Browsing the blog archivesfor the day Wednesday, February 9th, 2011.

Compromised Justice

Obama Administration, Supreme Court

Having just spent way too much time this afternoon explaining to one of our drive-by teabaggers why Judge Roger Vinson doesn’t know the Constitution from his own ass, I was delighted to see that some Dems already are calling for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself if the constitutionality of health care reform is decided by the SCOTUS.

Why? Because the Justice’s wife is a lobbyist working against the health care reform act. Duh.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) and 72 other colleagues wrote Thomas on Wednesday to ask him to sit out any Supreme Court review of President Obama’s healthcare law, citing the work by Thomas’s wife on behalf of efforts opposing that healthcare law.

“As members of Congress, we were surprised by recent revelations of your financial ties to leading organizations dedicated to lobbying against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” the Democrats wrote. “We write today to respectfully ask that you maintain the integrity of this court and recuse yourself from any deliberations on the constitutionality of this act.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch has called for Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from health care reform cases because she worked in the Obama administration as solicitor general. It seems to me that Justice Thomas is way more compromised on this issue, though, because he currently enjoys financial gain from his wife’s political activities. He might as well be taking direct bribes from the groups fighting the reform law.

And based on some of his past decisions, Justice Thomas’s vote will most likely be against constitutionality.

Share Button

So Much for Liberty

Obama Administration

Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey spoke out against the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act — I understand the trogs have backtracked somewhat on the “forcible rape only” provision, but it’s still a nasty piece of work — by saying, “I won’t attempt to voice my views on your family and let my family alone. Don’t go near my daughters.” He continued,

If they had their way, the reproductive rights of American women would be tossed away and it sounds to me like a Third World country that’s requiring women to wear head shawls to cover their faces even if they don’t want to do it. This is America. It’s not one of the third world countries that we see these tragic decisions hoisted upon the women.

Yeah, pretty much.

This is only being reported in rightie media, so all the reactions are from rightie bloggers. A post on the ironically named “Liberty Pundits” site is classic — it’s titled “Sen. Lautenberg (Senile-NJ): Restricting abortion is like making women wear the hijab. Hunh?

It’s actually a pretty good analogy. Criminalizing abortion and mandated wearing of a hijab are both restrictions on liberty; they both limit a woman’s life choices; they both relegate women to less-than-personhood status. The only difference is that wearing a hijab has less of an impact on one’s body than enforced pregnancy and childbirth.

“Liberty” pundits? So much for liberty.

I also liked this part;

BTW, nimrod, abortion is murder. But you can explain yourself to Christ as you stand before the White Throne. Best of luck with that.

Um, explain himself to Christ? Does the name “Lautenberg” suggest anything to you, booby?

FYI, abortion isn’t “murder” in Jewish law.

Here’s Senator Lautenberg, showing no signs of senility that I can detect —

Share Button