Late last night I flagged a nugget of news in a Politico story about how the House GOP had decided that a pilot program tied to the school lunch program should now only be available to “rural” kids and not ones in urban areas and ask, WTF? Sahil Kapur spent the day getting to the bottom of it and here’s his report.
Amanda Marcotte drops some science on that whole women-are-just-brainwashed-into-saying-they’ve-been-raped thing.
Police with too much time on their hands in Cary, North Carolina announce crackdown on graffiti with the word “booger” in it.
With Republicans trying to shake a rep for being indifferent to the needs of women in the workplace, doctors’ offices and elsewhere, an Oregon GOP Senate candidate, pediatric surgeon Monica Wehby, has broken a new glass ceiling with her candidacy. Police reports about harassment, physical assaults and stalking of spouses and significant others have traditionally been the preserve of male candidates. But no more. Last night Wehby clinched the GOP nomination – perhaps with the help of early voting by mail – after having police reports surface of both her ex-husband and more recently her ex-boyfriend accusing her of a mix of harassment, stalking and minor physical assaults.
I’m not sure why this isn’t a bigger deal. I hadn’t heard about it other than in this brief passage tucked away in a Politico article about the House GOP agriculture bill. But it takes a small program intended provide meals to children in the school lunch program during the summer months and says it can now only be used to benefit kids in “rural areas”.
In other words, “urban” kids are now out of luck.
A note from TPM Reader AH …
It’s [AH] in Boise, Idaho. I’m a long time reader of TPM, have contributed a couple of news items, and have written you personally two or three times. Also a primate. This is a long email, and I apologize for that, but it takes a while to describe the situation here in Idaho.
I have watched happily as one state after another has had their ban on gay marriage reversed, was particularly joyful when Judge Candy Dale ruled against Idaho’s, and am in general agreement with you that the marriage equality issue will probably be settled by the end of President Obama’s second term.
TPM Reader JO gives us his read on how and when the Supreme Court will make its will heard on the seemingly inevitable judicial consensus in favor of same sex marriage rights under the US Constitution …
It’s hard to see how SCOTUS doesn’t take a case and provide a definitive answer within the next couple of terms. The current crop of district court cases are going to start producing circuit court opinions within the next year, and one of two things will happen then: either there will be the same kind of unanimous endorsement of marriage equality that we’re seeing at the district level, or there will be a circuit split – a unanimous rejection of equality seems extremely unlikely.
As you can see, today we have not only another state gay marriage ban struck down by a federal judge. We have another struck down by a Bush appointee. Indeed, one endorsed by then-Senator Rick Santorum. I’d like to hear from lawyers and SCOTUS watchers but I’m straining to think of any analogue in recent history where you have an issue of great national import, SCOTUS makes an ambiguous but suggestive ruling and basically all the lower courts in rapid succession say, “SCOTUS folks, you meant this.” In this case, your ruling means that state bans on same sex marriages are unconstitutional.
House Republican suggests voting be restricted to property owners. Watch.