(Cross-posted at CrazyDrumGuy)

Every time I read about Republicans getting on their high-horse and demanding that Bristol Palin be left alone, I want to scream. I want to scream because, while they are absolutely right that politicians' children should be off-limits to attacks, dragging someone's child through the mud is exactly the kind of thing that Republicans do! Courtesy of the fine folks at Sadly, No!, let's take a trip down memory lane:

There's more...

People seem to be reading this but not reccing it. Hmmmm... ;)

Via The Washington Post, the AP is reporting that the Supreme Court has struck down Washington DC's three decade-old handgun ban.

Details are still rolling in and will be posted here or at my blog as I get them. They're reporting a 5-4 decision (shocker!), and I'm guessing Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy.

Update 1: Just in, the decision was written by Justice Antonin "Fuck You" Scalia. Apparently the Second Amendment trumps everything else. No surprise there.

Update 2: I win! Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas joined Scalia on the opinion. But that was too easy.

Update 3:Transcript (PDF) or oral arguments from the case. (via DKos' AdamB)

Update 4: The opinion (PDF) is now available. From SCOTUSblog:

In District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), the Court nullified two provisions of the city of Washington’s strict 1976 gun control law: a flat ban on possessing a gun in one’s home, and a requirement that any gun — except one kept at a business — must be unloaded and disassembled or have a trigger lock in place. The Court said it was not passing on a part of the law requiring that guns be licensed. It said that issuing a license to a handgun owner, so the weapon can be used at home, would be a sufficient remedy for the Second Amendment violation of denying any access to a handgun. While the declaration of the individual right was clear-cut, as was the decision’s nullification of key parts of the Washington, D.C., law, the Court did not lay down a standard for judging the constitutionality of any other federal laws — an omission that the dissenters attacked strongly. Even so, the opinion made it clear that, whatever ultimate test emerge, it probably would be a tough one to meet, at least when self-defense is at issue. As Justice Scalia put it, whatever remains for “future evaluation” about the strength of the right, “it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.”

Update 5: Justice Kennedy's reasoning behind voting to strike down the gun ban: BEARS!

But who knew that a case testing the scope of the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" would smoke out a secret side of Justice Anthony Kennedy? A side so intensely protective of his right to self-defense that he makes—as I count—four separate references to some mythical "remote settler" who—at the time of the framing of the Constitution—would have needed a gun to "defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears, and grizzlies."

There's more...

I am participating in the Searching for John McCain project, which is intended to show the truth about John McCain by using his own words and statements against him. The idea, as Chris Bowers explains, is to consistently link "John McCain" to one of nine news articles revealing his position on everything from minimum wage increases (opposed) to reproductive choice (opposed) to ending the Iraq War (strongly opposes).

I found that adding a new link each time I wrote John McCain was quickly becoming tedious, so I created this WordPress plugin which will automatically add a link to one of the nine news articles whenever you mention John McCain in your blog posts. You can see it working on my blog.

There's more...

The AP reports that the House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed Karl Rove.

The subpoena issued Thursday orders Rove to testify before the House panel on July 10. He is expected to face questions about the White House's role in firing nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, a Democrat.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers had negotiated with Rove's attorneys for more than a year over whether the former top aide to President Bush would testify voluntarily.

"It is unfortunate that Mr. Rove has failed to cooperate with our requests," Conyers, D-Mich., said in a statement. "Although he does not seem the least bit hesitant to discuss these very issues weekly on cable television and in the print news media, Mr. Rove and his attorney have apparently concluded that a public hearing room would not be appropriate."

"Unfortunately, I have no choice today but to compel his testimony on these very important matters," Conyers said.

Seeing as how we haven't heard any testimony from Harriet Miers, I doubt we'll ever see Karl Rove testifying before Congress.

Update: The Raw Story has a copy of Conyers' letter to Rove's attorney, which came with the subpoena. Some interesting snippets (italics mine):

Your letter is incorrect in suggesting that the enclosed subpoena will raise the same issues as the Senate Judiciary Committee's subpoena to Mr. Rove and the pending lawsuit concerning our Committee's subpoena to Harriet Miers. Both these matters focus on the firing of U.S. Attorneys in 2006 and efforts to mislead Congress and the public on that subject. Here, as we have made clear from the outset, the Siegelman case is a principal focus of our request for Mr. Rove to testify. In addition, unlike Harriet Miers, Mr. Rove has made a number of on-the-record comments to the media about the Siegelman case and the U.S. Attorney firings, extending far beyond "general denials of wrongdoing." There is no question that both the prior subpoenas to Mr. Rove and Ms. Miers should have been complied with. But it is even more clear that Mr. Rove should testify as we have now directed.

(Cross-posted at CrazyDrumGuy)

There's more...

There's a lot of chatter in the blogosphere about Hillary supporters threatening to flee the Democratic Party in droves if Clinton is not declared the nominee at the convention. The argument, as I understand it, is that these supporters feel slighted by Obama, his campaigns, or his supporters, and, as a result, would refuse to support him as the nominee. If you're one of these people, then this is for you. Here's one simple reason why you should support Barack Obama if he is the nominee:

Hillary Clinton will support Barack Obama if he is the nominee.

"I can assure you, as I have said on many occasions, that no matter what happens, I will work for the nominee of the Democratic Party, because we must win in November," she said.

Keep in mind, she didn't say this in a concession speech. She declared her support at the same time she declared victory in Indiana. If Hillary Clinton loses the nomination, she's going to stay and fight for Barack Obama, not pack her bags and go home. And do you know why? For the same reason that many of you have been supporting her for over a year.

She gets it.

She knows that this presidential race is about more than just her. She knows that this country can't survive a McCain presidency, and she's putting her country first by making sure that a Democrat--be it her or Obama--is elected president in November.

Are there differences between her healthcare plan and Obama's plan? Yes, but they both want Americans to have insurance, while McCain will let the healthcare industry keep committing murder by spreadsheet.

Did she and Obama occasionally diverge on their support for Bush's Occupation of Iraq? Yes, but they both want to withdraw our troops, while McCain will keep them in harm's way for at least four more years, letting thousands more of your brothers, sisters, and children die.

Does she, as a woman, bring a unique and perhaps superior perspective on reproductive rights than Obama does? Yes, but they're both pro-choice, while McCain will appoint right-wing judges who will overturn Roe, giving the government control over American women's bodies.

Do you really think that Hillary Clinton, of all people, doesn't know the differences between herself and Barack Obama? And yet she has already declared her support for Obama if he is the nominee. She did this because she knows that John McCain is poison for the United States. If he is elected president, he will destroy this country.

Die-hard Clinton supporters, whatever you may dislike about Barack Obama, always remember that he, like Hillary Clinton, is thousands of times better for America than John McCain will ever be. You can point to Obama's ties to Rezko and Wright in the fall, but you should really be pointing to McCain's ties to Hagee and Bush. Hillary Clinton will be doing the latter. What will you do?

True, the rules do say that no candidate is officially the nominee before the convention, but both candidates will go to the convention, and either Obama or Clinton will come out the nominee. Regardless of the outcome, though, I guarantee you that Hillary Clinton will leave the convention with her head held high, and she will proudly begin to do everything she can to elect the next Democratic President of the United States.

If you claim to be a liberal, progressive, or a Democrat, but you're considering refusing to support Obama if he is the nominee, then you don't deserve to have an incredible candidate like Hillary Clinton--a proud Democrat first and foremost.

Hillary will fight for the nominee, so why won't you?

(Cross-posted at CrazyDrumGuy and DailyKos)

There's more...

Via CNN, the death toll of the Myanmar cyclone has skyrocketed to 22,000 with another 41,000 people missing.

The people of Myanmar need your help! Please consider making a donation to one of the disaster relief agencies listed below.

There's more...