New Willie Horton-style Web Ad -- Now with Misogyny!

Not Safe For Work:

Talking Points Memo is spot on when they called this ad against Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn (D) -- running in a special election to replace the retired Democratic Rep. Jane Harman (CA-36) -- "Willie Horton on steroids." But its all that and more. Let's go down the check list:

False accusations about her actions regarding gang members: ☑

False inference that the gang members in question are African-American -- Obama! -- when they were primarily Latinos: ☑

Depicting the opponent as demonic: ☑

Calling the opponent a "ho" and a "bitch": ☑

Depictions of various gangsters (Al Capone), gang members, Che Guevara and Charlie Manson (?!): ☑

Depicting the opponent as a pole dancing stripper with (bonus!) a smelly crotch: ☑

Depicting Hahn as about to be sexually violated with an automatic weapon...WHAT?...WTF? This has got to be the sickest, most vile ad ever.

And, we get to thank Citizens United for this one. The ad is not being run by her opponent, tea party Republican Craig Huey. It's being run by the brand-new Turn Right USA PAC. Via TPM:

Turn Right USA, the sponsor, is a brand new political action committee which only filed its paperwork with the Federal Election Commission on Monday. The paperwork indicates that Turn Right USA intends to operate as a so-called "super PAC," capable of raising funds in unlimited amount, but will not use those funds to directly support federal candidates or committees.

Scalia: Constitution does not prohibit discrimination against women

Via HuffPo:

In a newly published interview in the legal magazine California Lawyer, Scalia said that while the Constitution does not disallow the passage of legislation outlawing such discrimination, it doesn't itself outlaw that behavior:

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

Here's the relevant part of the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This would mean that either Scalia believes that women still aren't "persons" or "citizens" or that since discrimination was allowed against women when that amendment was written they still don't have rights. You know, the same way that he believes that the 2nd Amendment only allows people the right to own muskets and cannons. Right.

Apparently Scalia said something similar back in September. Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks points out his hypocrisy when it comes to being a "strict constitutionalist" here:


.