Archive for Supreme Court

Rumors of my demise…

Posted in Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 2, 2009 by thedoyle

For anyone who has been here in the past few months and still comes back to read this, thank you.  So…we could have a new Supreme Court Justice. What’s that you say? What do I think about her? Funny you should ask. So many things to say and most of them have been said. I don’t know her. Until she was announced I had heard her name and seen very little and what I have seen since has not impressed me. But I don’t know her. I will she how she does when shes asked questions in the Senate. It is very likely she will be confirmed unless there is some smoking gun out there. But what she has said is important even beyond her as a Justice but also about the role of a Judge, the role of race and the role of Identity Politics.

Here’s the best of what I read:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/02/its_not_fair_to_casually_call_people_racist_96778.html


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023695.php

http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2009/05/27/sotomayor__empathy_in_action

Advertisements

Shouldn’t the Media do some minimum research before it prints lies for Obama?

Posted in Culture, Economy, Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 29, 2009 by thedoyle

When I woke up and turned on my computer one of the news stories I saw was this, headlined: “Obama signs bill making equal-pay lawsuits easier.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama

Please read the “news”story and see what you think. If I had zero information about the background I might have thought that the evil Supreme Court and Republicans were stil trying to keep women in their place especially that poor Ms. Ledbetter. But I DO have some background, apparently more than the AP does so I know the story is full of shit.

The good folks at Powerline had done some excellent research on their own about Ms. Ledbetter during the campaign since “The One” had made it an issue. Here is the post they had made in Sept about it:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2008/09/021565.php

Paul Mirengoff points out that Ms. Ledbetter is lying because her claim contradicts her own sworn testimony. Is it any surprise that such lies don’t alter the stance of “The One”? Nope because Democrats and Liberals never let a lie get in the way of their goal, as a matter of fact lies usually help them get to their goal. Mr. Mirengoff noticed the legislation as well and has posted again on the topic.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022671.php

But there is one thing he missed and that is the comment in the AP, “Obama cited Census Bureau figures that women still receive only about 78 cents for every dollar that men get for doing equivalent jobs — “women of color even less,” he said.” That’s a lie, folks, disguised as statistics. And we all know what Churchill said. This lie in particular has been around for a long time and it proves the Nazis right that a lie repeated enough becomes the truth. You see those statistics look at the career span between men and women in “similar” jobs. So it will look at two candidates one male and one female who work from the time they get out of college until they are both 65 and notice that the man has made more. BUT they don’t take into account that the man has actually worked more hours because the woman has taken off 5-6 years to raise a child or whatever. They also do include that more often than not the man had worked many hours more per week at the office, say 70 hours as opposed to the woman’s 50 hours per week.

Now the funny part.

If you bring up those qualifiers as I have just done, you are accused of sexism. That’s right, because if you bring up those facts you are accused of not taking into account how difficult it is for a woman in business. You are told that women should not have to suffer because they sacrifice for their family.

What a crock of shit. You make choices in your life. EVERYONE does. Those choices mean that some things are more important to you. Once you have decided what is most important, whatever is left and left behind is NOT a sacrifice. Sacrifice is when you give up your most precious possession.  So to claim that women have sacrificed for their family means they didn’t really want the family, and to me that’s kind of messed up. Perhaps they should look at themselves instead of complaining about the “Phallacracy” is keeping them down. 

And here’s yet another good idea. Don’t LIE about your problem and expect sympathy from me, or any other person who can reason. Fortunately you have the Liberals to take you in, and “The One” to fall for your bullshit and change the world to accomodate your lies.

Reuters: Idiots or just your average lefties?

Posted in Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 24, 2008 by thedoyle

This article by Peter Henderson for Reuters has to be one of the lamest scare attempts I have seen in a while.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4AN0WC20081124

It also shows exactly how stupid most people including so-called law professors, who you would think should know better.

California‘s gay marriage ban could open the door to legal discrimination against unpopular groups if the state Supreme Court allows the voter-approved measure to stand, blacks, Latinos, Asians and other minorities said”

The minorities that said that are dumb. Plain and simple and it isn’t racism that is saying that it is reason. It is as stupid as Whoopie Goldberg’s assertion on the View that Supreme Court Justices who favor original intent could lead to slavery again.

But the stupidity of the women on The View gets better. (I know this is a side note to the real story but this is too good to pass up since these harpies have such a huge audience who hang on every word of these nitwits like it were gospel. Mocking them at every turn is a must.) Check out this stupidity.

http://www.conservativepunk.com/articles/1808/

It is people like the ones on The View who mouth off about the legal aspects of Prop8 and other social areas and they have NO CLUE what they are talking about.

Anyway back to the article at hand…

Here it is so-called “legal scholars”: “Legal scholars say the measure, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, breaks new ground by limiting the courts’ ability to protect minorities.”

That’s funny. How is taking a definition which has been the same for thousands of years and simply saying, “Yes, this is the way we will be continuing to define it” breaking new ground? How does this limit the court’s ability to protect minorities? Will it mean the court cannot protect black people who are denied housing? Does it mean the court will not be able to protect Latinos who are denied jobs? Does it mean the court cannot protect women who are denied the right to vote?

It never says how it merely tries to frighten everyone with quotes like this: “They could take away any right from any group,” said University of Southern California Law Professor David Cruz, who filed a brief in favor of gay marriage in an earlier case.

Notice how Cruz never says how that could happen, and notice too that three paragraphs later Cruz basically admits that what he says isn’t true: “It is unlikely that relatively liberal California would approve restrictions on racial and religious minorities, especially ones that clash with the protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, Cruz and others say.”

Notice as well a point that is hidden in that last sentence…”protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.” This is the crux of why this article is a lame scare attack with ZERO credibility. The 14th Amendment of the Constitution not only guaranteed ‘equal protection under the law” to all citizens it also incorporated the Bill of Rights to be applied to the States (before the 14th Amendment the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government) so that the States could not deny equal protection to any citizen.

The point here is the freedoms guaranteed are those mentioned in the bill of rights…can any show me the right to marry in the Bill of Rights? Look long and hard and if you think its in there before you look, do me a favor and hold your breath while you look cause you are probably one of those people who thinks CO2 is a bad thing for our environment, and you should probably do your part. (Another side issue I know. Hey its my blog.)

Found it yet?

I’ll wait.

Keep looking.

Want a hint?

ITS NOT IN THERE.

There is no “right to marry” there is no right to any privileges from marriage, the very word privilege means it isn’t a right. Rights are inherent a privilege is granted. But that hasn’t stopped these nitwits from claiming otherwise.

From the Article again: “Indeed, a central argument in support of the gay marriage ban is that majority-vote constitutional amendments can change rights.”

No, it can’t. Any rights the citizens of California have now such as voting, redress from the courts or speech (as long as you are not right-wing on a collge campus or at least until the Democrats pass the Fairness Doctrine) CAN’T be taken away by anything the voters in CA do. Any other issue not guaranteed by the U.S. Constiution is a privilege, driving and state recognized Marriage for example.

So let’s look at this rationally…lefties may have to put the poo down and sit quietly. The people who want Gay Marriage want what? They say they want the same rights as Hetero couples. What do they mean by that? If they mean they want the right to visit their loved ones in the hospital or set up a will that honors their wishes when they die or gives tax breaks for being a couple…well CA already gave them that in Civil Unions. So what do they want?

They want everything their way. They want not only to be able to have all of the privileges of Civil Union but also to force the State and all its citizens to call that a marriage. They want to change the meaning of a word that has stood for one thing for thousands of years and make it mean what they want it to mean, which could be anything down the road (same-sex marriage is only the first step). They want to force other people to accept that denying them what they want is akin to putting blacks at the back of the bus, but in reality what they want is to call the any seat the backseat and then complain they can’t be up front.

This isn’t about Rights, it is about definitions. If you call a cow a horse it doesn’t mean it will run the Kentucky Derby. (There is a better quote I think by Lincoln about that, can anyone remember it?)

The activists who want same-sex marriage are also now acting like Germany’s Brownshirts, accosting old women, calling balcks who voted for prop8 “niggers”, and storming and disrupting churches. I am waiting for the Kristallnacht to happen, where all of the windows of those who had prop8 signs and all of the churches are broken…in the name of civil rights.

As long as media outlets like Reuters gives these idiots cover I figure it won’t be long.