{"id":10586,"date":"2013-07-09T00:50:41","date_gmt":"2013-07-09T07:50:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=10586"},"modified":"2013-07-09T00:50:41","modified_gmt":"2013-07-09T07:50:41","slug":"open-thread792013","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2013\/07\/09\/open-thread792013\/","title":{"rendered":"Open Thread–7\/9\/2013"},"content":{"rendered":"

I\u2019m writing early for Day 25, and the temperature at my desk is a comfortable 78\u00b0  Sadly that won\u2019t last, because the sun just hit the breezeway and will soon superheat the air.<\/font><\/p>\n

Jig Zone Puzzle<\/strong>:<\/font><\/p>\n

Today\u2019s took me 3:05 (average 4:56).  To do it, click here<\/a>.  How did you do?<\/font><\/p>\n

Short Takes<\/strong>:<\/font><\/p>\n

From NY Times<\/a>: <\/font>As more schools consider arming their employees, some districts are encountering a daunting economic hurdle: insurance carriers threatening to raise their premiums or revoke coverage entirely. <\/p>\n

During legislative sessions this year, seven states enacted laws permitting teachers or administrators to carry guns in schools. Three of the measures \u2014 in Kansas, South Dakota and Tennessee \u2014 took effect last week. <\/p>\n

But already, EMC Insurance Companies<\/a>, the liability insurance provider for about 90 percent of Kansas school districts, has sent a letter to its agents<\/a> saying that schools permitting employees to carry concealed handguns would be declined coverage. <\/p>\n

\u201cWe are making this underwriting decision simply to protect the financial security of our company,\u201d the letter said. <\/p>\n

It’s simple. For EMC, profit trumps ideology. Insurance professionals know just how insane the Republican policy of guns as a solution to gun violence is, and how dangerous it would be in our schools.  This is a defeat for Wing-nut Wayne LaPierre, the Republican Party, and TEAbuggery!<\/font><\/p>\n

From Think Progress<\/a>: <\/font>If a leading conservative scholar and former judge were now on the Supreme Court instead of Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Alito, it is likely that the Voting Right Act would remain intact.<\/p>\n

Judge Michael McConnell was a leading conservative law professor at the time President George W. Bush named him to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit<\/a> in 2002 (he\u2019s since left the bench to return to the legal academy at Stanford Law School). McConnell was also widely viewed as a possible Supreme Court nominee<\/a> during the Bush Administration. <\/p>\n

In an interview with NPR\u2019s Nina Totenberg, McConnell has harsh words for the five conservative justices\u2019<\/a> recent decision neutering much of the Voting Rights Act \u2014 labeling the reasoning that drove that decision \u201cmade up.\u201d<\/p>\n

The pleases me to see that there are conservative scholars who place integrity over ideology. If only there were more.  Sadly, that is probably he reason Crawford Caligula never nominated him to the Supreme Court.<\/font><\/p>\n

From Right Wing Watch<\/a>: <\/font>Last year, Mat Staver warned<\/a> that if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality, it could lead to a civil war. And now that the Court has done that by striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, Staver is once again<\/a> issuing that same warning.<\/p>\n