1 Premiere?

2

I heard they are looking for a new catcher for the S.C.O.T.U.S. Softball Team.

I'm in if it's for the girls league. 

If it's a mixed league, I'd prefer to pitch.

To the Ladies.

3 Hey.Wheres.Barry

Being the father of a four-year-old, I know what you did there.

On topic:  I have mixed feelings about this one since the libtards are the more doctrinaire of the species and will start throwing rocks and worse through the windows of those who dare to challenge their orthodoxy.  It's a slippery slope to asshats like Queef and Schultz putting our names, photos and addresses on their idiotic shows.

4

The petition in question was an anti gay marriage petition here in Washington state and the pro gay marriage side made it clear they would get the names and addresses of the signers and find out who these people were and call employers and neighbors to let them know the signer is a bigot.

Not saying I agree or disagree with the decision or with the petition but just wanted to make sure it was clear, that is why this went to court.  For the record, I never signed, not sure I ever saw a petition.

5 Where the eff is the Bilski business method patents case?  Next week is last call for this term.  I'm starting to get a bad feeling about this one; they probably shouldn't have accepted cert in the first place.  Early prediction: CAFC is reversed and the SC blesses us with a new yet equally useless test for validity of such claims.

6 I like the theory, but we all know that the point of this "need for information" is really just a way to harass citizens who disagree with the statist orthodoxy.

7

The petition in question was an anti gay marriage petition here in Washington state and the pro gay marriage side made it clear they would get the names and addresses of the signers and find out who these people were and call employers and neighbors to let them know the signer is a bigot.

Justice Thomas is wrong. What the patriots need to do, when the Commiecrats try tactics like this, is to turn the tables. If one of those pinko groups called me about a neighbor, I would say "GOOD! You fucking commie goon!" 

8  and the pro gay marriage side made it clear they would get the names and addresses of the signers and find out who these people were and call employers and neighbors to let them know the signer is a bigot.

Well, just the white signers, right?

That worked out so well for them in California.

9 4

The petition in question was an anti gay marriage petition here in Washington state and the pro gay marriage side made it clear they would get the names and addresses of the signers and find out who these people were and call employers and neighbors to let them know the signer is a bigot.

Not saying I agree or disagree with the decision or with the petition but just wanted to make sure it was clear, that is why this went to court.  For the record, I never signed, not sure I ever saw a petition.

Exactly right. I am against this ruling, it will be used against petitioners in the workplace.

10 It's a slippery slope to asshats like Queef and Schultz putting our names, photos and addresses on their idiotic shows.

The moment that somebody exposed like that is killed by an angry mob is the beginning of open season on the jackasses who expose people like that.

11 O/T

Gabe, as our resident soccer moron, when will USA play again and has it be decided who we will lose to?  I saw something about winner of bracket D? 

Inquiring minds want to know.

12

It's a slippery slope to asshats like Queef and Schultz putting our names, photos and addresses on their idiotic shows.

The moment that somebody exposed like that is killed by an angry mob is the beginning of open season on the jackasses who expose people like that.

Exactly what I was thinking. If it comes to that, it's time to hunt *them* down. Of course the apparatchik media will side with the enemy, predictably.

13 Justice Thomas would disallow that and prevent all states from adopting disclosure laws.

Thomas's decisions frequently (though not frequently enough) show hostility to law as such. For a lawyer, that's very unusual. It's like he's almost human.

14 USA plays Ghana on Saturday, Kemp.

15 Well, just the Mormon white signers, right?

That worked out so well for them in California.

Just getting a little more accurate Heather.

16

AndrewsDad saw what Gabe did there.

Clarence Thomas is right. (He almost always is right.) Anonymity and public petitioning is inherently equivalent to the secret ballot. Signatures are needed only to prove that the signer exists, may vote, and didn't sign twice. For that they need to be hashed.

So Gabe: do states have the right to abolish the secret ballot, too? If not, why not? Doesn't everyone in Seattle, also, have the right to know who voted for the anti-gay candidate?

17 Exactly what I was thinking. If it comes to that, it's time to hunt *them* down. Of course the apparatchik media will side with the enemy, predictably.

Being my enemy's enemy does not make on my friend.

Being my enemy's friend certainly makes one my enemy.

Oddly, I happen to agree both with the majority decision and Justice Thomas' dissent.

I agree with the majority because intimidation *should* have no place in public policy participation.

I agree with Justice Thomas because *should* hasn't a motherfucking thing to do with anything.

18

Remembering how the donors to the California yes on Prop 8 (bans gay marraige) campaign were Intimidated, harrased, valdalzed and boycotted by the peace and love crowd gives some creedence to Justice Thomas' position.

Yes, I know that here's a difference between campaign contributions and petitions but the concept is the same, public disclosure carries with it some rish of the "chilling effect". 

19 Just getting a little more accurate Heather.

Oh, they threatened to kill non-Mormons, too.

20 I agree with Justice Thomas because *should* hasn't a motherfucking thing to do with anything.

Give that man a cigar and a lifetime supply of Krispy Kremes (which is about six BECAUSE of the Krispy Kremes).

21

#17: You know, that's a really good point. Thank you for making me think a second time.

That said, if the Left goons try to attack me, I'm gooning right back. It wouldn't be hard to find out where they live andwork, and what cars they drive, etc.

22 Down here in San Diego it was the Mormons that got the headlines for being "evil".

Didn't know about Fresno.

23 I haven't read the decision and I agree with Thomas because I have NEVER read a decision of dissent by him that I disagreed with.

He is, by far, the best justice on the court. If they were all like him we could take this country back and the Constitution would have meaning again.

24 O/T

Thanks for the soccer update.

The world is coming to an end.  Australia now has a Ginger PM!!

Oh the shame!

http://tinyurl.com/2dm9w5y

25 Let's hope that Alito's opinion in McDonald includes a statement to the effect that the Second Amendment protects the right of any petition signer to blow the fucking head off of anyone threatening him/her as a result of signing said petition, and Alito specifically references the Doe v. Reed case.

26

_{That said, if the Left goons try to attack me, I'm gooning right back. It wouldn't be hard to find out where they live andwork, and what cars they drive, etc.}

Hate Crimes for thee, but not for me!

27

Posted by: Zimriel at June 24, 2010 11:29 AM (9Sbz+)

Excellent point.  I would say, though, that privately funded organizations have such a right, but neither publicly funded orgs nor forcibly funded organizations, like unions, do.

28 This appeal was only about whether there was a blanket First Amendment prohibition on publicly disclosing petitions.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at June 24, 2010 11:45 AM (nPZxi)

If it is a private organization and it wishes to maintain anonymity for its petitioners, then, "Yes.  Of course."

29

Slovakia and Italy have a game for the ages going...

and I'm not a Soccer fan.

30 The mechanics of voting were left entirely up to the States except for the date of voting for centuries.

The Warren Court is the one who gave all the power to the feds for messing with elections.

Originally the States did set up their own methods of voting and the "secret ballot" worked its way into the system via that route. By the late 1800s all States had some type of secret ballot.

It has long been recognized as a needed feature to prevent intimidation and bribery of the voters.  Voting on petitions should be no different.   

But all that being said, it is not explicitly protected in the Constitution.

31

So Gabe: do states have the right to abolish the secret ballot, too? If not, why not? Doesn't everyone in Seattle, also, have the right to know who voted for the anti-gay candidate?

Posted by: Zimriel at June 24, 2010 11:29 AM (9Sbz+)

There is no Federal Right to a Secret ballot, and in fact, until about 1884 most States did NOT have Secret Ballots.  Heck, there were even States where you could vote by voice (oraly)...

Our voting system is WAY different than the ones the Founders created and used.

32 So does this mean that the State of WA can no longer withhold the names of people signing petitions on behalf of the Socialist Workers Party, which it does every election cycle, because to release those names would subject the signers to harrassment and intimidation and chill the political process by denying people their right to free association?

33 Between Thomas and Scalia, I know which way I'd go. I strongly recommend Scalia's concurring opinion. He wouldn't even allow the harassment claim to go back to the district court.

It's hard to get too enthused by Scalia's decision after seeing how viciously the "No H8" crowd attacked anyone in California with the temerity to want to give the majority of Californians a chance to express their majority opinion via a referendum vote. 

34 Have to agree with Gabe here. I'm not altogether sure the secret ballot should be as sacred as many people make it out to be. Despite all the political noise we have to sift through in society today, we're actually experiencing a shortage of honest debate.

35 I'm not altogether sure the secret ballot should be as sacred as many people make it out to be. Despite all the political noise we have to sift through in society today, we're actually experiencing a shortage of honest debate.

Posted by: The Black Republican at June 24, 2010 12:29 PM (Sz7G2)

Gabe makes a valid point, but federally, it comes down to a question of freedom of association.  One can argue that the states have the initial responsibility, and that only petitions by private groups feeling the need for privacy, in order to preserve freedom of association, should be heard at the federal level, case by case.

In any event, such a freedom doesn't apply to publicly funded organizations, period.  They have made themselves public by joining a publicly funded organization.  This applies to all orgs that are non-profits, except for religious organizations, that have their carve out in the freedom of religion as expressed.  A point to this, islam is not a religion and would fall under the same status as any other political organization, in this situation.

36 40 Have to agree with Gabe here. I'm not altogether sure the secret ballot should be as sacred as many people make it out to be.

Well, here's the problem.  If you work in a field dominated by "progressives," then it is virtually impossible to maintain your position or advance in your field if you are "outed" as a conservative.  It is not sufficient for a conservative to avoid political discussions in the office or not put a political bumper sticker on their car, not put up yard signs, or stay away from tea party rallies and the like, now we have to register as Independents, not donate to candidates of our choice, and not sign our names on ballot initiatives. 

Personally, I'm sick to death of it.  I am tired of being discriminated against at the workplace.  There is no protection for me because one's political affiliation is not a "protected class." 

If conservative groups employed the tactics that the No H8'ers used against the people for Prop 8 this past election, there'd be screaming and hyperventilating in the media and statehouses across this country.  But somehow what they did was fine and dandy. 

All it succeeded in doing in my case is take a person who was basically laissez-faire on the issue of gay marriage and put me firmly in the Prop 8 camp.  Good job, "activists!" 

37 That is most certainly not Thomas' position. He doesn't want the case-by-case determination (which is what C.J. Roberts and the majority held). He wants a blanket secrecy rule. Posted by: Gabriel Malor at June 24, 2010 12:50 PM (nPZxi) Yes. I tend to agree with you on Thomas, though I haven't read through the opinions, yet. I would prefer to keep the bulk of this issue with the states. People can always move to another state, which is the key pressure valve at the state level that the SCOTUS (and many Americans) seem to ignore far too often. I would even go back on my old argument and say that the freedom of association, federally, is not in jeaopardy, since one can move to a state that treats the types of private organizations better with respect to individual privacy of its signers.

38 Just read Scalia's concurrence and most of Thomas' dissent.

To play Captain Obvious....Nino Rocks.

39
Personally, I'm sick to death of it.  I am tired of being discriminated against at the workplace.  There is no protection for me because one's political affiliation is not a "protected class."

It's a one-way street.  That sucks.  I know personally.

Should the worm ever turn, strike while the iron is hot.

The golden rule is worthless because the other side will never hold themselves to it.  Go with the modified version:  "Do unto them before they can do unto you."

40

FYI... I did not see what Gabe was doing.... I was just providing insight into why this ended up in the courts.  The pro gay marriage side was very loud and clear that if you signed, they would get your name and visit your neighbors and place of work and make things difficult.

I could have voted either way, as it is not an issue I really care about but that attitude of if you dare use your right to vote or to sign, we will come after you, tipped me against the issue.

41 @47
Me, too. 

So I'm going to be moving from California to Utah later this year, not because it's a red state (who has the luxury of choosing where they'll live based on that in this economy?), but for my hubby's work.  Nevertheless, even though I was very careful to keep my political views to myself while living out here (hubby cannot afford to have an outed conservative as a spouse in his line of work and in this town), somehow (I assume because I donated to Fred Thompson and, later, to McCain-Palin) people seem to have figured it out... so the reactions are funny.  It's an "of course, you're a conservative that's why you're moving to Utah" thing.  Naturally, these "open-minded" lefties have lived in Deep Blue states and cities all their adult lives, but I'm somehow returning to the Mothership because the next state I'm going to live in is Deep Red. 

Really friggin' annoying. Especially since my field is academe, land of the Great Thinkers and Tolerants. 

Sorry to be so negative, but I have to say that we either need laws to protect people from the sorts of crap that the Gay Marriage Activists pulled last year or they need to include 'political affiliation' in the list of 'protected classes' in the workplace. 

42

Ok, a couple of quick thoughts here.

Personally I'm coming down on Scalia's side here, which really isn't much of a surprise because I think I've agreed with pretty much every opinion he's ever written.

My reasoning on this is simple, wrong remedy.  This shouldn't be one for the courts, it should be one for the legislature.  The First Amendment has been so badly bent out of shape by court decisions already that I'd hate to see it further abused.  It was never designed to protect one citizen from the actions of another, it was designed to prevent the Government from interfering with an individuals right to free speech in the legislative process.  We have other laws and remedys that can be used to protect on citizen from another, and those are what should be applied here, not the First Amendment.

If the people of the state of Washington think that those names should be kept secret, then it is up to them to pressure their legislators to pass a law that states that the names of petitioners will not be released - something I would have no problem supporting BTW.  But it's a matter for the state legislature to fix, not a matter for the courts.

Just my two cents worth.

 

43 17 AndrewsDad saw what Gabe did there.
Clarence Thomas is right. (He almost always is right.) Anonymity and public petitioning is inherently equivalent to the secret ballot. Signatures are needed only to prove that the signer exists, may vote, and didn't sign twice. For that they need to be hashed.
So Gabe: do states have the right to abolish the secret ballot, too? If not, why not? Doesn't everyone in Seattle, also, have the right to know who voted for the anti-gay candidate?
Posted by: Zimriel at June 24, 2010 11:29 AM (9Sbz+)

^THIS.^

44 Gabe is right to the extent that he says there's no federal constitutional right to a secret ballot, although I'm sure Anthony Kennedy could conjure one up out of the federal guarantee of republican government if he found a suitably sympathetic plaintiff. Of course, there's no meaningful distinction between being required to identify yourself on a petition and being required to disclose your vote. That tells you how nefarious this law is. Anyone who supports it is an asshole. (Not the same as calling everyone who agrees with the decision is an asshole). I'm looking forward to heating from liberals who think that requiring ID to cast a vote is one step short of burning a cross on someone's lawn. They doubtless love this laws applied, but I guarantee that they'll live to see the day they hate it. I must say that I'm a little surprised that there is no federal statue requiring a secret ballot (or is there?) Seems like the kind of thing that would be a no-brainer for the Voting Rights Act. I'm no proponent of federal power (Ace was off his rocker with his advocacy of federal laws telling people that they had to do business with people they didn't like), but it would seem that the secret ballot is necessary to guarantee voting rights to all.

45

Sorry to be so negative, but I have to say that we either need laws to protect people from the sorts of crap that the Gay Marriage Activists pulled last year or they need to include 'political affiliation' in the list of 'protected classes' in the workplace. 

No worries.  You've been living in the Land of the Libertards for some time now, hard not to get a little negative after that.  Allow me to be the first to welcome you back to the mothership. 

 

46 So Gabe: do states have the right to abolish the secret ballot, too?
Posted by: Zimriel at June 24, 2010 11:29 AM (9Sbz+)

Not to speak for Gabe but in my opinion...of course they can.

As Scalia ran through in his opinion, the secret ballot was a late 19th century invention in the US. It was enacted by statute and therefore it can be undone by one.

There's no mention of secret balloting in the Constitution.

47 There's no mention of secret balloting in the Constitution.

Cool.  Then we should have no problem with Card-Check when they ram that through.

48 Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 24, 2010 03:02 PM (XWkmI)

Not on constitutional grounds, no.

Don't get caught in the liberal trap that everything that is "good" is constitutional and everything that is "bad" is unconstitutional.

49 Cool.  Then we should have no problem with Card-Check when they ram that through.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at June 24, 2010 03:02 PM (XWkmI)

The problem with the unions isn't Card Check, but what comes after.  Card Check is just an attempt by unions to break one defense of civilization.  Closed shops are the big problem with unions.  They are un-Constitutional when they cross states.  In an individual state, it is left to the state to decide if they want to build a stalinist decay-driven hellhole.  But, then, the federal government isn't allowed to bail the state out when it runs itself completely into the ground.

50

Don't get caught in the liberal trap that everything that is "good" is constitutional and everything that is "bad" is unconstitutional.

Exactly, not everything is a Constitutional issue.  This being a good example I think.  The Constitution is designed to limit the power of the federal governmental, but sadly though it's been used and abused by so many really horrible court decisions over the years that all too often people want to enshrine their own pet cause as a "constitutional right" of some sort.

There are other remedies available for problems of this nature, including pressuring ones own State Legislature to enact laws to protect the identities of those who sign such petitions.

Ceding such power to the Federal Government and in particular allowing the Supreme Court to decide such matters via judicial fiat is a really, really bad idea.  I know it's happened far too much in the past already, we don't need to make matters worse by allowing that sort of thing to continue.

 

51 I inherited that sock.

52

If you don't understand why the secret ballot is fundamental to modern democracy, picture a government stormtrooper with his rifle leveled at you watching which box you put your ballot in, and a pile of bodies of those who chose poorly.  That's an extreme case, but it still happens in places where UN supervision of an election is actually a plus. 

More realistically, picture your boss requiring that you prove that you voted the progressive way on every issue if you want to keep your job: only the fact that it's not logistically possible prevents it from happening today.

It might be time for a congressional amendment on this one.

53

More realistically, picture your boss requiring that you prove that you voted the progressive way on every issue if you want to keep your job: only the fact that it's not logistically possible prevents it from happening today.

It might be time for a congressional amendment on this one.

Posted by: lgw at June 24, 2010 03:55 PM (EY+Ll)

An employer should have very wide latitude in how he runs his private business.  Personally, I love it when libtard employers kill their own businesses by firing non-libtards.

54 Personally, I love it when libtard employers kill their own businesses by firing non-libtards.

Sounds great in theory, but in practice the result is control of the MSM, schools, and universities by liberals.  How's that working for us? 

55 Harassment can be resolved by a 30-06.  I'm entitled to my opinion, just as you are to yours.  You want to start giving me a hard time by 'visiting' afterhours to make your point; make sure you filled out a toe-tag.  It will help the coroner in the identification.

56

Great. The Supremes just the sold the gays more rope to hang/autoerotically asphyxiate themselves with.

This will go well.