Republican Hypocrisy category archive
If One Standard Is Good, Two Must Be Better 0
At the Charlotte Observer, Isaac Bailey remarks on the irony of Republicans’ outrage over Donald Trump’s having been served with a legal warrant at Mar-a-Largo. A snippet:
A Tune for the Times 0
Mangy comments at the Youtube page:
Mangy Fetlocks used to think Trump followers were stupid. He longer believes that. Now Mangy has recognized that many are not only stupid, but would-be fascists as well. Their willingness to set aside the basic tenets of democracy, their willingness to throw out an election, their desire to co-opt the military in support of their fascist goals, and their willingness to plan violence against their fellow Americans in order to have their way show these folks are by no means patriots, small ‘d’ democrats or even REAL Americans.
Originalist Sin 0
At the San Francisco Chronicle, Kevin Frazier comments on the con. A snippet:
If the Supreme Court and lower courts continue to tie the Constitution to inaccurate and irrelevant history, they’ll deny younger and future generations the chance to make “periodical repairs.”
The Courage of His Conniptions 0
Farron points out that persons need to take responsibility for their own stupid.
Sauce for the Goose . . . 0
. . . sauce for the gander.
Establishmentarians 0
At AL.com, Frances Coleman gets to the heart of establishmentarianism (emphasis added):
Their declarations . . . aren’t about religion. They’re about co-opting religion for irreligious ends.
Follow the link for the rest.
“Ethics Committees” 0
Slate reports on a phenomenon that’s occurring in states that have enacted strict abortion laws in the wake of the Dobbs ruling. Here’s the nub; follow the link for a long and detailed exploration of the topic (emphasis added).
After Roe’s fall, ethics committees are taking on a new responsibility: determining whether a pregnant patient suffering a medical emergency may lawfully obtain an abortion.
Methinks that there must be another phrase, one much more suitable than “ethics committees,” to describe said function.
I wonder what it might be?
(Image via Job’s Anger.)
Courting Disaster 0
At the Sacramento Bee, Erwin Chermerinsky reveals the con behind the conservative reactionary justices’ claim that they are merely citing precedent from the distant past. Here’s a bit of his column:
Historical practice is often inconsistent, allowing justices to pick the examples that support the conclusions they want. For instance, the court dismissed many laws regulating concealed weapons and gave no weight to the fact that the New York law they overturned has existed since 1911. The conservatives on the court ignore history when it does not help their agenda.
Establishmentarians 0
Zandar over at Zandar versus the Stupid is somewhat less than optimistic.
Establishmentarians 0
At Above the Law, Joe Patrice dissects Justice (sic) Alito’s exhortation in support of establismentarianism. Here’s a tiny little bit from the article:
Words Have Meaning 0
Leonard Pitts, Jr., in responding to some critical comments he has received, finds it necessary to read the dictionary for his critics.