June 26, 2013
— Ace I was intrigued by AllahPundit's characterization of the holding:
Forget the gay-marriage stuff for a second and focus on the process. Am I right in understanding that the Court’s now essentially held that if the people of a state pass a popular referendum on whatever subject and then that referendum is challenged and struck down at the trial-court level, they have no right to appeal? They get one bite at the apple and then, if the executive decides he doesn’t like the referendum enough to choose to appeal it himself, there’s nothing a single member of the public can do to ask an appellate court to reconsider the lower court’s decision — even though many millions of voters voted directly to enact the law? That seems … odd.
Could this be the case? Has the Supreme Court ruled that citizens have no rights vis a vis the permanent political class when that class chooses to ignore their popular (I mean that in the neutral, technical sense) intitiatives and referendums?
Consider the entire point of the initiative and referendum mechanism: It exists as a safety valve by which the citizenry can bypass or overrule the permanent political class if the permanent political class refuses to accede to actual popular will. (And there I meant popular in the non-neutral sense.)
In the matter of Prop 8, the citizens passed an amendment. The permanent political class of the government did not like this amendment, and ignored it. That class refused to make the case in favor of the amendment when another member of the permanent political class, a federal district judge, struck it down as unconstitutional. Now the proponents of the amendment come forward before other members of the permanent political class to argue that, because no other members of the permanent political class are willing to argue in favor of the constitutionality of an amendment the citizens passed, and this latest tribunal of the permanent political class -- the Supreme Court -- tells them no, only members of the permanent political class are authorized to plead on behalf a a citizen-promulgated amendment.
The dissent* doesn't speak of a permanent political class per se, but he does speak of the Court's championing of elected officials versus citizen petitioners:
The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied. The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation.
What an outrageous situation! The whole point of the initiative system is to bypass the elected representatives and pass the sorts of laws the permanent political class does not like but the actual citizens do, and the Supreme Court has effectively ruled this system to be a nullity -- because the exact same permanent political class the citizens sought to bypass can render any initiative inoperative by refusing to recognize it and by refusing to defend it in court.
The permanent political class apparently has the power of veto over the citizenry -- no matter what state law may say about the initiative process or the rights of the proponents of an initiative to defend it in court, it is now, supposedly, the law of the land that the federal government invalidates such rights and claws them back in favor of the permanent political class' right to rule.
Extraordinary. An extraordinary claim for any American to make, let alone five in concert.
*Corrected: I said this was "Scalia's dissent." How wrong I was. He voted with the majority. Kennedy wrote this dissent, joined by Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor, who, if I had to guess, wanted to rule on the actual law in order to say gay marriage was required under the Constitution.
Now that I see that, I wonder what's going on here. I wonder if the majority opinion isn't a bit of gamesmanship written in order to preclude a different majority from ruling that gay marriage is the law of the entire country if the decision were to reach the merits.
On the "Permanent Political Class:" Some may object that there is no permanent political class -- we hold elections. Some representatives are beaten, others take the office. Judges retire or die and are replaced by other judges.
But that speaks to individuals. Individual representatives of the class are not permanent, as no human being is permanent. But the class itself endures and is eternal.
Or, perhaps, so it imagines.
Posted by: Ace at
10:57 AM
| Comments (316)
Post contains 811 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 11:00 AM (/PCJa)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 11:00 AM (/PCJa)
Posted by: Yip at June 26, 2013 11:00 AM (/jHWN)
Posted by: Buzzion at June 26, 2013 11:01 AM (JPULT)
Finally, an opinion at AoS that I actually care to read.
(Well, not to read, but you get the point.)
Posted by: soothsayer at June 26, 2013 11:01 AM (yhYn1)
Posted by: Lauren at June 26, 2013 11:01 AM (wsGWu)
Posted by: David, infamous sockpuppet[/i][/u][/b][/s] at June 26, 2013 11:01 AM (jvdNh)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 11:01 AM (/PCJa)
Posted by: major major major major at June 26, 2013 11:02 AM (MUhs0)
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp at June 26, 2013 11:02 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Joe at June 26, 2013 11:02 AM (TQaK3)
Posted by: Lauren at June 26, 2013 11:02 AM (wsGWu)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 26, 2013 11:04 AM (ZshNr)
As much as I'm disheartened due to the fact that I supported Prop 8, what's discussed here is what I find the most troubling about the whole thing. The duly elected officials of the state have refused to carry out the duties that they've sworn to perform. The court case is acknowledged to have been largely a farce with a judge that was clearly hostile to one party and had little interest in performing an unbiased (or even minimally biased) hearing. And the reaction of the Supreme Court is essentially to say, "Too bad."
Posted by: junior at June 26, 2013 11:04 AM (UWFpX)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the California supreme court said Prop 8 is constitutional. A federal district judge overturned it, and the US supreme court refused to reinstate it. Beyond the fact that the supreme court ignored the district judge's blatantly illegal actions in working with the plaintiffs during the trial, the resulting decision makes no sense whatsoever.
Essentially, if my facts are correct, the supreme court said that the federal government has to accept how a state can define marriage, while allowing a federal district judge's decision to stand over the California supreme court.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at June 26, 2013 11:05 AM (ItDg4)
Let's say the Walker recall had been successful but the Walker administration had refused to enforce the outcome of the recall, is it correct to assume that the citizens of Wisconsin would not have had standing in federal court to challenge Walker's refusal to enforce those results?
If so, the smug, preening, low info crowd might live to regret this ruling as well.
Posted by: Kim at June 26, 2013 11:05 AM (ICqvM)
Posted by: Joethefatman™ (@joethefatman1) at June 26, 2013 11:06 AM (MnSla)
So, we officially became subjects who need to know our place today?
I have a problem with that. Yes I do.
Posted by: Invictus at June 26, 2013 11:08 AM (OQpzc)
Posted by: RiverC at June 26, 2013 11:09 AM (El+h4)
Posted by: Yip at June 26, 2013 11:09 AM (/jHWN)
If we don't like your vote, it doesn't count.
Posted by: CA gay judges at June 26, 2013 11:09 AM (wAQA5)
Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are traditional Justices who defer to precedent without compelling reason and cross over individually at times.
Kennedy and Roberts are human weathervanes who try to find comity with Roberts "valuing perception of the court"(perversely he may fuinctionally be more liberal than Kennedy) They cross over based on which nut itches at a given time and weigh "issues"
Then you have the moonbat wing whom I can barely type their names.
Guess what? They are a solid block you can count the crossovers from them on one maybe at best two hands, they could give three fucks about precedence and sequential impact analysis except as fig leaves and they are functionally issues voters in black robes. The simple nature of the math involved in the block breaking means they get their way more often than not.
What is at stake here is the safeguarding of State sovereignty, and the actual underlying structure of our Constitutional Republic but only 3 and a half people play that game.
This is not simple "sour grapes" either, I do hope those of you here who know me have taken note I am being mostly serious, not very cryptic and decidedly on point. I'll be traveling I'm logging within the 1/2 hour or maybe hour and I'll be scarce and if on at all only for narrow windows.
This week was a rather serious week, and has pretty much confirmed for me that there will be no stopping the democrat agenda.
The left gets to play an overtly partisan game on the courts aided by Kagan and Sotomayer and their overtly partisan preference is enabled by John McCain and Roberts and Kennedy's presence was essentially forced by the likes of Schumer....
There is no way in hell we'll ever get another Scalia through unless the person is a moron who is closeted and pulls a ringer and to prevent that the moonbats nominate people with shit resumes who are true believers.
The democrats are going for the throat post 2000 and we are not even playing the game.
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 11:10 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: ace at June 26, 2013 11:10 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp at June 26, 2013 11:10 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: © Sponge at June 26, 2013 11:11 AM (xmcEQ)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 26, 2013 11:11 AM (lVPtV)
Posted by: Truest believer at June 26, 2013 11:12 AM (8esY+)
Posted by: DangerGirl, getting angrier by the day at June 26, 2013 11:12 AM (4+PCd)
Posted by: ace at June 26, 2013 03:10 PM (LCRYB)
We're just all glad you're alive.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 26, 2013 11:12 AM (lVPtV)
Posted by: ace at June 26, 2013 03:10 PM (LCRYB)
=========
At least you read your own post, unlike congress
Posted by: Notachanceinhell at June 26, 2013 11:12 AM (jJA/4)
Posted by: zsasz at June 26, 2013 11:12 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 11:12 AM (/PCJa)
. But I am disgusted by the Court's reasoning (finding a "haters gonna hate" clause in the Constitution). I fully recognize the right of the people to vote against immoral behavior. After all, they have the right to ban some of the horde's favorite pasttimes: prostitution, gambling, and public nudity.
If I, as a dude, now have a right to marry another dude... How come I don't have a right to pay that dude $50 for a handy?Posted by: wooga at June 26, 2013 11:13 AM (g5pk2)
Posted by: X at June 26, 2013 11:13 AM (KHo8t)
Posted by: © Sponge at June 26, 2013 11:13 AM (xmcEQ)
The traditional judicial response is: If you don't like your elected representatives, then elect new ones. The real world: Diktat by means of a regulatory avalanche enforced by unionized government workers, IRS vs. Tea Party electoral disenfranchisement, etc. ...
Posted by: mrp at June 26, 2013 11:14 AM (HjPtV)
Posted by: Skandia Recluse at June 26, 2013 11:14 AM (NvVUX)
Thanks. I kind of wondered why I had been sent to an area to comment on a post that wasn't there anymore.
Posted by: Joethefatman™ (@joethefatman1) at June 26, 2013 11:14 AM (MnSla)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 26, 2013 11:14 AM (+98Gb)
Posted by: Jean at June 26, 2013 11:14 AM (CMlD4)
Posted by: T. at June 26, 2013 11:15 AM (kvyeG)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at June 26, 2013 11:15 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp at June 26, 2013 11:15 AM (bb5+k)
Still hasn't ever bothered to call Chris Kyle's widow.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 26, 2013 11:15 AM (lVPtV)
Except that the people did "fix it at the ballot box," exactly the way they were supposed to. Then some liberal D-bag in a black dress decided that s/h/it could decide if a Constitutional Amendment was constitutional.
^^This^^ This is the whole fucking problem. It's the same problem I had with Obammy's "administration" refusing to prosecute DOMA-related cases (back in the halcyon days before DOMA was unconstitutional) on the grounds that they just didn't like the law.
Fuck that! Too bad! If you don't like it, change it!
That's just what teh people in CA did with Prop 8. And their elected officials and black-cloaked judges thumbed there noses at the people and told them to eat shit and like it.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/b][/u][/i] at June 26, 2013 11:15 AM (4df7R)
What, you don't expect them to work more than a couple weeks a year, do you? Meanie.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 26, 2013 11:16 AM (SY2Kh)
I explained in part Scalia's actions in my long post.
I am not simply "excuse making" for all the bluff and bluster understand that Scalia procedurally likely made the correct call, he was sincere in hating the impact. That is the action of a principled by classic standards Justice. I'll bet you a 100 gallons of ValuRite Kagan would never do the same.
That *is* the difference.
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 11:16 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 26, 2013 11:16 AM (ZshNr)
Posted by: Colin Kaepernick at June 26, 2013 11:17 AM (+iA5G)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at June 26, 2013 11:17 AM (XIxXP)
And SCOAMF has a little over 3 years to nominate more justices, not just on the SCOTUS but all over the place. And no one in the GOP will oppose them.
We're heading straight to Hell. And as time passes, there will be very few palatable options for us if we want to even begin to reverse course.
It's gonna get painful and I fear bloody.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at June 26, 2013 03:14 PM (+98Gb)
Don't be afraid of the burning time.
Posted by: The Jackhole at June 26, 2013 11:18 AM (nTgAI)
I believe that was the case with the election of Bush, for instance.
Now, of course, it's perfectly fine because they benefit from precisely that which they occasionally declare 'immoral' when it suits them.
Posted by: SGT. York at June 26, 2013 11:18 AM (X1kG8)
Posted by: Jean at June 26, 2013 03:14 PM (CMlD4)
-
I have a better question. How does a federal district judge have the right to declare a state constitutional amendment on marriage unconstitutional, when the supreme court just today said that the federal government has to recognize a state's definition of marriage?
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at June 26, 2013 11:18 AM (ItDg4)
Posted by: logprof at June 26, 2013 11:19 AM (+iA5G)
Posted by: Politicians and Judges at June 26, 2013 11:19 AM (Zs83Q)
I dislike lawyers enough to not care whether our lawyers are outsmarting their lawyers, or what this opinion means or that.
They're not following the law. Whichever side. Both sides.
Screw all of them. The tipping point will come, and when it does old men (and women) in robes won't be making decisions anymore. Their bloated corpses will be on the pile, along with 70-90% of the rest of the human race.
Posted by: BurtTC at June 26, 2013 11:19 AM (TOk1P)
Whether you thought the birth certificate brohauha was valid or not, the issue of not giving anyone standing in that matter should have started the outrage prior to this Supreme Court ruling.
Essentially they are putting up a subjective roadblock.
Posted by: polynikes at June 26, 2013 11:19 AM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Red Shirt at June 26, 2013 11:19 AM (FIDMq)
Posted by: Flatbush Joe at June 26, 2013 11:19 AM (ZPrif)
Posted by: Jean at June 26, 2013 03:14 PM (CMlD4)
-
I have a better question. How does a federal district judge have the right to declare a state constitutional amendment on marriage unconstitutional, when the supreme court just today said that the federal government has to recognize a state's definition of marriage?
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at June 26, 2013 03:18 PM (ItDg4)
This is what I don't get ^
Posted by: The Jackhole at June 26, 2013 11:19 AM (nTgAI)
Posted by: toby928© presents at June 26, 2013 11:20 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp at June 26, 2013 11:20 AM (bb5+k)
...called a "narrow majority" and "immoral" by Leftists.
Yesterday.
Posted by: SGT. York at June 26, 2013 11:20 AM (X1kG8)
Which is precisely the issue. I did not realize if it is in fact the case that they nuked standing but allowed the Federal Court's ruling to stand. If so it's an insane ruling.
They allowed a Federal judge to strike a state's amendatory process while simultaneously arguing the DOMA was interference in a State matter...
the gymnastics and stretching of legal and precedentary theory means functionally you have NO IDEA what will be legal in 12 years based on the braying of a cult of victimhood.
This is why the liberals have won the battle and probably the war and I am resigned to divorce.
I just hope as it dawns on people we are largely now living in a slighltly controlled authoritarian state they vote with their feet and start pushing for at least nullification if not divorce.
Understand something though, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are not going to be nullification's friend.
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 11:20 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Joethefatman™ (@joethefatman1) at June 26, 2013 11:21 AM (MnSla)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at June 26, 2013 11:21 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 26, 2013 03:14 PM (lVPtV)
Same here and it's not a healthy feeling for me or the country. Somebody within the last few days said that a controversial decision like this is delivered on the last day the court is in session so they can skip town and miss all the fallout. That strikes me as a very cowardly way to do things. These fucking robed tyrants expect people like us to be all chock full of sympathy for them when the JEF acts like ghetto trash toward them in the SOTU and then they pull shit like this? This feeling of rage needs an outlet; for now bitching about it here is all that's happened but it's not nearly as satisfying as something needs to be. The concept of the country being the land of the free is increasingly a vague memory and nobody seems to be happy about it, even the fucking libs.
Posted by: Captain Hate at June 26, 2013 11:21 AM (ZsghO)
Posted by: Minnfidel at June 26, 2013 11:21 AM (PihNI)
yes only Rush can read a court opinion; the rest of us are utterly incapable of reading opinions and drawing conclusions, and can only Ditto Rush. Obviously Allah ripped him off.
Hero worship, it's a hell of a drug.
Posted by: ace at June 26, 2013 11:21 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Andrew at June 26, 2013 11:22 AM (HS3dy)
According to the piece at NRO I read this morning, the Supreme Court's decision appears to mean that the case needs to be remanded down to the district court, at which point, since the State Executive refuses to do his job and attempt to defend Prop 8, there will be a summary judgement for the plaintiffs (i.e. those who wish to overturn it).
Personally, I think this decision is as troubling as the whole IRS mess at the Federal level. In this case, the executive clearly and blatantly is ignoring the duties of their job - i.e. the duties that they were elected for. Further, the initial court case is acknowledged by virtually everyone to have been a complete farce and a joke, with a judge who was blatantly heavily biased against one side of the trial. And the reaction of the Supreme Court is basically, "So?"
Posted by: junior at June 26, 2013 11:22 AM (UWFpX)
The Court, Congress, and Executive branch acts capriciously.
Posted by: soothsayer at June 26, 2013 03:20 PM (Ba6aP)
"Oh, Capricious? Yeeah, ahm a Pissy. Yah know, the fish consolation. Wanna hook up?"
-The Zimmerman Trial prosecution's "star witness"
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/b][/u][/i] at June 26, 2013 11:22 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 11:22 AM (/PCJa)
I agree. I think the only way he gains is if Kennedy dies but he will get to nominate the lunatic left's replacements. Scalia will die on the bench first as will ALito and Thomas and Roberts is young.
The nation is heading towards a winner takes all kleptocracy boys.
Buckle up
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 11:22 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Arms Merchant at June 26, 2013 11:22 AM (HBAcW)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at June 26, 2013 11:22 AM (XIxXP)
Today's word is: Capricious
The Court, Congress, and Executive branch act capriciously.
As Levin pointed out, there are about two to three-thousand people, most of whom are unelected, who really run this nation. We The People are merely pawns in their chess game of desire and whimsy.
Posted by: soothsayer at June 26, 2013 11:22 AM (1WM2H)
Posted by: ace at June 26, 2013 11:23 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: EC at June 26, 2013 11:23 AM (GQ8sn)
It is scarier than the IRS, NSA, and foreign policy issues...
understand something if a Republican goes to the court and pleads "waaaah I's being oppressed" he will not get aid from "his" justices in the way democrats do...
just the nature of the psychology of the game...
we're fucked
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 11:23 AM (LRFds)
What we have now no longer resembles a republic. It is a post constitutional state in which the auspices of power have been corrupted an stolen by a fifth column within our government. It is tyranny of a majority who have use that office to install a permanent, subversive force which ensures the gradual, but continual destruction of democracy over time.
Apparently now SCOTUS, whose votes we can predict largely based on not just political oreientation, but more importantly denizens who want to ensure its continuance, relvance and ultimately corrupt place in our republic, has become part of that column base.
Self interest and corruption now occupy the place that was once held by the citizens who still rightly own this government- but not for long. With the crumbling of any rightful opposition from places like the Republican Party, whose job it once was to offset the gradual march towards despotism, we are finished as a democratic republic. We now have to steal back what was rightly ours to begin with. And I do not see anyone fit to lead that charge.
Posted by: Marcus at June 26, 2013 11:24 AM (GGCsk)
Posted by: Nino at June 26, 2013 11:24 AM (eyuLr)
a majority involving Kennedy and Sotomayor (who were both in the dissent) and the other liberals and, who knows, perhaps even Roberts, if he felt the "standing of the court" depended on a liberal ruling.
Posted by: ace at June 26, 2013 11:24 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 11:24 AM (/PCJa)
Posted by: toby928© presents at June 26, 2013 11:24 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/b][/u][/i] at June 26, 2013 11:24 AM (4df7R)
@65
But how can Odin not be a proper posse member with only one eye. I guess he does have the whole "turn into a crow" thing. Maybe he's not dead and just odinsleeping.
Posted by: Jollyroger at June 26, 2013 11:24 AM (t06LC)
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp at June 26, 2013 11:25 AM (bb5+k)
(third edition)
Today's word is: Capricious
The Court, Congress, and Executive branch act capriciously.
As Levin pointed out, there are about two to three-thousand people, most of whom are unelected, who really run this nation. We The People are merely pawns in their chess game of desire and whimsy.
Posted by: soothsayer at June 26, 2013 11:25 AM (ZgBZU)
-The Zimmerman Trial prosecution's "star witness"
Can't listen but I went over and looked at the video. My Lord, it's like the Fridge in drag only not as attractive.
Posted by: Infidel at June 26, 2013 11:25 AM (O/fK8)
Posted by: Minnfidel at June 26, 2013 03:21 PM (PihNI)
So what the hell was the court's ruling in Bush vs. Gore all about, then?
Posted by: Arms Merchant at June 26, 2013 11:25 AM (HBAcW)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 11:26 AM (/PCJa)
Posted by: Waldo at June 26, 2013 11:26 AM (RZwdH)
I thought the guy who struck it down was a state court guy, the gay judge who didn't recuse himself. The 9th circuit (!!!) struck down his ruling, the Supremes struck down the 9th.
Posted by: Jean at June 26, 2013 11:26 AM (CMlD4)
Hey where'd I put that old thing?
Posted by: A Dog Missing His Bone at June 26, 2013 11:26 AM (LCRYB)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at June 26, 2013 11:26 AM (V1ZIU)
Anyone else feel like foregoing the celebrations this year?
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at June 26, 2013 03:24 PM (4df7R)
Funny you should mention that. I'm not looking forward to the annual fireworks and celebration. And if I were to run into one of the smug liberals I know, I'm afraid of what I might say.
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 26, 2013 11:26 AM (lVPtV)
"Veritas" is so old school.
Posted by: ChristyBlinky, radicalized Redneck Queen at June 26, 2013 11:27 AM (baL2B)
@104
No. I love America, the idea not the place. I love what that day stands for. I love the document signed on that day (or two days before, whatever.)
What we now see is not those things, but I shall not forget what America is even if those who claim to represent her have. I, and those like me, are her true sons.
Posted by: Jollyroger at June 26, 2013 11:27 AM (t06LC)
"I think SCOTUS means if you want to fix this problem, fix it at the ballot box, not in the courts."
Works better when Jugears McFuckstick hasn't weaponized the IRS, EPA, NSA, and DoJ and pretty much stolen elections via fraud.
So what does that leave us with? An option the Lefties really won't like, since they're not used to their opponent punching back ...
Let. It. Burn.
Posted by: acethepug at June 26, 2013 11:27 AM (4kvfA)
yeah old sailor deciding allah had "ripped off" Rush.
If you disagree with Rush, you're a treasonous RINO;
If you agree with Rush, you're a plagiarist.
Posted by: ace at June 26, 2013 11:27 AM (LCRYB)
It's also the actions of and yes I'll say it men who look in the mirror and think they're honorable in holding on to the old game of Republic. Byrd perversely was a democrat version for a long time and now McCain is ours. Main difference is we're past the tipping point and our coalition by its nature is vulnerable to the democrat passion plays.
Not picking on Gabe is a dickish way, but he highlights why we're fucked as do the small (l) over all libertarians.
And I am not saying you can't disagree with socons nor they the ficons etc what I am saying is our individual passion for and understanding of the Republic means we are vulnerable to schism.
I will try to read here for people's thoughts on it, but I don't have an answer for that vulnerability but I assure you a "never ending game of run left" is not gonna save us electorally nor will amnesty.
The Republic is being defended by one part of one side.
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 11:27 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 11:28 AM (/PCJa)
Anyone else feel like foregoing the celebrations this year?
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at June 26, 2013 03:24 PM (4df7R)
I haven't felt like going for the last few years; in part because the last two have been interrupted by flash mob activities which can't be a mere coincidence with who is running the country.
Posted by: Captain Hate at June 26, 2013 11:28 AM (ZsghO)
How da fluck is this witness helping the prosecution's case? She's dumber than a sack of mackerel, she keeps sticking her tongue out, and can't stop scratching her right leg. Defense is tearing her up.
Posted by: Sticky Wicket at June 26, 2013 11:29 AM (qoQi/)
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp>>
I'm re-posting this because it bears repeating.
25 yeas ago this month I graduated high school. This is not the same country it was then. And there is no country on this planet that presents a preferable alternative.
I fear the Great Experiment has been deliberately sabotaged.
The Party I grew up believing in no longer distinguishes itself from the Party I knew to be in the wrong.
The deliberate erosion of freedom continues unabated...
...and we sit at our computers and let it happen.
Posted by: SGT. York at June 26, 2013 11:29 AM (X1kG8)
Well said.
That's it in a nutshell, and the states where the prevailing idea is Republicanism not "GOPism" will eventually have to decide to adapt, leave, or get pol;owed under.
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 11:30 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at June 26, 2013 11:30 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: EC at June 26, 2013 11:30 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Truest believer at June 26, 2013 11:30 AM (8esY+)
What's going to be interesting to see, assuming some of us will live long enough to see it, will be the extent to which the divide comes down to believers in an afterlife vs. those who don't.
Those who believe will not be troubled by the end of civilization, once it comes. Those who don't will be fighting its end, because it's all they have.
Posted by: BurtTC at June 26, 2013 11:30 AM (TOk1P)
we need people who will know what to do legally and structurally to pick up the pieces.
Our nation does have enemies and a financial crash can only do so much harm to them.
Posted by: RiverC at June 26, 2013 11:30 AM (El+h4)
Here's what's gonna happen.
Amnesty passes. Obama runs again in 2016 and easily wins (Yes, Obama will be put on the ballot in every state that he won in 2012). The Court, after the election, will not overturn the election.
Posted by: soothsayer at June 26, 2013 11:30 AM (KwX0v)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 11:31 AM (/PCJa)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/b][/u][/i] at June 26, 2013 11:31 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: La grumpy spypeacha at June 26, 2013 11:31 AM (0n1+D)
Right...if you have contacts with either Legal Insurrection, SCOTUS Blog, or Judicial Watch I am wondering if a heat map has ever been made comparing the breakdown I highlighted in my loner post?
You and I are about 95% in agreement on this.
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 11:31 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: EC at June 26, 2013 11:31 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at June 26, 2013 11:31 AM (XIxXP)
I thought the guy who struck it down was a state court guy, the gay judge who didn't recuse himself. The 9th circuit (!!!) struck down his ruling, the Supremes struck down the 9th.
--------------
No, he was a Federal Judge.
Posted by: junior at June 26, 2013 11:31 AM (UWFpX)
Posted by: seaniep at June 26, 2013 11:32 AM (mHol2)
As long as the people have no concrete, direct interest in what their government does; then the political state will be dominated by those with specific interests. Hence, end withholding.
Posted by: Jean at June 26, 2013 11:32 AM (CMlD4)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at June 26, 2013 03:22 PM (XIxXP)
Well ... I'm still a bit shocked by Drew M. using a Sarah Palin quote to attack Rubio. Times change, eh?
Posted by: mrp at June 26, 2013 11:32 AM (HjPtV)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at June 26, 2013 11:32 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: Paladin at June 26, 2013 11:32 AM (YNPwP)
Posted by: Waldo at June 26, 2013 11:32 AM (RZwdH)
Posted by: Soona at June 26, 2013 11:33 AM (i15Z+)
Posted by: toby928© presents at June 26, 2013 03:24 PM (QupBk)
Yes I've felt liberated ever since I've accepted and started to live by the motto, 'every man for themselves' . That's not saying I will never assist anyone in need but its my choice and I will not feel guilty if my decision is not to help.
Posted by: polynikes at June 26, 2013 11:33 AM (m2CN7)
Posted by: RWC at June 26, 2013 11:33 AM (fWAjv)
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at June 26, 2013 11:33 AM (XIxXP)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at June 26, 2013 11:33 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: toby928© presents at June 26, 2013 11:34 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: Zombie Philadelphia Collins at June 26, 2013 11:34 AM (+iA5G)
we need people who will know what to do legally and structurally to pick up the pieces.
This. This is the part of LIB that worries me. Burning is easy. It's what to do AFTER the burning, when people need to wake up in the morning and get on with the business of living, that has me worried.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/b][/u][/i] at June 26, 2013 11:34 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: rickb223 at June 26, 2013 11:34 AM (xZxMD)
Not excuse making once I bed down I'll reanalyze everything.
I'm preparing to make a PCS move by destroying dead sensitive paperwork and winnowing out non sensitive dead paperwork.
Isn't the result that the SCofCA knocked it down, the Federal Court concurred, and the Supremes said "no standing AND we defer to the Federal court"
I'll read harder when I bed down tonight....
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 11:34 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Sticky Wicket
---------------
Is this her? From this morning's thread: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/twitter/rachel-jeantel-758403
Posted by: Mike Hammer at June 26, 2013 11:35 AM (aDwsi)
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp at June 26, 2013 03:02 PM (bb5+k)
and they're already burning our crops (in the name of gaia)
Posted by: Tuco at June 26, 2013 11:35 AM (Pr6hk)
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp at June 26, 2013 11:35 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Waldo at June 26, 2013 11:35 AM (RZwdH)
Posted by: AmishDude at June 26, 2013 11:35 AM (FpzZf)
Posted by: Kelly Kapoor at June 26, 2013 11:36 AM (+iA5G)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/b][/u][/i] at June 26, 2013 11:36 AM (4df7R)
Amnesty passes. Obama runs again in 2016 and easily wins (Yes, Obama will be put on the ballot in every state that he won in 2012). The Court, after the election, will not overturn the election.
I will laugh as I'm loading my weapons.
Posted by: EC at June 26, 2013 03:31 PM (GQ8sn)
I'm with you.
Posted by: The Jackhole at June 26, 2013 11:36 AM (nTgAI)
Posted by: rickb223 at June 26, 2013 11:36 AM (xZxMD)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at June 26, 2013 11:36 AM (wR+pz)
"Ah confoosed."
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 26, 2013 11:36 AM (lVPtV)
Posted by: The Democrats at June 26, 2013 11:37 AM (Lljg2)
One problem with the Ruling Class is that all their rules are unruly. You might think you know what the law is today but you cannot predict with any certainty what it will be tomorrow.
Yes, there's a word for this...
Posted by: soothsayer at June 26, 2013 11:37 AM (yhYn1)
Posted by: toby928© presents at June 26, 2013 03:34 PM (QupBk)
Paula Deen had no idea when she woke up earlier this week that she would be identified as "the enemy" and things would go downhill rapidly. She had done all the right things, quite different than I would do for example, and thought she was on the "right side". And then she wasn't...
Posted by: Captain Hate at June 26, 2013 11:37 AM (ZsghO)
Posted by: mrshad at June 26, 2013 11:37 AM (Xqfwb)
Posted by: SGT. York at June 26, 2013 03:31 PM (X1kG
--------------------------------------
You're late. It's been burning since 9/11/2001.
Posted by: Soona at June 26, 2013 11:37 AM (i15Z+)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 11:37 AM (/PCJa)
Serious Cat:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-live-video-day-3-states-witnesses/
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/b][/u][/i] at June 26, 2013 11:37 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: logprof at June 26, 2013 11:37 AM (+iA5G)
Posted by: Waldo at June 26, 2013 11:38 AM (RZwdH)
Allah is a real-life friend of Ace's. He also used to be the funniest SOB on the Internet, back before Hot Gas existed.
Nowadays of course he's a corporate 9-5 RINO for hire and Iowahawk is the funniest SOB on the Internet, but I still afford him some respect for the old days.
Posted by: Ian S. at June 26, 2013 11:38 AM (B/VB5)
Posted by: Waldo at June 26, 2013 03:38 PM (RZwdH)
Shee-gah, she's mumbling and huffing like a toddler caught with her hand on the cookie jar.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/b][/u][/i] at June 26, 2013 11:38 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: RWC at June 26, 2013 11:39 AM (fWAjv)
Posted by: Waldo at June 26, 2013 11:39 AM (RZwdH)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at June 26, 2013 11:39 AM (V1ZIU)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at June 26, 2013 11:39 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 26, 2013 11:39 AM (lVPtV)
Posted by: Mil-Dot at June 26, 2013 11:39 AM (Cs2tJ)
Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 26, 2013 11:39 AM (QLNHI)
The market is having a positive day. The balloons will be dropping from the ceiling at CNBC studios in 21 minutes.
And Gold is losing nearly 4%!
Posted by: soothsayer at June 26, 2013 11:39 AM (vanqS)
Yup...and democrats in the "non partisan" civil service at state and federal levels since then have decided that no GOP election can be legitimate and further we have no right to Republic defense of our minority rights.
They weaponized the media, the civil service, the academy, and to a degree even the business sector to crush the potential to stop their agenda....and the agenda leans more to Kos than to Clinton.
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 11:39 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/b][/u][/i] at June 26, 2013 11:40 AM (4df7R)
------------
Yes. That is/was a problem for the Chinese after the 'Cultural Revolution'. All of the professional types (doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc.) were taken out of circulation by 're-education camps'. Later, the Chinese discovered that the Progressives, didn't know/understand shit about shit.
If, in fact, the burning times come. I do not believe it will matter much, because the Chinese will have stepped into our void, and assumed control of everything.
Posted by: Mike Hammer at June 26, 2013 11:40 AM (aDwsi)
Behold!
Posted by: mrp at June 26, 2013 11:40 AM (HjPtV)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at June 26, 2013 11:40 AM (wR+pz)
Yup...I am thrilled that Iowahawk has caught on like he has.
Baldilocks, and several of us ran in a pack at the turn of the century....
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 11:40 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: T. at June 26, 2013 11:40 AM (kvyeG)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at June 26, 2013 11:41 AM (wR+pz)
197 -
Some of us used to read Allah, when he had his own site. He was funny, he was entertaining. He was human. This version, I don't know what it is. He seems to have purposefully given up some of his humanity.
I feel sorry for him.
Posted by: BurtTC at June 26, 2013 11:41 AM (TOk1P)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, in his happy place at June 26, 2013 11:41 AM (zUi7I)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at June 26, 2013 11:42 AM (wR+pz)
Yup it is his perogative, NSA may have caught the CJCS expressing reservations about our strategic plan such as it is on a personal call....
can't have doubt or Bambibelle can't fly
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 11:42 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at June 26, 2013 11:42 AM (V1ZIU)
Posted by: Lincolntf at June 26, 2013 11:42 AM (ZshNr)
Posted by: EC at June 26, 2013 03:31 PM (GQ8sn)
No, late in 2015 Kennedy retires, Obama nominates himself to the SCOTUS, being a Constitutional scholar and all
or
late in 2015 he slips the USSS and flies to Cuba after a fundraiser in Miami with several disks of classified data, right back into the welcoming arms of his former Weatherman case officers.
Posted by: Jean at June 26, 2013 11:42 AM (CMlD4)
Posted by: La grumpy spypeacha at June 26, 2013 03:31 PM .........Have you received your monthly ration card from President Obama's Wine Czar? We do hope you're not consuming more than your allotted amount. That is now verboten. But you are more than welcome to have all the but secs you want.
Posted by: Minnfidel at June 26, 2013 11:43 AM (PihNI)
Posted by: chrisnotrock at June 26, 2013 11:43 AM (dX5s2)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at June 26, 2013 11:43 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 26, 2013 11:43 AM (lVPtV)
Did the Cali ruling legalize it? Or was it sent back to the state supreme court to decide?
Did the Cali ruling actually overrule petitioners laws? Or did it do something else?
G-d I wish I was stuck in traffic in Boston. Things were simpler then, before I woke up.
But I'll keep following the rabbit hole and see what happens.
Posted by: Joethefatman™ (@joethefatman1) at June 26, 2013 11:43 AM (MnSla)
I am not just sitting at my computer. I have several projects in the works to mitigate the damaging circumstances of what I perceived to be the eventual aftermath.
I urge everyone to strengthen community ties. If we are to weather the coming storm, it will be because we have built strong alliances within our communities.
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp at June 26, 2013 11:43 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit [/s][/b][/u][/i] at June 26, 2013 11:44 AM (4df7R)
No it's a majority.
We can argue whether they were elected fairly, but they were elected. They've used that majority to corrupt the entire system over time and then with the last two elections attempted to cement those changes in a permanent way.
Republicans didn't show up and got what they deserved. The party has been balkanized to the point of being ineffective. It does not represent a majority of its members or voters. They are trying to win not by distinguishing principles or issues, but by trying to co-opt the strategy of Democrats. Nothing could be more futile or foolish.
Posted by: Marcus at June 26, 2013 11:44 AM (GGCsk)
sven, I think you are mostly right in your longer post.
I took a class in law school on jurisprudence, that is the philosophy of judicial decision making. I can tell you with about 90+ percent accuracy how a judge will decide based upon what their philosophy is.
Scalia, you see is an originalist. That is why he tends to favor historical precedent at the time of the founding. This makes some logical sense: the laws set in place at the time of the founding are a starting point, any thing that came later may modify them.
Kagan is a Crit or adherent of Critical Legal studies. I think Sotomayor may be as well, I just don't think she's as bright. I'll save the lecture explaining that but it always kinda falls to the weaker party is right. (Gays, minorities, etc.)
Roberts and Alito are somewhat different. I can't really pin them down just yet. They appear to have deference to government authority as about the only common thread. I read once the main criteria that Bush chose them on was upholding laws created for the war on terror. I think this may be a problem for us going forward.
Posted by: Jollyroger at June 26, 2013 11:44 AM (t06LC)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at June 26, 2013 11:44 AM (wR+pz)
AP has made up his mind if the GOP is polite enough, if the damned "right wing"(which drifts ever leftward in labeling) caves on enough VICTORY!
I do think the scales are finally falling from his eyes on drift but not manners....
what can I say Poppin' Fresh is an icon and a gravitational force of his own
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 11:44 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Corrine Brown at June 26, 2013 11:44 AM (+iA5G)
Don Zimmer with a speech balloon saying "Bury me at Entebbe!" will always be one of the top 5 funniest things I've seen. It's tragic the Internet Archive didn't pick up any of the Photoshops from his site.
Posted by: Ian S. at June 26, 2013 11:44 AM (B/VB5)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 11:45 AM (/PCJa)
Posted by: T. at June 26, 2013 11:45 AM (kvyeG)
Posted by: Truest believer at June 26, 2013 11:45 AM (8esY+)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at June 26, 2013 11:45 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: Brother Cavil, in his happy place at June 26, 2013 11:45 AM (zUi7I)
I am freely admitted a layman whose observation is based mostly on scholarship from the PoV of a history major.
I would be thrilled to read your analysis if ever you have the time to pen a learned analysis of my posit.
Thanks.
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 11:45 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Waldo at June 26, 2013 11:46 AM (RZwdH)
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp at June 26, 2013 11:46 AM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at June 26, 2013 11:46 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at June 26, 2013 11:47 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: logprof at June 26, 2013 11:48 AM (+iA5G)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at June 26, 2013 11:48 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at June 26, 2013 11:48 AM (/PCJa)
Time to get the government out of the marriage business altogether, other than legal issues as in any other voluntary contracts between consenting adults. The state can then record 'Domestic Partnerships' if the parties desire to have combined households, but otherwise marriages are personal or religious oaths, defined and observed in accordance to religious or personal practices.
Posted by: Starboardhelm at June 26, 2013 11:48 AM (hHgxI)
Posted by: garrett at June 26, 2013 03:42 PM ............. Allot of professional victims, their agitators and perpetual aggrieved are out of work today. What are they going to scream on stage now. What do we want.....(Mic feedback) Uuum,, we want ah, Ice cream! Yea!, oh wait...doesn't have the same rallying effect.
Posted by: Minnfidel at June 26, 2013 11:49 AM (PihNI)
No not those of us that grasp the psychology in play.
The left is using the seats of the Republic to destroy the Republic.
Scalia and likely Alito will enable this because they are Constructionists who cannot bring themselves to weigh in the motivations of the bad actors in the drives of their seats in the power structure in their decision making.
Perversely Scalia and Alito will probably be the ones who empower the final death knells of state power so long as the correct seats are filled by the correct people and precedent(which is in itself poisoned by the Frankfurter Court's post stacking activism) call for it.
Scalia is a decent man, personally Conservative as all get out but he has spent a lifetime placing precedent and construction arguments over issue arguments.
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 11:49 AM (LRFds)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at June 26, 2013 11:50 AM (wR+pz)
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo intellectal at June 26, 2013 11:51 AM (wR+pz)
@252
Thanks sven, I'm humbled and not worthy. You pretty much have it nailed. If you read the wiki article you can probably pick up on the crits. It explains O and mooch too.
For what its worth, I think Ginsburg is a legal realist leaving maybe Thomas as a textualist or strict orginalist.
Im not sure kenedy knows what he is.
Posted by: Jollyroger at June 26, 2013 11:51 AM (t06LC)
Posted by: Waldo at June 26, 2013 11:51 AM (RZwdH)
Posted by: Waldo at June 26, 2013 11:54 AM (RZwdH)
This^.
Liberalism, especially in its current form is given continual life through gradualism. That's a concept Republicans don't grasp, to their existential detriment.
Posted by: Marcus at June 26, 2013 11:54 AM (GGCsk)
Now we see what a fine product of Floriduh's public schools look like. The nice part is, she was old enough to buy beer in her freshman year.
Posted by: Minnfidel at June 26, 2013 11:54 AM (PihNI)
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp at June 26, 2013 11:54 AM (bb5+k)
It's a point that lawyer morons may ponder pursuing.
I am ill equipped to make the argument to Right leaning Constitutional Scholars but the psychology of how we approach the court has to change.
I do hope those of the horde that I value intellectually grasp my schizoid posting style(barring a severe lack of rest) is mostly an affectation.
Do look forward to reading you.
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 11:54 AM (LRFds)
The dad called an axed if she had talked to him?
According to this witness, everyone was axing everyone. This is a mass murder case, apparently.
Posted by: Sticky Wicket at June 26, 2013 11:55 AM (qoQi/)
What's with the crying guy? Tray's parents have cashed in already.
Show for the jury, since Zimmerman's parents aren't allowed in the courtroom?
Posted by: Sticky Wicket at June 26, 2013 11:57 AM (qoQi/)
Posted by: chrisnotrock at June 26, 2013 03:43 PM (dX5s2)
-----------------------------------------------
Thank you. That's the way I initially read it, but the thread muddied everything up for me. And I agree with Scalia. Wasn't it a main topic a year or so ago when Dear Leader instructed Holder NOT to defend DOMA? The question then was; who's going to defend it? And can individuals be a proxy for the state.
Posted by: Soona at June 26, 2013 11:57 AM (i15Z+)
Posted by: Paul Zummo at June 26, 2013 11:59 AM (Ud5vq)
Posted by: Minnfidel at June 26, 2013 12:00 PM (PihNI)
Posted by: Minnfidel at June 26, 2013 12:00 PM (PihNI)
Could this be the case? Has the Supreme Court ruled that citizens have no rights vis a vis the permanent political class when that class chooses to ignore their popular (I mean that in the neutral, technical sense) intitiatives and referendums?
-----------------------
That's what your co-blogger was saying to Allahpundit on Twitter, with a straight face. That's what his post grew out of.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 26, 2013 12:00 PM (CJjw5)
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp at June 26, 2013 12:00 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Waldo at June 26, 2013 12:01 PM (RZwdH)
No that's about right Paul.
I'd say Intellectually Alito tries to be Scalia and as far as judgement he sits nearer Thomas.
Thomas is the ONLY right activist on that court.
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 12:01 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Paul Zummo at June 26, 2013 12:05 PM (Ud5vq)
Posted by: Waldo at June 26, 2013 12:06 PM (RZwdH)
Posted by: Trubador at June 26, 2013 12:08 PM (MlrAE)
Posted by: Soona at June 26, 2013 12:09 PM (i15Z+)
Posted by: Mil-Dot at June 26, 2013 03:39 PM (Cs2tJ)
This is why I stopped listening to Medved. He ignores that Rubio was part and parcel of presenting this huge upchuck of verbiage which nobody has read nor debated on the floor and is the antithesis of transparency in government; but golly gee he gave a good speech as if that's a get out of Hell free card that eliminates his complicity in a major clusterfuck.
Posted by: Captain Hate at June 26, 2013 12:09 PM (ZsghO)
Correct. The liberals literally have the ability to control every phase of California life without recourse. Do understand California is actually in some ways an example that the GOP's preferences resonate at times with portions of the donk coalition....what the democrats have succeeded in aided by SCotUS is in fact having a judicial veto on the will of the people in GODDAMNED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS!
We are absolutely now a soft totalitarian oligarchy and the ONLY defense from that tyranny is the habits of the Republic which will fade as the radical wing keeps wanting to crash the gates...
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 12:12 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Waldo at June 26, 2013 12:12 PM (RZwdH)
Oh yes of course read above they have said in fact the Government has no duty to litigate laws they themselves don't like...
which is extra representative government bullshit....
Posted by: Esteban10077@sven10077 at June 26, 2013 12:13 PM (LRFds)
Posted by: Waldo at June 26, 2013 12:16 PM (RZwdH)
Posted by: Iblis at June 26, 2013 12:16 PM (9221z)
Posted by: Diogenes' Lamp at June 26, 2013 12:17 PM (bb5+k)
Posted by: Iblis at June 26, 2013 12:21 PM (9221z)
Posted by: panzernashorn at June 26, 2013 12:26 PM (MhA4j)
Posted by: GalosGann at June 26, 2013 12:28 PM (T3KlW)
What is left of the Republic? We live in an oligarchy.
Posted by: Salt Lick at June 26, 2013 12:34 PM (X/hb+)
#303 You are exactly right. We no longer have a government based on the consent of the governed. At all.
It is only a matter of time before some people really take this seriously and start overtly ignoring "laws," especially undemocratic court rulings, executive orders, and regulations, that were not expressly approved by the people or their elected representatives. And then we have anarchy.
Posted by: rockmom who should have been a lawyer, dammit at June 26, 2013 12:45 PM (Q4elb)
I've read a number of legal analyses today that have said this result was entirely predictable based on the oral arguments. Roberts and Scalia challenged the standing of the appellants then and they didn't have a very good argument. Standing is a huge deal to Scalia especially. He doesn't care what the effective consequences are, he does not want to have to even think about a case unless it really belongs in the Supreme Court and the parties have a right to be there. He would say that the remedy available to the people of California is to recall the Governor, as they did quite recently, and elect a Governor who will defend Prop 8. It may be a difficult remedy, but it isn't up to the Court to grant standing where it isn't deserved.
Posted by: rockmom who should have been a lawyer, dammit at June 26, 2013 12:55 PM (NYnoe)
Posted by: rockmom who should have been a lawyer, dammit at June 26, 2013 04:55 PM (NYnoe)
Standing is a subjective opinion and Scalia chooses to believe that only the Governor can have standing. I strongly disagree. The Governor may have advocated for the opposite decision of the appeal. It is against the common interests and public policy to allow an advocate that is against the appeal to be the only person that can bring the appeal.
Posted by: polynikes at June 26, 2013 01:06 PM (m2CN7)
Posted by: Festus[/i] at June 26, 2013 01:08 PM (9Ko7L)
Posted by: polynikes at June 26, 2013 01:08 PM (m2CN7)
It is the job of a permanent political class of enlightened and correctly-thinking persons to stop right-wingers, racist haters, homophobes, sexists, and gun-owning Republicans from making incorrect decisions that are incompatible with the greater good of society.
Using allies in the media and in the entertainment industry, correct thoughts must be encouraged and dissent stifled.
Posted by: Mary Cloggenstein from Brattleboro, Vermont at June 26, 2013 01:10 PM (jCQ+I)
Posted by: panzernashorn at June 26, 2013 01:20 PM (MhA4j)
“1. It shall be misconduct in office, grounds for immediate removal from office, and a felony punishable by not less than five years in prison for the Governor or Attorney General of this state to fail to vigorously defend the validity, including the constitutionality, of any amendment to the constitution or other law enacted under the sovereign authority the people have retained for themselves to amend their constitution and to enact laws.”
Posted by: Liechendiener at June 26, 2013 01:21 PM (Xv7f/)
Posted by: panzernashorn at June 26, 2013 01:34 PM (MhA4j)
Simplify the problem: Make it about equal consideration under the law and about Constitutional protections for the individual and about limitations on government. That dispenses with most of the yelling and screaming and hand waving.
If government got out of the business of licensing and regulating marriage, this wouldn't be a problem, to begin with. As is, most laws wrt marriage are some form of Jim Crow law, punishing one group or individual -including heterosexual men, gays and lesbians, et al.- while rewarding religious traditionalists - and women.
If you'd kept your marriages in the church, where they belonged, you wouldn't be having this discussion.
Yeah, as for that non-profit argument that so many people are going on about? Same-same. Get rid of all non-profits -including churches of any kind- and make sure that everyone has skin in the game. Everyone pays taxes. Everyone is equal under the law and no one gets special consideration under the law.
Otherwise, all you're doing is mental masturbation.
Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at June 26, 2013 01:41 PM (klGLB)
Posted by: Albert Schwartz at June 26, 2013 01:48 PM (yoQ0O)
Her emotional reaction seems to indicate much more and sounds a lot like the justices emotional reaction. But also guess she's getting ready for the stint the bow tie guy should have gotten on CNN.
Posted by: caustic at June 26, 2013 04:11 PM (/b8+5)
and, basically, was a motion re: collusion. It was an allegation that this was a collusion lawsuit. The homosexual activist district judge, of course, denied the motion.So, basically, this WAS NOT about the appeal - it was collusion from the VERY BEGINNING. This is even worse, if true, than simply refusing to appeal.;
Posted by: Patrick at June 26, 2013 04:39 PM (Qi6dG)
Posted by: Wendy at June 26, 2013 05:27 PM (NAkY4)
Huh.
Posted by: Lady Billingsgate (of the North) at June 26, 2013 05:56 PM (CVgSq)
Posted by: el polacko at June 26, 2013 11:03 PM (ALJQv)
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
- George Orwell, Animal Farm
Posted by: Salt Lick at June 27, 2013 05:00 AM (X/hb+)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3053 seconds, 444 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: dogfish at June 26, 2013 11:00 AM (nsOJa)