by

Will 2016 be a repeat of 2008?

In 2007, a year or so before the primaries of 2008 began, this was what people were saying:Bernie-Sanders-and-Obama

  • Hillary is unbeatable
  • America is not ready to elect a black man
  • Obama is too far to the left to ever win the nomination, much less the election
  • Hillary has too many endorsements and too much money for anyone to challenge her successfully

I kind of agreed, even though I supported Obama from the start. And I was pleased to have been proven wrong.

Now here it is, a year or so before the primaries of 2016, and this is what people are saying:

  • Hillary is unbeatable
  • America is not ready to elect a Jewish man
  • Sanders is too far to the left to ever win the nomination, much less the election
  • Hillary has too many endorsements and too much money for anyone to challenge her successfully

I kind of agree.

But boy, would it be great to be proven wrong again.

by

Editorial cartoon: Deflation

by

The Wrong Side of History

Have you noticed that there are no statues, postage stamps, or medals honoring George Wallace standing in front of the schoolhouse door saying “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”?

That’s because, despite the fact that he had the support of many people, he was wrong. He was the Bad Guy who wanted to force his prejudices on everyone else.

The people who are now standing in the way of marriage equality are a pretty good mirror image of this. Oh sure, they absolutely think they are right and have the approval of their god in this, but so did the racists who fought to keep innocent black children from going to school.

None of these people will be reading this blog, so I’m preaching to the choir — but some of you may want to ask yourself that question. Are you on the wrong side of history? Perhaps on similar issues, such as transgender rights?

History leads to more equality, not less. History means more acceptance of those who are different from us. History skews liberal.

My conservative friends especially might ask this about many of their political views, perhaps concerning health care. Let’s face it, historically conservatives opposed social security, medicare, medicaid, gay rights, women’s rights, voting rights, the civil rights act, minimum wage, and many other progressive reforms that later became law and now are supported by the vast majority of Americans, including most conservatives. They were on the wrong side of history.

Are you?

by

Editorial cartoon: How it Happened

by

Nothing Civil About this Disobedience

by Guest Blogger Michael Strauss

The United States has a proud tradition of civil disobedience. And this tradition is one that is heralded by those on both the right (Boston Tea Party, Cliven Bundy) and left (Ferguson, Baltimore). Once again the cry and hue for civil disobedience is being raised, this time primarily by Republican legislators and elected officials, in response to the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (legalizing gay marriage nationally).

But this raises a rather simple question: Is this actually civil disobedience?

As an old friend stated, there seems to be nothing civil about this disobedience. And while it was meant as a humorous quip, it is also rather on the nose as well.

First and foremost, civil disobedience, at its core, is still disobedience. When you disobey the law, no matter your reasons, you are punished for that disobedience. That is the side of civil disobedience we always seem to conveniently forget.

Texas AG Ken Paxton ignores the oath he took to uphold the Constitution

Texas AG Ken Paxton ignores the oath he took to uphold the Constitution

Despite the fact that he was one of the most peaceful men ever born, Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested 30 times for civil disobedience. He understood he would be arrested. In fact, mass arrests were literally part of his plan for building publicity for his movement. He never struggled against those arrests and actually refused to accept bail in some cases, in order to show support for his cause.

MLK understood that part of civil disobedience means that you accept your punishment willingly. That is why, no matter how much liberals applauded Bree Newsome (the woman who scaled the flagpole at the SC capitol and removed the Confederate flag), it is right and appropriate that she was arrested and will be tried. If she truly believes in her cause, she should plead guilty.

And then there is Ken Paxton. Ken Paxton would have you believe that he is following in the footsteps of MLK with his civil disobedience against the Supreme Court ruling, but his isn’t. Even if you accept his rather flimsy argument that he is fighting for the rights of religious Americans (that for some reason always seem to be Christians, despite the fact that both Jews and Muslims are likely to hold the same beliefs on “traditional marriage”), rather than against the rights of non-heterosexual Americans, he still isn’t engaging in civil disobedience.

Unlike MLK or Newsome or those patriots in 1773, he simply is unwilling to suffer the penalty for his disobedience. Just the opposite. He explicitly told the clerks and probate judges of Texas that they would have to suffer for obeying his order to invoke religious liberty, in direct violation of the Supreme Court ruling, but that he would be safe in his Ivory Tower. That isn’t civil disobedience. That is simply an abuse of power.

Which brings us to the second reason that Paxton and Abbott and Jindal (and any other elected or appointed official following this path) isn’t engaging in civil disobedience. As my old friend said, there is nothing civil about it. The word “civil” is a reference to Joe or Jane Q. Public. Martin Luther King Jr., the Tea Party patriots, Bree Newsome, Susan B. Anthony and even Cliven Bundy all share a common trait. None of them wielded direct legislative, judicial, or executive power.

Unlike Jane and Joe Q. Public, government officials have legal power and tools to try to change laws. Even Supreme Court rulings can be overruled (the Dred Scott decision is no longer the law of the land). The process may be ponderous, but those tools are available to people at pretty much every level of government, especially to state governors. The average citizen doesn’t have those tools or power, which is why they engage in civil disobedience. Anyone who uses power invested in them to violate the law is simply being a fascist dictator.

If Ken Paxton truly wishes to engage in civil disobedience, then he needs to follow the example of Linda Barnette, the woman who quit her job as a Grenada county clerk rather than issue marriage licenses to non-heterosexual couples. Whether you agree with her stance or not, her decision is a shining example of the correct way to object to this Supreme Court decision. Linda Barnette, a simple county clerk, made a principled, legal stand for her beliefs.

Why are Paxton and Jindal incapable of following her example?

Michael is a New Jersey native that somehow landed in Pittsburgh.  He is a writer by trade and an amateur political commentator by choice.  He enjoys tweaking the noses of liberals and conservatives alike.

by

Editorial cartoon: Supreme Court Victories

by

“As long as it’s our religion doing it, it’s OK”

As expected, there have been plenty of proclamations from religious extremists about the upcoming end of the world. They think God will judge the US harshly for allowing people in love to get married. Slavery? Killing of natives? Internment camps? Nope, those didn’t attract God’s judgment, but this will.

Catholic priests are saying, without a hint of irony, that this decision will cause children to be sexually molested. Various commentators are once again floating the “Now we have to allow people to marry their pets” argument because, as we all know, whenever new rights are gained, logically we have to extend them to animals next. That’s why dogs have the right to vote.

Then there was that “friend” on Facebook who said, “Since sin is now legal, murder will be next.” Yes, of course. The two are absolutely comparable. There’s just no way to refute such logic.

I’ve stopped trying to argue with True Believers whenever possible (including the gun nuts, the 9/11 “Truthers”, the various conspiracy-minded among us). But what bugs me the most is when they can’t even see the basic irony in their own arguments.

These Christians are almost always the ones screaming about how terrible it is that Sharia Law could be used in America.  Sharia Law has many things in common with evangelistic Christian law — a prohibition against gay marriage, admonitions about women being subservient to men, and so on — but if anyone tried to use the Quran to pass these into our laws, these Christians would be up in arms.

But it’s not because they’re against forcing religious laws upon America — they just want it to be their religion we’re all forced to follow.

by

Editorial cartoon: Marriage License

by

No, The Gay Marriage Case has Nothing to do with Guns

Fox News commentator Allen West (a non-lawyer) wrote an article recently saying that since the Supreme Court gay marriage case says this must be applied over the entire country, then clearly it has set a precedent to allow for “conceal and carry” in all states.

This shows a real misunderstanding of the law.

First of all, the gay marriage case had to do with the 14th amendment, which prohibits discrimination against people. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has called corporations “people” it’s not about to call guns, cars, or toasters “people” any time soon.rainbow.ak_

The analysis used in the gay marriage case is old. Like 50 years old. This same analysis was previously used to give rights to blacks and then later to women. It has just been expanded to include gays and lesbians. It is not a new analysis.

If the gun lobby could use this same analysis to do what the gun lovers want, they would have done it 50 years ago.

The short version: If the government wants to take away the rights of someone, the law must pass the “strict scrutiny” test:

It must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.
The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest, then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. That is, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest. The test will be met even if there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this “least restrictive means” requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it separately.  [NOTE:  I copied this from wikipedia, but it’s correct.]

It is very difficult for laws that discriminate to pass this test. The Supreme Court did not change this test at all, but merely added gays and lesbians to the test (at least as far as marriage goes — other discriminatory laws against gays and lesbians will be challenged under this test soon and should also fail, using this case as precedence).

This test is not used to determine whether everyone has the exact same rights as they travel from state to state — but West (and the people who foolishly believe him) are convincing themselves that they are being discriminated against because they don’t have the same rights as someone in another state.

Under this logic, there would be no more federalism at all. Using that logic, any law passed in any state would have to be enforced in every state.

Does that mean that marijuana would be legal everywhere? Hooray! Oh wait, we’d first have to decide which state laws apply — What if it’s decided that the state laws that prohibit guns from being carried everywhere are the laws that apply over the entire country? Why are these people assuming it’s the law they want that will prevail?

“But but,” the gun lovers scream, “the court said that you have to give gays these rights because it’s based on ‘certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy’ and dadgummit, it’s our personal choice to buy guns without background checks and carry them into churches and shopping malls whenever we want to!”  Besides being ridiculous and not at all what the gay marriage case was about, this is also not what the 14th amendment is about.

Seriously, I’m not even going to dignify this by explaining why. If you can’t see why there is a difference between the fundamental right of all adults to get married and the right to own an inanimate object, then you’ve become so brainwashed by your guns and the gun lobby that there is no hope for you.

by

Editorial cartoon: It’s just “marriage” now