What an unprecedented mess that would be.
In the unlikely event that any of the challenges to Barack Obama’s candidacy for a second term makes it all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court and succeeds, then what?
Before the case even got that far, would Judges and Justices appointed by Obama be eligible to hear and rule on the issue? Can you imagine Hannity or Limbaugh if they do rule? Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann (if he gets a job) if they don’t?
If Obama is ruled ineligible to serve as President of the United States, is he immediately removed from office? If so, who becomes President? If Obama’s 2008 election was invalid, it seems that Joe Biden’s election as Vice President would also be invalid. Next in line would be House Speaker John Boehner.
If John Boehner assumes the presidency, would the GOP nominate him as the 2012 candidate? Boehner isn’t ready to retire. Why would he want to give up the Speakership in order to be President for a few months. Would Boehner appoint Mitt Romney as Vice President? Would the Senate confirm Romney? Would Romney accept the job?
Would Boehner pardon Obama?
Who do the Democrats nominate for President? Biden? The party never warmed to him as a presidential candidate in his multiple tries. Hillary Clinton? John Kerry? Al Gore? Jesse Jackson? Al Sharpton? Keith Ellison (a real American Muslim)? Cory Booker? Dennis Kucinich?
What happens to all the laws, executive orders and appointments that Obama signed? Is ObamaCare the law? Are Sonya Sotomayor and Eleana Kagan Supreme Court Justices? Did Sandra Fluke really need all of that birth control?
Obama hasn’t signed a budget sinced he’s been President, but is the debt ceiling valid? Is all of that debt backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America?
Would Obama owe the U.S. Treasury his salary, rent on the White House? Would he have to reimburse the Treasury for his security and vacations? Does he has to reimburse all his donors from the 2008 and 2012 campaigns?
I can understand why Judges would look for procedural or jurisdictional grounds not to hear such a case.
What would be better for the country? To pursue the issues raised by the Objectors or look the other way?
Posted: April 7th, 2012 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: 2012 Predictions | Tags: Al Gore, Al Sharpton, American Muslim, Barack Obama, Cory Booker, Dennis Kucinich, Eleana Kagan, Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Joe Biden, John Boehner, John Kerry, Keith Ellison, ObamaCare, Objectors, President of the United States, Sandra Fluke, Sonya Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Treasury, United States of America, Vice President, White House | 14 Comments »
By Art Gallagher
A couple of weeks back, in between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, presidential contender Rick Santorum was subject to claims that he wanted to outlaw birth control.
During an interview with FoxNews’s Brett Baier, Santorum explained that as a Catholic he believed that birth control is wrong, but that he would not support his religious belief regarding birth control becoming law. With regard to birth control, Santorum is able to be both a political conservative and a religious conservative. The position is politically conservative, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, religious freedom and personal liberty. His choice to strictly follow the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church regarding sex and procreation is religiously conservative.
Political conservatism and religious conservatism are not the same thing.
Actually, neither of them are “things.” They are abstractions. Philosophical constructs. Values. They are not things.
Political conservatism and religious conservatism are not the same distinction. Santorum demonstrated in his interview with Baier that, in the matter of birth control, he is both politically conservative and religiously conservative.
In a follow up Baier asked about marriage. Regarding marriage, Santorum’s religious conservatism trumps his political conservatism, it seems to me. The former Pennsylvania senator is able to think, to distinguish, between his political conservatism and religious conservatism, with regard to birth control, but homosexuality is too much of a sin for Santorum to distinguish between his religious convictions and the law of the land.
Why that is doesn’t really make sense to me.
The Catholic Church teaches that practicing birth control is a mortal sin. If a faithful heterosexual married couple bumps uglies with a barrier, physical or surgical, or with the use of a chemical, that prevents conception, they are going to hell if they die before they get to confession. If they bump the uglies in the wrong holes, like homosexuals do, and die before confessing, off to Lucifer they go for eternity. That’s OK with the politically conservative Santorum and many, many others.
If a faithful same sex couple bumps uglies in the wrong holes and die before going to confession, they are also going to hell, according to Catholic teaching. But while their queer souls are here on earth, in the United States of America, Santorum and many other religious conservatives want them to have different political rights and responsibilities than the heterosexual couple.
I don’t get how that is politically conservative. Why is same sex marriage different than birth control in the minds of Santorum and so many “conservatives?”
Can someone explain that to me?
Posted: January 15th, 2012 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: 2012 Presidential Politics, Marriage Equality, Same Sex Marriage | Tags: birth control, Brett Baier, bump uglies, Catholic, Conservatism, conservative, earth, faithful, FoxNews, Gay Marriage, heterosexual, homosexual, Lucifer, marriage, Political, Political Conservatism and Religious Conservatism, Religious, Rick Santorum, Roman Catholic Church, Same Sex Marriage, sex, United States of America | 57 Comments »