Open Thread

It’s 2010 and there are still zero Pastafarians on the Supreme Court. How long will they keep us down?






78 replies
  1. 1
    Joseph Nobles says:

    I just got the talking Jack in the Box ad again. (At least you can silence it.) Not really a complaint, just a report.

  2. 2
    FormerSwingVoter says:

    Take that, Jesus!

  3. 3
    licensed to kill time says:

    Pastafaria, Almighty Noodle!

    SCOTUS and the Noodly Appendages would make an excellent name for a rock band.

  4. 4
    NobodySpecial says:

    Ramen, brother. Preach it!

  5. 5
    gwangung says:

    Oh. Now I have a craving for pad thai or udon for lunch.

  6. 6
    Punchy says:

    I wonder what Justice Thomas would do with a Noodly Appendage….

  7. 7
    Paul in KY says:

    You do know that when you eat udon, the great FSM will scourge you with it in the afterlife (little known fact)

  8. 8

    I suddenly have a craving for noodles.

  9. 9
    lamh31 says:

    All I gotta say is “AMEN”!!!!

    Wanker of the Day: Andrew Sullivan

  10. 10
    Comrade Jake says:

    Sully really is getting his wanker on with Kagan today. Exhibit A.

    When your biggest problem with someone is that they haven’t taken giant risks with their career, it might be time to look in the mirror. That’s a wanker you see before ye.

  11. 11
    Brachiator says:

    It’s 2010 and there are still zero Pastafarians on the Supreme Court.

    I’m udon with that.

  12. 12
    Trinity says:

    Noodlelujah!

  13. 13
    frankdawg says:

    As a committed Pastifarian I feel it is entirely within the majorities prerogative to ignore our numbers. After all they have a history of care and concern for all beliefs and I sense they are good people only looking out for our best interests.

    I am hoping that FAUX Nudes will soon want to add a “house noodle” to their rainbow stable of Stephen Fetchits – I WANT ON THE NEOCON WELFARE GRAVY TRAIN BABY!

    off the record I wish to offer my sincere apologies to Mr. Fetchit who battled unforgivable bigotry all his life and is left with only the legacy of being Mikey Steel before there was good money in it.

  14. 14
    fourlegsgood says:

    Oh, the noodleosity.

  15. 15
    fourlegsgood says:

    Oh, the noodleosity.

  16. 16
    Quicksand says:

    No Jedi either, as far as I know.

  17. 17
    cleek says:

    Sully’s become unreadable, thanks to his Kagan freak-out.

  18. 18
    frankdawg says:

    @lamh31:

    The correct response is “Ramen” it is the holy word :)

  19. 19
    gwangung says:

    @asiangrrlMN: Actually, maybe some chow foon…..

  20. 20
    schrodinger's cat says:

    John Cole is a pastafarian? I thought he was a believer of the Ceiling Cat.

  21. 21
    kid bitzer says:

    i understand sully is about to prove that kagan must be straight:

    she’s trig palin’s real mother!

  22. 22
    Keith says:

    You go to culture war with the SCOTUS you have, not the one you want.

  23. 23
    comrade scott's agenda of rage says:

    No Taoists on the court either. Just another example of massive OBAMA FAIL!!!!!!!!

    Wanker of the Day: Andrew Sullivan

    Fixed.

  24. 24
    dmsilev says:

    @Punchy:

    I wonder what Justice Thomas would do with a Noodly Appendage….

    Touch it, one assumes.

    dms

  25. 25
    Rosalita says:

    @gwangung:

    I just had stuffed shells, how appropriate…

  26. 26

    @gwangung: Yuuuuuuum! You feeling better then?

  27. 27
    Rosalita says:

    @asiangrrlMN:

    Jeffrey posting food pics in 3…2…1

  28. 28
    beltane says:

    @cleek: He freaks out like this from time to time, and always over a woman. There is a clear pattern here.

  29. 29
    comrade scott's agenda of rage says:

    @beltane:

    @cleek: He freaks out like this from time to time, and always over a woman. There is a clear pattern here.
    ReplyRe

    Dr Freud! Calling Dr Freud! I assume Sullivan spends most of his disposable income on therapy. If so, he’s being robbed.

  30. 30
    Jim says:

    Oh, someone just has to post this one from Jane Hamsher.

    http://news.firedoglake.com/20.....ment-35064

    ‘One of the limitations of online activism is that people frequently accept nothing but grand victories, big headlines, as “wins.” They view anything else as ineffectual “incrementalism.”

    Lobbyists don’t work that way. They’re always pushing. They will inch the ball down the field consistently, where our side only accepts long bombs. But their side keeps winning. So we need to adjust.

    We’re going to keep pushing on this, and use what we learned to fight for more. And we’re not going to throw anyone overboard in a fit of pique who might help with that.

  31. 31
    Poopyman says:

    There’ll be a Pastafarian on the court before there’s an atheist. After all, the Constitution doesn’t say anything about freedom from religion.

    My lunch was only chicken w/ rice, so I’m a little grumpy at not having Thai.

  32. 32
    wrb says:

    @Comrade Jake:

    I’ve read Sully almost daily for years and defended him.

    Now and then someone here has said when he did x he became “dead to me for life.”

    I thought that silly- disagreement or disgust with one thing doesn’t invalidate the rest.

    However, his Kagan campaign may have brought me to that point.
    Sure feels like it right now.
    The smug pomposity with which this supposed believer in “Oakshottian humility” is setting out to invade and trash her life I find revolting, literally nauseating.

  33. 33

    FYWPwaRPF!

    @Comrade Jake: Oh good god. Even skimming that made me want to gouge my eyes out. He needs to just stop. I don’t read Sully any more, but I was curious to see what I was missing. Nothing.

    @lamh31: Thank you for the link. That’s pretty much how I feel about it.

    @Rosalita: I wish!

  34. 34
    beltane says:

    @cleek: @wrb: You’d think Sullivan would be too happy with the Tories’ impending control of the British government to have time for so much Kagan-bashing. What gives.

  35. 35
    jl says:

    I am a Kagan skeptic, because of my concern about how she will vote on civil liberties and national security issues. I want some one with a fuller more definite record. That is my only concern.

    Why this drivel from Sullivan?

    And I see today Greenwald quotes a (yugh!) David Brooks piece. I guess when I have time I will have to search to see whether Brooks wrote something similar about, oh, say, Roberts. Did he?

    If Sullivan wants to be constructive, and Greenwald wants to continue to be constructive, why not report out what we DO know about Kagan’s views, rather than pumping out this thin gruel?

    My concerns (and recently, mild hopes) about Kagan on civil liberties arise from what Greenwald did report. I have no interest in armchair psychoanalysis at a distance, or leaping off into speculations about motives for supposed careerism.

    If these people are going to convince themselves that Kagan is a total void, and then just sit there and stare into the supposed abyss with alarm, wave their arms and rattle off their fantasies, rather than investigating what she has done and written, then they are just wasting their own and others’ time.

  36. 36
    Joseph Nobles says:

    Hey, Gordon Brown just resigned.

  37. 37
    gwangung says:

    @asiangrrlMN: Oh, yeah. It apparently was a one day thing, in and out in 24 hours. It made the second act a bit adventuresome, but…

    Hm. Maybe pad thai AND chow foon….

  38. 38

    @gwangung: Double YUM! I am allergic to wheat, so I should stick to rice noodles. Nom nom nom.

  39. 39
    freelancer says:

    I thought that silly- disagreement or disgust with one thing doesn’t invalidate the rest.
    However, his Kagan campaign may have brought me to that point.
    Sure feels like it right now.
    The smug pomposity with which this supposed believer in “Oakshottian humility” is setting out to invade and trash her life I find revolting, literally nauseating.

    This.

    He really pissed me off with his rebuttal to dissent, as well.

    Gosh you are pissing me off today! Toobin said they have been friends for 30 years, and he couldn’t tell you what she is passionate about. If she is so private she doesn’t share her own beliefs on many issues, I don’t understand how anyone would expect her to share her sexual preference. She hasn’t openly appeared with a partner, so whether she is straight, gay or just wants to be friends with a bunch of books is hardly my business.
    The other thing I find disconcerting is everyone seems to assume because she is 50 and not married she must be gay? Couldn’t she just be single? Maybe she hasn’t ever met anyone she wants to marry, or someone who wasn’t intimidated by her fierce intellect and ambition. Maybe she, and by extension, the White House are telling the truth, and have said all they are going to say.

    I always know when someone has no idea how being gay can affect one’s entire life-experience when they use the term “sexual preference.” It’s like a taste in rock rather than country. They would never use that context about a heterosexual.

    Oh they misspoke, and referred to gaydom as a choice, not an orientation, therefore, every single point they made is invalidated. Q. E. D.

  40. 40
    gwangung says:

    @jl: Hell, yeah.

    If we’re ever in a discussion about Kagan, it’d be even money that you’d make me change my mind. In a discussion with Greenwald or Sullivan, I’m pretty sure I’d leave, thinking the other side was being stupid….

  41. 41
    Martin says:

    @jl: Almost 100% of the opposition to Kagan from the left can be traced directly back to Greenwald. If you can muster being as skeptical of Greenwald as you are of Obama and Kagan, then I think you’ll find this to be a much less stressful exercise.

  42. 42
    Garrigus Carraig says:

    Looks like Gordon Brown just resigned. Rumor is he’ll stay on as MP.

  43. 43

    Wait, wait, wait, wait……

    Nino Scalia is a pastafarian?

    And here I thought he was Italian.

  44. 44
    jl says:

    @Martin: I follow Greenwald’s links, and follow links from those links. Why do you think I am not ever skeptical of Greenwald when the second half of my comment expresses skepticism about the recent turn in his analysis of the Kagan nomination?

  45. 45
  46. 46
    JMY says:

    @jl:

    My concerns (and recently, mild hopes) about Kagan on civil liberties arise from what Greenwald did report.

    Take what Greenwald reported about her views on civil liberties & national security with a grain of salt.

  47. 47
    Chyron HR says:

    @Joseph Nobles:

    Hey, Gordon Brown just resigned.

    Who will host Angry Yelling Restaurant now?

  48. 48
    R-Jud says:

    @Garrigus Carraig: I’m seeing both yes and no to that. I can’t imagine he’d quit politics completely.

    Rumors also say that Clegg will be the deputy PM, and that the Tories basically agreed to everything the Lib Dems demanded. He’s a smooth operator, that Cleggy. He’s got to hope the coalition works, though, or else he’s killed his party. Most people voted LD to keep the Tories out.

  49. 49
    jl says:

    Anyway, forget civil liberties and potential danger to them in the national security paranoia that is the new tradition.

    Here is the important stuff. Kagan will mean NO Pastifarians, er, I mean Protestants, on the Supreme Court.

    Obama pick would mean no Protestants on high court
    TOM BREEN, Associated Press Writer Tom Breen, Associated Press Writer
    May 11, 2010

    Kagan, nominated Monday by President Barack Obama, would be the third Jewish justice, and would join six Roman Catholics on the court, meaning none of the justices would be rooted in the Protestant Reformation traditions that shaped the country from its earliest stages.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/201.....t_religion

    As a white man of Protestant cultural heritage, this surely should be my greatest concern.

    Who will be there to ensure out nation’s Christian heritage will be reflected in our laws through application of the one true theology of total depravity, predestination, limited atonement, irresistable grace and perseverance of the saints?

    Who, huh? I ask you.

    Limited atonement is necessary to understand why it is necessary and proper to strip terrorism suspects of all their rights and citizneship immediately as an investigation commences.

  50. 50
    jl says:

    @JMY: Give me some links, and I will follow them.

  51. 51

    It’s a Bad News/Good News day.

    The Bad News:

    The Tories’ gambit to have the big-money types threaten Clegg worked, and the new Tory-Lib Blackmail Coalition will have Tory leader Cameron as the new PM.

    The Good News:

    Regular Americans of all races, creeds and political affiliations finally beat the banks — Audit the Fed passed! For all of those who took crap over building transpartisan alliances from the same people who approved Obama’s picking Republicans to fill his cabinet and his deficit commission, this is especially sweet.

  52. 52
    eric says:

    Prior to the hearings on Roberts and Alito, there was no basis to vote against them either. Now, one might have chosen to disbeleive their statements about their level of “activism” before the Senate, but there were no overt lies.

    There is nothing in the Constitution that tells Senators how to vote when confirming a judge. There is nothing that prohibits a ‘no’ vote based on politics alone. There may be political and practial reasons why governing under such a regime would be difficult, but there is no reason to reject it out of hand.

    So, GG and the Left have every right to say that she should be rejected because of her views or lack of stated views or even the fear of her views. They do not have to govern. Her perceived personal infirmities could also form a basis for a ‘no’ vote.

    Elections matter because of the Supreme Court. That is why a small part of me died when I woke up and was told that Gore lost and again when the Supremes told me he lost again, but that their reasoning could never be applied to any future case.

    In truth, the Left’s real criticism of Kagan has nothing to do with Kagan. There is nothing in her past that even remotely disqualifies her (contra Rehnquist’s anti-voting rights activities). So, the Left sees her lack of overt leftness of a further sign that Obama is not (shockingly) as far left as they would like him to be. That is a valid reason for a ‘no’ vote in the Senate. The real debate is whether such a vote would be good for the confirmation process and, hence, the Court and our Country.

    eric

  53. 53
    Hal says:

    Almost 100% of the opposition to Kagan from the left can be traced directly back to Greenwald. If you can muster being as skeptical of Greenwald as you are of Obama and Kagan, then I think you’ll find this to be a much less stressful exercise.

    I said before that every post I was reading did nothing more than link to GG. No other comment, as if he was the end all, be all on Kagan. I just read some post on Huffpo were the writer said Kagan was “Extremely Conservative.”

    I can honestly say, I’ve rarely felt more distaste for “Liberal Progressives” (and I consider myself super duper flaming Liberal) than I have with the Kagan nomination. There is just something so witch hunty from the left that really turns my stomach.

  54. 54
    JMY says:

    @jl:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2010.....s-process/

    http://www.slate.com/id/2251138

    http://www.thepoliticalcarniva.....ena-kagan/

    Anytime anyone brings up how Glenn mentioned her answer on indefinite detention of al-aqaeda members, I always point out how Dawn Johnsen agrees with her.

  55. 55
    jl says:

    I have read Kagan defenders, and listened to Lessig and Spitzer. What I have so far is personal testimonials with little substance.

    So, anyone here who has links to good analysis of Kagan on civil libeties that contradicts what Greenwald says, please post them in comments. I will read them.

  56. 56
    Comrade Jake says:

    @wrb:

    I’ve defended Sully here from time to time as well. I’ll still continue to read him, even though the stuff on Kagan is so awful.

    I’ve just come to accept that Sully has to get his wanker on from time to time. I think it’s kind of like outreach to the handful of right-wingnuts who’ve remained loyal readers.

  57. 57
    FormerSwingVoter says:

    @Hal:

    I said before that every post I was reading did nothing more than link to GG. No other comment, as if he was the end all, be all on Kagan. I just read some post on Huffpo were the writer said Kagan was “Extremely Conservative.”

    I can honestly say, I’ve rarely felt more distaste for “Liberal Progressives” (and I consider myself super duper flaming Liberal) than I have with the Kagan nomination. There is just something so witch hunty from the left that really turns my stomach.

    Firebaggers II: Ponies v. Supreme Court

  58. 58
    jl says:

    Simply complaining that Greenwald started it does not answer Greenwald’s substantive argument.

    Links and references to something or somebody that does, please.

  59. 59
    Comrade Jake says:

    I think people link to Greenwald because he’s eminently capable of constructing an argument that sounds quite convincing, but which is mostly based on lots of smoke. Read it superficially, and you’re probably asking yourself “why is Kagan teh evil?” Read it with a skeptical eye, and you’re probably asking yourself “why is Greenwald such an epic douchebag?”

  60. 60
    eric says:

    @jl: My arugment is “so what.” what if she is not sufficeintly deferential to civil liberties? does that mean you want a no vote?

    There is no way that her views are out of the mainstream. So, people want to hear her views to get a better sense of Obama’s views, not her views. She is clearly NOT a conservative. She may be to my right on national security, but I would bet she is about in the middle of the population. That does not make her right, but it weakens the case that she should be voted down for those views alone.

  61. 61
    Comrade Jake says:

    @jl:

    Lessig had substantive rebuttals to Greenwald’s comments on Maddow’s show the other night. Ezra had the video this morning.

  62. 62
    Eric S. says:

    @jl:

    As a white man of Protestant cultural heritage, this surely should be my greatest concern.

    A friend from The South posted essentially this statement on Facebook yesterday. I retorted that I was anxiously awaiting the first atheist on the court and in the White House. I admit I was looking for a religious war with his southern friends. Instead I stopped the comment thread cold.

    Oh well.

  63. 63
    A Guest says:

    @dmsilev: balance it on the rim of a coke can.

  64. 64

    I’m really curious about why there will be (if Kagan gets in) no Protestants in the Supremes.

    For 3/9 to be Jews is more or less in line with the proportion of Jews in the relevant pool of candidates (it’s hard to be sure, but random googlage suggests about 1/3 of US lawyers are Jewish). But for all the rest to be Catholics is kind of … how did that happen? Is it a function of Republican Presidents going for nominees who will be “sure things” on abortion, and only Catholics are *really* sure? Or is this what bipartisanship looks like: Catholics can be perceived as anti-abortion but pro-social justice, but for Protestants the two never go together?

  65. 65
    IndieTarheel says:

    @JMY:

    Take what Greenwald reported about her views on civil liberties & national security with a grain block of salt.

    Fixerated.

  66. 66
    Martin says:

    @jl: I’m saying that Greenwald is, at this moment, a sole source which sounds like a chorus only because it’s been repeated so often by so many. And numerous people worth listening to (like Lessig) have stated that they think Greenwald has read this wrong and have dismissed some of his analysis as being factually incorrect. In response to this, Greenwald has doubled down rather than present new support for his analysis. Further, new evidence has come out to show that either Greenwald is either cherry picking his evidence, or he’s jumping to conclusions.

    You want clear answers now. You won’t get them. You’re going to have to wait for more information to surface. It may work in or out of her favor, but there’s no reason why a position needs to be taken this second. (Glenn and Jane have reasons, but they aren’t honorable ones.) This isn’t an election, there’s no other candidate to vote for, therefore there’s no hurry.

  67. 67
    Mumphrey says:

    I’d just like to say that the “Dog-Human Hybrid–Real Picture or Fake? 77% of People Can’t Tell Which!” ad, which shows 3 or 4 puppy-babies suckling at the human-canine mother, while creepy, is 131 times better than the screaming walmart guy. Thank you for dropping him.

  68. 68
    de stijl says:

    Who has put angel hair on my Coke?

  69. 69
    Sentient Puddle says:

    @Phoenix Woman:

    The Good News:
    __
    Regular Americans of all races, creeds and political affiliations finally beat the banks—Audit the Fed passed!

    That’s supposed to be the good news? If your metrics for beating the banks is a Fed audit, then you’ve got your sights fixed firmly on the ground.

  70. 70
    Brachiator says:

    @eric:

    So, GG and the Left have every right to say that she should be rejected because of her views or lack of stated views or even the fear of her views. They do not have to govern. Her perceived personal infirmities could also form a basis for a ‘no’ vote.

    Who in the hell is GG to suggest that he and other leftists have some special advise and consent role to decide who is an acceptable candidate for the Supreme Court?

    I ask this rhetorically, since no senator is going to take GG’s bleatings seriously.

    @jl:

    Simply complaining that Greenwald started it does not answer Greenwald’s substantive argument.

    Greenwald doesn’t have a substantive argument.

    @Doctor Science:

    Is it a function of Republican Presidents going for nominees who will be “sure things” on abortion, and only Catholics are really sure?

    With respect to Dubya, I think that some born again Christians and Christian fundamentalists find the Catholic Church’s theological stance on authority and abortion to be very appealing. This is in part because fundamentalism in itself has little intellectual foundation, and is more grounded in an inarticulate spiritualism.

    In a related sense, I think this also partly explains former UK prime minister Tony Blair’s conversion to Catholicism. Some conservatives yearn for structure with articulation, and Catholic apologetics nicely fills the bill.

  71. 71

    Just a little quote taken from a comment at The Oil Barrel:

    Afghanistan [war] is [present] because of another threat, Al Qaeda, which exists because our oil was accidentally placed in another Middle East country known as Saudi Arabia.

    “Our oil” was accidentlly placed in Saudi Arabia?

    I am not sure he meant all that he said, but I can’t fault his analysis.

  72. 72
    Joseph Nobles says:

    @Comrade Jake:

    Lessig flat out lied about Greenwald’s sourcing on Maddow. Greenwald called him on it over at Salon.

  73. 73
    Fern says:

    @Jim: Nice way to rationalize her blog’s failure to accomplish anything in any of their campaigns.

  74. 74

    @Phoenix Woman: Cameron has officially been asked to form a government. Tory-LibDem coalition official, also, but details remain to be seen.

    And I think the influence of Big Money is overstated; our Conservatives are not your conservatives, and the UK govt, while often inexplicable, is slightly less beholden to bidness.

  75. 75
    Jade Jordan says:

    Tunch is definitely entitled to be the first cat on the court. He is white and male after all.

  76. 76
    t jasper parnell says:

    Here is a video that, among other comedic jewels, includes a discussion between Billy Graham and Woody Allen on Atheism, legalizing pot, and the quality of suits.

  77. 77

    From Glenzilla’s attack on Lessig:

    Worse, compare what I actually said in that April 13 Democracy Now appearance that he cited to what Lessig claimed I said there:

    LESSIG, last night: “In his piece on Democracy Now on April 13, [Glenn] said that in that article, [Kagan] talked about the power of the President to indefinitely detain anyone around the world.”

    ME, Democracy Now, April 13: “And what little there is to see comes from her confirmation hearing as Solicitor General and a law review article she wrote in 2001, in which she expressed very robust defenses of executive power, including the power of the president to indefinitely detain anybody around the world as an enemy combatant, based on the Bush-Cheney theory that the entire world is a battlefield and the US is waging a worldwide war.”

    Am I the only one who thinks that Greenwald is blaming Lessig for his own poor sentence structure in that DN! segment? Sure, it was a live interview, so I don’t want to be too harsh on Greenwald, but it’s not Lessig’s fault that he responded to what Greenwald actually said rather than what he meant to say.

    (edit: FYWP)

  78. 78
    frosty says:

    @Linda Featheringill:
    I read that also, and took it as tongue in cheek, a la “Who the hell went and put all our oil under their sand?”

Comments are closed.