The Is Why Traditional Media Is Failing

So, it looks like SCOTUS is gonna go round-and-round with some Affirmative Action again, and once again it will be at the collegiate level. In Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, eight of the nine Supremes (Kagan recused herself) will decide if Affirmative Action was unfairly applied to a student who was denied admissions in favor academically lesser students simply because she is a cracka.

Of course, The Atlantic sees the stakes a bit differently:

The justices will hear a case on whether universities can encourage diversity at the classroom level, but court conservatives may use it as an opportunity to set a new precedent.

See, a liberal court is a good, honest, freedom and diversity loving court. A court who may give a shit about Equal Protection Under The Law (I swear, that's written down somewhere) is a bunch of conservative fucks who want to jeopardize educational diversity.

Fuck.



tweaker

John Mellencamp Ain't Got Shit On Me

You know what I like? I like living in a small town. You wanna know why? Because the fact that the grocery store is opening its new parking lot is Big News, that's why.

If I want noise, I'll travel.

That is all.



tweaker

Another View Into "Common Sense" Regulation

Certain logic implies that punishing a murderer by clamping a set of 140A Tricos to his scrotum, and hitting him up with some 120VAC until he finally confesses is Constitutionally A-OK. You know, as long as it's common-sense.

What's that? Oh, it would violate his 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination as well as smoke-starting his now-squished backup singers his 8th Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment? Well, what if it's in Everybody's Best Interests? What are you, anti-safety or something? Dude could be one of them terrrrrists, and we...

Oh. The point. Allow me to make it.

The Washington Post asks if the 2nd Amendment means you can buy a Shitload Of Guns (re: more than one per month/year/age/dimension). Jim responds:

Why, yes, in fact it does. If it were otherwise it could easily be interpreted to to limit insipid editorials to one a month. Useful, perhaps, but unconstitutional and therefore out of the question.

Well, now that you put it like that...

Please, someone, tell me straight up: which Constitutional Amendments are subject to reasonable regulation and which ones are not?



tweaker