Yeah yeah, I never thought the Supreme Court was Supreme, like, you know, Diana Ross.
When I first read about what Nino Scalia recently said I googled his name to find out more about him.
He seems to be (imo,un)fairly consistent in his interpretation of law.
Here's what he said that set me off:
"In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?
Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that."
Here's what the 14th Amendment of the Constitution says:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So I guess according to Supreme Court Justice Scalia's interpretation of law, only white heterosexual males qualify as citizens for protection under the law? He does believe that giant corporations, unlike women and gays, should be considered as people. It wasn't real clear to me on what in the Constitution he based that decision.
From what I read today, it did become more clear where his mind is going with this kind of talk. Michele Bachmann has asked him to preside over a Constitution class for tea party Congress people.
If you google 'scalia gesture', you don't need to be Italian to understand what he thinks of his critics.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Originally reported to be 1000 red-winged blackbirds, now 3000, fall dead from the sky in Arkansas. Also, 100,000 fish dead and washed ashore on the Arkansas River. Bee die-offs since 2006. In 2007 more than one million bat deaths in upstate New York. Up to 80% of frogs die off in the UK in twelve years. Late 2008 and early 2009, more than 400 pelicans dead or dying on the West Coast. Before the BP oil spill, bottlenose dolphins dying at three times the normal rate in the Gulf.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips comes up with the top five liberal hate groups of 2010. 1) The Southern Poverty Law Center (defends people against bigotry and hate crimes) 2) The Department of Homeland Security (Bush II created the dept) 3) The American Civil Liberties Union (advocates individual rights) 4) The Service Employees International Union (an organization of more than 2.2 million members united by the belief in the dignity and worth of workers and the services they provide and dedicated to improving the lives of workers and their families and creating a more just and humane society 5) The National Organization for the Advancement of Colored People (civil rights for ethnic minorities) I guess Judson wanted to make it perfectly clear whose side the tea party is on.
Only one in five "likely voters" in America are for net neutrality, according to a new poll by Rasmussen. Fifty-four percent of respondents are outright opposed to regulation and 25 percent are not certain. ...the wording of the polling question querying these "likely voters" defines net neutrality in a very restricted way. The respondents were asked, "Should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and television?" With a topic as broad, and as complicated, as net neutrality, such a question addresses only one small part of the whole picture. For example, Rasmussen could just as legitimately have asked, "Should all internet users have the same access to the same Internet, regardless of how much they pay?" Or it might have asked, "Should broadband carriers have the ability to block or remove content based on their discretion alone?" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/30/us-voters-net-neutrality_n_802456.html