Because having a vagina is more important

3 Comments

Than legal acumen? Damn skippy, according to Ruth Bader Ginsburg (a/k/a the Cryptkeeper).

Ginsburg said that no one has “ever raised a question” when nine men were serving on the bench.

Ginsburg added that she felt “lonely” on the bench when she was the only woman on the Supreme Court after Sandra Day O’Connor retired.

“It was the wrong perception for people to see just a little woman and eight larger men,” Ginsburg told the crowd. “But now if you come to the court, we are all over the bench.”

It’s THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES! No one gives a fuck if you’re lonely! You’re there to interpret the Constitution, not to have a Tupperware party or discuss bra size! Your plumbing shouldn’t matter to anyone, but your knowledge of the Constitution should!

But I guess in this post-racial, post-sexual United States, your skills should be secondary. What you’re hiding in your panties and your ethnicity is apparently more important.

America! What the flying hell happened to you???

Oh, and just a reminder…

20 Comments

How’s that “You must vote Republican, because of SCOTUS nominees” meme working for you?

Do you happen to remember who put Roberts on the high court?

Overly-litigious asshole strikes again

3 Comments

Not news: a lawyer is suing someone

Douchebaggery: Lawyer is suing university for violating the “human rights” of Muslims for refusing to sponsor a Muslim Students Association and for not providing a prayer room for Muslims that doesn’t have the cross of Jesus hanging around.

Absolute brain-eating insanity: It’s Catholic University; it already has an Arab American Association; not a single Muslim student has come forward to complain.

Asshattery bound to make you have froth-inducing seizures: According to a CUA student, CAIR thinks this lawsuit is bullshit.

As a CUA student, I feel compelled to again point out that none of our Muslim students are behind this complaint. A spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations just stated that they do not support it.

And apparently the Muslims at the school are perfectly satisfied with their treatment there.

The university, whose Arab student population swelled from 56 in 2007 to 122 this year, sponsors an Arab American Association, founded this fall by Muslim student Wiaam Al Salmi.

“The community here is very respectful of other religions and I feel free to openly practice it,” Salmi told the CUA student newspaper, The Tower.

FAIL beyond all comprehension: The waste of human skin professor filing the suit is not filing on behalf of anyone, and doesn’t even teach at the school.

He’s filed suits against McDonalds, because fatasses are apparently too stupid to know what they’re getting in those restaurants, and are easily swayed by advertising, against the tobacco industry, and he’s also suing CUA, because apparently somehow, the elimination of-coed dorms is a human rights violation of women. Apparently the right to hook up indiscriminately is now considered a “human right.”

In other words, the guy is a complete douchebag who has learned how to use the court system to eliminate freedoms, and he’s out for attention, which he’s ostensibly receiving by the truckload, even though most of it is negative.

Nonetheless, he’s filing the suit and claiming “human rights” violations.

“It shouldn’t be too difficult somewhere on the campus for the university to set aside a small room where Muslims can pray without having to stare up and be looked down upon by a cross of Jesus,” Banzhaf told Fox News.

It’s a private university.

The Muslim students know that means there will be (OH NOEZ!!!) crosses and Jesus symbology.

Nothing is stopping them from worshiping, and none of them appear to be offended by said Jesus symbols, as demonstrated by the fact that not a single Muslim student at CUA has complained, and the attention whore is filing the lawsuit on behalf of no one in particular. He admitted as much (albeit unwillingly – when asked how many students he represented or how many have actually come to him seeking this lawsuit, he claimed attorney/client privilege, even though  no one asked him for names, but simply a reply about whether or not any of the Muslim students in question came up to him and hired him) on the air this morning when he did an interview with WMAL.

This is not a Muslim attack on Christianity, folks.  This is a lawyer attack on private property rights.

One of these days a sane court will toss John Banzhaf’s monkey ass out and force him to pay all court costs for his asshattery.

We can only hope.

Racism is legal in Michigan again

Comments Off

Welcome to Orwellian DoubleSpeak Michigan, where a law banning racial preferences in college admissions has been overturned because it supposedly “harms minorities.” 

That’s right, folks.  Equal opportunity for all harms minorities, and therefore in order to restore equality, the leftards in Michigan have decided that preferential treatment must be given to those of a specific race.

In other words, equality is racist, so we will institute racism to promote equality.

This is what the leftards want.

They want to treat minorities like idiot children, because they don’t believe blacks, Hispanics, etc. can enter college on their own merits.

George Washington, the chief attorney for the law’s opponents, applauded the decision today.

“It’s a great victory. It means affirmative action is legal again in college admissions. It means that thousands of talented black, Latino and Native Americans can go to our public universities,” Washington said.

Yeah, this tard is actually named George Washington. I’m sure our Founder is spinning in his grave so hard, he’s creating his own gravitational pull.

He believes that without racist policies that give preferential treatment to minorities, they will not enter public universities.


Gregory Creswell of Detroit gathered signatures for Proposal 2, the ballot initiative banning race and gender in college admissions. He said today he was dismayed by the decision.

“In a free society, politicians should not determine who wins and loses in life. It should be that person based on their merits. I don’t want the government being for me because of my skin color or against me,” Creswell said.

If I were black or Hispanic or any other color, I would be damn insulted by this!  But of course, the “GIMME” mentality dictates that if you can get an advantage through using government force against others, you should, because you’re entitled to a hand up by virtue of being somehow disadvantaged.

This kind of stuff would give Orwell a headache.

I’m off to take an Advil.

You know what they say about lawyers who represent themselves

4 Comments

They have fools for clients.

Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, the man accused of trying to blow up a plane last Christmas, said in court Monday that he no longer wants to be represented by federal defenders and would act as his own attorney.

Judge Nancy Edmunds granted his request and appointed standby counsel for him. She also asked him a series of questions about his knowledge of law, the case and the charges he faces.

[…]

“I prefer to represent myself,” AbdulMutallab told the court. “I don’t feel any representation I get would suit — would represent me in a way that is in my best interest.”

Some will argue (and rightfully so) that any man who is so filled with hatred and bile that he would allow the Religion of Piss™ to stuff his underwear full of ‘splodey stuff and would agree to blow up his junk in the name of his Almighty Sky Elf in hopes that said deity will then not only restore his junk in paradise, but let him loose on a bunch of untouched hymens, has already proven himself to be a tool.

I would agree that his intent to represent himself is only the latest in this rather vast arsenal of douchebaggery.

But I think overall this is a good development. Maybe he can talk himself into a very slow, very torturous death penalty.  I know we have that whole Constitutional thingy about a prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, but really… the Crotchbomber is just too stupid to be allowed to continue swimming in the gene pool, and frankly… he’s already blown up his junk.  Smoldering remains of his reproductive organs were likely already scrubbed out of the airplane seat!  I’m fairly sure no amount of torture can compare to trying to look innocuous while your crotch is on fire. 

Anything else would be a cakewalk.

And you thought Kelo was bad!

7 Comments

Kelo vs. New London was one of the most repulsive, sickening infringements on the right to private property I’ve ever seen and the most egregiously noxious decision by the Supreme Court in decades. In it, the Supreme Court decided that the “benefits” a community reaped from destroying private property in favor of a developer outweighed the rights of private property owners.  In essence, the court decided that the use of eminent domain for economic development didn’t violate the constitutional limits placed on the government, and that it constituted “public use.” 

To me, it means that the government can seize anyone’s property any time some overzealous developer wants to build a Wal Mart.  It’s economic development after all, and according to the Kelo case, that makes it “public use.”

This is worse.

George Will writes:


The Constitution says government may not take private property other than for a “public use.” By “public,” the Framers, who did not scatter adjectives carelessly, meant uses — roads, bridges, parks, public buildings — directly owned or primarily used by the general public. In1954, however, in a case concerning a crime- and infectious disease-ridden section of Washington, D.C., the court expanded the notion of “public use” to include removing “blight.”

Ergo, in order for Bruce Ratner, who wants to build a “complex of high-rise residences, commercial properties and a basketball arena for the NBA’s New Jersey Nets, which he bought,” to develop the area for his own purposes, the Prospect Heights neighborhood – an area filled with small businesses and middle class homes – has to be ruled a “blighted” area.

Daniel Goldstein, who was offered a lot of money for the area by Ratner who hoped to clear everyone out quickly so he could start his project, refused.  It was a matter of principle for him, and he had every right to do so.  It is his property. He bought it, and he did not want to sell. Period. His reasons may seem specious to some, since Ratner had offered him twice what he had paid, but that should not matter. This is his property, and he has the right to refuse for any reason at all.

And he did.

So Ratner had no choice but to hire a company that specializes in declaring an area blighted – even if there’s no blight to be seen – to declare the area blighted and have the government seize Goldstein’s property using eminent domain.

After a six-year fight, the state has begun the final legal steps toseize the family’s condo, using eminent-domain law, and hand it to Ratner’s company.

In November, Goldstein got a letter saying the state planned to pay him $510,000, about $80,000 less than what he paid in 2003.

That’s a fraction of what Ratner was offering years ago, and nowhere near what Goldstein needs to buy a comparable place in the same part of Brooklyn.

Other remaining residents will get even less.

Years ago, Ratner’s representatives offered David Sheets $75,000 to give up his rent-regulated apartment.

He turned them down, in part because they insisted he sign a gag order and stop criticizing the project. “Essentially, they wanted me to sign away my citizenship,” he said.

New York’s highest court upheld the “blight” finding in yet another decision repugnant to the very principles of freedom and property rights on which this nation was founded.

Granted, Goldstein bought his apartment in 2003 - after the plans to develop the area were announced.  He, of course, had the choice not to buy it there, and (Correction by Mr. Goldstein: he apparently bought the place before the plans to build were announced. One of the reports I read was in error)  he also had the choice of selling to Ratner for a much larger amount of money.  But you know what?  Again, none of this should matter. His reasons shouldn’t matter.  He and the other holdouts bought those homes, and they shouldn’t be forced out by a greedy developer and corrupt New York government.

h/t to Dan Mitchell

And don’t you DARE carry concealed!

7 Comments

Not even with a permit.

You know… this jackass shouldn’t be allowed to walk and chew gum, let alone enforce any kind of laws.  Law enforcement implies that existing laws are enforced by those who took an oath to serve and protect.  This shitbag of a cop just likes to wield his authoritah.

According to the case opinion, the lawyer, Greg Schubert, had
a pistol concealed under his suit coat, and Mr. Schubert was walking in
what the court described as a “high crime area.”  At some point a
police officer, J.B. Stern, who lived up to his last name, caught a
glimpse of the attorney’s pistol, and he leapt out of his patrol car
“in a dynamic and explosive manner” with his gun drawn, pointing it at
the attorney’s face.

Officer Stern “executed a pat-frisk,” and
Mr. Schubert produced his license to carry a concealed weapon.  He was
disarmed and ordered to stand in front of the patrol car in the hot
sun.  At some point, the officer locked him in the back seat of the
police car and delivered a lecture.  Officer Stern “partially
Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge,
and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat.” 

Who the hell does this jerk think he is? 

And worse yet, why did the court uphold his actions as anything but a violation of this citizen’s right?

Even worse…

Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the “facially
valid” license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry.
Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the
attorney unarmed, dressed in a suit, and alone in what the officer
himself argued was a high crime area.

Officer Stern is a tyrannical, authority addicted douchebag.  He violated this citizen’s rights for no other reason than to assert his own supremacy.  His badge and gun should be immediately taken away.  And the fact that the court ruled that this was the proper way to treat a citizen who was legally exercising his rights is repugnant to the very principle of justice. 

By treating the right to keep and bear arms as nothing more than a privilege, this cop and this court have just committed unconstitutional act.  Not that it matters in the era of manufactured, extraconstitutional rights and the erosion of enumerated rights.  For those of you who know my background, you can understand why I believe we’re sliding toward statism in a hurry.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: