nothingoriginal

Thursday, July 15, 2004

Ramesh Ponnuru, Lying as Usual

Ramesh Ponnuru says that he supports the anti-gay marriage amendment because he against "federal-court-imposed same-sex marriage."  I ask, what federal court imposed same sex marriage?  Ramesh, like most of his reactionary ilk, is simply spreading a bunch of BS to scare his ignorant readers into thinking that the Supreme Court has already imposed gay marriage on everyone. 
 
By the way, I wonder if Ramesh realizes that most in the "conservative" movement would probably prefer that he work at the local 7-11 than write for NRO? 

Hugh Hewitt

Hugh Hewitt (I won't bother to comment on his name, it's too obvious) tells us that Bush and Blair acted as any sane leader would--Why?  Because Joe Wilson lied.  Again, I must be missing something.  Because one critic of the President's was a lying sack that means that the President did not ignore every single indication to the contrary in concluding, with the flimsiest of evidence, that Saddam had WMD and was so dangerous that we had to stop him at any cost.  Do these apologists for the President have no shame??  Did they not miss the fact that we have NOT FOUND ONE SINGLE BIO OR CHEM WEAPON (NOT TO MENTION NUKES)?!?!?!  I, like them, believed the President, and supported the war--but I now realize that it was all a big fat waste.  When will they realize it, I ask?

Underneath Their Robes

I know who she is.  Hint: She clerked on the Ninth Circuit. 

Justice Kennedy Supposed "180" on Protection of Private Sexual Conduct

Interesting little comment by the curmudgeonly clerk on Justice Kennedy's supposed "180" on the right of homosexuals to be let alone.  Everyone's favorite lunatic, Clayton Cramer (who apparently doesn't know how to spell his own last name) uses this as evidence of Kennedy's "180" on sodomy laws:
 
"The Curmudgeony Clerk (a federal law clerk) points to another blogger's article about how Justice Kennedy went from a defender of sodomy laws (right after Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) to writing the opinion in Lawrence that overturned Bowers."
 
Kennedy was not defending sodomy laws, rather he was defending judicial restraint.  Clayton obviously doesn't see the difference.
 
What's also surprising is neither the Curmudgeony Clerk, nor the person to whom he was reacting (some reactionary named Mark Trapp) mention the fact that Justice Kennedy when he was a Judge on the Ninth Circuit, caught some flack from the right wing for the following comment in a case where he ultimately rejected a challenge by a person in the Navy who was discharged for engaging in homosexual conduct:
 
"The case before us lies somewhere between these two standards. We recognize, as we must, that there is substantial academic comment which argues that the choice to engage in homosexual action is a personal decision entitled, at least in some instances, to recognition as a fundamental right and to full protection as an aspect of the individual's right of privacy. See, e. g., L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law ยง 15-13 (1978 & Supp.1979) and authorities cited therein. . . . There is substantial authority to the contrary, however. The Supreme Court has issued a summary affirmance of a lower court decision denying a challenge to a state criminal statute prohibiting sodomy as applied to private consensual homosexual conduct. . . . In light of the above authorities, we can concede arguendo that the reasons which led the Court to protect certain private decisions intimately linked with one's personality, see, e. g., Roe, supra, and family living arrangements beyond the core nuclear family, see, e. g., Zablocki, supra, suggest that some kinds of government regulation of private consensual homosexual behavior may face substantial constitutional challenge."  Beller v. Middendorf, 632 F.2d 788, 809-10 (9th Cir. 1980) (Kennedy, J.) (emphasis added).
 
Guess the right wing was on notice that Kennedy would one day turn to the evil side. . . .
 
 

The Reeactionary Coast

Gail Heriot defends the 3/5 clause of Article I, sec. 2 as an anti-slavery provision (or something like that).  His (her?) little "historical" lecture to the Reverend Jackson really misses the point and shows how out of touch some academics are.  The symbolism of the 3/5 clause is much more important than the actual history behind it. 

What am I missing?

What is all this gloating (in the words of Instaclown) about Joe Wilson apparently being full of shit?  Check this out.  Now, am I missing something?  Nepotism?  OK, I understand the reference to the wife, but how does that give the administration a warrant to out a CIA agent for political gain??

Critical Blog

Welcome.  A blogger who has no original thoughts of his own.  I devote this blog to criticizing and critiquing other bloggers' comments.