Friday Links and Open Thread

163 thoughts on “Friday Links and Open Thread”

  1. I don’t know the terms of Roberts’ contract, but, if possible, MSNBC should not let him continue to host. Trumps’s comments were intentionally and ruthlessly hurtful and offensive. There must be an incentive for him to speak responsibly.

  2. It’s very hard to figure out the strategy behind Shine’s statements. They seem ham-handed. Given that at FOX nothing is ever as it seems, I suppose we ought conclude there was some animus and that Shine decided the next volley ought be a personal attack. Or, it may just be that FOX is in a bit of turmoil at the moment and sloppy things are happening.

  3. I am going to go to Mass Saturday night because the Sunday morning shows ought to be fascinating. With the eulogy in Charleston, the Confederate Battle Flag coming down, the Fair Housing decision in SCOTUS, the ACA descision, the Same Sex Marriage decision, it’s a 60’s like thrill. A huge jump ahead for our nation. The coverage ought to be riveting.

    • I think that most of these things are misguided, but I trust this country. I trust the people in it and I trust God, so I don’t fret.

      I like my independence. I like being prepared. I like trying to live simply, earnestly, and very well.

      I make observations. I point out irony. I am emotional and I do mourn and that’s as much as you could feed upon.

      Do know that I don’t fret. I don’t have to. There’s no one within miles who might ever wish me to.

    • Ignore him. I don’t want either one of us to get kicked out. I probably won’t even post that much anymore, until the mess is cleared up. I am sick of pounding my head against a brick wall.

      • Oh, I’m just amusing myself. He really doesn’t bother me. I have no idea what he says, but he can say it as long as he is within guielines. Our most excellent host will take care of that. Again, Cecelia enjoys the banter, and I enjoy her at work.

  4. Hayes didn’t explain how he got it wrong? Didn’t need to. He, his MSNBC pals, and their small number of viewers hate Mr. Bill, and are prone to say anything about him without much forethought.

      • The Real Royal Emperor. I demand you stop replying to my comments as I will consider it harassment!

    • Liberals in disguise, well that’s a-what the are
      a-lemonade pies, with a satellite car
      cantaloupe eyes come to me tonight
      your MSNBC in disguise, without the glasses

      • idiot thinks everyone not a communist is a rightest. no rightest called for tapper. demented comments. the only conservatives i know thinks tapperbama is a nothingburger shill for he left. i am talking to some Colombians about a midnite Texas visit. hold on.

      • if you copy and paste your request for no responses and incidents further response harassment and send to disqus they will delete accounts. seen it happen a lot on vice.

    • I seem to recall rightists pushing very hard to get Jake Tapper to be the host of “This Week” because he was so balanced. Has that changed now that he is at CNN?

  5. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-martha-maccallum-does-this-mean-3-people-can-get-married-now/

    I see FOX News has already started with the plural marriage meme. MacCallum, not surprisingly. But, there was Old Faithful, Van Susteren, discarding all her legal knowledge and her dignity to do her part to sell it all to the clueless. By nightfall we’ll likely be talking about plural marriages involving Caitlyn Jenner, a guppy named Fluffy and a ferret named Geronimo.

      • Or a mother and son?

        Or a mother and daughter?

        I think we’ve got that covered pretty effectively.

        If you haven’t read the opinion, I would suggest you do it. It is an amazing piece of draftsmanship by Kennedy. I say by Kennedy, but the way these things work, a preliminary vote would have been taken. An assignment would have been made. Kennedy would have written and circulated a draft. The majority justices would have made suggestions and corrections. So, they may have contributed to the quality of the draftsmanship. Nonetheless, the opinion seems to cover all bases to insure immediate implementation. The Texas AG told County Clerks to wait until his office reviews the opinion, but he is without any power to compel that. So, by 30 minutes after the decision came down, the Clerks were issuing licenses in Austin and most urban counties. Such is the strength of the opinion.
        http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/supreme-court-approves-gay-marriage/nmmWq/?icmp=statesman_internallink_audience_email_jun2015_SCOTUS-marriage

        But. it’s also pretty narrow. This case alone would not authorize would you suggest, and I doubt the precedential effect will be all that broad either.

        I’d also urge you to read Robert’s dissent. You can really tell he struggled with this. I even think, and this is just opinion, if Kennedy had not voted the way he did, Roberts might very well have been the 5th vote. It is gentlemanly, disciplined and well-drafted.

        Read Scalia if you want an angry tirade. I’m surprised he didn’t blow an aorta the last couple of days.

        • Of course, the “precedential effect” is that broad.

          Without the biological ramifications of offspring, there are now no codified dictates that would logically preclude a brother-brother, sister-sister, mother-daughter, father-son pairing.

          • I am going to disagree with you. There is no direct precedent here. I don’t think even the dicta could be stretched that far.

            The best anyone might due with this is to make some analogy. Perhaps, that is what you meant. That’s not really precedent.

          • That’s a willful avoidance on your part and illustrates that you have not at all recognized the basis upon which Justice Kennedy established marriage.

          • So, you didn’t read the actual opinion. Fair enough. Whatever secondary source you have read had misinformed you. There were three and only three points of law resolved, as follows:

            #1
            “… same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied them.” @ 22-23

            #2
            “The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.” @ 27

            #3
            “… there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.” @ 28

            The Court did provide some targeted dicta appropriately noting that First Amendment rights still protect individuals who feel they are precluded from participating in the marriage process of same sex couples.

            But, nothing else in this opinion can be deemed precedential, Cecilia. It’s that simple. 28 pages of dicta don’t change that.

          • Yes, nothing in this “dicta” redefines marriage in a way that will be precedential.

            Except that it did.

          • How do you know that, Cecelia? No one has ever tried to do that. It is simple principle of Anglo-American jurisprudence. Dicta is defined as:

            “Opinions of a judge that do not embody the resolution or determination of the specific case before the court. Expressions in a court’s opinion that go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent.” West’s Encyclopedia of Law, 2d ed.

            But, I understand your mind is already set otherwise, and I would be less than honest if I were to say that lower courts do sometimes mistakenly view the dicta as a holding.

            However, the law itself is the holding or holdings, and must often is marked by some form of “held” or “holding”.

          • So we’re going to decide gay marriage on a case-by-case basis rather than upon Kennedy’s non-biological basis that he articulated for the majority?

            Even you are not so concrete that you don’t understand that we have put marriage upon a foundation of social construct.

          • Gay marriage, no. That’s why I suggested you read the opinion. It’s not case-by-case, but the ruling is specific to gay marriage. It doesn’t go forward to address the illogical circumstances you, MacCallum and (yes, I think) Van Susteren suggested.

            As to marriage being a social construct, hasn’t it always been? Isn’t that how the notion of monogamy became the norm? A social imperative as we emerged from the desert? Indeed, there is nothing particularly notable about marriage in the New Testament is it? The basis is always because Jesus’ first miracle was at a wedding and that marriage is a remedy for fornication. It’s not even sacramental for the Protestant sects that set only 2 sacraments. What is it but a social construct? A very important social construct to be sure, but a social construct nonetheless.

          • No, we’re not now on a case-by-case basis, thus this speciousness of your argument about dicta.

            It’s interesting that you bring up polygamy (a history of which you excoriated the Mormons when Romney was running) which does have a basis in biology. You’re hard pressed to call the limitation of one man/one woman and their offspring a social construct since it is the “nuclear” element of family in every sense of the word.

            What you do have now is a defining of marriage quite outside any biological boundary and based entirely upon Kennedy’s rendition of human feeling. How you limit that is your guess and your willful avoidance of the logical conclusions of his argument.

          • Last word for me. That which is logical is not necessarily legal. And vice-verse.

  6. Re: Greta v. Wilstein

    Perhaps, you intended what you are now saying, Greta. I suspect you did. You’re not small-minded, nor are you bigoted. However your original remarks were surprisingly clumsy and inarticulate. Wilstein’s interpretation is not that far-fetched. You really should have called out MacCallum for her foolishness. I understand FOX News is a tight group, and I applaud that, but Chris Wallace is not at all reticent to set the F&F crew straight. You shouldn’t be either.

  7. The rundown for tonight’s O’Bolling Factor lacks segments on Supreme decision #2. The topics are ISIS, foreign policy, and terror. Allow me to project what a snarky liberal might say: “Aw, what’sa matter? Hurts too bad to talk about it…loser?”

      • My point exactly. But it was cable news that caught the moment. And I will admit I teared up just as I do every time I watch “Field of Dreams”.

  8. J$ just posted real zinger of a tweet from your “favorite potato” to little Matty Wilstein at the swamp known as Mediaite. Read it and laugh.

    • I’ve set off Jake on Twitter and got the back of his hand in a flash. He really showed his snippy side you don’t see much on TV. Look at Jake’s body language when Lemon is talking (“to the moon, Alice!”)

  9. Watch Obama really shoot up in the polls. Among all things, Americans like a winner, and he’s had quite the winning week.

  10. Good timing for Gregg Jarrett to be subbing for Shep as he handled the Supreme Court rulings well… for a humble caveman lawyer, that is.

    • Sorry I missed it Larry.

      I remember watching Gregg back in his Court TV days. He was quite impressive with his knowledge of the law and having thoughtful intelligent discussions with his guests,

      Ah, the good ol’ days with little or no politics.

  11. Today’s most popular links:
    5 Greta slams
    4 nine hours later
    3 bizarre twitter rant
    2 sexual assault
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 Fox exec’s blunt words about Bob Beckel spark media attention.

  12. Re: Jake Tapper gets snippy

    I’m no fan of Don Lemon. Actually, I run hot and cold.

    But forget Lemon for a moment. What about Jake Tapper?

    Anyone else find him much too staid (even boring) at times? Plus that monotone voice and reserved demeanor doesn’t help.

    Could there be a little tension between the two? Lemon’s star seems to be on the rise — especially in the opinion of Jeff Zucker who likes DL’s ability to generate buzz even when it’s not all positive.

    Meanwhile Jake — a good reporter by all accounts — has struggled to establish himself as a star at CNN. Including finishing 4th in the key demo for his 9 A.M. Sunday show.

    Your mileage may vary. ☺

    • I never thought he had a good voice for his profession. It is important, and may have been a factor at ABC holding him back.

    • If Zucker really wanted to gamble, he could pair Don Lemon and Ashleigh Banfield. They’d be the CNN version of Ron Burgundy and Veronica Corningstone.

    • I agree with your comments, and I think that an anchor role is far from ideal. He may Abe been “Peter Principled” out of his strength.

  13. On Megyn’s show now, Huckabee talking about passing a constitutional amendment to reverse the Court. Good luck with that, Gov. This ship has sailed.

  14. Maddox replied the eulogy in entirety without commercial interruption. A real treat.

  15. The Obama relaunch of gun control efforts gets immediate support from the media and immediate results from lawmakers:
    Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association scored another victory for gun rights in Wisconsin today when Governor Scott Walker signed into law Senate Bill (SB) 35. The new law eliminates a 48-hour waiting period on all point-of-sale handgun purchases in the state.

Comments are closed.