Anti-Semitic Slurs Thrown at a Jew for Supporting Health Care

Check out this video out, unbelievable....

Swine Flu Hoax?

I was planning on writing a blog today on the "cash for clunkers" program today, but hearing certain information...I felt I had to address this. We all know there are lies, or "mis-information" as Obama would call it, on health reform. Death Panels, abortions, gov. take over etc. etc. We all know people on the right, and people funding the right, are trying incredibly hard to fight of reform at any cost. But honestly, I couldnt belive what I read today. Dick Armey, chairman of Freedom Works, released this statement this week, "

"In September or October there will be a hyped up outbreak of the swine flu which they'll say is as bad as the boubonic plague to scare the bed-wetters to vote for the health care reform"

This will probably one of the few times I will swear on this blog. But honestly, are you fucking serious?! Dick Armey, former House Majority Leader, says swine flu is hoax to pass health reform. Let show you how utterly out-of-this world this statement is, at the time Armey made that comment, according to the Wall Street Journal, more than 7,511 people have been hospitalized due to the swine flue, and 477 have died...in the US alone. And he has the nerve to say swine flu is a hoax!?

This is why, liberals in congress taking a hard nose view on health care, saying public option or no reform is good thing. Because republicans like Armey, Grassley, Palin, Mccaughey, all of them, will stop at nothing to break reform. They will do whatever it takes, ethical or non-ethical, to make sure reform doesnt pass. Check out these numbers from an NBC poll based on "mis-information" and downright lies,

THE POLL: 45 percent said it's likely the government will decide when to stop care for the elderly; 50 percent said it's not likely.

THE FACTS: Nothing being debated in Washington would give the government such authority. Critics have twisted a provision in a House bill that would direct Medicare to pay for counseling sessions about end-of-life care, living wills, hospices and the like if a patient wants such consultations with a doctor. They have said, incorrectly, that the elderly would be required to have these sessions.

THE POLL: 55 percent expect the overhaul will give coverage to illegal immigrants; 34 percent don't.

THE FACTS: The proposals being negotiated do not provide coverage for illegal immigrants.

THE POLL: 54 percent said the overhaul will lead to a government takeover of health care; 39 percent disagree.

THE FACTS: Obama is not proposing a single-payer system in which the government covers everyone, like in Canada or some European countries. He says that direction is not right for the U.S. The proposals being negotiated do not go there.

THE POLL: 50 percent expect taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for abortions; 37 percent don't.

THE FACTS: The House version of legislation would allow coverage for abortion, but the bill says a beneficiary's own money — not taxpayer funds — must be used to pay for the procedure. How that would be enforced has not been determined.

What is the red is not my writing either. That is sheer fact, no opinion based on the poll and whats in the bill. My point is, democrats need to get on board like the republicans did these past 8 years to pass some of their legislation. If republicans like Grassley do not want to negotiate, so be it, make the best bill you can and sign it without them. If they don't want health care reform, do not cater to them.

Note: I have been getting email's asking me to write on other topics in todays hot topic bubble besides health care as well, look for the next blog about cash for clunkers by the end of today.

Revived from the Dead; Public Option

Thank goodness. This weekend was a scary time for the public option, but somone has seemingly rose from the dark and is attempting to revive it. Anthony Weiner. Since Monday, he has been on T.V non-stop arguing relentlessly for a public option. So far, it seems 100 liberal democrats have decidedly said they will not vote on a bill that does not contain the public option. Weiner recently had a chat with Chris Matthews regaurding the public option. Check out this excperpt:

MATTHEWS: Suppose it’s got four elements in it. It’s got individual mandates. Everybody’s got to join. It’s got subsidies for people who are working people. It’s got some kind of encouragement to business to insure people. And it’s got something to do with reform in terms of pre-existing conditions and portability.
WEINER: And no...
MATTHEWS: Will you vote for a bill like that?

WEINER: And no cost containment so the costs keep going up and it bankrupts our government? I can’t vote for that.

Not giving in, thats what Weiner and the progressives are doing, and frankly thats what needs to happen right now. It is because of these progressive liberals that are playing decisive hardball that other "blue dog" democrats and other memebers of congress mroe likely to fold simply wont be able to. Its all or nothing with the public option...Republicans vs. Democrats...luckily the Democrats have the advantage. Weiner understands that, and its time all Democrats in congress...and even Republicans understand it too:

MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask you this. Is there any way to get a bill past the Congress except with 60 votes in the Senate and 218 in the House?
WEINER: Yes, I think we can do it with 51 in the Senate under reconciliation.
MATTHEWS: But you would never be — what — what — you would be willing to blow up the Senate rules and basically push it through that?
WEINER: What do you mean blow up the Senate rules? Look, there’s a reason that there’s a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and Democratic presidency. That middle block of Americans want us to get this done.
MATTHEWS: OK.
WEINER: I don’t think we’re blowing up anything....
WEINER: Look, outside of this town, the American people really don’t care about whether Chuck Grassley [votes] ... for it or not.

Enough is enough.

Yet another reason Why Grassley is a Douche...

Hi everyone, sorry I couldnt give you a po
st today..I am at dealing with a family death. But here is cop-out. Yet another reason why Sen. Grassley sucks... by TMD titled:

Douchebag Defines "Bipartisanship"

On today's "Morning Meeting with Dylan Ratigan" on MSNBC, Iowa Senator Charles Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, said that even if the committee's final version of a health insurance reform bill gives him everything he says he wants, he will vote against it.

When NBC's Chuck Todd, in a follow-up question on the show, asked the Iowa Republican if he'd vote against what Grassley might consider to be a "good deal" -- i.e., gets everything he asks for from Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D) -- Grassley replied, "It isn't a good deal if I can't sell my product to more Republicans."

In short, Grassley says he's willing to walk away from legislation in which he gets everything he wants. Over to you, Max Baucus...

This is what "bipartisanship" means to Republicans. "Give us everything we want, and we will still vote against it because the successful passage of health care reform will be a victory for a Democratic president and a Democratic congress, and we're more interested in regaining power and keeping those big insurance company donations coming in than we are in ensuring easier, more affordable access to health care."

It's time for the President and the leadership in Congress to wake the hell up.

Pass the health care reform bill YOU want. FORGET the Republicans! Leave them on the sidelines to complain and bitch and whine and moan about how nobody listens to them.

If it's a good bill, Democrats reap the benefits and the GOP continues to shrink and dissolve.

If it's a bad bill, we take our deserved lumps.

But for God's sake, if it wasn't time to stop letting a tiny, regional, minority party dictate policy on something so vital to the economy and to the well-being of every American -- hearing that they aren't even interested in PASSING a bill should be a clarion call to the densest among us.

Do you HEAR me, Rahm?

Interesting stuff, No?

Mortal Kombat! Arlan v. Grassley

If this health care debate couldn't get any more insane, it just has. Senator Arlan Spector, who has received the brunt of the vicious town hall meetings, has been clearly agitated with Grassley's rumored "death panel" claims. After being probed to call Senetor Grassley, Spector just received his message- Check out the video from Crooks and Liars:




But the battle wasn't over there, Spector still angry, ran home and jumped on his computer. With one swift move of the arm he was on Twitter...and posted this:

“Called Senator Grassley to tell him to stop speading (sic) myths about health care reform and imaginary ‘death panels."'

Grassley was quick to reply with an uppercut of his own:

“Specter got it all wrong that I ever used words ‘death boards’,” Grassley wrote. “Even liberal press never accused me of that. So change ur last Tweet Arlen.”

(See the truth about Grassley's statement here)


Damn, now all we can do is wait for the next blow to land. This is better than a fight from I Love New York!

Why the Public Option Sucks....

I came across this cartoon from The Far Left Side i think it does a fantastic job at illustrating the debate on health care...

Check out more rather funny political cartoons at farleftside.com

3 Reasons Why Chuck Grassley Sucks

Normally I am not that blunt, but honestly, he does. So here are 3 reasons in no particular order why Sen. Grassley sucks.










1) He is a hypocrite, or a grandma killer: Sen. Grassley has been one of the few senators to endorse the idea that "death panels" actually exist. Well, never mind the fact that the provision in the bill was introduced by a republican, lets take a look at how Grassley really feels. In 2003, in a bill called Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 there was a similar section of the bill that proposed end-of-life counsling. Guess who was adamntly in favor of it? Grassley. You suck, you hypocrite.

2) He is a liar:So today Sen. Grassley fired a statement claiming he never called Pelosi's bill a "death panel"...check this quote out:

I've never called the Pelosi provisions a 'death panel.' The issue is whether end-of-life provisions should be part of legislation that's about controlling health care spending

Thats what Grassley said earlier today, that the reason he was opposed to the end-of-life provisions is because of health care spending... Hmm lets see about that.






Interesting...



So your right Sen. Grassley, you never actually said the words "death panel"...but you did say the gov. will pull the plug on grandma for end of life provisions. The same end of life provisions that you voted on in 2003, and same end of life provisions your grandson voted on in 2008. You suck, you liar.

3) The last reason? What could possibly stand ranks against lies and hypocrisy? Idiocracy...take a look

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Chuck Grassley's Debt and Deficit Dragon
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

Senator Grassley...you suck, you idiot, you hypocrite, you liar.

myLOt

myLot User Profile

Obama Misfires On Gun Law

Obama was in Yellowstone National Park these past few days on a working vacation. He was frolicking with the wildlife, eatin ice cream with his daughters, and ....talking about health care. What a vacation. Besides health care, however, Obama had other complaints of his administration, that frankly, I agree with.

Obama, upon visiting Yellowstone, has been trailed with complaints over gun laws that were passed regaurding national parks. Usually, I agree with Obama on gun laws. He supports the 2nd amendment, but not stupidly enough to promote self-destructive behavior. Many say he is all over the map on gun issues, but I'll argue he is right where he should be...in the middle. That is until May of this year.

In May President Obama signed a gun law that allowed firearms in national parks as long as states allow it. The law repealed a provision from the Reagan Administration that foreced all firearm holders to store their firearms in a secure compartment such as a glove compartment or trunk. However, with Obama's new law, people can bear firearms in the open, as long as it abides by state laws.

Now the arguement for the 2nd ammendment is safety. One has the right to bear arms to protect his/herself. However, in national parks, the emminent threat of assult is lessened, thus there is no need for guns and the danger to the wildlife preserve they hold. I think it is concievable this was a politicall move by the President to soften opposition from him in the centerists/independent area, especially in the west. However, when you start acting based on politics, and not on issues, things get out of hand very quickly. Lets hope it doesnt for the President.

Maddow vs. Dick Armey....Meet the Press!

Especially after Dick Armey resigned from DLP Piper late last week due to the press, specifically Rachel Maddow, exposing his affiliation with Freedomworks, an orginazition dedicated to the disruption of town hall debates he shot a few choice words back at the press, specifically Maddow, in a press release. Yesterday the two appeared on meet the press to debate along with former Sen. Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D, S.D) and Sen Tom Coburn (R-Okla). The four duked it out over an all out debate, where Maddow, not suprsingly at all, more than held her own. Check it out.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Its Frost v. Nixon part 2!

[Raspy voice: I am part of FreedomWorks not the Tea Party Coalition]
[Maddow: ...Freedomworks is part of TeaParty Coalition]

Hypocracy, Lies, False Intentions -- What's new GOP?

Before you play these clips, I want to go over a few things about end of life counseling, advanced directories, and living wills. That way there is no confusion about what Maddow is saying--because you can deduce it for your self. And if you want to play the evil music in the post before this, be my guest.

What are advanced directives?

Advanced directives or advanced decisions are instructions given by individuals specifying what actions should be taken for their health in the event that they are no longer able to make decisions due to illness or incapacity. -Wiki

Living wills?

The living will is the oldest form of advance directive...A living will usually provides specific directives about the course of treatment that is to be followed by health care providers and caregivers. In some cases a living will may forbid the use of various kinds of burdensome medical treatment. -Wiki

End-of-life Counsling? Despite being present in the government for over 20 years, and being proposed in HR 3200 by a Republican, here is what it is acording to the text of the bill itself. So this is what the bill actually says. First off, end of life counsling isnt mentioned in the bell its called advanced care planning counsling, and what does it propose? Exactly what it says,

‘advance care planning consultation’ means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning - H.R 3200 sec 1233

Now watch this... its amazing really.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Socialism is Socialism-- but Nazi'z werent, Limbaugh.

Wrong. It doesn't. But Rush Libaugh seems to think so. A few days back on his talk radio show, he gave a rant about socialism. Eventually the rant came concluded with this, completely mistaken statement:

"Socialism is socialism wherever it is, whatever you call it. But don't forget, folks, the term "Nazi" comes from the German word for National Socialism"


He is right...but mostly wrong. Yes, the Nazi word essentially stand for National Socialist German Workers party, but Nazi's were probably the farthest thing from Socialism. Remember, Hitler hated communists. Communism and Socialism, are essentially where everyone in the state are equal in standing, anyone who read any of Marx or studied any Euro history knows that. Nazi's were the opposite. I mean, they didnt just put down a class of citizens, they exterminated them! If socialism, communism, and Nazism/fascism were put on a spectrum it would look like this:

Spectrum of Ideologies

<---------------------------------->

________Nazism___________________Communism/Socialism

The truth behind the "death panels"...

(Note: This blog will be discussing section 1233 of H.R 3200. To ensure that everything in this blog concerning the bill is true here is the link to the actual bill)



First off, as you read this I suggest you play this music. The most epic evil, horror, music ever.


And now...the truth behind the death panels. Who is behind them?




Betsy McCaughy.




Who is she? And why should she start such a horrible rumor--such a ridiculous and utterly false concept?

Lets take those one at a time. Betsy McCaughey, besides being a succubus (a little humor), she is the director of medical device company called Cantel Medical Corp; former lieutenant governor of New York; she is a senior at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank. How conservative are we talking here? The Capital Research Center, a non-partisan, independent, group that seeks to rank non-profits and documents their funding, allocates Hudson as a 7 on its ideological spectrum with 8 being "Free Market Right" and 1 "Radical Left."

Yeah, that conservative. Here is the kicker, guess where they get their funding? Pharmaceutical companies, drug store chains, and biomedical companies. Yeah, the same group of people who oppose a reformed health care because of a fear the government will regulate prices on their drugs.

Now the basis of this lie didn't start with the H.R 3200, but rather with the stimulus package and its provision on heath care spending. She threw a fit on Fox and CNN and misquoted the provision to say the government will, "guide decisions at the time and place of care", drawing the implication that the government will decide what your doctor will do, even if it means euthanasia if your treatment is too costly. Of course this fear of a government take over carried over to the health care reform and...viola you have the "death panel" origin.


What did H.R 1 really say? That the government will "provide appropriate information to help guide the decisions at the time and place of care". So what is this saying? The government will provide information, that doctors can access at any time, to help them in their decision of treatment. Because too often corporations, like the pharmaceuticals that funds McCaughey, give falsified or skewed information to doctors which result in unnecessary prescriptions, and unnecessary tests that make the health care system inefficient more expensive.

These corporations are the same corporations that shot down the health care reform in 93', the same corporations that are responsible for the skyrocketing premiums and plummeting medical salaries. These people are the reason why we dont have universal health care like france, or italy (they top the chart for health care)-- the reason we have people being denied coverage on fatal illnesses. They are the reason we need reform!

Dont belive me on her motive of recieving funding from pharmaceuticals? You dont have to. Read McCaughey letter to Pharma Ceo Alan Holmer,

"Asking Pharma (a pharmaceutical company) to fund my work at the Hudson institute, because my writings on health care policy can make a substantial difference in the public opinion and in the nation's capitol."

And she sure has, people actually believe old people will be put through euthanasia. She has made a substantial difference not only in the public opinion but also in the nation's capital. We have Sarah Palin bolstering ridiculous comments about a death panel that decides whether or not a person should have the right to life. But its not just wacky right wing would be politicians, its actual politicians. Sen. Grassley told his constituents they "have a right to be feared." He actually endorsed this ridiculous nonsense of McCaughey and sold it to the public!

What the "death panel" is referring to is section 1233 of the health care bill. What section 1233 suggests is "end of life counseling"--no not for the way you want to die, but for how your treatment will go to reduce costs for senior citizens and medicare alike. End of life counseling has been no new thing in our health care system. In fact when the section was added to the bill, guess how many objections there were? None. Not one. Not even from a republican. In 2007, in fact, a few republicans helped suggest and cosign a bill entitled "Medicare End of Life Counseling Act"....Go figure.

So lets outline how this stupid idea began:

First came the stimulus revision and McCaughey's outlandish comments

Secondly, on July 16, she goes on ex. Senator Fred Thompsons radio show and butchers section 1233 of H.R 3200...lighting the match for the "death panel" comments calling the bill bill "a vicious assault on elderly people" and that it will "cut your life short."

Third: July 24 she wrote a collumn pretty much outlining the same thing, tugging on heart strings by a hypothetetical situation of a Grandma with Parkinson's disease not getting treatment by "Obamacare"

Next comes Rep. Michele Bachman who almost recited the article verbatim at time on the House floor.

And then, the shit hit the fan...and all over none other than...Sarah Palin. Who on her facebook wrote the infamous "death panel comment"

And now...Sen Grassley and his endorsement of McCaughey's ideas. And these are just people of politics.

We are not even talking about the crap Beck, Limbuagh and Drudge.com have been spewing.

Now, the damage has been done, thanks to McCaughey. People like her helped shoot down universal health care in 93' with terms like "socializied medicine", "death panels", "government take over", and they are trying to shoot it down again when we need a health care reform the most. With premiums skyrocketing and the the US health care system rank plummeting...this is not the time for greedy corporate puppets and stupid politicians trying to shut down health care. The very idea is scarier than the music your hearing right now...

John Ziegler Doesn't Like Academics Because They Are Liberal

John Ziegler, a Republican talk show host, unleashed a rant this morning on his radio show about how Sarah Palin's "death panel" comment was truthful. He criticized the media for assuming Obama is well intentioned, honest, and wise after major media corporations dispelled the rumors of the "death panel" as Sarah Palin so eloquently put. He especially targeted one New York Times article that compared Sarah Palin's idiotic comment, to 50 percent of people in Egypt believing Israel was behind 9/11 to illustrate the point: stupid people are everywhere. Ziegler's problem with the article? They used factcheck.org to double-check their facts. Ziegler, outraged at clear this monstrosity, screamed more or less,

"I am so sick of people saying factcheck.org is a non-partisan organization. I am so sick of it! Every knows factcheck.org is run by lefty liberal academic type,"

Ziegler would rather have some dimwit type running the organization so they would recognize all these "death panel" comments as what they are...the obvious truth. Maybe he should apply.

Sarah Palin Good Message, Bad Intentions.

In the past few weeks the health care reform has been getting increasingly angrier and more violent, no thanks to the crazy extremist of the Republican. However, at least one Republican will dare to stand up against her party to bring stability and order to angry, mistaken, citizens of the Republican party. Only one person has the intellect, the knowledge of health care, the charisma to dispel these angry mobs and turn the debate back to the issues at hand. Who you ask? Who in the Republican party actually knows about health care? Why none other than Sarah Palin.

Hopefully you picked up on my sarcastic tone. If not, well I need to work on my writing. But anyways, Sarah Palin actually did something useful today. Despite being completely hypocritical, and somewhat impersonal and indirect, Sarah Palin made an attempt to silence the extreme, mistaken, angry Republicans. No she didnt hold a press confrence, she didnt say it in a speech, she didn't even say it on twitter-- she said it on Facebook. Because what better way to reach angry, mistaken, Republicans than on facebook. In a note, she stated,

"There are many disturbing details in the current bill that Washington is trying to rush through Congress, but we must stick to a discussion of the issues and not get sidetracked by tactics that can be accused of leading to intimidation or harassment. Such tactics diminish our nation’s civil discourse which we need now more than ever because the fine print in this outrageous health care proposal must be understood clearly and not get lost in conscientious voters’ passion to want to make elected officials hear what we are saying. Let’s not give the proponents of nationalized health care any reason to criticize us."

Palin is right. Stop making up ridiculous comments about health care. Stop yelling at congressmen! Stop talking about putting old senior citizens out to death! Stop talking about down syndrome babies dying from the new health care reform! Don't call Obama's health care plan a "death panel"! People who do these things are diminishing our nations civil discourse, it sidesteps the real issue. And its down right stupid. People should never say these things right Sarah Palin?

While its pretty clear she is covering for her last pretty outrageous statement on health care, her message is actually a good one and should be listened to. Even if it is ridiculously hypocritical. Cover your own ass, and be praised for restoring society--now that is politics at its finest.

4 Examples As To Why Guillible (Not Dumb!) Old People Shouldn't Listen to Glenn Beck...Or Rush Limbaugh

As many of you, I have been following this debate on health care. As I am watching the news, it seems every time I flip to FOX news someone like Glenn Beck or one of his minions are talking about some bogus government take-over of health care or some other ridiculous nonsense. Oh, well, who listens to Glenn Beck anyways?

Unfortunately...a lot of people. A lot of gullible (not dumb!), misinformed (not dumb!) old people. Recently I have come across a lot of statements made by senior citizens worried about their health care, medicare, or their life that are incredibly disturbing. So, here are top four example as to why gullible (Not Dumb!) old people shouldn't listen to Glenn Beck...Or Rush Limbaugh. Those with weak stomachs...please don't read on.


4) Obama recently received a letter from a concerned elderly citizen. According to Obama, obsurd statements not unlike this one were tossed around:

'I don't want government-run health care. I don't want socialized medicine. And don't touch my Medicare.'"

Now I am going to let the government take over of health care baloney go. While I dont necessarily agree with it, there are bigger, more mistaken remarks. ...Don't touch my Medicare? Are you kidding me? For those of you scratching your heads wondering why this is such an absurd comment...Medicare is administered by none other than the United States Government! "I dont want a government run medicare program!" Give me a break.

3) While Obama was having his town hall meeting in a grocery store an elderly lady actually inquired (and half accused) that under the new Health Care plan older American citizens "will just be put out to pasture"

Put out to pasture? To this persons credit, she did begin this statement with semi-legitamite concerns over whether she will be able to keep her doctor. The preface to this statement is the only reason this isnt a number 2 or 1. Yes, Obama, the evil Muslim, Kenyan Citizen, wants to kill all the old people because they are too costly! That fiend!


2) At a town meeting in South Carolina held by Rep. Robert Inglis (R), a women, very emphatically got up, made all sorts of dramatic noises and movements to attract attention and said this remarkable demand:

"Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

I belive we went over this one already. Medicare is a goverment administered program. Perhaps Bill Maher put it best. To say something like "Keep you government hands off my Medicare!" is like " driving cross country to protest highways."

The Republican Congressman (Inglis) holding the meeting even had enough. Aparently he tried to explain the truth to the confused citizen by saying "Actually, sir, your health care is being provided by the government."

The best part? The person wasn't having any of it! She didn't believe a Republican Congressman over someone like Glenn Beck! Good Grief!

1) On July 28, Obama heard from another elderly woman who said this incredibly mistaken (not dumb!)

"I heard there is a clause in there that everyone that's Medicare age will be visited and told to decide how they wish to die"

Okay...maybe some of them are dumb. But then again it doesn't help that people like Sarah Palin are saying with the proposed Health Care will kill her down syndrome baby. So, thank you "Renegade", for reducing the intellect of elderly Republicans everywhere.

In honor of Maggie M. Thornton: 5 Empathetic Supreme Court Decisions Which Bettered Society

I was reading a blog on Sotomayor, and I came across a comment criticizing Sotomayor about her "wise Latina comment". Needless to say, the discussion that later followed inevitably led to the comment "Empathy has no place on SC" or something along those lines. Actually here the comment verbatim:

Maggie M. Thornton said...

Empathy should have no place inside the Supreme Court. Once you stoop to consider your empathetic feelings, you have added social justice to the Court. It's just wrong.

So in honor of Ms. Maggie M. Thornton, I decided to give a list of my top 5 most famous empathetic supreme court rulings which progressed our society to show, while empathy should NOT be taken into heavy consideration when nominating a Supreme Court Justice, it definately can be a very good thing.

Okay so before I begin, let me explain something about empathy. In reality, empathy is a lot like personal bias. The best way to describe empathy is to "put yourself in another shoes" to understand their situation. Sounds great right? Well, not exactly to everyone. The reason why Republicans, such as my friend Maggie (I think), have a problem with empathy is because it will lead to Judicial Activism (OH NO!). But what people need to understand is that every SC justice has empathy towards a certain group due to their biases. Just look at Chief Justice Roberts for example, in the New Yorker Jeffery Toobin examines the record of Justice Roberts and finds that in EVERY court ruling Roberts sides with the Federal Executive Branch, the State, or the Corporation over the individual. Its not a coincidence that Roberts used to be a corporate lawyer; its his empathy he has from being a corporate lawyer that effects his decision. Anyways, I digress, so without further ado....


5) Roe v. Wade - Okay, so I know Maggie doesn't agree with me on this one. But obviously I believe abortion laws, such as this stature, has bettered soceity. In this case the SC overturns a Texas abortion law claiming it violates a woman's right to privacy under the 9th Amendment. Thank God, Justice Blackmun had three daughters...


4) Plessy v. Fergason - Yeah, Yeah. I know this case didn't overturn anyting, but Justice Harlan's dissent became a steppingstone in racial equality. In this an African American sat in a white booth in a train station. He got prosecuted. The Court of Lousiana upheld the prosecution. It went to SC. SC upheld the Court of Lousiana, but not without some emphatic words from Harlan. Little note about Harlan: He is well known to be often have his decisions or dissents be effected by his on personal convictions. He was a huge proponent of a racial equality not only as a SC judge but as a teacher too. Its no suprise that almost all of his dissents, had to do with racial equality.

3) McCulloch v. Maryland: Long story short, the there was the United States Bank in Maryland, and Maryland tried to tax it. The Bank refused to pay. BOOM! Lawsuit. The court of Maryland sides with Maryland. The decision gets appealed and the SC rules in favor of McCulloch (the US Bank). The Chief Justice? Justice Marshall, one of the biggest proponents of a strong centralized government. Imagine if it the SC decided to never take the case, Yikes!

2) Brown v. the Board of Education - Now we are getting into it. This subtly emphatic ruling changed the future of our nation. If Harlan's dissent was a steppingstone for racial equality, this is a milestone. How empathetic was this ruling? Chief Justice Warren actually was convinced that the Court's opinion should be short and clear, enough for the public to understand what is to be accepted as the new social norm. Not only did Warren look to change the law, he wanted to change societies view to frankly, match his own.

1) Marbury v. Madison : The king of all empathetic rulings. We all know this case, so here is why Cheif Justice Marshall's ruling was filled with empathy. While he ruled against his party, the Feds, ultimately he realized that by ruling against his party (Madison), he saved his party in the long run by issuing Judicial Review. Many people argue he should of pardoned himself from the case due to biases, lucky for us, he didnt.

Why Does Chuck Grassley Carry a Sword in His Trunk? To Kill The Debt and Defecit Dragon

Has anyone seen this video of Sen. Chuck Grassley (R)? It is by far the most ridiculous thing. I honestly could not believe what I was hearing...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Chuck Grassley's Debt and Deficit Dragon
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Spinal Tap Performance

6 Reasons Why Sotomayor Will Progress Our Society

This morning Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 68-31 to be our new Supreme Court Justice. In honor of this achievement for the democratic party, I thought I would give my top 6 reasons as to why Sotomayors induction betters our society:

1) Her credentials are impeccable: This is an easy one. Its no secret that Sotomayor is incredibly well qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. But just incase you haven't heard, here are a few of her qualifications:

• She graduated from Yale law school and was the editor of the Yale Law Journal
• She has served on every level of our judicial system including the U.S District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the 2nd Circut Court of Appeals.
  
• Her career has spanned three decades, and has been nominated by both a Republicans and Democrats.
• She has the unanimous approval of the American Bar Association

2) A wise woman comes to a better conclusion than a white male: Yeah, yeah... so Judge Sotomayor may not have been completely politically correct, or accurate, in this statement. However, I think there is some truth in the statement. When nine people decide how to interpret the law of the land, and more or less decide what is acceptable and what isnt, I think it is safe to say diversity of opinions and expirences is essential. Before Sotomayor was inducted this morning, there were no hispanic judges on the bench, only one woman, only one non-white judge, and only two democrats. Sotomayor, a moderately liberal latina women nominated by a democrat, will needless to say, bring some diversity to the court.


3) Republicans are exposed as the racists they are:
Before you start throwing full wine bottles at your computer screen, you should know, I dont think republicans are racist...for the most part. But they arent doing themselves any favors to rid the steryotype. 31 republicans voted no on Sotomayor, many for the first time in their careers--such as Sen. John McCain. I certainly have no problem with their opinions on Sotomayor, especially since she was inducted, but the Hispanic community might. I mean seriously... John McCain wants to win Hispanic votes and the first Supreme Court Nominee he votes against is Hispanic. Give me a break!

The good that comes out of this...many of the states those republican sentors represented had a heavy hispanic population...which as of this morning are feeling quite liberal.
4) Gays/Lesbian : She is hailed as a outstanding choice by the Gay/Lesbian Alliance. After the travesty of Prop 8 in California, the United States could use a little forward movement...

5) She understands the role of the SC: Conservatives left and right, er, only right actually, have been attacking Sotomayor on a statement she made in 2005, claiming she has an affinity towards judicial activism,

"All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made," she said, laughing a bit through the next part: "And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. Okay, I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I know."



First off, she makes it pretty clear she did not mean the appellete makes laws.

Secondly....did I miss something?! Of course the applette makes policy! It decides how to interpret the law, and whatever the court rules... whether it is upholding the law or appealing it the Supreme Court still makes the policy which forms the guideline in which we live by. Congress may make the laws, but those laws are challanged every day...and its the Courts who have the final say on whether society should abide by the rules or not.

6) She saved baseball: In reportedly 15 minutes Sotomayor issued an injuction which helped end the '94-'95 Major League Baseball strike. Uh, She saved an American Pastime...what more do you want Republicans?