Campaign Stuff: Perry Flubs Lawrence V. Texas Question; Santorum Peaks; Perry Attacks Santorum

Perry flubs a question about Lawrence v. Texas. The question was how his support for limited government could be squared with his (putative) support for anti-gay-sodomy laws, as Texas once had, but which were struck down in Lawrence v. Texas.

He didn't recall the case.

A voter at a meet and greet asked him to defend his criticism of limited government in the case.

I wish I could tell you I knew every Supreme Court case. I dont, Im not even going to try to go through every Supreme Court case, that would be Im not a lawyer, Perry said at the Blue Strawberry Coffee Shop here. We can sit here and you know play I gotcha questions on what about this Supreme Court case or whatever, but let me tell you, you know and I know that the problem in this country is spending in Washington, D.C., its not some Supreme Court case.

In 2003, the Supreme Court deemed Texas anti-sodomy law to be unconstitutional in a 6-3 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, and the case nullified anti-sodomy laws in 13 other states at the same time. Perry, a strong opponent of gay marriage and the ability of homosexuals to serve openly in the military, served as governor when this case was decided.

Asked by Ken Herman, a columnist with the Austin American Statesman, for clarification on whether he knew what the case concerned, Perry responded, Im not taking the bar examI dont know what a lot of legal cases involve.
When told that the Supreme Court case struck down the Texas sodomy law, Perry said, My position on traditional marriage is clear and I dont know need a law. I dont need a federal law case to explain it to me.

Everyone acts like they knew this stuff after they hear the answer themselves. If anyone's thinking "Duh, everyone knows that;" well, when prompted, you do. Personally I get this case confused with the one that came before it -- the one that actually upheld such anti-sodomy laws. Was that Bolling v. Texas? I forget.

Did you? Did you remember that just five or six years before a Scalia opinion upheld these laws? Can you name it?

Or was Lawrence v. Texas the one that upheld the laws and then the Kennedy-authored one came later?

Bolling v. Colorado? I don't know. There was then an opinion upholding so-called "special rights" for gays.

I know the holdings, and I've read these opinions, but I've always been a bit spotty on the case names.

But he's dumb so whatever.

This is the Jeopardy Effect. When I play Jeopardy (on TV, I mean), I "know" 80% of the answers... after I hear them. After I hear them, I say, "Of course, duh, I knew that."

But how many do I know before I hear them, and actually call out? About 60%. There's a 20% gap here. But a lot of people seem to credit themselves for "knowing" that 20% of answer they didn't really "know," until they were reminded.

After everyone heard Charlie Gibson's version of the Bush Doctrine (which was wrong, by the way), everyone "knew" that too.

I guess I was alone in the country in actually not really being able to recall the actual Bush Doctrine. I guess that's because I'm stupid. Or, that I'm actually smart and don't need to always tell myself "I knew that, now that I'm reminded of it!!!" I can just sort of admit, "I forgot that. But now that you mention it, yes, now I remember. Whereas before I did not."

But we all "know" things. It's important to us to always feel like we "know" things. Even when we don't. We make up stories about our own perfect recall.

Santorum leaps into third, according to Rasumussen, but it's the holiday season, and polling is difficult. In that poll Romney and Ron Paul are in a dead heat. Apparently the Republican Party is still deciding whether or not "racism" is a bad thing or not.

But in Real Clear Politics Poll of All Polls, Perry has a slight advantage in most ground gained.

But Santorum must be rising some, because Perry has released an ad knocking him on his Compassionate Conservatism big-spending ways:


Update: I first said I "knew" 90% of Jeopardy answers but only actually answered 70%. I think that was a bit of a Jeopardy effect right there. 80%/60%
is probably more accurate.

Posted by: Ace at 03:58 PM



Comments

1 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 04:00 PM (8y9MW)

2 OK, so your readers aren't necessarily better prepared to run for President than Perry is.
Granted.
But he's running for President. We aren't.
Also, um, the Lawrence case was from *Texas.*

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 29, 2011 04:01 PM (epBek)

3 I knew them -- at least if I couldn't get the name right, I recall the basic deets -- but I'm a lawyer, so it's in my field. I'm also not running for P as a R.

Posted by: SFGoth at December 29, 2011 04:03 PM (dZ756)

4
Oh, I get it.

If I don't want to repeal criminal laws, then I'm not in favor of limited government.

What a crock.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 04:04 PM (Xm1aB)

5 I close to taking the sticker off the car.

Friend reminded me last night, that the ONLY special license plate the state of TX has not approved was one, this year, for the Son's of Confederate Veterans, All Perry appointees voted against it.

Makes TX the ONLY former Confederate state without a license tag honoring the veterans.

He is not aging well, Eagle Scout and all, Not ready for Prime Time.

Posted by: Billy Bob, the 1% at December 29, 2011 04:05 PM (hXJOG)

6 The case you're thinking of is, IIRC, Hardwick v. Georgia.

IMHO, one of the best things about Perry is that he hasn't spent the last 10 years of his life obsessing about running for President. I think that makes him more likely to be the kind of President I'd like.

OTOH, it does appear to make him a worse candidate.

Posted by: Greg Q at December 29, 2011 04:05 PM (/0a60)

7 Actually, as I recall at the time, Perry wasn't terribly involved in Lawrence v Texas anyway. Though I could be misremembering.

Also- I live in Texas, and I'd forgotten all about Lawrence v Texas, and couldn't remember exactly what it was about when first mentioned by Drew on Twitter (I remembered after a minute or so), so I'm not too terribly concerned about it.

That said, I don't like the "we can play gotcha questions" response, because that question doesn't seem like a "gotcha" question to me. It seems fairly legitimate.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 04:05 PM (8y9MW)

8 OT: check out this USO commercial. It's my old 1SG. A lot of soldiers from the Fort Bliss WTU seem to end up in these commercials and educational videos lately...

Posted by: Alex at December 29, 2011 04:06 PM (doww8)

9 We could very well wind up with candidate Santorum, purely because he'll win a few primaries before the assassins' blades start connecting.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 29, 2011 04:06 PM (TpXEI)

10 Yeah well, I honestly appreciate someone that says I dunno, might get back to you if it's significant. This is an election and the breadth and depth of knowledge some expect of a candidate is beyond even Ken Jennings. These are the crap inquiries that got Palin labeled as stupid, when no one is that smart.

Posted by: Guaman at December 29, 2011 04:06 PM (JFgTJ)

11 I got all of the questions wrong. I guessed Pron Raul.

Posted by: Ronster at December 29, 2011 04:06 PM (JGYCE)

12
Whatever. The people want Romney. Everything Rick Perry says is dumb. Don't look at his record.
We are screwed. And I'm not going to react well to people who whine after Romney gets beaten that he wasn't supported enough.
I wanted an actual conservative, that's all. Simple. You can tell me how dumb Rick Perry is all day long if you want. I see a conservative record, and a pretty stellar one.
But let's talk about Lawrence v. Texas and how dumb he is.

Posted by: Tari at December 29, 2011 04:06 PM (+Z6FM)

13 Psst! Rick! The answer is "Lawrence vs. Texas"....

And yes, your "flat" tax plan does raise the standard deduction....

Posted by: Bobby Jindal at December 29, 2011 04:06 PM (HAg5o)

14 SFGoth,

what the are the opinions' names? I forget and I'd like to know, and you're closer right now than that long reach to google.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:06 PM (nj1bB)

15
"Apparently the Republican Party is still deciding whether or not "racism" is a bad thing or not."

just stop it...
for christ's sake I hope RP wins just so I can hear the teeth gnashing and watch the hair-pulling of you assholes, you're worse than paulbots.

Posted by: The DOOM! you didn't see coming! at December 29, 2011 04:07 PM (jdOk/)

16 When is this campaign over?

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 29, 2011 04:07 PM (OWjjx)

17 @16

I thought it already was.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 04:08 PM (Xm1aB)

18 Oh come on, it's not Jeopardy!

He was the governor of the state being sued.

He's running as Mr. Defender of the Tenth Amendment and King of the Social Cons. Yet he doesn't know about a Tenth Amendment case involving a huge social con issue in the state he was the sitting governor of?

I'd give him a pass on Romer v. Colorado but this? This is a fuck up.

Exactly how many special dispensations are we supposed to give Perry before we admit he's not exactly Mr. Awesome (or even Mr. Pretty Good)?

Posted by: The Virginia GOP at December 29, 2011 04:08 PM (ehlWj)

19 >>>The case you're thinking of is, IIRC, Hardwick v. Georgia.

That was the scalia one upholding the sodomy laws? or was it Thomas? Scalia, right? I seemed especially angry in his dissent in Lawrence.

Another twist is that one of them was specifically anti-GAY sodomy, not just anti-sodomy as a "neutral" matter. Right? Which one was neutral?

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:09 PM (nj1bB)

20 Any honest lawyer..wait that might be an oxymoron -

will tell you that they are specialists.

I asked a employment law lawyer if he knew Buckley and some other election law stuff-and his answer was-

"Hell, no!"

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 04:09 PM (r2PLg)

21 Now Bobby, that question about my own policy proposal was a Gotcha Question. I don't answer those.

Posted by: Rick Perry at December 29, 2011 04:09 PM (HAg5o)

22 Close, Bowers v. Hardwick (The case is known as Bowers, Hardwick was the gay who sued to overturn the Georgia State anti-sodomy laws.)

Posted by: Greg Q at December 29, 2011 04:09 PM (/0a60)

23 Shit, I wanta go home.

http://tinyurl.com/d9qqs8a

Posted by: Rick Perry at December 29, 2011 04:10 PM (hXJOG)

24 for christ's sake I hope RP wins just so I can hear the teeth gnashing and watch the hair-pulling of you assholes, you're worse than paulbots.
No teeth gnashing and hair pulling here.
I am simply going to slap an Obama/Biden bumper sticker on my car.
And disown the Republican party.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 29, 2011 04:10 PM (OWjjx)

25 >>>for christ's sake I hope RP wins just so I can hear the teeth gnashing and watch the hair-pulling of you assholes, you're worse than paulbots.

I'm starting to hope that to, because I'm tired of defending the indefensible. I'd like to be informed that I'm no longer welcome, just to be free of it.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:10 PM (nj1bB)

26 Not a biggie, but I'd think he'd remember it while I wouldn't expect the same of random AoS readers. He was Governor at the time, so one would think he answered questions, offered opinions before or after the ruling. I'm sure I remember random elections/rulings/legislation in MA that others have never heard of (probably need some Jeopardy-style prompting on most of them) just because they were "current events" for months in MA. I don't know what bloc of voters, if any, this will effect.

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 29, 2011 04:10 PM (Qjh0I)

27 bowers v. hardwick, right.

That one, I think, blessed specifically anti-gay sodomy laws, right? So I think Texas was all the more surprising, because it was a "neutral" law banning all sodomy.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:11 PM (nj1bB)

28 Hardwick

...wait for it...

Posted by: DarkLord for Prez! at December 29, 2011 04:11 PM (GBXon)

29 Perry did himself in the other day. I keep wanting him to do well but he's done.

Posted by: SarahW at December 29, 2011 04:11 PM (LYwCh)

30 Is anyone concerned about gays having gay sex in private? Anyone? So, who cares about Lawrence?

By the way, I always found the facts of that case strange.

Posted by: mike at December 29, 2011 04:11 PM (rDDiL)

31 When is this campaign over?

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 29, 2011 04:07 PM (OWjjx)
Not nearly soon enough. Well, except for those of us who were going to vote in the GOP primary here in Virginia in March, but the state GOP took care of that pesky detail for us.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at December 29, 2011 04:12 PM (hcJkV)

32 Attack ads will do little good for Rick. He needs to prove himself effective, which he does not. I wish he did, he's probably the best of the candidates in both record and ideas, but he comes out as a guy who can't handle the stage. So, no bananas.

Posted by: Juicer at December 29, 2011 04:12 PM (LFS8U)

33 The case you're thinking of is, IIRC, Hardwick v. Georgia.

There was a case upholding sodomy laws, Bowers v. Hardwick.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 29, 2011 04:12 PM (Hx5uv)

34
Justice Kennedy, God bless him, found a constitutional right to anal sex.....somewhere in the Constitution I guess.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 04:12 PM (Xm1aB)

35 Santorum checks off most of the conversative boxes and he seems to be avoiding making any notable mistakes in campaigning. He could just as easily be the conservative opposition to Newt McRomney as Perry...

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2011 04:12 PM (7BU4a)

36 That thing about the number of judges Justices was Gotcha, too. "Eight" is my story and I'm sticking to it.

Posted by: Rick Perry at December 29, 2011 04:12 PM (HAg5o)

37 He's tryin' the best he can. Does he really have petnames for his cowboy boots?

Posted by: long toss at December 29, 2011 04:12 PM (FPjaa)

38 "Perry did himself in the other day. I keep wanting him to do well but he's done."

This by the way is not an endorsement for Romney. I'm backing Not-Romney for as long as I can hold out.

Posted by: SarahW at December 29, 2011 04:13 PM (LYwCh)

39 Shit, "The Virginia GOP" in 18 was me if any Perry folks want to attack.

Posted by: DrewM. at December 29, 2011 04:13 PM (ehlWj)

40 I don't give a shit what consenting adults do in private in their bedroom

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 29, 2011 04:13 PM (i6RpT)

41 Perry's people should look for video on how Obama got past all of these gotcha tactics in '08.

Oh, that's right, I keep forgetting that would have been racist.
And besides he's unbelievably intelligent, just check out his grades... er, well maybe if we ask all of his old girlfriends...

Posted by: ontherocks at December 29, 2011 04:13 PM (HBqDo)

42 So anal sex v. government? Same result

Posted by: dagny at December 29, 2011 04:13 PM (R62Yx)

43 34


Justice Kennedy, God bless him, found a constitutional right to anal sex.....somewhere in the Constitution I guess.

It's over here in the Banking Committee!

Posted by: Barney at December 29, 2011 04:14 PM (hXJOG)

44 Perry is not expected toknow all court cases. Just another story that fits the narrative. Most voters do not care about this. Why even post the story from the MSM?

Posted by: davidd at December 29, 2011 04:14 PM (FGq5b)

45 When is this campaign over?

I'm pretty sure Michelle Bachman's is.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 29, 2011 04:14 PM (Hx5uv)

46 @30

I could care less what gays do in private.

I give a good damn though that the U.S. Supreme Court has declared a constitutional right to butt-fucking.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 04:14 PM (Xm1aB)

47 Gotta say the last few days of News sites, Blogs, Twitter, and G+ have made me hate all of the GOP candidates, all of the conservative bloggers, and most of the people I follow.

The sheer nastiness of everyone involved is bugging the crap out of me.

People are expending all of their tweets on how horrid this or that candidate is, and very little time on why their chosen candidate is better.

It could be MONTHS before any one guy has enough votes to declare victory, I'd like to see more than IA and NH and the Media involved in the selection process.

But if everyone keeps being assholes, many of us will just check out and go pay attention to other stuff and let the media choose.

Posted by: Less at December 29, 2011 04:15 PM (PGXeZ)

48 I'm tanned, I'm ready, and I can read cases off a teleprompter. Let's go!

Posted by: Charlie Crist at December 29, 2011 04:15 PM (XECOp)

49 Hey, look. I can't be held responsible for knowing everything that's going on in my state while I'm governor of it.

But I can still take credit for all the good stuff. Bobby, you've got a list of the good stuff that's happened, right? I'm drawing a blank.

Posted by: Rick Perry at December 29, 2011 04:15 PM (6DYpG)

50 when's romney get asked about any SCOTUS decisions? is getting downright disgusting the way that guy has gotten to skate the primary.

Posted by: chas at December 29, 2011 04:15 PM (TKF1Y)

51 Shit, "The Virginia GOP" in 18 was me if any Perry folks want to attack.
Drew M..........never heard of him.

Posted by: Charlie Gibson and every reader at AOSHQ at December 29, 2011 04:16 PM (OWjjx)

52 >>>By the way, I always found the facts of that case strange.

Because it was a set-up, or "test case"? That always gets alleged on the right. I don't know if it was or not.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:16 PM (nj1bB)

53 Personally I get this case confused with the one that came before it --
the one that actually upheld such anti-sodomy laws. Was that Bolling v.
Texas? I forget.

Bowers vs Hardwicke. A sodomy law case that's easy to remember.

"Hardwicke," Ace. Get it? Heh.

Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at December 29, 2011 04:16 PM (QKKT0)

54 That thing about the number of judges Justices was Gotcha, too. "Eight" is my story and I'm sticking to it.
There are seven. Kagan and Sotomayer are pretend justices.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 29, 2011 04:16 PM (Hx5uv)

55 Santorum checks off most of the conversative boxes
and he seems to be avoiding making any notable mistakes in campaigning.
He could just as easily be the conservative opposition to Newt McRomney
as Perry...


Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2011 04:12 PM (7BU4a)
I generally like the guy too, but he's another big government, George W "compassionate" conservative down to his bones. He wouldn't try shrinking the damn federal government any more - and maybe not as much - as Romney would.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at December 29, 2011 04:17 PM (hcJkV)

56
#5, billybob, if the Confederate battle flag is so important to you, slap one on the back of your car. But the license plate proposed in Texas would have said NOTHING about the Sons of Confederate Veterans, it would have just been the flag. And of course, there is the whole monitary issue (the plate sales funding the group).
I also objected (as a Native American) to the approval of the Buffalo Soldiers license plate to now be sold in Texas. The Buffalo Soldiers history has been completely whitewashed (can I say white along with Buffalo soldier?) to be heroes and not the perpetrators of a policy of genocide. But then, we all know the victors write the history books, don't we?
So as a Texas, I have my Don't Tread On Me license plate which pretty much says it all.
Get over it. The South has risen again. Only we did it without a shot. Most of the jobs, more freedom, the list goes on. Bask in the victories, not the defeats.

Posted by: zane at December 29, 2011 04:17 PM (jNjKB)

57 I am a lawyer, and I'm both unfamiliar with that case and have no interest in either pro- or anti-sodomy Supreme Court cases.

Is there anyone who things sodomy-related issues are critical success factors for the next President?

Or might the single most important issue be creating an economic environment conducive to job creation?

If the latter, which of the candidates has the demonstrably superior record on that front? By a very, very large margin?

Things that make you go, hmmmm.

Posted by: Boston12GS at December 29, 2011 04:17 PM (KhnGN)

58 This is the one with the sweet mystery of life that Scalia said would fuck up the entire country? Yes?

Posted by: dagny at December 29, 2011 04:17 PM (R62Yx)

59 40
I don't give a shit what consenting adults do in private in their bedroom

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 29, 2011 04:13 PM (i6RpT)

That makes me feel much better.

Posted by: Charles Manson at December 29, 2011 04:17 PM (hXJOG)

60 I don't give a shit what consenting adults do in private in their bedroom

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 29, 2011 04:13 PM (i6RpT)
I agree with Clarence Thomas - while I disagree with the Texan law, the Constitution is mute on the issue.

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2011 04:17 PM (7BU4a)

61 Shit, "The Virginia GOP" in 18 was me if any Perry folks want to attack.

Honestly, I wish I could.

Now, I understand that the only stuff getting reported in the Media are these goofs, and they're actually relatively rare (think about it, he's been doing more retail campaigning than any of the other candidates, so he's out there doing exactly this kind of stuff a lot), but someone in his camp needs to sit down and think about what kind of stuff he should know "off the cuff" and work with him on it, and someone else should be posting video to a YouTube channel and their website of his "good" performances every day.

I'm still with Rick, and I still think his Record speaks better for him than the other candidates' records do (and words are cheap, especially on the campaign trail), but this is kind of draining.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 04:17 PM (8y9MW)

62
@davidd
Yep.Perry is just a dumb guy who had dumb luck in Texas. Romney is the smart one! Let's listen to how conservative the individual mandate is.

Posted by: Tari at December 29, 2011 04:17 PM (+Z6FM)

63 I agree with Perry here that this is an ambush question.

I know it seems hard to believe, but traveling around the web and reading comments there seems to be a quite a few Luap Nor fans right now. Take this NY Post article, for example. There are several comments near the top saying basically 'save us Ron Paul you're our only hope'.

It should be read anyhow as their claim is that there is to be a new nation wide database on kids. The article says it is part of the stimulus bill. I guess we had to pass that one too to find out what's in it.

Posted by: GnuBreed at December 29, 2011 04:17 PM (ENKCw)

64 Here's my libertarian side:

It really steamed my beans that the chief defense of such laws was "we don't enforce them anyway."

If you don't enforce them anyway, THEY SHOULD NOT BE ON THE BOOKS. The law's prohibitions, the things the law says you can actually go to jail for, and the state will cart you off for doing, should be limited to the things you actually enforce, no? Do we want false prohibitions cluttering up the code?

George Bush called such laws a "nod" to conventional morality. Save the nods to convential morality for public statements. The law should consist of real laws.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:18 PM (nj1bB)

65 Drew you look at everything about Perry with a microscope while missing the mistresses, lobbying, and hypocrisy of your candidate-

Newt Gingrich.

If you were a judge you'd have to recuse yourself for blatant, and extreme prejudice-but hell Allah Pundit and all the kool kids of twitter love it!

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 04:18 PM (r2PLg)

66 I'd love to see a smarmy Alex Trebek who up at these campaign stops.

"Oh, I thought you were going to say Bolling vs. Texas."

Posted by: The Q at December 29, 2011 04:18 PM (NdE8F)

67 "I give a good damn though that the U.S. Supreme Court has declared a constitutional right to butt-fucking."

Why? It's done. It's been done over 8 years ago. It's not going to be repealed. Everyone knows sodomy is legal. So, how is this case even relevant?

Posted by: mike at December 29, 2011 04:18 PM (rDDiL)

68 59
40
I don't give a shit what consenting adults do in private in their bedroom

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 29, 2011 04:13 PM (i6RpTMe TOO!

Posted by: Faisal Shahzad at December 29, 2011 04:18 PM (hXJOG)

69 U.S. Supreme Court has declared a constitutional right to butt-fucking.
Thousands of men stormed Normandy beaches so that other men would have a constitutional right to butt fucking.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 29, 2011 04:18 PM (Hx5uv)

70 These are the crap inquiries that got Palin labeled as stupid, when no one is that smart.

Posted by: Guaman at December 29, 2011 04:06 PM (JFgTJ)
There's a certain way that people dismiss this view and Obama does it well even though he gets ultra-deference because he's a Democrat.He and Romney and many politicians develop a professorial air in which they always imply that they know much more than you but often fail to address the question.What Gingrich does is he includes arcane references and does, indeed, have amazing recall.But they always fight on their own turf. Romney would have deflected the question and never returned to address it at the end. If pressed one-on-one by a reporter, he'd get the information by making the reporter be specific.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 04:18 PM (73tyQ)

71 Sodomy sucks.

Posted by: Miss Priss at December 29, 2011 04:19 PM (yn6XZ)

72 You guys need me in here, or can you fight without me?

I mean, I am you, and all.

Posted by: Christine O'Donnell at December 29, 2011 04:19 PM (XECOp)

73 It's the inability to think on his feet that kills him. Better to say "I don't have that one on the tip of my tongue" than to push back like that. If you don't remember the case, you don't know how important it might be that you don't remember.

"Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt", or something.

Posted by: NotSoBlueStater at December 29, 2011 04:20 PM (6991R)

74 yeah yeah he's not dumbass ... he just plays one on TV. Responding to a tough question with "that's a gotcha game" is patently Palin/Cain-style garbage, and at one point around here that kind of "poor me" crap was not regarded very highly.

Posted by: the dandy at December 29, 2011 04:20 PM (lVK3L)

75 As to Lawrence itself, I couldn't find Perry saying much about it at the time except "I think our law is appropriate that we have on the books." and he did bash the decision in his book.

But I think this goes with Perry and his view of the Texas governorship. Just like the Texas Dream Act, he bends to the will of the Texas people. They were for it, passed it via a legislature, so he's supportive.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 04:21 PM (73tyQ)

76 @67

Why should I care if the Supreme Court invents constitutional rights out of thin air?

Oh, I don't know, I like the Constitution?

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 04:21 PM (Xm1aB)

77 71
Sodomy sucks.

Posted by: Miss Priss at December 29, 2011 04:19 PM (yn6XZ)

Lying Bitch!

Posted by: Barney at December 29, 2011 04:21 PM (hXJOG)

78 I am a lawyer, and I'm both unfamiliar with that case and have no interest in either pro- or anti-sodomy Supreme Court cases.
I vaguely recall Hardwick being on my Con Law I final. Which is about the last time I thought about it.
Having said that, I really no longer care. I'll take any of these GOP candidates save one. Each has flaws. Each is not perfect. And each is going to be made by the media to look stupid, incompetent, corrupt and ineffective. And quite frankly, if we are going to get worked up over each story of the day, I suspect that by the time November 2012 rolls around we will either be 1) insane or 2) so bitter that even our dogs will reject us or 3) so drunk we can no longer function.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 29, 2011 04:21 PM (OWjjx)

79 Oh come on, it's not Jeopardy! He was the governor of the state being sued. He's
running as Mr. Defender of the Tenth Amendment and King of the Social
Cons. Yet he doesn't know about a Tenth Amendment case involving a huge
social con issue in the state he was the sitting governor of?

It was a case from over 8 years ago, and the TX Atty General would've been far more involved than the Governor.

Hell, when was the last time any of us discussed or even thought about the case?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 29, 2011 04:21 PM (SY2Kh)

80 It's not "putative"; Perry was against the Lawrence decision at the time. And the Left, at least, has been keeping this alive - that link is to Mother Jones in August this year. But hey - I'm nitpicking.

But I agree with him that Lawrence v. Texas was a long time ago and a dead letter now; and I doubt that his staff have been forcing him to read MoJo articles from months ago.



This is the part which I wish he'd handled better: We can sit here and you know play I gotcha questions on what about this Supreme Court case or whatever.

If I posted something like that here, you lot would call me a whiner.

Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at December 29, 2011 04:21 PM (QQAJP)

81 >>>He was the governor of the state being sued.

Actually Bush was, at least originally. I remember bush being asked about it and defending the law as a "nod towards conventional morality."

Eventually the case came down from the SC in 2003.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:21 PM (nj1bB)

82 sorry, but no matter how many times Perry says something "dumb", it is not going to make Romney look electable. Romney is the candidate that the whole OWS movement was set up for. Nominating him will make re-election for Obama that much easier. I am not saying this just because I want Perry, but because it is obvious how easy it will be for Obama to paint Romney as a 1%, especially since Romney does not want to reveal his tax records.

Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at December 29, 2011 04:21 PM (6IV8T)

83 Hell most of us sell out in the interest of being one of the gang anyways...

Probably explains the Ron Paul phenomena.

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 04:21 PM (r2PLg)

84 ah, the leftwing quiz show bullshit gambit. The right wing media, whatever that is, needs to start quiz-showing lefty candidates. Hell, inadvertent displays of ignorance are what got us Ted Kennedy's seat. Imagine if we could replicate this natural phenomenon in laboratory conditions, we may knock the smug off of Jon Stewart's mug.

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 29, 2011 04:21 PM (QxSug)

85 The MSM is gonna do this all the time. They have to be confronted: Told to go to hell and Go ask obama even one tough question and then get back to me

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 29, 2011 04:22 PM (i6RpT)

86
The Republicans don't just know nothin; they don't suspect nothin.


Posted by: A Soothsayerism at December 29, 2011 04:22 PM (G/zuv)

87 Ah well. It was 2003, and that was, like, an eternity ago. I can't be expected to remember things that happened that long ago during my career term in office. And yes I was in office an eternity ago and would probably gladly sit in this same office for another eleven years while droning on about how other people in a CERTAIN branch of government ought to go out and get real jobs, but shut up.

Posted by: Rick Perry at December 29, 2011 04:22 PM (6DYpG)

88 Saying the sodomy law was unconstitutional has led us to the DADT ridiculousness and the public school--everyone should experiment--and the stupid defense of marriage non-act, and the "bullying" laws. It had repercussions that Scalia said it would have but not the ones it looked like it would have. Essentially, we now live in a world where anal sex is more protected than married reproductive sex.

Posted by: dagny at December 29, 2011 04:22 PM (R62Yx)

89
Well, golly gee, since all of you seem to be experts on SCOTUS cases, perhaps you can tell me the name of the case that brought about Plyler?
Quick, a reponse now, not after you've looked it up.
If you want a lawyer for a POTUS, I suggest you vote Obama. That's working out well, isn't it?

Posted by: zane at December 29, 2011 04:22 PM (jNjKB)

90 Lake Titicaca.

Posted by: Phil Connors at December 29, 2011 04:23 PM (QKKT0)

91
Stupid question to ask Governor Perry. He handled it well.
As I have said in the past, Perry would be the best president out of the bunch. The problem is, he would havea lot of trouble winning the general election as any Texan would these days.
Who was the voter that asked the question?

Posted by: Pete_Bondurant at December 29, 2011 04:23 PM (Q4jrq)

92 If I posted something like that here, you lot would call me a whiner.

Yeah, but we call you that anyway. (kidding)

And I agree with you- that comes off as whiny. You almost want to offer him some cheese.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 04:23 PM (8y9MW)

93 The columnist should have asked our "Constitutional scholar" whether he knew the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. Now he could be expected to know of this, because of his putative status as a "Constitutional scholar," and if he didn't, it should be held against him. But a layman? Nah. That's unreasonable.
I truly hate this kind of liberal "gotcha" bullshit. Perry isn't a lawyer, and I don't expect him to have the substance of every Supreme Court opinion at his fingertips, even if he were governor at the time of the opinion.
The liberals' double standard infuriates me. They asked candidate Bush who the prime minister of Pakistan was, and he was an idiot for not having memorized the name of every clown in the UN. Meanwhile, "Barry" whiffs on the number of fucking states, but that's no problem.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at December 29, 2011 04:23 PM (FTPRb)

94



George Bush called such laws a "nod" to conventional morality. Save the
nods to convential morality for public statements. The law should
consist of real laws.





Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:18 PM (nj1bB)
Totally. Its illegal in Minnesota to paint a sparrow with the intent of selling it as a parakeet. True story.

Posted by: ☠ Rex Harrison's Hat ☠ at December 29, 2011 04:23 PM (4136b)

95 Quick! Someone ask Obama where our rights originate?!!

Posted by: dagny at December 29, 2011 04:23 PM (R62Yx)

96
A doctor from France says:


"In France , the medicine is so advanced that



we cut off a man's testicles; we put them into another man, and


in 6 weeks he is looking for work."












The German doctor comments:


"That's nothing, in Germany we






take part of the brain out of a person;


we put it into another person's head, and


in 4 weeks he is looking for work."





A Russian doctor says:


"That's nothing either. In Russia we


take out half of the heart from a person;


we put it into another person's chest, and

in 2 weeks he is looking for work."



The U.S. doctor answers immediately:

"That's nothing my colleagues,

you are way behind us....in the USA , about 2 years ago,

we grabbed a person from Kenya

with no brains, no heart, and no balls....we made him

President of the United States , and now.......

the whole damn country is looking for work.

Posted by: Joke of the Year at December 29, 2011 04:23 PM (hXJOG)

97 Dear Leader pronounced that sanctions against Iran are an act of war justifying their desire for nuclear weapons to strike back at our wrongs against them. Dear Leader would do nothing if they closed the Straits of Hormuz. Dear Leader isn't just mildly deranged, he is genuinely evil.

Posted by: ejo at December 29, 2011 04:24 PM (+GBuV)

98 If you want a lawyer for a POTUS, I suggest you vote Obama. That's working out well, isn't it?

Posted by: zane at December 29, 2011 04:22 PM (jNjKB)
Like there's a chance in hell Barry would know what case it was.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 29, 2011 04:24 PM (TpXEI)

99 In West Virginia you can only have sex with animals under 40 lbs

Posted by: dagny at December 29, 2011 04:24 PM (R62Yx)

100 Ah well. It was 2003, and that was, like, an eternity ago.

--

See, I agree with this sentiment. I am neutral!

Posted by: Ezra Klein at December 29, 2011 04:24 PM (XECOp)

101 Lawrence v. Texas pertains to a health care mandate right?

Was the flub that he said a mandate is actually conservative in nature?

That was him, wasn't it??

Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 29, 2011 04:24 PM (ExN5P)

102 I'm still with Rick, and I still think his Record
speaks better for him than the other candidates' records do (and words
are cheap, especially on the campaign trail), but this is kind of
draining.Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 04:17 PM (8y9MW)

You know what you have to do, Allen.

Posted by: Debra Medina at December 29, 2011 04:24 PM (6DYpG)

103 I suspect that King-of-Nannies Santorum has an encyclopedic knowledge of sodomy related legislation and attending court cases.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at December 29, 2011 04:24 PM (+lsX1)

104 I generally like the guy too, but
he's another big government, George W "compassionate" conservative down
to his bones. He wouldn't try shrinking the damn federal government any
more - and maybe not as much - as Romney would.


Posted by: davidinvirginia at December 29, 2011 04:17 PM (hcJkV)
Actually, wasn't he a budget hawk when he was in the House, before getting to the Senate?

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2011 04:24 PM (7BU4a)

105 Romney would have deflected the question and never returned to address it at the end. If pressed one-on-one by a reporter, he'd get the information by making the reporter be specific.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 04:18 PM (73tyQ)

This is a major part of being good in politics. Deflection and redirection are the darker side of basic shrewdness.

Perry is likened to a Level 3 Rogue trying to take down the Game Boss in an RPG.

Posted by: Juicer at December 29, 2011 04:24 PM (LFS8U)

106 In West Va 5 or more women living together is considered a brothel.

Posted by: dagny at December 29, 2011 04:24 PM (R62Yx)

107 All politicians are full of shit!
Happy New Year!!

I will really dig saying that next year
when Obummer is a lame ass duck.

Posted by: izoneguy at December 29, 2011 04:25 PM (i6Neb)

108

Who was the voter that asked the question?
Just another heckler...infiltrator...confederate.

Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 04:25 PM (G/zuv)

109 I remember Lawrence v Texas because it's the one in which Justice Kennedy wrote what might be the most idiotic opinion ever.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at December 29, 2011 04:25 PM (7EV/g)

110 Perry has bigger issues and problems then some dumbass question to a case the average voter cares nothing about

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at December 29, 2011 04:25 PM (yAor6)

111 ace, mallamutt other attorneys in the house, quick....and w/out looking it up...

Erie Doctrine - what is it? Go....!

Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 29, 2011 04:25 PM (ExN5P)

112 There is so much shit that goes on in a politician's day, esp a governor, why the hell would Perry hang on to that piece of information, especially when it'a all about squicky stuff anyway.

Hey, doesn't this prove once and for all he's not gay? Not that it matters now.

Oh, and NTTAWWT.

Posted by: Jeanne at December 29, 2011 04:25 PM (GdalM)

113 2003 does seem like an eternity ago.

Posted by: The US Employment Rate at December 29, 2011 04:26 PM (r2PLg)

114 "Hell, when was the last time any of us discussed or even thought about the case?"

^^ Excellent point.

Posted by: mike at December 29, 2011 04:26 PM (rDDiL)

115 Ha ha wingnuts!...yore boy Parr-ie shor iz lookin stoopid n such!!!

Posted by: dipshit theory ah at December 29, 2011 04:26 PM (6DDE+)

116 @111

A jurisdictional issue, right?

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 04:26 PM (Xm1aB)

117 Santorum is too irritating to be president.

Posted by: dagny at December 29, 2011 04:26 PM (R62Yx)

118 Perry should have said "my opinions on that are part of the public record, go look it up.
Now do you want to know how I feel about a new SCOTUS appointee's refusal to recuse herself on a matter that that was before the court when she was solicitor, and about which she has an email record as an advocate?"

Posted by: ontherocks at December 29, 2011 04:26 PM (HBqDo)

119 I mentioned Kelo in conversation with a bunch of people recently, not one of them remembered what "Kelo" was. Even though we were loosely on the subject of eminent domain. A couple of them were lawyers, even. Not one of them dumb idiots.

But Perry's too dumb for all the super genius types... whatever. You win. You got your Romney nomination.

And look, some people are mentioning the name Santorum now, as if that matters. I just think it's funny that the not-Romneys have nowhere to go. Santorum? Really?

Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 04:27 PM (Gc/Qi)

120 Erie Doctrine - what is it? Go....!
Civil procedure - use state law when a federal court is hearing a case predicated on diversity of citizenship.
And the only reason I remember this is some bull crap memo I had to write on a case some many years ago.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 29, 2011 04:27 PM (OWjjx)

121 The sign that Santorum might be a threat to someone was the

Van Plaat kerfuffle.

About half of Ace of Spades commenters predicted a month ago he's be the next Anti-Romney.

Posted by: The US Employment Rate at December 29, 2011 04:27 PM (r2PLg)

122 Perry/Santorum 2012!

Posted by: Lord Monochromicorn at December 29, 2011 04:27 PM (1TUG4)

123 Essentially, we now live in a world where anal sex is more protected than married reproductive sex.
Yep. And notice that the nanny-staters are trying to coerce dietary choices, on the grounds of public health considerations, but have no problem with promoting anal sex, which of course causes no public health problems whatever, and in fact is well-known to be the key to a long healthy life. Trans fats, however, devastated segments of the population, but now can be controlled with protease inhibitors.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at December 29, 2011 04:27 PM (FTPRb)

124 You guys need me in here, or can you fight without me?



I mean, I am you, and all.

Posted by: Christine O'Donnell

No, right now we need the only smart man in Delaware, Sen Mike 'I'll take my warchest and stalk off' Castle in here stat.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 29, 2011 04:28 PM (c9Ivb)

125
So the Austin-American Statesman (the most liberal rag in Texas) is following Perry all around Iowa, just waiting with baited breath to ask him a gotcha question?
He should have told them the same thing he did the last time the Statesman did that; that it didn't matter how he answered, they would not report it correctly anyway.
I would not insult my canary by lining its cage with the Statesman.

Posted by: zane at December 29, 2011 04:28 PM (jNjKB)

126 Wow. re: weasel zippers: Ron Paul: Mullahs need nukes to get respect from israel

Posted by: dagny at December 29, 2011 04:28 PM (R62Yx)

127 How much money is in the specialty of sodomy law, anyways?

Posted by: The US Employment Rate at December 29, 2011 04:28 PM (r2PLg)

128 C'mon lawyers. This is the case of civil procedure cases. You all should know this so spit it out already....... ; )

Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 29, 2011 04:28 PM (ExN5P)

129 Vote your candidate in the primary, vote the nominee in the General.
Rinse, repeat. Or else you support Barak Obama having a 2nd term. You want Perry as the nominee? Send him money, work for his campaign, etc. Same for Gingrich, Romney and the others.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at December 29, 2011 04:28 PM (kaOJx)

130 I actually knew the Bush Doctrine one and knew that charlie didn't know it. But that's about it. I get like 10% of the Jeopardy answers before those smart aleks ring in, but if you use closed captioning you can beat them every time.

As for SC cases, I think I know the names of 3 that we all know... Brown, Roe and Kelo.

but that is the problem with modern campaigning, as soon as you make a public mistake most people might make in an interview or debate, you can get palinized.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 29, 2011 04:29 PM (JYheX)

131
ace, mallamutt other attorneys in the house, quick....and w/out looking it up...Erie Doctrine - what is it? Go....!
I know, I know! There is no federal common law.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 29, 2011 04:29 PM (Hx5uv)

132 2003 does seem like an eternity ago.
2003 is the year that lives in infamy. All I remember is Wrigley Field, 5 outs away, a fan, a foul ball, Alex Gonzalez blowing a tailor made double play ball...............ahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!11Eleventy!!!!1

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 29, 2011 04:29 PM (OWjjx)

133 Wow. re: weasel zippers: Ron Paul: Mullahs need nukes to get respect from israel

Luap Nor: The Candid Camera Candidate.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 04:29 PM (8y9MW)

134 Perry is likened to a Level 3 Rogue trying to take down the Game Boss in an RPG.

Ace really needs to do another article about what kind of RPG characters the primary candidates would be.

Posted by: Alex at December 29, 2011 04:29 PM (doww8)

135 Kelo when you're drunk sounds like Helo.

Posted by: The US Employment Rate at December 29, 2011 04:29 PM (r2PLg)

136 114 "Hell, when was the last time any of us discussed or even thought about the case?"

I guarantee you that Rick Santorum has spent the last decade thinking of that case and crying into his pillow.

Posted by: The Q at December 29, 2011 04:30 PM (NdE8F)

137 In the mean time, the Light Bulb law goes into effect effect January 1st
All our incompetent dumpublicans did was defund enforcement.
No domestic company is expected to break the law.
Say goodbye to the 100 watt bulb

Posted by: De' Debil Hisself at December 29, 2011 04:30 PM (lpWVn)

138 I generally like the guy too, but he's another big government, George W "compassionate" conservative down to his bones. He wouldn't try shrinking the damn federal government any more - and maybe not as much - as Romney would.
Posted by: davidinvirginia at December 29, 2011 04:17 PM (hcJkV)
Santorum would make me vote Mitt before him, seriously that's how much I cant stand Rick

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at December 29, 2011 04:30 PM (yAor6)

139 Speaking of which..quick!

What's the rate of alcoholism amongst lawyers?

Posted by: The US Employment Rate at December 29, 2011 04:30 PM (r2PLg)

140
What's next, they gonna chase down Newt and hand him an abacus and demand that he demonstrate an example of long division?


Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 04:31 PM (G/zuv)

141 Vote your candidate in the primary, vote the nominee in the General.

Swear it. Now.

Posted by: The Virginia GOP at December 29, 2011 04:31 PM (TpXEI)

142 Santorum has the Damn Dead Baby letter-

come on you PA 'rons-you know what the hell that is.

Posted by: The US Employment Rate at December 29, 2011 04:31 PM (r2PLg)

143 It is Thursday, December 29, 2011 and on this day........Mitt still sux.

Posted by: maddogg at December 29, 2011 04:31 PM (OlN4e)

144 Wait, now I remember. Lawrence was that case in which the six or seven, however many of those fellas there are, Supreme Court Judges decided that a woman who'd been raped by her father could get an abortion within the first two hours of her pregnancy. Yep, I was right behind that one up until I had a Transformation last week.

What?

Posted by: Rick Perry at December 29, 2011 04:31 PM (6DYpG)

145 What's the rate of alcoholism amongst lawyers?
The highest of any profession. Also, more lawyers are compulsive gamblers than any other profession.
But, other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 29, 2011 04:32 PM (OWjjx)

146 Tari
Right. This was a gotcha question. When have the other candidates been asked about court cases on the campaign trail? Perry is not an attorney. When will so called conservatives stop falling in line behind the MSM?

Posted by: davidd at December 29, 2011 04:32 PM (FGq5b)

147 What's next, they gonna chase down Newt and hand him an abacus and demand that he demonstrate an example of long division?

He probably would show them an example of that, though.

Posted by: The Q at December 29, 2011 04:32 PM (NdE8F)

148 109
I remember Lawrence v Texas because it's the one in which Justice Kennedy wrote what might be the most idiotic opinion ever.

I remember it because that's the one where Justice Scalia wrote one of the best opinions ever. He thought the law was stupid, which it is, but he upheld it (vainly) on the grounds that Texas had the right to enact stupid legislation.

Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at December 29, 2011 04:32 PM (QQAJP)

149 I don't like the name Lawrence, only faggots and sailors are called Lawrence!

Posted by: Gunny Hartman at December 29, 2011 04:32 PM (iYwUw)

150 O/T...over at Hoft...San Fran Nan's daughter sez mom wants to retire?

Posted by: billygoat at December 29, 2011 04:32 PM (6DDE+)

151 How much money is in the specialty of sodomy law, anyways?
With what's going to happen to the military after the the repeal of DADT, I expect there to be quite a bit of litigation.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at December 29, 2011 04:32 PM (7EV/g)

152 It wasn't so much the sodomy laws as the supreme court putting its nose into the state sodomy.....laws.

Posted by: dagny at December 29, 2011 04:32 PM (R62Yx)

153 It wasn't Scalia; it was Thomas.

Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at December 29, 2011 04:32 PM (QQAJP)

154
How much money is in the specialty of sodomy law, anyways?

Posted by: The US Employment Rate

It's not the money; what's important is the end result.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 29, 2011 04:32 PM (c9Ivb)

155 Santorum would make me vote Mitt before him, seriously that's how much I cant stand Rick

Wow.

Ummm... why? I know he's not exactly down with the 10th Amendment (which is why he's pretty far down on my list), but I thought he was otherwise fairly conservative.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 04:32 PM (8y9MW)

156 Posted by: Rick Perry at December 29, 2011 04:31 PM (6DYpG)
again undead stop hiding behind socks

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at December 29, 2011 04:32 PM (yAor6)

157 ... well, I'm ineligible to be President anyway

Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at December 29, 2011 04:33 PM (QQAJP)

158 Actually, wasn't he a budget hawk when he was in the House, before getting to the Senate?

Posted by: 18-1 at December 29, 2011 04:24 PM (7BU4a)
Not sure, but he surely didn't stay one in the Senate if he ever was one. Although I don't think that is nearly as big a problem for him as his personality (at least the way it comes across) is. He just isn't it. (shrug) Nice guy, but not that guy.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at December 29, 2011 04:33 PM (hcJkV)

159 InW. Virginia it is legal to get a marraige nullification if the man finds out his bridge is a virgin. True. If she ain't good enough for her brothers she ain't good enough to get married.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 29, 2011 04:33 PM (jucos)

160 Once Scalia explained something so brilliantly I actually got it for ten minutes...

Posted by: The US Employment Rate at December 29, 2011 04:33 PM (r2PLg)

161 George Bush called such laws a "nod" to conventional
morality. Save the nods to convential morality for public statements.
The law should consist of real laws.





Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:18 PM (nj1bB)
Of course it's a nod to politics. Some socons just want an acknowledgement of right and wrong to come from the state.But even that argument is weak since these laws are so unenforced that nobody knows they exist.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 04:33 PM (73tyQ)

162 What's next, they gonna chase down Newt and hand him an abacus and demand that he demonstrate an example of long division?
There is only one reason the Media does not ask Newt that question.
With Newt, your likely to get a 20 minute answer pertaining to the history of the abacus. No division, mind you, but 20 minutes of the entire history of the abacus, starting with the ancient Greeks.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 29, 2011 04:33 PM (OWjjx)

163 Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of House Minority Leader and
former SpeakerNancy Pelosi, told Big Government this week that her mother wants to
leave Congress-and that she remains in Washington only at the behest of
her campaign donors.

Posted by: Jared Loughner at December 29, 2011 04:34 PM (e8kgV)

164 If you don't enforce them anyway, THEY SHOULD NOT BE ON THE BOOKS. The law's prohibitions, the things the law says you can actually go to jail for, and the state will cart you off for doing, should be limited to the things you actually enforce, no? Do we want false prohibitions cluttering up the code? George Bush called such laws a "nod" to conventional morality. Save the nods to convential morality for public statements. The law should consist of real laws.
Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:18 PM (nj1bB)
Yup. That has always bugged me about many laws. They are on the books, aren't enforced,....but the threat of enforcement is handy leverageand there for the taking if authority is so inclined. That's whyI hate traffic warning citations. Too much opportunity for abuse.If you broke the law, you should be penalized. Keep it clean and objective.

Posted by: long toss at December 29, 2011 04:34 PM (FPjaa)

165 again undead stop hiding behind socks

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at December 29, 2011 04:32 PM (yAor6)

Leave Undead alone!

Posted by: Christine O'Donnell at December 29, 2011 04:34 PM (6DYpG)

166 I actually have trouble with this area of the law.

If you know law, you know that virtually nothing has caused more mischief than the doctrine of "substantive due process." This is the shorthand for "vibes" in the Constitution. "Penumbras and emanations." That crap. It's not in the constitution, but we're going to say that the vague guarantee of "due process" (which by its terms demands only a certain process, a procedure, and does not speak to substance) means we can say the Constitution says things it doesn't.

This is pernicious doctrine which conservatives hate because it's been used to advance just about every liberal crap agenda item you can name.

Even when not specifically named -- it's got a bad reputation now -- the same idea is imported into other words.

Here's where I'm conflicted, though: I do think there are some goddamn things the government has no fucking power over. You can say "the constitution doesn't forbid the government to prohibit me from having sodomy."

I can turn that around though: Nowhere in the constitiution does it mention the government's power to lock me in jail for enjoying a blowjob, or going down a chick.

I don't know where I am on this, exactly. I know I hate the whole doctrine, because it's been used time and again to invent crap in the constituiton.

But honestly-- I don't think the government has any goddamned power to prohibit the sale of contraceptives, as it once did (and some connecticut ruling, forget the other party, held that it can't).

I don't know how to express this feeling WITHOUT EMPOWERING LIBERALS TO DO EVERY DAMN THING THEY LIKE BY CLAIMING "SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS." That is, I don't see how I can safely limit my gut feeling that the government has no power over certain things, without giving the lefties pretext to start advancing ever bit of their agenda.

But yeah, deep down, I do think it's unconstitutional for the govenrnment to stop bossing me around when I try to buy rubbers.

But where can I locate that clause of the Constitution? I can't. So I'm forced to the Scalia position of "let's go with exactly what the constitution says, because that way winds up with the least mischief, and a more humble court."

And I agree with that.

But...

Still and all, I don't want the government passing anti-sodomy laws. It's none of your goddamned business, thank you very much. yes, it's majority rule, but the majority doesn't have plenary power over the minority, either.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:35 PM (nj1bB)

167 It wasn't so much the sodomy laws as the supreme court putting its nose into the state sodomy.....laws.
I'm not sure I like the concepts of sodomy and putting your nose in in the same sentence.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 29, 2011 04:35 PM (Hx5uv)

168 santorum walks around with a look on his face like he just smelled the cat piss trolls apt.........

Posted by: phoenixgirl all in for perry at December 29, 2011 04:35 PM (Ho2rs)

169 The one overwhelming reason we all must support whoever the Republicans nominate?
Judicial appointments.

Posted by: real joe at December 29, 2011 04:35 PM (ixAVa)

170 I remember Lawrence v Texas because it's the one in which Justice Kennedy wrote what might be the most idiotic opinion ever.
I have to admit I only remember Lawrence v. Theisman. That was the case the conclusively proved that yes, a broken leg could point North no matter which way you spun the poor schmuck on the stretcher.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 29, 2011 04:35 PM (OWjjx)

171 The general election is going to be nasty. VERY nasty. There will be surprise truths, outright lies, and misstatements turning good things into bad things. No matter WHO the nominee is, it will be a long hard slog through some horrid sludge to get a victory in November.

The question becomes not "who is most electable" because none of them are really any more or less electable than the others - and with Romney we don't even know how he handles a fight.

The question is really "who do you want to fight alongside". Who can you see yourself working for? Who would you be happier to have in that office at the end of it - so that maybe you can relax a bit?

With Romney or Newt - the election would only be phase 1 of the fight. We'd be fighting their instincts for the next 4 years. We'd be fighting AGAINST them.

I choose Perry because I'd like to fight FOR him.

Posted by: Less at December 29, 2011 04:35 PM (PGXeZ)

172 Ace really needs to do another article about what kind of RPG characters the primary candidates would be.

Posted by: Alex at December 29, 2011 04:29 PM (doww
Lvl 72 baby!

Posted by: Barack Obama, Lvl72 Douchebag at December 29, 2011 04:36 PM (7BU4a)

173 Wow.Ummm... why? I know he's not exactly down with the 10th Amendment (which is why he's pretty far down on my list), but I thought he was otherwise fairly conservative.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 04:32 PM (8y9MW)
I'm a Liberterian GOPer, im semi-silent on this blog on my pro-gay marriage views, my pro DADT repeal views, and other things like being pro drug legilization. I stay as quiet as I can about that because I know its unpopular to back those things on this blog. That said I am pragmatic and a member of the republican party, if i'm gonna back a guy who's gonna disagree with me on social issues I wanna back someone who doesn't come off as whiny, angry white middle aged, and almost to a point of being a bigot as Santorum comes off. If my only option is Santorum or Mitt im just gonna back Mitt as a default.

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at December 29, 2011 04:36 PM (yAor6)

174 What's that connecticut one ? Goring v. Connecticut? Something with a G.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:36 PM (nj1bB)

175
brb, focusin on jobs

Posted by: lolobama at December 29, 2011 04:37 PM (G/zuv)

176 Reagan didn't know all the answers either. And the more I watch Perry, the more he seems to have Reagan's humor. And we'll need someone with that characteristic on down the road. I don't really wantthe pompousness of Romney(after all, he's had four years to rehearse). Newt does seem to know the answers but doesn't rub people's noses in it. He just knows it and moves on.

Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 04:37 PM (bgsV5)

177 Good heavens, how is what Perry said a bad answer? And I would be saying that even if it were Herr Doktorwho gave that answer.
Here's a question - without searching, name the defendant in the Kelo case. For bonus points, name the company for whose use the land was being taken. Kelo is way, way, way more important than Lawrence v. Texas and I bet a vast majority of people couldn't name the defendant in that right off the top of their head.

Posted by: alexthechick at December 29, 2011 04:37 PM (VtjlW)

178 Some socons just want an acknowledgement of right and wrong to come from the state.
Just like the activist homos do.

Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 29, 2011 04:37 PM (pu3AL)

179 Quite frankly-as a historian-I can tell you the abacus is Chinese, the Chinese were thought to be our enemy until Nixon-did I tell you that I once worked for Reagan? I was a foot soldier for Reagan, but I was also with Jack Kemp-everyone remembers Jack Kemp...

Posted by: Newt at December 29, 2011 04:37 PM (r2PLg)

180 Leave Undead alone!Posted by: Christine O'Donnell at December 29, 2011 04:34 PM (6DYpG)
*facepalm*

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at December 29, 2011 04:37 PM (yAor6)

181 Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of House Minority Leader and
former SpeakerNancy Pelosi, told Big Government this week that her mother wants to
leave Congress-and that she remains in Washington only at the behest of
her campaign donors.
You've got to hand it to Nancy. Once she's bought she stays bought.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 29, 2011 04:38 PM (Hx5uv)

182 That is, I don't see how I can safely limit my gut feeling that the
government has no power over certain things, without giving the lefties
pretext to start advancing ever bit of their agenda.

That's because you can't. Or, rather, the way to prevent government from forcing its way in where it isn't wanted is to pay attention and do your best to make sure small government politicians get elected; and specifically politicians who are quite happy to get paid to sit in session and block every single piece of legislation proposed.

But, really, either the Constitution means what it says- and only what it says- or it means nothing. That's a binary statement, it can't mean mostly what it says, or what it says and some other stuff.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 04:38 PM (8y9MW)

183 Griswold v CT

Posted by: real joe at December 29, 2011 04:38 PM (ixAVa)

184 @174

Griswald or Griswold

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 04:38 PM (Xm1aB)

185 So, what's next?

Does Perry get asked about the illegal Tiger Bone trade?

Is he required to know the location of every glory hole on I 45?

What???

Posted by: mike at December 29, 2011 04:38 PM (rDDiL)

186
We just discussed Kelo recently and I can't even remember the names.

Posted by: lolobama at December 29, 2011 04:38 PM (G/zuv)

187
I choose Perry because I'd like to fight FOR him.

Posted by: Less at December 29, 2011 04:35 PM (PGXeZ)
And he's the only candidate I can really imagine being commander of our armed forces.

Posted by: ☠ Rex Harrison's Hat ☠ at December 29, 2011 04:38 PM (4136b)

188 Some socons just want an acknowledgement of right and wrong to come from the state.

Those theocratic bastards!

Posted by: The Committee to Repeal Murder and Theft Laws at December 29, 2011 04:38 PM (7BU4a)

189 Blah blah blah, he should have known this one, it was a pretty high profile case specifically involving his state, and I think he was even governor at the time. That's the kind of stuff you should remember.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 04:38 PM (r4wIV)

190 170

Yet another case with unforeseen and terrible consequences.

Like Theismann's broadcasting career.

Posted by: The Q at December 29, 2011 04:38 PM (NdE8F)

191
Clark Griswald?

Posted by: lolobama at December 29, 2011 04:39 PM (G/zuv)

192 I wish I could tell you I knew every Supreme Court case. I dont, Im
not even going to try to go through every Supreme Court case, that would
be Im not a lawyer, Perry said at the Blue Strawberry Coffee Shop
here.

You're not lots of things.

Posted by: really? at December 29, 2011 04:39 PM (X3lox)

193 I'm a Liberterian GOPer, im semi-silent on this blog on my pro-gay marriage views, my pro DADT repeal views, and other things like being pro drug legilization. I stay as quiet as I can about that because I know its unpopular to back those things on this blog. That said I am pragmatic and a member of the republican party, if i'm gonna back a guy who's gonna disagree with me on social issues I wanna back someone who doesn't come off as whiny, angry white middle aged, and almost to a point of being a bigot as Santorum comes off. If my only option is Santorum or Mitt im just gonna back Mitt as a default.
Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at December 29, 2011 04:36 PM (yAor6)

I smell Paultardedness.

Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 04:39 PM (bgsV5)

194 You've got to hand it to
Nancy. Once she's bought she stays bought.


Posted by: WalrusRex at December 29, 2011 04:38 PM (Hx5uv)
I have principles, don't you know!

Posted by: San Fran Nan at December 29, 2011 04:39 PM (6DDE+)

195 Kelo v New London

Posted by: real joe at December 29, 2011 04:40 PM (ixAVa)

196 I thought The Griswalds was a Christmas movie.

Posted by: Newt at December 29, 2011 04:40 PM (r2PLg)

197 >>>I remember Lawrence v Texas because it's the one in which Justice Kennedy wrote what might be the most idiotic opinion ever.


It was idiotic. It was also his attempt at some bizarre Alan Ginsberg poetry in a legal opinion.

I have to tell you, though, I have moved on this. At the time I was all "The Constitution is mute! It says nothing either way! So the majority can forbid whatever it likes!"

But as conservatives like to point out, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic *republic.* We have certain inalienable rights, or, positing that in a negative way, there are some powers the government doesn't, or shouldn't, have.

I don't like this whole idea about the government stepping in to outlaw the birth control pill because *they fear the effect it might have on my morality.*

Worry about your own.

(Abortion is different because that at least implicates another life. But this crap about bjs and rubbers and vibrators? Mind your own beeswax. We are Free Adults, we are not children in need of state guidance.)

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:40 PM (nj1bB)

198 I smell Paultardedness.
Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 04:39 PM (bgsV5)
I despise Paul, but nice try

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at December 29, 2011 04:40 PM (yAor6)

199 If you know law, you know that virtually nothing has caused more mischief than the doctrine of "substantive due process."
Between substantive due process, the bastardization of the commerce clause and that whole delegation doctrine thing, well, it all makes alex something something.
Can't sleep. Lemon test will eat me.

Posted by: alexthechick at December 29, 2011 04:40 PM (VtjlW)

200 Griswold, right. I KNEW THAT!!!!

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:40 PM (nj1bB)

201
brb, grindin my candidacy into the dust

Posted by: lolrickperry at December 29, 2011 04:40 PM (G/zuv)

202 All the Perry fans are doing right now is proving they can be every bit as blind to their candidates' flaws as Palinistas, Cainiacs and Paulbots, and believe everything that goes against him is some kind of a conspiracy.

It's a running joke around here about "57 states" and Ace et al are pimping a guy who got the number of USSC justices wrong. The fact SCOAMF can't talk without a teleprompter is running proof he's not nearly as smart as people say he is, but when Perry stumbles and bumbles around it's "well we don't want all flash and style." Maybe the fact that any half-assed member of the moron herd could name three cabinet agencies they'd cut in a heartbeat (Education, Energy and HUD would be a good start) and Perry can't should tell you something.

Posted by: the dandy at December 29, 2011 04:40 PM (lVK3L)

203 Kelo vs. New London?

Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 29, 2011 04:40 PM (jucos)

204 Posted by: The Q at December 29, 2011 04:38 PM (NdE8F)
Thank you. I have been in a foul mood all day (work sucks, kids are driving me nuts and my Mother In Law is in early stages of dementia and hell bent to change her phone company every 15 minutes because the phone is too complicated) and that is the first good laugh I have had all day. Thanks!

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 29, 2011 04:40 PM (OWjjx)

205 R. Emmett Tyrrell on his endorsement of Perry:A Prediction Gone Wrong.
So was I always right in 2011? Unfortunately, not at all. Those who noticed the optimistic tone of my pronouncements regarding Texas Governor Rick Perrys chances for the presidency in late spring and early summer must know I was too optimistic by half. In fact, I was dead wrong. Let me be man enough to admit it.
Back then I saw Governor Perry declaring his candidacy by the end of August, and so far so good. I said he would be very impressive, speaking authoritatively and sonorously on all the important issues of the day to us conservatives. By January 2012 he would have swept the field. Only a well-heeled Governor Romney would be prepared to challenge him, and perhaps the indefatigable Congressman Ron Paul. It would be a pathetic sight, with a smiling, congenial Governor Perry proceeding to the summer Republican convention and taking the nomination.
Well, Perry did not sweep into 2012. He tripped repeatedly in the fall after a promising declaration of candidacy. He faltered in debate and had those embarrassing brain seizures in front of the cameras where all could see. He was a solid conservative, but on some things he was too solid and he was rarely well informed. Frankly, I came to the conclusion that in the summer sometime he awoke and thought he should be president, so why not make a run for it? His state was rightly being boomed as the economy that works in contrast to California the economy that had failed, that hated business, that was an economy without a purpose. Governor Perry had been good for Texas and could be good for America. The 2012 election was going to be about the economy and the Governor of Texas was the man to take on Obama.
Actually, he might well be a man to take on Obama, but he has shown himself not to be prepared for the race just yet. It is said of him that in Texas he never won a debate and never lost a race. Yet he is beyond Texas now. Today he is campaigning for the presidency and he entered the race as though it were a lark. He has shown the capacity to learn on the campaign trail, but I am not sure the trail is long enough. We shall soon see.

Posted by: stuiec at December 29, 2011 04:41 PM (UTjQC)

206 Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 04:39 PM (bgsV5)

Naa. Aurthur's a squish, but he's not a loon. At least, not that much of one. He's been pretty solidly !Romney.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 04:42 PM (8y9MW)

207 No the most idiotic opinion was the one where Kennedy waxed on about tomatoes.

Posted by: Newt at December 29, 2011 04:42 PM (r2PLg)

208
The one overwhelming reason we all must support whoever the Republicans nominate?Judicial appointments.


Posted by: real joe at December 29, 2011 04:35 PM (ixAVa)
This.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at December 29, 2011 04:42 PM (hcJkV)

209 All the Perry fans are doing right now is proving they can be every bit as blind to their candidates' flaws as Palinistas, Cainiacs and Paulbots, and believe everything that goes against him is some kind of a conspiracy.
I agree with this somewhat but you forgot to add the Romneybots and their dickish behavior to that list

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at December 29, 2011 04:42 PM (yAor6)

210 We just discussed Kelo recently and I can't even remember the names.

Posted by: lolobama

I believe that it was New London CT, and they whored themselves out to Pfzier. Funnily enough, Pfzier changed their plans and the lot where a tax generating home once stood is now a target for illegal dumping.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 29, 2011 04:42 PM (c9Ivb)

211 Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 04:38 PM (r4wIV)

nope, you are dead wrong.

Posted by: chas at December 29, 2011 04:43 PM (TKF1Y)

212 im semi-silent on this blog on my pro-gay marriage views, my pro DADT
repeal views, and other things like being pro drug legilization.Uh oh, now THAT's a problem, podner. I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to recognize that the top two problems facing this country right now are 1.) Gays and 2.) Gheys. Oh, and 3.) Abortion. Not sayin' anything about the drugs, since I've been enjoyin' some pretty nice ones over the course'a this campaign season. But I can pledge right now that as president I WILL track down this "Lawrence" fella and bring him to justice.

Posted by: Rick Perry at December 29, 2011 04:43 PM (6DYpG)

213 Kelo vs. New London?
Close: Kelo v. City of New London. Yup, I had to look it up.

Posted by: alexthechick at December 29, 2011 04:43 PM (VtjlW)

214 Still and all, I don't want the government passing anti-sodomy laws.
It's none of your goddamned business, thank you very much. yes, it's
majority rule, but the majority doesn't have plenary power over the
minority, either.

But what's the alternative? If the majority doesn't have power to decide everything, who determines what they can decide?

'A bunch of guys who went to Harvard Law' ranks low on my list of who should get that power.

But honestly, who steps in to say, "no voters, you got it wrong?"


Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 29, 2011 04:43 PM (TpXEI)

215 But as conservatives like to point out, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic *republic.*

State governments have much more power and are more closely connected to the individual citizens. People can move to other states. It isn't a hardship. This was a state issue.

Posted by: really ... at December 29, 2011 04:43 PM (X3lox)

216
And that's the most frustrating thing, stuie: The election of 2012 is about The Economy.

R Emmett R Tyrell Emmett is right.

Posted by: lolrickperry at December 29, 2011 04:43 PM (G/zuv)

217
I believe that it was New London CT, and they whored themselves out to Pfzier. Funnily enough, Pfzier changed their plans and the lot where a tax generating home once stood is now a target for illegal dumping.
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 29, 2011 04:42 PM (c9Ivb)


If Lieberman had not saved the Sub Base there, the whole New London/Groton area would have collapsed

Posted by: nevergiveup at December 29, 2011 04:44 PM (i6RpT)

218 The Supreme Court is one vote shy of demolishing the 2nd Amendment. And Moochelle has come out and said that is their intent on winning reelection.
Can we just get behind the 'pubbie, whoever it is?

Posted by: real joe at December 29, 2011 04:44 PM (ixAVa)

219 1: He has done a good job as governor of one of our largest and most successful states for over 10 years.
2: He is NOT a *^%$#* lawyer.
3: Actually this is #1: He is not Obumble-f**^%

I'm voting for Rick Perry!

Posted by: JustMe at December 29, 2011 04:44 PM (QbjWk)

220
If just one of these idiots would stick to the economy, they'd be cruising into the nomination now.




Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 04:44 PM (G/zuv)

221 Naa. Aurthur's a squish, but he's not a loon. At least, not that much of one. He's been pretty solidly Romney.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 04:42 PM (8y9MW)
actuallyyIve been solidly evryone at one point. Ive given almost everyone a chance and Newt was my last guy until Ive returned to my once again new status of undecided. Its more fun voting against a Dem then it is picking b/w the guys on the good guy side. *sighs* My primary vote is up for grabs and the FL primary is SOON

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at December 29, 2011 04:44 PM (yAor6)

222 The fact SCOAMF can't talk without a teleprompter is
running proof he's not nearly as smart as people say he is,

Posted by: the dandy at December 29, 2011 04:40 PM (lVK3L)
"not nearly as smart"? The guy's a fucking retard.

Posted by: really ... at December 29, 2011 04:45 PM (X3lox)

223
memo to GOP candidates:

Three-quarters of the questions the media asks you...nobody gives a shit about.

Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 04:45 PM (G/zuv)

224 A good thing about Perry running is that none of you Beta Male Dickless Wonders who ridiculed Palin but now support Perry have any credibility. I think it's hilarious.

Posted by: Jaynie59 at December 29, 2011 04:45 PM (4zKCA)

225 which Supreme Court justice had his house confiscated via Kelo or something like that..

Posted by: Newt at December 29, 2011 04:46 PM (r2PLg)

226 Souter?

Posted by: Newt at December 29, 2011 04:46 PM (r2PLg)

227 Posted by: Rick Perry at December 29, 2011 04:43 PM (6DYpG)
dude stop it with the socks, your better then that

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at December 29, 2011 04:46 PM (yAor6)

228 Posted by: The Committee to Repeal Murder and Theft Laws
That's different.
Are those laws about 'sending an official governmentmessage about the morality of theft', or are they about dealing with people who violate others rights?
We're talking about laws that don't get enforced, like sodomy laws. How does that compare to murder?
The laws against murder aren't there to 'nod at conventional morality'.

Posted by: Entropy, and if you don't agree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 29, 2011 04:46 PM (pu3AL)

229 @197

If you don't agree with the constitutionality of state laws impinging on areas of activity you believe are off limits, then you have the option of voting to change the law or amending the Constitution.

I think, at this point in history, anti-sodomy laws are things of the past whether struck down by the Court or not. However, we have a Constitution, and the states still have their police power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens as they see fit. The U.S. Supreme Court inventing new "rights" to circumvent the exercise of state police power is threatening to our republican form of government.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 04:46 PM (Xm1aB)

230 An illegal alien, a muslim and a communist walk into a bar.

The bartender says:

"What can I get for you, Mr President?"

Posted by: JustMe at December 29, 2011 04:46 PM (QbjWk)

231 Posted by: the dandy at December 29, 2011 04:40 PM (lVK3L)

your a fucking idiot if you equate obama stopping and thinking and then saying "...57 states..." to perry admitting he doesnt know the particulars of a supreme court case from 9 years ago. as governor his involvement is tangential at best. ask the AG if you want details. if they had really wanted his opinion on the case after he admitted he didnt know it by name they couldve prompted him w/ some details. instead they proved it was a gotcha question.

Posted by: chas at December 29, 2011 04:46 PM (TKF1Y)

232 Actually, Perry fell into this joke: He got the case wrong simply because they had the wrong last names.

suckers!

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 29, 2011 04:46 PM (QxSug)

233 I bet a vast majority of people couldn't name the defendant in that right off the top of their head. Posted by: alexthechick at December 29, 2011 04:37 PM

This election is turning into one of those Google-fed "gotcha" games where candidates -- except Mutt Romney are branded as dunces because they can't give an immediate answer to gotcha questions. You know, the kind no one ever asks the stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

And some people here (and at Tepid Air, where Poppin' Fresh is jonesin' for a Santorum comeback) love to play into the game, changing preferred candidates more often than they change their undies.

"What, Perry can't cite the specifics of Stumblebum v. Fuckstick? NOT QUALIFIED!!11!!"

I guess it won't matter, as Ann Coulter has pulled Mutt Romney out of her vajayjay and has branded him Inevitable. Osama Obama will play Wack-A-Mitt with him, and we get four more years of totalitarian shit.

And four more years of Moo-Chelle, which may be even more frightening.

Posted by: MrScribbler at December 29, 2011 04:46 PM (tkd/a)

234 It's a running joke around here about "57 states"

Quick... tell me why this is a running joke.
No fair looking.

...
...
...

Okay, I'll tell you- it's because Obama's lapdog media tried to portray him as this gaff-free campaigning demigod (he wouldn't ascend to full god-hood until he was inaugurated) and it was funny to watch them contort themselves to avoid mentioning such obvious gaffs.

Contra Rick Perry, for whom even non-gaffs are reported as gaffs, yes, we tend to defend him. Also, while I see some people disagree that this was a gaff (and giving decently well reasoned arguments to support their position) I don't see anyone just trying to ignore it.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 04:47 PM (8y9MW)

235
Lawrence v Texas ain't puttin gas in my tank and it ain't heatin my goddam house.




Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 04:47 PM (G/zuv)

236 If just one of these idiots would stick to the economy, they'd be cruising into the nomination now.Posted by: soothsayer

Yeah. We'll allow that cruise to pass unmolested.

Posted by: MFM at December 29, 2011 04:47 PM (c9Ivb)

237 We're talking about laws that don't get enforced, like sodomy laws. How does that compare to murder?
hire a good enough lawyer!

Posted by: O.J. Simpson at December 29, 2011 04:48 PM (OWjjx)

238 Jaynie59 at December 29, 2011 04:45 PM (4zKCA)

go take a midol

Posted by: chas at December 29, 2011 04:48 PM (TKF1Y)

239 The one overwhelming reason we all must support whoever the Republicans nominate?Judicial appointments.
Posted by: real joe at December 29, 2011 04:35 PM (ixAVa)
This.
Posted by: davidinvirginia at December 29, 2011 04:42 PM (hcJkV)

Except for Luap Nor. And you'll really need to convince me about who Romney would nominate, because I just can't trust him. He's greasy.

Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 04:49 PM (bgsV5)

240 Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:40 PM (nj1bB)
ace, your last couple of comments in this thread indicate that you really have a problem with the whole idea of a federalist sytem. You speak of government power, but we're supposed to have several governments. The federal government has its duties and powers (one of those powers being to safeguard a limited number of explicitly spelled out rights), and the rest is left to the people and the states to work out for themselves. You worry about the government stepping in where you don't think it should, but don't the people in, say, Utah have the right to make their own laws without someone in New York telling them what to do?

Posted by: somebody else, not me at December 29, 2011 04:49 PM (7EV/g)

241 No the most idiotic opinion was the one where Kennedy waxed on about tomatoes.
Hands down the best case I've ever read was the one about transgendered emus. Yes, transgendered emus. No, I am not making that up, seriously, I don't think I could make that up. The best part was the judge played it pretty much straight in the text of the opinion but the footnotes were hilarious.

Posted by: alexthechick at December 29, 2011 04:49 PM (VtjlW)

242
I am certain our current President could go on and on about Lawrence v. Texas. [Asks for it by name!] But he's a little lame on the 2nd Amendment.
Where's your priority?

Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at December 29, 2011 04:49 PM (qwK3S)

243 That didn't take long. Perry will attack him relentlessly now.

Posted by: cvb at December 29, 2011 04:49 PM (HRFxR)

244
They're talking about abortion. And this gay sodomy shit.

Fools.

Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 04:49 PM (G/zuv)

245 The fact SCOAMF can't talk without a teleprompter is running proof he's not nearly as smart as people say he is,
Posted by: the dandy at December 29, 2011 04:40 PM (lVK3L)
"not nearly as smart"? The guy's a fucking retard.
Posted by: really ... at December 29, 2011 04:45 PM (X3lox)
HEY. NOT FAIR!

Posted by: Corky Thatcher at December 29, 2011 04:49 PM (jucos)

246 A lot of dumb laws are left on books because it was too expensive to remove them. At least that was what I read a long time ago.

Posted by: mike at December 29, 2011 04:50 PM (rDDiL)

247 210 they whored themselves out to Pfzier.

In the end, it call comes back to sodomy

Posted by: The Q at December 29, 2011 04:50 PM (NdE8F)

248 Aurthur's a squish, but he's not a loon.

What is this, Valentine's Day? Is this the true AOSHQ spirit?

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 29, 2011 04:50 PM (Hx5uv)

249 I can't believe no one has brought up the "frothy mix" yet.

Posted by: cvb at December 29, 2011 04:51 PM (HRFxR)

250 " you Beta Male Dickless Wonders who ridiculed Palin but now support Perry have any credibility"
At least Perry had the spine to get in the race, unlike Palin, who prefers to sit on the sidelines and sell books to her rube fanclub. St Sarah the Spineless of the Perpetual Victimhood. When is her next book "How I went Rogue and Almost Ran for President" coming out?

Posted by: Dick Nixon at December 29, 2011 04:51 PM (kaOJx)

251 But honestly-- I don't think the government has any goddamned power to
prohibit the sale of contraceptives, as it once did (and some
connecticut ruling, forget the other party, held that it can't).

Why?

The can prohibit the sale of heroin and many other items. The Constitution doesn't explicitly grant the government that power, be it LSD or contraceptives.

Was it a stupid (and unenforced) law that should've been repealed? Absolutely. There's a mechanism for that which doesn't involved the Supreme Court making shit up though.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 29, 2011 04:52 PM (SY2Kh)

252
You know what Obama is doing right now?

He's laying down on a lounge chair sipping fru-fru drinks with little umbrellas in them.

That knoblicker-in-chief is getting a free ride for all his failed policies because these idiot Republicans don't know shit about nothin.

Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 04:52 PM (G/zuv)

253 it's because Obama's lapdog media tried to portray
him as this gaff-free campaigning demigod

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 04:47 PM (8y9MW)
Heh. They did a great job shielding the tard from his own campaigning. It only took Barky two days of his "backyard discussion" campaign (where he crept around people's back yards and tried to look normal) until he ran into Joe the Plumber and declared that we should "spread the wealth". That was pretty awesome. Who knew the US would go for it? The joke's on us.

Posted by: really ... at December 29, 2011 04:53 PM (X3lox)

254 Except for Luap Nor. And you'll
really need to convince me about who Romney would nominate, because I
just can't trust him. He's greasy.

Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 04:49 PM (bgsV5)

No! Fuck this!1. Paul isn't going to be the nominee.2. Even if by some weird twist of fate he was, he would still be better than Obama.

Posted by: real joe at December 29, 2011 04:53 PM (ixAVa)

255 The Perry people on here are not ignoring his flaws. We are supporting him because he has an actual record that speaks for him. Romney may get the nomination, but his record will make it very easy for Obama to paint him as a 1%, and his record at Bain will not help. Obama has been planning to run against Romney for 3years. They have plenty of ammunition, and it is not helpful that none of his past is being brought up now, rather than in the actual campaign.

Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at December 29, 2011 04:53 PM (6IV8T)

256 Contra Rick Perry, for whom even non-gaffs are reported as gaffs, yes, we tend to defend him. Also, while I see some people disagree that this was a gaff (and giving decently well reasoned arguments to support their position) I don't see anyone just trying to ignore it.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 04:47 PM (8y9MW)

This particular event doesn't bother me, and I'm basically ignoring it. The only reason I may refer to it, is that it's the topic of this thread.

Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 04:53 PM (bgsV5)

257 "not nearly as smart"? The guy's a fucking retard.
Posted by: really ... at December 29, 2011 04:45 PM (X3lox)
Hey, that's not a nice thing to say.

Posted by: I tarded so hard, I had to do it again at December 29, 2011 04:53 PM (yn6XZ)

258 I agree with this somewhat but you forgot to add the Romneybots and their dickish behavior to that list


Sure, throw them in too. I'm not a supporter of Romney or any of these guys, but it is amazing to me that after three years of noting and repeating ad nauseum all the stupid verbal gaffes of Da Won — and disqualifying GOP candidates like Palin and Cain for that very lack of basic competence — that the people running this blog suddenly don't care about their preferred candidate coming off like every bit of the stammering retard Maobama is.

Posted by: the dandy at December 29, 2011 04:53 PM (lVK3L)

259 Aurthur's a squish, but he's not a loon. What is this, Valentine's Day? Is this the true AOSHQ spirit?
Yea, cause you know what he is...........A RINO!
You are all RINOS. Every damn last one of you is a RINO. Know what else is a RINO....the internet. And since you are all on the internet, your RINOS!

Posted by: The Commentor Who Calls Everyone and Everything a RINO, especially Aurthur! at December 29, 2011 04:53 PM (OWjjx)

260 BTW, I knew that the defendant in Kelo was the town of New London, but that's only because I'm always thinking of towns that name themselves after old places and just put a "New" in front of it.

New England and New Mexico being the two most famous

Posted by: The Q at December 29, 2011 04:53 PM (NdE8F)

261 >>>ace, your last couple of comments in this thread indicate that you really have a problem with the whole idea of a federalist sytem. You speak of government power, but we're supposed to have several governments. The federal government has its duties and powers (one of those powers being to safeguard a limited number of explicitly spelled out rights), and the rest is left to the people and the states to work out for themselves. You worry about the government stepping in where you don't think it should, but don't the people in, say, Utah have the right to make their own laws without someone in New York telling them what to do?

Somebody else,

The federal scheme also guarantees the "privileges and immunities" of free citizens to ALL persons, from their state governments as well; the constitution does not authorize any state to be a tyranny, obviously. A clause in the constitution promises a "Republican form of government."

Is it your considered opinion that New York State can confiscate all firearms from all citizens?

The constitution is not merely a structure of rights between states vis a vis the government. It also grants rights to citizens, as against anybody, whether state or government.

Some people (i'm not saying you) really want the 10th Amendment to mean "anything goes" because, well, Jim Crow, and similar burdens on citizens.

The Constitution was not enacted with the belief that it permits any particular state to declare a despotism.


Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:53 PM (nj1bB)

262 "The guy's a fucking retard."

There's an article in the NYT about how Obama is considered "distant" by people in Washington. One of the thing in it is that he pretty much exclusively watches sports on TV and plays video games rather than say keeping up on what's going on by watching the news, history channel, sciency shit, etc.

It paints a pretty clear and worrisome picture of where whatever neurons he has firing are focused.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 29, 2011 04:53 PM (WZtt1)

263
No the most idiotic opinion was the one where Kennedy waxed on about tomatoes.

Hands down the best case I've ever read was the one about
transgendered emus. Yes, transgendered emus. No, I am not making that
up, seriously, I don't think I could make that up. The best part was
the judge played it pretty much straight in the text of the opinion but
the footnotes were hilarious.

Posted by: alexthechick
I dunno. The one where Kennedy botched the decision about the death penalty for a rapist ( raped his very young step daughter so savagely she needed multiple surgeries) stands out. He made several clear mistakes, including the claim that the government never countenanced the death penalty for such cases, when the UCMJ clearly calls for it.

P.S. I remember reading that decision and I can't recall the names of either party.

Posted by: MFM at December 29, 2011 04:54 PM (c9Ivb)

264
I can see it now. Obama is sitting on the beach with his laptop reading blogs and laughing his skinny ass off.

Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 04:54 PM (G/zuv)

265 Look here, chumps, I wouldn't know the Supreme Court from Diana Ross and the Supremes, but what I do know is that if that vaccine pimping, Mexican loving Ricardo Perry gets the nomination then not only will I be voting for Obama I'll be voting Democrat across the bored, to send my messages and to prove my points.
Come to think of it, I've already decided that I won't be voting in next year's general election. This field of candidates is full of RINOs and punks, except of course for General Herman Cain. But the RINO GOP establishment made him drop out.
Better that we have Obama in office, so we can impeach him, than to lose slower with some RINO wimp.
Cain-Palin-Buck-Miller-Paladino-Angle-O'Donnell, '16.

Posted by: Totally Irrational Political Malcontent at December 29, 2011 04:54 PM (f8XyF)

266
The saddest and scariest part of all of this is that the OdipO Administration doesn't care what is or is not constitutional. They will totally disregard the law if it suits their purposes. I couldn't stand Bill Clinton, but I never ever thought of him as a wanna-be dictator, just an ultra-liberal.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 29, 2011 04:54 PM (JYheX)

267 "disqualifying GOP candidates like Palin "

Palin never was a candidate for POTUS. Lack of spine.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at December 29, 2011 04:54 PM (kaOJx)

268 This wasn't a gotcha question and he wasn't asked about sodomy per se. He was asked to defend his view of the role and scope of government in the context of this ruling. Only when it became apparent he had no clue which case was being referred to, did THAT become the issue.

Given his views on the subject and the fact he was sitting governor of the state named in the case (I assume his AG was defending) he should have recognized it. For those who think 2003 is so long ago, how about the inconvenient fact that he "wrote" disapprovingly of this same case in his campaign book from2010.

Posted by: BK at December 29, 2011 04:54 PM (R2Yh0)

269 Bowers v Hardwick fuck brains. Your right to sodomy begins at my asshole's right to be penetrated. Again and again.

Then a quick ATM. Later, I'll cleanse my palate with a couple of Newports while sipping down a quart of room-temp grape Flavor-Aid pruno.

Posted by: Frank "Pops" Marshall Davis at December 29, 2011 04:55 PM (qxcKC)

270 And we have to fight Jeb in 2016. great.... He'll push Rubio out from running.

Posted by: Flapjackmaka at December 29, 2011 04:55 PM (FKQng)

271
Anyone who knows 60% of the Jeopardy questions is almost Sonia Sotomayor smart.

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the
richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnt lived that life."

-Wise Fuckin' Latina

Posted by: Doctor Fish at December 29, 2011 04:56 PM (TkGkA)

272 A good thing about Perry running is that none of you Beta Male Dickless
Wonders who ridiculed Palin but now support Perry have any credibility.
I think it's hilarious.

Yeah, when Perry resigned half way through his first term because he found reality TV a better use of his talents, it really hurt his credibility.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 29, 2011 04:56 PM (SY2Kh)

273
Dave @34: "Justice Kennedy, God bless him, found a constitutional right to anal sex.....somewhere in the Constitution I guess."
Justice Kennedy is just laying the judicial groundwork for the buttfucking we are going to get when he rules Obamacare constitutional.

Posted by: doug at December 29, 2011 04:56 PM (gUGI6)

274 >>>But honestly, who steps in to say, "no voters, you got it wrong?"

The courts. I know that's a "wrong answer' but it is in fact longstanding practice in this country.

And given that some on the left would like an "anything goes" system to impose socialism, and some on the cultural right just want to fucking busybody me to death because they're worried about my soul... well until one party, at least, stops trying to overstep its bounds and harass me just because it has the political muscle to do so, I 'm going to continue defending a limited role for the courts in these matters.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:57 PM (nj1bB)

275 @261

Sounds like substantive due process is your baby.

Good luck with that.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 04:57 PM (Xm1aB)

276 Good heavens, how is what Perry said a bad answer? And I would be saying that even if it were Herr Doktorwho gave that answer.
Here's a question - without searching, name the defendant in the Kelo case. For bonus points, name the company for whose use the land was being taken. Kelo is way, way, way more important than Lawrence v. Texas and I bet a vast majority of people couldn't name the defendant in that right off the top of their head.
Posted by: alexthechick at December 29, 2011 04:37 PM (VtjlW)
I know that case, and the defendant, and the company, and I know Lawrence, and Griswold too.
If I'm Governor of Connecticut and I am running for President on aplatform emphasizing the primacy of private property rights, and I can't name or discuss Kelo as an important case in that area, I deserve to be thought of as an idiot. And it's even worse in Perry's case, because the State of Texas was the defendant in Lawrence, meaning that state funds were used to take the case to the Supreme Court, which he sure as hell knew about at the time.

Posted by: rockmom at December 29, 2011 04:58 PM (NYnoe)

277 There's an article in the NYT about how Obama is considered "distant" by people in Washington. One of the thing in it is that he pretty much exclusively watches sports on TV and plays video games rather than say keeping up on what's going on by watching the news, history channel, sciency shit, etc.
So what you are saying is that my 15 year old son might as well be president.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 29, 2011 04:58 PM (jucos)

278 Yeah, when Perry resigned half way through his first term because he found reality TV a better use of his talents, it really hurt his credibility.
Now that one is gonna leave a mark.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 29, 2011 04:58 PM (OWjjx)

279 your a fucking idiot if you equate obama stopping and thinking and then
saying "...57 states..." to perry admitting he doesnt know the
particulars of a supreme court case from 9 years ago. as governor his
involvement is tangential at best. ask the AG if you want details. if
they had really wanted his opinion on the case after he admitted he
didnt know it by name they couldve prompted him w/ some details. instead
they proved it was a gotcha question.


I'm talking about him referring to "8" unelected and unaccountable judges on the USSC. There's 9 ya know. 57 states vs. 8 judges on the USSC are equally waterheaded in my book.

Posted by: the dandy at December 29, 2011 04:58 PM (lVK3L)

280
A voter at a meet and greet asked him to defend his criticism of limited government in the case.

And forfuckssake, since when does limited government = anything goes?

I'm sick of this shit. It's the same lie that we hate roads, bridges, and firefighters because we don't like being over-taxed.

Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 04:58 PM (G/zuv)

281 Hands down the best case I've ever read was the one about transgendered emus. Yes, transgendered emus.

****

Was that a sodomy case!?

(Joking!)

Posted by: Newt at December 29, 2011 04:58 PM (r2PLg)

282 "This wasn't a gotcha question and he wasn't asked about sodomy per se. He was asked to defend his view of the role and scope of government in the context of this ruling."
I LOL'd the stupid. But, have your way, Burger King.

Posted by: Beefsteak Tomato at December 29, 2011 04:58 PM (yn6XZ)

283 Posted by: The Commentor Who Calls Everyone and Everything a RINO, especially Aurthur! at December 29, 2011 04:53 PM (OWjjx)
dude it's Author, not Aurthur, Author

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at December 29, 2011 04:58 PM (yAor6)

284 Hey, it looks like Lawrence died last month.

Posted by: mike at December 29, 2011 04:59 PM (rDDiL)

285 Perry's greatest weakness is his illegal alien problem. I'm as anti-illegal immigration as anybody and I'd still vote for Perry. I might not agree with 100% of what he says or does, but at least I don't feel like he's trying to bullshit me into thinking were two of a kind.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at December 29, 2011 04:59 PM (uUtvO)

286 >>>This wasn't a gotcha question and he wasn't asked about sodomy per se. He was asked to defend his view of the role and scope of government in the context of this ruling. Only when it became apparent he had no clue which case was being referred to, did THAT become the issue.


I've said I think it's a legitimate question. I don't see it as super-gotcha-y. It did ask about a contradiction, or tension, but that's not really a gotcha. That's asking a candidate to reconcile his contradictions.

But then, I don't really care so much if every genius on the Internet now knows what Lawrence v. Texas decided. After they were told.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:59 PM (nj1bB)

287 1. Paul isn't going to be the nominee.2. Even if by some weird twist of fate he was, he would still be better than Obama.

From your keyboard to God's monitor, I hope.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 29, 2011 04:59 PM (Hx5uv)

288 Yeah, when Perry resigned half way through his first term because he
found reality TV a better use of his talents, it really hurt his
credibility.


Heh heh, that's a good one. You do know Perry "retired" from the governorship to double-dip his pension, right?

Posted by: the dandy at December 29, 2011 04:59 PM (lVK3L)

289 None of this matters. We have chosen Romney.

Posted by: The Committee to Elect Jeb Bush in 2016, K. Rove, Chairman at December 29, 2011 05:00 PM (0K5Vv)

290 Some people (i'm not saying you) really want the
10th Amendment to mean "anything goes" because, well, Jim Crow, and
similar burdens on citizens.



The Constitution was not enacted with the belief that it permits any particular state to declare a despotism.



Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:53 PM (nj1bB)
So ... you're saying that the squeakhole is a (Federal) Constitutionally protected orifice of pleasure? I missed that line. Is it next to the beastiality section? Both are victimless crimes (even though the PETA freaks laughably claim that a guy banging a horse is bothering the horse, somehow).

Posted by: really ... at December 29, 2011 05:00 PM (X3lox)

291 If someone on the Right doesn't figure out a way to expose and take down the MFM before this election we're all screwed.

I'd like to believe that is what Romney's people are keeping their powder dry for but that's wishcasting for sure.

The focus has to be on what a fraudulant disaster TheWon has been for this country and not how dumb, squishy, conservative, religious - (pick one or more) whoever the eventual GOP candidate is.

The MFM is an even more insidious and pervasive enemy than this current communist incarnation of faux democraps.

Posted by: ontherocks at December 29, 2011 05:00 PM (HBqDo)

292
If I am not mistaken, sodomy was punishable by death at the time the Constitution was enacted, at least in some of the states.

Anti-sodomy laws can hardly be considered tyrannical in a constitutional sense.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 05:00 PM (Xm1aB)

293 Ace really needs to do another article about what kind of RPG characters the primary candidates would be.
Posted by: Alex at December 29, 2011 04:29 PM (doww

Oh please. please? Pretty please. That would be awesome. I need a laugh about this whole primary.

Posted by: elizabethe is all in for Perry at December 29, 2011 05:00 PM (4Pp7E)

294 dude it's Author, not Aurthur, Author
Only a RINO would leave out the r. RINO.

Posted by: The Commentor Who Calls Everyone and Everything a RINO...especially AUTHOR (happy?) at December 29, 2011 05:00 PM (OWjjx)

295 254 -

No, sorry, I don't agree with your second point. Sure, he's not going to be the nominee, but if you want to hear those magic words "I'll support the R nominee, even if it's Ron Paul," you won't hear them from me.

I will never support or vote for Ron Paul. Period.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 05:00 PM (Gc/Qi)

296 Yeah, when Perry resigned half way through his first term because he found reality TV a better use of his talents, it really hurt his credibility.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 29, 2011 04:56 PM (SY2Kh)
+1, ouch

And forfuckssake, since when does limited government = anything goes?
hence LIMITED, not anything goes

I'm sick of this shit. It's the same lie that we hate roads, bridges, and firefighters because we don't like being over-taxed.
tell that to my brother, he seems to get off on that talking point

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at December 29, 2011 05:00 PM (yAor6)

297 Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 04:53 PM (nj1bB)

Ace, the Constitution is very clear about Rights of the People, Rights (or Powers) of the Several States, and Powers of the Federal Government (and there it's very clear about Congress or The Executive). Whenever the Constitution says "The Right of the People..." it's talking about all free people (or at least all Citizens) of the United States. Otherwise, unless it's specifically a power granted to the Federal Government, we presume its an area left to the states.

Now, each State also has a constitution, and any law should be examined to verify it is constitutional within that State, but that's very different from what SCOTUS did in Lawrence v Texas.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 05:01 PM (8y9MW)

298 260
BTW, I knew that the defendant in Kelo was the town of New London,

Shit, I thought it was New Haven. I can't keep my bombed-out shithole Connecticut towns straight.

Posted by: the Boulder Toilet Hobo, having driven along the New England coast at December 29, 2011 05:01 PM (QQAJP)

299 dude it's Author, not Aurthur, Author
Only a RINO would leave out the r. RINO.
Posted by: The Commentor Who Calls Everyone and Everything a RINO...especially AUTHOR (happy?) at December 29, 2011 05:00 PM (OWjjx)
this sock of Vic is hillarious
*runs*

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at December 29, 2011 05:01 PM (yAor6)

300 Santorum won't last past New Hampshire - if that. He got trounced here in PA by a man (Bob Casey) that makes Mitt Romney look like Jim Carrey.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at December 29, 2011 05:02 PM (kFnmp)

301 Scalia's minority dissenting opinion was brilliant on this: he said very clearly that judges should be neutral on the issue, and the SCOTUS wasn't being neutral with this decision. he said their ruling opened up all kinds of idiotic, destructive crap that would inevitably follow, and it will, and already has.


I think laws against sodomy are dumb, but that's part of living in our system. Unless a law specifically violates the US Constitution (which is silent on this issue), then states can be as dumb as they want.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 05:03 PM (r4wIV)

302 so for the first time ever since I started voting in 2008 I wont know who im voting for when the absentee ballot comes in through the mail
*sighs*

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at December 29, 2011 05:03 PM (yAor6)

303 Republican presidential primaries are akin to life boats on a cruise ship. The primaries lull voters into the false belief that they are actually choosing the candidates. Much the same way that life boats on a cruise ship lull the passengers into a false belief that they cannot go down with the ship.

We don't care who votes for who. We have chosen Romney. Submit or perish.

Posted by: The Committee to Elect Jeb Bush in 2016, K. Rove, Chairman at December 29, 2011 05:03 PM (0K5Vv)

304 Well shit, I threw a pop-quiz and then left not even looking at the results.

It bothers to me to know effing end when our side gets its panties in a twist over something like this.

I loathe Mittens as much as most of you, but I'd defend him on this idiotic point. But the media won't go there with him just yet. Best to make him look brilliant with that Hahhvuhhhd degree and what not.

The second he's crowned our nominee, just wait. The MFM will be going back to the rulings of the Queen's Bench just to make sure our Republican nominee is up to snuff.. Not for our current con law instructor of cocksucker in chief of course. No, just for the other guy.

Yet, we play this game and feed right into the media's trap of showing how unqualified our candidates are. It's a joke. It's all one big colossal joke.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 29, 2011 05:03 PM (ExN5P)

305 Santorum won't last past New Hampshire - if that. He got trounced here in PA by a man (Bob Casey) that makes Mitt Romney look like Jim Carrey.
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at December 29, 2011 05:02 PM (kFnmp)
he was trounced so bad, McCain did better then he did in 2008

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at December 29, 2011 05:04 PM (yAor6)

306 Ron Paul versus Barack Obama would be the race between the anti-Semitic anti-black racist fascist, against the anti-Semitic anti-white racist fascist. If they were on the ballot I might as well pick out sizes for my yellow star in advance.

Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at December 29, 2011 05:04 PM (QQAJP)

307
brb, cheatin

Posted by: Noot at December 29, 2011 05:04 PM (G/zuv)

308 Some people (i'm not saying you) really want the 10th Amendment to mean
"anything goes" because, well, Jim Crow, and similar burdens on
citizens.



The Constitution was not enacted with the belief that it permits any particular state to declare a despotism.

The Bill of Rights. It applies to the states too, hence the reason it would be unconstitutional for the state of New York to confiscate all firearms.

I'm not sure exactly how despotic you believe a state could remain while still adhering to it and with the consent of elected officials.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 29, 2011 05:04 PM (SY2Kh)

309 All of this, and not one primary vote has been cast.

Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 05:04 PM (bgsV5)

310 "So what you are saying is that my 15 year old son might as well be president."

Kid can't do any worse than what we got.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 29, 2011 05:04 PM (WZtt1)

311 he was trounced so bad, McCain did better then he did in 2008

Exactly. I like the guy, but he has no shot. None.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at December 29, 2011 05:05 PM (kFnmp)

312 Posted by: Boulder Toilet Hobo at December 29, 2011 05:04 PM (QQAJP)
i'd only vote in 2012 in that case to get Nelson out of the Senate

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at December 29, 2011 05:05 PM (yAor6)

313
Actually, I do not believe the Bill of Rights in its' entirety has been made applicable to the states.

Many have through the doctrine of incorporation, the 2nd Amendment most recently, but not all them.

Which still confuses me.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 05:06 PM (Xm1aB)

314 309 All of this, and not one primary vote has been cast.
Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 05:04 PM (bgsV5)
Dance, little monkeys. Form up the circular firing squad.

Posted by: Dave Axelgrease at December 29, 2011 05:07 PM (yn6XZ)

315
Christopher @301
"I think laws against sodomy are dumb, but that's part of living in our system. Unless a law specifically violates the US Constitution (which is silent on this issue), then states can be as dumb as they want."
Congratulations, you are chosen to represent the United States at the Supreme Court in the Obamacare case.

Posted by: doug at December 29, 2011 05:07 PM (gUGI6)

316 Santorum won't last past New Hampshire - if
that. He got trounced here in PA by a man (Bob Casey) that makes Mitt
Romney look like Jim Carrey.
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at December 29, 2011 05:02 PM (kFnmp)
he was trounced so bad, McCain did better then he did in 2008

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month

He was a Republican that lost in 2006 in a blue state to the son of one of PA's most popular governors, and who was/is billed as his reincarnation.The gross oversimplifications are sickening.

lacey is right; we're not merely vetting our candidates; we're tearing them apart.In the case of some, we're desecrating the corpses.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 29, 2011 05:07 PM (c9Ivb)

317 Well shit, I threw a pop-quiz and then left not even looking at the results
My Torts I professor did the same thing with the final. Gave it, went on vacation and never graded the damn things till about 2 days to go before the Second Semester started.
We still believe he assigned grades by random lot.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at December 29, 2011 05:08 PM (OWjjx)

318 As stupid as a Palin.

Not ready for prime time.

And he's my candidate.

/weeps silently

Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at December 29, 2011 05:08 PM (7+pP9)

Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 05:08 PM (G/zuv)

320 I don't care about this.
The country is circling the drain, with doom and decay staring us in the face. .....And Perry rememberingsome case about anal sex is supposed to be a big hairy deal? Pfft. Most straight guys don't like to even think about that subject.
Still voting for Perry. He has the best record.

Posted by: wheatie at December 29, 2011 05:08 PM (oPkw3)

321
I have had my fill of this goddam primary process.

Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 05:09 PM (G/zuv)

322 @317

That was his way of teaching you about the lottery known as the jury system.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 05:09 PM (Xm1aB)

323 We still believe he assigned grades by random lot.

Well considering how F'd up Tort law is in general, that may have been the most fair way to assign grades.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 05:09 PM (8y9MW)

324 lacey is right; we're not merely vetting our candidates; we're tearing
them apart. In the case of some, we're desecrating the corpses.

And some who are not even candidates, as in She Who Must Not Be Named.

Posted by: real joe at December 29, 2011 05:09 PM (ixAVa)

325 227

Posted by: Rick Perry at December 29, 2011 04:43 PM (6DYpG)

dude stop it with the socks, your better then that

Posted by: AuthorLMendez, Voting In A Month at December 29, 2011 04:46 PM (yAor6)

Okay, fine. I'll put the point I thought was pretty obvious another way: What's the rationale of touting Rick Perry's "record" in Texas when he seems so fundamentally disconnected from what was happening there while he was governor of the state? How can a man have been the chief executive of a state at the time it was the subject of a fairly high-profile Supreme Court ruling, and not remember it? (I remember Lawrence). How can Perry's stances on policy be taken seriously when Bobby Jindal has to remind him at public appearances about the specifics of his own tax plan, and in interviews he's asked perfectly logical questions about the logistics of implementing his plan (why not provide for the sunsetting of the existing tax structure in favor of a universal flat tax if the goal is to simplify the tax code?) that he doesn't even seem to have considered? Let's say Romney's position on mandates is totally unacceptable; why doesn't Perry go after that, one of the biggest issues facing the country on which Perry could conceivably speak with some measure of moral authority (more than Romney, certainly), instead of spending his time wallowing in rank Santorum-style pandering about God, Gays, and Abortion?
At what point does this guy become too ridiculous to defend anymore? R. Emmett Tyrell sounds downright embarrassed about having touted Perry when he entered the race, and I know I am.
But, I've already tried to have arguments with Perry's (remaining) supporters who dismiss every problem with him as INVALID!, and that tends to go nowhere, so I guess it's back to the socks.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at December 29, 2011 05:10 PM (6DYpG)

326 Actually, I do not believe the Bill of Rights in its' entirety has been made applicable to the states.



Many have through the doctrine of incorporation, the 2nd Amendment most recently, but not all them.



Which still confuses me.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 05:06 PM (Xm1aB)
Me, too. The Bill of Rights addresses specifics that may or may not even exist at the State level. It's clear that there are some rights that are specified to individuals and there are other restrictions that are put on Congress and/or state legislatures or institutions. The wording is all pretty evident.

Posted by: really ... at December 29, 2011 05:10 PM (X3lox)

327 Still voting for Perry. He has the best record.

This.

Posted by: real joe at December 29, 2011 05:10 PM (ixAVa)

328 Now, each State also has a constitution, and any law should be examined
to verify it is constitutional within that State, but that's very
different from what SCOTUS did in Lawrence v Texas.

Are you saying that state laws can ignore minimum standards imposed by the U.S. Constitution? Because the 14th Amendment says otherwise.

Posted by: al-Cicero, Tea Party Jihadist at December 29, 2011 05:11 PM (QKKT0)

329 301
Scalia's minority dissenting opinion was brilliant on this: he said very
clearly that judges should be neutral on the issue, and the SCOTUS
wasn't being neutral with this decision. he said their ruling opened up
all kinds of idiotic, destructive crap that would inevitably follow,
and it will, and already has.


I think laws against sodomy are dumb, but that's part of living in our
system. Unless a law specifically violates the US Constitution (which
is silent on this issue), then states can be as dumb as they want.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 05:03 PM (r4wIV)
Sometimes the people vote the wrong way. Far far too much of our political discussion is now about forcing laws on a populace that votes the wrong way.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 05:12 PM (73tyQ)

330 I can't wait for the MSM to ask these same kind of gotcha questions to Barry. Amirite?

Posted by: Bosk at December 29, 2011 05:12 PM (n2K+4)

331 Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life

I asked only partly in jest as I never really got it. Not until bar study. Actual quote from my civ pro prof - "Erie Schmerie. It's overrated. You'll learn it for the bar anyway". Oooookay then!

Not so surprising, I'm very weak with the FRCP.


Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 29, 2011 05:12 PM (ExN5P)

332 Can we have another alien sex thread, plz?

Posted by: Pat Caddell at December 29, 2011 05:12 PM (yn6XZ)

333 Too bad, with all of the emotion, that the miraculous resurrection of Perry's campaign is not imminent. He is going down like a clown, and the man with the magic undies will face The One, as only his magnificent hair can do, and the Dead Elephants will at least win the Senate.

Posted by: A. Coulter at December 29, 2011 05:12 PM (+FrDx)

334 Still voting for Perry. He has the best record.This.
Posted by: real joe at December 29, 2011 05:10 PM (ixAVa)

This.

Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 05:12 PM (bgsV5)

335 (I remember Lawrence)

You could be an idiot savant with a dash of Asberger's.

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 05:13 PM (r2PLg)

336 Actually, I do not believe the Bill of Rights in its' entirety has been made applicable to the states. Many have through the doctrine of incorporation, the 2nd Amendment most recently, but not all them.

Which still confuses me.

14th Amendment.

I had to look it up, but if I'm reading it right only the 7th Amendment (right to jury trial in civil cases) doesn't apply.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 29, 2011 05:13 PM (SY2Kh)

337 335 posts about terrible Republican candidates and no one has wished to kick Jon Huntsman in the dick?

I'm very disappointed.

Posted by: The Q at December 29, 2011 05:13 PM (NdE8F)

338 I think Kennedy was fapping under his robe through all the oral arguments.

Posted by: nickless at December 29, 2011 05:14 PM (MMC8r)

339 The country is circling the drain, with doom and decay staring us in the face. .....And Perry rememberingsome case about anal sex is supposed to be a big hairy deal? Pfft. Most straight guys don't like to even think about that subject.
Still voting for Perry. He has the best record.
That about sums it up.

Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 29, 2011 05:14 PM (TLNYf)

340 Keep fuckin' that chicken, Ace.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 29, 2011 05:14 PM (egkz7)

341 Are you saying that state laws can ignore minimum standards imposed by
the U.S. Constitution? Because the 14th Amendment says otherwise.

I'm saying the Constitution is very clear about what Rights belong to the People and what Rights belong to the Federal Government, and anything in between is "up in the air."

And all the 14th Amendment really says is that you don't get to apply the law differently to two groups of people. All the "incorporation" nonsense was made up later.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 05:14 PM (8y9MW)

342 Still voting for Perry. He has the best record.

What? You mean this still matters?

I thought it was all about electability. You know, the electability of the guy that couldn't beat the walking corpse that is John McCain four years ago.

I mean my t-shirt says 'It's all about electability'. Should I turn it inside-out??


Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 29, 2011 05:14 PM (ExN5P)

343 And then it's your absolute hatred for the guy it seethes outta your sox.

It's irrational and I still think the Aggies did something to you.

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 05:15 PM (r2PLg)

344 Its Bachmann's TEA Party homophobic rightwing zealots going to Santorum now that is a problem to be handled by the Bishop, and his puppeteers in the Establishment.

Posted by: A. Coulter at December 29, 2011 05:15 PM (+FrDx)

345
This.

Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 05:12 PM (bgsV5)

This.

Posted by: nickless at December 29, 2011 05:15 PM (MMC8r)

346 At what point does this guy become
too ridiculous to defend anymore? R. Emmett Tyrell sounds downright
embarrassed about having touted Perry when he entered the race, and I
know I am.


Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at December 29, 2011 05:10 PM (6DYpG)
Liar. You opposed Perry from the beginning and are a notorious Jindal-hater.
But,
I've already tried to have arguments with Perry's (remaining)
supporters who dismiss every problem with him as INVALID!, and that
tends to go nowhere, so I guess it's back to the socks.No, most of us acknowledge Perry's many flaws but don't get all of the OMG!!!!ELEVENTY!!!! that haters gin up over things like this.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 05:16 PM (73tyQ)

347 You could be an idiot savant with a dash of Asberger's.Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 05:13 PM (r2PLg)

Maybe. Or I could simply be brighter than the average Rick Perry supporter.

Whichever it is, I'm going to enjoy the coming schadenfreude a whole, whole lot.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at December 29, 2011 05:16 PM (6DYpG)

348 This.

Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 05:12 PM (bgsV5)
This.


Posted by: nickless
'n that.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 29, 2011 05:16 PM (c9Ivb)

349
Esto!

Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 05:16 PM (G/zuv)

350 This.

Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 05:12 PM (bgsV5)

This.


Posted by: nickless at December 29, 2011 05:15 PM (MMC8r)
Yep. This.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 05:17 PM (8y9MW)

351 Oops! "Advisors", not "puppeteers" that I meant to say...

Posted by: A. Coulter at December 29, 2011 05:17 PM (+FrDx)

352 At what point does this guy become too ridiculous to defend anymore?

I've asked myself that question since about the 2nd debate. There really isn't any point in trying to persuade anyone at this point, there's to much ego and emotion invested in our respective candidates.

Posted by: pep at December 29, 2011 05:17 PM (6TB1Z)

353 Posted by: A. Coulter at December 29, 2011 05:15 PM (+FrDx)

Make me a sandwich, bitch.

And two for yourself.

Posted by: nickless at December 29, 2011 05:18 PM (MMC8r)

354 The Constitution was not enacted with the belief that it permits any particular state to declare a despotism. Correct. The constitution guaranties that each statewill havea republican form of government. Where the citizens of that state elect their representatives to make laws. If those laws are believed to violate the citizens' rights under the federal constitution, then they can take the case to the federal courts. If the laws are believed to violate the citizens' rights under the state constitution, then there's recourse in the state courts. If it's just a stupid law, there's a shot at change through the ballot box. But I'm afraid your approach to jurisprudence, which is the liberal one if we're going to be honest, simply elevates the federal government to be master over us all and the Supreme Court to be the unelected despots. Under your jurisprudence words don't mean what they say, they are stretched and stretched until a federal power is found and all limits that the Consitution places on the federal government are forgotten.
The Consitution guaranties all citizenslots of wonderful rights: freedom of speech and religion, the right to bear arms, to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.But it doesn't guaranty a federal right to abortion, or sodomy or contraception or a high school with an Olympic-size swimming pool, or any of the other myriad ways in which the federal courts have insinuated themselves into state issues. So the social con stuff makes you uneasy. Okay, well then stop complaining about federal spending because you lost that right when you conceded that the federal government has the authority and duty to interfere in all of these matters.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at December 29, 2011 05:18 PM (7EV/g)

355 337 -

I would say I didn't know he had one, but after seeing his daughters.... meeeeeowwww!

Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 05:18 PM (Gc/Qi)

356 I had to look it up, but if I'm reading it right only the 7th Amendment (right to jury trial in civil cases) doesn't apply.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 29, 2011 05:13 PM (SY2Kh)
The first doesn't either. "CONGRESS shall make no laws..." It's a statement about the restrictions on the Feds, not a statement of rights.The second does (and always did) because it's in the passive voice.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 05:18 PM (73tyQ)

357
Off Topic

The March 24, 2009 press conference where then Deputy Atty General
Ogden announces the addition of the ATF agents for Fast and Furious (he
didn't identify it by name - but that is what it was) - financed by
stimulus funds - at the direction of the President and with aggressive steps taken by Atty
General Holder and Ogden is going to be impossible for those asshats to explain
away.

And yes Ace, Fast and Furious absolutely was ordered by Obama and
Holder - despite their Shultz defense of "I know nothzing".

Watch the whole press conference.

http://tinyurl.com/3ef3laf

Posted by: An Observation at December 29, 2011 05:18 PM (ylhEn)

358
這個

这个這



(this)

Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 05:18 PM (G/zuv)

359 Reporter: "Governor Perry, what is the capital if Texas?"

Perry: "Look, I'm not a geology professor!"

Posted by: Rick Perry Gotcha Question at December 29, 2011 05:19 PM (+o7Q1)

360 This.
Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 05:12 PM (bgsV5)
This.Posted by: nickless'n that.
Posted by: Blue Hen at December 29, 2011 05:16 PM (c9Ivb)
'n the other thing

Posted by: Truck Monkey at December 29, 2011 05:20 PM (jucos)

361 A president doesn't need to know particulars about SCOTUS cases. If an issue comes up, he has a whole cabinet level post at his beck and call full of lawyers who can brief him.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 29, 2011 05:20 PM (WZtt1)

362 at the direction of the President and with aggressive steps taken by Atty
General Holder and Ogden is going to be impossible for those asshats to explain
away.

Say it with me, Morons: "Watergate did not have a body count."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 05:20 PM (8y9MW)

363 At what point does this guy become
too ridiculous to defend anymore?

Thanks!

I've been posing this exact question to the few who publicly shill and pimp out Mr. A-Healthcare-Mandate-Is-Really-Constitutional-No-Really-It-Is!!!1!!1!!' yet all I hear is......*silence*

As a conservative, I find this the real embarrassment.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 29, 2011 05:20 PM (ExN5P)

364 這個

这个這

这 (this)

Posted by: soothsayer

Wait one. Are we ordering take out? I want steamed dumplings and General Tso's chicken.

P.S. Those look really weird in italics.

Posted by: Blue Hen at December 29, 2011 05:20 PM (c9Ivb)

365 Liar. You opposed Perry from the beginning and are a notorious Jindal-hater.

No, I did indeed back Rick Perry, very vocally here, during the summer and into the early fall. I was right there defending him against the "former Democrat" meme and the "Gardasil" bullshit, and explaining why he'd be the strongest potential candidate we could field. You're welcome to go back and look it up.

And I am a notorious Jindal-hater, but you're also welcome to come down here from Iowa, take a look around my state, and explain to me why I can't trust my own lyin' eyes.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at December 29, 2011 05:21 PM (6DYpG)

366 @356

Well, you can assert that the 2nd was always applicable to the states, and I agree with that, but it wasn't until recently that the Supremes got one right and made its' applicability to the states explicit.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 05:21 PM (Xm1aB)

367 Well obviously some of the bill of rights can't apply to the states, such as the 10th amendment, and the 9th amendment is so general its not specific to anything.


Its the 14th amendment that's an ill-conceived monstrosity that will one day bite us all on the furry beanbags. I'm serious, this amendment is meant really well but worded horribly.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 05:21 PM (r4wIV)

368
Reporter: "Governor Perry, what is the capital if Texas?"



Perry: "Look, I'm not a geology professor!"

Geology, shmeology, the capital of Texas is "T". I know because a crying mother told me her child failed a spelling for not capitalizing it.

Posted by: Crazyeye Bachman at December 29, 2011 05:21 PM (Hx5uv)

369 359
Reporter: "President Obama, what is your favorite color?"





Obama: "Stop trying to divide Americans! Especially those evil, rapacious Jews."

Posted by: pep at December 29, 2011 05:21 PM (6TB1Z)

370 Me, too. The Bill of Rights addresses specifics that may or may not even exist at the State level. It's clear that there are some rights that are specified to individuals and there are other restrictions that are put on Congress and/or state legislatures or institutions. The wording is all pretty evident.
Posted by: really ... at December 29, 2011 05:10 PM (X3lox)

The Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution to assure everyone, after it was signed, that these particular rights cannot be taken away from the people by anyone,period.Not local governments, the individual states, the courts, the congress, president, not anyone.

Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 05:23 PM (bgsV5)

371 No, I did indeed back Rick Perry, very vocally here,

That ain't the way I remember it. I remember wondering why you were so anti-Perry and I eventually looked up that he and Jindal were buds.

That answered it for me. Jindal was the first major endorsement Perry got.

But as a conservative, I'm not looking for an ubermensch to rule over me. Maybe you are.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 05:23 PM (73tyQ)

372 Jindal signed the law outlawing ANY private sale without paying/declaring taxes on them, down to garage sales.

Posted by: A. Coulter at December 29, 2011 05:23 PM (+FrDx)

373 Its the 14th amendment that's an ill-conceived monstrosity that will one
day bite us all on the furry beanbags. I'm serious, this amendment is
meant really well but worded horribly.

One day? It is already.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 05:23 PM (8y9MW)

374 A president doesn't need to know particulars about SCOTUS cases. If an
issue comes up, he has a whole cabinet level post at his beck and call
full of lawyers who can brief him.

True, in this case it's a proxy for overall mental acuity. He fails.

Posted by: pep at December 29, 2011 05:23 PM (6TB1Z)

375 >>>So ... you're saying that the squeakhole is a (Federal) Constitutionally protected orifice of pleasure? I missed that line. Is it next to the beastiality section? Both are victimless crimes (even though the PETA freaks laughably claim that a guy banging a horse is bothering the horse, somehow).

That line comes in the "I never agreed to give moral-panic busybodies like you that much power over my life" part of the Constitution.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 05:23 PM (nj1bB)

376 Y'all can hash this out. I'm going for some Chipolte goodness.

Later, stains.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 29, 2011 05:23 PM (ExN5P)

377
it either means we ordered spare ribs, sweet sour chicken, and teriyaki beef, or that our laundry is ready

Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 05:23 PM (G/zuv)

378 I've been posing this exact question to the few who
publicly shill and pimp out Mr.
A-Healthcare-Mandate-Is-Really-Constitutional-No-Really-It-Is!!!1!!1!!'
yet all I hear is......*silence*

GOTCHA QUESTION! Now, if you'd like to ask questions about up-the-butt sex between Ted and Fred, I'm all ears.

Posted by: Rick Perry at December 29, 2011 05:23 PM (6DYpG)

379 286 But then, I don't really care so much if every genius on the Internet now knows what Lawrence v. Texas decided. After they were told.

Well, I know I didn't (and still don't much care). But Perry should have, given the circumstances.

Posted by: BK at December 29, 2011 05:24 PM (R2Yh0)

380 This will be very handy down the road, when the TEA Party radicals want to claim him as their own, and we need to put a leash on him.

Posted by: A. Coulter at December 29, 2011 05:24 PM (+FrDx)

381 I do not concede you that power, I do not agree to your having that power.

I love these folks who preach conservatism but arrogate to themselves so much power to boss around their fellow citizens.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 05:24 PM (nj1bB)

382 @370

Actually soona, I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights, at the time of it's enactment, was meant to limit the federal government only.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 05:24 PM (Xm1aB)

383
My bro appeared onJeopardy back in the 80's and at one point he went on a total roll and was$3aheadbefore betting and losing big on a daily double.
All three contestants missed the final question so he lost to the day's returning champ.Butthe showsent him home with a brand new washer/dryer and a years supply of cat food, Doan's pills and bath soap.He was going to law school and doing twice-a-day dialysis at the time too. So...win.

Posted by: Mike D. at December 29, 2011 05:24 PM (p8QOg)

384 Steady as we go, fellow diehards. .....Perry is working his ass off in Iowa, and is gaining support, despite what the media would have us believe.

Posted by: wheatie.....diehard Perry supporter at December 29, 2011 05:25 PM (oPkw3)

385 @381

Those folks are called voters. They vote for stuff I don't like all the time. I don't argue they don't have the power to do so.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 05:25 PM (Xm1aB)

386 How abo7ut a discussion of the rule against perpetuities? No looking.

Posted by: brak at December 29, 2011 05:25 PM (p5Ncj)

387 That ain't the way I remember it.

Then your memory sucks, which is why I suggested you look it up.

And you're still welcome to come down from that entitled corn-hole you live in to bask in Jindal's Paradise. Really, it is golden down here. He's really turned the state around.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at December 29, 2011 05:25 PM (6DYpG)

388 This may shock some people but my general attitude is that I don't trust ANY human beings with too much power over my life.

I don't make a special exception for conservatives who think they know the "Right values" to impose on me.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 05:26 PM (nj1bB)

389 "I really dig dorking squeakholes."
Stuff Thomas Jefferson said Vol 69

Posted by: steevy at December 29, 2011 05:26 PM (7WJOC)

390 That line comes in the "I never agreed to give
moral-panic busybodies like you that much power over my life" part of
the Constitution.
Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 05:23 PM (nj1bB)

What's funny is that the moral-panic busybodies are theoretically busy but in practice don't hold a candle to the San Francisco city council.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 05:26 PM (73tyQ)

391
That line comes in the "I never agreed to give moral-panic busybodies
like you that much power over my life" part of the Constitution.


Penumbra 3, emanation 7.


Posted by: nickless at December 29, 2011 05:26 PM (MMC8r)

392 Okay, well then stop complaining about federal spending because you lost that right when you conceded that the federal government has the authority and duty to interfere in all of these matters.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at December 29, 2011 05:18 PM (7EV/g)

****

Slippery slope.

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 05:26 PM (r2PLg)

393 >>>How abo7ut a discussion of the rule against perpetuities? No looking.

I think I know that one. But it's a big testable question you study for the bar.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 05:26 PM (nj1bB)

394 The Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution to assure everyone, after it was signed, that these particular rights cannot be taken away from the people by anyone, period. Not local governments, the individual states, the courts, the congress, president, not anyone.


Exactly, the anti-federalists forced it into the document even though Madison thought it was unnecessary and redundant. He felt it was obvious all that was true, but he put it in to placate them. It was always meant to apply to everyone.


And here's why: the US Constitution doesn't create rights. It enshrines them as official policy of the US government. These rights are presumed to be self evidently innate to all human beings by nature of being human. So the 2nd amendment doesn't make the right to bear arms, it just guarantees that this government will protect that preexisting right regardless of the level of government.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 05:26 PM (r4wIV)

395 Rick Perry is like Lucille Ball in that fudge packing factory.

Posted by: Willard "Mitt" Romney at December 29, 2011 05:27 PM (dOsjQ)

396 I love people that bully commenters on websites into becoming an echo chamber for one candidate and vilifying everyone else(though that has been very effective in keeping the man with the magic undies competative).

Posted by: A. Coulter at December 29, 2011 05:27 PM (+FrDx)

397 The Bill of Rights was put into
the Constitution to assure everyone, after it was signed, that these
particular rights cannot be taken away from the people by
anyone,period.Not local governments, the individual states, the
courts, the congress, president, not anyone.

Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 05:23 PM (bgsV5)
No. They detailed which rights were to individuals, which restrictions were to which governmental bodies and which governmental bodies had positive responsibilities to carry out for the citizen. It was not a big mish-mash of general rights but actually detailed and specific instructions and descriptions.

Posted by: really ... at December 29, 2011 05:27 PM (X3lox)

398 >>>What's funny is that the moral-panic busybodies are theoretically busy but in practice don't hold a candle to the San Francisco city council.

True, but I hate this idea that some have that the SF freaks are just imposing the WRONG values.

Hey, how about you try to convince me your values are correct, rather than using political power to coerce me into them via the threat of jail?

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 05:28 PM (nj1bB)

399 And you're still welcome to come down from that entitled corn-hole you live in to bask in Jindal's Paradise. Really, it is golden down here. He's really turned the state around.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at December 29, 2011 05:25 PM (6DYpG)
Fuck you and your lack of winter. Call me when you have a blizzard.Oh, and "Southern Business Developments has named Louisiana, the best state in the south for economic development."

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 05:28 PM (73tyQ)

400 @386

Go ahead and allow looking. Anyone can look all they want and will never fucking understand it. Including lawyers.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 05:28 PM (Xm1aB)

401 I never backed Perry because I thought he was too close to Bush and took the task too lightly from the start.

You have to live in a conservative echo chamber to not see that Perry's Texas shtick isnt going to play in middle America three years after W.

It would be like the Dems running Deval Patrick in 2016 after the voters kick Obama out of office if Deval Patrick was a career senator from Illinois.

Posted by: The M. I. Double Tizzle at December 29, 2011 05:28 PM (ozpOn)

402 **That line comes in the "I never agreed to give moral-panic busybodies like you that much power over my life" part of the Constitution. **

Win.

Now, get to separating your recyclables by Ppoly ethyelene content, plebes.

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 29, 2011 05:28 PM (QxSug)

403 The first doesn't either. "CONGRESS shall make no laws..." It's a
statement about the restrictions on the Feds, not a statement of rights.

From the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States;

Could it be clearer? Definitely. However, the incorporation doctrine isn't without foundation.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 29, 2011 05:28 PM (SY2Kh)

404 How abo7ut a discussion of the rule against perpetuities? No looking.

Here's a question for you legal beagles. What is the best movie ever made that had an important plot point concerning the rule against perpetuities and what (then) smoking hot actress starred in it?

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 29, 2011 05:29 PM (Hx5uv)

405 That line comes in the "I never agreed to give
moral-panic busybodies like you that much power over my life" part of
the Constitution.





Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 05:23 PM (nj1bB)
Then you must think that beastiality laws are un-Constitutional. It's covered in the same section.

Posted by: really ... at December 29, 2011 05:29 PM (X3lox)

406 It IS such a mystery as to why killing off competing candidates has become such a bloodsport here(and Red State)...who'd have thunk it?

Posted by: Your Inner Voice at December 29, 2011 05:29 PM (+FrDx)

407 Hey, how about you try to convince me your values are correct, rather than using political power to coerce me into them via the threat of jail?


That's ideal but at the same time our system of government allows smaller governmental bodies to make stupid decisions like requiring child seats and bicycle helmets. I consider those wrong and idiotic, but not unconstitutional.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 05:29 PM (r4wIV)

408 376
Y'all can hash this out. I'm going for some Chipolte goodness.

Mmm, Chipotle. Best stuff on Earth, next to In-N-Out Burger. And we got both of those down here in Texas within the last few years, during my administration.

You're welcome, America!

Posted by: Rick Perry at December 29, 2011 05:29 PM (6DYpG)

409 Not much news, so mebbe you would like to read what the A-rab Spring really means.

Posted by: maddogg at December 29, 2011 05:29 PM (OlN4e)

410 I love these folks who preach conservatism but arrogate to themselves so much power to boss around their fellow citizens.
I guess I'm not sure why this bothers you so much. What you're actually advocating (whether you know it or not) is Constitutional Anarchy. The idea that something that is "only morally wrong" shouldn't be legislated on takes away many things we consider illegal quite justifiably (from drug laws, to fraud and truth-in-advertising type laws). You can't get the one without the other.

Now, you may be right that the States shouldn't be legislating things like sex between consenting adults (and I more-or-less agree with you, though I'll point out that people saying 'no good will come of this' have been proven right time after time- see also DOMA and DADT), but saying they "shouldn't" is far different from saying they don't have the authority.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 05:29 PM (8y9MW)

411 No looking...shit.

Does that say something like the law is not written in stone...

I'm a bullshit artist not a lawyer.

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 05:30 PM (r2PLg)

412 >>>No, I did indeed back Rick Perry, very vocally here, during the summer
and into the early fall. I was right there defending him against the
"former Democrat" meme and the "Gardasil" bullshit, and explaining why
he'd be the strongest potential candidate we could field. You're
welcome to go back and look it up.

This is, of course, exactly where I was. And then I concluded that Perry couldn't think his way out of a fucking paper bag.

But unlike Ace, I don't have any ego invested in this. As you said, the comeuppance will at least be full of schadenfreude-y goodness. And then people will be forced to return to their senses.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 29, 2011 05:31 PM (egkz7)

413 It would be like the Dems running Deval Patrick in 2016

Funnily enough, the Repubs are gonna be running the white Deval Patrick in 2012.

Posted by: The Q at December 29, 2011 05:31 PM (NdE8F)

414 Oh, and "Southern Business Developments has named Louisiana, the best state in the south for economic development."

Oh, then why don't you come down here from Iowa then? Louisiana is legendary for its anti-tax, business-friendly climate and total lack of corruption. Everybody knows that.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at December 29, 2011 05:31 PM (6DYpG)

415 Amazing little thought experiment here: how many non-lawyers who are following this thread are actually still reading the posts by the lawyers who are discussing constitutional law?

I know I'm not. Instead, I'm reading the posts by the idiot socks who keep insisting Perry is dumb.

I shoulda gone to law scoole.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 05:31 PM (Gc/Qi)

416 Hey, how about you try to convince me your values
are correct, rather than using political power to coerce me into them
via the threat of jail?





Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 05:28 PM (nj1bB)
OK. I'm a mathematician.QED

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 05:32 PM (73tyQ)

417 Wait...against screw it.

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 05:32 PM (r2PLg)

418 Do you mean Bowers v. Hardwick?
That was the Georgia sodomy case that Lawrence v. Texas overturned.

Posted by: Nom de Blog at December 29, 2011 05:32 PM (7EfQ1)

419 Perry has the stench of amnesty on him and he smells of poorly articulate texan governorship. Sort of like another president whom the left, in their typical no-nothing stance, blames all current woes on.

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 29, 2011 05:32 PM (QxSug)

420
Never saw Legal Eagles.

But I loved Jack Warden in And Justice For All.

I love anything with Jack Warden. Especially Used Cars.

Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 05:34 PM (G/zuv)

421 I shoulda gone to law scoole.
Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 05:31 PM (Gc/Qi)
Fuckin' A.
I hear they get to take their tests in a bar.

Posted by: ErikW at December 29, 2011 05:34 PM (l2HEi)

422 'If you like banging squeakholes,you can continue banging squeakholes."
Barack Obama

Posted by: steevy at December 29, 2011 05:34 PM (7WJOC)

423 Perry has the stench of amnesty on him and he smells of poorly
articulate texan governorship. Sort of like another president whom the
left, in their typical no-nothing stance, blames all current woes on.

I've had it with compassionate conservatism and am looking for a dispassionate conservative to vote for.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 29, 2011 05:34 PM (Hx5uv)

424 Basically I'm trying to ignore the German dropping Romney-bots.

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 05:35 PM (r2PLg)

425
So, do we need to scrap murder laws now and start a PR campaign to try and convince would-be murderers that our value that life is worth protecting is good, but not get all in their face with threatening jail time and shit?

Is that what the Constitution requires now?

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 05:35 PM (Xm1aB)

426 >>>I guess I'm not sure why this bothers you so much. What you're actually advocating (whether you know it or not) is Constitutional Anarchy. The idea that something that is "only morally wrong" shouldn't be legislated on takes away many things we consider illegal quite justifiably (from drug laws, to fraud and truth-in-advertising type laws). You can't get the one without the other.

Because I don't trust you, dude. Simple as that. I don't concede to you the power. I know you have lots of opinions on sexuality, and would like to use the coercive power of the state to vindicate those opinions, but I've got a different opinion.

My legal opinion on this (and I don't mean this personally, but this is my legal opinion for everyone who thinks like this) is Go Fuck Yourself.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 05:35 PM (nj1bB)

427 No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States;Could it be clearer? Definitely. However, the incorporation doctrine isn't without foundation.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 29, 2011 05:28 PM (SY2Kh)
Again, it's not a "privilege" or "immunity". It's a restriction on the Federal government.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 05:36 PM (73tyQ)

428
What is the best movie ever made that had an important plot point
concerning the rule against perpetuities and what (then) smoking hot
actress starred in it?

Legally Blonde Anal VII?

Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 05:37 PM (G/zuv)

429 I'd like it if everything were safe enough that I didn't need to resort to the courts, but in fact an awful lot of people are sure enough of their opinions on sexuality (and a whole host of other things) that they're willing to cart people off to jail to vindicate those opinions.

This sort of gets into the "I wouldn't want to give power to anyone who seeks it" sort of thing.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 05:37 PM (nj1bB)

430 yeah I don't know the names of all those cases either ace, good thing neither Perry or myself are running for prez.

Posted by: flyonthewall at December 29, 2011 05:37 PM (uEUIo)

431
Ace is an anarchist.

Cool.

I never knew.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 05:37 PM (Xm1aB)

432 This is, of course, exactly where I was. And then I concluded that Perry couldn't think his way out of a fucking paper bag.

NO YOU DIDN'T, LIAR! I specifically remember that you were burning Rick Perry in effigy out on your front lawn as early as 2005! And then Bobby Jindal endorsed him and that was really it for you! Yes, yes, I remember it all so clearly. You can't fool us conservatives with your pining for some RINO ubermensch and when Rick Perry magically splits into six different people in order to carve up the not-Romney vote and run away with the nomination in mid-January the laughs will be on you!!!!11!!!!!!!1!

Posted by: Guy Over 1000 Miles Away With Long and Precise Memories at December 29, 2011 05:38 PM (6DYpG)

433 Perry's not dumb. he's just not very bright.

Posted by: Mina at December 29, 2011 05:38 PM (2Ba2p)

434 Soothsayer,
Used Cars is such a great movie, but almost nobody has ever heard of it!

Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at December 29, 2011 05:38 PM (6IV8T)

435 ALL RIGHT!! My man, Bishop Mitt is ALL about the sexual freedom stuff...Right on, Ace!

Posted by: A. Coulter at December 29, 2011 05:38 PM (+FrDx)

436 Actually soona, I'm pretty sure the Bill of Rights, at the time of it's enactment, was meant to limit the federal government only.
Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 05:24 PM (Xm1aB)

If you believe that you're wrong. These aretheinalienable rights the Declaration of Independence was talking about. Given to us by God, therefore, in theory, can't be taken away by anyman or group of men (government).
If a state signed on to the US Constitution and became part of the new union, then everyone within that state had these rights.

Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 05:38 PM (bgsV5)

437 Count me in with those that have a law degree.

It never ceases to amaze how lawyers think they are special when one in every five people in the country has a freaking law degree.

Lawyers have the most ridiculous egos on the planet. We are a dime a dozen and serve little purpose for the greater good, actually we are detrimental to the greater good. We are a pox on society.

Posted by: The M. I. Double Tizzle at December 29, 2011 05:39 PM (ozpOn)

438 Still voting for Perry. He has the best record.What? You mean this still matters? I thought it was all about electability. You know, the electability of the guy that couldn't beat the walking corpse that is John McCain four years ago. I mean my t-shirt says 'It's all about electability'. Should I turn it inside-out??
Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 29, 2011 05:14 PM (ExN5P)
The problem is that Rick Perry can't simply print his record on a poster board and stand it on an easel behind the podium in his stead.
Rick Perry's challenge in this campaign was to show that his record was due in great part to his skill and effort rather than good luck, and thus to convince the voters that he would be able to do similar good things for the country as President. Unfortunately, his performance before the voters has done the opposite: fairly or unfairly, he's come off as someone who can't quite express himself or make a persuasive case. That makes his record suspect, because (again, fairly or unfairly) it looks like the guy they see running for President can't have been somebody who made the Texas economic miracle happen... and that makes him vulnerable to the attacks from other candidates that Texas would have prospered under any governor and that Perry wasn't at all important to its success.
It turns out that serving ten years straight as Governor doesn't necessarily make a person a great candidate. Maybe... just maybe... spending a few years as a media personality and learning how to speak persuasively to a national television audience is a real skill that can actually be useful in a political campaign. After all, it seemed to work for Ronald Reagan, who was not only Governor of California but an accomplished mass media performer.

Posted by: stuiec at December 29, 2011 05:39 PM (UTjQC)

439 I know you have lots of opinions on sexuality

Always good to take two steps away from sexuality on stuff like this. Way too many people are happy to be enslaved by the state if we're just all libertarian on the sex.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 05:39 PM (73tyQ)

440 389
"I really dig dorking squeakholes."


Stuff Thomas Jefferson said Vol 69

Posted by: steevy at December 29, 2011 05:26 PM (7WJOC)
Wrong. That was Hamilton in Federalist #69

Posted by: ☠ Rex Harrison's Hat ☠ at December 29, 2011 05:39 PM (4136b)

441
I love that movie!

I still laugh when he smashes the windshields because the price is Too Fuckin High!

Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 05:40 PM (G/zuv)

442 **Perry has the stench of amnesty on him and he smells of poorly articulate texan governorship. Sort of like another president whom the left, in their typical no-nothing stance, blames all current woes on.

I've had it with compassionate conservatism and am looking for a dispassionate conservative to vote for.**

Fuck yeah, I say we embrace the evil. Shit, there are people in mother russia yearning for Stalin. People want a strong horse, not lukewarm horse piss.

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 29, 2011 05:40 PM (QxSug)

443 Have no doubt, under the man with the magic undies ENDA legislation WILL pass!

Posted by: A. Coulter at December 29, 2011 05:41 PM (+FrDx)

444 Marbury v. Madison?

F*ck that noise!

Posted by: at least 50% of this blog's readers are lawyers at December 29, 2011 05:41 PM (a4lmz)

445 424 -

I don't think they've considered the fact that once Team Romney gets done licking up all that sweet joy from not losing the nomination, they're going to need more than 25% of the Republican Party to beat King Bumbles in November.

But by all means, keep telling us how dumb Perry is.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 05:41 PM (Gc/Qi)

446 Oh gee, thanks. Whenever anybody needs someone to pick on, it's me. What did I ever do to you? Has it ever occurred to you that I have a condition?


Posted by: fucking paper bag at December 29, 2011 05:41 PM (6TB1Z)

447 @436

No, I don't think I'm wrong actually.

Madison's promise to propose and enact a Bill of Rights was made in order to secure the necessary votes for ratification from states that were concerned about ceding power to the new federal entity.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 05:41 PM (Xm1aB)

448 I gotta tell ya, Ace - if you weren't such a militant hawk, Luap Nor would be looking good for you.

Since I'm not a hawk, share a lot of your social views, and think Luap Nor is too nutty, I'm going with Gary Johnson in the general if Santorum or a few others get the nomination . . .

Posted by: The Q at December 29, 2011 05:41 PM (NdE8F)

449 Because I don't trust you, dude. Simple as that. I don't concede to
you the power. I know you have lots of opinions on sexuality, and would
like to use the coercive power of the state to vindicate those
opinions, but I've got a different opinion.

You're not addressing my point, though: How do you carve out some special exception for sex, but not other things that are "only" moral hazard? Take "truth in advertising," as an example: basically (in layman's terms, since I'm a layman in these matters) if I say I'll sell you a car, what I sell you has to be a car- it doesn't have to be a functional car, or a new car, or even the car I showed on TV (unless I said "this car"), it just has to be 'a' car. Now tell me, what is that if not only a "moral" stance?

Certainly when I'm at the dealership to buy the car, I can demand that they show me the specific car they're going to sell me before I sign any paperwork- and once I've signed, then we have a contract that binds them as much as it does me, so why "truth in advertising?" Or would you also get rid of that, and just tell everyone "buyer beware?"

And, again, the fact that the State shouldn't legislate something in no way means the State can't do so. From smoking bans to seat belt laws to any number of other Nanny-State things that Cities (and even States) do, I oppose them politically, but I never question the State's right to implement them.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 05:41 PM (8y9MW)

450 Posted by: Guy Over 1000 Miles Away With Long and Precise Memories at December 29, 2011 05:38 PM (6DYpG)

Wait.

You're now replying to me as a sock replying to you?

Get thee to a sanatarium.

Posted by: AmishDude at December 29, 2011 05:41 PM (73tyQ)

451 Again, it's not a "privilege" or "immunity". It's a restriction on the Federal government.

It's not a terrible stretch to conclude that a restriction against infringing on a right, in a section known as the Bill of Rights, is in fact a privilege or immunity.

I don't agree with Ace's apparent belief that activist decisions are OK if we like the outcome, but some degree of interpretation needs to take place.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 29, 2011 05:42 PM (SY2Kh)

452
er, shoots the windshield

that's too fuckin high!

Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 05:42 PM (G/zuv)

453 Do we want false prohibitions cluttering up the code?


I'm way late to the thread and haven't read past #100 but I have to speak up for so-called Salutary Neglect. In the South, we have always had a lot of unenforced, or rarely enforced, laws. I have always thought of them as Anti-Asshole laws. For instance in my town during Mardi Gras, it's still illegal to walk around town with open beverages but it's not enforced, unless you are being an ass. Then, it's off to the hoosegow with ye for ye fining or beating.

Yes, it's a system that's ripe for abuse but it has worked for years.

Posted by: toby928 at December 29, 2011 05:42 PM (GTbGH)

454 **I know you have lots of opinions on sexuality, and would like to use the coercive power of the state to vindicate those opinions, but I've got a different opinion. **

This also goes back to why Bachmann fucked herself on liquid whore, it gave moderates like Ace the willies over social cons going a bridge too far over demon sex.

Maybe the federal government doesn't have power to mandate owning health insurance (although, to be fair, we only care about this as a strategy to kill Obamacare in courts), but we seem to think that state's general police powers go to forbidding squeak hole access.

strange, eh?

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 29, 2011 05:42 PM (QxSug)

455 361 A president doesn't need to know particulars about SCOTUS cases. If an issue comes up, he has a whole cabinet level post at his beck and call full of lawyers who can brief him.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 29, 2011 05:20 PM (WZtt1)

This.
It's not like there is a lack of lawyers in DC.
Disqualifying a Presidential candidate on his lack of familiarity with a legal case is like disqualifying a SecDef nominee because he can't fieldstrip an M-16 blindfolded. We got other people to do that shit.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at December 29, 2011 05:43 PM (FTPRb)

456 Because I don't trust you, dude. Simple as that. I
don't concede to you the power. I know you have lots of opinions on
sexuality, and would like to use the coercive power of the state to
vindicate those opinions, but I've got a different opinion.


Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 05:35 PM (nj1bB)
That's why we have 57 states. So, if you don't like the laws in one and can't convince them to change them, then you can always move to one of 56 other states which might be more to your liking. If you insist that the federal government grab this bull by the horns at every opportunity and disallow states from enacting much of anything, then there is no escape from the bad law that comes down from Washington. And, if haven't noticed yet, Washington makes pretty much nothing but bad law - including the pseudo law imposed by federal judges, who are about the most irresponsible people in our society. That is all in addition to the fact, by my view, that the federal government just has no compelling interest of any sort looking into anti-sodomy laws any more than it can tell a state that it's un-Constitutional to have public nudity laws.
But, then again, we live in a society where a movement is defined by a bowel movement in public on a cop car ... and no one gets arrested, or even investigated. Yep.

Posted by: really ... at December 29, 2011 05:44 PM (X3lox)

457 If you understand Louisiana you understand war.

Posted by: Dr Spank at December 29, 2011 05:44 PM (lVGED)

458 And yeah, Madison may have thought the Bill of Rights was redundant, but Hamilton and Adams sure liked the idea of using the federal government as a hammer to nail down things

There's a reason we're making up Stuff Jefferson Said on this blog and not the other non-Washington Founders . . .

Posted by: The Q at December 29, 2011 05:44 PM (NdE8F)

459 440 Damnit!I always mix those 2 up.

Posted by: steevy at December 29, 2011 05:44 PM (7WJOC)

460 bitches, these are all negative rights you discuss anyway. Let's get down to the redistributive, positive rights.

signed,
XXOO
SCOAMF and Co.

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 29, 2011 05:45 PM (QxSug)

461
Why can't we have a nominee who can campaign well AND has a good record? It seems like we only looked for people that met one of the two criteria.

Posted by: Nate at December 29, 2011 05:45 PM (BBlzg)

462 OT HAHA!(points and laughs at Notre Dame)

Posted by: steevy at December 29, 2011 05:45 PM (7WJOC)

463 462 Ouch,punished instantly for that.

Posted by: steevy at December 29, 2011 05:46 PM (7WJOC)

464 These aretheinalienable rights the Declaration of Independence was talking about.

Ummm... since when is not having troops sleep in your house an "Inalienable Right?" The inalienable (or Natural) rights are rights you get regardless of government's existence, but that government is created to protect (because people, in general, don't really care about your rights).

No, the Bill of Rights was specific limits on the Federal Government, mostly in response to things the King of England had done, to ensure they wouldn't happen again.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 05:46 PM (8y9MW)

465 A good thing about Perry running is that none of you Beta Male Dickless Wonders who ridiculed Palin but now support Perry have any credibility. I think it's hilarious.Yeah, when Perry resigned half way through his first term because he found reality TV a better use of his talents, it really hurt his credibility.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 29, 2011 04:56 PM (SY2Kh
He really should have worried less about his credibility and more about his competence as a candidate. As R. Emmett Tyrell points out, Perry must have assumed that running for President might be fun and certainly would be easy -- after all, good ol' W managed to do it.
Turns out you can be a competent governor with 2 1/2 terms under your belt and still be a hopeless, useless candidate. Who'da thunk it? Maybe he should have spent a couple of years as a national media pundit, and then he'd have been able to appear competent or at least coherent on national TV.

Posted by: stuiec at December 29, 2011 05:46 PM (UTjQC)

466 The movie was Body Heat and the (then) smoking hot actress was Kathleen Turner. **** SPOILER ALERT!**** It seems that Turner had this spare filthy rich husband and a none too competent or honest lawyer boyfriend played by William Hurt who she got to murder her husband so that they could be filthy rich together. But Hurt didn't want to amend the will by forgery leaving everything to her for fear it would look too suspicious. Katleen then took it upon herself to amend the will by invalidating it by violating the rule against perpetutities thus leaving all of the estate to the mourning widow pursuant to intestacy laws. Lots of other surprises in the movie. Definitely worth a watch if you are into film noir type films.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 29, 2011 05:46 PM (Hx5uv)

467 >>My legal opinion on this (and I don't mean this personally, but this is
my legal opinion for everyone who thinks like this) is Go Fuck Yourself.

Whether I were to take that personally or not, it's a damn near impossible mission, that otherwise might have saved me a lot of time, trouble, and money personally speaking of course.


Posted by: divorcedandpennilessconstitutional busybody at December 29, 2011 05:46 PM (HBqDo)

468 There were so many great lines in the movie Used Cars. "In my day, when you bought a senator they stayed bought.". And, "Well, Luke, you are about to run over the curb for the last time.". The way the refrigerator played campaign music, and how Rudy was saving up money to buy his senate seat! All classics.

Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at December 29, 2011 05:47 PM (6IV8T)

469 OT HAHA!(points and laughs at Notre Dame)

What?! What?! I'm still showing it as 0-0.

Posted by: toby928 at December 29, 2011 05:47 PM (GTbGH)

470 If a state signed on to the US Constitution and became part of the new union, then everyone within that state had these rights.

Nope. For quite some time after the Constitution was enacted, constitutional restrictions weren't considered applicable to the states.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 29, 2011 05:47 PM (SY2Kh)

471 Gomorrah is for Lovers.

Posted by: Gomorrah Chamber of Commerce at December 29, 2011 05:48 PM (WFpDe)

472 #125 Yeah, Jason Embry has been on aroll today. Pisses me off.

Posted by: snowcrash at December 29, 2011 05:48 PM (w3YD7)

473 453

The problem with the Anti-Asshole laws are when Assholes get into power (like Grand Marshal Bloomberg) and use those "nods" to raise revenue by torturing honest citizens.

Posted by: The Q at December 29, 2011 05:49 PM (NdE8F)

474 I call bullshit on this entre thread. Kathleen Turner was never hot. Smoking, maybe, but never hot.

Posted by: Truman North at December 29, 2011 05:49 PM (I2LwF)

475
Kurt Russell made a lot of good flicks.

He was the computer who wore tennis shoes filled with flubber.

Never saw Tango Cash, though. Or Tequila Sunrise.


Posted by: soothsayer at December 29, 2011 05:49 PM (G/zuv)

476 Your candidates are pathetic - you stupid Bushnecks!

(except Huntsman)

Posted by: Clarence at December 29, 2011 05:49 PM (z0HdK)

477 469 They turned it over in the redzone but than forces a fumble and got a TD.Just as I was celebrating their int.

Posted by: steevy at December 29, 2011 05:49 PM (7WJOC)

478 Santorum is pro-amnesty, so that's a negative. A big one, in my book.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 29, 2011 05:50 PM (epBek)

479 You mean Body Heat wasn't about necrophilia?

But then I always thought Deep Throat was about a giraffe.

Aaaaaand I'm out!

Posted by: tasker at December 29, 2011 05:50 PM (r2PLg)

480 Another day, another lame Ace defense of Perry. Even Ace agrees: "I'm starting to hope that to, because I'm tired of defending the indefensible." Then why don't you just stop defending this guy for a while?

Perry could have just asked the guy what the decision was about. After all, he's not a lawyer, although he was governor when the case was decided. If he hadn't had such a poor attitude to begin with, he could have figured out an answer. Having a cool head is something we should expect of a POTUS.

While Perry's record is better than Obama, Gingrich, Romney and Paul, he has a poor attitude and is unable to think quickly. This gets him into trouble during debates: Hey, if you don't agree with me you lack compassion. That's just arrogant and sounds like he was trying out a Democratic argument.

I'm afraid Obama and the media will make mincemeat of Perry in the general election. I'll vote for him, but I doubt he can win.

Posted by: Worf the Wonder Klingon at December 29, 2011 05:50 PM (wL5Cc)

481 but than forces a fumble and got a TD

Shit, I took FSU for 20 points. Get cracking State!

Posted by: toby928 at December 29, 2011 05:51 PM (GTbGH)

482 301 Scalia's minority dissenting opinion was brilliant on this: he said very clearly that judges should be neutral on the issue, and the SCOTUS wasn't being neutral with this decision. he said their ruling opened up all kinds of idiotic, destructive crap that would inevitably follow, and it will, and already has.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 05:03 PM

Yep, here is Justice Scalia's dissent. Key excerpts (in my opinion):

Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 844 (1992). That was the Courts sententious response, barely more than a decade ago, to those seeking to overrule Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). The Courts response today, to those who have engaged in a 17-year crusade to overrule Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), is very different. The need for stability and certainty presents no barrier.

I begin with the Courts surprising readiness to reconsider a decision rendered a mere 17 years ago in Bowers v. Hardwick. I do not myself believe in rigid adherence to stare decisis in constitutional cases; but I do believe that we should be consistent rather than manipulative in invoking the doctrine. Todays opinions in support of reversal do not bother to distinguish or indeed, even bother to mention the paean to stare decisis coauthored by three Members of todays majority in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. There, when stare decisis meant preservation of judicially invented abortion rights, the widespread criticism of Roe was strong reason to reaffirm it: [ ... ]

Today, however, the widespread opposition to Bowers, a decision resolving an issue as intensely divisive as the issue in Roe, is offered as a reason in favor of overruling it. See ante, at 1516. Gone, too, is any enquiry (of the sort conducted in Casey) into whether the decision sought to be overruled has proven unworkable, Casey, supra, at 855.

Todays approach to stare decisis invites us to overrule an erroneously decided precedent (including an intensely divisive decision) if: (1) its foundations have been eroded by subsequent decisions, ante, at 15; (2) it has been subject to substantial and continuing criticism, ibid.; and (3) it has not induced individual or societal reliance that counsels against overturning, ante, at 16. The problem is that Roe itself which todays majority surely has no disposition to overrule satisfies these conditions to at least the same degree as Bowers.

(3) That leaves, to distinguish the rock-solid, unamendable disposition of Roe from the readily overrulable Bowers, only the third factor. [T]here has been, the Court says, no individual or societal reliance on Bowers of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding . Ante, at 16. It seems to me that the societal reliance on the principles confirmed in Bowers and discarded today has been overwhelming. Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majoritys belief that certain sexual behavior is immoral and unacceptable constitutes a rational basis for regulation. See, e.g., Williams v. Pryor, 240 F.3d 944, 949 (CA11 2001) (citing Bowers in upholding Alabamas prohibition on the sale of sex toys on the ground that [t]he crafting and safeguarding of public morality indisputably is a legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny); Milner v. Apfel, 148 F.3d 812, 814 (CA7 199 (citing Bowers for the proposition that [l]egislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms); Holmes v. California Army National Guard 124 F.3d 1126, 1136 (CA9 1997) (relying on Bowers in upholding the federal statute and regulations banning from military service those who engage in homosexual conduct); Owens v. State, 352 Md. 663, 683, 724 A. 2d 43, 53 (1999) (relying on Bowers in holding that a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage); Sherman v. Henry, 928 S. W. 2d 464, 469473 (Tex. 1996) (relying on Bowers in rejecting a claimed constitutional right to commit adultery). We ourselves relied extensively on Bowers when we concluded, in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 569 (1991), that Indianas public indecency statute furthered a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality, ibid., (plurality opinion); see also id., at 575 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by todays decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional morals offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. The law, it said, is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed. 478 U.S., at 196.2

What a massive disruption of the current social order, therefore, the overruling of Bowers entails. Not so the overruling of Roe, which would simply have restored the regime that existed for centuries before 1973, in which the permissibility of and restrictions upon abortion were determined legislatively State-by-State. [ ... ]

The matters appropriate for this Courts resolution are only three: Texass prohibition of sodomy neither infringes a fundamental right (which the Court does not dispute), nor is unsupported by a rational relation to what the Constitution considers a legitimate state interest, nor denies the equal protection of the laws. I dissent.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 29, 2011 05:51 PM (vUK/h)

483 David duke has endorsed Ron Paul, and for all the right reasons.

Also Ron Paul Stated :

I think were looking for trouble because we put these horrendous
sanctions on Iran, Paul told a midday audience at the Hotel Pattee in
Perry, Iowa. He said the Iranians are planning to be bombed and
understandably would like to have a nuclear weapon, even though there is
no evidence whatsoever that they have enriched uranium.

Apparently alluding to Israel and its nuclear-weapons arsenal, Paul
said that if I were an Iranian, Id like to have a nuclear weapon, too,
because you gain respect from them.

Posted by: Dr Spank at December 29, 2011 05:52 PM (lVGED)

484 It was idiotic. It was also his attempt at some bizarre Alan Ginsberg poetry in a legal opinion. I have to tell you, though, I have moved on this. At the time I was all "The Constitution is mute! It says nothing either way! So the majority can forbid whatever it likes!" But as conservatives like to point out, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic *republic.* We have certain inalienable rights, or, positing that in a negative way, there are some powers the government doesn't, or shouldn't, have. I don't like this whole idea about the government stepping in to outlaw the birth control pill because *they fear the effect it might have on my morality.* Worry about your own. (Abortion is different because that at least implicates another life. But this crap about bjs and rubbers and vibrators? Mind your own beeswax. We are Free Adults, we are not children in need of state guidance.) That's nice and all, but we actually have a Constitution which *spells out* the ways in which we aren't a democracy. The Constitution says fuck-all about sodomy.
If you're cool with a bunch of liberal lawyers deciding when we can and when we can't be a democracy, than you're about as conservative as Obama's drunk illegal-immigrant uncle.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 29, 2011 05:53 PM (epBek)

485 465 -

I think Perry was ready to run a campaign where you go to Iowa and New Hampshire for a couple months, sit in diners talking to "the folks" or eating corn dogs.

Yeah, it's his fault he wasn't ready for an endless stream of beauty contest "debates" with Romney's stalking horses waiting to pounce on him.

That's why he's not going to win. Right candidate/wrong strategy. He's both, and having the wrong strategy doesn't change the fact that he was/is the best candidate in this race.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 05:53 PM (Gc/Qi)

486 Palin never was a candidate for POTUS. Lack of spine.
Posted by: Dick Nixon at December 29, 2011 04:54 PM (kaOJx)
Heh. Sometimes focusing on demonstrating an abundance of spine leads one to expose a decided lack of smart.
Case in point: Rick Perry. Plenty of spine to step into the race, not enough of the right kind of smart to realize that he was nowhere near ready -- personally or organizationally -- to do so.
Palin is at the very least smart enough not to fall for the "I must show I have spine" argument to enter the Presidential race. She may have been dumb enough to believe that Perry would be a good candidate who'd appeal to her "Commonsense Conservative" constituency, but then, a lot of smart people (me included) made that stupid mistake.

Posted by: stuiec at December 29, 2011 05:54 PM (UTjQC)

487 I don't get it. People keep inventing these bizarre scenarios so they can justify voting for some other loon:

If RP gets the nom, I will vote for Obama.
If Santorum gets the nom., I will vote for Johnson.

It's not going to fucking happen. Just have the balls to admit that you intend to vote for Obama or some third party loon who doesn't have a fucks chance of winning and will ultimately ensure Obama winning.

Sheesh!

Posted by: mike at December 29, 2011 05:54 PM (rDDiL)

488 @482

My God, I love Scalia.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 05:55 PM (Xm1aB)

489 Palin dumb - Perry smart!

Posted by: Mongo at December 29, 2011 05:55 PM (2Ba2p)

490 Excellent. Thank you! And just a reminder to the "he's stupid" crowd (referring to Gov. Perry)--you can't be stupid and successfully govern the 13th largest economy in the world.

Posted by: Rachelle Crawford at December 29, 2011 05:55 PM (jXF0/)

491 I think were looking for trouble because we put these horrendous
sanctions on Iran, Paul told a midday audience at the Hotel Pattee in
Perry, Iowa. He said the Iranians are planning to be bombed and
understandably would like to have a nuclear weapon, even though there is
no evidence whatsoever that they have enriched uranium.

The best thing I can say about Ron Paul's foreign policy: It's definitely foreign.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 29, 2011 05:56 PM (Hx5uv)

492 Did Kathleen Turner show the goods in Body Heat?

Posted by: Waterhouse concentrates on the important things at December 29, 2011 05:57 PM (jbVeA)

493 465.....He [Perry]really should have worried less about his credibility and more about his competence as a candidate.
So we're doomed to have Presidents who are great at campaigning, but have very little credibility?
We have one of those already. He sucks.

Posted by: wheatie.....diehard Perry supporter at December 29, 2011 05:58 PM (oPkw3)

494 478 Santorum is pro-amnesty, so that's a negative. A big one, in my book.



They're all pro-amnesty except for Bachmann. They just have varying degrees of disclosure.

Posted by: Truman North at December 29, 2011 05:58 PM (I2LwF)

495 492 Did Kathleen Turner show the goods in Body Heat?

Yep. Full frontal. And she's got prominent, pointy and brownish nipples and aereolae. So, okay, she's got a serviceable chassis at that point. But hot is a bridge too far.

Posted by: Truman North at December 29, 2011 05:59 PM (I2LwF)

496
Did Kathleen Turner show the goods in Body Heat?

It's been years since I've seen that movie but I do remember I had to stand up slowly after the movie was over for fear that I would break it off.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 29, 2011 05:59 PM (Hx5uv)

497 492 Yes,but they weren't very good.

Posted by: steevy at December 29, 2011 06:00 PM (7WJOC)

498
@490
Why should he get all of the credit for a lot of stuff that the legislature proposed and passed? This is what I don't get about the record argrument: Politicians getting credit for stuff advisors, staff, or legislators come up with.
(The same conceptapplies to everyone in the field, so I am not trying to single Perry out here.)

Posted by: Nate at December 29, 2011 06:00 PM (BBlzg)

499 Richard Epstein has an interesting take. I'm not sure this fully answers the question. But I think it's a start.

Assume there are high-trust relationships and low-trust relationships. High-trust relationships are close, genuine relationships, usually familial. Low-trust are interactions with strangers, for example.

In politics, we all face each other in low-trust relationships.

You might accept more control over your actions by a high-trust person. A wife, a parent. A child. This relationship is valuable enough to you that you are willing to trade a degree of freedom for the purpose of the relationship.

In addition, because you trust these people, you generally believe they have your best interests at heart, even if you disagree with them.

Again, in politics, as just average everyday citizens, we face each other in low-trust relationships. It is not an insult to say I don't trust this particular citizen -- I don't trust 99.99999999% of the world's population. I trust about eight or ten people (and not absolutely -- the fact that I know them well gives me some comfort that I can guess when they might become not perfectly trustworthy).

Anyone who wants to control another human being's affairs should ask why that other human being should trust your judgment, you, a stranger to him.

When we talk about adding taggant chemicals to gunpowder, the 2nd amenmdent people do not hesitate to say "That's unconstitutional!" (No, not by the letter of the document.) They also say "No, because I don't trust the government."

Okay. Neither do I. I don't trust the government to administer a bunch of laws simply to make me lead a "better" life. With the threat of a very much worse life -- prison -- if I fall into line.

I don't trust you. Furthermore, YOU SHOULD NOT SEEK SUCH TRUST. You -- I speak to anyone who wants to control -- should realize this is not a high-trust relationship and should not try to pretned it is, just so they can get their way of controlling them, making them lead 'better" lives.

Shoe on the other foot-- do you seek/invite other people to harass you with laws? No, you don't. So don't go out looking to control other people, either.

Some people are going to Hell. It's that simple. Laws don't gift salvation. If you're concerned about souls, then spend hours and hours ministering to the heathens; don't try to do it on the cheap with a goddamned law and say "My work is done, wow, I've saved so many souls with two minutes of voting."

God works in mysterious ways, but not through the criminal codes.



Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 06:00 PM (nj1bB)

500 Did Kathleen Turner show the goods in Body Heat?

Yep. Full frontal. And she's got prominent, pointy and brownish
nipples and aereolae. So, okay, she's got a serviceable chassis at that
point. But hot is a bridge too far.

I wonder what Scalia would say about that?

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 29, 2011 06:00 PM (Hx5uv)

501 I think Perry was ready to run a campaign where you go to Iowa and New Hampshire for a couple months, sit in diners talking to "the folks" or eating corn dogs. Yeah, it's his fault he wasn't ready for an endless stream of beauty contest "debates" with Romney's stalking horses waiting to pounce on him. That's why he's not going to win. Right candidate/wrong strategy. He's both, and having the wrong strategy doesn't change the fact that he was/is the best candidate in this race.
Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 05:53 PM (Gc/Qi)
Yes, for the lack of a time machine, Perry was unable to run a 1960s-style campaign in 2011.
And you are failing to make the key distinction: Rick Perry may be the single candidate in the current field who'd make the best President (I might agree with that assessment), but that does not make him the best candidate. To rise to the level of best candidate, he needs to demonstrate the campaigning skill to win some actual f'cking caucuses and primaries.
The best candidate is the one that can convince the voters to act in his or her support. From that perspective, Romney and even Paul are doing a better job as candidates than Perry. Whatever his other qualities, a candidate who loses the nomination isn't only not the best candidate, he's damn near useless as a candidate.

Posted by: stuiec at December 29, 2011 06:00 PM (UTjQC)

502 In my expert legal opinion its res ipsa loquitor on the sina qua non. Mens rea the guardian ad litem. And nolo contendere the de nove ex post facto.

Posted by: The M. I. Double Tizzle at December 29, 2011 06:01 PM (ozpOn)

503 494 -

And Romney still has the distinction of never really having been asked to explain where he stands on any of these issues that are supposedly so important to us.

He will.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 06:01 PM (Gc/Qi)

504 You know who knows all about court cases having to do with sodomy?
Fucking HOMOS. Because they're the only ones who are truly fired upabout splitting some ass and then having a nice sip of penis.
Perry's not being nominated for SCOTUS. Bullshit question.
Who gives a shit about this? What does the Lilly Ledbetter Act actually DO? Do you know?It was thevery first thing Obama signed. No peeking at the internet, assholes.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 29, 2011 06:02 PM (DiqH3)

505 501 -

You don't have to go back to the '60s to get that style campaign. Just 2008 and every 4 years before that.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 06:03 PM (Gc/Qi)

506 none of us as citizens stand in loco parentis (as a parent) to anyone, except our children, and wards of the state, who are decreed as such by law.

I just hate this idea that someone wants to parent me, and thinks he or she knows so goddamned much he can do a better job of it than my parents.

I also abhor this idea that so many are willing to use P R I S O N as their preferred method of ensuring compliance with their own lists of Thou Shalt Nots.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 06:03 PM (nj1bB)

507 >>But hot is a bridge too far.Posted by: Truman North at December 29, 2011 05:59 PM (I2LwF) For the sake of its potential infinite intertube life, would you like to take this opportunity to rework that phrasing guvna?

Posted by: ontherocks at December 29, 2011 06:03 PM (HBqDo)

508 Perry made huge mistakes before he attended a single debate. This is the guy who entered the race blowing kisses to Romney and sending him his love.

He had a Texas sized ego, and broke a key law of war; he underestimated his enemies.

Posted by: The M. I. Double Tizzle at December 29, 2011 06:03 PM (ozpOn)

509 I guess I'm not sure why this bothers you so much. What you're actually advocating (whether you know it or not) is Constitutional Anarchy. The idea that something that is "only morally wrong" shouldn't be legislated on takes away many things we consider illegal quite justifiably (from drug laws, to fraud and truth-in-advertising type laws). You can't get the one without the other. Because I don't trust you, dude. Simple as that. I don't concede to you the power. I know you have lots of opinions on sexuality, and would like to use the coercive power of the state to vindicate those opinions, but I've got a different opinion. My legal opinion on this (and I don't mean this personally, but this is my legal opinion for everyone who thinks like this) is Go Fuck Yourself.
Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 05:35 PM (nj1bB)

The Federal Government cannot legislate morality, because morality is determined by the particular society in which one lives. And there's an abundance of different societies within the US. If one of these societies decides that a law is appropriate to say, make dog fucking a crime, then they have every right to do so. This can be done because it doesn't encroach on the basic rights as outlined in the US Constitution (Bill of Rights). It's one of the nice things about the 10th Amendment.
One of the beautifulthings about living in the US is that if one finds he can't abide by the stringent morality of a state or locale, he can move to a state or locale that fits his opinion of morality better. And vica versa. It's one of the freedoms the federal courts and DC is taking away from us with all of the blanket federal laws.





Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 06:03 PM (bgsV5)

510 Ace really needs to do another article about what kind of RPG characters the primary candidates would be.
Perry is definitely a barbarian fighter with low INT scores. Romney is probably some kind of wizard; everybody hates those assholes. Santorum is a cleric, natch. Or maybe a paladin. Bachmann is some kind of precious elf multiclass warrior-healer.
Paul is that whiny NPC your dungeonmaster has railroaded into your party.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 29, 2011 06:03 PM (epBek)

511 Toby, at my hometown St. Paddy's Day Parade, Solo cups are like immunity. Keep an entire bar in your SUV parked behind the pizza joint, just never show a label. Works great.

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 29, 2011 06:04 PM (hiMsy)

512 I liked Perry's answer. He's not going to satisfy the questioner or the gay lobby no matter what he says, so why not treat the case with the disdain it is due: it's so unimportant that I don't even remember it.

People say "but it was a Texas case!" No it wasn't. It was a federal District Court case that took years to reach the SCOTUS. It was a national case, thus the striking down of antiquated laws in 13 states.

I think the DOMA law is much more poignant, considering that the present administration has chosen to ignore it. That's what liberal presidents do, they ignore laws or put up weak defenses of them.

Posted by: Great Reagan's Ghost at December 29, 2011 06:05 PM (bohBF)

513 IMO, it all boils down to the economy and the middle east. Who do I feel the most confidence in if we are attacked again? Romney would dither. Perry would act. So would Gingrich. I don't even want to think what RP would do.

Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at December 29, 2011 06:05 PM (6IV8T)

514 So we're doomed to have Presidents who are great at campaigning, but have very little credibility?
We have one of those already. He sucks.
Posted by: wheatie.....diehard Perry supporter at December 29, 2011 05:58 PM (oPkw3)
First, Obama had a lot of credibility in 2008 -- it just happened to be false credibility built on a lot of lies from the Left and a lot of leaps of faith by voters. And McCain unfortunately did more than a few things that diminished his credibility (on top of his record of poor credibility with conservatives).
Second, a politician who sucks at campaigning isn't going to get elected. So credibility, as important or even essential as it may be, isn't sufficient: the candidate has to be able to campaign in a way that actually wins elections.

Posted by: stuiec at December 29, 2011 06:06 PM (UTjQC)

515 315
Christopher @301
"I think laws against sodomy are dumb, but that's part of living in our system. Unless a law specifically violates the US Constitution (which is silent on this issue), then states can be as dumb as they want."
Congratulations, you are chosen to represent the United States at the Supreme Court in the Obamacare case.
That's not how it works. In our federal system, the rule of thumb is and should be that if the Constitution doesn't prohibit it, the states can do it, and if the Constitution doesn't allow it, the feds can't do it.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 29, 2011 06:06 PM (epBek)

516 FAIL.
He's dumb.

Posted by: Chuckit at December 29, 2011 06:06 PM (63eOD)

517 @499

States have police power to promote the health, safety, and welfare of its' citizens and have always had such power. Laws are enacted through votes cast by representatives elected by the citizens. If they, the voters and their representatives, feel that passing an anti-sodomy law promotes the public health, safety, and welfare, then the state is completely within its' right to act.

You may not like the law.

But, it is constitutional regardless of what the Supreme Court may say.

YOU persuade voters to change the law you don't like.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 06:06 PM (Xm1aB)

518 Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 06:00 PM (nj1bB)

nice rant, agree.

Posted by: willow at December 29, 2011 06:07 PM (h+qn8)

519 I also abhor this idea that so many are willing to use P R I S O N as their preferred method of ensuring compliance with their own lists of Thou Shalt Nots.
Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 06:03 PM (nj1bB)
"Besides, I like what you do with fags in this country: you throw them in jail with a lot of men.'Wash 'em up and get 'em ready, boys!'" -- Lenny Bruce, "Thank You Mask Man"

Posted by: stuiec at December 29, 2011 06:08 PM (UTjQC)

520 Mark Steyn gives Newt the most scathing endorsement I've ever seen.
http://www.nationalreview.com
/articles/286068/gingrich-gestalt-mark-steyn

Posted by: Cincinnatus at December 29, 2011 06:09 PM (RUAEU)

521 public health laws, smoking?

Posted by: willow at December 29, 2011 06:09 PM (h+qn8)

522 Ron Paul is a CNgnomish bard.

Posted by: Truman North at December 29, 2011 06:09 PM (I2LwF)

523 But, it is constitutional regardless of what the Supreme Court may say.

- Dave

By definition, if the SCOTUS says it is not constitutional, it ain't.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 29, 2011 06:10 PM (niZvt)

524 A president doesn't need to know particulars about SCOTUS cases. If an issue comes up, he has a whole cabinet level post at his beck and call full of lawyers who can brief him.
Posted by: Purple Avenger
If I recall, this was the Cain position on foreign affairs.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 29, 2011 06:10 PM (epBek)

525 @504

That's some beautiful prose right there.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 06:10 PM (Xm1aB)

526 I'm such a coulter-bot but she makes good point about immigration, vote for the strongest candidate on immigration and who can get elected. Since the GOP thinks that they can out Vichy the democrat party (motto: importing newer, less informed voters since 1973), that boils down to Romney. Who sucks just less than everyone else.

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 29, 2011 06:10 PM (QxSug)

527 Its amazing to me how so many conservatives confuse civil rights and enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment.

Posted by: The M. I. Double Tizzle at December 29, 2011 06:10 PM (ozpOn)

528 You can be sure that BHO knows the case intimately. He may think there are 57 states plus one, but Lawrence V. Texas? Yeah. He's all over that steaming pile.
Lawrence V. Texas:Making America Safe for Buggery

Posted by: Great Reagan's Ghost at December 29, 2011 06:10 PM (bohBF)

529 Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 06:00 PM (nj1bB)

Exactly how many times do we have to tell you that we believe the Texas anti-sodomy law was unjust (but not unconstitutional) before you start to believe us?

With regards to your gunpowder tagging analogy, no, such a requirement probably wouldn't be unconstitutional. That's why we voice opposition and organize via groups like the NRA- in other words, using the democratic process.

You can't complain about the expansion of federal powers via activist decisions while also defending the activist decisions you happen to agree with.

Well, you can, but it's ideologically inconsistent.


Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 29, 2011 06:10 PM (SY2Kh)

530 Me am got great hair. !!1

Posted by: Rick Perry at December 29, 2011 06:11 PM (2Ba2p)

531 Still voting for Perry.

Lawyers can eat it.

Posted by: mpfs, home sick w/cold at December 29, 2011 06:11 PM (HmZoH)

532 The force is strong with this one.

Posted by: Arrested Developmental Society at December 29, 2011 06:11 PM (EL+OC)

533 Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 06:00 PM (nj1bB)

What movie were we talking about again? (sorry, had to)

I think we're talking past each other, here. I'm not disagreeing with you that States shouldn't pass these laws. That's a case-by-case basis with me, and I largely agree that sexual relationships between consenting adults (but -aha- who defines 'adult' or even 'consenting' for that matter?) should not be taken up by the state.

However, I do believe that the State has a right to do those things, just like I believe that the State has a right to outlaw the sale of Role Playing Games. (Okay, that one probably violates the 1st Amendment...), or the sale of Soda Pop to people under the age of 16 (let's say). I think either of those would be stupid laws. I think they would be virtually unenforceable, and that they would do no particular good. But I do believe the State has the right to make them.

If the State takes up that issue, it's my right under my State Constitution (not the Federal, btw) to petition my State Congress not to pass that law. If I, and enough others like me, do so, the law won't pass, and the State won't have done something stupid. If we don't, the State might pass the law- thereby doing something stupid. In that case, I have a choice (thanks to our Federalist system): suck it up, or move. Mobility is part of Federalism.

If the Federal Government can simply say "Oh, no, it's not actually in the Constitution as a Protected Right, but we don't think you should get to have that law," we no longer have a Federalist Republic, we have an elected Oligarchy.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 06:11 PM (8y9MW)

534 @523

I get what you're saying, the court of last resort and all.

But let's be real, there is no constitutional right to butt-fucking in the Constitution. I am appalled that a Supreme Court actually so decided.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 06:11 PM (Xm1aB)

535 That line comes in the "I never agreed to give moral-panic busybodies like you that much power over my life" part of the Constitution.
Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 05:23 PM (nj1bB)

Bullshit, and the worse kind of bullshit, the kind where you know its bullshit. Lying bullshit.
What it comes down to is that you're OK with judges making up law, as long as you like the law.
You're not even a RINO.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 29, 2011 06:12 PM (epBek)

536 ** Its amazing to me how so many conservatives confuse civil rights and enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment. **

Oh whatever. You've ever hear Nancy Pelosi talk? Half the dems in congress think that the necessary and proper clause is a blanket authorization of power.

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 29, 2011 06:12 PM (QxSug)

537 >>>Nope. For quite some time after the Constitution was enacted,
constitutional restrictions weren't considered applicable to the states.

Yup. But after Heller, everything in the Bill of Rights except (IIRC) the grand jury requirement of the 5th Amendment and the entire 3rd Amendment has been incorporated under the 14th Amendment. (Though, as Clarence Thomas points out, using the wrong fucking part of the 14th -- equal protection instead of 'privileges immunities.') I remember a very long, very painful, very ugly debate we had here on AoSHQ wherein some of the lawyer Morons attempted to explain the doctrine of incorporation to people who were trying to argue, I think, that Herman Cain was right about localities being able to ban Muslims and mosques from their towns despite the First Amendment...the argument these geniuses tried to float was that the 1A only applied to the Federal government, and not the states.

Which, I have to admit, was sophistry on a slightly more sophisticated level than what I'm used to from people who know nothing about the law, given that it at least seemed to understand the fact that the Bill of Rights originally bound only the Feds and not the states.

Posted by: Jeff B. at December 29, 2011 06:12 PM (egkz7)

538 If I recall, this was the Cain position on foreign affairs.

No. Cain seemed to be unaware that there ARE foreign countries, much less that interactions between them may have been contentious, historical, and in every fucking newspaper, news program and on talk fucking radio, of which he was a part.
Perry is aware that there is a Supreme Court. He's aware that they make decisions. He, like 99% of the non-cock-enthusiast population, was not aware of THAT decision.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at December 29, 2011 06:13 PM (DiqH3)

539 Thread up

Posted by: Truman North at December 29, 2011 06:13 PM (I2LwF)

540 Wouldn't be so big a deal if it was his first "Aw geez" moment, but when you make it a regular thing....

Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at December 29, 2011 06:13 PM (jAqTK)

541 Since the law against sodomy is mostly unenforceable(unless it is done oin public or in an otherwise illegal act)who cares?

Posted by: steevy at December 29, 2011 06:13 PM (7WJOC)

542 OT John Carter looks really loyal to the source(at least in the trailer).

Posted by: steevy at December 29, 2011 06:14 PM (7WJOC)

543 #18 I'd give him a pass on Romer v. Colorado but this? This is a fuck up.
Well you better give him a pass, because you got the case wrong too. It's Romer v. Evans. Romer was significant because it had left open the option for states to still legislate against homosexual behavior -- just not homosexual status (Romer dealt with a statute that allowed for discrimination against homoesexuals, as opposed to homosexual behavior). Lawrence then obliterate that distiniction, and said you could not even discriminate against gay actions(sodomy).
And I know all this off the top of my head, because I was in law school when Lawrence was sent to SCOTUS. So I actually DID know this. But nobody else, not even Justice Kennedyapparently, remembers this about Romer.

Posted by: Rahm Emmanuel at December 29, 2011 06:14 PM (vjyZP)

544 536 ** Its amazing to me how so many conservatives confuse civil rights and enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment. **

Oh whatever. You've ever hear Nancy Pelosi talk? Half the dems in congress think that the necessary and proper clause is a blanket authorization of power.

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 29, 2011 06:12 PM (QxSug)

____

Shows how much you know. Its the "good and proper" clause.

Posted by: The M. I. Double Tizzle at December 29, 2011 06:14 PM (ozpOn)

545 States have police power to promote the health, safety, and welfare of its' citizens and have always had such power. Laws are enacted through votes cast by representatives elected by the citizens. If they, the voters and their representatives, feel that passing an anti-sodomy law promotes the public health, safety, and welfare, then the state is completely within its' right to act. You may not like the law. But, it is constitutional regardless of what the Supreme Court may say. YOU persuade voters to change the law you don't like.
Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 06:06 PM (Xm1aB)

You are correct, sir. Plus,if one can'tchange enough minds tovote down that law, and that state or city's sense of conduct and morality become too overbearing to a person, then move to another fucking city or state.
It's one of the beautiful things about living in this country.

Posted by: Soona at December 29, 2011 06:14 PM (bgsV5)

546 **530 Me am got great hair. !!1
Posted by: Rick Perry at December 29, 2011 06:11 PM (2Ba2p)**

yup.

I'll repeat my stupid joke, Perry had difficulty with this question because they had the wrong lasts names! in the cases...get it? his justification for amnesty...wrong last names.

there's the Bush the W stuttering speech cadence and debate performance.

ugh. And I stuck up for W. But if we care about electability, Perry's idiotic Bush impression is going to skeeve voters out.

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 29, 2011 06:15 PM (QxSug)

547 I asked this yesterday but didn't get an answer.
What has to happen in the January caucuses and primaries for Perry to be able to keep his campaign alive into February?
How does he have to do in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida to survive to Super Tuesday?
And what has to happen with the other candidates for that scenario to play out?
I believe that as the lagging candidates drop out, the main beneficiaries who pick up their supporters won't be Romney or Paul -- I think those guys have by and large picked up all the primary voters they are going to get, and we didn't see their numbers (except in Iowa for Paul) move up as Pawlenty, Cain and Johnson left the GOP race.
So is Perry really positioned to benefit as the Anybody But Romney vote coalesces? Is he really getting sufficiently better at campaigning to win those voters? Or is some other non-Romney (Gingrich, or Santorum, perhaps) going to become the consensus non-Romney candidate?

Posted by: stuiec at December 29, 2011 06:15 PM (UTjQC)

548 By definition, if the SCOTUS says it is not constitutional, it ain't.

Wrong. In practical terms, yes- what the SCOTUS says goes.

Their habit of arbitrarily re-defining of the definition of words does not, however, change their meaning.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at December 29, 2011 06:15 PM (SY2Kh)

549 I get some shit about my Perry support.Thing is, when he said he would try to makeWashington DC inconsequential in my daily life (or something like that) I believed him and I wanted that.Just that one little thing.Romney and Newt and the restare not going to deliver.

Posted by: snowcrash at December 29, 2011 06:16 PM (w3YD7)

550 By definition, if the SCOTUS says it is not constitutional, it ain't.

Find me that power of the SCOTUS in the Constitution. I'll wait.

Constitutionalists gave up a great deal of power when they (we, I guess, but I wasn't alive back then) gave in to that usurpation of power.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) says 'No' to RINO Romney at December 29, 2011 06:16 PM (8y9MW)

551
They need to name the cases to where you can figure it out:
Catcher vs. Pitcher, or Turdburgler vs. Pillowbiter.

Posted by: Minuteman at December 29, 2011 06:16 PM (acEq7)

552 514 -

Look, I realize at this point we're just picking at the bones of Perry's candidacy, but are you not even willing to consider the possibility that the deck was stacked against Perry from the start?

Nobody besides Perry was subjected to the withering attacks that started with the first debate, right after he announced his candidacy. I don't know who decided those debates needed to start when they did, but it sure did work out well for a guy who has been campaigning for this job for the last 5 years, didn't it? Especially when that guy hasn't been asked anything anywhere near as roughly as Perry was. Again, I will concede that it is indeed Perry's fault he wasn't ready for this attack right out of the gate, but I don't believe any of us knew it was going to go like that. I'm pretty sure we were all expecting the corndog tour to commence, with lots of babies being kissed and all that, and instead we got Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum jumping down his throat over the arcane issue of Texas state university tuition policy!

He should have known, but he didn't. So Romney gets the nomination. Fine. Next time, in 2016, it'll be different, I guess.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 06:17 PM (Gc/Qi)

553 @541

I care.

I care about what the Constitution means and what the Court presumes to say it means.

If the Court can simply overrule citizens' legislative decisions in their own states by inventing so-called rights, then we live in anarchy.

I don't want to live in anarchy, and I'd like to avoid another bloody revolution against federal tyranny if possible.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 06:17 PM (Xm1aB)

554 That's not how it works. In our federal system, the rule of thumb is and should be that if the Constitution doesn't prohibit it, the states can do it, and if the Constitution doesn't allow it, the feds can't do it.


Which is basically what I was arguing. The states are free to be as dumb as they want to as long as it doesn't violate the US Constitution.


But people should keep in mind, legislation they think is dumb or mean by keeping them from doing something they like to do doesn't mean its wrong or they shouldn't do it. Sometimes what you want to do is a really bad idea and damaging to society in ways you aren't able to conceive of or are not aware of.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 06:17 PM (r4wIV)

555 Perry is aware that there is a Supreme Court. He's aware that they make
decisions. He, like 99% of the non-cock-enthusiast population, was not
aware of THAT decision.


He just doesn't know how many justices there are.

Posted by: the dandy at December 29, 2011 06:17 PM (xP96j)

556 Spin away Ace. Face it Perry is as dumb as dogshit.

Posted by: Brad at December 29, 2011 06:17 PM (WT0/8)

557 maybe we should, like the rest of the country, wait until SNL decides on how to make fun of Perry before voting against him. It worked with Palin.

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 29, 2011 06:20 PM (QxSug)

558 @550

Agreed.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 06:20 PM (Xm1aB)

559 My God, I love Scalia.

I'm telling you, if I ever switch teams, I want him first. If I had the equipment I would want his baby.

Posted by: real joe at December 29, 2011 06:21 PM (w7Lv+)

560
"Nobody besides Perry was subjected to the withering attacks that started with the first debate, right after he announced his candidacy. I don't know who decided those debates needed to start when they did, but it sure did work out well for a guy who has been campaigning for this job for the last 5 years, didn't it? "

___

Irrational Perry whining.

Those debates started well before Perry even got into the race. Perry's first debate was actually the 4th debate.

And yeah he got pounced because he came in as the frontrunner, who hadnt proven anything and hadnt had any part of his record examined. And he trampled on Bachmann's straw poll victory.

Posted by: The M. I. Double Tizzle at December 29, 2011 06:21 PM (ozpOn)

561 @34: "Justice Kennedy, God bless him, found a constitutional right to anal sex.....somewhere in the Constitution I guess."
Sodomy has a long tradition in Western Civilization - the Greeks invented ass fucking.

Posted by: Det. Bunk Moreland, clerk to Justice Kennedy at December 29, 2011 06:21 PM (jAqTK)

562 I don;t think Perry is dumb, just not quick on answers on some questions. I think he believes in conservatism but only in a second hand way; he only knows what he's been told about conservatism rather than having a bedrock understanding of it that lets him form his own answers and opinions based on the worldview.


And no, the SCOTUS doesn't decide constitutionality. The Founding Fathers thought individual citizens did, through their votes by representatives. They made that really clear.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 06:22 PM (r4wIV)

563

Nobody besides Perry was subjected to the withering attacks that started
with the first debate, right after he announced his candidacy. I don't
know who decided those debates needed to start when they did, but it
sure did work out well for a guy who has been campaigning for this job
for the last 5 years, didn't it?

Oh please. Nobody but Perry decided the timing of when he entered the race. Whoops, forgot, he was waiting on God to tell him.

No, seriously.

Posted by: the dandy at December 29, 2011 06:22 PM (xP96j)

564 499,
I don't trust you. Furthermore, YOU SHOULD NOT SEEK SUCH TRUST. You -- I speak to anyone who wants to control -- should realize this is not a high-trust relationship and should not try to pretned it is, just so they can get their way of controlling them, making them lead 'better" lives. . . .God works in mysterious ways, but not through the criminal codes. Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 06:00 PM (nj1bB)
And this has what to do with the Constitution? I must have missed the Ace Undergrad Bull Session Blather clause in my copy.
Explain to me how a 'low-trust environment' should lead me to trust unelected, unaccountable judges to make up law outside what the Constitution actuall says.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 29, 2011 06:24 PM (epBek)

565 Perry is not dumb nore stupid, but He wasn't ready to run to win.
it's depressing as all get out, as he really is conservative and has done well in his state for the most part.

Posted by: willow at December 29, 2011 06:25 PM (h+qn8)

566 @559

Next time amishdude gets on here yelping about how stupid lawyers are, throw a little Scalia at him. He won't be able to keep up.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 06:25 PM (Xm1aB)

567 Obama's judges find butt sex in the constitution but no right to bear arms.

Posted by: real joe at December 29, 2011 06:26 PM (w7Lv+)

568 523,
By definition, if the SCOTUS says it is not constitutional, it ain't.
Posted by: CoolCzech
El wrongo. The Supremes are and can be wrong. They aren't infallible, you know.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 29, 2011 06:26 PM (epBek)

569 We should ask Barry about Ryan v. Ventura http://tinyurl.com/Ryan-v-Ventura.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at December 29, 2011 06:27 PM (FTPRb)

570 @567

Unfortunately, Kennedy was a Republican appointee.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 06:27 PM (Xm1aB)

571 Look, I realize at this point we're just picking at the bones of Perry's candidacy, but are you not even willing to consider the possibility that the deck was stacked against Perry from the start? Nobody besides Perry was subjected to the withering attacks that started with the first debate, right after he announced his candidacy. I don't know who decided those debates needed to start when they did, but it sure did work out well for a guy who has been campaigning for this job for the last 5 years, didn't it? Especially when that guy hasn't been asked anything anywhere near as roughly as Perry was. Again, I will concede that it is indeed Perry's fault he wasn't ready for this attack right out of the gate, but I don't believe any of us knew it was going to go like that. I'm pretty sure we were all expecting the corndog tour to commence, with lots of babies being kissed and all that, and instead we got Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum jumping down his throat over the arcane issue of Texas state university tuition policy! He should have known, but he didn't. So Romney gets the nomination. Fine. Next time, in 2016, it'll be different, I guess.
Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 06:17 PM (Gc/Qi)
You cannot possibly believe that Perry was subjected to worse scrutiny and criticism than Herman Cain, can you?
And Bachmann was dismissed as the poor man's Palin before she entered the race as well.
Perry, by contrast, walked in to a wave of support, including big donations, and took first place in the polls away from Bachmann right on the heels of her winning the Iowa straw poll. So no, I don't believe that the deck was stacked against Perry -- I believe the opposite, that he entered the race with substantial advantages and a lot of people hoping he'd be the anti-Romney we'd all been looking for.
If Perry was prepared for a corn-dogs-and-diners race, that mistake is entirely on him for not hiring people who could have told him the truth about modern campaigns. Moreover, it's Rick Santorum who ran the corn-dogs-and-diners campaign in Iowa, and he's been diligently working at it for a year or more, so I think Perry wasn't ready even for that level of campaign.
Is he any readier now? If so, is he ready enough to rise from the ashes?

Posted by: stuiec at December 29, 2011 06:28 PM (UTjQC)

572
@565
Was he not ready to win or was he not prepared to do the necessary work to win? He never should have been just entitled to waltz into the race and expect to have the nomination sewn up by September because of his record alone. Campaigns have never been like that.

Posted by: Nate at December 29, 2011 06:28 PM (BBlzg)

573 @88: "Essentially, we now live in a world where anal sex is more protected than married reproductive sex."
So you ladies need to get with the program, then!

Posted by: Men Everywhere at December 29, 2011 06:29 PM (jAqTK)

574
Actually, Congress has the power to simply prevent the Supreme Court from taking jurisdiction in certain classes of cases.

This really should be the first step to preventing judicial legislating. And it would certainly make the judicial appointment process a lot less meaningful, and boy, wouldn't that be nice?

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 06:29 PM (Xm1aB)

575 The mittboys still can't get it through their thick heads that they got their wish. Perry won't be nominated. At some point it might occur to them that they need more than 25% of the R vote to win in November.

Probably sometime around November 7, 2012, I suppose.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 06:31 PM (Gc/Qi)

576 554,
Which is basically what I was arguing. The states are free to be as dumb as they want to as long as it doesn't violate the US Constitution.
But people should keep in mind, legislation they think is dumb or mean by keeping them from doing something they like to do doesn't mean its wrong or they shouldn't do it. Sometimes what you want to do is a really bad idea and damaging to society in ways you aren't able to conceive of or are not aware of.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor
Yes. One of the most important things Scalia ever wrote is that we don't have a perfect constitution. There are things the Constitution permits that wisdom, reason, justice, and morality don't, and maybe vice versa. Them's the breaks. Change the Constitution if you don't like it. But don't give 9 unelected lawyers an undefined power to alter things as they see fit.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 29, 2011 06:31 PM (epBek)

577
Was he not ready to win or was he not prepared to
do the necessary work to win? He never should have been just entitled
to waltz into the race and expect to have the nomination sewn up by
September because of his record alone. Campaigns have never been like
that.

Posted by: Nate at December 29, 2011 06:28 PM (BBlzgHe wasn't prepared, and yes it would have been a rap up as many of us were excited that He was a conservative with a decent record.

Posted by: willow at December 29, 2011 06:32 PM (h+qn8)

578 Everyone acts like they knew this stuff after they hear the answer themselves. If anyone's thinking "Duh, everyone knows that;"

Except - when the question is asked of Cain, especially except if his answer includes obscure definitions of the word "develop", or the most common definition as the case was.

Posted by: Rmoney Voter at December 29, 2011 06:32 PM (7MFxV)

579 @568: I KNOW.

But the legal bottom line is, the SCOTUS is the last word on constitutionality in our system, ever since Madison vs. Marbury.


Now, we can challenge the 200 year old principle of Judicial Review, I guess. But I'll tell you right now that if Bambi does that in the event the SCOTUS overturns Obamacare, we will be the first to shit a brick.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 29, 2011 06:32 PM (niZvt)

580 Or was it Marbury vs. Madison? Whatever...

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 29, 2011 06:33 PM (niZvt)

581
The media wants to let the pro-sodomy lobby know
not to support Perry, as if there was the slightest
chance of that happening.
I almost wrote "get behind " Perry. almost.......
Don't you know we're ALL suppose to accept
everything the media tells us to, so we can lower the
oceans, or something......

Posted by: seamrog at December 29, 2011 06:33 PM (+uvKZ)

582 Actually, Congress has the power to simply prevent the Supreme Court from taking jurisdiction in certain classes of cases.


If I remember my constitution correctly, they can do so with bills they pass, but not with cases the court is looking at.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 06:34 PM (r4wIV)

583
Congress can limit the Court's jurisdiction, and essentially render the Court meaningless.

Don't fuck around trying to overturn Marbury, just limit the Court's ability to make decisions.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 06:35 PM (Xm1aB)

584 Is he any readier now? If so, is he ready enough to rise from the ashes?

Posted by: stuiec at December 29, 2011 06:28 PM (UTjQC)
i ask this every other day, Is it possible.is it a reality to keep hoping, i really do hope, but beginning to think it's silly to.

Posted by: willow at December 29, 2011 06:37 PM (h+qn8)

585 Lawrence is irrelevant.
Sodomy is irrelevant.
You will all be assimilated.
Resistance is futile.

Posted by: The Mittens Collective at December 29, 2011 06:38 PM (s7mIC)

586 By definition, if the SCOTUS says it is not constitutional, it ain't.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 29, 2011 06:10 PM

I think that's only "by definition", because the SCOTUS granted itself that power. Marbury v Madison, I believe.

But I don't think that was the Founders' intention. They intended for 3 co-equal branches of government to have an equal say in what is/is not constitutional.

Here is Mark Levin speaking to this issue:

But where everything really changed, at least the impetus, was in the election of 1800 when John Adams and the Federalists got their political clocks cleaned by Thomas Jefferson and the Republicans. Adams lost the presidency. The Federalists lost both houses of Congress, but there was a big period of time back then between the time the new president came in and the old one left. It was March. And so during that time, Adams decided that hes going to try and make sure at least the Federalists have some say. So he tried to ram through some judges, which he did through the lame duck Federalist Senate, 16 of them, one of them being Marbury. He named his secretary of state, who was John Marshall, chief justice, and got him confirmed about five or six weeks before he left office, and so one of those judges challenged Jefferson, who said, You know, I dont have to put up with this. Im not going to appoint these judges, and he ordered his secretary of state, Madison, to sit on them and not appoint them. So you have this lawsuit, and it comes before the Supreme Court, and whos the chief justice? John Marshall. John Marshall was also a political confidante of Adams over the years and a footnote, he was a distant cousin of Jeffersons and they were frequently political adversaries in Virginia. So the bottom line is this case comes before the court and let me cut to the chase. Marshall uses the occasion of the case to basically announce and, of course, I paraphrase he says, You know what? When it comes to constitutional issues, well basically have the final say here, folks. I just want to make that clear, that somebody has to do it, and well do it, and Jefferson went nuts. And for the rest of his life he was the biggest critic of what he considered a seizure of power by the Supreme Court. He called it the despotism of an oligarchy way back in 1820, and since then its gotten worse! I mean, we put this court up as if its an Olympian council, and I dont know why.

Posted by: Clyde Shelton at December 29, 2011 06:38 PM (vUK/h)

587 So the point of this post was to try and convince people that they themselves no nothing and shouldn't hold people running for President to a higher standard? Or..what?

Posted by: Rich at December 29, 2011 06:39 PM (4rXvg)

588
Article 3, Section 2 (in part):

"....the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Congress could shut the whole judicial-legislating scheme down with a simple vote.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 06:40 PM (Xm1aB)

589 Congress can limit federal court jurisdictions, or add cases to their jurisdiction but they have no power over the supreme court in this way. All three are coequal, they cannot directly affect each other in their areas of power.


Perry really could have pulled it out but he really does seem basically unready for the job. By now he could have conquered that idiotic "agree with me or you're bad people" comment, but he keeps gaffeing and stumbling. That's insurmountable.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 06:40 PM (r4wIV)

590 By SCOTUS's definition and by the mewling consent of Congress, the states, and the president, if the SCOTUS says it is not constitutional, it ain't.

FIFY

Posted by: joeindc44 - tebow crazed rioter at December 29, 2011 06:42 PM (QxSug)

591 A. "Here, let me show you."

Q. What is "Twitter is for homos?"

Posted by: Tony Tweets Wiener at December 29, 2011 06:42 PM (FabC8)

592 @589

Wrong, see @588.

Posted by: Dave at December 29, 2011 06:43 PM (Xm1aB)

593 582 Actually, Congress has the power to simply prevent the Supreme Court from taking jurisdiction in certain classes of cases.
If I remember my constitution correctly, they can do so with bills they pass, but not with cases the court is looking at.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 06:34 PM (r4wIV)

If that limit on Congress's power was promulgated by the courts, Congress could probably overturn it.

The BEST thing would be the heavy lift of a constitutional amendment or two to a) stop the interpretation of the Commerce Clause as overriding everything else written in the damned constitution, and b) more clearly delineate the difference between Judicial Review and Policy Making, which some liberal judges seem to have a real problem with.

Posted by: CoolCzech at December 29, 2011 06:43 PM (niZvt)

594 571 -

You seem to still be arguing with me, even though I'm essentially agreeing with you. Perry wasn't ready. He campaigned poorly.

Yes, we agree.

But Cain and Bachmann getting the same scrutiny? No, not even close. Cain had bimbo eruptions he didn't handle well, and Bachmann made up a weird story about vaccines causing retardation. Other than that, I don't think either of them has really been challenged at all.

Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 06:44 PM (Gc/Qi)

595 And more significantly, Mitt Romney, the presumptive nominee, still hasn't been challenged by this process by anyone.

So if we concede Perry was, Cain was, Bachmann was, Newt was... why wasn't/isn't Romney scrutinized?

Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 06:49 PM (Gc/Qi)

596 I think some people here are getting conservatism and libertarianism mixed up.

I have always taken it to be a conservative position that the government does have a role to shape the morality of the society, and that it ought to be traditional values that are upheld by the state. This goes all the way back to Burke and his view of society as a "delicate web" that, if it is disturbed even slightly, will unravel entirely. Now whether "the government" in question is a state government or the federal government is a different issue.

Now the libertarian position is that the government has no role in deciding laws that are strictly moralistic in nature, only on upholding individual liberty.

Am I wrong here?

Posted by: chemjeff at December 29, 2011 06:54 PM (s7mIC)

597 Only in Austin. Figures that in that cesspool of commielib rump rangers, of all the things they could have asked Perry about, it would be some thoroughly dead issue like a long overturned (as in years ago) sodomy law. I vaguely remember the case, and yes, it was a setup. Not that the law was being enforced. There were no cops going around peeking in people's windows to see if there was any cunnilingus/fellatio/anal sex going on. Perry certainly had not given that case a first thought, let alone a second one, since it was decided, and probably not even then. Truth to tell, the whole thing was something of an embarassment. After all, the only people who gave a shit about it one way or the other were the usual gay douchebags who liked buttfucking each other in public places, and the usual gay douchebag purists who just could not stand the thought that there was some old, never enforced law on the books that said that their favorite sex practices were illegal (never mind that most of those same practices were also immensely popular among the straight community as well).
A "gotcha"? Bet yer ass it was a gotcha, done by some Austin sucker of cock media asshole. Got a news flash for you, boys and girls. This isn't over yet, not by a damn sight. And I, for one, am not ready to bend over and spread 'em for the Romneyites, Paulbots just yet. In three or four months, we will have a much better picture of what we will be facing come November, not now.

Posted by: Cave Bear at December 29, 2011 06:55 PM (uMihF)

598 Thank you and good night!

Posted by: Rick Perry at December 29, 2011 06:57 PM (2Ba2p)

599 And more significantly, Mitt Romney, the presumptive nominee, still hasn't been challenged by this process by anyone. So if we concede Perry was, Cain was, Bachmann was, Newt was... why wasn't/isn't Romney scrutinized?
Posted by: BurtTC at December 29, 2011 06:49 PM (Gc/Qi)
We had high hopes early on, remember? When Pawlenty made the "Obamneycare" crack before the first debate, and we couldn't wait to see him take it to Mitt mano-a-mano?
Except there wasn't any "man" in Pawlenty's "mano." He wimped out, and quickly dropped out, showing that he lacked the spine necessary to stick with a Presidential campaign through its inevitable ups and downs, much less the gumption necessary to talk trash to Romney face-to-face.
Romney's gotten a number of attacks directed at him, but I bet the other candidates have pulled their punches substantially because they don't want to be on the receiving end of millions of dollars' worth of negative ads, as Newt has experienced in Iowa.
And the media doesn't want to spoil Mitt's march to the nomination because they want to launch their assault once he's definitely the opponent facing Obama. Just like last time, when once McCain clinched the nomination, the NY Times published its smear story about his "affair" with a lobbyist.
If Romney is the nominee, he won't steamroll over Obama. Given the tools at their disposal and Romney's specific weaknesses, Romney can certainly be defeated if he runs a mediocre general election campaign.

Posted by: stuiec at December 29, 2011 07:06 PM (UTjQC)

600 the government does have a role to shape the morality of the society
Am I wrong here?
Without freedom there is no virtue.
You cannot shape other people's morality with force, fines and threat of jail. At best, you may dissuade them of certain actions. And at it's worst you'll drive people to hiding it, and being hidden, it gets worse.
By all means, promote morality till your heart is content. But if you do it at the point of a gun, or with other people's money you've stolen from them, you're doing it wrong.

Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 29, 2011 07:07 PM (TLNYf)

601 Heh. Heh. Ace said, "Bolling".

Posted by: Butthead at December 29, 2011 07:17 PM (sHY5w)

602 334 Still voting for Perry. He has the best record.

This.
Posted by: real joe at December 29, 2011 05:10 PM (ixAVa)



This.

____________________

This

Posted by: Boston12GS at December 29, 2011 07:21 PM (KhnGN)

603 Without freedom there is no virtue.
Without virtue there is no freedom.
Your statement and mine are both true to some degree. Neither are in the Constitution. Neither are the business of the courts.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 29, 2011 07:42 PM (epBek)

604 If Romney is the nominee, Obama wins. Most Republicans will hold their noses tight and pull the R lever, even with Romney at the top of the ticket. Still, once the Legacy Media pulls out all the stops attacking him, few centrists will bother to even go to the polls. Worse, the activist Republicans and Tea Party people won't be manning phone banks and walking the precincts.

I don't even know we'll be able to take the Senate back. This is really bad. A whole slew of the Supremes are getting mighty elderly and this means the stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure will have a chance at up to four more Justices. If that happens the country is gone forever.

It's simply too bad that the National Republicans are more interested in controlling the Party than the future of the country. Invest in ammo.

Posted by: Peter at December 29, 2011 07:53 PM (md71K)

605 >>>Explain to me how a 'low-trust environment' should lead me to trust unelected, unaccountable judges to make up law outside what the Constitution actuall says.

explain to me why you think you have any goddamned input in my life at all.

Boy you guys really think if you just have a majority you can outlaw the color purple, huh?

States can be despotisms if 51% of its citizens vote for it, huh? States can impose Jim Crow with 50% +1 vote, huh?

Funny how that rule makes certain highly-objectionable sorts of law possible.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 08:32 PM (nj1bB)

606 Lot of people aren't sold on this "Don't tread on me" idea.

They just argue about who gets to boss people around.

This will be your undoing. No one gives a fuck about your opinion about Sodomy, Empire of Icecream. Stop trying to push your oddball issues into the criminal codes.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 08:34 PM (nj1bB)

607 the government does have a role to shape the morality of the society


In a limited way, yes. Governments should punish the wicked and encourage the righteous. Beyond that, its not supposed to be in the morality business.


Perry has gotten a bit more scrutiny, in my opinion, because the media smelled blood in the water. He showed a weakness in his inability to comfortably answer questions on policy that he should have been ready for, and they swarmed. Cain handled them easily, so they had to dig something up.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 08:34 PM (r4wIV)

608 This makes for some campaign slogan, eh? Instead of waving signs for FREEDOM I can wave signs that say FREEDOM FROM THE LEFT'S DESPICABLE NEED TO CONTROL ME BUT PLEASE, RIGHTWING, FEEL FREE TO EXERT YOUR OWN DESIRE TO CONTROL ON ME!!!

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 08:35 PM (nj1bB)

609 Ace I'm not sure what case you're trying to make here, help me out. Are you saying that the courts alone should handle decisions like morality and personal behavior, or that there should be no limitations or legal restrictions on what you do personally whatsoever? Because Empire seems to be arguing against the courts doing it and I'm not sure that's what you mean.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 08:37 PM (r4wIV)

610 >>>I have always taken it to be a conservative position that the government does have a role to shape the morality of the society, and that it ought to be traditional values that are upheld by the state.

I don't, not really. I'm done with that crap. I used to defend it but I don't any longer.

I don't trust a right-wing person who swears he has my Best Interests At Heart anymore than a left-wing type.

What's that quote? CS Lewis or GK Chesterton. I would rather be ruled by thieves than by moral scolds with an interest in shaping me into a better person, because the thieves' avarice may one day be slaked and then they will let me alone, but the person who is determined to make me a better person can never be satisfied, and will constantly interfere with me my entire life, complimenting himself for his virtue each time he does, and taking pleasure in the "virtue" he is promoting.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 08:40 PM (nj1bB)

611 Wow this is soo helpful I have been trying to figure this out on my own for a long time now. Hopefully making this change will help encourage discussion on my blog.

Posted by: Mindfulness for Beginners ePub at December 29, 2011 08:42 PM (lpwuJ)

612 I think Romney can beat President Obama, its just going to be a lot harder than another candidate. Right now a wet dishrag could beat Obama, he's a horrible, horrible candidate people don't want as president. If he was our guy we'd be gnashing our teeth and weeping.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 08:44 PM (r4wIV)

613 Christopher Taylor, I'm saying that yes, there is a point at which the legislature and state governments also overstep their bounds.

Can a state outlaw anyone but the rich from wearing the color purple? Don't laugh; that was the law in ancient Rome.

If you're claiming we have NO inalienable rights except those named in the constitution, and state governments may otherwise do anything for which they can get 51%, then such a law is, I assume, perfectly valid.

I suppose the answer would be "that wouldn't happen." No, but loads of people think that they should be able to write laws forbidding me from putting my dick in a girl's mouth. (Which is legally sodomy, and I don't care if you want to restrict it to the other kind or just gays, the principle is the same: You Have No Right.)

The argument being made is, strangely, that I must trace every right I claim to have in the exact text of the Constitution -- but the states themselves don't have to justify their prohibitions by similarly pointing to explicit text! Their powers apparently only BEGIN at the written word, whereas my right to be free of state interfence ENDS at the written word.

This is absurd.

States cannot impose despotic rule. Even if their constitutions are amended to claim just that. There is a certain de minimis level of freedom guaranteed to us.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 08:44 PM (nj1bB)

614 You are welcomed to visit our wesite, where has many kinds of <a href=" http://www.nike-shoesonline.com ">air jordan shoes</a> for you better selection. <a href=" http://www.nike-shoesonline.com ">nike air jordan shoes</a> was made with the patent leather and advanced technology, which favored by many people. This shoes is very comfortable that can be wear for a long time, and you not feel uncomfort. <a href=" http://www.nike-shoesonline.com ">nike shoes online</a> as one of the classical type, the colorway is fashion and refeshment, which will make you be catched out easily among the crowd.

Posted by: air jordan shoes at December 29, 2011 08:45 PM (RouOk)

615 For those aruging otherwise:

Can states re-impose Jim Crow? Nothing in the Constitition specifically forbids states from imposing racial apartheid, after all.

Right?

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 08:46 PM (nj1bB)

616 This can be The <a href=" http://www.moncler-downjacket.org ">moncler jackets</a> Springtime Autumn Coats for the market place For You. These <a href=" http://www.moncler-downjacket.org ">moncler coats</a>adult males reduce With Their Simple, usual And classy model And style That appear About being commencing being even more And even more Popular.<a href=" http://www.moncler-downjacket.org ">moncler down jacket</a> It Seemed To have got obtaining A brand name title New course of action Trend.

Posted by: moncler down jacket at December 29, 2011 08:48 PM (RouOk)

617 OK see I take a slightly different tack than that. I agree the federal government can only do what they are permitted in the US Constitution and no more. I think that states are a bit more free, but must be restrained by the will of the people. However, the closer and closer you get to the actual individual citizen, the more I'll willing to allow a government to try, because it becomes increasingly accountable and easy to replace.


That means we have to put up with stupid laws we don't like at the local level like "kids must wear bike helmets" because of worried parents. We can reverse that if we can convince enough of our fellow voters to agree. However, at the county or state level I'd be less inclined to shrug at it, and absolutely refuse it at the federal level. The more entrenched and distant from the community these governmental bodies get, the harder they are to change, so I follow DeTocqueville on centralized vs decentralized power.


Communities have the power - and the right in a Democracy - to pass laws which reflect their personal moral viewpoint, such as blue laws or purple clothes. They may be stupid, but that's a price paid for having a society at all. We have to give up a bit of our liberty to function in a society or we crumble entirely. Without agreed upon laws and mores, a society corrodes and dissipates, breaking up into small like-minded colonies.


It has to do with the social contract. If you don't like it, well there's always the next town over, or you can fight to get it changed. I hate some of the dumb little laws that are passed, but that's what we work to change if we can.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 08:50 PM (r4wIV)

618 Can states re-impose Jim Crow? Nothing in the Constitition specifically forbids states from imposing racial apartheid, after all.


Right?


I would argue that we could except for the 14th amendment.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 08:53 PM (r4wIV)

619 I'd like to play Jeopardy with our Genius Journalists Gotchas. Fucking morons couldn't balance their checkbook or find their way without GPS, yet they are the arbiters of SMRT

Posted by: Frank G at December 29, 2011 08:53 PM (cJqu0)

620 your smaller-entity-has-greater powers is semi-interesting except for a few things.

First of all, you seem to suggest that on the state level, there still are restrictions, apart from what's in the constitution, on what states may impose on citizens.

Further, even though I agree with your idea that the smaller the territory covered, the less harmful it can be, there is still a minimum level of rights due to us by virtue of being *american.* A town cannot force me to be some denomination of Christian, or treat me as a second class citizen if I'm the wrong type. (And the constitution technically does not forbid states from imposing a religion, does it?)

Lastly, while this is an interesting and semi-plausible take, there's really no support for this idea at all in jurisprudence. it's a common-sense observation but there's no statement in any charter that municpalities can be bossier than the state.*

*In fact municipalities derive all power from the state, and thus only have the bundle of powers the state has which has been delegated to them. States devolve rule-making power to municipalities-- but they can take that back, and further, they cannot devolve powers they themselves did not begin with themselves.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 08:58 PM (nj1bB)

621 >>>I would argue that we could except for the 14th amendment.


I don't. I think the Constitution was deliberately skewed for years by slavery and a devil's bargain that was struck at the time.

The state has the power to use its cops, with their guns, to enforce Whites Only paths through the park, and keep the blacks on their Coloreds paths?

Really? The state has that power?

This is a strange idea to me -- that America permits despotism, so long as you seek it in the right tribunal. You're turning the American conception of freedom from a substantive guarntee to mere petty proceduralism -- you just have to get your despotism from the right window at the DMV. If you get it from the right window, you're all set.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 09:00 PM (nj1bB)

622 States can decide that some citizens are second-class citizens with limited rights, and greater obligations?

They have that power?

Really?

You seem to be affording the majority a great deal of respect... at the cost of telling the minority they're shit out of luck.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 09:08 PM (nj1bB)

623 Let me reverse this up.

Whites are actually either now less than a majority or close to it.

Let's say in state with only 45% whites (which state, I don't know) all non-white minorities vote together as a block and impose a special 5% extra tax on whites, just to make up for years of oppression.

This is satisfactory to you? You think America, as conceived, and laid out in the Constitution, permits this?

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 09:10 PM (nj1bB)

624 You made a few good points there. I did a search on the matter and found a good number of people will agree with your blog.

Posted by: Spirit Wars epub at December 29, 2011 09:12 PM (YMJ+1)

625 Thanks, spirit wars epub. I thought I was making good sense. you always have my back.

Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 09:14 PM (nj1bB)

626 We have witnessed plenty of Swoosh runners which contains earned a lot of upgrades, as well as the <a href=" http:// nikefree-runshoes .com ">cheap nike free</a> is always to be launched within the <a href=" http://www. nikefree-runshoes .com ">nike free run</a>, on this springtime to the 2011 NBA Season. because identify suggests it make reference to King James' present on-court kicks of choice, most importantly the <a href=" http://www. nikefree-runshoes .com ">nike free run shoes</a> on the versatility which you will knowledge at their shoes.

Posted by: nike free run at December 29, 2011 09:20 PM (RouOk)

627 I love what you guys are frequently up too. Such clever work and reporting! Keep up the terrific works guys Ive added you guys to my blogroll.

Posted by: A Brief History of Thought ePub at December 29, 2011 09:21 PM (5VWTg)

628 I would argue that the US Constitution prohibits governments at all levels from establishing religion, but lets take another case that fits what you're trying to say a little better. Let's say the town you're in bans you from wearing the color purple (your Roman royalty example). There's nothing in the US Constitution to prevent anyone from passing this law. If a local community passed it, I'd be annoyed and wear purple anyway and fight the law however I could. However, there's nothing that prevents them from doing so other than the general will of the people.


And that's the price of liberty: you have to put up with stupid stuff from other people. Its a cost of having self rule rather than an autocrat controlling everything.


I agree, however, that there's no hard legal rule that gives greater power to smaller governments, but I'm thinking from more of a "meta" perspective than legal: how law is created rather than what it says specifically. As I understand it, this is what Locke, Rousseau, and other philosophers the founding fathers studied saw things as well.


And, your desire for governments to get the hell out of your life doesn't have any real support in jurisprudence, either. There's no legal structure or argument that holds that governments may not pass laws that annoy you or limit your liberty in a silly or seemingly pointless manner.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 09:34 PM (r4wIV)

629 The problem with arguing what should be against what is law is that you have to change the law if you don't want it to say that. The US Constitution, until the 14th amendment was written, did not prohibit states from creating "second class citizens." That means they were free to do things I consider wrong.


Of course the way the 14th amendment is written you could make a case that prisoners and minors are "second class citizens" and should be given equal treatment under law, but that's a whole other discussion.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 09:36 PM (r4wIV)

630 If it were possible to run simply on a record of accomplishment, Perry--who has done an awesome job as a governor--would be an excellent choice.
And if debating skills were the hallmark of a good candidate, we'd look for our candidates on debate teams (or just run Gingrich).
If"looking the part" were all that mattered, in the age of the TV ad, we'd run with Mitt (who looks like he came from central casting).
But Perry can't speak in complete sentences, Newt has no ground game, and Mitt is an ethical version of Obama.
Yet, this is the field.
Of the three, Gingrich gives the country the best chance to survive; articulate, hits back, thinks big--or at least thinks outside the box.
The apple cart, however, is about to get upset in a big, big way.
When Rick Santorum wins--yes, I said WINS--Iowa, we will move closer to the best possible outcome: a brokered convention.

Posted by: -Shawn- at December 29, 2011 09:40 PM (DIxbF)

631 *In fact municipalities derive all power from the state, and thus only have the bundle of powers the state has which has been delegated to them. States devolve rule-making power to municipalities-- but they can take that back, and further, they cannot devolve powers they themselves did not begin with themselves.


See, here's the problem: that's the opposite of how it ought to be and how it once was. What charmed DeTocqueville about the US was how decentralized power was, how the local communities had far more power over their own destiny than greater bodies of government.


The entire principle behind the founding of this nation was that all the power belongs to the individual citizens, which we surrender some of to governing officials for cohesion and structure, safety and general welfare. That's been flipped on its head and I'd argue that almost all of our governmental problems come from that very reversal.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at December 29, 2011 09:45 PM (r4wIV)

632 You really make it seem so uderstandable with your presentation but I find this topic before really hard to understand. It seems too complicated and very broad for me.

Posted by: 18 Minutes AudioBook at December 29, 2011 09:45 PM (he4Ek)

633 Your statement and mine are both true to some degree. Neither are in the Constitution. Neither are the business of the courts.
Neither is defining 'conservative'....

Posted by: Entropy, and if you disagree you hate America and want Obama to win at December 29, 2011 10:32 PM (TLNYf)

634 Rick Perry is making Biden look like an eloquant speaker. I 've really tried to get on the bandwagon. Really I have. The cold hard fact is that to get elected you need to be able tobe fairly fast on your feet and have a general idea of the issues. Frankly he has none of those qualities. The SCOAMF would probably run circles around him in a debate, which is really saying something. Geesh what a pathetic group of candidates we have to pick from. It's gonna suck having to vote for any or our current crop of candidates. Well except for Luap Nor. I'll nevervote for that scumbag.

Posted by: Minnfidel at December 29, 2011 10:32 PM (RJ8yG)

635 Seriously what a pathetic crop of shitbags the GOP is feeding us again. What Juan McLame wasn't enough punishment. Fuck, why don't they just talk David Brooks into running and call it a day. It's the hold your nose tour V 2.0 all over again. Blech

Posted by: Minnfidel at December 29, 2011 10:39 PM (RJ8yG)

636 30
Is anyone concerned about gays having gay sex in private? Anyone? So, who cares about Lawrence?

Anyone who cares about the Constitution, for one. Lawrence rested in the claim that there's a Constitutional right to gay sex, which is total bullshit.

Do I support the laws? No. Do I think they're Constitutional? hell yes. and anyone who votes otherwise is not qualified to be on any court.

Posted by: Greg Q at December 29, 2011 10:39 PM (/0a60)

637 >>>he US Constitution, until the 14th amendment was written, did not prohibit states from creating "second class citizens." That means they were free to do things I consider wrong.

Sure it did. It had two classes of persons -- "slave" and "citizen." If not a slave, then you're a citizen. there was no third category.

The slave category is now gone of course.

Posted by: ace at December 30, 2011 12:47 AM (nj1bB)

638 "Is there anyone who things sodomy-related issues are critical success factors for the next President? "

If the incumbent President can't prevent his past sodomy-related issues from being verified, he will have a critical obstacle to achieving successful reelection.

Posted by: JewishOdysseus at December 30, 2011 01:01 AM (xbrnB)

639 With Perry it is the Jeopardy effect - except he is the guy with huge negative score and you sit back wondering, "how did this guy even qualify to get on the show?"

Posted by: Evan at December 30, 2011 01:19 AM (zBidS)

640 Hasn't Obama been practicing sodomy on the american people for the last 3 years?

Posted by: Evan at December 30, 2011 01:21 AM (zBidS)

641 Ken Jennings summarized the smugness of the commentariet. "Every question is easy when you know the answer."

Posted by: Douglas at December 30, 2011 02:29 AM (YKOnu)

642 Spent part of the holidays down in Texas, chatted with family and friends most of whom are conservative, asked them what they thought of Perry. General consensus was that he's a good gladhander/politicker/networker; but fairly clueless about world outside of U.S. (and maybe world outside of Texas, pretty much).

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at December 30, 2011 04:17 AM (F0o5k)

643 Governor Perry should have knownenough about Lawrence v. Texas to answer the question asked. Unfortunately, he thinks he can just check the anti-gay marriage, traditional family boxand get credit with the social conservatives in the party. Not true. You must be able to defend your position, especially from a talking point so old that the Left has been hitting Republicans with it for almost two decades now.
Bowers v. Hardwicke came down in 1986. A majority of the Supreme Court upheld the Georgia anti-sodomy statute against a right to privacy challenge, with Justice Byron "Whizzer" White writing, for the majority, that, since every state to ratify both the original Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment criminalized sodomy at the time of ratification, nothing in these amendments contemplated withholding from state governments the power to continue to do so.
Ten years later, in Romer v. Evans, a majority of the Supreme Court overruled Bowerswithout actually mentioning it, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, holding that state discrimination against individuals who engage in homosexual intimacy is irrational and, therefore, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In so holding, Justice Kennedy noted that the individual Coloradans who worked to amend the state constitution to withdraw from municipalities the authority to recognize sexual orientation as a suspect classification in their anti-discrimination ordinances were motivated by "animus" toward homosexuals, which is just a nice legal term for calling them, and by implication, the 60 percent of Coloradans who passed the amendment, bigots. Of course, when Coloradans voted on the amendment, neither the state legislature, nor the Congress, nor the Supreme Court hadheld that sexual orientation was a suspect or any other kind oflegal classification for purposes of equal protection analysis, and Bowers had specifically held that such classification was beyond the authority granted the Court by the ratification votes for the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment. Pretty stupid of the voters to actually rely upon what the Court had held previously. So stupid as to be bigotry.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court expressly overruled Bowers seven years later in Lawrence, employing reasoning that implicitly forbids any state regulation of consensual sexual intimacy and, as interpreted by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in the Goodridge decision, mandates that homosexual intimacy and the personal relationships evidenced thereby, be accorded equal status with heterosexual intimacy and the personal relationships evidenced thereby.
Unfortunately, the Left is currently trekking through the courts arguing that traditional Jewish and Christian teaching concerning matters of human sexuality is mere bigotry, despite its being confirmed annually by the CDC to be the most hygenic and healthy teaching concerning human sexuality, whether based upon the Bible or no. The fact that such teachingis based upon scripture, and that Americans who adhere to and wish to teach their children about sexual intimacy in accordance therewith, should invoke the protection of the Free Exercise Clause. A federal district court in Massachusetts held to the contrary, however, telling orthodox Christian parents they had no constitutional right to opt their children out of sex education classes in their public schools that taught homosexual intimacy as healthy, hygenic and normative conduct. The federal district court in California that struck down Proposition 8 so held, in part, by finding that traditional Jewish and Christian teaching concerning human sexuality was injurious to those who engaged in homosexual intimacy and entered into personal relationships predicated upon such intimacy. When the Ninth Circuit upholds that ruling, as it will, Justice Kennedywill be faced with the stark choice of either doubling down on his characterization of traditional Jewish and Christian teaching on matters of human sexuality and mere bigotry or reaffirming the Free Exercise rights of orthodox Jewish and Christian Americans.
That's why Lawrence matters. That's why Governor Perry should have been able to answer the question. That's why it matters who will be nominating replacements for Justices Ginsburg and Breyer.

Posted by: Mongo Mere Pawn at December 30, 2011 07:00 AM (OGWLt)

644 Pipe fitting pipe fittings carbon steel pipe fittings
Carbon steel pipe fitting Steel pipe fitting Butt welded elbow Pipe fittings
A234 wpb pipe fitting Seamless elbow Equal tee 180 degree elbow
Carbon steel pipe fittings 90 degree elbow Pipe bend Pipe tee
Butt weld pipe fitting Pipe elbow Steel pipe fitting Seamless pipe fitting
Butt welded pipe fitting Butt welding pipe fitting pipe elbow ansi b16.9

Posted by: pipe fittings at December 30, 2011 07:39 AM (ZSNLe)

645 MMP, beautifully-written and useful explanation--thanks!

Posted by: JewishOdysseus at December 30, 2011 07:46 AM (xbrnB)

646 Excellent blog, thanks for the share. I'll be a regular viewer.

Posted by: Kelley Armstrong Hidden ePub at December 30, 2011 08:42 AM (lr6sw)

647 explain to me why you think you have any goddamned input in my life at all. Boy you guys really think if you just have a majority you can outlaw the color purple, huh? States can be despotisms if 51% of its citizens vote for it, huh? States can impose Jim Crow with 50% +1 vote, huh? Funny how that rule makes certain highly-objectionable sorts of law possible.
Posted by: ace at December 29, 2011 08:32 PM (nj1bB)
Whereas in your system, the state can be a despotism if 5 liberal lawyers vote for it.
Highly objectionable constitutional decisions canbe legislated from the bench under your rule.
You can't just say that you support democracy only when it makes decisions you like. And you can't just say that you support judicial activism only when it announcesdecrees that you like.
Either you support democracy within the express limits of the constitution, or you are shithead sucking at the cock of the managerial state.
You are a shithead.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 30, 2011 09:09 AM (epBek)

648 610 >>>I have always taken it to be a conservative position that the government does have a role to shape the morality of the society, and that it ought to be traditional values that are upheld by the state. I don't, not really. I'm done with that crap. I used to defend it but I don't any longer. I don't trust a right-wing person who swears he has my Best Interests At Heart anymore than a left-wing type.
And how's that worked out for you. After decades of government removing its (mild) support for family and family values, our project of limited government that doesn't reach its tentacles into every facet of people's lives has sure prospered, hasn't it?
No virtue, no freedom.
That said, I'm sceptical of most attempts at right-wing social engineering (the real kind, not the Gingrich kind). But I'm against them because I think they're bad ideas, not because I've made up some lying bullshit that the stuff I don't like is magically part of the Constitution.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 30, 2011 09:13 AM (epBek)

649 So you're saying Texas was a despotism until 2003, asshole?

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 30, 2011 09:15 AM (epBek)

650 Santa should have left a dictionary in FoolWreck's stocking.

Posted by: Chuckit at December 30, 2011 09:15 AM (N/Wxd)

651 God,
I'm really regretting the cash I threw your way recently. I had no idea you were a full on supporter of the treasonous attempts by the courts to usurp power to promote yuppie morality.
You can be as loose morally as you want, but when you subvert the constitution to protect your interests, you are an enemy and a traitor. God rot you.

Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at December 30, 2011 09:19 AM (epBek)

652 Maybe he really just isn't very bright. Is that worth considering? Or should we assume that he's very intelligent and knowledgeable and then write off every stupid thing he says and piece of information he doesn't know as just a common mistake of a very intelligent person?

Posted by: Golfist at December 30, 2011 10:04 AM (GL1SF)

653 What bullshit. Perry is a goddamn dunce. A fool. A fucking moron.

As a small town simpleton, I know small town simpletons well, and that's why I don't want one nominated to get ass-raped by a Chicago machine that has ass-raping down to a science, unpolitical.

And, Perry is so stupid he lets Sarah Silverman easily do a racist stunt show highlighting Republican bigotry.

Unfuck yourselves and support Newt. Take off the pussy gloves and get ready to actually fight liberals you weak cunts.

Posted by: twoslaps at December 30, 2011 11:24 AM (wfAqu)

654 What Ace has said about Cain compared to this shit today means Ace is too stupid to realize he's a hack and therefore should cash everything he has in (i.e. reputation) and become more cynical.

Ace is no better than Alan Colmes, but much poorer.

Posted by: twoslaps at December 30, 2011 11:27 AM (wfAqu)

655 "How much money is in the specialty of sodomy law, anyways?

Posted by: The US Employment Rate

It's not the money; what's important is the end result."

Snort!

Posted by: sablegsd at December 30, 2011 09:44 PM (AKS75)

656 www.genset-china.com
happy everyday

Posted by: kadin at December 30, 2011 11:22 PM (X29+i)

657 @645 You leave ACE alone!

I like ACE and think he has great material here - love his cat vids. Sure ACE is a Perry fanboy - so what? I'm a Romney fanboy and enjoy coming to this site to see what the "not Romneys" are saying.

ACE should get a medal for his defense of Perry. Defending Perry is harder than defending Dien Bien Phu with marsh mellow guns (or French soldiers). ACE is very creative in his spin and no matter how done Perry, no matter the faux pas of the day, or how many forks he has in him - ACE keeps going when other mere mortals would have quit the fight long ago.

Posted by: Evan at December 30, 2011 11:38 PM (KiQ0c)

658 Perry keeps giving me the willies and his teasons give to support his ignorance leave me aghast and embarrassed for him. This is worse than Cain's Libya brain freeze. We could excuse Cain because he wasnt running on whether or not Libyan intervention was wrong his blanking out did not cocern a central issue of his campaign. But Perry has raised the war flags on gay rights and two of the central decisions of the past twenty years on gay rights were TEXAS cases here Perry claims to hail from yet he is willfully ignorant of those landmark cases. It would be like a Connecticutt Governor running for Pres.on a platform against emininet domain overreaching but when asked about the Supreme Court's Kelo decision concerning a Conn city claims he does not know or have to know about that decision cause there are lots of decisions and he is not a lawyer. That is bs. If you are a pol running at this level and make this an issue you have to have done basic research. If you didn't then you are cynical, incompetent or lazy qualities we cannot afford in the next Pres.

Posted by: eaglewingz08 at December 31, 2011 09:45 AM (na8r5)

659 Tammy, have PGiS been around recently? I hope we didn't lose another 'ette...lingerie wholesale
wholesale corset
sexy lingerie wholesale
corset
corsets
sexy lingerie china

Posted by: corsets at January 01, 2012 07:50 AM (uEkzH)

660 Cummins, Caterpillar, Deutz, Parker, Komatsu, Scania, Volvo, Iveco, Pekins, Mitsubishi, Hitachi, Nissan, Hitachi, Hino, Isuzu, Mann, Toyota others

Posted by: hftvj at January 03, 2012 01:41 AM (ZmHL7)

Posted by: df at January 06, 2012 04:41 AM (USJCT)






Processing 0.11, elapsed 0.1222 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0374 seconds, 670 records returned.
Page size 393 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat