The Watering Hole, Monday, June 29, 2015: In Three Minutes, Rick Santorum Proves He’s Unfit To Be POTUS

In the span of about three minutes, Rick Santorum proved he has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to how the Government is supposed to function, and shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the White House, let alone be its lawful occupant. Ricky thinks that the recent ruling on Marriage Equality will mean the end of the United States. He believes promoting heterosexual marriage is not only necessary “for the survival of our country,” but more important than talking about climate change.

He began by complaining, as conservatives often do when the SCOTUS rules against them (on account of them being wrong so much), that judges have been entering into the political realm more and more over the past few decades. (Personally, I trace it back to Reagan’s appointees, but that’s probably just me.) He then goes onto complain that they’re “making law” (untrue) and that their job is to “be referees between the Executive and Congressional branches.” Actually, Ricky, it’s more properly referred to as the Legislative branch. And it’s not the job of the SCOTUS to just be referees between the POTUS and the Congress. In fact, that’s not really what their job is at all. Their job is to decide if laws passed by the Congress violate the Constitution. Conservatives like to think that anything a Legislative body passes is automatically constitutional because their job is to pass laws. But being the types who don’t like to follow rules imposed by others (including the framers of the Constitution), Conservatives feel that you’re wrong to ever call them wrong. Many red states are already saying they won’t follow the Supreme Court’s ruling and will refuse to allow same sex couples to marry. And they would be violating their oaths of office if they do so, and could and should face impeachment and removal from office. But they should also face permanent disqualification from ever holding public office again. That’s the mistake Alabama made when they impeached their SCOTUS-disrespecting Chief Justice Roy Moore for refusing to obey the SCOTUS when it said he couldn’t order the Ten Commandments displayed in front of the Court House. They kicked him out of office, but didn’t bar him from holding office again. And now he’s once again the Chief Justice of Alabama and refusing to follow the Constitution again. But that’s another topic.

Ricky thinks that by striking down all statewide bans on same-sex marriage as violations of the federal Constitution, the judges are making law. That is not at all what is happening. Striking down unconstitutional laws is not making laws, it’s nullifying improper ones. No state, no matter how fervently is citizens or (in most cases) its conservative legislature wants to do it, can pass a law repugnant to the Constitution. But then, Conservatives have never liked Marbury v. Madison, because they don’t like being told they can’t do what they want. So it’s not surprising that Ricky thinks the SCOTUS should: a) no longer have lifetime appointments and be elected, instead; b) not have jurisdiction over certain topics; and, c) be required to hear all appeals to their rulings. That’s not at all the way the framers intended it, Ricky. They didn’t want the federal judiciary to be forced to run for office because they knew they would have to appeal to the lowest common denominator to get elected, and that often results in bad judges with misguided priorities. They also intended the jurisdiction of the Judicial branch of our government to be able to settle all disputes, not just the ones you feel comfortable letting them decide. And they also intended that their rulings be final and the Law of the Land. But then that would mean not letting Conservatives do whatever they want to do to the rest of us with impunity.

The Fox News hosts then went on to lament that heterosexual marriage is in decline and that more and more people are choosing to raise families out of wedlock, and that might somehow be a bad thing. But Ricky thinks that instead of using the power of the bully pulpit to discuss climate change, that the president should be putting all of that energy into trying to promote heterosexual marriage. Is that really a valid argument to the declaration that marriage need not depend on the genders of the two people getting married? That’s where it started, but Ricky and the Fox hosts think that all children should be raised in a home where the parents are married. That would be nice, except it doesn’t match Reality. In real life, people die or get divorced, and children grow up with only one parent. That doesn’t make them bad or immoral people, but the way Conservatives talk about “family,” you’d think any kid who grew up without both a male and female parent in the house could never turn out good. (Presidents Clinton and Obama might disagree.) But if marriage is something never once mentioned in the Constitution, and if it’s therefore supposed to be left entirely up to the states to decide who can and cannot enter into these civil arrangements (which, legally, is all they are), then why does Ricky think the president should be talking about it? Why shouldn’t the president talk about Climate Change, and what we should do to counter or slow its worsening effects?

Climate Change is real. It’s not a hoax cooked up by climate scientists to make a lot of money. It is being worsened by human activity, specifically but not limited to, the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. (There’s no such thing as “clean burning fossil fuels.” The fossil fuel industry just wants you to believe that, or to doubt those of us who rightly claim it’s a lie.) We are close to the point where the cumulative effects of pumping all that carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will not only make the air unbreathable (since we insist on letting the rain forests, those things with all the living things that can breath carbon dioxide and give off oxygen, be destroyed at a breath-taking rate), it will also raise the overall temperature of the planet. This will cause the oceans to warm up and provide storms with more heat and energy. This will cause the storms we do get, no matter what time of year, to be larger, more intense, and more destructive. You can expect to hear about record breaking storms for the next few decades. In fact, if you’re younger than 30, you’ve never experienced a month in which the average surface temperature of the Earth was below average. Will fighting the problem cost money? Of course it will, don’t be silly. The reason the situation is as bad as it is is precisely because we tried to find the least expensive ways to produce energy, instead of the smartest ways. Conservatives would have you believe that anything that reduces profits is a bad thing, even if what the profits are being diverted from is killing the planet. And we can’t regulate businesses to stop polluting our biosphere, because government regulations make the Baby Jesus cry.

I’m getting tired of these people.

This is our daily open thread. Feel free to discuss Little Ricky Santorum, marriage equality, climate change, or anything else you wish to discuss.

61 thoughts on “The Watering Hole, Monday, June 29, 2015: In Three Minutes, Rick Santorum Proves He’s Unfit To Be POTUS

  1. Well said, Wayne. What really gets my goat is the constant conservative whine that nowhere does the Constitution give the Supreme Court the right to redefine marriage. On that somewhat ridiculous premise they are, of course, correct given that the word ‘marriage’ isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution as amended. There is, however, that fourteenth amendment which says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; . . . nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. What the hell about that is so tricky to understand?

    You’re not alone in “getting tired of these people,” believe me.

    • Thanks, frugal. There’s also the Ninth Amendment which say the enumeration of certain rights does not mean we don’t have others, such as the right to marry the one other person we choose. But they apparently didn’t base their decision on the 9th.

    • 14th is a double edged sword – 14th gave us Chimpy McFlightsuit as well as Roe v Wade

    • The peacock went gay in 1956, to help parent company RCA sell color tv sets.

  2. This is not a new thought, but it is persistent: the media pisses me off. I’ve watched, in the last couple of days, innumerable interviews with right wingnuts, mostly clown car passengers, and the one thing all the interviews have in common is that the interviewer NEVER challenges the interviewees on details. They NEVER ask why the fourteenth (and ninth) amendments don’t automatically justify same sex marriage, and they NEVER ask WHY Obamacare is so horrible, or what is wrong with the government working to make sure that every person has access to medical care, regardless of their status. I heard Ted Cruz, for example, intimate that since the fourteenth amendment was about black folks and therefore doesn’t apply to, say, gay folks. No one asked him about how the words “citizens” and “persons” don’t refer to absolutely everyone. When Cruz mentioned that gay marriage is a ‘states rights’ issue, no mention of amendment 9A.

    What I can’t decide is whether the newsies are pandering to the far right, or if they’re simply too Constitutionally uninformed to ask a pertinent question.

    • What I can’t decide is whether the newsies are pandering to the far right, or if they’re simply too Constitutionally uninformed to ask a pertinent question.

      Yes to both.

  3. Actual Jindal campaign poster and slogan. Yes, tanned.

    Difficulty: Explaining away that commissioned state portrait:

  4. Mike Huckebee: My GOP rivals have ‘surrendered to the false god of judicial supremacy’

    Oh, and when he’s presidenting:

    Decorating Tips
    Mike Huckabee Says His White House Would Have a Nativity Scene

    • He’ll never get to the White House but I’m sure his house has a naivete scene that runs full time.

    • “Mike Huckabee Says His White House Would Have a Nativity Scene”

      And he will revert to saying it is 1953 and everything will be just as it was then.

  5. Uh oh, here’s a real bummer:

    Supreme Court Overturns EPA Air Pollution Rule, 5-4

    The Supreme Court overturned the Obama administration’s landmark air quality rule on Monday, ruling the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not properly consider the costs of the regulation.

    In a 5-4 ruling, the justices ruled that the EPA should have taken into account the costs to utilities and others in the power sector before even deciding whether to set limits for the toxic air pollutants it regulated in 2011.

    I guess the “cost” of the sixth mass extinction will be less in dollars and cents than the cost of controlling emissions?

    • Thanks to Ronnie Raygun and a chimp named George the EPA is essentially neutered.

    • If they have to take into consideration the cost of regulations to polluters, can they also factor in the externalities of respiratory ailments, cancer, and other medical costs borne by society that result from their emissions?

  6. This one courtesy of EarlG at Democratic Underground (if it is large enough to read)

  7. Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Texas Abortion Law

    The Supreme Court on Monday put a temporary hold on a Texas law that would have led to the closures of all but a handful of the state’s abortion clinics.

    The law, which was to go into effect Wednesday, requires clinics to adhere to strict, hospital-like facilities requirements. Just nine of the approximately 20 clinics in the state would have met that requirement, abortion rights groups have said.

    The law also required physicians conducting abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.

    The 5 to 4 ruling came in response to a request by abortion rights groups, which previously lost an appeal and had asked the Supreme Court to step in on an emergency basis. The ruling blocks the law until the court can give the law a more thorough review, perhaps as early as next fall. The court’s conservative bloc, however, would have denied the request, the order says.

  8. Jindal Spouts His Ignorance of Most Everything For All To See

    In an interview with Iowa conservative radio host Simon Conway on Friday, Jindal repeated his suggestion that “we just get rid of the Supreme Court,” adding that the “upcoming assault on religious liberty” that he has been warning about “is here.”

    “So the Supreme Court’s basically saying words have no meaning, we don’t have to follow the Constitution,” he said. “Simon, I’m always looking for ways to save money. Why don’t we just get rid of the Supreme Court? Chief Roberts is maybe a great politician, but their job isn’t to be politicians, isn’t to be elected officials, their job is to read and apply the Constitution.”

    “I’ve been very, very worried about the upcoming assault on religious liberty,” he added. “It is here. If the left, they condone discrimination against Christian florist, business owners and others that don’t want to participate in wedding ceremonies that violate their conscience or religious beliefs.

    Do the words “religious liberty” and “religious beliefs” automatically imply that “religious” means “Christian” only, period, that there are no other religions anywhere in this or any other universe that qualify as “religious?? If not, how to explain this Jindal statement”

    “If the left were really honest, Simon, they should just repeal the First Amendment to the Constitution. They don’t believe in it, they don’t believe in the freedom of religious liberty, they don’t believe in the Second Amendment, might as well get rid of that while they’re out of it, they might as well try to get rid of the 10th Amendment, they don’t believe in states’ rights.”

    Bigger question: has Jindal ever read the constitution? Its amendments, all of them?

    I’m guessing no.

    • I’m not sure that Bobby would understand the sage wisdom of a Bazooka wrapper much less the Constitution or even the Buybull.

  9. pHuckabee Urges Governors To Defy Supreme Court Marriage Ruling, Says Marriage Equality Violates The First Amendment

    “This is going to be about religious liberty, it’s not going to be about same-sex marriage,” he said. “A lot of people will try to make it about same-sex marriage, but it’s a bigger issue because, Jan, if the Supreme Court can tell people what the limitations of their beliefs and practices are, then the Supreme Court has just now decided that it can govern all of our liberties.”

    Again, only Christians have religious rights. Where the hell do these folks get that screwy idea?

    • How very brave of him to tell other people to defy the law.

      And I still want someone in the “librul media” to ask the rightwhiners if they would staunchly defend a Quaker or other pacifist who refused to issue a gun permit based on their sincere religious beliefs.

  10. I would like a little help from the community.

    I am contacting every media personality who I can reach and asking them to ask GOoPers who support government officials who refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay coupes if said GOoPers would support Quakers or other pacifists who refuse to issue gun permits. The more I think about it the more I think it’s a question that must be asked. Please help spread the word across the web!

    Thanks!

  11. From Ralps’ Mandatory Monday Malloy Truthseekers check in! (He’s there five nights a week.)

  12. Key-riste on a cracker! I left the radio tuned to the baseball game a few minutes too long and got to hear right-wing guy proclaim “we’ll never know what motivates someone to shoot up a church”. We know exactly what motivated the latest mass shooting. Right-wing racism.

    • It’s the anti-christian movement///
      Hell, the murderer told them it was hatred for people of color, aka racism!

Comments are closed.