Tuesday, June 30, 2015
In 1938, when fascism and communism were the most powerful threats to Western civilization, a brilliant but failed Balliol historian turned his acid pen to a quick but sweeping study of pernicious Catholic heresies such as Arianism (and its associated movements of Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Monoletism) and Albigensianism (and other forms of Manichaeism like Catharism). In the very long run, he thought, there is nothing to fear, for most heresies, although resurfacing intermittently, die out after a few disruptive centuries and remain virtually extinct — except for one.
Supporters of the Obama administration and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are rightly thrilled by the 6-3 decision reaffirming the subsidies essential to the functioning of the statute. The decision likely cements the statute in place as part of the U.S. healthcare system. However, the way that Chief Justice John Roberts reached that decision may provide the seeds for judicial curbing of regulation in other areas, and could very easily come up in future court cases regarding Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on climate change.ADVERTISEMENT
Daniel Patrick Macnee was born in west London—he was never quite sure where, because his mother had gone into labour during a party—on Feb. 6, 1922. His father, also Daniel, but known as “Shrimp,” was a racehorse trainer, and Patrick at first grew up at Lambourn in Berkshire, an equestrian centre with a reputation for raciness in every sense.
Shrimp Macnee was a great friend to the pub, as well as the racetrack, and liked waving guns around. An attempt to simplify the family name to “Nee” was eventually reversed. Pat’s mother Dorothea’s bohemianism tended rather to the sexual sphere, and she eventually left Shrimp to live with a rich lesbian whom Macnee was instructed to call “Uncle Evelyn.” The pair tried to get him to dress as a girl but settled for a kilt, a garment he wore until he was 11.
I used to love the Avengers. Diana Rigg was the personification of sexiness and Macnee of urbanity.
After the court ruled that the Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry, Walker released a statement calling for a Constitutional amendment to let states define marriage as between one man and one woman. Social conservatives loved it, and it came at a moment when he needed all the love he could get.
Could the Supremes rule that an amendment violated the 14th Amendment? I know, I know, but why not?
Democratic voters are skeptics this summer.
They doubt presidential contenders can deliver favored reforms from Washington, no matter how enticing the policy agendas sound. Those doubts depress enthusiasm about next year’s White House contest and could impact turnout for the eventual Democratic nominee.
Those were among early warnings in a survey released Monday of likely 2016 voters, sponsored by Democracy Corps and Women’s Voices, Women Vote Action Fund.
Americans want change and reforms, but “people don’t think any of this is going to happen,” Stan Greenberg, chairman and CEO of polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, said during a reporter roundtable organized by the Christian Science Monitor.
Their skepticism doesn’t turn on the idea of a Democratic nominee who would follow a two-term Democrat, President Obama. “It’s because the old political system is uniquely corrupted” in their eyes, Greenberg said. “What matters is how deep the critique people have about what’s happening in the country, both politically and economically.”
If you're a Democrat, don't vote.
The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so. Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.” (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.” (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, “[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.” (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses “converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,” that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.) I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.
This is good too. And it's true of many of SCOTUS's opinionoids.
Rev. Bill Owens, president and founder of the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP), said, “If they rule for same-sex marriage, then we’re going to do the same thing we did for the civil rights movement. We will not obey an unjust law.”
I don't know what will happen. I live in a bubble.
This participant wearing a gas mask during a mud run in Boise, Idaho, might not have to worry about getting sick from ingesting feces-contaminated mud. Some 1,000 participants in a run in France were sickened with norovirus after likely ingesting the virus from muddy water.
Boise in the news!