So you know jack squat about international treaties, then?
1. Even if this treaty existed, it would have to be approved by 2/3 of the US Senate. Which is, how shall we say, unlikely.
2. All — by which I mean ALL — international treaties require nation-states to enforce them. No international organization, whether the UN or the “trans-pacific partnership”, has independent enforcement authority. So who, exactly, would enforce this fantastical treaty against the actual citizens of the actual United States on the actual planet Earth?
3. What the bleeding bejesselus is the “trans-pacific partnership”? (It’s “Pacific” by the way: proper nouns require capitalization.)
Please don’t call me a liar when you are a moron.
It just shows the depth of Republican hatred for President Obama.
(Source: questionall)
Jeff Stahler editorial cartoon
If a Senator has no shame, it is probably safe to assume that the Senator also has no backbone
It’s not just gun control where we need real leaders. Just to be clear, leaders also don’t keep saying “No” without offering an alternative and be willing to compromise in order to move forward.
Tim Eagan/Deep Cover (04/11/2013)
[via]
Paul Ryan’s Budget, Simplified: Save the Rich, Spare the Old, Forget the Poor
It balances the budget! But it solves our income inequality problem like a flamethrower solves a house fire.
“Who is going to end up making all the money in the end if Obamacare continues to be in place?” Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus growled Monday on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show. “It’s going to be the big corporations, right? And who gets screwed? The middle class.”
The…
Mike Thompson editorial cartoon
Public perceptions of the Republican Party.
From Charles Blow
For a quarter-century, Antonin Scalia has been the reigning bully of the Supreme Court, but finally a couple of justices are willing to face him down.
As it happens, the two manning up to take on Nino the Terrible are women: the court’s newest members, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The acerbic Scalia, the court’s longest-serving justice, got his latest comeuppance Wednesday morning, as he tried to make the absurd argument that Congress’s renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2006 by votes of 98 to 0 in the Senate and 390 to 33 in the House did not mean that Congress actually supported the act. Scalia, assuming powers of clairvoyance, argued that the lawmakers were secretly afraid to vote against this “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”
Kagan wasn’t about to let him get away with that. In a breach of decorum, she interrupted his questioning of counsel to argue with him directly. “Well, that sounds like a good argument to me, Justice Scalia,” she said. “It was clear to 98 senators, including every senator from a covered state, who decided that there was a continuing need for this piece of legislation.”
… Sotomayor allowed the lawyer for the Alabama county seeking to overturn the law to get just four sentences into his argument before interrupting him. “Assuming I accept your premise — and there’s some question about that — that some portions of the South have changed, your county pretty much hasn’t,” she charged. “Why would we vote in favor of a county whose record is the epitome of what caused the passage of this law to start with?”
Moments later, Kagan pointed out that “Alabama has no black statewide elected officials” and has one of the worst records of voting rights violations.
Scalia and Justice Samuel Alito tried to assist the Alabama county’s lawyer by offering some friendly hypotheticals, but Sotomayor wasn’t interested in hearing that. “The problem with those hypotheticals is obvious,” she said, because “it’s a real record as to what Alabama has done to earn its place on the list.”
Sotomayor continued questioning as if she were the only jurist in the room. “Discrimination is discrimination,” she informed him, “and what Congress said is it continues.”
DANA MILBANK, writing in The Washington Post, “Sotomayor, Kagan Ready for Battles.”
Has someone started fuckyeahelenaandsonia.tumblr.com yet?
(via inothernews)
For future reference: Next time anyone tries to tell you that Presidential elections don’t matter/candidates are all the same.
Barack Obama put both these women on the SCOTUS, and I can barely begin to start thanking him enough for that. They aren’t as progressive as I may wish on some things, but hot damn—someone’s finally sticking it to Scalia in session.
(via aka14kgold)
Ronald Reagan on gun control
…wow, never thought I would quote Reagan on anything…
(Source: feminist-fuel)
reagan-was-a-horrible-president:
The pillars of the Right Wing are “forgotten” when trying to attack Obama.
One of the few non-horrible things that Ronald Reagan ever did.
JON STEWART, reacting to gun nuts who fear that attempts at reasonable gun control laws will lead to “government taking away your guns” and who predict the rise of new Stalins and Hitlers as a result, on The Daily Show.
Jon was particularly on point tonight.
(via inothernews)
Religious institutions are entitled to claim religious reasons for failing to comply with public laws. This is understood to be a legitimate form of discrimination protected by their First Amendment rights to freely practice their religion.
That’s why the Catholic Church doesn’t have to provide…