Republican Jackass(es) of the Week

North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory (R-what else?) decided to go ahead and sign a voter suppression bill that's designed to stop the rampant voter fraud going on in that state (which has hovered around 0.001% over the last 3 decades).

Yes, another attempt to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

It's Pat.

And yes, another attempt to disenfranchise minorities, the young and the elderly -- all those who traditionally vote for Democrats.

It imposes strict voter picture ID requirements, drastically cuts early voting by about a week, kills state-sponsored voter registration drives, and repeals same day registration.

I've yet to hear how cutting a week of early voting also cuts voter fraud. Do those one or two voters each year who are convicted of voter fraud always vote early? Do they spring for plastic surgery so they can match someone else's picture? Of course this is nonsense. But not to North Carolina's Regressive governor and legislature.

The state is offering "free IDs" at DMV locations -- free in this case meaning it will cost taxpayers an estimated $800,000 to furnish these IDs to the approximately 300,000 people without acceptable picture IDs. Of course, the people this bill targets -- the poor, the elderly, minorities and students -- will have to spend money and a whole day shlepping around town to obtain birth certificate copies and wait in line at the DMV for these "free" treats.

But there is some good news. Just hours after the governor signed this voter suppression bill, lawsuits were filed. The ACLU of North Carolina and the NAACP of North Carolina filed suit claiming the bill violates the Constitution's equal protection clause and what's left of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

This same governor recently signed bills that would reduce jobless benefits, reject the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, cut school funding, tighten restrictions for abortion clinics in the state, and loosen restrictions on concealed-carry permits in bars and restaurants. Excellent choice there, mixing guns and alcohol. What could possibly go wrong?

How do the residents of North Carolina feel about this guy? Not so good.

A recent PPP poll shows his approval rating badly underwater: 39% approve, 51% disapprove.

North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory, our Republican Jackass of the Week.

And Dishonorable Mention goes to Representative Paul Stam (R of course) also, coincidentally, from North Carolina.

This genius doesn't like new school testing requirements for children that June Atkinson, the superintendent of schools, has devised, so he stated she should "stick to her own knitting."

A tad misogynistic there, Paul?

Supreme Court Gets Two Right, One Wrong

Sun rising over the Supreme Court

Great news!

The Supreme Court ruled this morning that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. DOMA denied federal benefits to same sex married couples. The high court established that this law "singles out a class of persons deemed by a state entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty."

Simple enough. The Justice Department had already stopped upholding this anti-gay, discriminatory law and now it's been struck down.

You cannot give benefits and rights to one group of married people in this country while denying the same benefits and rights to another group of married, tax-paying Americans.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that the federal law, passed by Congress in 1996, violates the US Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.

This does not mean that all 50 states must now enact marriage equality laws. But it does ensure that same sex couples who are legally married in any US state must receive equal treatment under federal law, including over 1,000 benefits that other married couples receive, with tax benefits and Social Security benefits among the two biggest.

So, for example, a same sex couple who is legally married in, say, Massachusetts, does not necessarily have to be recognized in a far rightwing, backward, yahoo state like Texas, Oklahoma or Mississippi. But it does have to recognized and granted all rights by the federal government.

Children of same sex married couples will now know that their families are as valid as any other.

Right now, about a third of all US states recognize same sex marriage. Before long, that will be the case in all 50 states. They're falling like dominoes.

The second ruling the Supreme Court got right dealt with California's Proposition 8, which prohibited same sex marriage in California, and was already struck down by a federal district court. The Supreme Court decided proponents "did not have standing" to put it back into effect.

Simply put, the Supreme Court said the anti-gay bigots could not show that a married lesbian couple down the street could possibly harm their own marriage in any way. Thus they had no "standing" to put the discriminatory law back into effect.

So two big decisions for equality and liberty came today -- the day after a horrendously bad decision was made by this same court.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court struck down a major part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. It's the part that determines which states must get federal permission before changing their voting laws. It applies to the states that have a long, ugly history of discriminating against minorities, making it difficult if not impossible for them to exercise their right to vote.

LBJ signs the Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Voting Rights Act requires 9 states with a rich history of discrimination, mostly in the South, to get approval from the Justice Department before changing their voting laws. Ironically, the law was renewed several times, including in 2006, when it passed the US Senate 98-0!

It was used to block over 1,000 changes to voting laws from 1982 to 2006.  Last year, it was invoked to stop an unnecessary voter identification law in Texas as well as a Florida law that would have eliminated early voting days in minority areas.

Last year's antics, including so many voter suppression laws put into effect, so many early voting days cut, and so many hours cut, clearly show that the law is still needed.

Rightwingers are thrilled that the Voting Rights Act has had an integral part struck down. But eliminating it may work against them. Remember, in 2012, all the attempts to stifle voter participation from non-white Americans resulted in a backlash, and record-breaking numbers of black voters stood in line for as many hours as it took to take advantage of their right to vote.

I hope states that believe they have a green light to institute more voter suppression laws suffer the same consequence.

Republican Jackass of the Week

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Fat Tony.

It's a shame these justices are appointed for life. With today's medical knowledge and available technology, we should be able to oust, expel, or otherwise discharge and forcefully retire a Supreme Court justice at the first sign of senility.

The Supreme Court today heard oral arguments to actually strike down key parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Although all American adults were already guaranteed the right to vote, the 1965 Voting Rights Act was necessary to force certain areas of the country to abide by that law, disallowing the blatant racial intimidation and discrimination that was rampant in some parts of the south.

When asked why, in 2006, the law was renewed for another 25 years by unanimous vote in the Senate, Scalia actually said it was “very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It's been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”

Racial entitlements, you Jackass? An entitlement is the "belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges," according to Merriam-Webster.

No, my fat, arrogant, erudite elitist. Voting is not a an entitlement. It's a right, like it or not.

African-Americans may not have to return over and over to register to vote because "it's too early in the day / it's too late in the day / it's the wrong day of the week / the registrant isn't here today." They may not be asked to answer ridiculously impossible-to-answer questions anymore like "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" or "how many bubbles are in a bar of soap?"

But in case Fat Tony was in a coma for the last election cycle, let me inform him that many other, slightly more subtle forms of voter suppression were employed. Cutting early voting days, cutting voting hours, ending voting on the weekend before election day, cutting the number of voting machines in minority districts, suddenly demanding I.D.'s that were never required in American history and making sure voters in minority districts had long lines and waiting times up to 6 hours to tolerate, all were designed to suppress minority voters.

Even now, Regressive republican legislators in blue states like Pennsylvania are trying to rig the Electoral College rules so that votes in blue states are split between candidates.

Yeah, the 1965 Voting Rights Act is outdated, and all the discriminatory problems of the past are behind us.

My ass.

Hey, here's an obvious question for some real reporter to ask: if everything's fine now and there's no such thing as discrimination or voter suppression based on race, then why the rush to eliminate this Act? If Regressives in these far rightwing southern states are going to obey the law anyway, why the sudden need to eliminate it? Hmm?