Comments

  1. says

    This time, I honestly don’t know if Michele Bachmann is too stupid to understand the legal context for the word, or she’s just evil and pandering to the obvious heterosexism of her “base.” Either way, it’s sad.

  2. Mike says

    I don’t understand how on earth the folks in her district actually voted to put such a nut into office. I would be so embarrassed. BTW, the resolution has a snowball’s chance in hell of getting passed. This is all just about publicity and playing to the republican wacko religious wingnut base. This is something they are very good at which turns out the vote. What does Obama do? Continually give away to the republicans and disenfranchise the “Professional Left”. I’ve got news for him, he needs to energise the base, especially a few months before the election and being against marriage, fumbling on DADT and not calling the republicans out on their daily misinformation crusade they call “talking points” isn’t helping.

  3. Bart says

    There are a few people who are simply too stupid, too out-of-touch, too flat out dumb to be in government, and Michelle Bachman has demonstrated over and over that she is #1 on this list. If I were in her district, I would be beyond embarrassed to have this dumbshit woman representing me. She’s a tin foil hat wearing (meaning tea party poster girl,) self-involved, incapable of understand simple concepts and always, always, always misquoting or mistating other people’s words.

    She misses the point of Judge Walker’s ruling, and what is so hilarious is that Walker’s ruling has been scrutinized by the best and almost unanimously it has been applauded for it’s dilligence, its understanding of law, and its attention to detail. All things that a simpleton like Michelle cannot grasp.

    But bottom line: who gives a flippin’ rat’s ass what Michelle Bachman thinks? Even if she wasn’t a complete dope, she’s irrelevant on this issue. I wish she would read her own Bible, and do what it say women should do: sit down and shut up. (Well, actually I don’t. We need asshats like her, they are both amusing and remind us why we are fighting the good fight against ignorance and the I-got-mine attitude of people like Bachmann.)

  4. Rann says

    Bart we should care what she thinks because this asswipe congresswoman is trying to get on a national ticket or at least get a leadership position in the party. In either case she could do major damage so we should expose her horse shit every chance we get and care what she says!

  5. ron says

    What I thought was sad is that she quotes the language of the decision from the LA Times. Is this some way of working “liberal media bias” into the “discussion”, or is she just too stupid/proud/whatever to actually read the decision itself?

  6. shanesoho says

    if they can rewrite scientiic textbooks in Kansas to include creationism (“intelligent design” ick!) then i worry whether they can rewrite law school books to change “rational basis”…

  7. Apl. says

    While some might say the “rationality” of some California voters was questionable, the same can’t be said of some from Minnesota. I shudder at the insanity needed to vote for this dumb, hateful demagogue.

    Somewhere Katherine Harris is watching this, wondering if maybe she just arrived at the big-hair-all-air-in-there party too soon.

  8. ged says

    One of the most telling aspects of this woman’s presentation is how inappropriately she dresses for any professional occasion. The men in this picture are in business suits; she looks like she’s doing laundry on a real housewife show.

  9. says

    This is what keeps getting me. Everyone on the pro-Prop 8 side keeps talking about the “rights” and “voices” and votes of 7 million Californians being ignored. I don’t know the exact number, but didn’t more than 6 million Californians vote AGAINST proposition 8? So 7 million people are right and 6 million people are wrong? It seems to me that is exactly where a court needs to come in and apply the law fairly. You can’t run a country by majority rule.

  10. wonderer says

    My thoughts exactly, everytime I hear them say that I think the same thing. 600,000 votes separated the yes from the no. to me thats not alot…also if it takes a 2/3 vote in California’s house to pass anything it should be the same for the people.

  11. gr8guyca says

    @ Brad and Wonderer

    The vote was approx. 7 million to 6.4 million. And 600,000
    votes should not be enough to change the constitution of a
    state.

    Should 600,000 be able to decide if newspapers can be banned,
    women can own property, hispanics can vote, or people have the right to protest?

    Basic civil liberties should never be subject to popular voting.
    Period.

  12. says

    Michele Bachmann called the ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker that struck down Prop 8 last week “infuriating” and the work of a “progressive activist judges who issue their personal moral pronouncements under the guise of constitutional law.” Bachmann along with Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King introduced a resolution this morning disapproving of Walker’s decision, which found California’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional.

    “Judge Walker claimed ‘there was not a rational basis’ for excluding gays from marriage,” Bachmann said. “But if Proposition 8 doesn’t survive the rational basis test, then is Walker implying that the majority of California voters, those who voted for the measure, aren’t rational?

    She predicts that Walker’s ruling will be appealed in district court — and will eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Leave A Reply