After Caving On The Shutdown, Loser Trump Throws His Hate-Filled Backers A Bone

Forever beleaguered in finding enough red meat for his-- in ex-Senator Alfonse D’Amato's words-- right-wing whack-a-doodle base, Trump wants to pivot away from his embarrassing loss to Pelosi over the anti-Hispanic vanity-wall to crapping all over the LGBTQ community. The asshole's latest: revving up the dead nomination for Eric Murphy Ohio Solicitor General to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Murphy was the attorney who argued against marriage equality before the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges. Trump nominated him for the judgeship 7 months ago. As home-state senator, Sherrod Brown blocked the nomination (did not return his blue slip) and the nomination died. Last week Trump renominated him. Over the weekend, the Washington Post ran an OpEd by Jim Obergefell denouncing not just Murphy and the nomination but Rob Portman, Ohio's other senator, for supporting it. "In March 2013," wrote Obergefell," Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) broke with his Republican colleagues and penned an op-ed in the Columbus Dispatch supporting same-sex couples’ right to marry, a conclusion he reached shortly after his son came out as gay. In the article, he expressed his desire for each of his three children to have 'the same opportunities to pursue happiness and fulfillment' in all aspects of their lives. So I was surprised to find out that Portman was supporting the nomination of Eric Murphy to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit even after Murphy argued against same-sex marriage at the Supreme Court."

Barely four years ago, Mr. Murphy made a forceful argument that my marriage was unconstitutional. As the attorney tasked with defending Ohio’s discriminatory ban on same-sex marriage, he used dog-whistles such as “traditional marriage” in his brief to the Supreme Court and argued that “bigotry” had nothing to do with why the state refused to recognize my lawful marriage to my late husband.

The court rejected Murphy’s arguments and overturned that law. In a landmark opinion written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy-- for whom Murphy himself once clerked-- the Supreme Court declared that “it demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society.” Gay couples “ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law,” Kennedy wrote. “The Constitution grants them that right.”

Still, if Murphy had been successful, John and I, and tens of thousands of couples like us, would have been denied the right to marry and forced to live as second-class citizens.

Now, Murphy seeks to be a judge who will decide cases such as mine; his renomination was sent to the Senate this week. As a federal judge, Murphy would have immense power and influence over the rights of the LGBTQ community. Judges can decide if presidents can ban transgender soldiers from serving in the military. Judges can decide if people can be fired from their job for being gay. Such decisions would affect people such as me, Senator Portman’s son, and thousands of other LGBTQ people living in the 6th Circuit states of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee.

In light of his past arguments, Murphy must show he is capable of being fair and unbiased toward the LGBTQ community.

Now that he is no longer obligated to defend the old Ohio law, he should explicitly affirm that my Supreme Court case was correctly decided and vow that discrimination against the LGBTQ community would have no place in his courtroom. Surely there is no longer anything stopping Murphy from showing the same respect and dignity to the LGBTQ community as Kennedy and Portman have.

Until Murphy makes such a statement, Portman and his fellow senators should oppose his nomination.

Trump wants a quick "win" for his base after his embarrassing defeat at the hands of Pelosi over the wall. I was happy to see that all the Blue America-endorsed congressional candidates are questioning his re-nomination of Murphy. Today Austin-based congressional candidate Mike Siegel remarked that "Unfortunately, despite high-profile losses for Trump and his party on the government shutdown, ACA repeal, and a few other issues, the Republicans continue to radically reshape our judiciary. The antidote will be the 2020 elections. With a Democratic Congress, we must finally enact comprehensive civil rights legislation that guarantees LGBT equality in every way, from employment and housing to marriage, adoption, and inheritance. In the meantime, we must oppose Murphy and other extreme nominees and hope to embarrass the GOP on a case-by-case basis."

Please consider contributing to Mike, Marie and Eva by clicking on the Blue America 2020 thermometer on the right. Needless to say, Illinois progressive Democrat, Marie Newman who's in a hot primary battle against one of the last virulent homophobes in the Democratic congressional delegation, Blue Dog Dan Lipinski, is just as disappointed in the nomination. Lipinski's voting record against the LGBTQ community is startling and there are even Republicans who are less filled with bigotry and ignorance. Marie is no fan of Trump's nomination. "I would certainly hope to see his nomination rejected," she told us today. "This is simple, Eric Murphy and his supporters want to divide the country and ruin our economy. Murphy’s goal is simply to keep folks out of the economy and prevent equality. It is morally wrong and terrible for the economy."

Eva Putzova, the Blue America-endorsed Arizona progressive in a primary against another reactionary Blue Dog, also has strong feelings about these kinds of divisive nominations by Trump. She told us that "While most Americans agree that 'love is love' and all people should be equal in pursuing happiness no matter where their partner is on the gender spectrum, it's troubling that in 2019 Eric Murphy's name even comes up in the nomination process. People who think some members of our society are less than others because of who they choose to love should have no place at any level of our judicial system."

I reached our old buddy, 2018 congressional candidate Dan Canon, a prominent Indiana civil rights lawyer who was one of the attorneys who won the Obergefell Supreme Court case. This is what he had to say about the Murphy re-nomination today:

The Sixth Circuit is already among the most hostile venues in the country for individual rights, especially where it concerns the rights of women and minorities. This is amply demonstrated by the court's ruling in Love v. Beshear, which later became known as Obergefell. When the court ruled against us in that case, it eventually led to marriage equality in all 50 states, but it was a close call-- I'm not sure it would turn out the same way today. At the time, the Supreme Court was turning down cases from other circuits because they all reached the same conclusion-- that same-sex marriage bans violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of committed couples. The Sixth Circuit was the only federal appellate court to say otherwise. That was over four years ago.

Since then, Trump has been committed to dragging all the federal courts even further to the right by appointing inexperienced extremists to lifetime positions-- positions that give them tremendous power of the lives of other people. Democrats and activist organizations have got to take this seriously, and develop a strategy to mobilize people on this issue. It's not enough to raise hell when Trump appoints an extremist to the Supreme Court. The lower courts-- for which Senate Democrats have consistently provided rubber stamps on Trump's nominees-- are far more consequential when it comes to justice (or injustices) that affects the day-to-day lives of women, minorities, the working classes, and the poor. The trial and intermediate appellate judges that Trump silently installs are going to be the first-- and often last-- word on voting rights, abortion, employment discrimination, capital punishment, corporate accountability, immigration, etc. It is absolutely critical that voters become more engaged, and vocal, about all judicial appointments.

Is The Democratic Big Tent Big Enough For Homophobes? What About KKK Members?

Anti-LGBTQ Democrat, Blue Dog Colin Peterson (MN)

On July 7, 2011, notorious and deranged homophobe Virginia Foxx (R-NC) offered an amendment to a defense bill. There were only 19 homophobic Democrats who crossed the aisle to vote with the anti-LGBT Republicans. Most of them have been driven out of Congress but these are these 5 still serving

• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Colin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)

Foxx's intent with the resolution was to prohibit funds provided by a Defense Department funding bill from being used to violate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law that barred the federal government from requiring states to legally recognize same-sex marriages.

Even earlier, in 2009, Louie "Crazy Louie" Gohmert, offered an amendment --which failed 185-225-- to exempt the armed forces from Hate Crimes legislation. There were 16 Republicans that voted against Gohmert's ugly bigoted bill, but 25 Democrats voted for it. Again, most of them have been driven out of Congress. But these are the 4 repulsive Democratic homophones still serving:

• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Bill Foster (New Dem-IL)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)

Why bring these up now? A new Gallup poll finds that approval for same-sex marriages hit an all time high of 67%. Back when Gohmert's anti-Hate Crimes bill was being voted on only 40% of Americans supported same sex marriage. Gallup:

Sixty-seven percent of Americans support same-sex marriage -- the highest level in Gallup's trend. In each of the past three annual polls, Gallup has recorded three-percentage point increases among Americans who say same-sex marriages should be legally valid. The current figure is up 40 percentage points from the 27% who supported gay marriage when Gallup first polled on the question in 1996.

Some of the increases in support may be due to greater numbers of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) adults getting married in the U.S. Using data for all of 2017, Gallup has found that more than 10.4% of LGBT adults are married to a same-sex spouse. This means that Americans are more likely to know someone who has married a same-sex partner, and the visibility of these marriages may be playing a role in overturning some folks' previously held opposition to their legal status.

Gay marriage became legal nationwide in 2015 upon the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision. This came more than a decade after the first state, Massachusetts, had legalized gay marriage. In the years leading up to the decision, a patchwork of state laws were created for and against same-sex marriage.

Democrats remain the most likely to support gay marriage among party groups. The 83% of Democrats in favor of legally recognized same-sex marriages is the highest level of support recorded for this group.

Democrats are nearly twice as likely as Republicans to support legal recognition of gay marriages-- less than half of the GOP favors legal gay marriage (44%). The latest figure for Republicans' views on gay marriage is similar to the 47% recorded in 2017. The GOP has seen growth in the percentage of Republicans who favor legally recognized gay marriage over the years, but has yet to reach majority support.

Meanwhile, independents' opinions on the issue are closer to those of Democrats. Currently, 71% of independents say gay marriages should be recognized by the law as valid, matching this group's previous high from last year.

Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and Louie Gohmert (R-TX) are still very much in Congress-- and as homophobic as ever-- if not more so! And the Republican conference is as crazy and out of step as ever. The party has gotten narrower and narrower and less and less mainstream. The further right it gets, the more homophobic and bigoted it becomes. As far as the anti-gay Democrats, there are very few left but no one should be voting for Blue Dogs like Jim Costa (CA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Dan Lipinski (IL), Sanford Bishop (GA) or Colin Peterson (MN), not in this day and age. In fact, no Democrats should be voting for any Blue Dogs. There day has passed and we should allow them to continue drag the Democratic Party down with them.

Two Videos On How Certain Democrats Reacted To The Legitimate Aspirations Of The LGBT Community

In 1995 Bernie was a Member of the House... and so was Duke Cunningham. In fact, one of the reasons we started DWT was to help focus attention of Cunningham and a gaggle of other corrupt California Republicans, none of whom are still in office... Richard Pombo, Jerry Lewis, Buck McKeon, Gary Miller, John Doolittle, Dan Lungren, Jim Rogan, David Dreier, Elton Gallegly, Wally Herger-- all gone, all flushed down the toilet. Anyway, in the video above ole Duke is being harshly called out on the carpet by Bernie for disparaging gay men and women in the military. Bernie seems angry; Cunningham seems defiant and uncontrite for his ugly bigotry against American fighting men and women.

A decade later, Hillary hadn't evolved yet. She was demonstrating some of the tendencies that made her such a successful president of the Wellesley College Young Republicans-- not just a member or the treasurer or the vice president... she was the president. And in 2004 she was still taking umbrage-- as she gave the Republicans some nice homophobic talking points they could use to deny marriage equality. Duke Cunningham still hadn't be convicted of taking $2.4 million in bribery (and a long list of other felonies) and was still serving in Congress when Hillary made this speech-- and must have been so proud of her-- although he went to prison soon after. The video down below is Hillary telling her colleagues how to oppose marriage equality without sounding like a complete homophobe... which wasn't really a good idea in New York, not even in 2004.

In the middle of January, I got an e-mail from her about what a great champion of gay rights she is. "Howard," she wrote, "in 2011, I went to Geneva to tell the UN that 'gay rights are human rights, once and for all.' We’ve seen so much progress since I made that speech, particularly with last year’s landmark Supreme Court decision on marriage equality. But there’s still so much at stake for LGBT families in America and around the world, and we need our next president to keep us moving forward. I’ve laid out an ambitious plan to advance LGBT rights in our country." But an examination of her LGBT record, wouldn't make her nearly so attractive to gay voters, although there are a certain subset of gay men who worship tragic women. When it became clear Bill was being unfaithful with other women, those gays started treating her like she was Judy Garland. PolitiFact looked into her flip flops on LGBT issues last summer.

On the day that the U.S. Supreme Court was poised to hear oral arguments about same-sex marriage April 28, Hillary Clinton changed her "H" logo to rainbow-colored and tweeted: "Every loving couple & family deserves to be recognized & treated equally under the law across our nation. #LoveMustWin #LoveCantWait."


Clinton came out in support of same-sex marriage in 2013 after more than a decade of opposing it. But her views are particularly in the spotlight now that she is a presidential candidate.


We decided to put Clinton’s statements about same-sex marriage on our Flip-O-Meter, which measures whether a candidate has changed their views without making a value judgment about such flips. We found that as public opinion shifted toward support for same-sex marriage, so did Clinton.


She has had plenty of company among members of her own party to change their stance on same-sex marriage. In 2012, we gave Obama a Full Flop when he announced his support for same-sex marriage.


Currently about three dozen states allow same-sex marriage. The outcome of the decision, expected in June, could mean either that same-sex marriage will become legal in all states or that some states will institute new bans on same-sex marriage. (A spokesman for Clinton’s campaign declined to comment for this Flip-O-Meter item.)


Clinton’s statements during her 2000 Senate race


In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that defined federal marriage as a union between one man and one woman.


Hillary Clinton would face questions about same-sex marriage starting with her 2000 campaign for Senate. Let’s look at the highlights of her statements between 1999 and 2015 in a timeline:


December 1999: Clinton told a group of gay contributors at a fundraiser that she was against the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy signed by her husband.


The New York Times reported that Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said she supported the Defense of Marriage Act but added that "same-sex unions should be recognized and that same-sex unions should be entitled to all the rights and privileges that every other American gets."


January 2000: At a news conference in White Plains, Clinton said, "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship."




April 2000: Clinton again expressed support for civil unions. "I have supported the kind of rights and responsibilities that are being extended to gay couples in Vermont," she said.


July 2004: Clinton spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. (The amendment ultimately failed.) Though she opposed it, she said that she believed that marriage was "a sacred bond between a man and a woman."


However, she said she took "umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman."


October 2006: Clinton told a group of gay elected officials that she would support same-sex marriage in New York if a future governor and Legislature chose to enact such a law.


"I support states making the decision," she said.


As a 2008 presidential candidate


In 2007, all the presidential contenders except for longshot candidates-- both Democrats and GOP-- were against same-sex marriage, the New York Times reported. So were the majority of Americans, polls showed.


May 2007: In a questionnaire for the Human Rights Campaign in 2007, Clinton backed away from the Defense of Marriage Act:


"I support repealing the provision of DOMA that may prohibit the federal government from providing benefits to people in states that recognize same-sex marriage."


In response to a question about whether marriage should be made legally available to two committed adults of the same sex, Clinton marked that she was "opposed" though she stated she supported civil unions.


August 2007: In a Democratic primary debate sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and LOGO Network (a gay-oriented TV station) Clinton was asked "What is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage?"


Clinton replied: "Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges."


As a 2016 presidential candidate


As Clinton got ready for her second presidential bid, she again modified her position.


March 2013: After leaving her position as secretary of state, she announced her support for same-sex marriage in a video with the Human Rights Campaign on March 18, 2013.


"LGBT Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones. And they are full and equal citizens, and they deserve the rights of citizenship. That includes marriage. That’s why I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples. I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law, embedded in a broader effort to advance equality and opportunity for LGBT Americans and all Americans." 
The comments put her in line with other Democrats at the time who were mentioned as potential 2016 presidential contenders, including Vice President Joe Biden, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley. Obama had announced his support for same-sex marriage in May 2012.


June 2013: Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton issued a joint statement about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning the Defense of Marriage Act. The congratulatory note didn’t mention that Bill Clinton had signed the law back in 1996: "the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union."


June 2014: NPR’s Terry Gross grilled Clinton about her past positions’ on gay marriage in what led to a testy exchange. Gross tried to get Clinton to explain if she had truly changed her stance or if the shifting political landscape made it possible for her to announce her support.


At one point Gross asked, "Would you say your view evolved since the '90s or that the American public evolved, allowing you to state your real view?"


Clinton replied: "I think I'm an American. (Laughing) And I think we have all evolved, and it's been one of the fastest, most sweeping transformations."


April 2015: On the day of the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments about same-sex marriage bans in a handful of states in April, Clinton changed her "H" logo to rainbow-colored and tweeted a message of support: "Every loving couple & family deserves to be recognized & treated equally under the law across our nation. #LoveMustWin #LoveCantWait."


Our conclusion


Clinton opposed same-sex marriage as a candidate for the Senate, while in office as a senator, and while running for president in 2008. She expressed her support for civil unions starting in 2000 and for the rights’ of states to set their own laws in favor of same-sex marriage in 2006.


As polls showed that a majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage, Clinton’s views changed, too. She announced her support for same-sex marriage in March 2013.


It’s up to voters to decide how they feel about her changed stance, but on same-sex marriage we give Clinton a Full Flop.

Is she better than Trumpf or Cruz or Rubio or any of the garbage candidates the GOP is offering? Of course she is! But is she any better than the same old transactional hack politician that is rapidly turning Americans off to our whole system of democracy? No, she isn't. Come November, if she wins the nomination, she'll be the lesser of two evils. But still evil. During the primary, though, there is still an opportunity to vote without picking evil. If you'd like to help Bernie's campaign, you can do so here. The person in this video has evolved since she campaigned for Richard Nixon, since she campaigned for Barry Goldwater, since she campaigned for Nelson Rockefeller. She evolved on something else this week too! She's finally for the public option for health care. Luckily Bernie is pushing her.

What Motivates HRC's Incredibly Low Bar?

Tuesday morning MSNBC's Alex Seitz-Wald tweeted "Another big endorsement: @HRC for HRC. Not huge surprise, but helps undercut Sanders' claim that he's been strong on gay rights longer." No, not much of a surprise at all-- the least grassroots, most Beltway Establishment gay insider group endorses the Establishment candidate! As for undercutting Bernie's claim that he's been strong on gay rights longer, well, only in the minds of shallow, lazy corporate media hacks who missed the journalism class on context.

HRC, a gay white male lobbying group in Washington, never does anything to ruffle the feathers of the Democratic establishment. Like Hillary Clinton, they even backed Joe Lieberman against Ned Lamont. Last cycle they backed Republican Susan Collins against same-sex marriage campaigner Shenna Bellows. When I was president of Reprise Records, HRC gave me an award for "Workplace Equality Innovation," which I chopped up with an ax when they endorsed Lieberman.

In endorsing her Monday, HRC noted that "She has stood with us, and now it's our turn." Except she didn't. Always the good little careerist, she wasn't only not a leader on contentious LGBT issues, she was an opponent. How many times did she mouth the right wing bromide about how "marriage is for one man and one woman?" She aggressively and opportunistically opposed same-sex marriage until the end of 2013. What a leader! Last June, PolitiFact looked at Hillary's record of opposition to marriage equality.

Hillary Clinton would face questions about same-sex marriage starting with her 2000 campaign for Senate. Let’s look at the highlights of her statements between 1999 and 2015 in a timeline:

December 1999: Clinton told a group of gay contributors at a fundraiser that she was against the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy signed by her husband.

The New York Times reported that Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said she supported the Defense of Marriage Act but added that "same-sex unions should be recognized and that same-sex unions should be entitled to all the rights and privileges that every other American gets."

January 2000: At a news conference in White Plains, Clinton said, "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship."

April 2000: Clinton again expressed support for civil unions. "I have supported the kind of rights and responsibilities that are being extended to gay couples in Vermont," she said.

July 2004: Clinton spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage. (The amendment ultimately failed.) Though she opposed it, she said that she believed that marriage was "a sacred bond between a man and a woman."

However, she said she took "umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman."

October 2006: Clinton told a group of gay elected officials that she would support same-sex marriage in New York if a future governor and Legislature chose to enact such a law.

"I support states making the decision," she said.

As a 2008 presidential candidate

In 2007, all the presidential contenders except for longshot candidates-- both Democrats and GOP-- were against same-sex marriage, the New York Times reported. So were the majority of Americans, polls showed.

May 2007: In a questionnaire for the Human Rights Campaign in 2007, Clinton backed away from the Defense of Marriage Act:

"I support repealing the provision of DOMA that may prohibit the federal government from providing benefits to people in states that recognize same-sex marriage."

In response to a question about whether marriage should be made legally available to two committed adults of the same sex, Clinton marked that she was "opposed" though she stated she supported civil unions.

August 2007: In a Democratic primary debate sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and LOGO Network (a gay-oriented TV station) Clinton was asked "What is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage?"

Clinton replied: "Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges."

As a 2016 presidential candidate

As Clinton got ready for her second presidential bid, she again modified her position.

March 2013: After leaving her position as secretary of state, she announced her support for same-sex marriage in a video with the Human Rights Campaign on March 18, 2013.

...Our conclusion

Clinton opposed same-sex marriage as a candidate for the Senate, while in office as a senator, and while running for president in 2008. She expressed her support for civil unions starting in 2000 and for the rights’ of states to set their own laws in favor of same-sex marriage in 2006.

As polls showed that a majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage, Clinton’s views changed, too. She announced her support for same-sex marriage in March 2013.

It’s up to voters to decide how they feel about her changed stance, but on same-sex marriage we give Clinton a Full Flop.

So... much better than Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee or Marco Rubio, who are competing for the homophobe of the year? Of course she is-- much better. But right now we should be comparing her to Bernie. And his record on LGBT equality is not really something that had to evolve or be poll-tested. Right after being elected mayor of Burlington he backed the city's first-ever Pride Parade (1983) and then signed the city's first ordinance banning housing discrimination. In 1996 when Hillary was pushing the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, only 67 congressman voted against it, Sanders being one of them. It's good that Hillary has evolved-- on LBGT issues and almost every other progressive issue-- but she followed, dragging her feet, while Bernie led. It makes a difference.

And on another topic, this was nice to see when I woke up this morning. Please share it with anyone you know in Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada and... well anyone who votes in Democratic primaries.

There Are Plenty Of Differences Between Bernie's Record And Hillary's

A few days ago, Hillary-- disgracefully, tried implying that Bernie is not just a gun-nut but a sexist trying to silence her to boot. I wonder which p.r. firm came up with that line. It's a natch for her though. Even one of her most outspoken, dedicated backers, Hilary Rosen, who had been tweeting earlier that Bernie looked like a madman, was exasperatied by how the Clintons lie and twist reality for their own political purposes, a reason so many Americans distrust them-- regardless of how horrid their Republican opponents are:

And for people who weren't there... we have The Google! New York Times, October 15, 1996:

In a radio advertisement aimed at religious conservatives, the Clinton campaign is showcasing the President's signature on a bill banning gay marriages in spite of earlier White House complaints that the issue amounted to "gay baiting."

The advertisement also promotes President Clinton's work to protect religious freedom and says he wants "a complete ban" on late-term abortions "except when the mother's life is in danger" or when a woman "faces severe health risks."

It refers to Mr. Clinton's support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which the President signed into law last month, to the dismay of many gay rights advocates. Mr. Clinton signed the law early on a Saturday morning, minimizing news coverage. He said he had long agreed with the principles in the bill but hoped it would not be used to justify discrimination against homosexuals.

The White House spokesman, Michael D. McCurry, had earlier criticized Republicans for raising the issue, calling it "gay baiting."

The Dole campaign was critical. "This is a President who signed the Defense of Marriage Act in the middle of the night so it wouldn't be news, but now he does paid advertising to promote it," said a Dole spokesman, Gary Koops. "This is a President who has never supported any restriction on abortion, but now, 20-plus days before the election, he does ads touting the fact that he now says he supports restrictions."

Rewriting history used to be so much easier. Last week Rachel Maddow had a nice, relaxed sit-down with Hillary Clinton on her show. Here's the transcript that's caused all the commotion yesterday:

MADDOW:  On-- on the issue of finding a path between the left and the right, finding what’s doable and what’s not doable, I’m a true-blue liberal, and I’m allowed to say that. OK?   (LAUGHTER)

But one of the things that I have been struck by – and during the Obama administration-- is that a lot of the-- really, the civil rights achievements of this administration have actually been undoing things that were done in the Clinton administration.

Whether it was “don’t ask, don’t tell” or the Defense of Marriage Act or the-- you know, tough on crime (ph) mandatory sentences. Former President Clinton is progressive on all those issues now…

CLINTON:  Right.

MADDOW:  …but the policies that he signed-- for politically practical reasons-- in the ’90s have taken-- you know, the political mural-- miracle of Barack Obama’s election and-- and-- and a decade of progressive activism to unwind those things to get back to zero.

And so I know that you and President Clinton are different people, and I know that-- I don’t-- you-- you’re not responsible for what he did as president. But is your approach to civil rights issues the same as his, or is it different?

CLINTON:  Well, I-- I want to say a word about the-- the issues you mentioned, because my-- my-- my take on it is slightly different.

On Defense of Marriage, I think what my husband believed-- and there was certainly evidence to support it-- is that there was enough political momentum to amend the Constitution of the United States of America, and that there had to be some way to stop that.

And there wasn’t any rational argument-- because I was in on some of those discussions, on both “don’t ask, don’t tell” and on-- on DOMA, where both the president, his advisers and occasionally I would-- you know, chime in and talk about, “you can’t be serious. You can’t be serious.”

But they were. And so, in-- in a lot of ways, DOMA was a line that was drawn that was to prevent going further.

MADDOW:  It was a defensive action?

CLINTON:  It was a defensive action. The culture rapidly changed so that now what was totally anathema to political forces-- they have ceded. They no longer are fighting, except on a local level and a rear-guard action. And with the U.S. Supreme Court decision, it’s settled.

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is something that-- you know, Bill promised during the ‘92 campaign to let gays serve openly in the military. And it’s what he intended to do.

Hillary herself felt it was once politically convenient to be seen as a little anti-gay:



She's changed her mind. Too bad she can't claim to have had a D-minus from the National Organization For Marriage. She and Bill should just admit they were wrong and apologize and move on. I mean if an asshole like Tony Blair could apologize for his role in the Iraq War and the subsequent rise of Isis, why can't Bill and Hill cop to their bad decisions on LGBT issues?

The new CBS News poll of Iowa Democrats-- taken after Hillary eviscerated Trey Gowdy's silly Benghazi Republicans-- found her barely ahead of Bernie among likely caucus participants-- 46-43%. (The CBS poll in New Hampshire shows Bernie continuing to beat her by big numbers-- 51-36%.) Politico's story after the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Dinner was how Bernie went on the attack and that he "launched a new, frontal attack on Clinton’s record, caution and character-- a direct response to her recent surge in the polls here and nationally, and fueled by her strong performance at the first Democratic debate earlier this month. The shift represents a gamble: Can a nice-guy candidate publicly dedicated to running on substance turn to attack mode without sacrificing his reputation as an authentic voice of the people?" Huh? Bernie went negative? Well no. Read a little further down and Politico reluctantly admits that "The Vermont senator, as always, did not go after the front-runner in a personal way or mention her by name. Instead, he delivered a fiery yet indirect indictment of her entire political career. In his 25-minute speech-- backed up by the thundering chants of supporters chanting 'Feel the Bern!'-- he attacked Clinton’s slowness to take a position on the Keystone pipeline: 'This was not a complicated issue,' he said. He lambasted her for now opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which she once called the 'gold standard' of trade deals. 'It is not now, nor has it ever been, the gold standard of trade agreements,' Sanders said. And he reached back to Clinton’s 2002 vote to support the war in Iraq, an issue that plagued her eight years ago when she took the stage here. 'When I came to that fork in the road I took the right road, even though it was not the popular road at the time,' he said. Well... the shoe fits. He is after all, running for president on his record and his judgment and his courageousness as a frontline leader, against an opponent who is trying to distort her own-- and his-- record.

Want to make sure Bernie is elected president instead of more of the same Establishment crap? You can do it here, where you will also find the progressive candidates running for Congress who have endorsed Bernie and his platform.

Greg Sargent looks at the real story of widespread compliance with the Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage

The great Mike Luckovich drew this glorious cartoon back when legalized same-sex marriage came to Massachusetts. As marriage equality gradually (but, in the grand scheme of things, remarkably rapidly) became the law of the land, homophobes surely continue to wish desperately that same-sex couples would "act a little scarier."

"Given that the ruling happened only a couple of months ago, things are going exceedingly smoothly. This shows that clerks are following the law, whether or not they support the freedom to marry, and irrespective of their religious beliefs."

-- Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom
to Marry, to washingtonpost.com’s Greg Sargent

by Ken

Today we have another demonstration of why I love Greg Sargent, whose Plum Line has been functioning happily for ages now on washingtonpost.com. Look all around today and, understandably, you’ll see coverage of a story that Greg synopsized thusly in a post this afternoon:

Kim Davis, the elected clerk in Kentucky’s Rowan County, refused this morning to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, just hours after the Supreme Court had turned down her request to be excused from issuing them on religious grounds. Asked on whose authority she was turning the couples away, she replied: "Under God’s authority."

The Kentucky standoff is a dramatic story whose resolution is very much up in the air, and it suggests that in some pockets, at least, resistance to the Supreme Court’s declaration of a Constitutional right to marry may continue.

However, the head on Greg’s post is "A Kentucky clerk is turning away gay couples. But she’s a real rarity." And mostly it’s this last part that his post is about. "If anything," he writes, "the more important story here is how little of this sort of resistance we’re seeing, which suggests that the continuing cultural shift on gay rights is only continuing -- and is swamping whatever backlash has greeted the ruling."

Now that, friends, is a story, and I wonder how many people are focusing on it. This is, as I said, an excellent demonstration of why I love Greg Sargent.

For his story, Greg turned to the organization Freedom to Marry, which has been in the thick of the movement to legalize same-sex marriage, and not surprisingly is keeping a watchful eye on developments. Freedom to Marry, it turns out, "has been closely tracking implementation of the gay marriage ruling in counties across the country," and, Greg says, "provided me with a rundown of the state of play," based on "direct calls to the clerks themselves, as well as on reports from organizers on the ground":

In Alabama, there are 67 counties. 54 counties are issuing licenses to everyone.

In Kentucky, there are 120 counties. 118 counties are issuing to everyone.

In Tennessee, there are 95 counties. All are issuing licenses.

In Mississippi, there 82 counties. All are issuing licenses.

There are 64 parishes in Louisiana. All are issuing licenses.

In Georgia, there are 159 counties. All are issuing licenses.

In Texas, there are 254 counties. All are issuing licenses.

Now that’s a story!

Now it’s time for facts and some context for them. Greg is a great lover of facts, and he's terrific at context.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, there were 14 states in which gay and lesbian people could not get married. (Thirteen of those had laws against it, while Alabama wasn’t complying with a lower court ruling making gay marriage legal.) Of these 14 states, seven -- the ones concentrated in the south -- are listed above. In the remaining states -- North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan and Ohio -- Freedom to Marry says any and all problems have been resolved.

And so in the seven southern states where the backlash might have been expected to be fiercest, only one -- Alabama -- still has multiple counties that are holding out. One other -- Kentucky -- has only two remaining counties holding out. One of those counties in Kentucky is the one drawing all the attention today. In the other one, no gay couples have tried to get licenses, Freedom to Marry tells me. All the rest are issuing licenses, the group says.

Finally, Greg reports some crucial points of his conversation with Freedom to Marry's national campaign director, Marc Solomon, beginning with the quote I've put atop this post. (I'll give you a second to take another look at it.)

"It’s true that Alabama remains a trouble spot," Greg writes.

But Solomon notes that the counties still holding out are "not the major population centers," which "just shows how silly the whole thing is." He adds: "this is a very small temporary blip that will take care of itself."

Meanwhile, some polls have shown solid majority approval of the Supreme Court ruling, while other polls suggest support for marriage equality is holding steady in the wake of the decision. And conspicuously few Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates are mounting any kind of serious call for continued resistance.

Says Solomon: "I’m expecting that support will hold and even increase as people see what this means -- that this really is about committed couples who are getting married."

Now that's a story well covered. And just another day at the office for Greg Sargent.

I SHOULD PROBABLY PUT IN A WORD HERE --

for Greg's Plum Line colleague Paul Waldman, whose ability to provide clear-headed explanations of complex political subjects I've drawn on repeatedly in this space.

And while we're on the subject(s), when it comes both to what we might call the Digbyan ability to discern the real story lying behind -- or above or below -- the popularly bruited one and to the ability to make complex subjects intelligible to nonspecialist readers, notably in technical areas like climate change, there aren't many practitioners who can match our Gaius Publius, which I can say because it was my opinion long before he started writing with us here at DWT. (What I didn't know before was how much fun he would be to have as a colleague!)

#

Catching up with the Supreme Court -- and looking ahead

"Something very unusual happened at the nation’s highest court this year. The justices adjourned for their summer vacation and liberals were left feeling pretty good about the just-completed Supreme Court term. . . . [I]t is unlikely that liberals will feel the same way about the next Supreme Court term."

-- Ian Millhiser, in a ThinkProgress post today, "Coming Next:
The Revenge Of The Supreme Court’s Conservatives"

by Ken

As we know, the marquis cases decided by the Supreme Court in the just-ended term both went the un-conservative way, and both decisions were written by Court conservatives:

• the 6-3 decision in King v. Burwell, with the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts -- and joined by Justice "Slow Anthony" Kennedy as well as the Court's four moderate justices -- that no, the Affordable Care Act doesn't limit federal subsidies to health-insurance shoppers buying on the individual state exchanges rather than on the federal exchange (created as a backstop for citizens of states with fuck-you scumbag state governments);

• and the 5-4 ruling, with "Slow Anthony" writing the majority opinion, joined by the four moderates, that the Constitution provides a right to marriage for same-sex couples.


THE LATER DECISIONS

The most important decisions announced after the Big Two, which we haven't talked about yet, one had a good outcome and one a bad one.

• In the good outcome, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission et al., the Court refused to invalidate independent redistricting committees established outside the state legislature, rejecting the argument that this violates the Constitution's prescription: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a lovely majority opinion joined by the other three moderates and by "Slow Anthony" Kennedy, made clear that states get to decide how legislative functions are accomplished and if a state authorizes ballot initiatives, that satisfies the constitutional requirement. She also paid ringing tribute to the quality, efficiency, and freedom from conflict of interest of independent redistricting commissions.

It would have been disastrous if the Court had ruled otherwise, as the four hard-line thug-justices would have done, depriving states of this excellent option for better-quality redistricting. The reason I say that the decision is more important for what it didn't do is that now all that democracy-averse Republicans have to do is make damn sure states don't empower independent commissions. I don't think we're going to see a lot of them in the foreseeable future.

• Then there's the bad outcome, Michigan et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., Justice Nino Scalia, writing for the majority (with "Slow Anthony" Kennedy back in place), wrote that while yes, the EPA can issue rules regarding emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants, "EPA must consider cost -- including cost of compliance -- before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary." Note that no consideration is contemplated for the cost of negative health effects of emissions.

This seems to me a big victory for the polluting-power industries, and also seems to me that the Court is prepared to give a hearing to any pro-pollution case polluting industries can cobble together.


WAS THIS A "LIBERAL" TERM AT THE COURT?

The New York Times editorial board doesn't think so, and neither do I. Here's some of what was included in a 4th of July NYT editorial, "The Activist Roberts Court, 10 Years In":

After a series of high-profile end-of-term rulings that mostly came out the way liberals wanted, it is tempting to see a leftward shift among the justices.

That would be a mistake. Against the backdrop of the last decade, the recent decisions on same-sex marriage, discrimination in housing, the Affordable Care Act [links onsite -- Ed.] and others seem more like exceptions than anything else. If they reflect any particular trend, it is not a growing liberalism, but rather the failure of hard-line conservative activists trying to win in court what they have failed to achieve through legislation.

And even when a majority of the justices rejected conservative arguments, the decision to hear those cases in the first place showed the court’s eagerness to reopen long-settled issues. . . .

There is, indeed, an interesting view that the conservatives' weak showing in this term reflected a development described by Dartmouth Asst. Prof. of Government Brendan Nyhan in a June 25 nytimes.com "The Upshot" post: "What seem like liberal decisions may instead represent conservative overreach." He harks back to a case made in 2009 by political scientists Kevin T. McGuire, Georg Vanberg, Charles E. Smith Jr. and Gregory A. Caldeira, who --

predicted that conservatives would press their luck to take advantage when they had a majority on the court, appealing more cases they lost in lower courts. (Conversely, liberals would be less likely to appeal cases because they were more likely to prefer lower-court decisions and to fear creating damaging precedents.) Mr. McGuire and his co-authors then showed empirically that this process increased the number of conservative reversals of lower-court rulings but also increased the number of cases in which a more liberal ruling was affirmed because litigants guessed wrong about how far the court was willing to go.

As a possible example, in those last days the Court announced that it had declined to hear appeals by Kansas and Arizona of the 10th Circuit Court's ruling in Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Commission declining to make the commission require proof of citizenship on states' federal voter-application form. "Kobach" is Kansas's genuinely mentally diseased secretary of state, who -- among other crackpot far-right delusions -- sees Democrats everywhere engaged in voter-fraud conspiracies, which have escaped all efforts of detection by sane people. (Note, by the way, that the 10th Circuit ruling applies only to the federal portion of the registration form. It doesn't affect what nutjobs like Krazy Kris Kobach can put on the form regarding local and state elections.)


THERE'S ALREADY OMINOUS NEWS FOR NEXT TERM

Those last-days-of-term announcement dumps included some ominous news about cases the justices have already agreed to take up in the next term, revisiting issues that the Court has already been closing in on, suggesting that there are at least four justices, if not already a majority, prepared to further tighten the vise.

Which brings us back to Ian Millhiser's ThinkProgress post today, "Coming Next: The Revenge Of The Supreme Court’s Conservatives," from which I quoted at the top of this post -- you know, about it being unlikely that liberals will be cheering the next Supreme Court term. (Links onsite.)

Based on two major cases that the Court has already agreed to hear, and a third that is likely to be added to the Court’s docket this fall, next term is shaping up to be a much more conventional term rife with longtime conservative boogie men waiting to be slain by the Court’s right flank.

Abortion: Although the justices have not yet agreed to hear a major abortion case next Supreme Court term, it is likely that they will hear at least one of two cases involving sham health laws that conservative states have enacted in an attempt to get around what remains of the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. States such as Texas and Mississippi enacted laws that, at a superficial level, appear to be designed to make abortion clinics safer and to ensure that physicians who perform abortions are well-credentialed. In reality, however, these laws do little to advance women’s health, while simultaneously subjecting clinics to regulatory burdens that will force many of them to close down. At the moment, the only thing keeping multiple Texas abortion clinics open is a temporary stay issued by a 5-4 Supreme Court preventing that state’s law from going into full effect.

The Court will likely announce whether they will hear a challenge to these sham health laws in the fall. If they choose not to hear the Texas case, that could cause almost as much damage to the right to choose in Texas as an adverse Supreme Court decision, as it will allow a lower court decision cutting deeply into reproductive freedom to take effect. Should the justices agree to take this case, which seems likely, the fact that Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed to grant a temporary stay halting the law is a positive sign for advocates of abortion rights.

Nevertheless, no one in the choice community should count on Kennedy’s vote Prior to the Texas law reaching the Court, Kennedy voted on 21 abortion restrictions and allowed all but one of them to go into effect.

Affirmative Action: Two years ago, the Supreme Court gave affirmative action an unexpected stay of execution. Though Court-watchers largely expected the Supreme Court to end race-conscious university admissions programs in Fisher v. University of Texas, the Court voted instead to send the case back down to a lower court for reconsideration.

A year later, the conservative United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the University of Texas’s affirmative action program once again. Then, just last week, the Supreme Court announced that they would hear this case for a second time.

Justice Anthony Kennedy has demonstrated that there is some distance between himself and the Court’s four other conservatives, who hold much more absolutist views on race. At the end of this recently concluded term, he voted with the Court’s liberals to preserve a key prong of the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits race discrimination in housing. Nevertheless, there are several signs that he is unlikely to break with the Court’s conservative bloc in Fisher‘s second trip to the justices.

According to one judge, “it would be difficult for UT to construct an admissions policy that more closely resembles the policy approved by the Supreme Court” in 2003 then the aspect of Texas’s policy that is now being considered by the Supreme Court. Yet Kennedy dissented in that 2003 case — a strong sign that he’s already decided that the Texas admissions policy is unconstitutional. Indeed, at oral arguments in Fisher I, Kennedy accused Texas of creating an admissions program where “race counts above all.” That’s very bad news for defenders of affirmative action.

Unions: The Court also announced last week that it will hear Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case that will send many public sector unions’ finances into turmoil if its plaintiffs prevail before the justices.

The core question in Friedrichs is whether non-members of a union can be required to compensate the union for the costs of bargaining on their behalf. Under longstanding law, unions are required to bargain on behalf of all workers in a unionized shop, regardless of whether those workers elect to join the union. Thus, members and non-members alike share in the higher wages and increased benefits that typically come along with unionization.

To prevent a free-rider problem, where workers elect not to join the union because they know that they will benefit regardless of whether they pay their share of the union’s bargaining costs, current law allows unions to charge what are known as “fair share” fees or “agency fees,” which cover each non-member’s share of the cost of bargaining on their behalf. Without these fees, public sector unions may struggle to raise the funds that they need in order to operate, and all workers in many unionized workplaces could eventually lose the benefits of unionization.

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to limit many unions’ ability to charge these fees in 2014. That’s an ominous sign for public sector unions who have a stake in Friedrichs.

#

Noah Sends Out 4th of July Wishes: "Dear People of FOX News . . ."

Plus: Is Pastor Rick Scarborough burning yet?


Uh-oh, Bill-O's mouth is open! Stand back, people! Who knows what might come out of that gaping maw?

by Noah

Here's a wish for today: I wish that I had the technology to jam FOX News. No, not to prevent the twisted, warped programming. We are supposed to be a nation of free speech, aren't we? And if people can believe that they have been abducted by the Saucermen on multiple occasions, I suppose they can believe the endless fear-mongering and dark drivel that FOX offers.

I would simply like to be able to jam FOX in such a way that anyone tuning in to their spew would have to watch it through one of those clear rainbow filters that Facebook offered its users after the Supreme Court's ratification of the right of same sex marriage.

Oh OK, failing that, I would wish that Bill O'Reilly did a whole show in front of a giant, screen-filling rainbow flag backdrop, not knowing it was there until he turned to leave the set at the show's end. Watching the old geezer lose it would be priceless.

Why shouldn't I wish for this? On Monday cranky old Bill-O donned his black heart homophobe colors. Does he ever take them off? He threw one of his patented curmudgeonly snit fits about the White House being lit up in rainbow colors and puked out his tired "traditional Americans" meme, letting the FOX freak flag fly, as he is paid so well to do, even calling it an Obama "in your face" move.

I guess Bill-O took it all personally, but isn't he a fine one to talk about what a traditional marriage might be? One man, one woman and a loofah in the shower with a producer, anyone?

I have another wish: How about a list of all of the politicians and pundits that bellow about a marriage consisting of one man and one woman while they themselves are secretly gay, perhaps even chasing teenage Congressional pages? Can we get that list? Calling Larry Flynt! Is the Senate majority leader at the top -- or, er, at the bottom?

Meanwhile, on the same show we were suddenly treated to the surreal, hard-to-make-this-stuff-up, un-introduced specter of some other republican loon named Huckabee talking about putting up a nativity scene on the White House lawn if he's elected president. Hell, if a republican gets the White House, we should be happy it's just a Christmastime nativity scene and not a nightly burning cross.

Just look how beat this living fossil O'Reilly looks as he quacks about "traditional Americans"! People of FOX, wake up! You have overslept by decades! You are as big of a freakshow as those "People of Walmart" photo collections that circulate on the internet.



Sez Bill:

I was a bit surprised to see the White House doing a victory lap using actual White House property on Friday. The people's house was illuminated in rainbow colors to celebrate the gay marriage decision. What about all the Americans who believe that a redefinition of marriage is not the job of the Supreme Court?

Well, you're right on one little point there, Bill-O. It isn't the job of the Supreme Court to redefine, per se. You see, courts are arbiters, and we have this thing called the Constitution. Their job is to take a look at that and see how the question put before them fits that Constitution. That's what they did. Got it? They acknowledged a right that was already there. Can you get your rapidly shriveling pea brain around that? The Supreme Court decision was as "traditional" as it gets. Traditional as in "American."

Imagine, People of FOX, how it is to be a republican and go around all day long categorizing everyone you see as "traditional" or "nontraditional." Sooner or later you will be so narrow-minded that you will be sitting alone in the park like the village idiots that you are.

Dear People of FOX, it is now the 21st century! "Traditional" Americans are all of us, not just people categorized by your ridiculously narrow bigoted view that sorts people by gender, gender preference, gender identification, skin tone and number of syllables or vowels in a surname. Not only that, but it has always been that way, at least in ideal if not in practice. I know conservatives have always struggled against that ideal, thinking that certain rights apply only to themselves and whatever clique they belong to. But how about, if you are so into conforming, you start conforming to the American Ideal instead of always fighting the spirit of America?

In ten years or less, your little irrationally panicking Pied Piper from FOXWorld will be sitting on that proverbial park bench mumbling about how much better things used to be when only white hetero males were in charge (or so he thought), instead of doing it on TV every night.

If he wasn't so sick and hateful, O'Reilly would almost be laughable. He is practically a walking parody of hate, almost playing it for comic effect. Except he's serious. Some say you need smarts to have a sense of humor.

Come to think of it, FOX is really just a bunch of old wackos sitting on a park bench anyway. Sure you can point to the good-looking cleavage babes and the handsome devils that play journalists on FOX, but if you rip off the masks of any of them, you will find a crotchety, senile 90-year-old example of dementia.


MEANWHILE IN RELATED NEWS:
IS PASTOR RICK BURNING?



Sez Pastor Rick: "If necessary, we will burn" (emphasis emphatically not added).

A Christian pastor, Rick Scarborough, made noises about playing the ultimate victim card, threatening to set himself on fire if the Supreme Court gave the thumbs-up to same sex marriage. Scarborough hails from Texas. Should we be surprised?

Jeez, all Rev. Franklin Graham did was move his money out of Wells Fargo, saying they "advocate for the gay lifestyle" that "contradicts God's … blah, blah, blah."

It was pretty funny when he then put his money into a bank that is even more supportive of Satan's dastardly plan to ruin America.

All Wells Fargo did was run a TV ad that showed two women adopting a child. How dare they give that child a better future! Now, these fake Christians are trying to top each other by … topping themselves! And I, for one, support their right to do so! In fact, I encourage these kooks to choose the suicide lifestyle. Do it now!

Last Friday was a great day for America as we joined much of the civilized world. It was an even greater day for some individual Americans and the people they have chosen to share their lives with. But the righties have a special talent for looking in the mirror and thinking it's all about themselves.

Dear Pastor Rick, to date you haven't followed through. We're waiting. We're waiting impatiently. Is that mean of us? Need me to send a match? Here's my generous suggestion to you. How about you, Graham, O'Reilly and Huckabee climb into an oil-soaked boat in the Gulf of Mexico and play the good old republican whining-victim card together, Viking-style.

Put some fireworks in the boat too. It's 4th of July, and this is America. Give us a gift! Show us your patriotism!

PASTOR RICK "EXPLAINS": WHEN HE SAID "WE
WILL BURN," HE DIDN'T MEAN "WE WILL BURN"

Yes, Pastor Rick has "explained," sort of, how it happens that he hasn't gone up in flames. It seems that when he said, "If necessary, we will burn," he, uh, didn't actually mean it. It was a song reference, he says. RawStory presented his "explanation":

I made that comment to paraphrase a spiritual song, "Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego," in which the three were given a choice -- to bow to the image of Nebucahdnezzar or burn in a furnace. "We will burn" means that we will accept any sanction from the government for resisting [Friday’s] Supreme Court decision. We do not support any violence or physical harm.

Well, you can hear for yourself what the good pastor said up above, and while it's possible that this is what he was thinking, it's not what he said, which is all we have to go by. Also, he seems awfully murky on the meaning off "we will burn," which means, you know, we will burn. When Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego expressed their willingness to burn, what they meant was that they were prepared to burn -- in, you know, that famously fiery furnace.

If they had meant that they would "accept any sanction from the government for resisting" the order to bow to the image of Nebucahdnezzar, they could have said that, just like Pastor Rick could have said that. Probably nobody would have written a song about it, but that's okay, because if what you mean is that you have the courage of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego except for the part about having the courage, there really isn't any need for a song, is there?

#

As the Supreme thug-justices issue desperate cries for mental-health help, could they take advantage of provisions of the ACA?

Plus: "Scalia Is a Douche" is a brunch hit in Philly


Watch poor Cartoon Justice Nino having his "terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day" at 4:19 of the Daily Show clip below.

by Ken

It's a sweet conceit on the part of the Daily Show animation team to imagine that the Supreme Court's own Big Rat Bastard Justice merely had a "terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day," when what he has really had -- as Jon Stewart suggests in the piece proper, is that he has had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad career.



In my coverage last week of this term's marquis Supreme Court decisions -- the affirmation of Obamacare subsidies announced Thursday and the constitutionally guaranteed right to marriage equality announced Friday -- I mostly ignored the assorted dissenting opinions, for the obvious reason that they were, you know, dissenting opinions, which is to say not the Court's rulings. Howie fortunately devoted a good deal more attention to the opposition, on and off the Court. I say "fortunately" because this matters.

In the case of the ACA subsidies and the justices, it matters because three of them announced that they simply can't read, and by virtue of that admission should be encouraged at the very least to resign from the Court on the grounds that they lack the necessary basic skills for the job. I suppose we could write it off by saying that it was "only" three justices who were unable or unwilling to grasp the simplest, most fundamental facts about the non-case, which had no justification except an ideological hit job commissioned from right-wing ideological lawyerly hit men. But is it really much consolation that "only" three justices have no shame about being either raving imbeciles or principle-free ideological hooligans?

Far worse, of course, was the dreadful cue provided to the nation by the outpouring of not just imbecility but savagery and outright insanity on display from the complement of four thug-justices, with Chief Justice "Smirkin' John" Roberts back on his accustomed team. They screeched like demented beasts in four deranged dissenting opinions assailing the majority opinion on marriage equality written by usual thug-justice cohort "Slow Anthony" Kennedy, which was joined by the Court's four moderate justices. After that display, it's hard to understand how any of these creatures is allowed to roam free in the streets without at least being tested to make sure that whatever afflicts them isn't contagious.

And here we come up, as we frequently do when dealing with the Modern American Right, against the problem common to the stupid and the insane -- that their condition generally renders them incapable of grasping their condition. Not only were the Crackpot Four incapable of recognizing the terrifying extremity of their raving; they failed to notice the chasm that lies between their bizarro, bonkers response and the endless succession of sane, principled dissents filed by the Court's moderates while the thugs have routinely shredded the Constitution, the law, and basic human decency. Yes, occasionally the moderates offer a flash of anger, but far more occasionally than the scope and depth of the provocations they face would prompt. And even then they manage to be respectful -- of unreasoning beasts who might most generously heard to be screaming for mental-health intervention.sda


MEANWHILE IN PHILADELPHIA, "ANTONIN SCALIA
IS A DOUCHE" IS A HIT AS A BREAKFAST SPECAL

[Click to enlarge.]

As HuffPost's d3clark put it, "Antonin Scalia is toast - literally and figuratively"). Even if you're a habitué of Sam's Morning Glory Diner on S. 10th St. in the South Philly neighborhood of Bella Vista ("Everything we serve is mindfully made from scratch with the freshest of ingredients"), you had to be a timely bruncher this weekend to catch the specials put on the menu by the diner's weekend-specials specialist, Sean Gaittens, with the enthusiastic approval of owner Carol Mickey: a pair of " 'The Supreme Court Finally Got It Right' Quiches" (one for meat-eaters, one for vegetarians) and an "Antonin Scalia Is A Douche Special" offered two ways, as an egg scramble or a frittata.

"The Supreme Court Finally Got It Right" Quiches
Your choice of two different quiches: one for the vegetarians among us and one for those who have chest hair. Meatie Quiche - A quiche with tomatoes, prosciutto (fresh from the Italian market!), spinach and brie cheese. Veggie Quiche - One with asparagus, onion, parsley, basil and oregano for some added flavoring and topped with smoked mozzarella - either one comes served with your choice of potatoes or a small house salad. 13/12

The Antonin Scalia Is A Douche Special Scrambled
A hefty portion of scrambled eggs mixed with andouille sausage, tomato, scallions and monetary [sic] jack cheese - comes served with potatoes or grits and a homemade buttermilk biscuit (toast can be subbed form .75 extra) 13

The Antonin Scalia Is A Douche Special Frittata
Same as above but served as a frittata. 14

According to BillyPenn.com's Danya Henninger:

Over the weekend, Sam’s Morning Glory Diner ran a pair of specials that sold out faster than any dish in the South Philly restaurant’s 17-year history. It wasn’t the ingredients that made them a hit — although they were reportedly delicious — it was their titles, which referenced the Supreme Court’s historic June 26 ruling that the right to same-sex marriage is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The “Antonin Scalia is a Douche” special brought eggs scrambled or in a frittata with andouille sausage, tomato, scallions and monterey jack cheese. There was enough sausage to make around 150 of the dish, and it was so popular on Saturday that it sold out by 10 AM on Sunday morning, within two hours of the doors opening.

“The Supreme Court Finally Got It Right” quiches — with tomatoes, prosciutto, spinach and brie or all veg with asparagus, onion and smoked mozz — sold out even more quickly.

Danya noted that Mickey’s husband asked later if she'd been afraid of offending anyone, and she said she hadn't -- "if someone was offended, she didn’t need them as a customer." The, and "is personally familiar with the issues marriage inequality can cause," told BillyPenn: "Not one single person complained. The atmosphere in here was really wonderful. People were just loving saying it! 'I'll have the Scalia Is a Douche, please.' "

HuffPost's d3clark suggests that the "breakfasts are much more easily digested than Scalia's opinions." They do sound mighty tasty. It's probably fortunate that Justice Nino wasn't among the diners. He could have eaten the entire supply single-gluttonously.




SPEAKING OF THE SUPREME COURT --

We still have to take account of the surprisingly large amount of Court business held in reserve for release following the two blockbuster decisions, lending them something of the quality of a "Supreme Court dump." Probably for this reason we should be scrutinizing this stuff more closely, even though the rulings don't seem ominous as one might fear, the obvious exception being the slapdown of the EPA, making one wonder if that agency, so high on the Right-Wing Hate List, is now in the thug-justices' crosshairs.

Well, there are also the announcemenst that the Court will be hearing a case involving mandatory dues collection for public-sector unions and will be revisiting the University of Texas's use of affirmative in admissions policy. There's the potential for much mischief here.

Maybe tomorrow.

#