Stupid Republican idea of the day

[YogSothoth]

@Muffin

He’ll lose his job for it, blame his firing on the evil feds, and get re-elected by the state’s rights pubbies. Just like he did the last time.

At least it’ll take a few years. Or will this trigger some harsher punishment since he has a history of this and he’s directly ignoring the SCOTUS? Is there a permanent ban on holding a judicial seat that someone can apply to him?

[Tatterdemalion]

@Pashnish_Ewing

I’m not sure I’d classify those tweets as anti-gay or anti-woman. Distasteful, yes, but no cause for outrage. I hope there isn’t a push to get him resigned as it could backfire on the Dems.

This, on the other hand, he should be fired for.

http://gizmodo.com/jeb-bush-basically-just-doxxed-thousands-of-floridians-1684920622

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

I’m sure if you look far enough into Al Franken’s history he probably wrote some pretty awful stuff.

How about a cite, considering that you’re “sure”.

[Defensive_Indifference]

@Tatterdemalion

This, on the other hand, he should be fired for.

http://gizmodo.com/jeb-bush-basically-just-doxxed-thousands-of-floridians-1684920622

As the article notes, the emails are in the public record, and releasing them is not illegal… but jeez, that’s a clumsy effort at transparency. Did they not think people would be torqued about this?

[ElvisL1ves]

adaher’s Great Brown Hope, Bobby Jindal,never learned about Marbury v. Madison, much less the Civil War:

“We’re a nation of laws, that’s why I said I want the Supreme Court not to overturn our laws,” he said on CNN’s “New Day” on Tuesday.

“If the Supreme Court were to do this, I think the remedy would be a constitutional amendment in the Congress to tell the courts you can’t overturn what the states have decided.”

[CGav8r]

Jindal is smart; he’s a Rhodes scholar ferChrissake. Is someone feeding him this red meat for the crazier constituents??

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Bobby Jindal

For many of us, it’s a very important part of our faith, we don’t think we should change the definition of marriage. It doesn’t mean that we want to discriminate against others, but it does mean that we say marriage has been between a man and a woman, in our faith it is something that is defined that way, we don’t think we should change that.

Um, yeah, it does mean that you want to discriminate against others. Hiding that behind your religion doesn’t make it okay or not discriminatory somehow.

[Pashnish_Ewing]

@Evil_Captor

The free speech slippery slope, of course.

Free speech for everyone! Except … university system employees …

Well, as long as they can still donate millions of dollars anonymously through PACs, what’s the diff?

[YogSothoth]

@CGav8r

Jindal is smart; he’s a Rhodes scholar ferChrissake. Is someone feeding him this red meat for the crazier constituents??

Its another sign, one of many, that Republicans care more about catering to the idiot assholes than reality. I believe Jindal is smart and he knows what he’s saying is factually wrong. But I also believe he doesn’t care, and has calculated that if he can get the money and votes from those knuckle-dragging pea-brains that make up the majority of conservative Republican voters these days, he’ll laugh all the way to the bank.

[Locrian]

Bobby Jindal “…in our faith it is something that is defined that way, we don’t think we should change that.”

Yes. YOUR faith. Yours. Not mine. By using faith as a religion, you’re throwing YOUR faith and religion at me, which I and others won’t tolerate quietly, Bobby-Boy.

[Boyo_Jim]

@CGav8r

Jindal is smart; he’s a Rhodes scholar ferChrissake. Is someone feeding him this red meat for the crazier constituents??

@YogSosoth

Its another sign, one of many, that Republicans care more about catering to the idiot assholes than reality. I believe Jindal is smart and he knows what he’s saying is factually wrong. But I also believe he doesn’t care, and has calculated that if he can get the money and votes from those knuckle-dragging pea-brains that make up the majority of conservative Republican voters these days, he’ll laugh all the way to the bank.

Maybe it’s a sign that Rhodes Scholars aren’t what they used to be.

[running_coach]

@Boyo_Jim

Maybe it’s a sign that Rhodes Scholars aren’t what they used to be.

Or they’re book-smart, street-stupid.

[Boyo_Jim]

Road stupid. They don’t even know how to spell roads.

[Kobal2]

@ElvisL1ves

adaher’s Great Brown Hope, Bobby Jindal,never learned about Marbury v. Madison, much less the Civil War:

Isn’t overturning unconstitutional laws on occasion, states’ or federal, kind of the whole point of having a Supreme Court in the first place ?

Not that I’m absolutely averse to the notion of Antonin Scalia having to find a real job, mind.

[elucidator]

@YogSosoth

Its another sign, one of many, that Republicans care more about catering to the idiot assholes than reality. I believe Jindal is smart and he knows what he’s saying is factually wrong. But I also believe he doesn’t care, and has calculated that if he can get the money and votes from those knuckle-dragging pea-brains that make up the majority of conservative Republican voters these days, he’ll laugh all the way to the bank.

To be ruthlessly fair, that’s not quite it. They can’t win without the knuckle-walking troglodytes, they turn out, they are reliable, and the Pubbies are barely winning even with all the bullshit they can pull. If the sane moderates stand up and say “Fuck off!” to the extreme fringe, they lose. Period.

I think it would be very honorable of them to do so, and content themselves with a situation wherein they are the Loyal Opposition. I would be among the first to applaud them if they should do so.

[running_coach]

@Boyo_Jim

Road stupid. They don’t even know how to spell roads.

Republican about to get into time machine: “Where we’re going, we won’t need Rhodes.”

[Boyo_Jim]

They sure as hell don’t need scholars.

[ElvisL1ves]

Scowlers, they got.

[CalMeacham]

Bobby Jindal, The Rhodes Warrior

“Just One Man can make a Difference”

[YogSothoth]

Slate dissects one aspectof the anti-Obamacare lawsuit (King v. Burwell) due to be heard by the SCOTUS this session: The proponents may have made a huge error by not being able to find anyone who has standing to challenge the law.

The article summarizes:

Here’s the basic problem with the plaintiffs in the new lawsuit, called King v. Burwell, which the Supreme Court will hear in March. In order to bring a case into federal court, a plaintiff must have “standing”—put simply, she must be adversely affected by the law she’s challenging. (This constitutional requirement prevents a random citizen from taking legal action against any law he dislikes.) The King case calls for a plaintiff who meets three criteria: She refuses to purchase health insurance; she isn’t exempted from purchasing health insurance under the Affordable Care Act’s many exceptions; and she lives in a state with a federally facilitated exchange. Such a person would be forced to pay a “penalty” to the IRS for refusing to have health insurance, and would therefore suffer a harm that qualifies her to bring suit.

The problem reminds me of the Prop 8 case which was thrown out on standing issues by the SCOTUS. Apparently, the 4 plaintiffs found by the conservatives to challenge the case have standing issues. One may not live in a state with the federally run exchange, two of them are veterans and exempt from the penalty, and one makes too little to qualify for a penalty. The stupid Republicans who cobbled this case together could not do this case from a class action standpoint because, as we all know, the people who benefit from the health insurance do not want to challenge it and have it taken away. So they found 4 saps and threw together a case.

I hope that the case will be thrown out on standing, or maybe the judges will just rule that the federal mandate is Constitutional. The case is shaky anyways and only time will tell which leg the SCOTUS kicks out from this stupidly partisan, and apparently ill-conceived case. Of all the millions of people who “suffer” under the health care law that the GOP are pretending to care about, they couldn’t even find one person who actually understands the case and has legal standing to challenge it and wants to do it. It just goes to show that this nakedly partisan case and the calls to repeal Obamacare was NEVER done to help people, for states rights, or whatever bullshit reasons the GOP says it is this week. They simply don’t care how many people they hurt and kill (estimates that 9800 people a year will die without the health care law), they want to deny Obama any win. Nobody should take anyone on this board seriously who says they don’t like Obamacare for any reason other than they hate Obama and Democrats