You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
HUCKABEE: George, can you cite for me what statute Kim Davis would be required follow in order to issue a same-sex marriage license in Kentucky when her state specifically says, by 75 percent of the voters, that marriage means one man, one woman? Can you cite the statute at the federal or state level that she’s supposed to follow? Even the very form that she fills out specifically lists a male and a female. Does she have the authority just to scratch that out and create her own?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Doesn’t she have to the duty to obey a legal order from the court?
HUCKABEE: Well, you obey it if it’s right. So I go back to my question. Is slavery the law of the land? Should it have been the law of the land because Dred Scott said so? Was that a correct decision? Should the courts have been irrevocably followed on that? Should Lincoln have been put in jail? Because he ignored it.
As Stephanopoulos gazed on in bafflement, Huckabee added, with a straight face, “ We either are a people of government, a people of law, and we are a nation of the people, or we are a nation under the power of the Supreme Court.”
Maybe by “Constitutional conservative”, they mean a flat taxer who follows Paul Ryan’s exercise plan. As always original credit goes to The Onion.
Trentrunner
Remember, these are the people who believe an invisible sky wizard sent a nasty talking snake to coerce fruit choices out humanity’s two (white!) parents so that we would all be stained red with sin.
Listen to them on nothing. They are insane.
father pussbucket (fka gnomedad)
The only thing these guys understand is that they want what they want.
Robin G.
“Here’s my paperwork for my conceal and carry license.”
“Hmm… yep, yep, that’s everything. But no license for you.”
“Wait, what? Why not?”
“I don’t like guns.”
“Uh… okay, but I did everything I’m legally required to do to get this license. It’s your job to say so.”
“Yeah — ‘cept, no. Guns suck.”
“I’m not asking you to *sell* me the gun. We’re not going to hang out later and go to target practice.”
“Too bad. I really hate guns. So do lots of other people.”
“But it’s not the job of those people to say I’ve done what the state wants me to do to get a license they said I can have. It’s *your* job.”
“Yeah, but I don’t like that part. Go away. Next!”
I’m just wondering what the GOP would have to say about a conversation like that…
Seth Owen
Lincoln did not ignore Dred Scot. In fact, he got an amendment passed to overrule Dred Scot because it was the law of the land.
the Conster
These clowns have absolutely zero ability to imagine that they might be on the receiving end of their same fucked up “logic”, and how what they want is exactly what sharia law provides to the faithful. It’s pretty clear that they hate sharia law because it’s serious competition – just replace Jesus with Mohammed, and god with Allah, and you’ve closed the bubble tightly around you.
Baud
@Robin G.:
That would castigate you for that. Because cognitive dissonance has never been a problem for them.
Amir Khalid
Maybe there should be a term for those who pick and choose which parts of the US Constitution they like to obey. How does “cafeteria American” sound?
Schlemazel
@Robin G.:
Cite me a law that requires me to issue a gun permit! My Cosmic Muffin over rules you feeble courts.
Or words to that affect.
Baud
@Seth Owen:
Those are just facts. Not really relevant to the discussion.
rickstersherpa
Actually, Lincoln was very careful to draw a line between “unlawful resistance” to the Dred Scott decision and criticism. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-on-the-dred-scott-decision/
Further, Huckabee, in so many ways, is far closer to Chief Justice Roger Taney, in following a narrow interpretation of the Declaration of Independence about all “men” (and women) being created equal and endowed with an equal right to dignity and treatment before the law. Huckabee would treat heterosexuals superior over homosexuals and Evangelical Christians as being special snowflakes where the law is concern. Lincoln, whose own sexuality was somewhat ambiguous, I think would find Kennedy’s decision consistent with his “lodestar” of his political philosophy, the Declaration of Independence.
MattF
@Robin G.: The difficulty is that hating guns is rational. You have to concoct an explanation that depends on quotations from an ancient book of fables, written for sheepherders and enforced by people who have regular conversations with extra-terrestrials.
Haydnseek
A private ambulance company in a very rural area has no obligation whatsoever to help you should you have an accident with critical injuries. “Sorry, but all those rainbow stickers on your car mean that you’re obviously gay, so my deeply held personal religious beliefs prohibit me from helping you. There’s another hospital an hour or so away. You might want to call them. Maybe they can get an ambulance here in time. Maybe not. Have a blessed day!
SiubhanDuinne
@Seth Owen:
Too bad Stephanopoulos didn’t point that out to Huckabuck when he had the chance.
Amir Khalid
@the Conster:
These are not two different entities. “Allah” is just Arabic for God. One does not speak of the French, say, worshiping a “Dieu” different from “God”.
Germy Shoemangler
@Schlemazel: Cosmic Muffin or Hairy Thunderer overrules our puny man-made laws, apparently.
Germy Shoemangler
@SiubhanDuinne:
Does he even know? I’m sure he could discourse for hours on hair care and best tailors in NYC, or the best restaurants in Washington.
Germy Shoemangler
@Amir Khalid:
Buffet-Style Patriot?
MattF
@efgoldman: He used to be an actual politician, and he has the sort of talents, e.g., a natural ability to work a room, that make the media pay attention.
Haydnseek
@Germy Shoemangler: I saw what you did there! Phil Austin died this year. A loss deeply felt by all Firesign-Americans.
Baud
@Amir Khalid:
You know we have an obesity problem.
trollhattan
@efgoldman:
Huck has a good booker. That he’s an utter fraud offering phenomenally dangerous ideas seems not to count for anything.
redshirt
Resisting evil laws is usually a noble pursuit, but you also have to pay the consequences for doing so.
This of course is not an evil law the Fundies are protesting, which highlights just how fucked up Christianity is in this country when they align themselves to hate in the name of peace and love.
Orwell stuff, top to bottom.
trollhattan
@Haydnseek:
Wrong cite.
Germy Shoemangler
@Haydnseek: I was thinking of National Lampoon’s Deteriorata:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23MYYfp1qI4
But Phil Austin will be missed.
Belafon
I think constitutional conservative means that they use as little of the constitution as possible in their arguments so that they have some left for the next time.
Haydnseek
@trollhattan: what an amazing bit of synchronicity! I was listening to my pristine vinyl copy of Radio Dinner just the other night………..
Haydnseek
You’re right! It was Deteriorata. I stand gleefully corrected.
Germy Shoemangler
@Haydnseek: Their parody of Joan Baez was particularly brutal.
Haydnseek
@Germy Shoemangler: Yes, it was. That and the John Lennon parody were the highlights, IMHO.
trollhattan
@Haydnseek:
Have one of those myself…somewhere. Also, too, “Goodbye Pop” and “That’s Not Funny, That’s Sick.”
Haydnseek
@trollhattan: I should have picked those up when they were new. Don’t know why I didn’t, but they’re on the list I keep in my head when I’m haunting thrift stores, swap meets, and used record stores.
Germy Shoemangler
@Haydnseek: That’s Melissa Manchester on piano on Magic Misery Tour.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Robin G.: They would say:
“The Second Amendment says explicitly that I have a right to keep and bear arms. You, as an officer of the government, cannot deny me that right. Give me my gun permit or I’ll see you in court.”
If he thinks that the only law of the land is the Constitution (and ignores the rest of Amendment II, ignores Article I Section I that gives Congress legislative power, ignores the powers of the state legislatures to write laws, ignores 200+ years of court interpretation, etc., etc.) then the guy hypothetically quoted could think he has a strong case.
Otherwise, not so much.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
Thor Heyerdahl
Cafeteria Constitutionalist?
Constitutional Cafeterialist?
Haydnseek
@Germy Shoemangler: If I had done that, I would want it in my obituary.
Hungry Joe
Think of “the Constitution,” and “laws” as general guidelines that you follow until they conflict with actual instructions, e.g. don’t mix two types of cloth, stone to death wise-ass kids, and … there may be a couple of others. Hang on while I check the official Bronze Age Rulebook.
dmsilev
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Funny thing about that argument is that the _individual_ right to bear arms (as opposed to as part of a “well-regulated militia”) is due to …a Supreme Court decision.
redshirt
I’ve read the Bible once but I don’t remember anything about God saying gays can’t married. Did I miss it?
Those crudely drawn protest signs sure make me think I have….
Germy Shoemangler
@Haydnseek: Here’s another example of the complete disintegration of the “record” industry: Melissa Manchester had to launch an indiegogo campaign to raise money so she could release an album.
Back in the ’70s, she had a major label behind her.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@dmsilev: Yeah, funny how that works, isn’t it?
“Activist Judges subverting the will of the people!!11”
vs.
“Chief Justice Roberts has to stop the tyranny of ObamaCare!111”
:-/
Cheers,
Scott.
srv
Trump understands this democrat’s conflict, but there must be rule-of-law. He gets the peoples’ anger – if only Obama, Holder and Hillary ruled as Americans and not party apparatchiks.
catclub
@dmsilev: Yep. The response should be: “As soon as you prove to me that you are part of a well regulated militia, we will see about you right to a gun. Next.”
Belafon
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: “I don’t see your name in the Constitution.”
joel hanes
@Amir Khalid:
a term for those who pick and choose which parts of the US Constitution they like to obey. How does “cafeteria American” sound?
“Defendant” has a certain ring,
Haydnseek
@Germy Shoemangler: Not trying to be Mr. one-upmanship here, but in the 70’s a friend of mine wrote a song that was included on one of her albums. He got the first royalty check and was over the moon. I don’t remember the song, but I’ll bet I could find out with a bit of research on the interwebs. Artists make next to nothing from recordings now. Gotta play live. Not so easy for so many great artists………
Germy Shoemangler
@joel hanes:
As does “inmate”
redshirt
What’s a “well-regulated militia” even look like these days? The Oathkeepers? Those border hating loons?
Tommy
@redshirt: That is a really good question. It isn’t like 1780 so I don’t even know.
Chris
@SiubhanDuinne:
The thing is, this kind of thing is so preposterously, obviously bullshit that a lot of people don’t even think to respond with the obvious. The mind just goes blank. It’s like if someone comes to you and says with a straight face “the sky is pink.” You’re not going to react by opening the window and pointing out that it is, in fact, blue – it’s too stupid a statement to even argue with.
Which is a problem, because any conversation with conservatives is eventually going to have them saying plenty of such stupidities.
Right to Rise
Six Reasons for GOP optimism.
Basically, Trump and now Carson’s rise will make the rest of the field seem much more seasoned and experienced by comparison. This will ultimately redound to the benefit of Jeb, Rubio, Walker, Christie, etc.
Since the field has been so “flattened out”, many candidates will get a fresh look to start the real campaign season. Jeb, in particular, is going to face less pressure as he’s no longer the clear frontrunner yet still the ultimate favorite.
Money quote:
Sixth, with Hillary Clinton in free fall and Vice President Biden uncertain about entering the race, it makes less sense for candidates to spend time attacking Clinton. Meanwhile, as we get closer to actual voting, candidates will throw more elbows at one another, run comparative (some call them “negative”) ads and try to attack adversaries in the debate. Candidates with more money, more self-discipline (to sustain a line of attack) and more equanimity will have an easier time of it.
That last line means one person-Jeb.
SiubhanDuinne
@Germy Shoemangler:
Smörgåsbord Citizen?
redshirt
@Tommy: My reading of the second is as follows: There were no standing armies or even national guard, so “militias” were what was raised when fighting had to be done, and these people generally supplied their own equipment. Also, since hunting was pretty much the norm, guns we’re pretty useful. Finally, since it was frontier times, there were real threats from natives.
Today? None of these things apply. Except for hunting, and for most, that’s a sport, not a daily requirement to survive.
Chris
@redshirt:
Wouldn’t a well regulated militia be, well, the National Guard?
Amir Khalid
@redshirt:
I am not an American, let alone a professor of constitutional law, but my guess is that such a militia would be appointed, funded, and equipped by the state, and would take its orders from the governor or other duly elected official.
redshirt
@Chris: The Guard did not exist when the Constitution was drafted, did it?
And today, it still doesn’t fit since one would not expect a Guard member to supply their own weapons for duty.
Chris
@redshirt:
I didn’t think it literally existed at the time, only that it was the modern equivalent/descendant.
Amir Khalid
@Right to Rise:
It is really hard for anyone in the Juicitariat to take Jennifer Rubin’s opinions seriously.
Tommy
@redshirt: That is my take almost word for word. I tend to take a position to the right of my liberal self about guns. And that is hunting, which I’ve never done. But I know a lot of people that do and I don’t have an issue with a gun when used that way.
schrodinger's cat
Religion and politics make a toxic brew, when things go wrong, people pay with their lives.
dmsilev
@Amir Khalid: She’s got a Wrongness streak that rivals Bill Kristol, so we could take her seriously just as long as we remember to put a (invert all statements) note in front of any quotations.
redshirt
@Tommy:
Hunting and target shooting should be the only gun related activities.
Another HUGE difference between now and when the Constitution was written is that guns are about 10000 times more deadly now than they were back then. Guns back then were only marginally better than swords or arrows.
SiubhanDuinne
@Chris:
Quite so, but as Germy Shoemangler noted, Snuffleupagus quite likely doesn’t even know the “obvious.” His mind doesn’t go blank — it’s there already.
redshirt
@Amir Khalid:
You have it exactly right, for the times when the Constitution was composed.
srv
It’s 2015 and democrats still don’t know how to read the 2nd Ammedment. News at 11.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_29.html
One wonders exactly why James Madison drafted the Bill of Rights and thought only the 2nd Ammendment applied to State Powers. Individual Rights, State Powers, all the same thing, right? That’s a winning ideology for your side… let’s just try to be consistent (you people should try it sometime) and apply States’ Powers to all the rest of the BoR? Nope? Well, the textual jujitsu is on your part then, not conservatives. Please Liberalsplain without Hodorspeak.
I thought facts had a liberal bias. Except for the 2nd Ammendment.
Mike Dixon
Huck even imagines his own definition of “specifically”. In reality, the application form specifically lists a “first party” and a “second party”. Once upon a time, it listed “bride” and “groom”, but never “specifically a male and a female”.
http://www.kentucky.com/2015/08/16/3991744_kentuckys-new-genderless-marriage.html?rh=1
http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2015/08/16/20/28/douwB.AuSt.79.jpeg
I wonder if he will ever be corrected on and then acknowledge this sizable detail?
joel hanes
@Haydnseek:
Uh, I think that Cosmic Muffin / Hairy Thunderer comes from NatLampoon’s Deteriorata
Tommy
@redshirt: Many people I know hunt. I don’t. None of them wants a 30 bullet clip. Or an assault type weapon.
Or in my state if you want to hunt we got licenses. Seaons. Seems to me if the government wants to come take your gun we can. We don’t!
scav
He’s playing geography and temporal games too, he’s calling upon Kentucky polls on marriage in making his “Majority Rules!” play for cover for her actions. (There’s also a bit of a “States Rights!” appeal lurking.) He can’t really call on national polls, those are more strongly for SSM and are definitely trending even more in favor of it. His absolute “right” of the law is based on such geographically and temporally dodgy structures that he’s theoretically going to be arguing in favor of SSM in KY as soon as the first poll hits in favor (for all his appeal to Dred Scott, where he plays the game the other direction) and also for marijuana legality in states (damned be the feds!) where they’re in favor of it.
He’s built about a logical foundation as pick-up sticks. Fifty-two card pickup.
Feathers
@Amir Khalid: Yes, historically it referenced the fact that in Europe, Kings would hire mercenary armies to put down domestic rebellions. So while an army is required to protect the country’s freedom, the people had the right to make sure that it was made up of fellow citizens (i.e., themselves), rather than foreigners (aka bad people).
That got twisted into an individual right to carry firearms, which is a very different thing from “bear arms” meaning “join the army or police force.” When someone bears arms they are doing it on behalf of someone else, not themselves.
Mandalay
Some dumb but basic questions:
– Since Kim Davis is not being offered bail, if she sticks to her position does she remain in jail indefinitely?
– What are her options for getting out? For example, if she resigns from her job, is she automatically eligible for release? And if she refuses to resign how does she ever get out?
Mike J
@Mandalay: the judge can hold her for up to six months. Beyond that, she’s entitled to a jury trial. Or she could agree to do her job/resign before that.
Mike in NC
If Huck makes a pilgrimage to see poor Kim Davis, all of the other candidates will feel obliged to do likewise, making total jackasses of themselves.
Patricia Kayden
@Mandalay: Yes, I assume she’ll be in jail until she recants and obeys the Judge’s order.
Her options for getting out appear to be 1) obey the Judge’s order or 2) resign her position.
Otherwise, yes she could be in there indefinitely. Not sure what she’s accomplishing at this point but I guess she’s trying to be a good Martyr for something or the other.
trollhattan
@srv:
Wait, you’re still confused about the phrase “well-regulated militia”?
Never mind that, you’ve got Right to Rise here, begging to be schooled on Trump’s chances at the nomination. You go, boy! Get ‘er done,
Patricia Kayden
@Mike in NC: Actually at least three Republican candidates (Trump, Carson, Graham) have said that she has to obey the law. It seems that Paul, Cruz and Huckabee have been the only ones who are vocally supporting her.
Origuy
From the predecessor to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, article VI:
Ruckus
@Mike J:
If the judge released her in six months and she went back to her job and did the same thing again could he rule her in contempt a second time and give her another six months?
trollhattan
@Ruckus:
IANAL but yeah, the court order does not sunset and if she again defies it, she’s again in contempt of court.
BTW, along with the Cheney twins, Fox panel slams Davis and her lawyer. When you’ve lost Ailes….
Mike in NC
@Right to Rise: Stop quoting Jennifer Fucking Rubin because everything she writes is exactly ass-backwards.
rikyrah
I knew who he was, but I understand…..LOL
…………………………………
Twitter Loses Its Collective Mind Over Denzel Washington’s Son
She Matters: Now you know why the star of HBO’s Ballers looks so fine.
BY: DEMETRIA LUCAS D’OYLEY
Posted: Sept. 4 2015 4:43 PM
On Thursday afternoon, it seemed as if the 40-and-under ladies of Twitter had made a shocking discovery. As it would turn out, everybody’s mama’s celebrity crush had created a “sequel” of sorts for a new generation of fans.
Or, to put it plainly: Heartthrob Denzel Washington has a grown-ass son. And he is finnnnnne, just like his daddy!
http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2015/09/twitter_loses_its_collective_mind_over_denzel_washington_s_son.html?wpisrc=mostpopular
https://twitter.com/_yungfijiwater/status/639599973043163136
https://twitter.com/RukaTrue_/status/639483050041044993
Patricia Kayden
@trollhattan: When you’re trying to be a Rightwing Martyr, and you’ve lost the Fox panel, that’s pretty bad. Ms. Davis is just not a very sympathetic person and she’s miscalculated the public mood on marriage equality and gay rights.
Surreal American
@Right to Rise:
Meh. I’ll withhold judgment until Dick Morris and the Unskew Guy weigh in.
kuvasz
Like most Conservatives he thinks that the “Law” has to be only legislative in nature. Common law is what the judges are involved.
rikyrah
stop stop stop!!
Trump isn’t saying anything that the GOP hasn’t represented for generations. He just doesn’t say it in Frank Luntz-approved dogwhistles.
………………
Michael Cohen @speechboy71
The GOP is worried that it looks intolerant and racially insensitive and the NEW YORK TIMES IS ON IT! http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/republicans-fear-donald-trump-is-hardening-partys-tone-on-race.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0 …
2:13 PM – 7 Sep 2015
trollhattan
Known thugMister Awesome Richard Sherman gives a shout out to unions on Labor Day.Mr. Sherman is going to do big things when he’s done with football. In the meantime I want to see ring #2, guys.
WaterGirl
@trollhattan: I think he is going into politics when he’s done with football.
trollhattan
@Patricia Kayden:
The entire machinery pushing her into the public’s eye is so disconnected from reality it’s a wonder they don’t float off the planet in defiance of gravity.
Wait, is that the Rapture?
FlipYrWhig
@Origuy: Yup, I love that too, it’s very clarifying about the 2nd Amd. It seems to me that the wording of the 2nd Amd. is trying to answer the following question: if we don’t want a standing army because it can become a way for the government to oppress the people, and I get that, what do we do if there’s a rebellion or an invasion or the Indians decide they’ve had enough? And the answer is… maybe we should make sure there’s some kind of non-army fighting force that we can organize in an emergency but that melts away again when the emergency is over. And then the question is, OK, but how can we be sure that fighting force has the firepower and training to be effective? Isn’t that just reinventing the army? And the answer is, no, it’s different like this, we let people keep guns at home and in armories just in case, and every once in a while they should practice, and the government can’t stop the people from doing it. Voila, 2nd Amd.
FlipYrWhig
@WaterGirl: So is Tebow.
SRW1
@Baud:
Isn’t that an argument in support?
trollhattan
@WaterGirl:
I’d love that, something I
rarelynever say about pro athletes. He’s smart as a whip and has leadership qualities. Most important to me, he has interests far beyond the field and locker room.srv
@trollhattan:
You don’t even know what well-regulated means. It means operating and in good working order. Look up the Oxford Dictionary in the 18th century, not your hipster, post-FDR or Obama PC version. Then you can tell us what ‘militia’ means in the context of Individual Rights in the Bill of Rights.
Or not, because you can’t.
My job is not to entertain you or some Bush troll. It’s to question your perverse reality and show you the door to truth. There ends today’s lesson.
Geeno
@redshirt: Not even that – you have to remember the original constitution ONLY applied to the Federal government; states were free to regulate arms as they saw fit; states and localities could ban them outright if they wanted. Generally, there was a state armory, and village armories that would supply the militia with their arms. People who didn’t hunt regularly didn’t generally own their own weapons – expensive to maintain.
Of course, according to the constitution, the US only has one military organization – the Navy; you could include the Marines as long as they were part of the Navy (is that still true?). Anything else can only be raised for 2 years in time of war. That’s why it was originally “the Department of War” not “the Department of Defense”. That department’s responsibilities were to provide for the quick raising of an army, if needed.
Loves me some strict constitutional interpretation.
Isn’t odd that “the Department of War” represents a more peaceful attitude than “the Department of Defense”?
WaterGirl
@FlipYrWhig: :: shudder ::
shell
@Patricia Kayden: If she had resigned, she would have had a lot more sympathy. Seen as hounded out by her sincerely held beliefs. But the details of her own marriage history, how she’s bullied her co-workers to do exactly as she dictated. And especially how she’s tried to have her cake and eat it too…wanting to refuse to perform part of her job yet still keep her $80,000 a year.
Glidwrith
@redshirt: “What does a well regulated militia look like?”
It’s called the National Guard.
Geeno
@Glidwrith: Or a slave patrol.
trollhattan
@srv:
I don’t use the term often but you’re special so here it is: moron. You has it.
Patricia Kayden
@trollhattan: Not sure if it’s the Rapture. Pretty sure though that it’s a way to hustle money from bigots.
When Chris Hayes brought up $$$, Matt Staver refused to answer.
http://www.towleroad.com/2015/09/chris-hayes-mat-staver-kim-davis/
WaterGirl
@trollhattan: I agree with every word you said.
The best part for me, though, is that if the media hadn’t played up the whole “thug” episode I would have absolutely no idea who Richard Sherman is. Once I knew who he was, there were many, many opportunities to notice all the qualities you listed above.
Glidwrith
@Tommy: see my response above. Fellow that used to share blog space with Charles Pierce with major military credentials detailed that the creation of the National Guard in 1901? is the well-regulated militia of which the constitution speaks.
ETA: and Chris beat me to it.
Mnemosyne (tablet)
@Tommy:
In your state, you need a special license if you want to own a handgun. My brother who lives there has one. Strangely enough, no jackbooted thugs have shown up to take his guns away.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
President Nixon has an opinion
@FlipYrWhig: Brady and Elway were the ones who made me nervous about getting into politics. I don’t really worry about either anymore.
Germy Shoemangler
@Mnemosyne (tablet): Off topic, but The Reluctant Dragon is on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYMgbprKY6E
Unless I’ve got you confused with someone else; aren’t you the balloon-juicer interested in Disney animation?
Mnemosyne (tablet)
@trollhattan:
I just hope he manages to avoid a TBI. It would be a tragedy for him to end up like Junior Seau.
trollhattan
@Patricia Kayden:
My blessings upon Charlie Pierce for this photo.
(For anyone not familiar with Breaking Bad, that’s Huell next to Ms. Davis.)
SRW1
@Right to Rise:
So, Jeb, Rubio, Walker and Christie gotta look like losers for a bit to make the one eventually emerging battered, bruised, and bloodied from among them more presdential?
Alles klar, genius!
Mandalay
@trollhattan:
The only GOP candidates I have seen siding with Davis are Huckabee, Jindal, Cruz and Santorum. Most, including Bush, Rubio, Fiorina and Christie just waffle, and sit on the fence with Broderlike spinelessness.
If Trump has any sense he’ll tell Davis to get her lazy ass back to work or she’s fired. Then, once they have been given explicit instructions on what to believe, the rest of the clown car will pile on and agree with him.
Mike J
@Ruckus:
In six months she gets a trial, but doesn’t necessarily go free. The jury could (and should) convict.
And in doing some more reading, I’m not sure the six month thing stands. It is true for a criminal contempt charge, However, in a civil contempt case, the defendant, “carries the keys to the jail in his own pocket.” I don’t think there’s a six month limit.
Is it criminal or civil contempt? Generally, criminal contempt arises by trying to thwart the court in punishment. It’s civil contempt if you’re trying to block an order for the benefit of the complainant. Refusing to pay restitution to a plaintiff would be civil contempt, refusing to pay a fine would be criminal. Davis is refusing to issue a license.
Is the purpose to compel Davis to issue a license to the plaintiff (civil), or is it to make her obey the order of the court (criminal)?
divF
@srv:
Does that mean we can use the same source for the definition of the word “arms”?
It’s a deal.
Mnemosyne (tablet)
@Germy Shoemangler:
I am interested in many types of animation, but the reason it’s embarrassing that I haven’t seen “The Reluctant Dragon” is that the mouse signs my paycheck.
:-o
Germy Shoemangler
@Mike J: Either way, hundreds of her supporters have been demonstrating and waving their signs, trying to turn her into a virtuous blend of Joan of Arc, Rosa Parks, and Gandhi.
Germy Shoemangler
@Mnemosyne (tablet): Some of the real animators from that period have cameo roles as themselves. I forget his name, but the guy that was into model trains in his later years. They show the coloring dept., the sound effects room, and a huge camera that allows one to move through a 3-D like cartoon environment. Also, the original Donald Duck voice actor shows up.
Apparently, the film didn’t do well. It was released during a general Disney strike and flopped.
Also, I see PBS will be showing a Walt Disney documentary.
Geeno
@Germy Shoemangler: They won’t – sad fact is, she’s not telegenic. She’s great for the right to talk about, but as soon as is comes to HER, herself – they really don’t want her front and center.
That’s why you already hear the “she’s a Democrat” talk.
Eric U.
My grandfather organized the locals to go and fight in WWI. I think by WWII, that sort of thing had stopped. Probably about then when we should have gotten rid of 2nd Amendment
Mandalay
@shell:
I think your argument is one that will really resonate with Joe Sixpack.
All the twaddle about Dred Scott, statutes, the right to disobey laws and follow your conscience, and the authority of the Supreme Court is just confusing noise. But the idea that someone wants to be able to refuse to do part of their job and still get full pay is something anyone can form an opinion on pretty quickly.
It’s no wonder that most of the clown car don’t care if Davis rots and dies in jail; there are no votes to be had by supporting her, and plenty to lose.
Mike in NC
@Patricia Kayden: Seems that Staver went to law school at Liberty University. Since his firm is called Liberty Counsel, how likely is it that all of the other lawyers working there did the same?
John Revolta
@Germy Shoemangler: Genius is Pain!!!
The real genius behind that Lennon parody is that the words are out of Lennon’s own mouth, mostly taken from the Playboy interview from 1970.
Frankensteinbeck
@Germy Shoemangler:
I’m a fan of animation, period. This is not one of my favorites, but I have many friends who will love this link and I’m glad you passed it along!
Germy Shoemangler
@John Revolta: Lennon himself was embarrassed by the Wenner interviews. He later called them “Lennon Forgets” (they were released in a book called “Lennon Remembers)
Germy Shoemangler
@Frankensteinbeck: I found the giant camera fascinating. Multiple cells on top of each other you could dolly through.
And the train sound effect was interesting as well; putting the receivers on a person’s throat to enunciate “all aboard” in the voice of a train whistle.
Origuy
@srv: OK, I looked it up.
Yes, it’s the modern dictionary. I don’t have a subscription to the OED online, and libraries are closed today because it’s Labor Day.
Mnemosyne (tablet)
@Germy Shoemangler:
The animator was probably Ward Kimball, one of the “Nine Old Men.” He and Walt shared a passion for trains. And the big-ass camera was a vertical multiplane camera:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplane_camera
From what I’ve heard, it’s not that great as an entertainment film, but animation geeks love it because they detail the classic animation process. It’s much more about education than narrative.
Mnemosyne (tablet)
@Germy Shoemangler:
They also used painted sheets of glass — those took the place of traditional background paintings and allowed the camera operators to shoot through them to the cels where the action was happening. If you re-watch “Sleeping Beauty,” many of the forest scenes were done with the multiplane to give the space more depth.
Germy Shoemangler
@Mnemosyne (tablet): Yes. And Ward looks about twenty-five years old in the film.
He makes a “goofy” face while flipping the pages of a Goofy test animation. I’ve noticed many cartoonists will often unconsciously make the facial expressions of whoever they are drawing.
There is a storyboard sequence (Baby Weems) that seems ahead of its time, like something from 1961, because there is very little actual animation, just still shots. And a pre-fame Alan Ladd, of all people, plays the storyboard artist.
Origuy
Oh, and there wasn’t an OED in the 18th Century. I found that that socialist institution, the Palo Alto City Library, has a subscription to the OED online. The definition is substantially the same as the one I quoted. The references in it which predate 1789 are:
srv
@divF: Oh, by all means. Let’s. Go. There:
There’s a whole body of research on that topic, and if your Federalist Messiah thought the citizens should always be able to kick a standing army’s ass, imagine what the anti-Federalists thought.
Would you like your Barrett M50 in black or pink?
@Origuy: I’m all for well-regulating the taste of apple pie. Your appetite (c1709) should congrue with the state.
trollhattan
@Origuy:
Is there any chance Rushdie will pen “The Moranic Verses” for our gun-humper population? (A population that dwindles, despite there being moar gunz than ever.)
John Revolta
@Germy Shoemangler: I’ve got the book. It’s worth a look. Lennon was pretty addled at the time, and set himself up to be mocked a bit. That he realized this later makes 1980 even more sad and infuriating.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Origuy: A counterpoint on the “meaning” is here:
I’m not fully convinced of the validity of his argument, but it’s well presented and seems fair. It’s certainly worth thinking about anyway.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
Redshift
@srv: Wow, you’re thick. Hamilton is saying there shouldn’t be a standing army powerful enough to oppress the people, not that the people ought to engage in an unfettered arms race with the federal government.
I find the weird “messiah” tic particularly amusing. Conservatives/authoritarians are the ones who constantly invoke the argument from authority, insisting that that some quote they read from the Founders automatically proves they’re right. When people here cite the Founders, it’s to point out that your attempt to use them as “proof” is full of shit, not to call upon then as infallible demigods.
Our country and its position in the world have changed since the 18th century, so our choices about how it should function have changed as well. If you seriously want to argue that the country should not have a standing army, then you can attempt an argument that a militia is necessary. But if you throw away the Founders’ concerns about a standing army, and then use its existence as an argument that citizens should be even more heavily armed, then your not arguing based on the views of the Founders, you’re just cherry-picking and making shit up to try to justify your predetermined outcome.
sm*t cl*de
@SiubhanDuinne:
It would also be pleasant if someone asked Huckabee or Cruz or one of the other christofascists about the religious freedoms of Ms Davis’ staff members, when she forced them to share her personal religious scruples.
srv
@Redshift:
So you’re an anti-authoritian that loves the standing army. Loopy, man. Tell me how that worked out in Mexico, The West, The South, WWI, Philippines, Vietnam…
So rather than actually read the Federalist Papers, educate yourselves, it’s a far, far better place to just let random emos emote about their personal interpretations of The Constitution… It’s like Art, it means whatever you want it to mean. Par for the course – if you don’t like the law, just ignore it or reimagine it.
Cool, unless of course you’re a clerk in Kentucky. Then it’s an obimination.
trollhattan
@srv:
And now that you’ve defined yourself, what are we to make of it?
redshirt
The real problem with the second amendment, apart from its slightly vague language (slight enough to be entirely misinterpreted today) is that applies to a technology. Is there anything else in the Constitution or Bill of Rights like it? Nope. Lucky the omniscent FOUNDING FATHERS didn’t write any amendments concerning the use of horse and buggies or fancy plows.
J R in WV
@redshirt:
I actually know a successful young man who, as a youth of 11 or 12, singlehandedly put dinner on his family’s table with a .22 rifle. His parents were – a wee bit off center, and without him the other younger kids would have had a really hard time.
There are many rural poor folks who depend upon not-quite legal hunting for a major part of their diet. They also cruise the woods for mushrooms (the edible kind!) roots nuts and berrys to supplement their diets.
My own grandfather as a youth working on a farm was shaking down hickory nuts in the fall for the smaller kids to gather, when the branch he was standing on broke, spilling him to the ground. He had a compound fracture of his right femur, and when all was said and done in 1907 he lost that leg at his hip.
This wasn’t a hobby, it was a deliberate attempt to put enough food by in the fall to have enough calories to live until spring crops began to come in to replenish pantries.
Many cultures have a word for early spring that means “starvation time” – still.
redshirt
@J R in WV: I don’t doubt. I probably live close by to a good number of families that do the same (rural Maine). They should have rifles to help them put food on the table.
Do they need automatic weapons and multiple handguns? Heck no, and they couldn’t afford them anyway.
Jon Marcus
Yeah Huckster, who can forget how Lincoln advocated that government workers should disregard the Supreme Court?