What's New at Green Man Review

"Boxing Day has come and gone!" -- Short and sweet, but that's only the header. Our usual eclectic mis fo tyhis, that and yet more, so scoot on over and enjoy.

What' New at Green Man Review

We're back, with our usual eclectic mix of goodies:

An Appalachian Mystery, a Most Unusual Fox, Chicago’s Own Wizard for Hire, Iceland, a Family Christmas, Boiled in Lead, Fairport, and much, much more

Click on over and hunker down with a nice cup of hot cocoa and enjoy.

Today's Must-Read: What We Say, What They Hear

From Digby:

I came across this comment by a commenter named peacerme over at Emptywheel (reading this piece.) I thought it was a good way to think about the problem of prosecuting Trump.

I truly fear the codependent belief that Dems have acted out for years, that taking the moral high ground is the moral equivalent of letting bygones be bygones. This would be what happens in domestic violence when he/she or they forget about the beating last night and move on hoping it will never happen again.

Ignoring the broken laws of the Republican Party. From Iran contra, to Plame, to Iraq war, to Russian interference in our elections, to literally torturing children on the border in a way that will alter their brains for life. Dems behave with this moral superiority that is really just codependency.

There's more, of course, but my own summation, given the history of Democrats' reaction to the excesses and outright lawlessness of Republican administrations, is simply this: We say "We're better than this. It's time to move forward and leave this behind us." What they hear is "You got away with it, so you can do it again and nothing will happen to you."

I think it's way past time to remind the Republicans that the rule of law includes punisment for transgressions, anr "moral high ground" be damned.

Culture Break: Arvo Pärt: Stabat Mater

I normally try to keep the "Culture Break" entries somewhat brief, say the length of a popular song or slightly longer. However. I found myself listening to this one and got copletely lost in it. So, I'm going to recommend that you turn off the world for half an hour or so and let the music surround you:

Image du Jour

With thanks to commenter duke of gibbon at Friendly Atheist:

The article is worth reading, on how evangelical"Christians" are really just power-hungry hypocriets. Thinking back, it occurs to me that the "Moral Majority", which Reagan's handlers enlisted to boost his election chances (Tail Wags Dog! Film at 11) was never a religious movement. It was always a political movement. And evangelical "Christianity" is still a political movement.

Trump's Legacy: The Knives Are Out

And they're going for same-sex couples:

On Monday, Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill asked the Supreme Court to strip same-sex couples of their equal parenting rights. He did so at the request of the court, which is considering taking up his case. Hill implored the new conservative majority to rule that states may deny married same-sex couples the right to be recognized as parents of their own children. The case gives SCOTUS an opportunity to start chipping away at Obergefell v. Hodges by allowing states to withhold marital privileges from same-sex spouses. If the majority wants to begin eroding Obergefell, they will probably start here.

This, of course, has been the right's strategy since Roe v. Wade -- chip away, and keep chipping.

It looks as though the Court, or at least some of the justices, are interested in taking up the case, which does indicate an intent to begin demolishing Obergefell -- the central issue here has already been decided -- twice:

What’s strange about this case, Box v. Henderson, is that it poses a question the Supreme Court has already answered—twice. The plaintiffs are eight married lesbian couples in Indiana who used a sperm donor to conceive. When a married opposite-sex couple uses a sperm donor, Indiana recognizes the birth mother’s husband as the child’s parent. When a married same-sex couple does the same thing, however, the state refuses to list the birth mother’s wife as the child’s parent. In both instances, the second parent has no biological connection to the child; Indiana’s decision to extend parental rights to the nonbiological husbands of birth mothers, but not the wives of birth mothers, is sheer discrimination.

It's always possible that Roberts and Gorsuch will stand by stare decisis and vote with the liberal wing -- after all, as the article points out, Indiana's argument is garbage, relying exclusively on a "biological parent" argument that simple doesn't stand up to even mild scrutiny. Do read the whole article -- it's a solid grounding in this issue and a pointer toward what the right will be attempting now that they've got a bunch of fascists in the courts. With thanks to commenter solitasolano at Joe.My.God.