Wednesday afternoon round-up and Open Thread

Victorian posy of pansiesIt’s quite amazing watching DemProg heads explode on my “real me” Facebook page. To hear them tell it, the Hobby Lobby decision was four white religious men banning women’s right to contraception across America because a mean-spirited Christian corporation demanded that they do so.

I’ve been doing my best to say that (a) Hobby Lobby always provided a broad range of contraception coverage to its employees, and is only protesting the fact that the government is forcing it to pay for contraception that can be used to cause abortions; and (b) that the Court’s narrow holding said only that the Health & Human Services contraception mandate, which is not law under Obamacare, does not pass the test set by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which President Clinton approvingly signed. My comments are greeted with silence.

But there’s no room for silence here. I have a lot to say, and I delight in your comments. So off we go….


I may as well start with a good Hobby Lobby round-up. All of these posts were very helpful when I was trying to craft a short, fact-filled response to confused DemProgs on Facebook.

Both Elizabeth Warren’s and Hillary Clinton’s responses to the decision show that (a) it’s amazing they graduated from law school, let alone, in Warren’s case, became teachers and (b) that they’re each as bad as the other, and that’s saying a lot. Let me say again what I learned from taking Warren’s Banking Law class a long time ago: she’s soft-spoken and mean; she’s a muddled thinker; she’s an incoherent communicator; and there’s a lot of anger there. (Warning:  this article might be behind a pay wall, but you can demolish that pay wall for a mere 99 cents per month.)

I found an exceptionally good trio of cases from the crew at National Review (which really excels at this type of analysis:

Charles C. W. Cooke points out that a great deal of the DemProg’s hysteria derives from the fact that they don’t understand that the Supreme Court’s role is to interpret law, not to enact it. That’s not surprising. DemProgs want their (not any, but their) president to enact law and, trained by Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade — both of which involved the Court creating rights out of whole cloth, for better or worse — actually believe that the court exists to enact a DemProg-approved agenda.

Ramesh Ponnuru explains how illogical, hysterical, and unrealistic Ruth Ginsburg was in her dissent — something that explains why DemProgs are so wildly excited by what she wrote.

Ross Douthat notes that DemProgs are exceptionally sore, and dishonest, winners. This reflects the fact that the Hobby Lobby decision peeled out a tiny corner of religious freedom in the face of a vast government takeover of . . . everything.

And finally, one of Jonah Goldberg’s best, in which he explains out that it wasn’t the Court putting the employer in women’s uterus, it was the Obama administration. That accurate analysis kind of puts a different spin on this poster, which DemProgs are excitedly passing around through social media:

Who makes medical decisions


Obama’s a chart topper: After thinking it over, Americans agree that Barack Obama is the worst president this country has seen since the end of WWII (and Ronald Reagan is the best). The only problem with this confirmation of my bias is that, for me to be proved right, the country has had to suffer terribly. It’s no fun being Cassandra.


On the subject of Obamacare, Kevin Williamson allows himself a bit of schadenfreude, and it makes for brilliant reading.


When I heard about the IRS’s “dog at my hard drive” excuse for the missing emails from Lois Lerner and six other key employees, I immediately said “that’s spoliation” and it’s bad.  It turns out that  the IRS’s conduct was even worse than I remembered at the time I made this statement.

The IRS wasn’t just hiding stuff from Congress, which could be classified as political game-playing. By the time it lost the emails, the back-up and the hard-drive, it was engaged in litigation that placed upon it a heavy legal burden to do everything possible to preserve any material that could be germane to the lawsuits. A judge with any reverence for the law should come down on the IRS like a ton of bricks for this behavior, even if it was “merely” negligent, as opposed to a deliberate fraud on the court.


The Founders did not imagine an America of incredible wisdom, by incredible wisdom, and for incredible wisdom. Madison readily envisioned that the government would be able to function despite man’s worst nature. However, even the Founders’ checks and balances didn’t comprehend a president and his supporters who would willingly cast aside constitutional governance.

Sadly, judging by changes made to the AP US history test, which drives US history curriculum at high schools across America, things aren’t going to get better any time soon. Since our children are prevented from learning the Founders’ wisdom, they can’t institute those ideas into their understanding of government.

And, while Boehner’s lawsuit is a step in the right direction, I remain dubious that it will accomplish anything. I’m with Andrew McCarthy in that I fear it will simply see the House cede power to the courts. At the rate Congress is ceding power to the other branches of government, it becomes nothing but an expensive Kabuki piece.


The kind of people who vote for Hillary won’t care that, on July 4th, this potential presidential candidate has decided to spend her time with a British, America-bashing newspaper. That’s what DemProgs do, and they’re damn proud of it too.


For years, people have been trying to figure out what the “Obama doctrine” is. Jeffrey Anderson thinks he knows: the Obama doctrine is Obama’s belief that, when Americans voted him into office, they got a twofer — both a president and a legislator.


Earlier today, I posted that, whether one agrees or not with the cheerleader who is also a big game hunter, disagreement is not a basis for censorship. DemProg, chart-topping songstress Diane Warren has different idea altogether. She thinks that disagreement is a basis for murder. Assuming Warren survives the coming ISIS sharia takeover, she should fit in quite well with the Islamist mindset.


I’m not a BBC fan, but this rap version of WWI’s origins is cute.


And finally, pictures!

Democrats are brave enough

Me myself and I

Plenty of room on the calendar

Reasons for owning guns

Illegal immigrants displace veterans

(Thanks to Caped Crusader, the Family Back East, and Earl Aagaard for their help with this post.)

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Texan99

    Kids aren’t prevented from learning about the Founding Fathers. They’re only prevented from learning about them at their crappy public schools. Families that care about their kids will teach them a lot they can’t get at school, and some kids will care enough about freedom to learn even if their families don’t.

  • jj

    I’m actually coming to the conclusion that the female wing of the supreme court ought not to be allowed to have a vote on any matters even vaguely related to contraception, abortion, etc. They seem congenitally unable to separate their anatomies from the Constitution – or the law. I doubt if Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg ever read the Constitution – or if she did, she didn’t understand it.

  • raymondjelli

    Ruth Scuzzi should be shipped to the Hague. She thinks she’s presiding over the EU and not an American court.

    The whole court case invalidates the Obamacare decision anyway. If we have employer mandated birth control against religious preference then Obamacare wasn’t simply a tax. It was legislation and should have been ruled on as legislation. If it is a tax it can’t force birth control on anyone.

    The idea that corporations do not have religious beliefs is a non-starter. Corporations limit legal liability and allow for contractual obligations. They do not compel the owner of the corporation to disavow their conscience or to take on activities that a feminist regards as her due right. Let NOW offer a health care policy to other feminists for free. Let Ruth Scuzzi find a pseudolaw that compels them to.

  • Ymarsakar

    No, it isn’t fun being Cassandra, is it.

  • Ymarsakar

    So let me get this straight. Women have to regurgitate to save themselves from rapists, obey Democrat authority and sugar daddies, but aren’t allowed to use guns because guns are scary?

    And strong women need birth control so Hobby Lobby is the enemy for not paying for such, and that’s why Kendall needs to be put in her place, back in the kitchen?

    The Left is F U, Book. FUBAR

  • lee

    I read Ruth’s dissent, and either she has some sort of dementia, or some junior subunderling wrote it. While I have never been a fan of hers (even in my lefty days), she was at least smart-ish enough. What that was was just BAD. With no bearing in reality. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that anyone who even walked THROUGH a law school, much less has a law degree, and practiced as a lawyer and/or judge for any amount of time, could have written such utter nonsense. It’s not even up to the low pretty low bar set be the Wise Latina…

  • JKB

    Turns out that the Democrat controlled Congress of 1993, with overwhelming bipartisan support and eager signing by President Clinton had to pass that law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, to find out what was in it. Now, here 20 years later, they aren’t happy with what the law requires.

    • lee

      Ooooh! Love it!

  • lee

    I also read some link some Facebook “friend” posted in which the author wrote, “I keep reading and rereading the Constitution and I still can’t find the word ‘corporation.'” What a disingenuous crock!

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

    If the Bill of Rights was ONLY to apply to individuals, then I would think something in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights might mention something. Or the First Amendment might state, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof BY INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS; or abridging the freedom of speech OF INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, BUT ONLY AS INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS.”

    If the First Amendment can’t apply to individuals as the the practice their livelihoods by incorporating as a business, then so neither should the fifth–which would mean that the Government could go in and perform warrantless searches on businesses right and left.

    Because there ain’t no “corporation” in there either!

    People just don’t READ the Constitution. They parrot out phrases they know, “Freedom of speech,” and “Freedom of the press,” and “freedom of religion.” They miss out on what it ACTUALLY says:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

    But I REALLY just guess the fuss is about LOSING. Because you KNOW if Citizens United had been about a liberal group and a Republican President, the left would have been crowing and giggling over the Soup’s decision.

    BTW, I am guessing someone enlightened HHS that their “three prongs” for Religious Exemption of their mandate was perilously close to a violation of the Establishment Clause:

  • Charles Martel

    Ginsburg is a Marxist, which more than explains to me her intellectual vacuity. Echoing something that jj said about Howard Zinn, I have never met a Marxist who was capable of deep or original thought, let alone any genuine curiosity about the world. Once the Marxist worldview has been embedded, it’s like an incurable case of crabs. Only the death of the host or a true “Come to Jesus!” moment can put an end to it. ,