The Tea Bag Terrorists, the armed violent wing of the Republicant Party of No, are just upset that the President is Black.

What I hear from my black friends is the Republican party couldn't be any lower on the scale. But Republicans really need the racist vote which is mostly turning to Tea Baggers. Reagan's big appeal was to racist southerners and the party needs them more than ever. That's about all they have.

Huh? Marshall clearly was a judicial activist. So is Kagan. What's wrong with telling it like it is?

@4, it remains to be seen about Kagan since, you know, she's never been a judge. And the point isn't that Marshall was a judicial activist, it's just that criticizing his activism is akin to be pro-slavery.

@5 Exactly. He's not the only "judicial activist" to ever sit on the Supreme Court, but he is one of the most venerated and respected African American political figures in American history. Their willingness to keep taking shots at him sends a not-so-subtle signal: the GOP doesn't give a shit about black voters. Not that many of us didn't already know that.

4@ pretty much all SCJs are "activists" look at all the crazy shit the right wing justices have over turned recently.

anyway, this just goes to show that the GOP has NOTHING on Kagan

@8: Marshall was venerated by the Episcopal church. That's actually a Christian Saint, not a "Secular Humanist HomoLiberal" Saint.

Or are you one of those fundies that thinks that everyone who doesn't go to your church (whichever offshoot of an offshoot you're connected with) is going to hell?

The constitution itself assumes the possibility that it is defective by providing a method for fixing it. If it weren't defective, it wouldn't have been amended 27 times.

But maybe that thinking is too complicated for people who believe in the magically perfect revelation of holy documents.

The GOP doesn't give a shit about the black vote. They are shoring up the bigoted/racist/douchenozzle wingnut vote. Period.

Holy shit! As if politicians weren't disgusting enough BEFORE, but now we have this lovely example of "Hey, don't bother thinking about this issue yourself, just take our notes and hammer these home."

They cannot be bothered to come up with original questions on their own--what are they getting paid for?

I fucking hate politicians.

@11: Marshall is revered by a good many intelligent people, both religious and non-religious, gay and straight, liberal and conservative. From what I have read of his writings, however, he was not a secular humanist. If you've actually read anything that could shows he was a "secular humanist homoliberal" then I welcome the citation.

Yeah, the Democrats should get right on that. This too:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/us/pol…

Man, I am all for taking the Constitution seriously, but the 3/5ths Compromise seems like a really shitty place to draw a line in the sand...

@14: Just because the Constitution included a mechanism with the potential to fix its defects doesn't mean it was not imperfect as originally written. That same mechanism has also been abused, remember; how well did Prohibition work for this country?
The hypocritical sanctioning of slavery, and of the fucking SLAVE TRADE, by the writers of the Constitution was a choice of convenience over principles. Don't act like it was the right thing to do.
Now, I'd address the rest of what you said, except I can't hear what you're saying around the Constitution's big throbbing cock in your mouth.

The Constitution was and is not the perfect form of government, In truth, many other countries have much better constitutions-- like the ones that guarantee education to all citizens, and include provisions to protect the country from the rule of two political parties.

What Americans need to remember is that we had literally the first constitution. Prior to 1787, a bunch of Enlightenment thinkers had some up with ideas on how to run a government, but that's all they were: ideas. It wasn't until the Constitution was ratified that any of those ideas were put into effect. And the Constitution was a good deal better than the monarchies and theocracies that covered the world at that point.

But time passed, and a bunch of those countries threw off their oppressive governments as well, and they looked to form their own constitutions. At that point, there was some working data on constitutional republics-- us-- so they could form their own governments improving on what we had done. And many of them were successful.

Does anyone actually believe that all the good ideas on government happened over 200 years ago, and since then no one has thought of any improvements at all? I mean, really.

Activist Judge = Judges who rule against us.

And it's from Landover Baptist's own Betty Bowers. And we know she's never wrong.

I can't handle sites like that. It looks like a racist website

I would prefer it if Dems made sure that homosexuals could marry, that people could smoke pot without going to jail, and that our armed forces would stop blowing up innocent men, women, and children in Afghanistan.

Then, hey, sure, remind people that the Republicans are racists. That way, we can get more Democrats in office, who will oppose gay marriage, support the war on drugs, and continue to blow up innocent men, women, and children in Afghanistan.

@25: One of your points strikes me as particularly witless.
"guaranteeing people stuff isn't 'better' government.
providing them the opportunity to earn the stuff they need and want is."
Guaranteeing that EVERYONE gets a proper education IS providing them the opportunity to earn the stuff they need and want. Are kids supposed to somehow earn the right to go to school? Should only the rich get to educate their children? It's people like you who contribute towards the cycle of poverty.

@27, if the school system is underperforming (it isn't, it just plain isn't performing) it becomes near impossible even for the people who badly want an education to get that education.

It's the kids' fault for not "wanting" an education? Really?

I mean, I know that dumbshit conservatives love blaming the victim and saying the poor should just work harder (while they themselves bitch about immigrants taking "their" jobs), but it takes a special level of stupid to blame eight-year-olds for not loving going to school in horribly underfunded, crime-ridden areas.

@27: Speaking as someone who has worked personally (as a tutor) with bright young kids from lower-income neighborhoods, I can tell you you're full of shit. Underfunded or otherwise neglected schools can really take the piss out of their students, no matter how much they may enjoy learning or want to get ahead in the world.

@31, So then, how do you propose we help our fellow Americans break the cycle of crime, unemployment, and apathy towards education?

I think we should fund our schools and the arts the way we fund our military (and the military the way we fund our schools), and give all children the best education possible. Give kids all of the tools, knowledge and skills they deserve, and they will be able to rise above the conditions they may have been raised in.

I suppose you believe that all people, no matter their circumstances, should be able to pull themselves up by their boot-straps.

@31 And how, exactly, is any of that the eight-year-olds' fault?

Schools become neglected because most states fund education with the property taxes collected from the surrounding community. Poor people = low property values = low property tax revenues = underfunded schools. However your moronic ideology attributes poverty to the poor, you can't deny that the kids aren't to blame for being born into a poor family. Thanks to the manner we fund public education, those kids are pretty much guaranteed to get a shitty education, thereby ensuring that they stay poor.

BTW, you didn't address my last point. If you're all about everyone working hard, then howzabout giving citizenship to any immigrant who is willing to work, and/or shipping "American" jobs overseas? If you're the self-sufficient man your fantasy claims you are, then you should have no problem competing with guys willing to work 16 hours per day.

And another conservative commentator who desperately tries to dodge the issue. Let me reduce it to a few sound bytes:

Schools in poor areas are underfunded.

Children attending those schools are at a horrible disadvantage.

Whatever their parents did, this disadvantage is not the fault of the kids.

Now, if you want a system "where everyone can pursue and earn their own happiness," shouldn't those poor kids have the same educational opportunities as the rich kids, or at least the kids attending public schools in rich areas?

If you think "no," then explain yourself or STFU.

I wonder what Thurgood's entry looks like on Conservapedia. I'd look, but I'm too nauseated about how the people who purport to take the Bible as the inspired, perfect word of God now want a more conservative version that removes the parable about the woman about to be stoned, better supports free market principles, and removes a lot of the "socialist" language, like laborer, comrade, ect. Like I said... I did my good/bad deed for the day.

Please don't let these assholes run our country.

@35, We agree on something, we need a system where everyone can pursue and earn their own happiness. Outcome quite clearly is up to each individual person. But, for numerous people the avenues to their desired outcome is completely closed to them. Schools are so underfunded that they can't offer students, who in their heart of hearts desire to learn and achieve, the tools necessary to learn the skills they require to pursue and earn their happiness. Many people, if they could, would pursue and earn their happiness, they would open that door, but too often the door simply does not exist. This is why schools should be heavily funded, so that the environment exists in which everyone can pursue their desires. Naturally we can't guarantee outcomes (all humans have free will), but we can guarantee opportunities.

To say that poor Americans have the same opportunities as their wealthier compatriots reeks of ignorance, classism, and racism. Read @36, why should children be punished with fewer educational opportunities due to any possible shortcomings of their parents?

@39 I don't you can place all the blame for underperforming schools on the parents/community. I do agree with you, that in many cases shitty home situations screw up kids' opportunities. But in Chicago, we have one of the worst public school systems, and I definitely wouldn't put the blame wholly on the parents. These schools are so underfunded that the kids have to bring in toilet paper and chalk as schools supplies each fall.

I work with a community group in a very poor neighborhood, and the mothers in this group have come together to create a community space their for their kids. This space provides the kids with leadership and learning opportunities that they're not going to get otherwise from the schools. I know, because this is the professional circle I travel in, that there are groups like this in almost every poor Chicago neighborhood. These people try to create opportunities for themselves and safe spaces for their children, but their schools are still underperforming because they don't have equal access to resources.

You say @31 that if you transposed these people to a nice neighborhood, it would still devolve, but that ignores the heart of the problem. You couldn't just transpose them, you'd have to first give them the same education that their white middle-class peers have received, then give them jobs that pay above the poverty level, and only then could you conduct that little social experiment. The parents in these communities are exactly what their children are going to grow up into - people who know that due to their minority or class status, they will never have access to the same resources as their white middle-class peers. I certainly understand the self-defeating attitude of "What's the point in trying?" that many people in these neighborhoods have, whether or not I agree with it. Yet community groups like the one I work with still form, and these people still try to do what they can to rise above their circumstances.

I get the feeling that you blame the breakdown of the family as endemic to the particular group of people and not to the circumstances that they find themselves in. In that case I can understand why you would think that giving money to these areas to be the product of a "Nagging Smothering Nanny State," but I can't agree with you. Is it not the job of the government to provide equal opportunity and protection to all of its citizens? In that case, shouldn't the areas with crappy resources be given more? I'm certainly not saying that's the end-all be-all solution, but it's a start, and it's something that is within the power of the government to do. Government can't change culture, but they can affect resources.

As far as unwed mothers go, a good place to start would be to provide them with comprehensive sex education. The neighborhood I work in is Latino (read: Catholic), and a lot of the young women who become mothers in their teens got their sex education from having sex. They were never taught about condoms, STDs, or birth control. What they know about pregnancy they were taught by their mothers. They were taught to be abstinent, but only because "you'll go to hell if you have sex." If they were taught about the reality of sex, I would have no problem with abstinence education. But these kids have nothing to go on but what they can figure out for themselves.

@39: By all means provide equal educational opportunity for all students.
In a democracy public education should be an equalizer that allows a child with ability to rise from any socioeconomic class to reach their potential.

And that was entirely my point. Public education should be an equalizer in a democracy, which is why it should be in a constitution. Countries that have public education in their constitutions unsurprisingly have much better educational systems. Which is why our Constitution is not the Best. Constitution. Evar!!1!-- ideally we'd have a similar provision, but probably didn't know better 223 years ago.

Not sure who you're arguing with on the other points, which do not speak to anything I said. You may want to stop reading from the conservative script all the time.

@44,You are a jingoistic asshat.

@42
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-ar…

If you feel like it and have the time, listen to the first story of this episode, Harlem Renaissance. I LOVE this idea. I think you might approve, too.

@44: The first step to fixing a problem is to acknowledge it. If the lawmakers of our country's history had dogmatically insisted that the Constitution was Just Fine, as you do, it never would have been amended. No Federal income tax, blacks and other minorities enslaved and oppressed willy-nilly in the South, no freedom of expression, and no women's rights or suffrage of any sort, just to name a few items. Quite a Republican paradise, but not a country that I'd live in.
You right-wingers : Constitution :: Furries : Animals
Ew.

@47, And the republican would say if you want all that stuff, go to Canada, or better yet, Sweden. Because that shit ain't American. Because republicans define what's American. Commie rat.

@48: FOR OUR GLORIOUS CAUSE, WE SHALL GO TO CANADA AND SWEDEN AND OVERTHROW ALL THE TSARS!!! COME WITH ME, TOVARICH, FOR OUR GLORIOUS CAUSE!!!1!

The Republican Party is clearly not the answer to the needs the People, but the Democrats are building a hole of self survival and Reelection that also denies the needs of the people, and is driving people to solutions outside the two major parties. At this point , we may only swing elections but in time we will start to win elections. A major party cannot treat people the way way they do and expect to survive.