In an attempt at a smackdown aimed at Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich – the two leaders in the Republican nomination race – Rick Perry tried defending his limited knowledge of basic political science when he said that Americans don’t want a robot for President.
Perry went on Fox News to try and explain why he couldn’t remember Sonia Sotomayor‘s name, and why he thought there were eight Supreme Court Judges on the bench.
“I don’t have[sic] memorized all of the Supreme Court Judges,” Perry said. He continue, saying “Americans are not looking for a robot that can spit out the name of every Supreme Court justice, or someone that’s gonna be perfect in every way.”
True. Americans aren’t looking for a robot, but we do want a president…with a brain.
How on earth are you trying to be the president of the United States, but you don’t know how many Judges there are on the United States Supreme Court? How is that even possible? And who in their right minds would support a presidential candidate who continually shows they don’t have even the most basic civil knowledge?
But then again, if your name is Rick Perry and your base is the Republican voter, then you qualify to run for the presidency if you can prove you know how to spell your first name.
The video below shows Perry, a Republican candidate trying to get his party’s nomination to run against President Obama in 2012, giving an interview to the Des Moines Register editorial board in Iowa earlier today. While answering a question from an interviewer, Perry is heard referring to the “eight unelected and frankly unaccountable judges” in the US Supreme Court. Everyone and their mama knows there are nine Justices, everyone that is, except Perry.
In the same interview, Perry didn’t know how to pronounce Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s name, and had to be helped by one of the questioners.
The announcement is made: beginning next March, the Republicans effort to officially take away your health care, and put your health decisions back into the hands of insurance companies, goes before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear arguments next March over President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul —a case that could shake the political landscape as voters are deciding if Obama deserves another term.
This decision to hear arguments in the spring sets up an election-year showdown over the White House’s main domestic policy achievement. And it allows plenty of time for a decision in late June, just over four months before Election Day.
The justices announced they will hear an extraordinary five-and-a-half hours of arguments from lawyers on the constitutionality of a provision at the heart of the law and three other related questions about the act. The central provision in question is the requirement that individuals buy health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty.
Today, another Republican joker pitched his hat in the ring, telling America that he is going to run for President in 2012. And immediately after Rick Santorum made it official, social network sites like Twitter went crazy. It seems that everyone has an opinion on whether or not Santorum should run, and most of the “tweets” were asking Americans to know their candidate, advising them to use google, like the tweet shown below:
So in an effort to shed a little more light on the subject, I took @paulfreid up on his challenge and googled “Santorum.” What I found was indeed scary! Below is part of the unbelievable results Google returned:
Comparing Gay Sex to Man-On-Dog and Sodomy.
In an interview with the Associated Press, as reported in USATODAY, the question of outlawing homosexuality was asked;
AP: I mean, should we outlaw homosexuality?
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who’s homosexual. If that’s their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it’s not the person, it’s the person’s actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions.
AP: OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?
SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it’s my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that’s antithetical to strong healthy families. Whether it’s polygamy, whether it’s adultery, where it’s sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that’s what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —
AP: I’m sorry, I didn’t think I was going to talk about “man on dog” with a United States senator, it’s sort of freaking me out.
SANTORUM: And that’s sort of where we are in today’s world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn’t have rights to limit individuals’ wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire. And we’re seeing it in our society.
AP: Sorry, I just never expected to talk about that when I came over here to interview you. Would a President Santorum eliminate a right to privacy — you don’t agree with it?
Rick then went on the Glenn Beck Show and defended his man-on-dog claims.
There’s more. We advise you to take @paulFreid’s advise and google Santorum.
Who is this Joanne Kloppenburg? Whoever she is, she’s giving the Republican incumbent judge in Wisconsin a run for his money.
As of this moment, the New York Times is reporting that with 99% of the votes counted, “the pair were separated by fewer than 600 votes from among more than 1.4 million cast. The leader had flipped again and again throughout the night.” See the results here.
The election in Wisconsin comes in the middle of a battle between Republican Scott Walker and his recent efforts to take away the collective bargaining rights of public workers. The election, held yesterday, was a sure win for the Republican, David T. Prossner before Governor Walker began to initiate his union busting policies. Prossner is seeking his second 10 year term on the state’s Supreme Court.
But here comes Joanne Kloppenburg, an assistant attorney general – virtually unknown by the state’s voters – giving the Republican judge the hardest fight of his political career.
With various cases filed in Wisconsin against Scott Walker’s bill, many consider this election to be of utmost importance. A win by Prossner will maintain the 4-3 conservative vote in the court, while a win by Kloppenburg could be the deciding vote in many of these cases.
With an election this close, there has to be a recount on the horizon.
It’s a case that started in the lower courts which awarded the plaintiff, Albert Snyder, a substantial award for his pain and suffering. Later, the ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court after it decided that the case of Snyder vs. The Westboro Baptiste Church, did not break any laws.
Mr. Snyder brought the case against the 50 member ‘church’ because, according to the complainant, the members showed up at the funeral of his son Lance Cpl. Mathew A. Snyder, who was killed in the Iraqi war. Snyder accused the church of “intentionally inflicting emotional stress,” because, as was the case in several other such funerals, the church showed up with protest signs that read, “God hate fags” and “America is doomed.” The Supreme Court applied the First Amendment as its reasoning behind siding with the “church.” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote;
“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain.”
In addition to free speech, Justice Roberts suggests three more reasons why the church was within its rights to protest.
Their protest was within the public’s interest. The Justice suggests that although the signs may have been inappropriate, “the issues they highlight — the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our nation, homosexuality in the military and scandals involving the Catholic clergy — are matters of public import.”
The Justice wrote that the relationship between the church and the plaintiff was not one of a private grudge, and
The church had a right to be where they were and were not breaking any state laws to hold the protest.
The Westboro Church is not new to controversies. They also protested at the funeral of Elizabeth Edwards, wife of presidential candidate John Edwards. Mrs. Edwards died of breast cancer in 2010, and had her funeral protested by Westboro group, who carried signs thanking God for her breast cancer. They also protested when congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in her head in January, where six people, including a nine year old girl was killed. Westboro thanked God for sending the gunman.
Although the ruling by the Supreme Court is understandable, it is groups like the Westboro Baptiste church, in my humble opinion, that makes it necessary to add a clause to the Constitution that would exercise some restraint in the use of the amendment when it comes to such cases. For example, so-called church groups that protest the funeral of a soldier who died in the line of duty while defending their democratic right to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, should not be protected under the first amendment.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
