Oh, he's just like any other man, only more so.

Digby pretty much sums up how I feel about the about the Supremes decision yesterday defending the right of the well-to-do to buy our government:

I think we need to start thinking about how to deal with the new era of wingnut judicial activism. If anyone actually thought the Warren Court was activist for trying to right long standing social inequality, they haven't seen anything until they see what John, Clarence, Nino, Sammy and Tony do to expand the rights of rich people and corporations while turning back the clock on everything else. It's going to be a generational battle. I hope everyone realizes this.

I will never forgive Joe Lieberman, Huckelberry, St John and the the rest of the milquetoast losers of that gang of 14. This is on their heads.

That was actually my first thought- "thanks for nothing Gang of 14." It's so wonderful you were able to preserve the filibuster. No doubt it will come to good use the next time a Democratic President wants to nominate a Justice that's halfway sane and Republicans want to keep that person off the court. Conservatives get their way now. Conservatives get their way then. Everything is working well.

As for the money = speech argument I realize that there are tons of liberals that believe adherence to the 1st Amendment is such an absolute that they're willing to see the republic collapse under the weight of corporate dominance of our government. More power to them.

As for myself I tend to believe this country was founded on the principle that no citizen would have a louder voice than another in the public square. If money = speech then this principle is meaningless because the rich will dominate the discourse, as they pretty much do now. But putting that to the precedent that corporations enjoy the rights of citizens under the law continues to leave me shaking my head at the absurdity of that precedent.

The one precedent, I might ad, that the Roberts court appears to be in no danger of overturning.

Of course you realize this means war.

The wonderful Jane Hamsher from firedoglake posted an excellent piece at Huffington summarizing all that's taken place on the abortion front this week and highlighting what action she thinks we that support choice should take politically. Her call to drop an anvil on the collective heads of the "Gang of 14" is spot on. Those Senators that are part of that "extrodinary circumstances" coalition that call themselves pro-choice yet voted for cloture are not worth a tinker's damn. Lieberman, Chafee and Snowe have shown they can't be trusted to follow-through with action when it comes to protect reproductive rights.

I was struck by this response from the comments section to Jane's post:

Bush won the election. Republicans won 55 seats in the Senate. They EARNED the right to appoint justices to the Supreme Court. Even ones that don't pass the NARAL/NOW/PP litmus test .

It's not called "bullying", it's called "democracy". Look it up sometime, you obviously have no clue what the word means.

Posted by: tarajunky

I pay a lot of attention to politics. I follow national elections outside of my local and state races. I love watching C-Span. I get as nervous meeting my congressional representative as some people do meeting their favorite rockstar or actor and I can't for life of me remember abortion being a major issue in the last national election. I don't recall it being much discussed at all and certainly not by most Republican candidates for office.

In point of fact there were moderate, pro-choice Republicans paraded across the stage at the Republican convention as the face of the party. Their were no James Dobsons or Pat Robertsons speaking in prime-time and leading a charge against abortion. Instead there were Schwarzeneggers and Guliannis talking about security, September the 11th and immigration and sold to the American people as the authentic face of the party. And Bush? Bush refused to say what kind of judges he would nominate, only that he wouldn't apply a "litmus" test.

The Republican Party didn't win the last election running ON the issue of abortion but rather running FROM issue of abortion.

But perhaps no other thing gives lie to tarajunky's babbling than to point out the obvious: the Republicans DO control both houses of congress and the presidency. Why don't they just pass legislation banning abortion?

It's because they haven't EARNED a damn thing.

As for the "democracy," South Dakota is a perfect microcosm of what's wrong with that argument. In a state with only 750,000 residents the average voter already has more say more say on this issue than the average New Yorker via the advice and consent of their two Senators. Their efforts this week at leading the charge for judicial review by passing a law banning all abortions just add insult to injury. I wouldn't call that democracy. Tyranny of the minority maybe.

No, I think Jane described it best when she termed it "bullying." Sure, it's like being bullied by an Ewok but it's still bullying. Nobody likes a bully.

Least of which a short, fat, cute, furry and really annoying bully.