Just Shut the F*ck Up

I swear to, well, who or whatever, that if I hear one more conservative say that the 2008 election is proof that we do not need affirmative action, I am going to tear my hair out. Of course, with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, the conservatives are all giddy about this chance to yell at minorities about how horrible life is for white males. "White men need not apply" they scream. So let's have at it.

Yes, the Sotomayor pick is affirmative action. President Obama picked a female, and a hispanic one at that, and those traits surely played a role in his choice. I am going to state, right now, that that is a good thing. It is good that our President intentionally chose a hispanic female. As to the "White men need not apply" meme; it is not that white men need not apply, it is that, for the last couple centuries, the sign read "All but white men need not apply."

Now on to the claim that the 2008 elections demonstrated that our country no longer needs affirmative action. First off, the vast majority of the people making this claim never supported affirmative action to begin with. They do not think we no longer need it, they never wanted it at all. Let us forget that for a moment, and discuss the validity of this claim. First thing conservatives say is, "President Obama proves that anyone can make it in America." They forget one thing. That is, that President Obama says himself that he “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” And he did. The only reason he could afford to go to such fantastic universities is because of a strong student loan program and partial scholarships. And while these loans and scholarships did not make him who he is, to claim he did not "benefit" from them is ubsurd. And it is a non sequitur to argue that because President Obama achieved much, affirmative action is no longer needed. Just because A is true, it does not necessarily mean B is true. The only thing President Obama's story should tell us, is that affirmative action can actually do exactly what it is intended to do: help minorities take steps towards more success.

Now on to Sotomayor and the predictable conservative outcry that she was chosen only because she is a minority. This claim, is complete crap. It is the regurgitation of the unsubstantiated conservative meme that all affirmative action choices are made solely because of race or gender. I will try to state this as plainly and directly as possible: Affirmative action is not about promoting unqualified minorities, rather, it is about intentionally seeking out qualified minorities, in an effort to correct past mistakes.

Sotomayor is absolutely a qualified candidate. In fact, she is possibly the most credentialed SC nominee in my lifetime. She was chosen beacuse she is qualified. Her race did play a role in this choice, but her credentials were the priority.

Spare Me Your Strict Interpretation of the Law

Nate Kennedy had some great commentary on a leaked memo of GOP talking points. Of course, this memo contained the most traditional GOP talking point, that they believe:

judges should interpret rather than make law...

Yes, yes. We all know, that Republicans think anyone who is progressive is completely incapable of interpreting the law. They even have the nerve to act as if this train of thought is common knowledge, mainstream.

And for some reason, we never seem to ask what a person's interpretation of the law actually is. Yes, judges should interpret the law not make it. That is what judges do, whether progressive or conservative. It is merely a distraction to discuss whether or not a person will interpret the law. We must discuss how that person will interpret law.

Frankly, I find it hilarious that Republicans have the balls to talk all high and mighty about interpreting the law.

On December 1, 2005, Yoo appeared in a debate in Chicago with University of Notre Dame professor Doug Cassel. During the debate Cassel asked Yoo, "If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?", to which Yoo replied "No treaty." Cassel followed up with "Also no law by Congress -- that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo...", to which Yoo replied "I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that."

So the party of "Yes You Can (crush his testicles)" is going to talk down to me about interpreting the law? You have to wonder where these people learn so well to ignore fact and reason.

Why Do Republicans Hate Involved Citizens

It is game time again, and this time, our team is home. The GOP's attacks on President Obama's supreme court nominee were obvious well before a name was chosen. BLANK is an activist judge. BLANK believes in rewriting the constitution. BLANK will legislate from the bench.

Let's discuss this term, "activist." The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it as:

a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue

Dictionary.com defines it as:

–noun

1.	an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, esp. a political cause.

–adjective

2.	of or pertaining to activism or activists: an activist organization for environmental concern.

3.	advocating or opposing a cause or issue vigorously, esp. a political cause: Activist opponents of the President picketed the White House.

So, an activist, is anyone that believes strongly in an issue and actually gets off their ass to do something to make real the change they want to see in the world. Sounds horrible. How dare President Obama nominate someone who actually had the nerve to be an involved citizen!

Wait a minute... Should we be discouraging civic involvement? Should we be sending the message to our youths that they should think twice before getting involved in their community? GOP, please listen up for a second. If you would like to attack her, attack the issues she was active on, not the fact that she was active. Being an activist is the oldest American tradition. It is supposed to be a positive thing. Our founding fathers were activists and community organizers. So please spare me the shit.

Why is it, that the Republicans would want a disengaged public? Do they? I mean, they loved the "grassroots" (google "astro-turf organizing") teabaggers, didn't they? It is not that they are against, or in support of, real activists. They really do not care. All they care about is winning the argument. When their people are in the streets, yelling at the President, that is patriotism. When our side is in the streets, yelling at the President, we should move to Europe.

Now, on to legislating from the bench. Every progressive should know this one fact.

But a 2005 study by Yale University law professor Paul Gewirtz and Yale Law School graduate Chad Golder showed that among Supreme Court justices at that time, those most frequently labeled "conservative" were among the most frequent practitioners of at least one brand of judicial activism -- the tendency to strike down statutes passed by Congress. Those most frequently labeled "liberal" were the least likely to strike down statutes passed by Congress.

What is the definition of legislating from the bench if it is not ruling in opposition to the legislature? The point is, the GOP does not actually give a shit about "legislating from the bench." They just absolutely hate any ruling that would be considered progressive, or, gasp, liberal. To the GOP, a progressive ruling is legislating from the bench.

So, how about we take these attacks for what they are, shallow, unsubstantiated, insincere, and so on, and so on....