THE ONLY 4TH OF JULY POST YOU’LL EVER NEED

So it’s still the 4th of July in America.

And I wanted to post something appropriate – something that not only invokes the spirit of the holiday, but also captures the spirit of modern America itself, how it’s evolved since 1776 and its role in the modern world as a purveyor and sculptor of global policy.

I think this pretty much nails it.

( Don't look )

Leading by example,

This is dF

ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY MY ONLY POST ABOUT JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS

I hadn’t planned to blog anything about the Obamacare ruling, but since I'd just finished Chris Buckley’s Supreme Courtship around the time the ruling was issued, it seems appropriate to say something.

From the time the arguments were made to the day of the decision, the webosphere was a-buzz with predictions, and everyone seemed pretty convinced that the Supremes would strike down Obamacare, and whether you were right-wing or left-wing, everyone agreed on the reason why: because the Supreme Court is toploaded with conservatives.

I find this fascinating because it reflects a general failure by both sides to understand a very basic truth about the Supreme Court – a given judge’s political affiliation does not guarantee a ruling that aligns with the ideology behind that political affiliation. It never really has.

As usual, John Scalzi explains this much better than me, and I highly recommend reading his take on this, because it explains concisely what I’m trying to get across here.

I can’t stress enough how important a point this is, because the flak over Justice John Roberts ruling against type is symptomatic of how weird American politics has become in this age of hyperpartisan ideologies where everything is political.

Basically, both sides now demand that Supreme Court nominees adhere to their own particular political ideology precisely in the hope that it will yield favorable results. The implication, to me, is this: people don’t really want an impartial judiciary when it comes to laws created by political ideology – they want the deck stacked in their favor as much as possible. They only maintain the fiction of an impartial judiciary because it gives their side credibility if they win.

No one says this, of course. Indeed, most people probably don’t think of it that way. Everyone sees their own cause as logical and reasonable and based on Truth, and anyone who decides otherwise is the one who is biased. QED. That’s human nature for you.

But when you get to the point where yr actively stacking the judicial deck in yr favor simply because yr unwilling to take the risk that you might lose (which is a greater risk in an impartial venue), and you start talking seriously about things like giving the President the power to ignore rulings he doesn’t agree with – or better yet, putting Supreme Court decisions up to a popular vote – what yr really saying is that you care a lot more about having yr way at all costs than having a fair judicial system.

In which case, what does that say about a society that advocates such things?

Luckily, there’s still a difference between how people want the judiciary to work and how it actually works. For now. Also, I’m not saying people are obligated to agree with every decision the Supremes hand down (bearing in mind there’s a major difference between agreeing with a ruling and abiding by it).

Nor am I saying that politics plays no part in SC decisions. They do. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out Roberts ruled the way he did just to force Presidente Obama to admit that the no-insurance penalty is a tax.

The point is that Roberts didn’t tow the current Republican party line – and the fact that Republicans are furious with him for it speaks volumes.

You can go yr own way,

This is dF

LADY GAGA CAN LEAD YOU TO THE TRUTH TEA

And make you drink it.



[Via Let The Sin Begin]

Drink up, bitches!

Poker face,

This is dF