While undoubtedly a terrible, terrible thing, beating your disabled son is not a republican idea. The vast majority of republicans (like the vast majority of liberals) are good people who don’t condone this.
Good point. There’s a distinction between ‘stupid things Republicans do’ and Stupid Republican Ideas. There is a mild overlap in the family values area (i.e. anti-gay legislators who get caught with wide stances), but child abuse isn’t a partisan ideal.
(No offense to Tapioca; just noting that the thread risks partial irrelevancy if it becomes an unfocused attribution of all bad acts done BY Republicans TO Republican in general.)
I would agree that severely beating your child (whether disabled or not) isn’t necessarily a stupid Republican idea. However, those idiots in the comments defending Nelson’s actions are certainly stupid Republicans.
Perhaps we need an accompanying thread called “Stupid Republican Deeds of the Day”.
Quite right. Many, perhaps most republicans neither practice nor condone child beating. But a lot of them support (at least tacitly) a man’s right to beat his children without interference from the ACLU, Child Protective Services, or any of those other liberal anti-family big-government types.
SS
Why partisan–Evil Human Alert! would be a nice catch-all for the numerous RO threads.
Here is a really stupid, really Republican idea: New Hampshire GOP to introduce law to require all new bills to quote Magna Carta.
[
"IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, a bill to amend New Hampshire statute 32.333…
…based on the authority of Magna Carta’s prohibition on out-of-county inquests of novel disseisin…
…look it up. We dare you."
Because the Magna Carta is such a cornerstone of American jurisprudence, of course. I guess that means that they also support all UN regulations and international laws over US laws, too. To think anything else would be hypocritical, and we know the GOP would never be that!
The Magna Carta is a cornerstone of US jurisprudence. It underlies much of the common law, and is the basis for a great deal of the Constitution. In that sense, it’s unlike UN regulations and the like because it’s already incorporated into US law.
Really? Here is a translation. It lists 35 rights. How many of them are applicable today? Do we still need to verify that we have the ability to pay our fiefs to our lords before selling any land?
The reason it is important is in the idea that even Kings must follow rules. The idea being that no one is above the law was not in vogue for monarchs at the time and this was one of the first attempts to change that..
Agreed. But you know that wasn’t what the writers of that proposed law were thinking. 
No, it lists 35 clauses. Like the Bill of Rights (for example), some clauses contain more “rights” than others, and the last five are really just promises by King John to make amends for things he’d previously done. Lots of them are applicable today; in fact, virtually all of them are, other than those relating to the powers of the monarch.
The fact that you (and most people) don’t know what all of them mean doesn’t mean they’re not applicable. For example, the inheritance rights (clauses 2-4 and 7, mostly) in Magna Carta are the underpinnings of modern property law.
If you want to talk about more basic rights, here are a few:
Cf. our prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment”.
Seventh Amendment.
Cf. the Takings Clause and eminent domain.
In other words, the state can’t make a complaining witness pay for a prosecution. Seems obvious today, but it wasn’t always.
Wow. That’s special. Three freshman Republicans–let me guess: Tea Party? I think I recall Twombly’s name in that context, at least, though I didn’t recognize the other two.
I love the response from Ray Buckley: “I appreciate all the hard work the Republican legislators are putting into the effort to make them look like extremists,” he said. “Saves us the trouble.”
So, the amendment would require any suits pertaining to wrongful seizure of land to be litigated in the county court where the land is? “Disseisin” would be seizure of land/an estate, right? That’s my best guess without looking it up. I couldn’t resist the challenge…but then, I’m not one of the idiots that proposed this.
This one needs a special place, it is not simply the ordinary, day to day Republican stupid, it is sublime, it is transcendent.
Yes, really. There is a lot that is wholly inapplicable and from our modern sensibilities laughable (e.g. No-one is to be taken or imprisoned on the appeal of woman for the death of anyone save for the death of that woman’s husband.), but to say that it’s not foundational and a direct practical and philosophical ancestor of our Constitution is severely misguided. Does this right sound familiar:
No doubt the Republican measure is extraordinarily fitting for this thread, but let’s not forget the importance of the MC the establishment of rights.
ETA: Sloowwww poster, I’m a Slooowwwww poster…
Quite so. I was joking, though - you didn’t really have to look it up. Disseisin is an unlawful seizure of private land. Novel disseisin is a recent unlawful seizure; the courts would hear the assize (claim) only if it was brought within a year of the seizure.
I didn’t. I made an educated guess at what the word meant based on its roots and the context, and went from there. Looking it up would have been too easy–I’m much better at Google-fu than at Middle Legalese. 
Yes, the MC was important for the idea of universally spelled out rights as limits to the power of the government. And some of them even still make sense. But calling for a modern representative republic to limit its rights to those spelled out in the MC, which is really what this bill would try and do (going forward), is only a little above requiring all new laws to cite a Biblical commandment for justification because we all agree murder should be illegal.
I don’t think anyone is claiming that it’s not a really stupid idea. See post 4146.