Come together

Hey all you people saying it's our duty as good Americans to come together and unite around Trump now as he's going to be our President, why haven't you been calling for the Senate to unite around our actual President and do their job regarding his Supreme Court pick?

Hypocrital motherfuckers.

Mitt Romney Profited From Abortions

Anyone who reads this blog for any length of time knows that I am pro choice. Mitt Romney was pro choice and then he wasn't. The virulently anti choice Republican Party has managed to overlook Romney's flip-flop and will officially nominate him as their presidential candidate this summer. But can they overlook the fact that he personally profited from abortions?

Via Mother Jones:

Earlier this year, Mitt Romney nearly landed in a politically perilous controversy when the Huffington Post reported that in 1999 the GOP presidential candidate had been part of an investment group that invested $75 million in Stericycle, a medical-waste disposal firm that has been attacked by anti-abortion groups for disposing aborted fetuses collected from family planning clinics. Coming during the heat of the GOP primaries, as Romney tried to sell South Carolina Republicans on his pro-life bona fides, the revelation had the potential to damage the candidate's reputation among values voters already suspicious of his shifting position on abortion.  

But Bain Capital, the private equity firm Romney founded, tamped down the controversy. The company said Romney left the firm in February 1999 to run the troubled 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City and likely had nothing to with the deal. The matter never became a campaign issue. But documents filed by Bain and Stericycle with the Securities and Exchange Commission—and obtained by Mother Jones—list Romney as an active participant in the investment. And this deal helped Stericycle, a company with a poor safety record, grow, while yielding tens of millions of dollars in profits for Romney and his partners. The documents—one of which was signed by Romney—also contradict the official account of Romney's exit from Bain.

First, imagine the furor on the right if such a revelation came out about Obama! Second, if this gets the play in the media it deserves -- and that's a pretty big if -- we will be seeing Republicans twists themselves into pretzels trying to defend Romney. As a bonus, reread the last line of the second quoted paragraph above -- just one more lie from the Land of Mitt Believe.

Also, shouldn't poor Little Ricky Santorum's head be doing one of these at this news?

Romney: Poor stay-at-home moms lack "the dignity of work"

While Mitt Romney said just last week that "all moms are working moms" (commenting on the Hilary Rosen flap), only three months ago, he said that poor moms who stayed at home with their very young children needed to have "the dignity of work" and that mothers on welfare should be required to work outside the home or lose their benefits.

So remember folks, staying at home with your kids is only "work' if you're rich -- anything else is simply undignified!

Scalia: Constitution does not prohibit discrimination against women

Via HuffPo:

In a newly published interview in the legal magazine California Lawyer, Scalia said that while the Constitution does not disallow the passage of legislation outlawing such discrimination, it doesn't itself outlaw that behavior:

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

Here's the relevant part of the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This would mean that either Scalia believes that women still aren't "persons" or "citizens" or that since discrimination was allowed against women when that amendment was written they still don't have rights. You know, the same way that he believes that the 2nd Amendment only allows people the right to own muskets and cannons. Right.

Apparently Scalia said something similar back in September. Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks points out his hypocrisy when it comes to being a "strict constitutionalist" here:


.