Supreme stupidity

Never underestimate the ability of conservative, Republican Supreme Court justices to uphold a woman hating, base-pandering, self-serving, Obama-bashing, turning-the-clock-back decades decision.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today certain for-profit companies, on grounds of religious beliefs, can’t be required to pay for specific types of contraceptives for their employees.

Just when I thought conservative Republicans couldn’t stoop any lower. They must be breaking out the streamers and confetti at the Hannity house.

This decision would be comical and unthinkable – more like a parody of the Court on Saturday Night Live – except for the fact it’s so heinous, and so transparent in its agenda to derail Obamacare.

Justice Ginsburg, always a center of common sense and decency - not because of who she was appointed by but because of who she is and how she thinks - wrote the court’s dissenting opinion. I completely share her views, and certainly can’t word it any better than she did. Here are a few choice selections from it:

"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."

"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."

"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"

Conestoga Wood Specialties and the Hobby Lobby were the companies that brought the case to the Supreme Court. On the Hobby Lobby website, co-founder Barbara Green posts the decision as “A victory for religious liberty,“ which is one way to look at it - if you happen to share Ms. Green’s religious point of view, which I'm willing to bet not each and every one of the Hobby Lobby's female employees do.

What will probably, and should, happen now is the Obama administration will find a work around to this lamebrain decision. It will probably end up covering contraception in one way or another. And of course the lawsuits against the insurance companies will start shortly.

So hats off to the Republican party by way of the Supreme Court. Your misogyny, your hatred for Obama (Huh, wonder what could be the reason for that?), your desire to set back progress time and time again either by doing nothing or by undoing what's been done, has today handed you a victory I have absolutely no doubt will backfire on you in a way so huge, it'll have Karl Rove babbling like an idiot again saying you've won when the numbers say you've lost come election time.

If this wrong-minded, partisan decision didn't hurt so many, that might almost make it worth it.

I rest my case

It's not easy to read, so I'll tell you what it says: not guilty.

I love it when things work out.

You'll recall back in January, I posted about the fact that I went out and treated myself to a nice new speeding ticket since I hadn't had one in awhile. In that post I mentioned I was going to wish it out to the cornfield by taking traffic school.

That was until I found out the fine was $360. Then I posted about how I was going to stand up to the system, fight the man and take my battle to the courtroom - figuratively speaking.

Just to refresh your memory, I fought the ticket using a little known loophole called Trial By Declaration. Basically you write your side of the story, submit it to the court, then they wait for the officer to write his side and submit it (which they usually don't do, because unlike appearing to fight you in court, they don't get paid extra for the additional paperwork - that comes out of their time). The other thing about it is that if the decision doesn't go your way, you have twenty days after receiving it to request a court appearance where you can ask for traffic school.

In my country, we call that a win-win.

So yesterday, I got this verdict in the mail from the court. Oh, did I mention not guilty?

Today, I drive as a vindicated man, knowing that wherever that officer who gave the citation is, the shoe is finally on the other foot.

Of course my shoe still has lead in it. But we'll keep that between ourselves.

ADDENDUM: There seems to be some confusion about whether I was actually not guilty, or got off on a loophole. The Trial By Declaration is not a loophole (probably shouldn't have used that word to describe it), but a lesser known and not at all publicized way of fighting a traffic ticket. According to the Basic California Speed law, which states "No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property." I was not guilty by the states own definition. Don't think less of me just because I played by their rules. There are plenty of better reasons to think less of me.