In a ruling observers are describing as "breathtaking," the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 this week that Wisconsin's recently-enacted law against breathing by liberals - the Defense of Patriotism in Aspiration Act - was accepted under the Constitution, and that its challengers had failed to show adequate cause to strike it down. "What...(gasp)...we....wanted to show...was that...was that we have a right to air...to air just like...an...anybody(gasp)..." said ACLU litigant Michael Browder, before collapsing from court-ordered hypoxia. Response in the liberal blogosphere has been swift and merciless. "I am in disagreement with this ruling, I think!" said one particularly outraged headline on Daily Kos. "There are serious questions to be answered about the No-Breathing ruling," said another, more incisive headline. More reaction below the fold.
A consensus has rapidly built in Daily Kos and other liberal blogging communities that the issue is urgent enough to call for a blue-ribbon commission to study whether or not there is an issue, to be empaneled sometime between August and May of 2021. "Is there is an issue here? That's what we're going to find out eventually. Some say yes, some say no, there are many opinions floating around," said Bob Tuse, Daily Kos Director of Courageous Activism and Intellectual Potency. "We care about the right of Winsconsin liberals to breathe air, but that doesn't mean we don't have differences of opinion on what to do about it."
Opinion on Daily Kos seems to have broken into two main camps, the Whacky Ultra-Radical Breathers, whose views have been examplified in a recent diary titled "It might conceivably be a good idea to pass a new law allowing Wisconsinites the right to breathe, although that's just my opinion, I could totally be wrong and respect anyone who thinks I'm a nut for saying this." At the opposite pole are the Wheezers, who counsel that Wisconsinites adapt to the new law by learning how to draw breath on passive air currents without violating Scott Walker's law against liberals breathing. "Rather than spend our time complaining about the law," said user Snarpy "Snick" Snorum, "let's make a good example and learn how to best comply with it. After all, when judges pass rulings conservatives don't like, we demand they follow them, don't we? Well, this is no different!"
A few voices differ sharply both groups, and suggest that the ruling is simply illegal, nonsensical, and violates foundational human rights. However, it's difficult to locate the comments of these users as they are often buried beneath several thousand shrieking replies attacking the commenter's maternal lineage and threatening to report them to Homeland Security for attempted sedition. One such comment says, "Of course Wisconsinites have a right to breathe. What nonsense! Just breathe. It's the Court that's the problem. Throw them the hell out of power!" Leaders of the Radical Breathers are quick to distance themselves from such comments, saying they "undermine the credibility of those working toward real solutions that may become practical sometime in the 23rd century."
Oh, and more breaking news: The Supreme Court has upheld the Republican Party's demand that Daily Kos be shut down. Now rather than get all up in a tizzy over this and act like ours is the only opinion, let's deal with the fact that there are many schools of thought. One is that, okay, some might say we have a 1st Amendment right to say what we want. But here's the Republican perspective...
404 File Not Found
This Domain Has Been Seized by the Department of Homeland Security
"Now, I see where you're coming from, your FISA Court Honor, Sir. I know that I've been charged with treason for making fun of Antonin Scalia, and I want you know that I understand that was my opinion, and that there are many opinions worth hearing. Was I tortured in the antechamber to this court with electrodes on my testicles? Some would say so. In my personal opinion, yes, there were electrodes on my testicles. But I would never demand that anyone be punished for what is just my opinion! So let's just be amicable about this, what do you say?"
[This may or may not be a tombstone - it's a matter of opinion. There may or may not be someone buried here, who may or may not have been executed for political crimes. But don't get all fussy over it, there are alternative opinions too. Don't let your lyin' eyes get in other people's way.]