As a group, women have a number of serious problems in dealing with the human condition. Most, like Maureen Dowd, don’t bother to work out soundness of reason, and if they come up with a thought, they seldom know where it belongs so they rely on the most available emotion for guidance of direction and meaning.
The human female is not curious by nature. Invention is not her drive. Knowledge is old fashioned and according to female propagandists a male invention unworthy of the female mind. Problem solving is not her natural gift or instinct. Nor was she born to be a killer and sexual predator. She needs to fit in somewhere.
Maureen Dowd fits in well as an Obamawonk.
Today’s single Lefty human female expects from government what the ’normal’ human female has expected from her mate or the clan’s alpha male and female, for tens of thousands of years…….SECURITY…..not LIBERTY, primarily security from a natural drive to protect her children rather than to run for political office, invent the internal combustion engine, or compose Beethoven’s 5th Piano Concerto or any other such ditties he and such as he happened to put together.
I suppose Maureen Dowd is a kept gal, and so secure. Most Marxists of any sex are as long as they feel oppressed. They usually serve quite obediently as bureaucrats…..and unlike their similarly employed male , can be better trusted to perform rather than examine and question. The ‘she’ can usually be relied on not to rock the boat. It simply is not in her DNA.
Nature, however, is filled with mistakes.
She can be very competitive in school exercises. As an animal however, she rarely drives to practice her learnings when with or without knowledge. She was not born with a drive to be a warrior.
Witness the more native behaviors of the Middle East males versus females. How long do you think human males would linger inside a burqua before his socializing to control violence would begin to gnaw at him for action? It is in the testosterone, gals. That is the way it is.
But, “she” can make noise, trouble, and verbalize and deceive, if she needs to use a weapon or two. She screams for others to hear and so, save her, a practice begun early in age.
Maureen writes, of course, in the New York Times. She reacts thusly:
“MEN IN BLACK”
By MAUREEN DOWD at the New York Times:
“How dare President Obama brush back the Supreme Court like that?
Has this former constitutional law instructor no respect for our venerable system of checks and balances?
Nah. And why should he?
This court, cosseted behind white marble pillars, out of reach of TV, accountable to no one once they give the last word, is well on its way to becoming one of the most divisive in modern American history.
It has squandered even the semi-illusion that it is the unbiased, honest guardian of the Constitution. It is run by hacks dressed up in black robes.
All the fancy diplomas of the conservative majority cannot disguise the fact that its reasoning on the most important decisions affecting Americans seems shaped more by a political handbook than a legal brief.
President Obama never should have waded into the health care thicket back when the economy was teetering. He should have listened to David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel and not Michelle.
His failure from the start to sell his plan or even explain it is bizarre and self-destructive. And certainly he needs a more persuasive solicitor general.
Still, it was stunning to hear Antonin Scalia talking like a Senate whip during oral arguments last week on the constitutionality of the health care law. He mused on how hard it would be to get 60 votes to repeal parts of the act, explaining why the court may just throw out the whole thing. And, sounding like a campaign’s oppo-research guy, he batted around politically charged terms like “Cornhusker Kickback,” referring to a sweetheart deal that isn’t even in the law.
If he’s so brilliant, why is he drawing a risible parallel between buying health care and buying broccoli?
The justices want to be above it all, beyond reproach or criticism. But why should they be?
In 2000, the Republican majority put aside its professed disdain of judicial activism and helped to purloin the election for W., who went on to heedlessly invade Iraq and callously ignore Katrina.
As Anthony Lewis wrote in The Times back then, “Deciding a case of this magnitude with such disregard for reason invites people to treat the court’s aura of reason as an illusion.”
The 2010 House takeover by Republicans and the G.O.P. presidential primary have shown what a fiasco the Citizens United decision is, with self-interested sugar daddies and wealthy cronies overwhelming the democratic process.
On Monday, the court astoundingly ruled — 5 Republican appointees to 4 Democratic appointees — to give police carte blanche on strip-searches, even for minor offenses such as driving without a license or violating a leash law. Justice Stephen Breyer’s warning that wholesale strip-searches were “a serious affront to human dignity and to individual privacy” fell on deaf ears. So much for the conservatives’ obsession with “liberty.”
The Supreme Court mirrors the setup on Fox News: There are liberals who make arguments, but they are weak foils, relegated to the background and trying to get in a few words before the commercials.
Just as in the Senate’s shameful Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings, the liberals on the court focus on process and the conservatives focus on results. John Roberts Jr.’s benign beige facade is deceiving; he’s a crimson partisan, simply more cloaked than the ideologically rigid and often venomous Scalia.
Just as Scalia voted to bypass that little thing called democracy and crown W. president, so he expressed ennui at the idea that, even if parts of the health care law are struck down, some provisions could be saved: “You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?” he asked, adding: “Is this not totally unrealistic?”
Inexplicably mute 20 years after he lied his way onto the court, Clarence Thomas didn’t ask a single question during oral arguments for one of the biggest cases in the court’s history.
When the Supreme Court building across from the Capitol opened in 1935, the architect, Cass Gilbert, played up the pomp, wanting to reflect the court’s role as the national ideal of justice.
With conservatives on that court trying to block F.D.R., and with Roosevelt prepared to pack the court, the New Yorker columnist Howard Brubaker noted that the new citadel had “fine big windows to throw the New Deal out of.”
Now conservative justices may throw Obama’s hard-won law out of those fine big windows. They’ve already been playing Twister, turning precedents into pretzels to achieve their political objective. In 2005, Scalia was endorsing a broad interpretation of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause, the clauses now coming under scrutiny from the majority, including the swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy. (Could the dream of expanded health care die at the hands of a Kennedy?)
Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and the insufferable Samuel Alito were nurtured in the conservative Federalist Society, which asserts that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.”
But it isn’t conservative to overturn a major law passed by Congress in the middle of an election. The majority’s political motives are as naked as a strip-search.”
Comment: Maureen’s reasoning is as naked as a strip-search. She must be wishfully thinking with that scene. The judiciary is to measure challenges of law as those challenges fit within the Supreme Law of the Land, the Federal Constitution. If in, hopefully their deepest and most honest convictions and research cannot find Constitutional fitting, the law must be deemed unconsitutional, that is, unlawful.
Even lefties not long ago, but certainly pre Marxist Obama, referred to the Federal Constitution as the Law of the land and were prideful of the United States as a Nation of Laws, not men.
Dear Maureen, believe it or not, that is why the Supreme Court exists……to determine the Constitutionality of Obamacare or parts of it. That is the challenge.
The females on the court might be recused for their political, tribal and sexual agendas they carry to any decision they confront as members of the Supreme Court. They apparently don’t believe that have to study the Obamacare tome. They judge by female intuition…..that is good enough for Marxist nation.
In nearly every arena of life the human female is a reactor, by brain and by instinct. The screwballs involved with the feminist movement would like their western world to believe the human male has invented, imagined, composed, built, warred, survived sacrificed out of some sort of right wing conspiracy….GOOD OLD BOYS GETTING TOGETHER TO PLOT WOMEN’S SUBSERVIENCE……they advertised, and still do in the university Woman’s Studies Departments throughout Obamaland.
Filed under: American Culture, Barack Obama, Economics and Finance, History, Marxism, National Politics | Leave a comment »