The Crowbar

Typical of Millhiser & ThinkProgress to attempt to bully legitimate opposition, the only available strategy to those who’ve already lost the argument and won’t honorably concede. Of course, his job, career, and reputation are on the line, so I get his desperation. Too bad he chose the wrong side.

Millhiser’s chosen bullying tactic is to inappropriately marginalize those who question Congress’ authority to force everyone to buy something merely because they exist. He calls us “Tenthers,” a lame attempt to sweep us to the fringe along with Birthers and Truthers. The Tenther moniker even has it’s own Wikipedia entry. Created on Sept 26, 2009, the article is already slated for deletion for violating Wikipedia’s general notability guideline – which means someone just made it up.

For the record, I’m a Firster Through Tenther. :)

Concern over government overstepping it’s authority is a very basic concern, shared by everyone who is sane. It’s somehow fringe to not entirely trust those in charge? It’s odd that someone of Millhiser’s stature would so readily dismiss something so fundamental to a functioning democracy. Does Millhiser advocate unconditional trust of all government authority? Please. Here he goes:

Pelosi is right to be dismissive of the fringe right-wing theory behind this question, which has no basis in the Constitution itself. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power “[t]o regulate commerce…among the several states” as well as the authority to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” its power to regulate commerce.-Een ultra-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledges that these constitutional provisions give Congress sweeping authority to enact laws that regulate “economic activity.”

Yes, the Commerce Clause. A favored liberal citation to justify power grabs – because it just gives so much wiggle room:

The clause does not represent some indication of a shadowy list of “other powers” as needed to suit your convenience. It simply establishes a mandate for Congress to be able to enact legislation to carry out the specific powers which are granted. If we were to assume that this empowers Congress to do whatever it wants as long as it promotes the “general welfare” then just as Professor Hutchinson argues from the other side, the rest of the document could just be thrown in the trash.

Further, I must wonder if Millhiser actually reads the cases he sources because Justice Antonin Scalia had a lot more to say than just the words “economic activity:”

This principle is not without limitation. In Lopez and Morrison, the Court–conscious of the potential of the “substantially affects” test to “ ‘obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local… [The cited case] rejected the argument that Congress may regulate noneconomic activity based solely on the effect that it may have on interstate commerce through a remote chain of inferences… “[I]f we were to accept [such] arguments,” the Court reasoned in Lopez, “we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.”

Limitations on Congressional authority? Goodness me, whoever heard of such a thing?

I hate to say it, but it’s painfully obvious that Millsner operating with an agenda in mind, he’s less interested in protecting your rights and more interested in his ‘side’ retaining and gaining power.

ThingProgress people like Ian Millhiser love to fan the flames when it comes to race conversation in US politics. Further, Millhiser and the TP Team would love to have false villain to distract from Sotomayor’s hard-left resume. Has Jeff Sessions made mistakes in his political career? Yes, but the TP Team would have you believe ridiculous things like Sessions is on some “lifelong crusade against civil rights.” That’s just preposterous.

Why does Millhiser think Sessions is so villainous?

Sessions has focused his attacks on Sotomayor’s past service on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), a leading civil rights organization that Sessions calls “extreme” because it “brought several race discrimination lawsuits for minorities” while Sotomayor sat on its board.

Millhiser wishes accusations of extremism were “absurd,” but the truth is that PRLDEF has taken some pretty extremist views, one example:

In 1989, PRLDEF signed on to a Supreme Court amicus brief in Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health that argued that an Ohio law that generally required (subject to a judicial-bypass exception) that one of the parents of a minor be notified before the minor underwent abortion was unconstitutional. In its own statement of its interest in the case, PRLDEF again declared that it “opposes any efforts to overturn or in any way restrict the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade.” The two dozen or so other signatories on the brief included an abortion clinic, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, various other feminist groups, and the World Workers Party. The Supreme Court rejected PRLDEF’s position by a 6 to 3 vote, with the majority including Justice O’Connor and even Justice Stevens (who joined nearly all of the majority opinion and who concurred in the judgment).

The Supreme Court is the end of the line. Sotomayor’s connections with an extremist group are fair game. Millhiser and the TP Team would (and should) be all over a conservative nominee’s connection to an extremist group. Millhiser’s credibility is damaged by his pathetic assertions.

To most of the left, the only people who should have their civil rights protected is anyone who doesn’t have white skin. To lefties like Millhiser and the TP Team, white people don’t REALLY have civil rights, those rights were forfeited as reparations for America’s past racist sins. And, if someone who has white skin, like Sessions, investigates allegations of fraudulent voter registration (that happen to take place in a black community), then that person is automatically “crusading against civil rights.” What base thinking.

Instead, think how different the world would be if everyone were actually treated equally under the law, regardless of skin color or ethnicity. Sotomayor disgracefully opposes that world where blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos, etc. are respected as equals in society. Her judicial viewpoint would help ensure future generations are afflicted with victimhood psychology. Her nomination should be thusly opposed.