Mississippi Moon Won’t You Keep on Shining on Me?

Suprising only if you’re easily surprised:

WASHINGTON — Just weeks before Blackwater guards fatally shot 17 civilians at Baghdad’s Nisour Square in 2007, the State Department began investigating the security contractor’s operations in Iraq. But the inquiry was abandoned after Blackwater’s top manager there issued a threat: “that he could kill” the government’s chief investigator and “no one could or would do anything about it as we were in Iraq,” according to department reports.

The less sophisticated among you might not understand that the invisible hand sometimes points its M-16 at your head, but I’m sure the rest of us accept this as a clear-cut case of increasing government efficiency by contracting on the free market.

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

135 replies
  1. 1
    WereBear says:

    I still can’t figure out if training psychopaths and then letting them loose among us was a bug or feature, considering how bad the whole Bush bunch was at planning.

  2. 2
    beltane says:

    Why do you hate us for our freedoms?

  3. 3
    Belafon says:

    Just shows you how much of a coward Obama was for letting them intimidate him in 2007. Bush would never have let this kind of thing happen.

  4. 4
    peach flavored shampoo says:

    Not to threadjack, but can we also get a Hobby Lobby pre-announcement/prediction thread? IANAL, but it seems to a layman like myself that this could be an enormous, transcendent case (if HL wins). How does it not usher in a flood of “religous exemptions” to laws governing the employment of minorities, equal pay, bennies, overtime, labor unions, etc?

    I’m scared shitless to know just what my employer might “declare” on religious grounds should HL win….

  5. 5
    WereBear says:

    @peach flavored shampoo: I’m scared shitless to know just what my employer might “declare” on religious grounds should HL win….

    I’m with you, and it’s absolutely ridiculous that this should even be a question.

    Like that quote, “I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.”

  6. 6
    Botsplainer says:

    Had a nitwit Palestinian client think he could do business in South Sudan a couple of years ago. I told him that he was being a dumbass.

    The “business partners” he’d cultivated over a three week period drove him out to a field, made him dig his own grave while pointing an AK at his head before tossing him a sat phone and telling him to send money, and if it was enough, they’d let him live. He got enough to get set loose, thereby learning an important lesson – he never returned, and swore off such adventures in the future.

    This was a very similar lesson delivered by Blackwater.

  7. 7
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @WereBear: @peach flavored shampoo: It’s clearly, transparently absurd. IANAL but the whole purpose of the invention of the corporation was to distinguish between the owners of the business as individuals and the new entity of the corporation. There is no way that a corporation can have religious beliefs or a conscience. I can’t believe this nonsense could have gotten this far in the first place, and I’m appalled that one to five judges will find that it is not nonsense. It would be a laughable decision mocked in history books for centuries.

  8. 8
    Chris says:

    Fuck.

    Just fuck.

    I need to watch the A-Team movie again, just for the pleasure of watching someone (and not just anyone!) beat the shit out of Blackwater villains.

  9. 9
    Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name) says:

    @peach flavored shampoo: I doubt we will get two good decisions today. I am pretty sure that unions will be screwed, but I just can’t see how a corporation (all snark about corporations being people aside) can be seen to have religious convictions so I think (hope(?)) Hobby Lobby will lose.

  10. 10
    Ayn Randy says:

    I know Twitter isn’t great for sampling the population, but the way some people dismissed this is just another sign that we’re in deep trouble.

  11. 11
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @peach flavored shampoo:

    Second the request for a dedicated SCOTUS-decisions thread.

  12. 12
  13. 13
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    IAT*NAL, but I also hope and expect the Hobby Lobbyists to lose. Less sanguine about unions.

    *Totally

  14. 14
    the Conster says:

    @Omnes Omnibus (the first of his name):

    Whose religious conviction is considered the corporation’s anyway? The majority shareholder? The chairman of the board? The CEO? What if it’s a public company or a wholly owned subsidiary of a public company? Is the religious “belief” of the corporation the subject of a proxy vote? What if it’s a subsidiary of a foreign parent? What about a limited liability company with a majority interest held by a limited partnership? How can any of this possibly be determined? If you’re applying for jobs, the interviewer can’t ask you what your religious beliefs are, but you’re supposed to determine what beliefs the corporation holds in order to determine whether to accept the job if offered, because you need to find out what kind of insurance you’ll be allowed to have? What could possibly go wrong?

  15. 15
    Belafon says:

    @the Conster: All that pales in comparison to the threat to white male power by minorities and women. That’s how the union case and this are tied together.

  16. 16
    WereBear says:

    @the Conster: To rule FOR Hobby Lobby opens a can of Dune-size worms that undercuts the very essence of “corporation.”

  17. 17
    Morzer says:

    @SiubhanDuinne:

    I have trouble seeing this obviously corrupt Supreme Court failing to throw their corporate paymasters a bone today. I think they’ll screw the unions as hard as they can, while making Hobby Lobby take a hit for the team so as to look “impartial”.

    My other prediction is that Burnsie will be smug about the whole affair.

  18. 18
    Punchy says:

    @the Conster: Ha! You’re such a noob! (j/k). As if ANY of this matters! It’s all Cleek’s Law, all the way up to SCOTUS. They’re going to rule for Hob Lobs as a pure Cleek’s Law exercise, because fuck librulz and Obama.

    Peeps trying to apply logic, reason, and importantly, case law consistency to what pure partisan hacks Scalia, Alito, and Thomas will do are going to end up extremely frustrated.

  19. 19
    p.a. says:

    They hate us for our freedom to kill them without repercussions.

  20. 20
    Morbo says:

    And were awarded a $200 million contract even after that.

    What a sterile, lifeless NY Times headline though. How about “Before Shooting in Iraq, Blackwater Threatened to Murder Government Official?”

  21. 21
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @WereBear: Exactly. Seems to me that you can either avail yourself of the protections of incorporation, with the tradeoff being that you no longer have a business that is an extension of your privately held beliefs, or give up on all of that and preserve the ability to discriminate and proselytize to your little heart’s content. But once you incorporate, your business is not you anymore. This seems just… fundamental to basic American civic knowledge and precedent.

  22. 22
    srv says:

    The Blackwater guy was just making a factually correct statement.

    There was no mechanism for holding contractors liable for anything they did. Freedom.

  23. 23
    Morzer says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    basic American civic knowledge and precedent

    Ah, but these are non-conserving conservatives we are dealing with here.

  24. 24
    raven says:

    Here it comes.

  25. 25
    Elizabelle says:

    @peach flavored shampoo:

    Yeah, seconded re Hobby Lobby.

    I miss the days when “the Supreme Court will decide” wasn’t accompanying by thumping heartbeat and dread.

    Also: re plaintiff: any tidbits on how Hobby Lobby is doing financially? Never heard of them before, but would not set foot in their store if it were the last option in town.

    Plus, the female Las Vegas copkiller antigovernment “activist” worked there. (Harley Quinn, you know, the Joker’s girlfriend.)

    Wondering if their earnings have taken a hit. There are only so many wingnuts out there, even in the heartland homeland.

  26. 26
    Face says:

    @Belafon: Let’s say Hobby Lobby wins this. Could a corporation who follows a peaceful religion demand a ban on its employees from bringing guns to work, or from even carrying guns? Just what laws are they NOT exempt from?

  27. 27
    raven says:

    Harris first

  28. 28
    flukebucket says:

    @peach flavored shampoo: Isn’t there also a potential death blow to unions that can come out of the Supreme Court today?

  29. 29
    Morzer says:

    @raven:

    This is worse than watching Greece and Costa Rica last night.

  30. 30
    raven says:

    In Harris, the Court refuses to extend Abood. These employees can’t be required to contribute to unions. – See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Eve.....6J7Z9.dpuf

  31. 31
    raven says:

    The Court does not overrule Abood. That opinion has questionable foundations, so we reverse to extend Abood to the situation here – See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Eve.....6J7Z9.dpuf

  32. 32
    peach flavored shampoo says:

    @flukebucket: Yup. Just remember, whatever CNN is claiming is the verdict, know that the opposite is likely true.

  33. 33
    raven says:

    5-4

  34. 34
    Morzer says:

    @raven:

    No way, man!

  35. 35
    raven says:

    The Court recognizes a category of “partial public employees” that cannot be required to contribute union bargaining fees. – See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Eve.....6J7Z9.dpuf

  36. 36
    raven says:

    Both from Alito” is very very very good for Hobby Lobb – See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Eve.....6J7Z9.dpuf

  37. 37
    ET says:

    My first job taught me that the tone of a company/organization is often set by the person sitting at the top – Eric Prince is scum so I am not surprised that he hired less than worthy individuals.

  38. 38
    Morzer says:

    Hmm, sounds like a partial screwing for unions to open the way for letting Hobby Lobby become a religious entity.

  39. 39
    peach flavored shampoo says:

    SCOTUSBLOG says both opinions are being read by Alito. Doesn’t this mean that Hobby Lobby has won its case?

  40. 40
    beth says:

    Fox reporting alito wrote the hobby lobby decision. Fuck.

  41. 41
    raven says:

    It remains possible that in a later case the Court will overturn its prior precedent and forbid requiring public employees to contribute to union bargaining. But today it has refused to go that far. The unions have lost a tool to expand their reach. But they have dodged a major challenge to their very existence. – See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Eve.....6J7Z9.dpuf

  42. 42
    Belafon says:

    @Face: If I thought this court made any sense other than “keep rich whites in power” I would agree with you. I don’t see how a corporation can in any way be considered a person.

  43. 43
    CONGRATULATIONS! says:

    The Blackwater guy was just making a factually correct statement.

    @srv: Yep. This, exactly.

  44. 44
    Punchy says:

    @peach flavored shampoo: I would think so. How often does a Justice read the opinion of a case that he/she voted the other way on? Is this common practice?

    I have a feeling I’m about to discover what my company’s “religion” is, and how it impacts my employment benefits.

  45. 45
    Harold Samson says:

    Stunning. American sell swords threaten America.

    Oh look! a squirrel!

  46. 46
    Elizabelle says:

    C-Span 1: protesters were chanting “it’s a craft store, not a chapel.”

    They’ve not heard decision yet.

  47. 47
    raven says:

    @Punchy: My guess is that your dire predictions will be wrong.

  48. 48
    JPL says:

    @beth: Have to agree with your sentiment. I can’t believe that a company can decide which birth control is appropriate for their employees. If I shopped in Hobby Lobby, I no longer would.,

  49. 49
    JPL says:

    Depending on how far the court goes, Hobby Lobby could refuse medical insurance to cover doctors who recommend birth control.

  50. 50
    Elizabelle says:

    @peach flavored shampoo:

    Maybe Alito reading is a bone to conservatives, because Court did not give Hobby Lobby what it wanted?

  51. 51
    raven says:

    Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage. – See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Eve.....6J7Z9.dpuf

  52. 52
    raven says:

    RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations like Conestoga, HL and Mardel – See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Eve.....pufZ9.dpuf

  53. 53
    raven says:

    The Court says that the government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to birth control. – See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Eve.....6J7Z9.dpuf

  54. 54
    Punchy says:

    @raven: I hope so, but I have little faith to believe our SCOTUS will recognize the Pandora’s box it may be opening if it grants a green light to selective law abiding based on subjective and personal beliefs not codified in anything but someone’s mind.

  55. 55
    raven says:

    Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion says that the government could pay for the coverage itself, so that women receive it – See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Eve.....6J7Z9.dpuf

  56. 56
    raven says:

    Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. – See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Eve.....6J7Z9.dpuf

  57. 57
    Morzer says:

    This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs

    Incoherent Misogyny wins the race.

  58. 58
    raven says:

    Here is more qualification: It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice – See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Eve.....6J7Z9.dpuf

  59. 59
    Botsplainer says:

    So are corporations people, or not people?

    One or another, assholes – pick – because they’re total creations of government.

  60. 60
    CONGRATULATIONS! says:

    Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.

    @raven: That’s some Bush v. Gore level of “pulled it out of our asses” opinionatin’ right there.

  61. 61
    Elizabelle says:

    And another Dred Scott decision by the John Roberts aka Roger B Taney Supreme Court.

    To the midterms, moderns.

  62. 62
    Morzer says:

    So, to sum up, Hobby Lobby basically gets what it wants and SCOTUS has turned this area of American law into a pig’s ear.

  63. 63
    JPL says:

    @raven: That doesn’t make sense to me because either there is or there isn’t a religious exception. Are you telling me that the Supremes can decide what is a religious exception based on their own personal beliefs.

  64. 64
    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik says:

    @raven:

    So pretty much only ‘sluts and whores’ getting punished is ok long as company cites ‘religious exemption’.

  65. 65
    Senyordave says:

    The best part will be that courts will now be able to decide what is a valid religion. Because what happens when a company whose CEO is a member of some fundamentalist sect decides that it will only hire fellow members who are members of the same sect because that is one of their core beliefs? Why wouldn’t this be legal if HL wins their case?

  66. 66
    Punchy says:

    So Cleek’s Law is 2 for 2 today. Good to know the Highest Court in the Land is not above partisan hackery and pure FU Libs bullshit.

  67. 67
    raven says:

    @CONGRATULATIONS!: Hey Dawg, copy and paste here.

  68. 68
    raven says:

    It is extremely likely that the Obama administration will by regulation provide for the government to pay for the coverage. So it is unlikely that there will be a substantial gap in coverage. – See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Eve.....6J7Z9.dpuf

  69. 69
    negative 1 says:

    @peach flavored shampoo: NM — I’ll take the Harris v Quinn narrow decision.

  70. 70
    Botsplainer says:

    @Morzer:

    New questions for a prospective SCOTUS nominee need to be along the lines of “are you now or have you ever been a member of the Federalist Society”?

  71. 71
    raven says:

    @JPL: I’m not telling anybody anything

  72. 72
    Belafon says:

    @raven: So, basically, every piece of every business legislation can now be challenged in the courts.

  73. 73
    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik says:

    Is there really any point in doing any shit anymore, considering it seems like the Court is all set to say ‘NO, FUCK YOU YOU SHITTY LIBBY LIBS’ at this point and codify general GOP opinion for decades to come?

  74. 74
    eldorado says:

    thanks a lot, ralph

  75. 75
    raven says:

    Off to the gym, ya’ll fight it out!

  76. 76
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    And the godsdamned DSCC is already fundraising on the decision.

  77. 77
    Elizabelle says:

    Now I would love to see Hobby Lobby’s business tank, sooner rather than later, as women who like birth control for themselves and their loved ones shop elsewhere.

  78. 78
    Morzer says:

    It is extremely likely that the Obama administration will by regulation provide for the government to pay for the coverage. So it is unlikely that there will be a substantial gap in coverage.

    If this is true, the Five Horse’s Asses of the Apocrapalypse may just have tied women’s interests even more closely to those of the Democratic party. Not quite what they had in mind, I would guess.

  79. 79
    JPL says:

    So much for a woman’s ability to decide with her doctor what is best for her. Maybe it’s time for employees of Hobby Lobby to knock on manager’s doors for advice.

  80. 80
    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik says:

    @raven:

    Until the Congressional GOP shouts for cuts because ‘teh deficit’ and takes aim specifically at the reproductive health funding.

  81. 81
    JPL says:

    @raven: haha. I know.. I’m just bitchin.

  82. 82
    Morzer says:

    @The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:

    Sounds like a promising area for briar patch throwing counter-injunctions.

  83. 83

    @raven: Right. Because I’m sure someone who, despite the science, thinks that contraception equals abortion drugs would be cool with their tax dollars going to pay for them.

    @raven: So basically, this is like Bush v. Gore. Yet one more one-time decision that shouldn’t be considered or expanded upon to its logical conclusion, because they can see the absurdities of it, but they’re going to do this one-time because they’re blatantly partisan hacks.

  84. 84
    Belafon says:

    @Morzer: They would like to return us to the late 1800s/early 1900s. I just can’t wait until Thomas has to deal with being removed from the court.

  85. 85
    srv says:

    And people think pitchforks are coming.

    You can stick a pitchfork in that union, they’re done.

  86. 86
    CONGRATULATIONS! says:

    Hey Dawg, copy and paste here.

    @raven: Understood, mi amigo.

  87. 87
    Elizabelle says:

    @Morzer:

    If this is true, the Five Horse’s Asses of the Apocrapalypse may just have tied women’s interests even more closely to those of the Democratic party. Not quite what they had in mind, I would guess.

    I think you’re on to something. And this could help in spurring interest in the midterms and voting Democratic to protect actual freedoms.

    You don’t want to get on the other side of women voters. Ken Cuccinelli learned that in Virginia last fall.

    Alison Grimes Lundergan is up by a healthy margin among “independents” in Kentucky.

  88. 88
    Eric U. says:

    I hope we manage to stack the court and they just reverse some of this stuff. I know the tradition is to treat SCOTUS precedent with some respect, but this is not due any respect.

  89. 89
    Punchy says:

    The Court says that RFRA requires the Govt to provide closely-held corporate objectors the same accommodation it already provides nonprofit organization objectors.

    Say…….what?

  90. 90
    Belafon says:

    @SiubhanDuinne: OK?!!!

    1. The other side is probably already fundraising on how the Supreme Court didn’t end the ACA.
    2. The Supreme Court just undercut unions, and major contributor to the Democrats.
    3. We have elections coming up, and the DSCC is part of the Democratic election apparatus.
    4. Would you like them to wait until October? Until we can fix another bad decision by this court, Democrats are going to have to play the same money game as Republicans.

  91. 91
    flukebucket says:

    WDBT? (What does Burnsie think?)

  92. 92
    D58826 says:

    I guess both decisions could have been worse. Hobby Lobby especially seems to open the door for every tom dick and harry to claim he has some unique religious perspective. Scalia again shows what a worthless hack he is since he was the one who wrote the 1990 opinion on the peyote case.

    Why are American soldiers dying in Afghanistan to prevent a take over from the fundamentalist Taliban when we have 5 justices who are quitter happy to enact fundamentalist Christian doctrine into law in this country. The new definition of religious liberty is iy applies only to the 1%

  93. 93
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @JPL: Here’s my question. If a doctor prescribes a medicine for a woman for a medical condition having nothing to do with pregnancy prevention, but the medicine does prevent pregnancy, can HL refuse to pay? I know my daughter, at an age well prior to her becoming sexually active, needed what are commonly called “birth control pills” for a medical condition. If I were an HL employee, would I be out-of-pocket for that?

  94. 94
    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    This is what gets me about the whole craziness over birth control: the refusal to recognize that ‘birth control’ is often used for medical conditions completely removed from actual pregnancy prevention.

  95. 95
    Patricia Kayden says:

    Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby according to CNN.

  96. 96
    Senyordave says:

    Anyone who has any doubts about Hobby Lobby’s ultimate goals should read this:

    http://www.dallasnews.com/news.....-class.ece

    Their POS CEO wants to turn the US into a Christian country. He’s also a sleazy dirtbag who met with the School Board secretly to implement the first step of his plan (how this wasn’t illegal is beyond me).

  97. 97
    Morzer says:

    @flukebucket:

    Something smug.

    EATOQ.

  98. 98
    Botsplainer says:

    @Patricia Kayden:

    Way to be the bellweather of the thread.

    (Slow claps start…)

  99. 99
    Face says:

    the Court holds that corporations (including for-profit corporations) are “persons” for purposes of RFRA

    From SCOTUSblog live chat. IANAL, but yikes. So they’re persons w/r/t religion, but not when it comes to liability and taxes? WTF?

  100. 100
    Botsplainer says:

    @Face:

    And the glibertarians rejoice. All the rights with none of the responsibility.

    We got the Robocop future instead of the Star Trek future.

  101. 101
    NonyNony says:

    @D58826:

    Why are American soldiers dying in Afghanistan to prevent a take over from the fundamentalist Taliban when we have 5 justices who are quitter happy to enact fundamentalist Christian doctrine into law in this country.

    Not Fundamentalist Christian – Roman Catholic.

    John Roberts – Roman Catholic
    Antonin Scalia – Roman Catholic
    Anthony Kennedy – Roman Catholic
    Clarence Thomas – Roman Catholic
    Samuel Alito – Roman Catholic

    Though, to be fair:
    Sonia Sotomayor – Roman Catholic
    (and the rest):
    Ruth Bader Ginsberg – Judaism
    Stephen Breyer – Judaism
    Elena Kagan – Judaism

    Not a single Fundamentalist Christian on the court. Or even a mainline Protestant. It’s actually kind of weird, all things considered.

  102. 102
    feebog says:

    @CONGRATULATIONS!:

    That’s some Bush v. Gore level of “pulled it out of our asses” opinionatin’ right there.

    They have just left the door open for reversal by some future, not so full of bought and paid for by corporations SCOTUS. How can you say that there is a religious exception to the contraception mandate, but not for blood transfusions, vaccinations, and the like? For that matter, if a closely held company is owned by a someone who does not believe in medical treatment at all, couldn’t they just clam an exemption from providing any insurance whatsoever?

  103. 103
    Chris says:

    Every time you think they can’t possibly take you further back into the Gilded Age, they find a way.

    Oy, it’s a Monday, all right.

  104. 104
    Alex S. says:

    So… mainstream Christianity protected by constitution, Jehovah’s Witnesses not?

  105. 105
    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik says:

    God fucking dammit. Why does the crazy always seem to fucking win in the end? Always, fucking fucking fucking always.

  106. 106
    JPL says:

    @Gin & Tonic: It appears that way. There are situations where having a child can endanger the life of the mother. Will Hobby Lobby refuse to pay for insurance that covers tubal ligation?

  107. 107
    Morzer says:

    @The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:

    There are a lot of good men doing nothing out there in America. I believe that’s all that is required.

  108. 108
    JPL says:

    @feebog: It’s not just that. Many religious don’t recognize gay marriage.

  109. 109
    Comrade Scrutinizer says:

    Have no fear. Burnsie will weigh in soon to inform us that Vox SCOTUS, Vox Dei.

  110. 110
    piratedan says:

    @Face: they’re a dessert topping and a floor wax, but without liability for flavor or quality.

  111. 111
    Iowa Old Lady says:

    @raven: Good luck with that one. They said Bush v Gore couldn’t be a precedent either, but it’s still being used as one.

    This is about sex and controlling women and that’s all it’s about.

  112. 112
    D58826 says:

    @NonyNony: On abortion and birth control I doubt there is a dimes worth of difference between a fundamentalist protestant and the catholic church. Either way the conservative position is that their religious beliefs are allowed to take priority over mine.

  113. 113

    Questions for lawyers and historians: Is this the worse Supreme Court post Civil War?

  114. 114
    The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik says:

    @Morzer:

    But it seems like even when there are enough good men doing something, the crazy owns all the right positions to make it completely fucking moot anyway.

  115. 115
    JPL says:

    I also understand that the Harris ruling was narrow. There are several attorneys on this site that could express their opinion on whether or not this is so.

  116. 116
    celticdragonchick says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    No. That would be Plessy V Ferguson.

  117. 117
    celticdragonchick says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:

    No. That would be Plessy V Ferguson.

  118. 118
    Morzer says:

    @The Snarxist Formerly Known as Kryptik:

    Yes, but why do they own those positions?

    Because they turn out during the midterms. Because they turn out to make sure they control boards of education and state houses. Because they play the game to win and have neither scruples nor shame.

    It’s hard to win if the other team has a machete and you’ve got a feather duster and good intentions.

  119. 119
    Amir Khalid says:

    Blackwater isn’t a legitimate company, it’s a criminal gang. I don’t see how any other description fits a corporation that threatens federal employees with murder for doing their jobs. It’s not too late now to prosecute, is it?

  120. 120
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Amir Khalid: Considering that Blackwater no longer exists, probably yes.

  121. 121
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Belafon:

    No, no. I completely agree. I was just feeling discouraged, I guess, that the whole fundraising apparatus is so … I dunno … cynical, opportunistic, something. It’s like, whoa, just give me a couple of minutes to absorb the news before you start begging me for money.

    Don’t mind me, I’m just cranky.

  122. 122
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @Botsplainer:

    Bellwether.

    /cranky pedant

  123. 123
    D58826 says:

    Any one notice that buffer zone in the TV coverage of the SCOTUS this morning? I though that was the place were American citizens can engage each other in thoughtful conversations. There are day’s that I wish Obama really was the tyrant the GOP claims he is.

  124. 124
    Amir Khalid says:

    @Gin & Tonic:
    I was under the impression that it had merely been renamed.

  125. 125
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    It merged with Triple Canopy a couple of months ago and has changed names 3 or 4 times. Kinda hard to keep up…but Blackwater is still around and sleazing n the shadows.

  126. 126
    piratedan says:

    @Gin & Tonic: Didn’t they just change the name to Xe? Thought that was because the Blackwater brand name had gotten so toxic….

  127. 127
    Chris says:

    @NonyNony:

    It’s funny, but only if you’re into really black humor, that the nativists and Know-Nothings spent all this time warning us about the Pope taking over America from the inside through the filthy Catholic immigrants… and now that you actually do see Catholic theology becoming scarily influential in the legal system, the nativists are their best buddies and would rather talk about Creeping Sharia Law.

    Huh.

  128. 128
    celticdragonchick says:

    @piratedan: It changed twice since then…

  129. 129
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @celticdragonchick: I know that. But at this point, in a corporate sense, it exists only about as much as, say, Northwest Airlines. I recognize that many of its employees are still probably doing the same work in the same places with somebody else’s signature on their paycheck, but I was attempting in my IANAL-ness to answer Amir’s question.

  130. 130
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @piratedan: They were bought out and absorbed by a competitor.

  131. 131
    Morzer says:

    @SiubhanDuinne:

    I am sure Patricia is a belle in any weather.

  132. 132
    The Other Chuck says:

    @Belafon:

    They would like to return us to the late 1800s/early 1900s. I just can’t wait until Thomas has to deal with being removed from the court.

    No problem, they’ll just come up with another one-off ruling.

  133. 133
    Ruckus says:

    @schrodinger’s cat:
    I’m neither but I’d say sure is in the running.

  134. 134
    jefft452 says:

    ‘Blackwater’s top manager there issued a threat: “that he could kill” the government’s chief investigator and “no one could or would do anything about it as we were in Iraq,”’

    Couldn’t we just label them a terrorist organization and target their leaders with drone strikes?

  135. 135
    Mnemosyne says:

    @celticdragonchick:

    Plessy v Ferguson was decided in 1896, so definitely post-Civil War. Dred Scott v Sandford would be the worst pre-Civil War decision.

Comments are closed.