Snowflake du Jour: Tomi Lahren

She really is one of the stupidest people using up air time:

“Because it’s going to get worse,” Lahren warned. “The final stages of Trump derangement syndrome are not just heckling and harassment. There are going to be physical confrontations. And I truly don’t believe that’s what the Democratic Party wants for conservatives, for us to be attacked. But they need to make that very clear.”

“Because until then, there are many of their followers and supporters who do think it’s okay to do these things,” she insisted. “They think it’s their right and their duty. And that’s dangerous.”

It is their right.

Don't Hit the Panic Button

With Anthony Kennedy's retirement from the Supreme Court, the gay press is going nuts forecasting doom and destruction to gay rights, embodied in the predictions of the complete overturn of Obergefell. This is a good capsule of the prognostications:

MSNBC’s Ali Velshi said he’s worried that LGBT Americans could see their civil rights stripped away by President Donald Trump’s replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Velshi warned a newly conservative high court could undo the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling to legalize same-sex marriage, and he said LGBT people could find themselves at the mercy of state laws.

Velshi goes on to enumerate all we could lose if Obergefell is overturned.

As it happens, overturning Obergefell is not going to be that easy, in spite of the pronouncements of certified ignoramus Mat Staver. For starters, whoever wants to sue to end same-sex marriage has to prove that they're somehow harmed by it. How do you prove you've been harmed by marriage between two strangers? There's also the fact that the decision in Obergefell is solidly grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment's requirement for equal protection under the law and due process. As a reminder, the Fourteenth Amendment begins as follows:

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; 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.

Now, I realize the "Christian" right doesn't like the idea of everyone being treated equally, but that's America for you: it's in the Constitution, so live with it.

Velshi's guest, Sarah Warbelow of HRC, I think is more on target:

Sarah Warbelow, legal director for the Human Rights Campaign, said she believes same-sex marriage is settled law that one court ruling could [not] nullify.

“What we’re really worried about is the chipping away of rights under marriage,” Warbelow said.

She said Trump’s first court pick — Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was nominated after Senate Republicans refused to seat an Obama nominee — believed same-sex couples should have fewer rights than heterosexual couples.

“It’s this creation of skim-milk marriage that’s really at risk for LGBTQ families and couples around the country,” Warbelow said.

(I inserted the "not" because otherwise the whole passage makes no sense.)

What the right will try to do is chip away at marriage rights on the state level, leading to years of law suits. If one makes it up to the Supreme Court, there is a possibility that the "conservative" justices could find a way to weasel their way around the Fourteenth Amendmemt. One only need look at the "reasoning" in Citizens United and Hobby Lobby to see how far they would go. That, however, would be very unlikely to give them an excuse to overturn Obergefell.

So, don't look for any dramatic gestures from the Court on same-sex marriage. Watch out, though, for the chip-chip-chip that has worked for the retrograde element on abortion rights.

"I've Got A Little List. . . ."*

Of course, the first thing you have to do is to compile the list:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security wants to monitor hundreds of thousands of news sources around the world and compile a database of journalists, editors, foreign correspondents, and bloggers to identify top “media influencers.”

It’s seeking a contractor that can help it monitor traditional news sources as well as social media and identify “any and all” coverage related to the agency or a particular event, according to a request for information released April 3.

The data to be collected includes a publication’s “sentiment” as well as geographical spread, top posters, languages, momentum, and circulation. No value for the contract was disclosed.

I wonder exactly what DHS means by "sentiment." Under this regime, it's way too easy to guess.

Via Joe.My.God. Joe also includes this reaction from Forbes:

Every day, journalists face serious consequences including physical violence, imprisonment and death. A few days ago, the Committee to Protect Journalists launched its annual Free The Press campaign to raise awareness about imprisoned journalists throughout the world.

On May 3, UNESCO will once again mark World Press Freedom Day “to inform citizens of violations of press freedom — a reminder that in dozens of countries around the world, publications are censored, fined, suspended and closed down, while journalists, editors and publishers are harassed, attacked, detained and even murdered.”

Meanwhile, the United States government, traditionally one of the bastions of press freedom, is about to compile a list of professional journalists and “top media influencers,” which would seem to include bloggers and podcasters, and monitor what they’re putting out to the public. What could possibly go wrong? A lot.

Whoever came up with this idea obviously wasn't twigging to the optics, which, given Trump's ongoing war with the legitimate press, are appalling. Especially since this is coming from Homeland Security.

Of course, when you control the executive and Congress and are busily packing the courts, maybe you don't need to worry about optics so much.

* In case you've forgotten, that's the opening line of the Lord High Executioner's aria from The Mikado. It continues "They never will be missed/No, they never will be missed. . . . "

Connect the Dots

Anyone who knows me will tell you I'm not prone to conspiracy theories. In this case, however, we actually are dealing with well-organized extremists who have intimidated the press into validating their bullshit, taken over statehouses by rigging elections and are trying to do the same thing to Congress, and who have, over the past thirty-five years, taken over the Republican party.

One of their favorite wedge issues is the Second Amendment, which they claim gives citizens (meaning they themselves) an unrestricted right to own assault weapons (for daily use?). Anyone who's spent two seconds thinking about it will tell you there are no unrestricted rights -- not if you want a society to function at all.

Well, now they've decided that God is on their side:

Supposedly pro-life far right wing Christian leaders are using the Bible and Jesus to claim Americans not only have a right to guns – and even assault weapons – but some insist every adult has an obligation to carry an AR-15. . . .

Here are some of the religious right's most extreme, like Gordon Klingenschmitt, claiming the Bible says “all the citizens ought to be armed so they can defend themselves against left wing crazies.” And David Barton, claiming the Founding Fathers called the right to keeping bear arms, "the biblical right of self defense."

Then there's the Family Research Council's Jerry Boykin saying when Jesus returns he'll be carrying an AR-15. That's similar to Christian pastor Chuck Baldwin, who said it's a "Biblical requirement" that every American adult (and even some younger than 18) own an AR-15 or similar assault-style weapon.

You may remember that Barton is the one who claimed that the Constitution was taken word for word from the Bible. (Given to George Washington on Mount Vernon, no doubt.)

It's easy to laugh at them, because they are, in my cousin's words, "buckso wayzo". Unfortunately, there are enough people who pay attention to them that we wound up with a con artist as president.

Now, get this:

Liberty University is planning to open a state-of-the-art shooting range on campus next fall as part of the conservative Evangelical Christian School’s commitment to promoting gun ownership and firearm sports.

University president Jerry Falwell Jr. said that Liberty’s new complex will feature pistol, rifle and shotgun facilities as well as an archery range built into the mountainside of the 7,000-acre campus near Lynchburg, Va. Falwell said the project will result in one of the most expansive firearms ranges on any U.S. college campus. The blueprints call for at least $1 million in construction and landscape improvements that will provide new opportunities for student clubs and athletic teams.

Liberty already allows guns on campus, and offers training for students to qualify for concealed carry permits.

Oh, and I mentioned something about followers:

Falwell said that he was nervous when he first spoke about the school’s firearms policy at a gathering for parents whose children were considering Liberty for their higher education.

“I was a little timid about telling parents about it because I thought some would be worried,” Falwell said. “But I never got such enthusiastic applause.”

Oh, and guess who offered their full support:

Falwell said that after meeting with National Rifle Association executive vice president and chief executive officer Wayne LaPierre, the university decided to move forward with its plans for the shooting range complex. Brad Butler, Liberty’s planning coordinator, said the NRA provided crucial expertise on best practices for safety as the school examined designs for the project.

These are the people who keep talking about a "civil war" to "take back" their country. Can you say "Onward, "Christian" Soldiers"?

Today's Must-Read: Repeal the Damned Thing, Already!

Very good, thorough examination by Digby of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, then and now:

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has written a NYT op-ed suggesting that since the high court decided back in 2008 to define the 2nd Amendment as an individual right maybe the best way to deal with guns is to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Taking that absurd argument away from the gun proliferation zealots so the nation can have some common sense regulations  would be a good first step.

She goes on from there, including this disgusting statement from Joe the Plumber, another one who was a has-been before he ever was:

"Your dead kids don’t trump my constitutional rights."

Words fail me.

Read the whole thing, of course.

They Just Don't Get It

Conservatives don't seem to understand that the First Amendment doesn't apply to non-government entities:

In a decision late Monday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said a nonprofit run by conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager failed to show that YouTube infringed its free speech rights by placing age restrictions on its content.

The plaintiff, Prager University, said YouTube’s “animus” toward its “political identity and viewpoint” led it to curb access to videos, including through its “Restricted Mode” setting, on such topics as abortion, gun rights, Islam and terrorism, despite its stated promise of neutrality.

But the judge said Google and YouTube, both units of Mountain View, California-based Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O), did not qualify as “state actors” subject to the First Amendment by creating a “public forum” for speech.

Apparently, being a "conservative" means you get to say whatever you want whenever you want with no restrictions and no consequences.

I guess that's one of the results of home-schooling.

Via Joe.My.God.

Today's Must-Read: Second Amendment Edition

This piece by conservative columnist Brett Stephens at the New York Times. The nut:

In fact, the more closely one looks at what passes for “common sense” gun laws, the more feckless they appear. Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.

There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment.

Read the whole thing, of course. The only flaw I can see is that he relies on facts -- statistic relating to gun deaths in the U.S. -- which have no place in this .argument as far as the gun nuts are concerned. To them, it's all about "freedom!!1!"

Via RawStory.

Another WTF? Moment

Courtesy of Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin:

In a rare town hall type of meeting, a student asked Johnson if he thought healthcare was a right. His reply was jaw-dropping in its cruelty, ignorance and hypocrisy:

Wisconsin's junior senator did not hesitate: "I think it's probably more of a privilege."

He continued:

"Do you consider food a right? Do you consider clothing a right? Do you consider shelter a right? What we have as rights is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Past that point, we have the right to freedom. Past that point is a limited resource that we have to use our opportunities given to us to afford those things."

Johnson then referred to comments made by Sen. Rand Paul more than six years ago when Paul compared the "right to health care" to slavery.

He said the task of public officials is to create an environment that grows the economy so that more people can enjoy the "privilege" of food, shelter and health care.

Spoken like a true "I've got mine, screw you" Republican.

There's a sort of sick humor in watching Republicans fall back on the "grow the economy" mantra, since they have proven repeatedly over the last thirty-five years that they have no idea how to go about it. (Hint: tax cuts for the rich don't do it -- they just tuck the money away in offshore accounts. And austerity doesn't do it -- taking money out of a consumer-driven economy is beyond stupid.)

And as to whether food, clothing, and shelter are rights -- isn't that what "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are all about?

Here he is in action:

Trump vs. the NFL

And also the NBA. There are stories on this all over the place, so I don't need to link to them, but Mustang Bobby at Bark Bark Woof Woof has nailed it, I think:

I suppose if a dictator was threatening to blow up the West Coast, Congress was about to humiliate your plans to stomp on the legacy of your hated predecessor once again, three hurricanes in a row had devastated whole cities and wiped out the infrastructure and crops of a territory, and a special counsel was about to issue indictments for a former White House official, you’d be desperately looking for something to distract the attention of the media and start a Twitter storm.

He also links to a couple of articles that pretty much summarize the whys and wherefors, such as this report from NYT:

On three teams, nearly all the football players skipped the national anthem altogether. Dozens of others, from London to Los Angeles, knelt or locked arms on the sidelines, joined by several team owners in a league normally friendly to President Trump. Some of the sport’s biggest stars joined the kind of demonstration they have steadfastly avoided.

It was an unusual, sweeping wave of protest and defiance on the sidelines of the country’s most popular game, generated by Mr. Trump’s stream of calls to fire players who have declined to stand for the national anthem in order to raise awareness of police brutality and racial injustice.

What had been a modest round of anthem demonstrations this season led by a handful of African-American players mushroomed and morphed into a nationwide, diverse rebuke to Mr. Trump, with even some of his staunchest supporters in the N.F.L., including several owners, joining in or condemning Mr. Trump for divisiveness.

Julius Thomas, a Miami Dolphins tight end who had previously stood for the anthem, knelt for it on Sunday with several players.

“To have the president trying to intimidate people — I wanted to send a message that I don’t condone that,” Thomas said, echoing the opinion of most N.F.L. players. “I’m not O.K. with somebody trying to prevent someone from standing up for what they think is important.”

Of course, it's not about race -- says the White House:

The White House legislative affairs director has insisted President Donald Trump does not see the issue of NFL players kneeling to protest police brutality towards African Americans “through a racial lens.”

On the other hand:

Every day, and in countless and unexpected ways, Donald Trump, the President of the United States, finds new ways to divide and demoralize his country and undermine the national interest. On Tuesday, he ranted from the lectern of the U.N. General Assembly about “Rocket Man” and the possibility of levelling North Korea. Now he has followed with an equally unhinged domestic performance at a rally, on Friday evening, in Huntsville, Alabama, where he set out to make African-American athletes the focus of national contempt.

In the midst of an eighty-minute speech intended to heighten the reëlection prospects of Senator Luther Johnson Strange III, Trump turned his attention to N.F.L. players, including the former 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, and asked a mainly white crowd if “people like yourselves” agreed with his anger at “those people,” players who take a knee during the national anthem to protest racism. . . .

“People like yourselves.” “Those people.” “Son of a bitch.” This was the same sort of racial signalling that followed the Fascist and white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. It is no longer a matter of “dog whistling.” This is a form of racial demagoguery broadcast at the volume of a klaxon. There is no need for Steve Bannon’s behind-the-scenes scriptwriting. Trump, who is desperate to distract his base from his myriad failures of policy, from health care to immigration, is perfectly capable of devising his racist rhetoric all on his own.

(Via BarkBarkWoofWoof.)

He's right -- it's way beyond dog whistles.

By the way -- it looks like he really has taken on the entire NFL (via Joe.My.God.):

All but two of the NFL’s 32 team owners and CEOs issued statements Saturday night and through Sunday in response to Trump’s crusade against protesting NFL players, which began in earnest during a rally Friday night in Alabama. After making a thinly veiled allusion to former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who sparked a national debate by taking a knee before August 2016 preseason games to protest police violence against minorities, Trump called on NFL coaches to get the “son of a bitch” players off the field if they continued to kneel. The president repeated his call with no less intensity on Twitter on Saturday and Sunday morning.

And just in case you've forgotten what a caring, compassionate sort of guy Trump is:

Speaking to supporters in Alabama on Friday night, he decried Kaepernick and later assailed rules meant to improve player safety, saying they hurt the game’s entertainment value and pointing to declining television ratings for NFL games.

What's a little brain damage if people are entertained, right?

Today's Must-Read: Thoughts on Labor Day

From Tom Sullivan at Hullabaloo:

Workers are the Rodney Dangerfields of this economic terror the financial empire has constructed. An afterthought. Collateral damage. A necessary evil to the sainted "job creators." As in the last Gilded Age, as Twain put it, "Some men worship rank, some worship heroes, some worship power, some worship God, & over these ideals they dispute & cannot unite--but they all worship money." Those without it should have worked harder, planned better, and saved more. Sadly there is no new Twain to properly satirize this new Gilded Age. Save, perhaps, for the president who personifies it.

It is Labor Day weekend. Not that America celebrates labor, mind you. And not everyone gets to celebrate. But both those who do and do not have organized labor to thank for their holiday pay.

He goes into the history of the labor movement, which is something we all need to remember, as Trump and the GOP keep trying to convince us that labor unions are so 1930s.

Point of information: My dad worked with the teacher's union in his school district when I was a kid -- he may even have been one of the organizers: my memory's not to clear on it. (I was what? Maybe eight years old?)

Yes, I come from a line of leftists.

Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge

You may have run across stories about the speech Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III gave behind closed doors to recognized hate group Alliance Defending Freedom. Well, after the threat of a FOIA request from Right Wing Watch, a transcript magically appeared at The Federalist. An excerpt:

Under this administration, religious Americans will be treated neither as an afterthought nor as a problem to be managed. The federal government will actively find ways to accommodate people of all faiths.

The protections enshrined in the Constitution and our laws protect all Americans, including when we work together, speak in the public square, and when we interact with our government. We don’t waive our constitutional rights when we participate fully in public life and civic society.

This administration, and the upcoming guidance, will be animated by that same American view that has led us for 241 years: that every American has a right to believe, worship, and exercise their faith in the public square. It has served this country well, and it has made us not only one of the tolerant countries in the world, it has also helped make us the freeist and most generous. Thank you.

Given Sessions' record, I think the title of this post is amply justified.

By the way -- ADF really doesn't like being called a hate group.

The Liberal Redneck on Colin Kaepernick

I don't really have anything to add:

RFRAs, Thy Days Are Numbered

Via Joe.My.God., this:

U.S. District Judge Carlton W. Reeves late Thursday night issued an injunction blocking a bill by the Mississippi legislature that would have allowed private citizens and some public officials professing a “sincere religious belief” to deny services to gays and lesbians.

Just minutes before House Bill 1523 was to take effect at midnight, Reeves eviscerated the bill — the most sweeping attempt by a state to undermine the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision to legalize gay marriage — as being in violation of the First and Fourteenth amendments.

“The State has put its thumb on the scale to favor some religious beliefs over others. Showing such favor tells ‘nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and . . . adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.’ ” Reeves wrote, citing precedent. “And the Equal Protection Clause is violated by HB 1523’s authorization of arbitrary discrimination against lesbian, gay, transgender, and unmarried persons.”

“The plaintiffs’ motions are granted and HB 1523 is preliminarily enjoined.”

Coupled with a ruling Reeves filed earlier in the week — preventing circuit clerks from denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples — the proposed law is, for the moment, stillborn.

The preliminary injunction will hold until any appeals are completed. Then, if upheld, they will be filed as permanent injunctions.

This is a preliminary injunction pending appeal, and unfortunately, appeals will be heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is notoriously conservative. And even worse, the Circuit Justice is your friend and mine, Clarence Thomas. No doubt, the state of Mississippi will appeal, and the appeal will be accepted. As for a ruling, who knows? The preponderance of the judges on the Circuit are Republican appointees (although that's not a sure indicator -- remember Richard Posner?), but given the history, this will wind up at the Supreme Court.

What's key here is Judge Reeves' finding that the Mississippi law violates both the First (Establishment Clause) and Fourteenth (Equal Protection) Amendments, which to me seems pretty obvious. Apparently, it's not so obvious to the state of Mississippi.

And a footnote: With his usual perspicacity, Jason Chaffetz (R-Oblivion), chair of the House Witch-Hunt Committee, has scheduled hearings on the hysterically mis-named "First Amendment Defense Act" (which eviscerates important parts of the First Amendment) for one month to the day after Orlando.

And as one can easily suspect, the hearings are stacked:

Currently, only anti-gay witnesses have been invited to testify before Chairman Chaffetz's committee hearing on July 12, as the Blade reports. They include heroes of the anti-gay religious right, including former Atlanta fire chief Kelvin Cochran, fired for not obtaining permission to publish and distribute to his employees a virulently anti-gay book steeped in religious dogma, while using his title and position to promote the book. Also invited is Alliance Defending Freedom's Kristen Waggoner, who represents Barronelle Stutzman, a Washington state florist who refused to provide flowers to a same-sex couple for their wedding and refused to settle the case for $1000. Waggoner repeatedly and falsely claims Stutzman may lose her home, business, and life savings because she refused to sell flowers to a same-sex couple.

In the remote chance that this bill actually passes, Obama will veto it, and Congress won't won't have the votes to override. But it will make great ammunition as Chaffetz runs against Obama (as every Republican will be doing.)

Your tax dollars at work.

Today's Must-Read

From Digby again, and it's pretty scary:

Yesterday, People for the American Way released a report showing that rather than leaving worldly politics behind in reaction to the rise of the boorish and profane Donald Trump, as many people have been predicting, the religious right is gathering their forces for more assaults on the state houses around the country in pursuit of what they have duplicitously labeled "religious liberty" (when it is, in fact, a form of religious oppression.) Whatever disappointments they may be experiencing in national politics, their zeal to force people who have different (or no) religious beliefs to conform to theirs continues apace.

These people do not appear to have gotten the memo that once marriage equality was affirmed by the Supreme Court the issue was settled. In fact, that ruling sparked a coordinated effort among conservative religious organizations to  roll back gay rights wherever they can. The report says that in 2016 over 100 anti- LGBT equality bills have already been introduced in statehouses around the country. And there is every indication that these activities are picking up speed.

I've been saying since, oh, forever, that the religious right is not going to give up. They're still chipping away at Roe v. Wade two generations later, and although they've failed to make an equivalence between abortion and gay rights, they're not going to change their strategy -- and it's a long-term strategy. They are, after all, the beneficiaries of Eternal Truth™ as revealed by The One True God™ -- or the latest interpreters thereof.

Read the whole thing -- and pay attention to who's running for your state legislature.

Rights and Responsibilities

Well, Pam Geller got her wish:

Texas police shot dead two gunmen who opened fire on Sunday outside an exhibit of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad that was organized by an anti-Islamic group and billed as a free-speech event. . . .

The exhibit was organized by Pamela Geller, president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI). Her organization, which is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group, has sponsored anti-Islamic advertising campaigns in transit systems across the country.

Organizers of the “Muhammad Art Exhibit and Contest” said the event was to promote freedom of expression. They offered a $10,000 prize for the best artwork or cartoon depicting the Prophet, as well as a $2,500 “People’s Choice Award.”

Depictions of the Prophet Mohammad are viewed as offensive in Islam, and Western art that portrays the Prophet has sometimes angered Muslims and provoked threats and attacks from radicals.

One thing we don't hear much about from the proponents of our "Constitutional rights" is the responsibility that goes with those rights. I mean, that's part of the deal, right? You exercise your right to free speech, but you also undertake to exercise that right in a responsible manner. After all, we live in a society in which everyone, at least theoretically, is equal and is treated fairly. The only way to make that work is for us to exercise some restraint. It's also known as "common courtesy."

What we've been seeing more and more in recent years is the demand that people be allowed to exercise their rights with no restraints: want to take your AK-47 to Chipotle? Well, that's your right. If it makes other patrons uneasy or concerned about their safety, well, that's their problem. Want to assert your right to religious freedom by refusing to offer to gay couples the same services you offer to anyone else, no questions asked? Well, that's your right. If the gay couple is hurt and insulted, well, that's their problem. Want to engage in inflammatory speech vilifying a group you don't approve of? Well, that's your right. If someone takes forceful exception to your words, that's not your fault.

It's really an infantile take on citizenship.

So, Pam Geller (who's a real piece of work -- a couple of her more outrageous escapades are noted in the article) wants to hold a "free speech" event deliberately designed to offend and insult Muslims? Well, that's her right.

And who's to blame if someone gets shot?

Pam Geller.

But you won't hear that from her -- she doesn't seem to be real big on taking responsibility.

Hobby Lobby

I suppose I have to comment on this one, the worst decision to come down since Citizens United -- not only are corporations people, they got religion. The Hobby Lobby decision seems, from what I've been able to find (I haven't read the full opinion yet -- just found a link as I was doing this post -- Mother Jones has it here, including Justice Ginsburg's dissent [see below]), to be an even worse exercise in logical gymnastics than its ideological forebear.

Digby has a choice quote from Justice Alito's majority opinion, and a pointed rejoinder:

"According to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients."

Fascinating. They aren't "abortifacients." That is simple scientific fact. But they say they believe they are and their "belief" trumps objective reality.

This is straight out of the Teabagger Bible. If this is the level of intellectual acuity in the Court, we are all in serious trouble.

Scott Lemieux does a survey of all the holes in the decision.

Today, a bare majority of the Court held that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, employers do not have to adhere to federal regulations requiring that health insurance offered to employees cover contraceptives if the requirement conflicts with their religious beliefs. The majority opinion supporting this view, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and joined by the Court's four other Republican appointees—all men—is a disaster. It is unpersuasive and illogical, and creaes a standard that is unworkable. It also reflects an instructive lack of concern for the interests of the women, whose statutory rights will be burdened by the majority's decision.

Read on at the link -- it's worth it.

Justice Ginsburg's dissent was blistering, by all reports, and she raised one question, among others, that the majority didn't seem to register, implicit in this observation:

"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage."

In other words, what about the religious freedom of employees?

I may come back to this -- I have a lot to do today, and I'm still working in fits and starts.

I'm in Favor

I would love to see more efforts like this on the part of non-Christian groups:

A satanic group unveiled designs Monday for a 7-foot-tall statue of Satan it wants to put at the Oklahoma state Capitol, where a Ten Commandments monument was placed in 2012.

The New York-based Satanic Temple formally submitted its application to a panel that oversees the Capitol grounds, including an artist’s rendering that depicts Satan as Baphomet, a goat-headed figure with horns, wings and a long beard that’s often used as a symbol of the occult. In the rendering, Satan is sitting in a pentagram-adorned throne with smiling children next to him.

“The monument has been designed to reflect the views of Satanists in Oklahoma City and beyond,” temple spokesman Lucien Greaves said in a statement. “The statue will also have a functional purpose as a chair where people of all ages may sit on the lap of Satan for inspiration and contemplation.”

As you might imagine, this is not being well received. But then, this is Oklahoma, the state that can't even execute people right.

"Jesus Christ Superstore"

John Stewart on the Hobby Lobby case:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

It's not his most incisive commentary, but then, the mere fact that this case made it to the Supreme Court is a satire on the American judicial system.

It's another attempt to establish "Christian" supremacy as the law of the land.

Is This a Blooper? (Update)

I get e-mails from Amazon with "local deals," which I generally ignore, but the subject heading on this one stopped me for a minute:

Tea Party/Party Planning

I had to think about that for a minute.

On that note, two posts of note this morning:

Via Digby, this article from Ian Millhiser:

The most remarkable thing about Arizona’s “License To Discriminate” bill is how quickly it became anathema, even among Republicans. Both 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain and 2012 GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney called upon Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer to veto this effort to protect businesses that want to discriminate against gay people. So did Arizona’s other senator, Jeff Flake. And former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Indeed, three state senators who voted for this very bill urged Brewer to veto it before she finally did so on Wednesday, confessing that they “made a mistake” when they voted for it to become law.

The premise of the bill is that discrimination becomes acceptable so long as it is packaged inside a religious wrapper. As Arizona state Rep. Eddie Farnsworth (R) explained, lawmakers introduced it in response to instances where anti-gay business owners in other states were “punished for their religious beliefs” after they denied service to gay customers in violation of a state anti-discrimination law.

Yet, while LGBT Americans are the current target of this effort to repackage prejudice as “religious liberty,” they are hardly the first. To the contrary, as Wake Forest law Professor Michael Kent Curtis explained in a 2012 law review article, many segregationists justified racial bigotry on the very same grounds that religious conservatives now hope to justify anti-gay animus. In the words of one professor at a prominent Mississippi Baptist institution, “our Southern segregation way is the Christian way . . . . [God] was the original segregationist.”

How does that relate to the Tea Party? Just look:

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has vetoed SB1062, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Arizona. No one has ever accused Governor Brewer of being the most courageous Republican around. Come to think of it, the word courageous and Jan Brewer have probably never been uttered in the same sentence.

The left and the homosexual lobby in America went into overdrive to kill this bill. Conservatives rallied for this bill and Governor Brewer opted for cowardice instead of courage.

Why is this bill so important and what did it mean for not only Arizona but America?

The issue can be boiled down to one word: Freedom.

A free man or woman controls their labor. A slave has no control over their labor. A free man or woman decides who they will work for and under what conditions. The slave cannot.

The left and the homosexual lobby are both pushing slavery using the Orwellian concepts of “tolerance” and “inclusiveness.”

It gets worse. And aside from this screed being fact-free, it's worth noting that the whole post is in a large, bold-face font. Does that tell you something?

And some of the comments are so far out there that they're actually funny.

This one via Joe.My.God.

Update: This post on the subject of "religious freedom" at Mahablog, is worth a read.

I’m sure I’ve said before that conservatives like to pretend the establishment clause isn’t there, or is somehow lesser to the free exercise clause, although in fact without the establishment clause the free exercise clause isn’t worth much. Certainly, the child being coerced into expressing belief in God by a government employee is not having his free exercise rights respected, is he?

And from TPM, this analysis of the present-day "religious freedom" movement and its prospects.

Arizona Veto

Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed Arizona's "Christians are above the law" bill last evening. From the press conference:

Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific and present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona. I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner’s religious liberty has been violated.

The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences. After weighing all of the arguments, I vetoed Senate Bill 1062 moments ago.

Her full remarks are here.

Given the reaction not only from civil rights activists and Democrats, but prominent Republicans (including three state senators who voted for the bill and now call their votes "a mistake") and, most important, I suspect, business leaders, what else could she do?

Just as an example of the verbal contortions (not to mention logical gymnastics) proponents of this sort of hate legislation engage in, here's none other than Michele Bachmann (R-Loony Tunes) on how we need to tolerate bigots.

See, it's not about discriminating against people you don't approve of, it's about people tolerating your attempts to intrude your religious beliefs into areas they don't belong.

It seems as though most of the similar bills in other state legislatures have died, for some reason.

Jeremy Hooper has a good analysis of the whole phenomenon at GLAAD.