TheZoo

close up of a Prickly pear cactus bloom

Glenn Greenwald, CommonDreams

There have been many times that we’ve had discussions with visitors to TheZoo about why the majority doesn’t always rule in this country.  It really has nothing to do with whether or not something is fair.  The majority may be against gay marriage or other issues, but our Constitution is set up to protect minority rights against the majority.  It’s the job of the courts to overturn laws passed, by the people or by legislation, which infringe on the rights of the minority. 

Glenn Greenwald explains it very well in his response to an article by Ben Wittes in The New Republic (sorry, I’m not linking to it), which criticizes the California Supreme Court for striking down that state’s discriminatory marriage law.  Wittes expresses his concern about the court getting involved in overturning the law, crying out that the majority of Californians supported it, and the judges are interfering with Democracy!  This, as we all know, and as Greenwald so clearly explains, is NOT Democracy.

[Wittes'] reasoning — that it undermines “democracy” and constitutes judicial tyranny when a court strikes down a popular law — is so pervasive every time there is a controversial court decision. But it is as woefully misinformed as it is common. That a law invalidated by a court is supported by a large majority is not an argument supporting the conclusion that the court’s decision was wrong. Central to our system of government is the premise that there are laws which even the largest majorities are prohibited from enacting because such laws violate the constitutional rights of minorities. Thus, the percentage of people who support the law in question, and how lengthy and painstaking the process was that led to the law’s enactment, is totally irrelevant in assessing the propriety of a court decision striking down that law on constitutional grounds.

Contrary to Wittes’ extremely confused argument, a court striking down a law supported by large majorities is not antithetical to our system of government. Such a judicial act is central to our system of government. That’s because, strictly speaking, the U.S. is not a “democracy” as much as it a “constitutional republic,” precisely because constitutional guarantees trump democratic majorities. This is all just seventh-grade civics, something that the Brookings scholar and those condemning the California court’s decision on similar grounds seem to have forgotten.

The duty — the central obligation — of judges faithfully applying the law and fulfilling their core duties is to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, without regard to what percentage of the population supports that law, and without regard to whether it would be “better” in some political sense if democratic majorities some day got around to changing their minds about it. It’s perfectly appropriate for, say, marriage equality advocates or political candidates to take into account whether it would be preferable, in some political or strategic sense, to achieve gay marriage incrementally or legislatively, only once there is majority support for it. But that is a completely inappropriate factor for a judge to consider, because the judge’s sole consideration is whether the law is consistent with Constitutional protections.

Alexander Hamilton, in defining the core function of federal judges in Federalist 78, explained this as clearly as it could be explained (though apparently not clearly enough for Wittes):

wherever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.

Fantastic.

Read the whole article here. 

H/T: Andrew Sullivan

I’ve loved this song from the first time I watched the movie “Shrek”. This is a really nice version..

And two more versions for those who are interested.. (Thanks to Zooey and Gummitch)

K.D. Lang (awesome..)

Jeff Buckley

Liz Trotta, ladies and gentlemen. 

UPDATE:  Lauren S has the entire segment at DKos.  It really doesn’t help…

H/T to Bilbo Hussein Baggins on ThinkProgress.

I’ve gotta’ be back to work on Tuesday…

Marble Canyon, just above Lee’s Ferry on the Colorado River

CNN Political Ticker

BOZEMAN, Montana (AP) – Former President Bill Clinton said Saturday that a victory by his wife in next month’s Democratic primary in Montana could force party leaders to reassess her bid for the presidential nomination.

“She can still be nominated. Don’t let anybody kid you,” Clinton said as the crowd of several hundred cheered. “All these superdelegates that have said they’re for this one or that one or the other, they can all flip. So you do matter.”

Oy…don’t kid yourself, Bill. 

All cartoons are posted with the artists’ express permission to TPZoo.
Jack Ohman, Portland Oregonian

All cartoons are posted with the artists’ express permission to TPZoo.
Matt Davies, NY Journal News

CNN

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) — Dick Martin, the zany half of the comedy team whose “Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In” took television by storm in the 1960s, making stars of Goldie Hawn and Lily Tomlin and creating such national catch-phrases as “Sock it to me!” has died. He was 86.

Dick Martin was one of my favorite comics ever.  He was completely off the hook, while Dan Rowan was the so-called voice of reason.  They were fantastic together.  “Laugh In” was the only show for which my parents stretched the bedtime, just so I could watch it.  Why, I’ll never know.  I learned a lot from that show. 

“Laugh-in,” which debuted in January 1968, was unlike any comedy-variety show before it. Rather than relying on a series of tightly scripted song-and-dance segments, it offered up a steady, almost stream-of-consciousness run of non-sequitur jokes, political satire and madhouse antics from a cast of talented young actors and comedians that also included Ruth Buzzi, Arte Johnson, Henry Gibson, Jo Anne Worley and announcer Gary Owens.

Where would Goldie Hawn be without “Laugh In?”  Really?

Arriving for a party celebrating his 80th birthday, he fainted and was treated by doctors and paramedics. The party continued, however, and he cracked, “Boy, did I make an entrance!”

Gotta love him.  Rest in peace, Dick.  Thanks for all the laughs.

By Eugene Robinson, Truthout

This is the best explanation I’ve found for Hillary Clinton’s inexplicable behavior in this campaign — behavior that, if Barack Obama were doing something similar, would have Hillary howling with rage and indignation.

Commentators trying to discern Hillary Clinton’s endgame strategy have posited any number of wheels-within-wheels scenarios worthy of a spy novel. The simple truth has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with instinct: Keep moving forward until you drop.

It’s not that she’s making a calculated play for the vice presidency or trying to set herself up for another campaign in 2012 or 2016. To those who know her, it’s that she really wants to be president, and that she has come tantalizingly close, and that she’s going to keep moving toward that goal even if there’s no obvious way to reach it. At this point, her campaign is about getting to tomorrow, and then getting to the next day, and then getting to the day after that.

Long ago, the Clinton campaign took to heart the Talking Heads’ advice to “stop making sense.” Back in January, the campaign’s position was that amassing delegates was the only true measure of who was winning the nomination. But when Barack Obama surged ahead in the tally of pledged delegates, winning 11 primaries and caucuses in a row, the Clinton brain trust started making a case for “the popular vote” as the most reliable indicator of the party’s wishes.

Does an aggregate count of votes mean anything when some states held closed primaries in which only registered Democrats could participate, some states held open primaries where independents and/or Republicans could also vote, and some states held caucuses that basically involved a show of hands in gymnasiums and community centers?

It means nothing. But the Clinton campaign has found a way to claim that if for some reason you did this ridiculous exercise of lumping together apples, oranges and bowling balls, and finally came up with two numbers, hers would be greater than Obama’s. Since Obama now leads substantially in both pledged delegates and superdelegates - and since he has enormous leads in fundraising and the number of states won - the spurious “popular vote” metric is all that Clinton has. So she’s playing the hand she was dealt.

Keep reading →

All cartoons are posted with the artists’ express permission to TPZoo.
Jack Ohman, Portland Oregonian

Who wants to look at a picture of a cesspool anyway?

Is anyone here?  Can you FedEx me some alcohol? 

All cartoons are posted with the artists’ express permission to TPZoo.
Jeff Danziger, Syndicated Political Cartoonist

All cartoons are posted with the artists’ express permission to TPZoo.
Jack Ohman, Portland Oregonian

All cartoons are posted with the artists’ express permission to TPZoo.
Jack Ohman, Portland Oregonian

For Witch1.. Great choices my friend.

Bruce Springsteen “Waiting on a Sunny Day” - Vancouver BC

Kenny G - Song Bird

Elton John - I Guess That’s Why They Call It The Blue

Andrea Bocelli “Mi Manchi” Live on stage in Tuscany