This is why you don't go STS

STS (n) - an acronym that stands for Straight to Supreme Court, or Straight to SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)


When the entire brouhaha about the proposed plan by the Obama administration to pursue a national health care plan, several states jumped the gun and took it straight to the courts with the assumption that it would be declared unconstitutional.

Not smart.

I was always wondering why didn't they just leave it in the hands of Congress? You don't EVER want to straight to SCOTUS. In fact, I'm creating a new acronym: STS--Straight to SCOTUS. And justices can be unpredictable. Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren and that resulted in the Brown v. Board of Education decision that ended segregation. While history will show that was the best decision in that case, when the decision came down, Eisenhower was not pleased. He referred to Warrens appointment as being a mistake. At the end of the day, you just can't predict how justices will go.

You don't want to go STS because they turn laws into stone. I was talking to someone a while ago about Roe v. Wade. Said individual believed that Roe v. Wade was being chipped apart in the courts. My thought was that either the organizations behind the repeal of Roe v. Wade are either caught up in zeal or they are doing it to give their supporters the illusion that they are fighting in court. You don't even make it past p. 7 of those rulings before you see the words "this court still upholds Roe v. Wade." So those groups that are going after the ruling in the courts only reinforced it. And this was the situation in the health care law case, and I want to be clear that I'm not comparing the context of the two cases, just the nature of how they were brought to court. I'm hoping whoever is reading this is smarter than that. I remember mentioning that the 7-2 decision in favor of Roe v. Wade was dominated by Republican-appointed justices and said individual went from normal to banshee in seconds like the whole thing was my fault. I didn't write history, I just stated the facts. But I digress...

Anyhoo, because those states that filed the suit against the health care bill jumped the shark and went STS, President Obama got to do his victory pimp walk to the podium.

The political cost of the Trayvon Martin murder

The tragic murder of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin has gone global, with several cities and thousands of people in the streets and online donning hoodies in protest.

There is, however, a potential political setback that I am stunned officials in Florida have failed to appreciate. Of course, this could also be a chilling sign that the dismissal of incidents such as this indicate a norm that lead state and local officials to think they were immune to a backlash.

When it was evident that the Trayvon Martin murder would not go away quietly, it may have appeared to officials and Governor Jeb Bush that the "smart" thing to do would be to stay quiet. However, one would think that some political strategy foresight would suggest the squashing of this incident immediately. There was--and still is--legal recourse to put George Zimmerman in jail, even if only for a short time. It is too late for an arrest to diffuse the outrage, but it could put a dent in it. However, had an arrest been done at the time, we would have never heard about the death of Trayvon Martin.

Let's face it: the Republicans could be in serious trouble this election. There is argument that the strong dislike towards the sitting president will be enough to send the base to the polls, but with three candidates that are splitting the vote and the support, the force is leaning in Obama's favor. Last election, seasoned politician Senator John McCain and running mate Sarah Palin couldn't bring out the vote enough to get the White House. Sarah Palin, whatever your feelings about her, is a charismatic entity for the GOP base. What chance does Mitt Romney or Santorum have? The GOP is merely tolerating Romney's existence. Santorum looks so stressed from just campaigning that it is questionable if his stamina will make it to November. The Republican Party is facing the growing rage stemming from the backlash regarding anti-contraceptive and abortion laws. They don't need this. One thing the GOP had in their favor was the disenchanted base of the Democratic Party not showing up to vote.

If the Democrats were thinking strategically, they would urge Florida Democrats to push to put the repeal of the "Stand Your Ground" law on the ballot to use the anger over Martin's death to get voters to the polls.

Playing a highly volatile voting group

A thought occurred to me as I read about this continued legislative hailstorm regarding women that is making the government anything but small: I wonder if this is just another political game. That is a "duh" statement. Of COURSE it is a political game. Didn't anyone notice these laws are popping up around election season? That was sarcasm in case you missed it.

True, there may be one or two politicians that actually believe in what they are pushing, and some are undoubtedly bandwagoning, but surely they are familiar enough with how this country's legal system works to know that their law will fail at the SCOTUS level. And that's the idea, isn't it? To placate far right voters enough to get them to the polls, and then let SCOTUS knock the laws down. Major players in the GOP have been promising to overturn Roe v. Wade for years and never done so. Why? Because they don't have that authority, and even if they did, why would they? All they have to do is just say the word "abortion" and their base is fired up. If abortion was illegal in this country, their greatest pitch would be lost. At the end of the day, the objective of any politician--Democrat or Republican--is to be reelected.

A backlash is on the horizon from all these laws, and I'm sure the legislators pushing these laws know exactly what they are doing. They know their followers will never accept that the system of Checks and Balances cannot be overturned in Congress or by electing a new president. If you don't believe me, find a hardcore pro-lifer and just ask them. I personally don't think of them as pro-life, they are something else entirely. One too many experiences with the highly hostile natures of people I've met from this demographic have been a life lesson. Even what appears to be simple conversation on non-related topics goes from "Hey, this person is nice" to "I hope my pepper spray is in my purse because this person is scaring the hell out of me."

An answer I gave to someone's commentary that I honestly thought was harmless about how my voting decisions would not affect Roe v Wade because of how the country was set up went from civil to frightening in seconds. A completely illogical and frightening tirade was written to me. He was offended by my civics lesson and the next thing I knew, I got an email with abortion "info" that was 30 years old and possessed not one verifiable source. Just from mentioning Checks and Balances. He was the one that brought up abortion. That wasn't even on my mind. My motivation for voting was the economy, and if people like him weren't so trigger-happy and clung so tightly to erroneous information, they would see that abortion rates drop when they economy is good. So someone that is thinking about the economy isn't "the enemy". But nothing will even get them to change the topic. No research is valid to them unless it comes from the unvalidated website that tells them exactly what they want to hear. You either are a monster or in need of reeducation in their eyes. They will keep talking as if you didn't say a word and will keep the volatile monologue going until you back down or run away.

I remember watching Cheaper by the Dozen with a group. After the movie, I said that I hoped I never had that many children and was immediately accused of planning abortions for a pregnancy that didn't exist. True story. After expressing my fears to a priest (who is pro-life), he told me that these types of people terrified him, too, and to just "Wait a few days and then just tell them what they want to hear" so that they didn't give me any trouble. I read a comment on a video where women were criticized as being bad mothers if they weren't willing to die from a pregnancy. That is how heated this issue is. There are four groups: pro-choice, undeclared, pro-life and them. This is my first-hand experience, not some assumption based on the experiences of others.

And politicians know this issue is a trigger, that is why they keep pulling it. But the deal is sweet for them no matter what happens. When the laws are beaten down at the SCOTUS level, they can say, "Hey, we tried, but those baby killers stopped us. Remember that and vote for me!" Wash, rinse, repeat. As I said earlier, the objective of any politician is to be reelected, and this set of voters is very easy to stir up and impossible to sway.

...and Mississipi?

Romney came in third behind Gingrich and Santorum, effectively guaranteeing a battle for delegates all the way to the Republican convention and making a certain president very, very happy. Somebody's in trouble...

Surprise! Surprise! Santorum takes Alabama

NBC, CNN and Fox News are calling Alabama for Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum. Mississippi, caught in a three-way split, is still being marked as too close to call.

Santorum took 34% of the Alabama vote, seizing 13 delegates with 58% of the vote calculated. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich coming in second with 30%, Mitt Romney came in third with 28% of the vote and Ron Paul trailed with 8% of the voted.

So what does this mean? It means the Republicans still have a serious problem on their hands. Mitt Romney failed miserably at his attempt to appear like a regular guy with some painful attempts at Southern jargon this morning. Romney couldn't even beat Gingrich. But this should not really be a surprise, given that Alabama and Mississippi are tagged as being the most evangelical and conservative voters in the country. Romney is just coming off as being too country club to appeal to Joe Blow America. Republican voters are still iffy about Romney, despite the fact that he may be as good as they are going to get. However, Santorum does not have a snow's chance of catering to the moderates in a general election. Gingrich has enough baggage to take him to Saturn and back. Poor Ron Paul is just in denial.

President Obama has slipped drastically in popularity, but this three-way split may very well be his saving grace. Even with the divide being so clear and a projected frontrunner for the Republican Party being so ambiguous, the conservative vote may still steadily stream towards whomever is picked. But my eyes and ears hear conservative voters with ultimatums: "our" guy or the highway.

Whatever the case, the battleground for the general election is moderates and women voters, and superconservatives are rapidly losing appeal with those populations.

Indiana lawmaker calls Girl Scouts radical group

And not "radical" in surfer parlance, either. According to Rep. Bob Morris (R-IN), the Girl Scouts is a militant group of sexualized cookie hookers that are the future army for Planned Parenthood's attack on American family values.

He didn't actually say that, but that is the gist of his complaint.

Trump endorses Romney

Maybe it was just me, but Mitt Romney did not have that "I'm thrilled to be here" look on his face when Donald Trump was making the endorsement announcement. This race has become more of a joke than a campaign. When three-ring circuses like Trump can make legitimate endorsements, there is a problem.

Hey, sensible Republicans, instead of catering to that "I'm angry just because" fringe that wants to "take America back," why don't you try taking your party back? At what point will enough be enough?

A blunt take on the SOTU address and the response

I watch the State of the Union address every year out of a sense of duty, not because I enjoy it. This goes for any presidency. The fact of the matter is that no sitting president is going to say that the Union is in disarray. The best that can be hoped for is that you get some commentary on ideas for the future of the nation...and pray that Congress will act on the good ones since they are the ones that make the laws in the place. Every response to the SOTU address will criticize the sitting president and the responding party will toot how the sitting president's administration is sending the country to hell. Wash, rinse, repeat.

And the news networks are even worse. In fact, I really should stop watching the commentary because MSNBC will either criticize or praise the president based on how the speech sounds with little else. Fox News will just be upset that he still has a pulse. CNN will be too preoccupied with showing off new ways to play with a green screen to focus on the subject from any perspective. You could set a watch (or create a drinking game) based on the predictability of it.

As expected, President Obama gave his speech in his typical poised and sometimes dramatic fashion. If there was anything that I hoped would come to fruition, it is this idea that the Executive Branch will look for a way to deal with the crumbling infrastructure without waiting on Congress. Other than that, except for the amusing lighting that made a stream of light hit the president like baby Simba in The Lion King ($10 says that will be the front page of the Washington Post tomorrow), nothing unexpected was said.

I have been waiting for a response that gave hope for a bipartisan effort to run this country and again I was disappointed. What really shocked me was how Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels referred to President Obama's "failed trickle down experiment." The entire notion of trickle down economics was born in the Reagan Administration. I was under the impression that Ronald Reagan was the political equivalent to Chuck Norris for Republicans, so this terminology caught me by surprise. But overall, this speech was more partisan than expected.

State of the Union Address

GOP response

Gingrich surprise comeback

I am desperately trying to understand something here.

The Republican Party has always made it clear that its primary platform is family values. And yet Newt Gingrich is winning primaries? Newt Gingrich is a viable candidate? Really? Are the voters that desperate for someone who can debate President Obama? Do any of you voters realize that this isn't Political Idol and that it takes much more than a smooth debater to win the White House? George W. Bush could barely string a sentence together...he won. Did you forget?

Gingrich abandoned the "til death do us part' vow and added a caveat for deathly illnesses that he applied to not just one but two of his wives. He's slept with so many staffers that his children should demand a maternity test. Never mind this king of hypocrites did this while going after Bill Clinton for getting a little ooh la la à la Lewinsky. Is selective memory at play here?

There is this big to-do about Romney showing his tax forms, which is just as ridiculous and banal as the entire Birther movement, not to mention invasive. But you are just fine with Gingrich? In this great wave of Republican idealism that involves an anti-establishment, beam-me-up-Reagan mentality, South Carolina voters respond by voting for a bloated whore of a person who has no problem leaving deathly ill spouses and is so entrenched that he has a root system which competes with oak trees? Really?

Oh, and on a side note, I grew up during the Reagan years and this romanticism that has suddenly sprung up is incredibly unwarranted.

Perry's Impressive Wake-Up Call

I was starting to wonder if he was going to keep the blinders on, given his unfettered enthusiasm regarding his chances at a nomination. But that happy bubble of his apparently has been busted, and Gov. Perry has given up his dreams of becoming the Ghost of President Bush Past from Hell. The only reason I can think why Perry has chosen to endorse Gingrich is that he is backing the anti-Mormon fringe.

Romney takes New Hampshire

I'm afraid I'm finding it difficult to be shocked. He's the governor of Massachusetts. That's his region, despite his attempts to prove that he is compatible with the fringe of the Republican party. I would have been more shocked if he lost.

Hopefully this will give Santorum incentive to quit. His increasingly questionable rhetoric is screwy even by SNL standards.

How to be a happy voter in 5 steps

1. Realize that you are not voting for the savior of the world. If you think you are going to find the second arrival of Christ, Buddha, Yoda, a romanticized version of a deceased president or a character from a John Wayne or Will Smith movie in a politician then you need to go back to your mother and start over.

2. Accept that Washington has no incentive to change, and if you really, really knew why things happen the way they do, you wouldn't complain so much about it.

3. Locate a grade-school level social studies book and learn what your politician can actually do.

4. Stop comparing the economy to your personal home budget. It's a country...not a person. Your attempt to understand a national economy by comparing it to your checkbook is like comparing apples and alligators.

5. Vote for the candidate that you think will do the LEAST amount of damage.

Remember: This country isn't perfect, but we've still got a pretty sweet deal here.