Tag: SCOTUS

George Takei sets phaser to ‘angry jerk,’ shoots himself and makes ‘blackface’ comment

July 2, 2015July 2, 2015 by Douglas Ernst 11 Comments

One would think that activist and former Star Trek actor George Takei would be happy. The Supreme Court ruled last week that same-sex marriage must be allowed in all 50 States. Obergefell v. Hodges went down in the history books exactly as Mr. Takei wanted. Instead of basking in the light of a new day, he used the legislative victory to a.) call Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas a “clown in blackface” while b.) demonstrating that he has serious reading comprehension problems.

News Busters posted the part of Justice Thomas’ commentary that made the actor explode during a recent interview:

“Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which
this Nation was built.

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.” — Clarence Thomas.

This seems pretty straightforward for anyone who doesn’t have partisan goggles strapped on so tight that blood flow to the brain is constricted. In short, dignity is something that all men have because they were created in God’s image. For whatever strange reason, Angry George doesn’t get it.

Here is what the actor told a Fox affiliate in Phoenix:

“He is a clown in blackface sitting on the Supreme Court. He gets me that angry. He doesn’t belong there. And for him to say, slaves have dignity. I mean, doesn’t he know that slaves were in chains? That they were whipped on the back. If he saw the movie 12 Years a Slave, you know, they were raped. And he says they had dignity as slaves or — My parents lost everything that they worked for, in the middle of their lives, in their 30s. His business, my father’s business, our home, our freedom and we’re supposed to call that dignified? Marched out of our homes at gun point. I mean, this man does not belong on the Supreme Court. He is an embarrassment. He is a disgrace to America.”

It seems self-evident that telling a black man who grew up the South prior to the Civil Rights movement that he should watch “12 Years a Slave” is a pretty dumb move, so I’ll ignore that one. Instead, we’ll talk about World War II.

Author Laura Hillenbrand summed up Louis Zamperini thoughts on dignity in her bestselling book “Unbroken.” For those who are unfamiliar with Olympian and World War II hero Mr. Zamperini, I high suggest reading the book. Ms. Hillenbrand’s retelling of the veteran’s fight for survival at sea and in multiple Japanese P.O.W. camps will change the way you see the world.

“Few societies treasured dignity, and feared humiliation, as did the Japanese, for whom loss of honor could merit suicide. This is likely one of the reasons why Japanese soldiers in World War II debased their prisoners with such zeal, seeking to take from them that which was most painful and destructive to lose. On Kwajalein, Louie and Phil learned a dark truth known to the doomed in Hitler’s death camps, the slaves of the American South, and a hundred other generations of betrayed people. Dignity is as essential to human life as water, food, and oxygen. The stubborn retention of it, even in the face of extreme physical hardship, can hold a man’s soul in his body long past the point at which the body should have surrendered it. The loss of it can carry a man off as surely as thirst, hunger, exposure, and asphyxiation, and with greater cruelty. In places like Kwajalein, degradation could be as lethal as a bullet.” (Hillenbrand, Laura. Unbroken. Random House, Inc., 2004. 183)

That late Mr. Zamperini and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas both demonstrated a deep understanding of human dignity. Given Mr. Takei’s politics, it is no surprise that he would mistake the crystal clear message — all men are born with dignity because they were given life by our Creator — for an insult.

To Mr. Takei, dignity is bestowed upon men when nine judges in black robes essentially invent rights or the federal government doles out benefits to ‘Person A’ paid for by ‘Person B’ (usually without B’s consent). It is no wonder that the Star Trek actor is such an angry man — he’s been waiting his entire life for someone to give him a certain kind of dignity that he always possessed.

Just under the surface of all those Facebook jokes and silly memes is man whose blood boils with red-hot rage. It’s unfortunate, because during a time when he should have just sat back and smiled, Mr. Takei decided to show the world that he — and not Clarence Thomas — is the real clown. A very sad clown.

Marvel’s Dan Slott stretches his bigotry muscles, tells Christians to build companies in ‘Christ-land’

July 1, 2014May 25, 2015 by Douglas Ernst 198 Comments

Members of the comic industry recently got a little testy when Chuck Dixon and Paul Rivoche went to the Wall Street Journal about a bias against conservative creators in the industry. Marvel’s Tom Brevoort quickly assured everyone that no “blacklist” exists at Marvel (Can you name one openly conservative writer who is employed there?), and then surmised that it wasn’t conservatives that editors have a problem with, but certain kinds of “behavior” **cough** that might translate into not getting employment.

Sure, no “blacklist” exists, as long as you don’t consider The Amazing Spider-Man writer telling Christians to move to “Christ-land” as evidence that maybe — just maybe — Marvel isn’t too friendly towards guys like Messrs. Dixon and and Rivoche.

Here is Dan Slott’s response to the SCOTUS ruling on the Hobby Lobby case.

Imagine if I found out that my local pool was going to have very specific “women-only” hours for Muslim women, who don’t want to be seen by men outside their immediate family. We’ll use Seattle as an example:

Seema is from Pakistan. Sahra is from Somalia. Both are Muslim. They say having a women-only swim program allows them to get some exercise while observing their religious customs. Seema says their religion requires them to cover in front of men. “We don’t cover our heads in front of our husbands, our dads, brothers,” she says. “But when we go outside we’re supposed to cover for woman’s modesty.”

What if I pulled a Dan Slott-like move, stretched my bigotry muscles, and told Muslim women: “This is America. Go find pools in ‘Muslim Land.'” I’m pretty sure my employer would fire me.

And then there’s this gem:

The thing with Hobby Lobby and other small religious businesses is that they took their grievance to court — and won. They followed the rule of law and the highest court in the land agreed with them. That is not an “asshole” move, but yet Dan Slott likens Christians to “conquistadors” and “assholes.” It’s incredibly mean, but also cartoonish; it’s reminiscent of 1992’s Office Space, where the character Peter Gibbons says “You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear.”

Speaking of the Jewish faith, it’s now well-known that Dan Slott is very protective of his ancestry (just don’t mention that his own characters get taken to task by Bleeding Cool for engaging in “Nazi-like experimentation”). How would the Marvel scribe react if someone went full-Dan Slott on Jewish people like he does on Christians and Americans who are strong advocates of the Second Amendment?

Here we see another example of Dan Slott’s intolerance:

Hube over at Colossus of Rhodey made a good point shortly after the tweet went live: How would Dan Slott react to someone who tweeted him in a New York Jewish accent about money?

The tweet was deleted — down the Memory Hole — Dan Slott’s go-to move when he gets caught saying things that reflect poorly on his employer. It’s a good thing the Internet is forever.

If you are a fan of Marvel comics who just so happens to be a Christian, a Second Amendment advocate or simply someone who just doesn’t like seeing bigotry broadcasted via social media, you should probably think twice about buying products put out by Dan Slott. You might want to also consider contacting Marvel. It doesn’t have many standards these days, but there are a few that are hanging by a thread.

Slow clap for Dan Slott. He’s the guy you want to find when you want tweets infused with anti-Christian bigotry, or Marvel comics that are consistently trying to see how low the bar can go.

Update: Dan Slott continues to read this little old blog and attack it from afar because, as we all know, it’s much safer to allow Twitter groupies to massage your ego than to actually defend the indefensible.

Question for Dan Slott: If I just had a beef with a few Jews over a religious issue with political implications, and I told them to go to “Jew-land,” how would you respond? How would my employer respond? That’s right — you’d go ballistic. And then my employer would fire me. But you get to tell a bunch of Christians to go to “Christ-land” without consequences. Hypocrite.

Update II: Marvel’s Tom Brevoort has weighed in. No response to the question “If Chuck Dixon told Dan Slott to go to ‘Jew-land’ over a religious gripe, would he still get work?” Telling.

Someone else brought up similar sentiments about Marvel’s creators over at the New Brevoort Formspring. It turns out that Mr. Brevoort really does embrace the the strange business model “needlessly alienate potential customers” to grow the company.

Roberts inadvertently sows the seeds of revolutionary change

June 28, 2012June 29, 2012 by Douglas Ernst 8 Comments

The Stamp Act of 1765. The Tea Act of 1773. Boring stuff, right? Except for what they represented to a bunch of rebel colonists fed up with oppressive taxation and a government increasingly divorced from the pulse of its people. After the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776 things didn’t go too well for the oppressors.

Fast forward to June 28, 2012, where the Supreme Court has ruled the Obamacare mandate constitutional — as a tax. Correction: The mother of all taxes. Chief Justice John Roberts‘ logic? It’s better to be oppressed under a government with near-unlimited powers than one with unlimited powers:

Whether the mandate can be upheld under the Commerce Clause is a question about the scope of federal authority. Its answer depends on whether Congress can exercise what all acknowledge to be the novel course of directing individuals to purchase insurance. Congress’s use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educations. […] Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance, not whether it can. Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.

[A]lthough the breadth of Congress’s power to taxis greater than its power to regulate commerce, the taxing power does not give Congress the same degree of control over individual behavior. Once we recognize that Congress may regulate a particular decision under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government can bring its full weight to bear. Congress may simply command individuals to do as it directs. An individual who disobeys may be subjected to criminal sanctions. Those sanctions can include not only fines and imprisonment, but all the attendant consequences of being branded a criminal: deprivation of otherwise protected civil rights, such as the right to bear arms or vote in elections; loss of employment opportunities; social stigma; and severe disabilities in other controversies, such as custody or immigration disputes.

By contrast, Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punish individuals subject to it. We do not make light of the severe burden that taxation—especially taxation motivated by a regulatory purpose—can impose. But imposition of a tax nonetheless leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice (NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS, Opinion of the Court, 42-43).

Basically, what Roberts is saying is that allowing Congress to compel you to buy insurance “because we say so” would destroy the idea of a government of limited and enumerated powers. Allowing a government to compel you to do something through taxation “because we’re power-hungry, oppressive jerks” … apparently falls within the scope of the constitution. Barely.

The inside-the-Beltway crowd doesn’t read things quite the same way. As always, they’re too caught up with head games to understand what’s going on in the hearts of everyday Americans. Take Charles Krauthammer, a brilliant man who is technically right when he says:

“[Roberts upheld] the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.”

That might very well be true. Charles and Chief Justice John Roberts are intelligent individuals. But let this also be known — Chief Justice John Roberts helped sow the seeds of revolutionary change today. The American people have a history of not responding well to oppressive taxes. Just ask our British friends.

Obamacare has now been certified a tax of the highest, most oppressive order — a tax imposed upon you at birth because you exist. And so, the people who unleashed a big red wave in 2010 over federal spending and uncontrollable debts have now been told that Obamacare stands — as a tax — from their worst nightmares.

My prediction is that the Tea Party movement, already fed up with $17 trillion dollars of debt, high unemployment and a grim economic forecast, will use the anger generated from this decision and turn out another big red wave in the 2012 elections that will rival or surpass 2010. Then they will wait. They will expect the Republicans they elect to craft principled legislation to secure a brighter future for their kids and grandchildren. If it doesn’t happen, there won’t be much time to right the ship. You can only outrun the math for so long, as Greece, Italy and Spain have found out. It will then be up to good men to pick up the mantle of Paul Revere and William Dawes, or the nation will be lost.

Donald Verrilli’s Obamacare suicide mission.

March 27, 2012June 29, 2012 by Douglas Ernst 8 Comments

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was sent to defend the indefensible before very smart people, like Justice Scalia and the eight other Supreme Court justices. Now Verrilli is going to be blamed for something that was a lost cause to begin with.

Listening to the the Supreme Court coverage of Obamacare for the last two days has been a pure joy for anyone who loves the constitution. The reason is simple: the Obamacare mandate is blatantly unconstitutional, and there’s nowhere to hem and haw and hide once you get to the Supreme Court. It’s one thing to yell and scream on cable news; it’s one things to play semantics in The New York Times or the Washington Post; and it’s another to stand before nine Supreme Court justices and have to be bring your A-game in front of the entire country. Word on the street is that U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wasn’t even fit for a high school debate club’s B-team. I disagree, because you can’t defend the indefensible. It didn’t matter what game he brought, because the Obama administration gave him an impossible task.

Here’s the analysis, from CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin:

“This law looks like it’s going to be struck down. I’m telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong. … I don’t know why he had a bad day … He is a good lawyer, he was a perfectly fine lawyer in the really sort of tangential argument yesterday. He was not ready for the answers for the conservative justices.”

Really? He was fine on the first day? I suppose, if you consider getting laughed at by everyone in the room to be “fine.”

Here’s the deal: Verrilli has been asked to simultaneously define something as a “tax” and a “penalty.” The Obama administration asked him to twist into an intellectual pretzel to get this thing into the end zone, and that’s tough to do.

The Obama administration has to thread a difficult needle. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued [Monday] that the penalty for non-compliance with the mandate did not function as a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act [because the Fourth Circuit of Appeals ruled othewise]. [And Tuesday], he’ll have to argue that it does operate as a tax, and thus is a constitutional exercise of the congressional power to levy taxes.

Justice Samuel Alito asked Verrilli whether he could point to another case in which courts identified something as not a tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act while still ruling it was a constitutional exercise of taxing power. Verrilli could not name any.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was sent on a suicide mission, and he should be pissed off. The left will place the blame on his shoulder’s when the Supreme Court rules that the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional. All they need to do to find the real culprit is to look into the mirror.

Justice Scalia is not a stupid man, and he’s not afraid to tell that to anyone who walks into the courtroom. After Justice Kagan had to spoon feed talking points to Verrilli to help him get through the ordeal, I would be shocked if the Court didn’t strike down the mandate.

Again, today was a beautiful day if you love the constitution.