SHARE

Rachel has the best WTF face

Not that he’s desperate or anything, but Rick Santorum chose a pretty weird place for an interview. He sat down with Rachel Maddow for a chat Wednesday, far away from the comfortably familiar Idiot Crew at Fox News. We guess he wanted to show that he could hold his own against the Liberal Media’s most prominent nerd or something. They exchanged compliments: Maddow thinks he’s one of the best communicators in the Republican field, especially with a live crowd, and Santorum respects that she’s tough but sticks to policy, not personal attacks. And despite her generous suggestion to brainstorm some ways of picking a fight with Donald Trump so he can raise his profile enough to get into the first GOP debate in August, Santorum politely declined the offer. Heck, he could try calling Trump an asshole. Noting that he’d run a close second to Mitt Romney in the 2012 primaries, Maddow asked Santorum why all that support has evaporated. Santorum’s answer: it’s early yet, they’ll all come back, you’ll see. (Fun fact: That’s not the real answer. The real answer is that he benefited from being the least freakish — barely — of the anyone-but-Mitt candidates.)

In the second segment of the interview, things went weird, as Santorum attempted to make sense of a claim that he’d made last month at the National Right To Life convention, where he explained that in his America, the Supreme Court doesn’t have the “final say on anything,” because the American People are the ones who really decide that.

Santorum was so proud of his line — “The American people have the final say on everything. Is that the country you live in?” — that he repeated it back to Maddow at the start of the segment. It’s THAT good a line!

Maddow, a tad perplexed maybe, went into American Government 101 mode:

MADDOW: Well, the Supreme Court is the supreme — I mean, it is the Supreme Court.

SANTORUM: Yes. But it’s not a superior branch of government. I mean, if the Congress comes back and says, you know, we disagree with you and were able to pass a law and get it signed by the president and say, courts, you’re wrong, I mean —

MADDOW: You could not pass a law that could contradict the constitutional ruling of he Supreme Court.

SANTORUM: Why not? Why?

Yeah, you big ol’ liberal who believes that unelected judges can overrule the wishes of all Americans, or at least all of Rick Santorum’s Americans, how about that? Why? Explain yourself, young lady. Do you believe in America or not? Maddow tried to walk him through how this really works:

MADDOW: You can amend the Constitution.

SANTORUM: Why?

MADDOW: They’re ruling on the constitutionality of that law.

SANTORUM: What if they’re doing it with an — from an unconstitutional basis? I mean —

MADDOW: They decide what’s constitutional. That’s how our government works.

Ah, well, the Constitution! Santorum was clearly unhappy with how the Supreme Court just ignores the Constitution and makes stuff up, like the totally fake rights to abortion and gay marriage, which are not in the Constitution at all:

SANTORUM: When I took my oath of office as a United States senator, what did I say? I would uphold the Constitution.

And my feeling is, and I think it’s clearly from our founding documents, that the Congress has a right to say what’s constitutional. The president has a right to say what’s constitutional. And that’s part of the dynamic called checks and balances.

MADDOW: Yes. But — I mean, you’re fundamentally wrong on civics, right? If there is, if there is a question as to the constitutionality of a law, it gets adjudicated.

SANTORUM: Right.

Checks and balances! That’s why the president and Congress both get to decide what’s constitutional, and the Supreme Court gets to have an opinion, too. Sure thing. Maddow pointed out that even if Congress passed a law banning gay marriage a gain, the Court would just strike it down all over, and then Santorum pointed out that after the SCOTUS overturened a ban on “partial birth abortion,” Congress came back and passed a new ban on the procedure, with some changes, and the Supremes were OK with it. So sometimes Congress wins. Maddow, ever the radical, pointed out that when it comes to final decisions, “the Supreme Court wins on the issue of constitutionality,” but Santorum is apparently a big fan of Congress just passing law after law, with minor tweaks, until the Supremes decide it’s in an acceptable form, or even better, you get a new cast of characters on the Supreme Court that will agree with Congress:

MADDOW: So, do you mean that you would want different justices in the Supreme Court? You would want this to go back to the same justices and you think you get a different —

SANTORUM: What I would like to see as president, a whole new group of justices. If you have a new group of justices, I think you might very well get a different decision.

And then there was some absolutely beautiful awkwardness as Santorum fumbled over answering whether he thought people are born gay. At first, he said he didn’t know, but then jumped back with a hypothetical for Maddow: What if science identified a gay gene and people wanted to abort gay babies, how would you like that, huh?

Maddow decided not to join him on his slippery slope thread, and pointed out, “But you’re worrying about the consequences of this without saying that you know whether or not it’s true.” On the question of whether people choose to be gay, Santorum figured maybe they do, since he’s met people who used to be gay or lesbian, and now they’re not, so he guesses “maybe in that case, maybe they did.” And then they ran out of time before she could get him to answer whether he thinks people can be made not to be gay, but he did acknowledge that “Again, I don’t spend a whole lot of time thinking about these things to be very honest.”

Precisely. He only thinks about how the schools are trying to turn all the children gay, with all the books about kids with two mommies.

[MSNBC / Real Clear Politics]

$
Donate with CCDonate with CC
  • Msgr_Moment

    “The American people have the final say on everything.”

    Bush v. Gore, 2000. Nope, sorry, Rick, but thanks for playing.

    • Not to mention all the GOP gerrymandering.

      • calliecallie

        Hey, the Supremes just ruled on that too!

        • kindness

          Diana Ross Libelz!

          Oh Baby Love, let us just agree that the Supremes ruled!

  • Hemp Dogbane

    He’s a nicer dumbfuck than Trump.

    • Lascauxcaveman

      It’s the Catholicism; he believes there is a higher power than he, and he is humbled before it.

      This is not the case with Donald Trump.

      • GunToting[Redacted]

        It’s the wine and Jesus-crackers.

    • toomanyrappers

      Dried poop stinks less. It’s still poop.

  • FauxAntocles

    It’s kind of sad when there are so many conservatives running that they have to go on liberal shows to get exposure.

    • Msgr_Moment

      Fox News has only so many talking heads to give.

      • Nounverb911

        Fox News is giving head? Does Roger Ailes know about this?

      • Jen_Baker_VA

        Fox news only gives exposure to the ones that the Koch’s decide shall get exposure

      • r m reddicks

        The prick to head ratio is getting unseemly at the Foxy News. I rather doubted that Sanctoman would get much satisfaction or establish his bone fides on the Rachel Maddow show.

      • calliecallie

        They can only give so much head while talking?

  • Nounverb911

    “a whole new group of justices.”
    Did Santorum just propose that the “Pelican Brief” become fact and not fiction?

    • Latverian Diplomat

      To be fair, he could just be trying to emulate his hero FDR here.

      As an aside, IMHO FDR gets a bum rap about the Court Packing proposal, It was really intended to pressure a batch of ancient, horrible justices into retiring. In the sense that it was a political misstep and wasn’t acted on, it failed. On the other hand, those judges did start retiring shortly afterward.

  • Beowoof14

    Who cleans up after getting Santorum all over Rachel’s set.

    • Nounverb911

      Well, Keith Olbermann needs a new job, again.

  • Callyson

    This guy’s views about the constitution are as convincing as his views on the purpose of marriage are:

  • freakishlystrong

    Hi Rick? Two words: “Representative Democracy”. We ELECT people that appoint “9 unelected” judges.
    Oh, and two more words: “Colossal Asshole”.

    • r m reddicks

      And yet two more: stari decisis. (Though good luck with that if we get some new assholes on the scrotumus .)

      • willi0000000

        i’d be very leery about a candidate who says “I only call balls and strikes.”

        [ i’m looking at you, john roberts, you lying bastard! ]

      • HeywoodJablomey

        WE DON NEED NO LATIN SAYINS GO BACK TO MEXICO WHERE YOU COME FROM!!!!1 MURRIKA!!!!!!

  • Nounverb911

    “his slippery slope thread”
    One of those new “Donald Trump butt plugs” might help stop the leaking Santorum.

  • elviouslyqueer

    Pack it up, Frothy. You’re done here.

  • Seaside

    Sadly he missed the ‘Schoolhouse Rocks’ civics lessons because he prefers Contemporary Christian.

    • riledupone

      There was no homeschool equivalent. And if there had been , it certainly wouldn’t have been rock.

  • weejee

    Sounds like Santorum’s having an personal Constipational Convention. His thinking (sic) is suffering from from severe blockage.

  • It’s very simple, the Supreme Court is the final say on whether or not something is constitutional if I like what they have to say, and if I don’t, then I don’t have to listen and nanny nanny boo boo…

    And yes, I have a law degree from Outter Myass University.

  • HobbesEvilTwin

    true, Santorum probably doesn’t spend much time thinking about what or how people become gay; But that’s because he spends almost all of his time thinking about what those people do with their gay man or lady parts.

    • elviouslyqueer

      And dog parts. Don’t forget about the dog parts!

  • Vecciojohn

    And this fucker went to law school.

    • elviouslyqueer

      At the terribly appropriately named DICK-IN-SON School of Law.

      • Msgr_Moment

        Emily weeps.

    • Jen_Baker_VA

      I wanna see the transcripts before I believe he actually passed said law school

      • Latverian Diplomat

        Since when has being a dumb jerk kept anyone from being a lawyer?

        • FlownOver

          See also Brownback, Sam.

    • Jerry Noneofyourbizz

      Well shit, GW went to Harvard.

      • Blank Ron

        Do you think they’ll ever live that down?

  • VandeGraf

    Santorum runs a great risk when he permits himself to be questioned by someone with the ability to reason and a healthy skepticism. He turns into the blabbering fool Pennsylvanians knew him to be when the put him back on the street.

  • Spurning Beer

    I wish Rachel would run for president.

    • Hanaka

      I doubt anybody could trick her into such a thankless draining job.

    • the_steamer

      I think she’s doing an important civic service right now.

  • Notreelyhelping

    It’s pretty simple. When the Supreme Court passes something I agree with, they’re a reflection of the Founding Fathers’ genius. When they don’t, they’re unelected lawyers in robes. Why is this so difficult to understand?

    • Ryan Denniston

      Or “Judicial Activism (TM)”

    • toomanyrappers

      Judging from Scalia’s last little temper tantrum, its very difficult to understand.

      • JurisGal

        “Jiggery pokery” for everyone!

  • Hellfire and Pamnation

    My favorite part was when she broke down “adjudicate” for him by syllable to explain it. Get it, Rachel.

    • Thaumaturgist

      Not to beat a dead horse but when I was a freshman in college I used the word “adjudicate” in an assignment a creative writing class and this graduate assistant teaching fellow told me there was no such word.

      • Jerry Noneofyourbizz

        Adjudicator: One who caters Bar Mitzvahs

  • proudgrampa

    “American Government 101” Hell, “Checks and Balances” is more like 4th or 5th grade level. He sure is a stupid guy.

    • willi0000000

      frothy the slow man?

      • Jerry Noneofyourbizz

        I truly LOL’d!!

  • onedollarjuana

    On the contrary, I think Rick spends all of his time thinking about gayness.

    • Mehmeisterjr

      It’s the “to be very honest” that is the tell.

    • Biff52

      Perhaps he’s being honest. Perhaps he doesn’t think about it, but rather just talks about it without thinking?

      • OneYieldRegular

        Or just frets about it.

  • CutterTeam

    I might be wrong, but I think these issues ultimately get decided via penalty kicks.

  • Vecciojohn

    I missed the show. Did she end the interview by telling him to go home and get his fucking shine box?

    • Jen_Baker_VA

      I do not know, but the wonk ads are all full of sensible running shoes for me on this story, so there is that

  • JohnR

    The Constitution, and that other thing that other thing.

  • AngryBlakGuy

    …just to reiterate:

    • Jerry Noneofyourbizz

      They warn each other, “Don’t even stop there for gas!”-Kathleen Madigan

    • dshwa

      “The surest sign of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us yet.”

      -Issac Aisamov.

  • Esteban Rey

    It was real funny watching this last night especially when she made him apologize for his entire political career at the end.

  • Shorter Santorum: “Throw out the Constitution. It’s mob rule time!”

    I’d suggest the Democrats remember this for later if I thought any would have to run against Santorum.

    • Latverian Diplomat

      Note to Ricky: always a good idea to check the size on one’s “mob” before proposing “mob rule”.

  • smitallica

    Yes, because any astute observer of the American people and the “tea leaves” knows that support for gay marriage among the population is NOT actually on an inexorable rise as it has been for over a decade, but is just about to crater, ushering in a Utopian (for him) era of former liberals realizing that straight, God-sanctioned marriage is the ONLY real kind of marriage, now and forever, amen.

    • BJW

      Excellent Poe!

  • Ryan Denniston

    What bothers me most is that the idea that the American people have the final say is that it sounds great if you don’t think about it at all. The American people disagree with each other! Their representatives disagree with each other. Many disagree with at least some small thing in the Constitution. This is why we have courts people!

    I don’t know if it was better in the past, but I am willing to bet that leaders a generation ago would spend some effort to not spew falsehoods. Either Santorum is a moron, or he’s craven and will say anything to win. Either way, he’s no leader.

    • Mehmeisterjr

      And old friend of mine who has known (I didn’t say liked or admired) Santorum for many years assured me that no matter how batshit crazy it sounds, Santorum is 100% sincere. This is much scarier than if he were just a hypocrite. How much scarier? Well, think about the stupid but sincere Dubya and imagine that on steroids.

      • Ryan Denniston

        That is scary.

      • Takoma DC

        I dunno. That magical smile on his face when he was claiming he doesn’t think ” a lot about these things” – that’d be things about the gays. “To be honest.” I think he also quipped but check out the video. He’s smiling a very sweet mischievous Imma’-fulla’-shit-smile if I ever saw one.

    • Whale Chowder

      Politicians have lied since “Et Tu, Brute.” It goes with the territory. The lies these days are more narrowly focused, so they sound more batshit if you aren’t tuned to the dog whistle, but that’s the “benefit” of technology these days–you can attune your lies more closely to your audience.

  • AngryKatie

    This is why there should be some kind of civics test before you can vote.
    We’d have to outsource creating and administering it though, there’s no way we wouldn’t make a hash of it if it’s left to us. Maybe Canada would do it.

    • beatbort

      How about a civics test before you’re allowed to run for office? Then there’d be no Santorums to sit across from Rachel Maddow and reveal how fucking ignorant they are about the fundamental aspects of our government.

      • AngryKatie

        That’s a given. You can’t run if you’re not registered to vote.

  • Left Coast Tom

    Frothy:

    And my feeling is, and I think it’s
    clearly from our founding documents, that the Congress has a right to
    say what’s constitutional. The president has a right to say what’s
    constitutional. And that’s part of the dynamic called checks and
    balances.

    So this is the “opinions are like assholes, everyone has one” theory of Constitutional law?

    • Takoma DC

      He claims our Founders set up our political system like that because ya know – all those rich white dudes in powdered wigs and fancy-schmancy-dandy-duds were against butt hurting and vagina grinding.

    • Whale Chowder

      Mr. Santorum, there’s a John Marshall on line two for you…

  • Mavenmaven

    Does he know what the Vice President does?

    • willi0000000

      sure . . . he goes to funerals.

  • AngryBlakGuy

    …this is the problem of trying to reason with a group of people who have “faith based” critical thinking skills. Nothing needs to make sense, you don’t actully need a plan and facts don’t matter. All you need to do is lay out the desired outcome and everything else will fall into place. Rick Santorum is just as, if not more so dangerous as George W. Bush!!!

    • Riley Whodat Venable

      He is a dangerous Christian Dominionist, but not as dangerous as another Bush. Bush could actually become POTUS. The family bought the office for one son, why not do it again. Bush’s only problem may be being Catholic, especially with the current Pope.

      • jmk

        Unfortunately, he is one of many Dominionists in the Klown Kar, ranging from Ted “the Anointed One” Cruz to the Seventh-Day Adventist stylings of Dr. Ben Carson.

        • BJW

          Actually, although Carson is an Adventist, his political stylings are generally opposed by the SDA Church. While the church believes in the literal creation of our planet, there is also a very important belief of Adventism that politics and religion shouldn’t mix. So I have a friend who is in contact with higher ups who consider Ben an embarrassment. Yes, I’m a former Adventist.

          Guess I’m trying to say that most Adventists are NOT Dominionists. Although there is an active strain of Tea Party people in the church, there are also many liberal Adventists.

          • jmk

            Sorry – I guess I phrased it badly…by “Seventh-Day Adventist stylings,” I meant was that Carson started from an Adventist base, but he’s been riffing on it, throwing in his Teabagger philosophy and his rock-solid, not-at-all-arrogant belief in his own wonderfulness, and the resulting mix goes off in a Dominionist direction.

          • BJW

            Okay, what you said there, THAT is perfect. And I only felt the need to defend my former church as I have some wonderful, LIBERAL, Adventist friends. :) And Carson scares THEM.

    • dshwa

      The technical term is a priori I belive.

  • Steven M. Harries

    Santorum? You’d be nuts too if you had to endlessly pump away it with the tired old gal missionary-style, and then feed the little buggers, and bring home ugly embryos as pets . . .

  • beatbort

    Well, that’s the last time any of the Republican candidates test that water!
    Hey, they don’t ask followup questions on Fox News! And they don’t know a thing about how the government works on Fox News!
    No fair, Rachel Maddow!

  • Rick Hill

    I would like to make a request: There are so many witty, creative people who would comment here, if it were allowed, that we should be able to offer an opinion on this walking joke of a man that does not include stuff leaking from anuses(or is it anisi?) Those jokes are SO 2012….

    • timpundit

      You have no respect for tradition.

    • Takoma DC

      What are you getting all frothy ’bout Rick Hill?

    • Hardly Ideal

      It’s a pretty tired gag, but then again so is he. He earned that name through tireless man-on-dog fearmongering, after all.

  • Kelly Hamilton

    Rachel was just about the best question of all –“When did you choose to be heterosexual?” — but then cut herself off. That’s the question I always wish people would ask to those among us who claim it’s a choice. When did you make your choice, Rick?

    • disqus_0lWqMBoD8b

      After the 6th of 7th time he tried it in college? He figured out… “not for me”.

      • Takoma DC

        I think it started way before that; church festivities and camping with the BoyScouts, and then college.

  • BearGHAZI

    I love Rachel but I was disappointed with this interview. She only had about 10 minutes and she wasted so much time back-and-forthing (frothing?) about the man on dog thing. I wished she would have asked him about contraception, or why the fuck a gay person or atheist should vote for him.

  • say wha

    A short history of Santorum’s “legal” career:

    After graduating and passing his bar, he joined Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC, a law firm whose biggest client was the World Wrestling Federation (now known as the World Wrestling Entertainment). He left the practice after 4 years to run for the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.

    • LesBontemps

      Not Eckert, but Kirkpatrick & Lockhart (now K&L Gates). Eckert has real attorneys.

    • Takoma DC

      That all sounds very gay. :)

  • dslindc

    We really need a civics test to be passed before allowing people to run for office.

    And regarding this gem: “Again, I don’t spend a whole lot of time thinking about these things to be very honest.”

    Right, because he’s busy thinking about butt sex. All. The. Time.

    • Biff52

      And dogs. Or with dogs, I’ve lost track.

    • Takoma DC

      Santorum specializes in canine coupling. Those poor doggies.

  • calliecallie

    What’s this guy doing for a living now that he’s not a Senator any more? He has a bunch of kids to feed, right? Maybe he should just focus on that, and forget the president thing.

    • Mehmeisterjr

      Grifting, as far as I can tell.

    • Biff52

      I know he won’t be eligible for his Senate pension until 2020, so he’s got to get his grift on somehow!

    • Takoma DC

      Yeah I was wondering the same thing. The “Learning” Channel has an opening for a big moronic homophobic conservative weanie and gash-for-god couple with many childrens to put food on.

    • dshwa

      Wingnut Wellfare and speech giving circuit, I’m sure. Probably a pension from the Senate, which he earned unlike those other takers.

  • Tallmutha

    And then they ran out of time before she could get him to answer whether he thinks people can be made not to be gay…

    No no no, the thing you do once they say they think being gay is a choice is, without wasting a moment, you say “Prove it by sucking my dick.” (Or, I guess if you’re a lady, “this guy’s dick.”)

    • Mayor_Quimby

      That’s all well and good until you have Rick Santorum pubes deep on your dick (or that guy’s dick) so he can win the argument. Ewwww.

  • LesBontemps

    And my feeling is, and I think it’s clearly from our founding documents, that the Congress has a right to say what’s constitutional. The president has a right to say what’s constitutional. And that’s part of the dynamic called checks and balances.

    Ricky, Ricky, Ricky. Your “feeling” was overruled more than 210 years ago in Marbury v. Motherfucking Madison. Did you actually go to law school? Or high school?

    • OneDemin EOr

      No, and no.

    • Villago Delenda Est

      Or fucking pre-school, for that matter.

    • Mehmeisterjr

      Damn, Doocey would have let that pass without comment although Kilmeade might have challenged him on the grounds that every sovereign citizen gets to overrule SCOTUS.

  • Thaumaturgist

    So who’s the last freakish “anyone but Jeb!?” Or does it have to be “least freakish anyone but Donald?” Or Scott? Or Marco? I swear to Jesus you go down that road this time you’re going to end up with Lindsey. DON’T GO THERE! PLEASE!

    • Antimassacree

      This is a perplexingly difficult question. The field is indeed a freakshow. Kasich could fill the least freakish shoes if anyone even knew his name. He seems to have improved a bit from when he was slashing social programs as House Budgt Cmte chair under Newt.

      • Thaumaturgist

        Trouble is, according to his reputation, Kasich is not as even-tempered as Thr Donald.

        • Antimassacree

          Now you are scaring me.

  • Mehmeisterjr

    When I saw his sneering face, I had to turn to another station. Thanks, Dok Z for the rundown. I just can’t stand the guy that much.

    I bet it’s the last time he will allow himself to be interviewed by someone who knows even the basics of the Constitution. How he made it through Dickinson and got hired by Eckert, Seamens is a mystery but if his performance yesterday reflects the quality of Constitutional Law he was doing for them, I have a hunch he was never going to make partner.

    • LesBontemps

      Well, he never got past “junior associate” at Eckert and I highly doubt he got anywhere near anything Constitutional during his time there.

      • dshwa

        The Benoit family really appreciates his work, I’m sure.
        Fuck that asshole.

    • nanoot

      Smirking does not make anybody look presidential. Before you vote for one of these clowns, consider whether you want to see his self-satisfied mug on TV for the next four years, much less with his finger on the nuclear button. Got im himmel.

  • blueeyedcuban

    “I don’t think about things I don’t think about” ..William Jennings Bryan, AND Richard John Santorum

  • edith prickly

    I swear, these people think “unconstitutional” means “stuff i don’t like”.

    • OrdinaryJoe

      It’s more nuanced than that. It’s “stuff I don’t like because, Jeeezzzuuuz.”

      • Antimassacree

        Nah, there’s stuff Jesus reportedly said that they don’t like, so they choose to ignore.

    • toomanyrappers

      Go right ahead. :)

      I swear about it all the time.

  • jviscont1

    with his abysmal polling, maybe he thought knocking out Rachel on a gotcha point or at least make her cry would boost his ratings with the base. but, he remains punchlessy clueless.

    • Jerry Noneofyourbizz

      And frothy, don’t forget frothy!

  • Jerry Noneofyourbizz

    He doesn’t think about homosexuality? Jesus Fucking Christ! That is his entire platform!

    • Zyxomma

      No, it’s only half his platform. The other half is outlawing safe, legal abortion, and access to slut pills, a/k/a legal contraception (probably he’d leave condoms alone, because men use them).

  • Latverian Diplomat

    Just a quick biology note here. Congenital (present at birth) traits are not necessarily genetic. And even if sexual orientation has a genetic component, any human trait as complex as sexual orientation is likely to influenced by many many genes interacting in complex ways.

    So, the “gay gene” thing is even more of a stupid non sequitur than you might think.

    • dshwa

      It’s obviously a non-localized allele pattern influenced by epi-genetics. Same with pretty much all of human behavior.

      • Latverian Diplomat

        I wouldn’t rule out a chance developmental component.

        • dshwa

          The epi-genetic idea makes sense in a larger evolutionary perspective. The more children a woman has the more likely each subsequent one is to be homosexual, which would make sense as an evolutionary population control mechanism that would increase the chance of survival for a species as a whole at the expense of the passing on the genes of a few.

          • Latverian Diplomat

            Evolution doesn’t care about species survival though. It’s genes mindlessly competing against other genes. Some traits just exist, without having any significant advantage or disadvantage.

            It seems clear that historically, being gay was not a big obstacle to having children anyway, and we don’t really know how things like that worked out in prehistory. And frankly, limiting the number of males in the mating pool wouldn’t do much for population control anyway.

            Until we actually know what the underlying mechanism is, it’s purely speculative to start putting forward evolutionary mechanisms, and the evo-psych guys do too much of that already.

  • Nick

    Since we can ignore the Supreme Court, we can call bullsh*t on corporations being people, correct?

    • Doug Langley

      More than that! We can throw out every single thing George W Bush did!

  • Dolmance

    Gee, them vaginers be scary. Feets, do your stuff!

  • marxalot

    Christ, given the amount of time he spends talking about gay men, and sex, and gay sex, given that he doesn’t sped “a whole lot of time” thinking about it, I’d hate to be in the tri-state area when he starts talking about whatever does occupy most of his (for want of a better word) mind.

    • When he’s thinking these ‘dirty thoughts’ in no time at all his right hand creeps into his pants and his unthinking primal brain takes over…

    • Tovarish Z

      I’m suspicious of people who claim to be straight but spend a lot of time thinking about gay sex.

  • AnOuthouse

    Some days there’s no point in engaging with the silly lady brainz, amirite Ricky? Especially when they’re OTR.

    • IN OTHER WORDS –
      Rick Santorum: you got beat by a GIRL.

      • The Other Tim

        Do to her haircut, Santorum does not recognize Rachel Maddow as said “GIRL.”

    • George

      OTR…Otherwise known as “bleeding in sin for god.” I’m almost sure, anyway.

    • toomanyrappers

      Aunt flow

  • NorthStarSpanx

    Gee Ricky, why wouldn’t the Framers make it so that a new President get’s to bring in his/her own Justices every four to eight years?

    • Vegan and Tiara

      Because we’d end up living in the new country of Ronald Reagan Jesusland of America if republicans ever win the presidency again?

  • OrdinaryJoe

    Didn’t watch. She is too polite and respectful despite the idiocy. If he wasn’t going to walk out of there with his dick in his hand and a santorum lubed mic stand shoved up his ass, what’s the point?

  • Riley Whodat Venable

    I give old Frothy some props for showing up. Only he and Rand have come on her show.
    She once again proves she is good at her job.

  • Gorillionaire

    He looked like he was gonna crap his underoos when Rachel deftly inched towards asking him “so when did you decide to be a pussy lover?”

  • Takoma DC

    Maddow was great. Plus I loved the confused look on her face at the shit he was trying to get over on her. Didn’t he realize he lost the debate when he accepted to be a guest on her show? She was polite and professional but still managed to ask him serious hard hitting questions. And then there were her many wonderful looks of disbelief and confoundment at this ass weasle’s claims he “doesn’t think that much” about the gays remark. We were laughing hysterically about that one (not to mention he doesn’t understand what the judicial branch does, nor Congress for that matter). I don’t believe Santurum even believed his froathy lies ’cause Ricky was wearing a whimsical smile when he made his “doesn’t think that much” (about the gays) comment.

    • JohnQFugly

      “I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about these things” translates to “I couldn’t give two sheets for gay people, and it’s easier to pretend that gay isn’t a real thing.”

  • toomanyrappers

    Republicans don’t spend time thinking about anything. That’s why they are Republicans. :)

  • OneYieldRegular

    So how is this “I want to have a whole new group of Justices” thing supposed to work, exactly? Does he plan to fire them all, like Reagan fired the air traffic controllers? Will he order a whole new Congress too? Will he only pick Justices who swear on the Constitution to uphold the Bible?

    • nmmagyar

      It sounded like he has SCOTUS and the Cabinet confused

      • Me not sure

        Asshole and elbow, also too.

    • Didn’t FDR get in a whole mess of trouble with conservatives for doing that?

    • Antimassacree

      He wanted to say, “One the first day of my presidency, I will tell each SCOTUS justice ‘You’re fired!'” but figured that would just make his few remaining supporters shift to The Donald.

    • sherrdbw

      I wonder how ole Santorum would feel if a Democrat won the White House and just fired the conservative judges. He’d be partially the way there.

  • SecludedCompound

    Thank goodness! It’s not like the American people having the last say has ever created a Constitutionally sticky situation over, say, slavery, black people getting to drink at regular water fountains, different races marrying, affirmative action, busing, criminal rights…oh you know, everything good that America has ever won by a vocal minority saying “this is wrong and unconstitutional.”

  • azeyote

    wow – i’m as stupid as he is so – vote for me! – i have the same chance as that frothy guy to get elected

    • JurisGal

      No, you are not as stupid as he is- I don’t know you but feel it is a safe bet that you are not as stupid as he is…

      • azeyote

        damn – guess i won’t get your vote

        • JurisGal

          You won’t get the Santorum vote( not many but any number is too many)… unless you can top the SCOTUS comments. Jindal already wins with the ‘save money get rid of SCOTUS’ comment but the Repubs never run out of the stupid. They have plenty to spare.

  • Biel_ze_Bubba

    “And my feeling is, and I think it’s clearly from our founding documents, that the Congress has a right to say what’s constitutional. The president has a right to say what’s constitutional.”

    Oy. What part of “Supreme” does he not get?
    And this ignoranus wants to be President???

  • JohnQFugly

    Wait til I write that book about my upbringing with three “swingin” mommies. It’ll sell like lite beer at the strip show.

  • If the President and Congress got to say what’s constitutional, there wouldn’t BE a constitution (i.e. a supreme law) – just ordinary laws, like in Britain or Israel.

  • deanbooth

    Un-fucking-believable!

  • dshwa

    “And my feeling is, and I think it’s clearly from our founding documents, that the Congress has a right to say what’s constitutional.”

    Yeah no. The founders didn’t trust the common people farther than they could throw them. Which is why they went to great lengths to isolate the stupid from changing the constitution and put the courts in place to rule on laws.

  • Yes. I. Have-one

    This is Ole Gil’s big chance! (slips on amniotic fluid)

  • sierraseven

    Honestly, people, don’t you realize the terrible handicap Santorum was struggling with? Religious right-wingers, when in the actual in-person presence of a Known Gay, cannot refrain from thinking about the aforesaid Known Gay having gay sex, in explicit imaginings. This is what the RRW refer to as the Gays “shoving their perverted, disgusting lifestyle down our throats”. Because as soon as you meet someone, you instantly start picturing them having sex. Well, not if they’re nice, normal heterosexual folks, of course. That would be creepy. But if they’re gay, you just can’t help it.

    So, Santorum was desperately attempting to marshal his thoughts on the Supremes, while helplessly imagining Dr. Maddow doin’ the deed. Don’t judge him! He was born that way. Or, actually, indoctrinated that way.

    • nanoot

      One wonders how they manage to talk to their parents without imagining… oh, never mind.

  • LADY MABELINE

    This just proves she will never be able to book another Republican on her show. They do not have the the intectual capabilities to discuss policy with her. People like Frothy Mix are well advised to stick to “Fox and Friends”

  • Antimassacree

    Cannot wait for the GOP second tier Kids’ Table Candidate Forum to start. They will all be trying so hard to be allowed to join the next big people debate they are sure to say and do damn near anything.

  • Teto85

    “Fundamentally Wrong”

    I smell a new campaign slogan.

  • I hope Rachel had some good migraine meds to take after that head-against-a-brick-wall interview.

    Gotta say, though, I would love to see her take on Ted Cruz. That would be an evisceration for the ages.

  • handyhippie65

    i guess we need a civics test for political candidates. if you don’t know how the government works, you don’t get to run.

  • Steve Sneed

    The real problem is that they’re both right and both wrong. Rachel is right that SCOTUS is the final authority on the constitutionality of any law. Frothy is right that the congress can pass anything they please, constitutionality be damned – if they want to pass a law banning gay marriage in all 50 states and get a president elected to sign it, they can do so… and for the minimum 5 to 10 years it can take for challenges to that law to wind their way through the courts system, some or all of the country will have to suffer the consequences of that recklessness.

    THIS, and the need for competent judges on the court, is the reason it’s so important for the president to be a liberal. He or she must be willing and able to veto that sort of nonsense to protect the country from that kind of vengeful stupidity.

  • Rabbit_Rebozo

    “Again, I don’t spend a whole lot of time thinking about these things to be very honest.”

    There ya go, Ricky. FIFY.

    Sorry if this one has already been done. Been busy lately.

  • GlobalBeagle

    Amazing what happens when you put up a GOP candidate against someone who knows what they are talking about. They get taken apart and shown to be an idiot.

  • Basket of Vagendas

    the other local light show. The tiny little white building on the far left is the ‘Freedom Tower’

Previous articleSenate GOP Screwing Lady Veterans Out Of Having Babies, Because Planned Parenthood
Next articleDonald Trump Has YOOOOOOGE, Beautiful Plan To Elect Hillary Clinton President