Bring it on

I’m less and less convinced that Boehner wants the craziness to go too far and I’ll bet you anything he’s not listening to Newt. Anyway, this is nuts:

“I believe the Republicans next week should pass a resolution instructing the president to enforce the law and to obey his own constitutional oath, and they should say if he fails to do so that they will zero out [defund] the office of attorney general and take other steps as necessary until the president agrees to do his job,” said Gingrich. “His job is to enforce the rule of law and for us to start replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama is a very dangerous precedent.”

He didn’t call for immediate impeachment hearings, but didn’t rule them out if Obama balks at any congressional demands to enforce the law.

I hope there isn’t a government shut down because, while it would help Democrats politically, it word hurt a lot of working people. But if these nuts want to try impeachment again, I say “bring it on”.

This week, Republicans overreached on union-busting. They had every whore and sociopath in the national media — which is by far the majority of the national media — on their side. And they’re losing.

Try impeachment, just try. See what happens.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

97 replies
  1. 1

    One does have to wonder if there’s enough crazy in the HoR to try it.

  2. 2
    Davis X. Machina says:

    He’s running, and he just announced his platform.

    Now if he’d just open up a website where I can contribute, and insist he choose Mrs. Palin as his running mate….

  3. 3

    I don’t always agree with Doug J. Hill when he taunts the GOP, but I have to say I agree today, man.

    Bring it, assholes. Every thing they’ve done since the elections has just revealed the depths of their assholery, and assholery doesn’t, ultimately, sell.

    But I will also say: Ugh.

  4. 4
    Maude says:

    I doubt they will do a government shutdown. Reid is trying to come up with a 30 day CR.
    Gingrich is a real loser.

  5. 5
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    If Gingrich really means that shit about “enforcing the rule of law”, then he should have not the slightest objection to the immediate arrest of the deserting coward, Darth Cheney, and von Rumsfailed and putting them all on trial for war crimes.

  6. 6
    Jsfox says:

    Jesus how stupid is Newt? He still is enforcing the law. Not defending and not enforcing mean two very different things.

  7. 7

    I think the secret service should investigate Gingrich. Sounds like he wants to overthrow the constitutional system of government to me.

  8. 8
    D0n Camillo says:

    I don’t want to see people getting hurt by a government shutdown either, but elections have consequences. If low information voters keep electing these clowns to Congress and state governments, there’s only so much the rest of us can do to prevent the massive dicking that the present incarnation of the GOP wants to hand out.

  9. 9
    Bob L says:

    That would be dear if the GOP tried impeaching Obama on the grounds that not denying gays equal rights was “high crimes and treason” That would pretty much shove the Republican party into the crazy uncle category in the public mind and end it as a viable party for good.

  10. 10
    Joe Max says:

    The only way to get beyond peak wingnut is to cause it to implode like a black hole into it’s own event horizon.

    Bring on the crazy, winguts and teabaggers. Nominate Newtie and Sarah. Please oh please please please…

    The electoral rout Obama would wreck on them will make LBJ’s trouncing of Goldwater pale in comparison.

  11. 11

    The rule of law:

    What laws is Newt complaining about? Did he give any specifics? I went to the link at Hullaballoo but didn’t find out what I wanted to know.

  12. 12
    me says:

    @Chuck Butcher: And would they do it knowing there is -10000% chance of it getting anywhere in the Senate. Some of them are dumb enough but is Boehner?

  13. 13
    Suffern ACE says:

    The president agreed to do his job. Perhaps the houses of congress should do theirs and give him something to sign.

    I assume that this rant is DOMA related as I can’t think of anything off the top of my head that the president is doing using the attorney general that the Republicans wouldn’t support. Just guessing. Otherwise, wouldn’t they rather defund the department of education?

  14. 14
    Zifnab says:

    I hope there isn’t a government shut down because, while it would help Democrats politically, it word hurt a lot of working people.

    Hoping isn’t going to make it so. I think the Republicans honestly believe they’re going to come out ahead in a government shutdown. I don’t know why they think that. But I imagine, in the echo chamber, they’re getting nothing but back slaps and high fives.

    And maybe this really will bite the Democrats in the end. Maybe people will lose all confidence and respect for Obama, because the GOP House has knee-capped the government. I don’t understand how that’s going to happen, but then I didn’t understand how the whole “death panels” thing was going to take either. :-p

  15. 15
    PurpleGirl says:

    If Newt is referring to Section 3 of DOMA, he needs to be reminded that the language doesn’t say one man and one woman in serial order. Newt, dear stupid boy, is over by a count of 2.

  16. 16

    Rule of law, #2:

    Oh. The defense of marriage act. Right. Now it makes more sense.

  17. 17
    BC says:

    Hmmm, like the House of Representatives has any way of enforcing its resolutions. Enforcement is up to the Executive Branch, so I bet a resolution that Gingrich is proposing will really go far. And they say Gingrich is the “smart” one on that side of the aisle.

  18. 18
    burnspbesq says:

    Gingrich’s statement that Obama is refusing to enforce the law is, of course, an outrageous lie. Which he will get away with, because in order to understand that it’s an outrageous lie, you need a decent level of understanding of some Con Law principles, and it takes more than 30 seconds to explain. Which means that no major media outlet will get within a mile of explaining it correctly.

  19. 19
    dmsilev says:

    @Chuck Butcher:

    One does have to wonder if there’s enough crazy in the HoR to try it.

    That’s the wrong question to ask. Of course there’s enough crazy in the House to try it. The question is whether the ostensible adults of the GOP House Caucus have enough of a modicum of control over their lunatics to stifle the attempts.

    dms

  20. 20
    Old Gringo says:

    It’s easy to impeach a ham sandwich.

    I don’t know what the numbers are wrt GOP in the House today as compared to ’94 but the Senate will never (convict) remove him from Office.

  21. 21
    The Dangerman says:

    This feels like a fucking late night infomercial:

    “Revisit the high flying days of the 1990’s by calling now and ordering a Government shut down; if you call now, we’ll toss in an impeachment resolution at no extra charge. Just pay separate shipping and handling”.

    Fuck him with the horse he rode in on.

  22. 22
    burnspbesq says:

    @dms:

    “The question is whether the ostensible adults of the GOP House Caucus have enough of a modicum of control over their lunatics to stifle the attempts.”

    They don’t. The way amendments to the CR were handled is all the evidence you need.

  23. 23
    Caz says:

    Who are all these media persons that are on the republicans’ side?? It seems to me that the only place I ever hear anything nice about the GOP is on Fox News, and even they bash the republicans on a regular basis.

    And who said anything about impeachment, lol? That some liberal asked Gingrich about impeachment and he didn’t rule it out under certain circumstances is not the same as the GOP bringing up impeachment as a possible action.

    No one is going to try to impeach Obama. But I know you’re not interested in truth – it’s often easier to just make shit up to support your agenda, and reality often just gets in your way, so I understand.

    Keep up the good work of the people!!

  24. 24
    gpleigh says:

    Super creep Newt Gingrich trying to carve out some high-minded virtue for himself and his cronies based on the defense of marriage? That’s rich.

  25. 25
    BGinCHI says:

    Next the media will be hounding Richard Nixon for a quote about how Obama should do some “breaking and entering” before the next election.

    How far do you have to fall before the media ignore you?

  26. 26
    And Another Thing... says:

    @D0n Camillo: Eli Wallach to Yul Brynner in the Magnificent Seven

    lf God didn´t want them sheared,
    he would not have made them sheep.

  27. 27
    Pooh says:

    Echoing my inner Mustache of Understanding, I say to Newt “suck on this”.

  28. 28
    Mike in NC says:

    @Zifnab:

    I think the Republicans honestly believe they’re going to come out ahead in a government shutdown.

    I worked in DC back when Gingrich and the radicals shut down the government before. That turned out to be his political suicide and just about guaranteed reelection for Bill Clinton. Looks like a case of “deja vu all over again”, as the man said. They never learn.

  29. 29
    General Stuck says:

    Oh yea!! bring it the fuck on

    Cheney in chains

    Chain Chain Chain

    Cheney A Fool

    Let’s dance wingnuts

  30. 30
    BGinCHI says:

    @Caz:

    And who said anything about impeachment, lol?

    Yeah, that is really fucking hilarious. Kind of like shooting him is funny.

    Better trolls, please.

  31. 31

    @dmsilev:
    Referring to the Orange Man as a fucking adult is pretty rough on adults.

  32. 32
    Loneoak says:

    Can we impeach Newt before he runs?

  33. 33
    MikeJ says:

    I believe there may be a method to their madness. It’s just another way of working the refs.

    Those of you who were conscious in the 90s may remember that the media told us over and over again about “Clinton fatigue”, even while Clinton had extremely high approval ratings. They would tell us that even though Clinton had done nothing illegal, people were just tired of all the drama.

    Maximizing drama is the only thing that explains modern Republicans. Increase the drama while Dems are in power and sell themselves as the only way to return to a world where people don’t scream about everything. Or if they do scream, well, they’re just DFHs, you can ignore them.

  34. 34
    joes527 says:

    I hope there isn’t a government shut down because, while it would help Democrats politically, it word hurt a lot of working people. But if these nuts want to try impeachment again, I say “bring it on”.

    The shutdown is a required first step. How else is Obama gonna get a hummer?

  35. 35

    @Caz:

    Who are all these media persons that are on the republicans’ side?? It seems to me that the only place I ever hear anything nice about the GOP is on Fox News, and even they bash the republicans on a regular basis.

    Clearly you don’t watch the sunday morning talk shows, idiot, where John McCain has a permanent seat spouting off about everything he has no credentials on. See also Chris Christie, etc. Jeebus, George Will has a fucking permanent seat on the This Week roundtable!

  36. 36
    pragmatism says:

    fucking constitution, how does it work?????

  37. 37
    General Stuck says:

    When asshole tards like Gringrinch start spouting about Rule of Law, little baby jeevus dies a little inside.

  38. 38

    @dmsilev:

    The question is whether the ostensible adults of the GOP House Caucus have enough of a modicum of control over their lunatics to stifle the attempts.

    Objection! Citing facts not in evidence.

  39. 39
    KG says:

    Sorry, trying to figure this out… if he doesn’t enforce the law, they are going to defund the office of the attorney general? So, does that mean defunding the Department of Justice? Because, I don’t think that the GOP would actually be on board with having no federal prosecutors or law enforcement officers on the job. Although, shutting down the DEA would be nice, so there’s that…

  40. 40
    PhoenixRising says:

    I’m not as sanguine as Doug.

    Perhaps because I’ve spent much of the last 4 years listening to fauxgressives whine about how I should shut up and settle, lest a polite but firm demand (for a fundamental right extended to convicted murderers but somehow too sacred for the likes of me) might annoy someone powerful and cause exactly this kind of talk.

    But if you all have decided that you’re all in on Mr. Obama keeping his promises, in that steady, trickling, always-forward-to-defensible-heights way he has…well, great. Welcome. Thanks. etc.

  41. 41

    @Caz:
    You really do have a turd to polish, don’t you. This particular piece of human crap was running around up in NH in early Iraq War talking about the need to restrict 1st A rights in that time of war. Anytime the GOP reacts to the Newt it is in terms of the “idea man” deep thinker role. I know you don’t have much to work with, but shit, do a bit better.

    Faux talks bad about GOPers? Yeah, right – anytime they’re not fascistic enough. You are a fuckwit.

  42. 42
    General Stuck says:

    @PhoenixRising:

    Perhaps because I’ve spent much of the last 4 years listening to fauxgressives whine about how I should shut up and settle, lest a polite but firm demand (for a fundamental right extended to convicted murderers but somehow too sacred for the likes of me) might annoy someone powerful and cause exactly this kind of talk.

    What on earth are you talking about?

  43. 43
    pragmatism says:

    after 8 yrs of bush the younger’s belief that he could violate acts of congress and constitutional requirements, now the wingnuts throw a fit over a non-analagous path. wait, why am i acting surprised?

  44. 44

    @Chuck Butcher:
    Let’s get to Faux, the only reason good ole Rupe owns more than a couple stations and a couple papers is that the GOPers carved out an exception for a foreign fuck to take charge of a chunk of US media. A fucking Alien then went on to suck GOPer dick for enabling his empire.

  45. 45
    BGinCHI says:

    @General Stuck: I think he’s mad cuz he can’t marry a convicted murderer.

    I can see that, actually.

  46. 46
    Pococurante says:

    Feels like concern trolling for Boehner.

    He’s sown the whirlwind pretending to be the leaf.

    Let him reap it. Let them all, D and R alike.

  47. 47
    General Stuck says:

    @BGinCHI:

    Well, I just turned on the computer today, and am mostly still warming up in the bullpen and slower than usual on the update. I would say that makes sense, but need to loosen up a little bit more.

  48. 48
    BGinCHI says:

    @General Stuck: Well, spring is in the air.

    Wait, I just looked outside. No it’s not.

  49. 49
    ChrisNYC says:

    Gingrich’s office issued a statement “correcting” this and saying that impeachment is “clearly not appropriate.”

    In other words, Newt’s just an idiot who says whatever nonsense is running thru his head at the moment. And this guy is their “scholar.”

  50. 50
    Quicksand says:

    @KG:

    Sorry, trying to figure this out… if he doesn’t enforce the law, they are going to defund the office of the attorney general?

    Right! That will surely help with all that law-enforcin’ that wasn’t getting done before.

  51. 51
    HyperIon says:

    @me wrote:

    And would they do it knowing there is -10000% chance of it getting anywhere in the Senate. Some of them are dumb enough but is Boehner?

    me, i don’t think you should talk too much about dumbness given that “-10000% chance” is meaningless, not to mention, er, dumb.

    I think “zero chance” is what you were reaching for, no?

  52. 52
    eric says:

    Let me help you all out….if it works, then Newt is the original architect and if it doesnt, then Newt is not the only idiot to scrw the pooch. win-win.

    glad i could help.

  53. 53
    PhoenixRising says:

    @General Stuck: Newt was ranting about how unconstitutional and impeachable the President is, for having decided to stop defending DoMA in court.

    No, I don’t want to marry anyone else, one spouse is enough for me–all I want is to be able to file my #$%%$ taxes correctly and know that one of us is going to get the SS survivor benefits we both pay into, instead of being audited every fricking year because there is no applicable guideline for how we’re supposed to file our joint income.

    So I’m delighted that Eric Holder went in to the boss and explained that they were looking at a case where they had to either a) continue to call me a child molester (yes, the briefs in the DoMA cases are that bad) and side with the IRS or b) stop calling me a child molester and side with the 81 year old widow who is suing the IRS for her ‘gay tax’ back.

    Even happier that they figured out which was right, and a way to do it technically that no honest person can fault. And if you think this is the right time for Obama to dig in, great. But you can’t be surprised that

  54. 54
    dmsilev says:

    @Chuck Butcher: I’m grading on a curve. Compared to a rather wide swath of his caucus, Boehner is an adult. Grade inflation is a horrible thing, granted, but it is what it is.

    dms

  55. 55
    rikyrah says:

    you knew they were gonna try and impeach him for being President While Black.

    bring.it.on.

  56. 56
    feebog says:

    Consider the fact that Newt is considered by a lot of the Villagers as a top tier candidate for the Republican nomination. A thrice married discraced ex-speaker of the House whose last great idea was to shut down the government. And he is flogging the idea again, because it worked so well in the 90s.

  57. 57

    @dmsilev:
    So a degree granted in Picking Boogers and Eating Them While Walking?

  58. 58

    @Chuck Butcher:
    That degree of course qualifies one for …

    Speaker of US House of Representatives

    shit oh dear

  59. 59
    General Stuck says:

    @PhoenixRising:

    And if you think this is the right time for Obama to dig in, great. But you can’t be surprised that

    I’m not sure what you mean by this, but assume you are predicting Obama will be against what the DOJ is doing by dropping the defense in court of DOMA. Which is completely consistent with Obama stating after DADT was repealing that he considered DOMA unconstitutional as well. I am trusting Obama having political foresight and skill to make this a positive for his reelection, instead of letting the wingers make it a negative. I support it fully, and as well as gay marriage, but have never considered it more important than costing losing the WH to achieve right now. I know that will get me flamed, but that is just how it is.

  60. 60
    opie jeanne, formerly known as Jeanne Ringland says:

    What does this even mean? What does “enforce the law” mean? Which law?

    Ugh. Newt never improves, does he.

  61. 61
    General Stuck says:

    @General Stuck:

    I will add, as a person profoundly not believing in marriage for anyone, everyone should have the right to be miserable and experience the joy of divorce.

  62. 62
    dmsilev says:

    @Chuck Butcher: I believe underwater basket weaving is the traditional major for such students.

    dms

  63. 63
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    This week, Republicans overreached on union-busting. They had every whore and sociopath in the national media—which is by far the majority of the national media—on their side. And they’re losing.

    How are they losing?

  64. 64
    chopper says:

    @Maude:

    at this point, after all the bluster, the GOP almost has to shut it down or they look like bitchy chumps.

  65. 65
    chopper says:

    @Joe Max:

    Nominate Newtie and Sarah.

    lol, imagine if those two bags won? within 6 months tops we’d be to the point where we’d be getting aid from somalia and haiti.

  66. 66
    AnnaN says:

    I don’t know what koolaid the Repubs are drinking, but EVERYONE in the Federal government knows who is responsible for a government shut down.

    My husband and I are both Feds and really don’t want a shut down. But we are getting spammed with informational emails on who is affected, protocols, safety and on-site issues, IT considerations, contractor issues, cooperative institute employees and how they will be affected, the contractors, etc. Even though we can’t “shut down” contractors since their work is paid for, the security is federal and a skeleton staff won’t be able to protect those so they are effectively shutting down non-essential sites. We have never had this level of info-flurry for any of the other CR deadlines.

    My plans for a shut down? I am going to take the first few days to thoroughly clean my house and then go volunteer at a local hospice. Asshole republicans and Teatards will probably try to take credit for that.

  67. 67

    @PhoenixRising:

    continue to call me a child molester (yes, the briefs in the DoMA cases are that bad)

    Fucking liar.

  68. 68

    Wait, I take that back.

    There is also the possibility you’re a propaganda victim.

  69. 69
    Another Commenter at Balloon Juice (fka Bella Q) says:

    @burnspbesq: Exactly the problem. Sigh.
    @The Dangerman:

    Fuck him with the horse he rode in on.

    That’s really an unkind thing to do to any horse.

  70. 70
    Jay says:

    “Try impeachment, just try. See what happens.”

    Awesome lines, Doug. They remind me of Matt Damon’s from “The Departed”: “Shoot a cop, Einstein. See what happens.”

    Yes, I know how dirty Damon’s character is in that movie, and I know what happened to him at the end. So let’s say, instead, that POTUS is the “good cop,” which he is.

    Think about this: right now, the GOP is crazy enough to shoot a cop.

  71. 71

    @joe from Lowell:

    What the fuck are you talking about shitstain?

  72. 72
    Another Commenter at Balloon Juice (fka Bella Q) says:

    @General Stuck: You are such a romantic; I’m about to swoon here.

  73. 73

    @Another Commenter at Balloon Juice (fka Bella Q):

    That’s really an unkind thing to do to any horse.

    Hey, I don’t want to hear any more Washington State horse fucking jokes. Bestiality has been against the law in Washington State for five years now! Five whole years! Five whole years in a row too! And unless someone pays Tim Eyman a lot of money to start an initiative campaign to repeal our anti-bestiality laws, which we have had on the books for five years now, abusing pets and livestock will remain against the law in Washington State. Besides, all of those horsefuckees were in Enumclaw, which is located in the conservative, Republican part of King County. I’m not saying that Republicans are more likely to sneak on to someone’s farm and abuse the livestock by forcing it to have sex with them, but it would be irresponsible not to speculate.

  74. 74

    @Wile E. Quixote: Reality.

    I know, it’s clearly not your strong suit.

  75. 75
    Another Commenter at Balloon Juice (fka Bella Q) says:

    @Wile E. Quixote: I almost made a Doug Spink reference, but figures it would be meaningless to everyone here.

  76. 76

    I read the piece that Digby linked to, which was a horrible piece of shit written by Paul BedardRetard at Useless News and Worthless Rhetoric. Of course Retard just repeats the meme that the Obama DoJ isn’t enforcing the law instead of explaining that the DoJ isn’t defending the law in court. A huge difference. Retard also doesn’t ask why Newt Gingrich, a man who has been married three times now, has any business telling anyone about how to defend marriage.

  77. 77

    I’m talking about how much the drama brigade likes to pretend that the argument “the courts have long recognized states’ authority to regulate marriage law, without passing judgment on the content of those laws, here’s some examples” is “comparing gay people to child molesters.”

    And how some of the weaker-minded, but more emotional, people who spend too much time on the internet swallowed that bullshit hook, line, and sinker.

  78. 78
    PhoenixRising says:

    @joe from Lowell: Nobody’s victim,, but I did read the briefs. They’re really that bad. I understand that some find it unpalatable, but that doesnt change the importance of uncles marrying underage nieces to the case DOJ has argued until this week.

    Sorry, all I did was give my money and time to get a better AG. That was my role in the drama. Yours is to call names, evidently. Well, from each according to his ability, I suppose.

  79. 79

    @PhoenixRising:

    I did read the briefs.

    Misread, apparently.

    They’re really that bad.

    No, they’re not. I suspect what you did is read Digby mischaracterization of the argument, and didn’t bother to read the actual briefs critically to see if she had gotten them right.

    There was absolutely no comparison to child molesting or to incest in those briefs. There was a list of cases raised in which states’ marriage laws were upheld – and here’s the important part you misunderstood – without regard to the content of those laws at all. That was actually the argument that the administration was making – that the courts had long ruled to uphold states’ laws restricting marriage, without regard to either the validity or the content of those laws. This is exactly the opposite of comparing one type of law restricting marriage to another. It’s as if they argued that people get to decide what beer to drink, whether it’s Bud Light or Sam Adams Boston Lager, without regard to the quality of the beer, and you read it (actually, you accepted Digby’s misreading of it) as saying that they equated Bud Light to Sam Adams.

    It’s a dirty fucking lie, that has been refuted a million times already.

    …to the case DOJ has argued until this week.

    Actually, the DOJ dropped that argument from its briefings over a year ago.

    As for my ability, I’ll just note that you don’t seem to be able to even attempt to explain why my refutation of your argument is wrong.

  80. 80
    sistermoon says:

    @arguingwithsignposts:

    And Scott Wanker Walker’s getting the one next to him…

  81. 81

    From the horrible, horrible brief:

    Consistent with this principle, the Supreme Court has indicated that the Framers of the
    Constitution had an “expectation” that the Full Faith and Credit Clause “would be interpreted against
    the background of principles developed in international conflicts law.” Sun Oil Co. v. Wortman,
    486 U.S. 717, 723 & n.1, 108 S. Ct. 2117, 100 L.Ed.2d 743 (1988). And, as the Court has
    repeatedly acknowledged, longstanding principles of conflicts of law do “not require a State to apply
    another State’s law in violation of its own legitimate public policy.” See, e.g., Nevada v. Hall, 440
    U.S. 410, 422, 99 S. Ct. 1182, 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979); see also Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U.S.
    287, 296, 63 S. Ct. 207, 87 L. Ed. 279 (1942) (“Nor is there any authority which lends support to the
    view that the full faith and credit clause compels the courts of one state to subordinate the local
    policy of that state, as respects its domiciliaries, to the statutes of any other state.”). Under this
    longstanding public policy doctrine, out-of-state statutes or acts that are contrary to the forum State’s
    policy need not be followed under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. See, e.g., Pacific Employers
    Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n, 306 U.S. 493, 501, 59 S. Ct. 629, 83 L. Ed. 940 (1939)
    (holding that California courts need not apply Massachusetts law of workers compensation to
    Massachusetts employee of Massachusetts employer, where that law was contrary to California’s
    “policy to provide compensation for employees injured in their employment within the state”); see
    also Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 167, 16 S. Ct. 139, 40 L. Ed. 95 (1895) (“A judgment affecting
    the status of persons, such as a decree confirming or dissolving a marriage, is recognized as valid in
    every country, unless contrary to the policy of its own law.”); Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 38 U.S. (13
    Pet.) 519, 589, 10 L. Ed. 274 (1839) (noting the longstanding principle of conflicts that the laws of
    one country “will, by the comity of nations, be recognised and executed in another . . . provided that
    law was not repugnant to the laws or policy of their own country”) (emphasis added).

    OMG, Obama compared gay marriage to paying worker’s compensation!

    Except he didn’t. You just read something, didn’t understand it, and took the word of somebody else who didn’t understand it as gospel.

  82. 82
    agrippa says:

    This is starting to get very stupid

  83. 83
    A Humble Lurker says:

    @agrippa:

    This is starting to get very stupid

    Starting?

  84. 84
    agrippa says:

    @Caz:

    Moderator:

    Caz is OTT.

    Desire a troll upgrade

  85. 85

    @joe from Lowell:

    And making coherent posts isn’t your strong suit. You just jump in, call PhoenixRising a “fucking liar” and then jump out. You’re human garbage Joe, the best part of you ran down the crack in your mother’s ass and left a nasty stain on the floor of the Portajohn you were conceived in.

  86. 86
    General Stuck says:

    @Another Commenter at Balloon Juice (fka Bella Q):

    I can be romantic, for short periods, it’s just that death do us part part that gives me the cold feets.

  87. 87
    Gian says:

    If congress and the senate repass it, and Obama signs it, can he put a signing statement that says he won’t enforce it because it violates things like the full faith and credit clause and stuff?

  88. 88

    @joe from Lowell:

    Nice selective quoting from a 54 page brief. But if you weren’t a dishonest sack of shit you might have quoted from page 28, where Catalano v. Catalano, a case which invalidated the marriage of an uncle to his niece was cited. Also cited in support was Wilkins v. Zelichowski, a case where the marriage of a 16 year old female was held invalid.

    If you’re interested you can read the whole brief, and not just the parts that Joe is selectively quoting here.

    http://lawprofessors.typepad.c.....s-doma.pdf

    Or you could read the NYT editorial that condemned the language of the brief. But I guess they were just fucking liars and victims of propaganda too.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06.....6tue1.html

  89. 89
    taylormattd says:

    I predict that if impeachment gets rolling, serious journalists will take it all very seriously. As will FDL and a substantial portion of Daily Kos.

  90. 90
    Cacti says:

    @ChrisNYC:

    In other words, Newt’s just an idiot who says whatever nonsense is running thru his head at the moment. And this guy is their “scholar.”

    As Newt’s gay sister once said of him…

    “Some people say Newt’s a revolutionary. I just think he’s revolting.”

  91. 91
    Evolved Deep Southerner says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Good question, Fuckhead. How the fuck are they losing, really?

    Everybody’s talking about how Walker and the unions are in a stalemate, but on the actual playing field, they just moved the ball downfield on labor, didn’t they? Yeah, the way they did it looked and stank like shit, and they were all but spat upon by everyone as they walked out of the voting chamber in shame, but they did it.

    I think at the end of this Wisconsin drama, Walker will end up getting this shit through by means of something even shittier than the way it was “passed” through the WI House.

    But you know, let’s say he burns all his political capital and ends up being despised by every single swinging dick in Wisconsin because this whole thing is a grave matter of saving face and honor at this point. He passes it if it harelips Sarah Palin, future be damned.

    They can recall him after a year. Start collecting signatures and have all the paperwork on that 365th day. And in the meantime, make his and his allies’ life so fucking miserable that they serve as an example for every other Republican governor even considering this grievous shit.

    Recall him as soon as possible and then reinstate collective bargaining rights. Fight like hell now and if you lose the battle, but it wouldn’t necessarily mean you’ve lost the war. Once you finally tote Walker’s carcass off the stage, believe me, they’d rather switch than fight.

  92. 92
    Mike Kay (Peacemaker) says:

    This is a joke, you know.

    Newt only says crazy things to get attention. And in this case it worked.

    But only because Palin has been silent the recently, giving Newt an opening. She sucks up all the oxygen n the crazy niche.

  93. 93
    J.W. Hamner says:

    Congressional Republicans seem to think that they are more popular than they actually are… it’s probably the getting elected thing. But yeah, go after Obama idiot Reps… how could that go wrong?

  94. 94
    agrippa says:

    @Caz:

    This site needs a new troll.
    This one is just puerile

  95. 95
    agrippa says:

    @A Humble Lurker:

    The GOP has their speed control set on ‘full stupid’. It has passed ‘very stupid’.

  96. 96
    PhoenixRising says:

    @joe from Lowell: You just read something, didn’t understand it, and took the word of somebody else who didn’t understand it as gospel.

    Sweetie, you clearly have an ax to grind here. I’ve read the briefs in full, and the cases they reference.

    The briefs were repellent, and the reason they were withdrawn was in part a number of people like myself quietly raising hell with DOJ about their specific content.

    My point in the first place, though, before accidentally triggering your PTSD symptoms, was this:

    People nominally on my side become quickly and violently irrational whenever a Dem politician does anything for us, no matter how technically correct or clearly morally right.

    I suspect it’s because of the trauma of 2004. It was apparently quite awful for you all. There is a nagging voice at the back of your minds, telling even the normally reasonable Stuck that he has to be brave to suggest that Obama shouldn’t risk re-election over our little family problems–when that is obvious and doesn’t warrant a response, let alone ‘flames’.( This President has done more for gay people than any previous, and it’s obviously in our interests for that to continue.)

    To see a sample of this trauma induced crazy, see the inimitable Joe from Lowell’s worthy outbursts. And that’s in the face of a has-been Newt that no one in elected office takes seriously.

    Imagine how he’ll behave toward the class of people this move helps in the unlikely scenario that ‘Bring it on’ has any real results. My guess is, it’ll be my fault for asking my government to stop shitting on me in legalese. And that was my point: Go ahead and run your alligator mouth, Doug–but be careful you don’t overload my hummingbird a**. I’m not taking the blame for this one.

    So, Joe, here’s your chance to prove me wrong. No matter what happens, confine your obscene and abusive torrents of rage to the perpetrators, not the victims…and we’ll all know you’re honest.

  97. 97

    Just checked back on the thread for the first time.

    I can’t believe I wasted this much time trying to explain this point to two people who so plainly don’t have the intellectual firepower to understand it in the first place.

Comments are closed.