to deflect the glare.

BRING IN THE CLOWNS - Republicans aren't the Party of the Big Tent, they're the party of the Big Top, unable to address real problems with an answer other than no and constantly dragging out non-issues to deflect the glare.

Bring in the clowns!

Sometimes the Party of the Big Tent™ reminds me of that classic circus act where a plethora of clowns rides in on impossibly small fire engine and slapstick their way to guffaws.

It’s not as if the Democrats don’t have their fair share of boobs and charlatans, but it seems to be a mostly Republican trait to elevate non-issues to the level of insane fetishes.

The list is long: flag burning amendments, consorting with terrorists in Obama’s living room, blabber mouth ministers, and the apparent inability to read birth certificates. However, they really shine on their puffed-up “homosexual agenda”.

Many of the rabid base are as skittish as Don Knotts with a snoot full of coke about gays in the military, wedding chapels, or their own ranks.

For example, Andy Martin, an Illinois GOP Senate hopeful, is repeating a “solid rumor” that his opponent, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), is – OMFG! – “a homosexual.”

I’d wager Martin could care less who Kirk beds in the privacy of his own home. But when it comes to politicking, he’s a smart knife-fighter who can smell blood all the way from Chicago to Springfield.

Take his explanation for outing (or not outing) Kirk. “The issue is not homosexuality, the question is hypocrisy,” Martin said. “People are entitled to their privacy, they are not entitled to live public lives in the closet.”

Humina, humina, whaaa? “People are entitled to their privacy,” but not entitled to remain publicly closeted? Aren’t you depriving them of their privacy by outing them?

But more importantly, what in business is it of yours or anyone else”s if he’s a flamboyant Cher look alike or a man minding his own business and being set upon by members of his own party?

To their credit, the Illinois Republican Party did disavow his statement, but I’m sure the bigoted faithful won’t pay much attention and the party probably won’t complain when he wins the nomination. Such is the way of American politics – Karl Rove style.

Big Tent? Nah, more like Big Top.

Related articles

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]