Rep. Joe Walsh, tea party hard liner and deadbeat dad who represents Illinois' 8th Congressional District.

“W hat else has she done? Female, wounded veteran … ehhh.”

That was U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill., commenting on his Democratic opponent in the November election to a Politico interviewer, as quoted in a Daily Beast article by Michelle Goldberg.

You might recall Duckworth as a decorated Iraq War veteran — Air Medal, Army Commendation Medal and Purple Heart — and one of the few women to fly a Blackhawk helicopter in combat. She was doing that in 2004 when her chopper was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade. As a result, Duckworth lost both legs and had an arm severely injured.

You might also recall Walsh as part of the tea party scourge that made it to Congress in the 2010 election. He beat a three-term incumbent, Democrat Milissa Bean, by an unimpressive 291 votes out of 202,000 cast.

You might remember Walsh for refusing at the beginning of his congressional career to participate in the health care insurance exchange offered to members because he didn’t want any part of a federal health insurance program. Never mind that it’s an insurance exchange in which private companies compete for Capitol Hill customers. Walsh did that despite the fact his wife had a pre-existing condition that would’ve been covered.

You might remember Walsh for headlines about being sued by his ex-wife for $100,000 in unpaid child support. The two have since settled. Remarkable commitment to traditional family values there.

But if those pieces of Walsh’s history didn’t win your attention, surely his angry diatribe during a town hall meeting at a Gurnee, Ill. bar and grill that was caught on video must have. After all, members of Congress don’t swear at their constituents every day.

Then there’s Walsh’s Wikipedia profile, which includes the following:

.

He has also raised venture capital for a living, according to the Chicago Tribune[3] with his campaign website indicating that he worked for Ravenswood Advisors, a Chicago boutique investment banking group which raised early-stage investment capital for new and small businesses.[19][24] However, he never made much money[8] and has pointed to salaries of $30,000 to $40,000 a year in the past.[15] In 2010, he had a negative net worth of $317,498 according to the Center for Responsive Politics

. . . Walsh has maintained a no-compromise approach to legislating. He consistently voted against raising the federal debt ceiling and authored a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. During his 2010 campaign as a fiscal conservative and following his election to Congress, several media outlets reported on Walsh’s personal financial issues, such as past due child support, a recent condo foreclosure, and tax liens from the 1990s.

.

There’s something about venture capitalists, isn’t there. We’re impressed with how financially responsible Walsh is. And, did we mention that since becoming a member of Congress Walsh has also been in trouble for driving with a suspended license?

Decorated Iraq War veteran Tammy Duckworth, Democrat, is challenging Walsh in the November election.

Duckworth ran for Congress in 2006, while still being treated for her injuries. She lost that race but has since worked for the Dept. of Veteran Affairs, is a lieutenant colonel in the Illinois National Guard and has earned a private-pilot’s license.

Duckworth was so turned off by the viciousness of the campaign her ’06 Republican opponent ran against her that she wanted no more of politics. She lost by 2 percent of the vote. However, being a fighter and not a quitter, Duckworth decided to run again, this time in a district less tilted against a Democrat.

We salute Duckworth’s service to and sacrifice for our country. We admire her determination, decency, and her night-vs.-day opposition to where Walsh is on virtually every issue. The people of Illinois-8 will be better represented by her than they could ever be by a dittohead heel with a loud mouth and sociopathic attitude.

As for Walsh, tea-party fringe crackpot, deadbeat dad, cited by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington as one of the most corrupt members of Congress . . . ehhh.

.

.

Tea party activist Scott Boston, who seems to think 'kill' and 'evil monster' are acceptable terms to use in expressing political views.

To any well-brought-up, emotionally balanced, even minimally informed person, former prosecutor and state auditor Claire McCaskill has shown herself to be a moderate, borderline conservadem during her first term as a U.S. senator. But to a hateful tea party yahoo carried away with the sound of his own voice at a political rally, McCaskill is an “evil monster” who must be killed.

Is Boston another Jared Loughner in the making — a homicidal maniac working his way up to a murderous rage?

Perhaps not. After his hate speech drew media coverage and the attention of authorities, Boston claimed he was just speaking metaphorically. A newspaper story quotes him as saying, “In no way do I think the senator should be at all harmed.”

Yeah, right; “evil monster” and “kill” are just words. What harm could possibly come to a thoroughly decent woman and legislator because of a little hateful demonization? After all, isn’t that how we do politics in America: dehumanize politicians with whom we disagree; characterize political opponents as dangerous animals and call for them to be exterminated?

Maybe Boston doesn’t have a loaded gun and voices in his head urging him to use it on McCaskill. So, why should he bother himself about the possibility there might be a Lee Harvey Oswald, a Sirhan Sirhan, John Hinckley, Jr., a Sara Jane Moore, Timothy McVeigh or Jared Loughner out there whose madness could be unleashed by a stiff dose of hate speech?

Republicans have spent nearly 40 years routinely demonizing political opponents, treating them in word and deed as the enemy. Sarah Steelman, the GOP candidate Boston spoke in support of, fits the mold.

.

On Tuesday, Steelman came to Boston’s defense, blaming the “liberal media” that, she says, employs a double-standard when it comes to covering political rhetoric that contain a hint of violence.

“I may disagree with the words Mr. Boston chose in his statement,” Steelman said in her own statement, “but I understand his frustration and I emphatically support his right to express his views.”

.

We suppose Oswald, Sirhan et al, also had frustration issues. Try explaining that to the friends and loved ones of those injured or killed.

Just as pieces of a jigsaw puzzle go together to create an image, episodes of hate speech accumulate to create a climate in our political environment.

Looking back over a half century stained with the blood of public officials and bedewed with the tears of those who grieved their loss, we see no excuse, no First Amendment right that in the slightest way excuses Boston and others who mistake hate speech for the making of valid political points.

Great American leaders like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower knew more than they ever wanted to about killing. They won the highest office in the land talking about doing good, decent things. They criticized political opponents on the issues, but never demonized them as dangerous animals. Not one of them ever used the word “kill” in referring to an opponent in a campaign speech.

That’s something hotheads with an ugly mouth, like Boston, should learn. Washington, Lincoln and the others won the presidency. Boston has won the attention of Capitol Police and probably the FBI, and rightly so.

.

Who could argue with that? Certainly not the strong Republican majorities in both houses of Congress that cheered “W” on and solidly backed his every policy and proposal, no matter how reckless. Certainly not Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who in younger years was an acolyte of Ayn Rand. Nor were Wall Street banks, other mortgage lenders and insurance outfits inclined to stand in the way of a looming bonanza.

There was ample reason for skepticism, even without understanding the bizarre financial-industry alchemy that was about to foist credit default swap chicanery and other con-game machinations on an unsuspecting world, the main one being how heavily in debt most American paycheck workers already were.

But that inconvenient truth needn’t stand in the way, the banksters, mortgage insurer AIG and federal lending authorities decided. They would just lower the standards for mortgage lending until anyone with a pulse could qualify.

A too-common sign of the times, thanks to big-business greed and Republican misleadership.

We know all too well how that worked out, wrecking not only the U.S. economy but knocking the world economy off track in a big way that still haunts us. We remember too well how savers and investors suffered $7 trillion in losses before they knew what had hit them. We recall only too well how companies shed workers at the rate of more than 200,000 a month, until we had jobless numbers not seen since the Great Depression.

Even now, as the man elected to clean up Bush and the Republicans’ mess seeks re-election in a political climate where those same Republicans have pushed unhelpful memories of the blighted 2001-2009 passage as far down the memory hole as possible, we get fresh evidence of the price of Republican misleadership.

.

The homeownership rate in the U.S. fell to 65.4% in the first quarter, hitting a 15-year low amid still-high foreclosure rates and a stronger market for rents.

The rate is lower than the 66% from the fourth quarter and the 66.4% from the first quarter of last year, according to the Census Bureau. The rate hit a high of 69.2% in 2004, before the housing bubble burst.

The housing market has been trying to recover ever since. Several reports this month
have suggested that the market has turned a corner, with pending home sales up and housing values bottoming.

But foreclosure rates are still high (and may continue to increase following a landmark settlement with loan servicers earlier this year).

In the first quarter, 74.6 million housing units were occupied by owners. Homeownership is down in every region, falling to 59.9% in the West. The region, which has the lowest rate in the country, hasn’t had such a small percentage of homeowners since at least 2006.

Rates among minorities continue to trail the nationwide numbers. Black homeownership is at 43.1%; the Hispanic rate is 46.3%.

.

To those given to saying our two major parties are basically alike, one being as bad as the other, we will point out a couple of decidedly partisan facts.

First, no Democratic administration or Democratic majority in Congress has ever set the country up for a major economic collapse or put us in a situation that made it necessary for taxpayers to bail out whole industries. Republican misleadership gave us the Great Depression of the 1930′s, the savings & loan debacle of the 1980′s, and the housing bubble collapse that triggered what some call the Great Recession of 2007-2009.

Second, no Democratic administration or Democratic majority in Congress ever prosecuted a war off budget, pushing the entire cost on to future generations of taxpayers. The George W. Bush administration and Republican-controlled Congresses of 2001-2006 put the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq both off budget. They selfishly and recklessly did that to prevent a public backlash against the wars, and to help ensure Bush’s re-election in 2004.

These are significant differences that every taxpayer and voter should be clear about. What’s more, they are differences everyone who’s clear about them should make clear to everyone they know.

Americans can’t afford any more Republican misleadership, from the White House, from Congress or, worst of all, from both.

.

As chairman of the House Budget Committee Ryan has burnished his reputation as an unapologetic economic Darwinist with a budget plan that would destroy Medicare as we know it, drastically cut Medicaid and food programs for the poorest Americans, and do incalculable long-term damage to public education, K-college.

Ryan’s budget doubles down on the worst of Bush-era policies that can be succinctly described as rewarding the rich for being rich while punishing the rest for not being rich.

In an overdue but welcome development, some Catholics have called out Ryan for advancing policies that promote not the compassionate values exemplified in Christ’s life and teachings, but the greed-is-good, “we’re all in this apart” rot dispensed by author Ayn Rand. And, Ryan himself has lionized Rand in word and deed.

That is, until fellow Catholics called him out for preaching the false gospel of his beloved goddess of greed. When that happened, this Republican champion of “I got mine, you get yours, devil take the hindmost” took the coward’s way out: he lied.

Not that his lying will do him any good, as MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell points out with damning effect.

.

.

Trying to base budgetary policy on idealized notions about selfishness being both a personal and public virtue is as unchristian as it is perverse. Idolizing a neurotic, morally bankrupt hag because she espoused and romanticized that kind of thing is sick.

But what should keep anyone of any political persuasion from affording Ryan even a shred of credibility or respect is how, when challenged by members of his faith, Ryan went weak in the knees and sought to lie his way out of a glaring conflict of moral interest.

Ryan either lacks the courage of his perverse convictions or he’s just one more dishonest political hero of the far right with feet of clay.

Wisconsin voters are busy taking out the trash this year. We hope for their sake and the nation’s that they will see to it Ryan’s regrettable career in Congress comes to an abrupt end.

.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., authored this election year stunt of a bill, which predictably passed yesterday, 235-73, thanks to the Pavlovian response of House Republicans when their masters speak.

Cantor’s bill would balloon the deficit $46 billion to give “small” businesses – 500 or fewer employees – a one-year 20 percent tax cut. However, in typical Republican fashion, Cantor tailored his measure so that much of the benefits would flow to very wealthy business people, not the couple running a dry cleaning shop, the guy with a two-chair barber shop or the woman who grooms pets for a living.

Cantor claims his handiwork will free up capital so businesses can expand and thus do more hiring.

No one with a clue about business and economics will be fooled by that nonsense. Businesses don’t hire for the sheer joy of handing out more paychecks. They bring in more people because they’re doing more business than the employees they have can handle efficiently. Nor does giving businesses a big tax break cause them to buy more materials and services from suppliers. They buy more when they need more to keep up with demand.

The inescapable fact is that Increased demand, not money in hand, is what spurs employers to hire more people. Those who say otherwise are ignorant of the facts or pursuing political ends in spite of the facts.

Which brings us back to Cantor. This bill of his is the latest in a long list of time-wasting nonsense legislation House Republicans have passed this year knowing full well the bills would die in the Senate or be vetoed by the president. The idea this time is to create something campaigning Republicans can hold up to mom-and-pop business owners, telling them that they could’ve had so much more money to work with if anti-business Democrats hadn’t stood in the way.

You can get an idea of what a load of garbage that is from what some number crunchers have to say about Cantor’s measure (emphasis ours).

.

The bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation said the tax cut’s impact on the economy would be “so small as to be incalculable.”; Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House majority leader, commissioned Gary Robbins, who created Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan, to analyze the business tax cut, which Mr. Cantor drafted. The conclusion was that in the year it would exist, it would create 39,000 jobs, at a cost in tax revenue of $1.2 million per job.

Much of the debate was on Democratic grounds: Who benefits? The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimated that 49 percent of the $46 billion in tax breaks would go to households earning more than $1 million.

.

Earlier in the week, Senate Republicans blocked Democrats’ attempt to legislate the Buffett Rule, which holds that multimillionaire CEO’s shouldn’t be subject to lower tax rates than their secretaries. The Democrats’ bill would’ve set a 30 percent minimum tax on households with $1 million or more in annual income. If passed, that measure would’ve yielded an additional $47 billion in sorely needed federal revenues.

Democrats are also pushing a bill that would provide businesses that hire additional workers a 10 percent tax credit and allow immediate deduction of new plant and equipment costs. It’s expected to come up for a vote next month.

.

In all, House Democrats took in $22.1 million, which was about $3 million more than House Republicans raised — especially significant because, unfortunately, there are many more House Republicans than Democrats.

If you’ve compared the dreck, drivel and perverse nonsense House Republicans have perpetrated while in control over the past year and a half with the avalanche of helpful, proactive legislation Democrats produced in the two years preceding, you know all you need to know about why restoring a Democratic majority is crucial.

This DCCC graphic tells the story in a nutshell, but we’ll pass along Pelosi’s message below.

.

.

Today, both parties released their fundraising numbers for the first quarter of this critical election year. The final tally: we outraised House Republicans by nearly $3 million.

Your record-breaking grassroots support made the difference.

87% of our contributions were $50 or less and our average grassroots donation was $31. We were also proud to welcome over 90,000 new grassroots donors to our campaign for a Democratic Majority. To cap it off, March 31st was our best online fundraising day ever.

Your support is being put to work right now to hold Republicans accountable for their radical legislation against women, seniors, the middle class and Medicare. Together, we will replace reckless House Republicans with Democrats fighting to move America forward.

Thank you again for record-setting support,

Nancy

P.S. You should read USA Today’s story on our inspiring Democratic candidates.

From Orlando’s first female police chief to a former NASA astronaut in California, these candidates are ready to take the fight to House Republicans. Your support will help lead these remarkable and talented candidates to victory in 2012.

The DCCC is funded by grassroots supporters across the country.

.

We made a contribution and urge you to do the same, to help make second-quarter fund raising even more successful. We say that realizing some will scoff at the notion that contributing only a few bucks will make any difference.

Look at it this way: If 10 million people contribute just $5 each, that’s $50 million to fight back against the many millions corporations, Wall Street masters of the universe, religious-right groups, gun fanatics and fat cats like the Adelsons and Koch brothers will spend to keep their GOP errand boys and girls in control of the House.

If all you can chip in right now is $10, $5 or even $3, please do it. Small donations from us 99 percenters add up.

Remember, if the only way Democratic candidates can raise enough money to be competitive is to court the special interests mentioned above, don’t be surprised if the ones who get elected or re-elected keep in mind who helped their campaigns — as opposed to those who didn’t seem to care.

You say our elections shouldn’t be so long and hideously expensive? You say our politicians shouldn’t have their hands out to any and all? You’re absolutely right. The whole system needs serious reform.

But for now, we’ve got to play the hand we’re dealt. That means helping Democrats, most of whom are 150 percent more likely to support campaign reform legislation than even the least hard-right Republican will ever be.

If you can spare a few dollars, go here and give until it hurts those who are out to hurt you and yours, and what’s in your best interest.

.

“I despise these people, and I’m not the guy you come in and dump on without getting punched in the mouth.”

.

The six-term senator knows whereof he speaks, having long been one of the Senate’s most-conservative members. Even so, Hatch has occasionally worked across the aisle to get things done — a “weakness” that has made him primary bait in the eyes of the piranhas he’s in the GOP tank with.

Sure enough, up for re-election this year, Hatch is targeted for early retirement by Astro-turf-group manufacturer and high-powered lobbyist Dick Armey (Freedom Works) and his tea party minions. So serious is the effort that $900,000 is being spent to defeat Hatch, according to Kilgore.

Hatch’s former colleague and fellow Republican Bob Bennett went down to defeat two years ago because, in the eyes of the same crackpot extremists, he had been too willing to work with Democrats. Which is to say Bennett had committed the unpardonable sin of working with Democrats at all.

But Hatch isn’t Bennett, this isn’t 2010, and the tea party scourge isn’t having much luck throwing the senior senator from Utah under the bus.

We’re not a Hatch fan. We don’t agree with his politics and resent the lying he did about health care reform. Still, we feel some grudging admiration for the way Hatch is standing up to the tea party scourge, causing them to lose face and waste a lot of money.

There’s something about seeing ignorant bullies get the worst of it that makes our day.

.

Now before the Supreme Court thanks to the subversive efforts of 26 Republican state attorneys general, Obamacare, as the act has come to be known, could be torpedoed because the justices aren’t clear about one of its significant features.

The attorneys general out to kill ACA hung their case on the mandate requiring all who can afford to do so to buy a health insurance plan. The AG’s claimed the federal government overstepped its authority with that.

But in a brilliant piece of reporting, the AP’s Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar notes that the justices’ questioning and solicitor general’s defense of the ACA failed to take into account that the mandate could be satisfied with a very low cost, catastrophic-coverage-only “bronze” plan.

“If I understand the law, the policies that you’re requiring people to purchase … must contain provision for maternity and newborn care, pediatric services and substance use treatment,” said Chief Justice John Roberts. “It seems to me that you cannot say that everybody is going to need … substance use treatment or pediatric services, and yet that is part of what you require them to purchase.”

That may be true, but the law’s bronze plan isn’t exactly robust coverage. It would require policyholders to spend thousands of dollars of their own money before insurance kicks in. That’s how catastrophic coverage works now.

It means anyone — particularly younger, healthy people — can satisfy the health care law’s insurance requirement without paying full freight for comprehensive coverage they may not need.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli did not highlight the bronze plan in his defense of the law, an omission that may prove significant.

Significant indeed, if after decades of growing need, of increasing millions priced out of insurance and medical care, this historic breakthrough of hopeful, helpful legislation goes down to defeat because the justices lack a clear understanding of how it works.

Should the court decide against the ACA, this oversight is sure to stigmatize its decision. The justices and their clerks will get — and deserve — the scorn of millions for not having done their homework before hearing this case. Verrilli will be due for a big share of the blame as well.

.

Today, Current TV co-founders Al Gore and Joel Hyatt responded with a lawsuit of their own, citing Olbermann for repeatedly failing to show up for work and being uncooperative in various ways. The network’s lawsuit asks for a ruling that Olbermann is owed nothing and seeks unspecified damages.

The acrimonious breakup comes about 14 months after Olbermann abruptly left MSNBC on less than cordial terms. He reportedly had a five-year, $50 million contract with Current.

Eliot Spitzer’s Viewpoint program now runs in the Countdown time slot.

It takes two: We ‘re sure there’s plenty of blame to go around on both sides of this ugly, unfortunate dispute. We expect it will do nothing but harm to Olbermann and to Current no matter which side prevails in court.

Olbermann’s complaint that Current failed to provide an adequate studio and equipment for a first-rate news commentary program rings true. But so do the network’s complaints about Olbermann being aloof, erratic and temperamental.

We didn’t watch the show but a few times in recent weeks because, frankly, it wasn’t very good. And, we got tired of seeing Olbermann looking like this.

Considering how much it apparently invested in bringing Olbermann on board, Current should have provided him with a decent studio, proper equipment and capable behind-the-camera technicians and editorial staff, right from the start.

For his part, Olbermann should’ve known he was going to a diamond-in-the-rough operation, one that would require lots of dedicated effort on his part to bring to a shine. That’s a job for a can-do leader, not a can-sue prima donna.

So now, during an especially important presidential election year, one of the strongest voices in the comparatively small universe of progressive media stars will do his talking about this blowup with another network instead of about crucially important issues, events and political figures.

As Bill Bendix used to say in his 1950′s sitcom, The Life of Riley, “What a revoltin’ development this is.”

.

So, some 17-year-old girl does a dumb-kid thing, shoplifting some mascara. She gets caught, is taken downtown, made to strip, turn around, bend over and spread her cheeks.

So, a retired schoolteacher who’s getting up in years and feeling cranky because of arthritis reacts with sarcasm when a policeman young enough to be his grandson pulls him over for failing to signal a lane change. The cop, channeling Barney Fife, decides this miscreant’s display of attitude warrants a trip downtown, booking and a strip search for obstructing an officer.

Then, there’s a whole lot of poor souls who get caught up in the fight against one of the nation’s leading “crime” problems: driving while black. For those members of the thin blue line blighted by bigotry, already empowered to do impromptu pat-downs and car searches as passers-by gawk, what better additional humiliation to bestow than sending their prey downtown for a strip search?

Sure, most law enforcement officers are decent, well-trained, disciplined and not given to abusing their authority. Trouble is, there’s always a few who are nothing more or better than poorly trained, badly behaved bullies with badges — and batons, guns and cuffs.

Now, thanks to conservative justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and swing-vote Anthony Kennedy, those bullies with badges have a new power tool they can abuse citizens with.

Yes, officers and jail staff have an understandable interest in ensuring those being jailed have no weapons, drugs or other contraband on their persons.

But people arrested are supposed to benefit from the presumption of innocence unless and until they’ve been found guilty in a proper court proceeding. The presumption of innocence is grounded in the Fifth, Sixth and 14th amendments. The Fourth Amendment recognizes inherent rights of those not found guilty of a crime:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The high court’s Florence v. County of Burlington decision outrageously tramples Fourth Amendment rights and the presumption of innocence, irrationally giving police and jailers license beyond common sense and out of all proportion to any demonstrated need for strip searching. It’s a situation that invites abuse. Kennedy et al just threw the concepts of “probable cause” and “unreasonable searches” in the wastebasket.

Now, to be be arrested and taken to jail is to be punished in a very real and unconstitutional sense, no appearance before a judge, no warrant, no legal counsel required.

Something Justice Kennedy wrote in his majority decision sheds light on the crackpot thinking behind this travesty. From the New York Times story (linked above):

.

“. . . people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals.” He noted that Timothy McVeigh, later put to death for his role in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, was first arrested for driving without a license plate. ‘One of the terrorists involved in the Sept. 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93.’”

.

Are we to believe that had cops been free to strip search McVeigh they would’ve turned up suspicious quantities of fertilizer and motor oil under his armpits? Would the 9-11 terrorist stopped for speeding been found to have secret plans taped to his scrotum, if only he could’ve been strip searched? Come on — neither was jailed!

Thanks to Kennedy and the court’s conservative lame-brain trust, we can expect more of this, also from the Times story.

.

“Citing examples from briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer wrote that people have been subjected to ‘the humiliation of a visual strip-search’ after being arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, failing to use a turn signal and riding a bicycle without an audible bell.

A nun was strip-searched, he wrote, after an arrest for trespassing during an antiwar demonstration. So were victims of sexual assaults and women who were menstruating.”

.

Given what they did to the country when they usurped the people’s right to elect a president in 2000 and what they’ve done to our democracy with their Citizens United decision, it’s past time for Congress to assert its authority to regulate the Supreme Court.

Together, as they always are, Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas represent a clear and present danger to the efficacy of our Constitution, the integrity of our legal system and the basic human rights of all Americans. Kennedy is too often this wrecking crew’s enabler.

.