WHAT THE ELECTION OF 2016 IS ABOUT

Progress is often slower than we'd like.  I never thought I'd see an African-American as president in my lifetime, but I thought I might see a woman. The order will be reversed if Clinton is elected, but boys and girls growing up will know the reality that African-Americans and girls can grow up to be president. That may not be a revolution, but it's enormous progress.

Also, I never thought I'd see a 74 year old senator lead a movement that drew many enthusiastic young people into politics to work hard and contribute to his candidacy. Bernie Sanders will not be the nominee of the Democratic Party, but I hope Sanders supporters do not view their efforts as having failed. The platform is the most liberal/progressive in history, thanks to their hard work. Sanders will be a force in the Senate working to implement his policies.

From now on, the campaign is not about Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, but rather about the people of the country working together for the election of politicians, from the presidency, to the Congress, to state and local offices, who are focused on implementing liberal/progressive policies, which the president cannot do alone. Last night on MSNBC, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) reminded us that some of President Obama's legislation was blocked even during the two years when Democrats had a majority in both houses.

Also, the Supreme Court could have as many as three vacancies during the term of the next president, and a Democrat in the White House is vital to prevent a conservative court that could pull us backward for decades to come.

UPDATE: Sanders announced he will return to the Senate as an independent, because he was elected as an independent.  My thought is he could have effected more change from within the party, but he was only a Democrat for the sake of convenience, so I'm not too surprised.

DOESN'T IT MAKE YOU WANT TO CRY?

Statement by Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York and Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco on the "U.S. Supreme Court decisions June 26 striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act and refusing to rule on the merits of a challenge to California’s Proposition 8":

Today is a tragic day for marriage and our nation. The Supreme Court has dealt a profound injustice to the American people by striking down in part the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Court got it wrong. The federal government ought to respect the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, even where states fail to do so. The preservation of liberty and justice requires that all laws, federal and state, respect the truth, including the truth about marriage. It is also unfortunate that the Court did not take the opportunity to uphold California’s Proposition 8 but instead decided not to rule on the matter. The common good of all, especially our children, depends upon a society that strives to uphold the truth of marriage. Now is the time to redouble our efforts in witness to this truth. These decisions are part of a public debate of great consequence. The future of marriage and the well-being of our society hang in the balance.

Sad, just sad.  And I repeat my mantra: If marriage between a man and woman is foundational to the well-being of our society, why have not the cardinal and the archbishop done their duty by marrying and contributing to the good of society?  Oh yes, I know - celibacy.  Perhaps the church might reconsider the requirement for the well-being of society.

A COUPLE OF VISUALS TO MAKE YOU HAPPY

 

Good news, indeed, after the bad news yesterday of the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act ruling by the Supremes.

"RACIAL ENTITLEMENT" TO VOTE?

Don't be fooled by the smile and benign expression on his face.

Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes. I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there’s a good reason for it.

That’s the — that’s the concern that those of us who — who have some questions about this statute have. It’s — it’s a concern that this is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress. There are certain districts in the House that are black districts by law just about now. And even the Virginia Senators, they have no interest in voting against this. The State government is not their government, and they are going to lose — they are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act.

Above is Justice Antonin Scalia's response to arguments in a case before the Supreme Court brought by Shelby County, Alabama, to dilute the Voting Rights Acts.  How is the right to vote an entitlement?  There's a history here that Scalia seems to have forgotten.  Perhaps consideration might be given to strengthening the Voting Rights Act to include the entire country, as we heard many stories of attempts at voter suppression in areas outside the South during the recent election.  Reducing the number of days for early voting, which results in long lines, 6 to 8 hours in some precincts, amounts to voter suppression.

Despite the low esteem with which Congress is regarded today, and despite Scalia's words to the contrary, it's still the duty of the legislative branch to pass laws in the country.

Anyway, I'll let Rachel Maddow on the Jon Stewart show have the last word on Scalia.



UPDATE: See Tom Toles' cartoon.

OBAMA HEALTH CARE UPHELD

Esquire Politics ‏@ESQPolitics

From SCOTUSblog - bottom line: entire ACA is upheld, with exception that federal govt's power to terminate Medicaid funds is narrowly read.

MSNBCNews:

In a dramatic victory for President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court upheld the 2010 health care law Thursday, preserving Obama’s landmark legislative achievement.

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who held that the law was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to tax.

READ THIS HEALTH CARE STORY AND WEEP

'Down the Insurance Rabbit Hole'

 From Angela Louise Campbell at the New York Times:

ON the second day of oral arguments over the Affordable Care Act, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., trying to explain what sets health care apart, told the Supreme Court, “This is a market in which you may be healthy one day and you may be a very unhealthy participant in that market the next day.” Justice Antonin Scalia subsequently expressed skepticism about forcing the young to buy insurance: “When they think they have a substantial risk of incurring high medical bills, they’ll buy insurance, like the rest of us.”

May the justices please meet my sister-in-law. On Feb. 8, she was a healthy 32-year-old, who was seven and a half months pregnant with her first baby. On Feb. 9, she was a quadriplegic, paralyzed from the chest down by a car accident that damaged her spine. Miraculously, the baby, born by emergency C-section, is healthy.

 Read it all.  I wish there was a way to mandate that the conservative justices on the Supreme Court read the story, especially Antonin (Broccoli) Scalia, the clown on the bench.  

H/T to Charles Pierce at The Politics Blog.

GOOD NEWS FROM THE SUPREMES

From the AP:

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal from opponents of same-sex marriage who want to overturn the District of Columbia's gay marriage law.

The court did not comment Tuesday in turning away a challenge from a Maryland pastor and others who are trying to get a measure on the ballot to allow Washingtonians to vote on a measure that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Good news on rulings by the US Supreme Court is rare these days.

H/T to Ann Fontaine at The Lead.