March 5, 2009

"'I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is,' observed one of the justices, a sly reference to Starr’s previous job."

"Starr did not take the bait. He merely smirked and carried on with his argument."
The justices were particularly interested in whether Prop 8 invalidates some 18,000 nuptials performed between the court’s initial ruling and the passage of the initiative. And they zeroed in on the precise wording of the proposition, which read: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

104 comments:

Buford Gooch said...

I believe this proposition is an amendment to the California Constitution, and not within the purview of the courts.

Host with the Most said...

Starr was brilliant!

His reasoning was irrefutably logical and legally correct.

The disjointed "reasoning" of his opposing counsel became laughable in it's tenditious twisting.

Anti-8 proponents arguments to the California Supreme Court boiled down to it's essence:

"Please judge based on your sympathy for those who have gay marriages, no matter what law and precedent say, just as you did when you ruled last May. Amen"

Please!

Host with the Most said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Palladian said...

Remember when this issue seemed important?

blake said...

The L.A. Times seems to be having a nervous breakdown. I mean, philosophically speaking.

Richard Dolan said...

BG: "I believe this proposition is an amendment to the California Constitution, and not within the purview of the courts."

True enough. But the issue in this case is whether the constitution (as adopted by the people) is unconstitutional(measured against the judicial version of the same thing). Only in America do judges ponder such things.

David said...

Palladian said...
Remember when this issue seemed important?

Yeah. One of the lost luxuries.

Host with the Most said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
XWL said...

The argument before the court seems to be that the California State Constitution is unconstitutional.

The opposition to Prop 8 already lost on the grounds that this amendment was an illegal amending of the State Constitution, so now they are fighting against the new provision on grounds that it violates the rest of the document.

And, somehow, I'm guessing that it was one of the liberals on the court who made the "sly reference".

Also, because despite being a liberal state now, we've had mostly Republican governers the past 30 years, only one of the Justices was appointed by a Democrat (one by Davis, no hold overs from the last Democratic governor, Jerry Brown).

Doesn't mean we have a conservative court, though, but I'd guess that our State Supreme Court probably tilts farther to the right than does the Ninth Circuit.

TitusJustFartedReallyLoud said...

I still want to see Althouse beat Andrew Sullivan up.

that would be cool.

Host with the Most said...

Oh, and Rick Klein, whom you quote above, is an asshole:

One might say Starr has built a career defending the sanctity of marriage, casting himself as a Puritan amid the sinners. In his previous role, Starr tacitly questioned the validity of Bill Clinton’s marriage in light of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In his new role, he was questioning a whole category of marriages that were briefly legal in California.

"Serious" journalist who can't let go of the frat boy writing style. Yea, fuck you, you talentless ABC writ - wait, that's redundant.



My wife and I were guests at a Christmas Party at Dean Starr's house, courtesy of a relative who works at Pepperdine.

He is man of far higher character and integrity than Bill Clinton or any of Clinton's admirers can ever hope to be.

TitusJustFartedReallyLoud said...

Someone here referred to me as Dr. Strangeloaf. I like that term. Can you all refer to me as Dr. Stangeloaf now?

Thanks much.

You are all doves.

TitusJustFartedReallyLoud said...

Could you all be a mint julep and call me Dr. Strangeloaf?

Thanks Loads,

Many Thanks,

Special Thanks,

Super Special Thanks,

Thanks a Ton,

Zachary Paul Sire said...

I was glad to see the justices rip Starr new one when it came to invalidating the 18,000 marriages.

"At the time this court's decision became final (last May), it became a part of the law of this state. Aren't those couples who relied on this court entitled to rely on the law, as it existed at the time they took the actions that they took?"

It's not clear what they're going to do about Prop 8 as a whole, but it's clear that the court is not buying Starr's argument that they should invalidate all the gay marriages that occurred before Prop 8. Starr's argument is that because Mormons were collecting signatures outside of a Walmart in Victorville early last year, gays should have known that their marriages would eventually be null and void. Epically insane.

Revenant said...

Aren't those couples who relied on this court entitled to rely on the law, as it existed at the time they took the actions that they took?

Why should they? Nobody else can.

DaveO said...

Dr. Strangeloaf is the name of an episode of "Good Eats" hosted by Alton Brown on the Food Network about sourdough bread.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Starr also said that those couples who married between June and November did so under a "swirl of uncertainty." I guess the law is swirling in uncertainty if you don't agree with it. Clown.

dualdiagnosis said...

I know this was streamed today, but does anybody know if there is a podcast or mp3 file somewhere?

Michael said...

Host - "He is man of far higher character and integrity than Bill Clinton or any of Clinton's admirers can ever hope to be."

What are you a fucking Navajo?

Me think Clinton man of great power with many more admirers worldwide.

SteveR said...

Michael, I'm sure you've never spent any time with the Navajo, but the only people who could treat them as badly as you have are the Hopi and they have a good and longstanding reason.

You are the other hand are a immature and classless jerk.

TitusJustFartedReallyLoud said...

Could you all be turtle sundaes with a cherry on top and NOT refer to me as Dr. Stangeloaf.

I thought that someone on this blog had come up with that term on their own. When I read it I was entertained and impressed by it's creativity. But it has now come to my attention that they stole it from some program on the food network. This is incredibly disappointing to say the least. As a result we will need to retract any references to me being Dr. Strangeloaf because this name has already been taken.

We can and will do better in the future.

Thanks so much.

I apologize for all of the confusion.

You are all special little lambs.

Duscany said...

ABC News: "The question before the court now is whether the marjority can limit the rights of the minority."

If it's a right, it can't be limited like this. The real question befor the court is whether a person can marry anyone he chooses. Courts have always limited men to only one wife (and women to just one man). They don't let people marry their dogs (as some dog lovers would otherwise do) and they don't allow people to marry their 12 year old cousins. You also can't get married (at least in some states) if you're dripping with VD. When people say there should be no resptrictions on marriage, they ignore the fact that there already are.

Revenant said...

I guess the law is swirling in uncertainty if you don't agree with it. Clown.

That argument would make sense if the law had actually been passed democratically. But the "law" was invented by judges, and it was obvious from day one that it had an excellent chance of being changed back the instant the people had the chance to do so. All 18,000 of the married folks knew this.

Thus, "uncertainty".

Beth said...

Ken Starr sniffs bicycle seats.

Seven Machos said...

ABC News: "The question before the court now is whether the majority can limit the rights of the minority."

That's hilarious. I disagree with the income tax and want it abolished. I want to park wherever I want. I believe the drinking age should be 18. I also hate the designated hitter.

Clearly, the majority is limiting my rights. This cannot be allowed to continue. Where is my freedom?

blake said...

Maybe we could exchange some of these limiting rights, like I'd happily trade my right to oppress gays for the majority's right to tax me.

BJM said...

Titus I still want to see Althouse beat Andrew Sullivan up.

I'd pay big bucks to see it.

Simon said...

Revenant said...
"[T]he 'law' [as it stood before Prop. 8] was invented by judges, and it was obvious from day one that it had an excellent chance of being changed back the instant the people had the chance to do so."

That's the facet responsible for much of the surreality of the debate. Opponents of Proposition 8 complain that the majority is taking away the rights of the minority, but they forget to mention that not only was the right at issue invented out of thin air by the California Supreme Court, this coining was done barely six months before Proposition 8 was approved. See In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d 384 (May 15, 2008)). If a federal amendment had passed in 1966 undoing Miranda v. Arizona, while we might think that unfortunate, and while we might expect opposition (indeed, even join it ourselves), would we have seen a comparably hysterical overreaction with people shrieking about how the majority was taking away the rights of the minority?

Zachary Paul Sire said...

But the "law" was invented by judges, and it was obvious from day one that it had an excellent chance of being changed back the instant the people had the chance to do so. All 18,000 of the married folks knew this.

Thus, "uncertainty".


By that insane logic, all decisions by judges can be deemed "uncertain." Guess all those in interracial marriages should be on their toes.

blake said...

By that insane logic, all decisions by judges can be deemed "uncertain." Guess all those in interracial marriages should be on their toes.

Despite quoting it back, you apparently failed to comprehend the part about "it had an excellent chance of being changed back the instant the people had the chance to do so".

Not a whole lot of laws have that potential. Especially long settled ones like interracial marriage laws.

TMink said...

Host wrote: "He is man of far higher character and integrity than Bill Clinton or any of Clinton's admirers can ever hope to be."

I do not know enough about Mr. Starr to agree or disagree based on his character, but I do have to disagree with the last statement about President Clinton's admirers.

I was once one of those admirers. Looking back, liberal politics appealed so much to my enthusiasm and idealism as a young adult. I bought it hook, line, and sinker. But it was based in naivete and an unrealistic abundance of hope that human nature could improve with the correct governmental oversight rather than moral failure.

Not that I was or am free from moral failure. What changed was my experience with and growing understanding of human nature. As I came to a more realistic understanding of the world, I became conservative.

There was a brief period where I was a Republican, but I prefer to not speak of that.

But I know Clinton supporters who are fine people. They just suffer from inflated optimism, or so says I.

Trey

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Despite quoting it back, you apparently failed to comprehend the part about "it had an excellent chance of being changed back the instant the people had the chance to do so"

Oh, so when something is made legal, everyone should just assume that it's still illegal because there are crazy people who will sign petitions. That makes sense. By your logic, there's no point of having a court system to protect minorities. Nice.

Seven Machos said...

I once read something in a Law Review written by Ken Starr that was absolutely vacuous. I also think he was a complete tool to go after a sitting president for the underlying substantive crime of marital infidelity.

That said, he is on the correct side here. In a democracy, you live with the results of democracy until you can change them democratically.

blake said...

Oh, so when something is made legal, everyone should just assume that it's still illegal because there are crazy people who will sign petitions. That makes sense. By your logic, there's no point of having a court system to protect minorities. Nice.

OK, breathe into the paper bag a few times and try again.

We were talking about "uncertainty".

The people voted in a law. In anticipation of (or response to, or both) the judges overturning it, the people prepared another law designed specifically to undo the

That's what made it "uncertain".

And the court system doesn't protect minorities. Ask anyone who makes over $250K a year.

But that's not really the point here.

blake said...

Huh. I would've sworn I finished that sentence. It should read "...to undo what the judges done did" or something.

I guess I need to take a few breaths into the paper bag mah own self.

Henry said...

Ken Starr once wrote a sonnet that had 15 lines. And he can't play the accordian for shit.

Revenant said...

By that insane logic, all decisions by judges can be deemed "uncertain."

I'm sorry that reality drives you insane, but yes -- all judicial decisions are subject to being overturned.

Guess all those in interracial marriages should be on their toes.

If they suffer from paranoid delusions, certainly. But there's no chance of a constitutional ban on interracial marriage passing.

Here's a real-life example for you. In the 1990s, the right to own certain scary-looking rifles and pistols was suddenly and arbitrarily revoked. People who had, the day before, had the right to possess their property lost that right. This, despite the fact that (unlike the "right" to gay marriage) the right to keep and bear arms actually exists.

People lose their rights through the passage of laws and amendments -- or through judicial fiat -- every day. It is neither unusual nor surprising.

Simon said...

Blake said...
"And the court system doesn't protect minorities. Ask anyone who makes over $250K a year."

Doesn't, and shouldn't - at least, not consciously. For courts to start seeing themselves as the white knight of discrete and insular minorities is fundamentally incompataible with both the judicial oath of office and the traditional role of courts in anglo-American society. The traditional warrant of those courts has been, time out of mind, to decide questions of law; indeed, the power of judicial review itself is a result of the integration of a hierarchy of legal rules into that traditional understanding of the function of courts, as Marshall explained in Marbury. Courts should decide the legal rights of litigants before it without placing a thumb on the scale based on their own assesment of the historic virtues vel non of the parties.

Our Fearless Leader put it well during his confirmation hearings: if the law says that the little guy wins, the little guy should win, but when the law says that the big guy wins, the big guy should win. When the law is on the side of minorities, judges shouldn't hesitate to rule for the minority; judges are often (and should always be) given tenure precisely to brace them against the winds of popular sentiment. But when the law is on the side of the majority, the judge who can't rule against the minority should resign.

Revenant said...

Oh, so when something is made legal, everyone should just assume that it's still illegal because there are crazy people who will sign petitions.

Of course not. But you shouldn't snivel when democracy reasserts itself. Only a great fool assumes the law will never change, especially when most of the public wants it changed.

Let's simplify things for you. Suppose you ran out and married some lucky guy the day after gay marriages became legit. There are two frames of mind you could have had:

(A): You could have been certain that your marriage would be legally recognized for the indefinite future

or

(B): You could have been uncertain if your marriage would still be recognized once the people were given a chance to vote on it.

If you picked "A", you've an imbecile, since anyone with at least half a brain knew there was a good chance of gay marriage being struck down. If you picked "B" then you were -- ta da! -- uncertain about the future of your marriage. Hence, "an atmosphere of uncertainty". QED.

Peter V. Bella said...

ABC News: "The question before the court now is whether the majority can limit the rights of the minority."

I am a firm believer in the simple but powerful principles that this country was founded upon; self reliance, self determination, individual initiative, individual and personal responsibility. I am in the minority, according to the democrat party. They believe in government control of every aspect of our lives. I demand the rights of those who believe in the principles this government was founded upon.

I refuse to capitalize democrat party.

john said...

Hey Seven - Wer'e in complete agreeement here. Especially about the DH rule.

Also, was Starr a jerk because he couldn't stick Whitewater to the Clintons, or because he found it more pleasing sticking Lewinski to the Clintons?

(Actually it was Clinton that was stuck to Lewinski, but I opted rather for parallel construction.)

Seven Machos said...

Who here really believes that Clinton was the first president to beat off in a sink by the Oval Office?

I say it was Warren G. Harding.

Host with the Most said...

If you picked "A", you've an imbecile, since anyone with at least half a brain knew there was a good chance of gay marriage being struck down.

What newspapers and brainless, emotional whiners always fail to point out is that had already qualified for the ballot before the Cali Supremes pulled the pro-gay marriage ruling out of their asses.

In other words - rev is right:
Not one gay person who married in California between last May and November was stupid enough to not know the issue was still up in the air.

So stop the bullshit, Zachary. Shit, how disingenous your side is. If your side was even half-way honest in how you deal with the issue form the beginning, you might actually have persuded more people. But the public - including fence sitters - are really turned off by the lies and misrepresentations about the whole issue that the pro-gay marriage sode so willingly accepts in some Machiavellian attempt to win at any cost, dishonest or not.

That and the vengeful and hateful exposing of Yes on 8 contributors and their addresses and employers on the internet .

And getting Yes on 8 supporters fired.

Small shit like that.

Host with the Most said...

Oh, and Zachary - as others have so well pointed out - Your not agreeing with Starr doesn't make him wrong or any less brilliant.

Swallow it.

Henry said...

I say it was Warren G. Harding.

Abe Lincoln, in his socks.

Simon said...

Peter V. Bella said...
"I refuse to capitalize democrat[ic] party.

You strike a bold blow against our REAL enemies: proper nouns and good grammar !

Seven Machos said...

Don't be like they were, Peter.

BJM said...

I guess it also depends on what "Cornell" means on a CV.

LMAO!!

Peter V. Bella said...

I refuse to capitalize democrat[ic] party.

The democrat party is not and for the past forty plus years never has been democratic. The party rules its members by dicatorship and fiat. You will obey all tenets or you cannot be a democrat.

Not that the Republicans are too much different, but at least they agree to disagree. To bad they are so dysfucntional.

chuck b. said...

"But the public - including fence sitters - are really turned off by the lies and misrepresentations about the whole issue that the pro-gay marriage sode so willingly accepts in some Machiavellian attempt to win at any cost, dishonest or not."

Yes, more honesty all around, next time.

former law student said...

Here's a real-life example for you. In the 1990s, the right to own certain scary-looking rifles and pistols was suddenly and arbitrarily revoked. People who had, the day before, had the right to possess their property lost that right.

Uh, negatory rev old boy, if you're talking about the state of California. "Assault rifle" owners had to register them, but no one who had them lost the right to own them. Non-owners were SOL of course.

Similarly, those who stocked up sufficiently on booze before Prohibition went into effect could drink until Repeal.

[Prop 8] had already qualified for the ballot before the Cali Supremes pulled the pro-gay marriage ruling out of their asses.

Let's see: In Re Marriage Cases was handed down May 15, 2008; Signature checking for Prop 8 was completed June 2, 2008. So, that assertion would be false.

peter hoh said...

California voters approved the amendment. I may not agree with it, but its meaning is pretty clear.

ZPS, never confuse tactical wins with strategic success.

The long term goal of marriage equity is better served if the California Supreme Court side with Starr and invalidate the 18,000 same sex marriages.

This is a good case for ssm advocates to lose. Out of the loss comes a vigorous campaign to overturn Prop 8 and affirm same sex marriage.

former law student said...

if the California Supreme Court side with Starr and invalidate the 18,000 same sex marriages.

Wording of the proposition was forward looking, not backwards. What the State of California hath joined together, let no Starr put asunder.

Starr's argument that voters were familiar with the rebuttal argument was ludicrous:98% of voters would rather read the 1040 form instructions while having root canal than read the ballot pamphlet.

Eric said...

If it's a right, it can't be limited like this.

Oh yes it can. I would say changing the constitution is the only way a right can be limited, in fact. Now, whether or not it makes sense to have a 50% + 1 mechanism to change the constitution is another matter entirely.

Seven Machos said...

Re Zach's half-baked analogy: the obvious example is slavery. Well, we're outlawing it now, you see, but the ones you have have you can keep. After all, people had been pining to get rid of the institution of slavery for decades. The uncertainty of the law shouldn't hurt those slave owners who have already bought.

Joe M. said...

Hm. Question: what does uncertainty have to do with anything? It seems that the marriages would have been valid when performed and are now invalidated (or at least made unrecognized) by 8, yes?

FLS, you say that the language was forward-looking, but all I see here is "only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." I don't see how that's limited to marriages that may be performed in the future.

Hypothetical: same-sex couple married in another state move to California. Valid and recognized? Doesn't seem so from the language here.

Chip Ahoy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Zachary Paul Sire said...

You could have been uncertain if your marriage would still be recognized once the people were given a chance to vote on it.

The fact that you can even type that sentence with what I presume is a straight face (no pun intended) is ludicrous in and of itself.

"People" given the "chance" to "vote" on my marriage. Insane.

Chip Ahoy said...

Is: Verb, third person singular, present indicative. To exist or to live. To occur. To occupy a place within the space/time continuum.

BigBopper2000 said...

dualdiagnosis said...

I know this was streamed today, but does anybody know if there is a podcast or mp3 file somewhere?

___________________

http://www.calchannel.com/images/sc_030509.html

gbarto said...

"At the time this court's decision became final (last May), it became a part of the law of this state. Aren't those couples who relied on this court entitled to rely on the law, as it existed at the time they took the actions that they took?"

Aren't the people of California entitled to change their constitution since they followed the process for changing their constitution, as it existed, at the time that they took the actions that they took?

California had already voted to outlaw gay marriage in 2000. It should have come as no surprise that we would vote to make it unconstitutional too. The courts didn't allow gay marriages to go forward or eschew injunctions against it pending the Prop 8 vote because they thought the issue was settled. They did so to try to blackmail us into settling it their way and to create a class of victims on whose behalf they could intercede if we had the temerity to overrule our masters. The people responded.

For what it's worth, I voted No on 8 and encouraged others to do so. I support same-sex marriage. But all that's in spite of the court's arrogance and the activists' assumption that you don't need democracy when you've got the courts in your pocket. I hope they uphold Prop 8 so we can overturn it properly, with a new amendment, rather than continuing down a path where we're only allowed self-government if we are of like mind with our masters in Sacramento.

peter hoh said...

ZPS, I am confident that at some point in the near future, the majority will favor marriage equity, and it will be a reality.

And then it will seem insane that people could vote on your marriage.

Until then, however, there is work to do, and pain to bear.

Beth said...

Not that the Republicans are too much different, but at least they agree to disagree.

They agree on one thing, not to disagree with Rush. And they agree to be sorry, sorry, very sorry, if they forget that. Sorry, Rush! defines the circumference of the big tent.

former law student said...

California had already voted to outlaw gay marriage in 2000. It should have come as no surprise that we would vote to make it unconstitutional too.

Really? The "outlaw" side dwindled from 61% to 52% in 8 years. Two more years, and same-sex marriage would be no big deal. Had the pastors not rallied their flocks last November, there would be no issue today.

FLS, you say that the language was forward-looking, but all I see here is "only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." I don't see how that's limited to marriages that may be performed in the future.

Hypothetical: same-sex couple married in another state move to California. Valid and recognized? Doesn't seem so from the language here.


The hypo you describe is the Prop 22 situation. Mass couples' marriages are not valid in California. For the rest, read up on The Rule of Law. Law is not arbitrary or capricious. What has been decided has been decided. Basically the law has to be stable, predictable, and consistent -- otherwise we're all paralyzed.

The California Supreme Court, back in May, ruled on the state of the law in California. There was no higher authority. Then the people changed the law. Changes have effective dates; they don't reach back in the past. When your taxes go up, they don't retax you on money you earned long ago.

Joe M. said...

The "outlaw" side dwindled from 61% to 52% in 8 years. Two more years, and same-sex marriage would be no big deal.

I'd say rather than in a few more years same-sex marriage will be no big deal.

dualdiagnosis said...

Being a former law student doesn't seem to have given you much in the way of political or legal historical knowledge, Bill Clinton passed a retroactive tax increase in 1993. United States v. Carlton- The Supreme Court upheld as constitutional a curative change in IRC section 2057 that was applied retroactively.

Joe M. said...

Changes have effective dates; they don't reach back in the past. When your taxes go up, they don't retax you on money you earned long ago.

Understandable, but your example seems disanalogous to the present situation. Prop 8 deals with the ongoing recognition of the marriage, not its initial validity.

Say there's a law that lowers the taxes of all married couples by %10. If the state decides to change the amount to %5, surely even couples already married now find themselves with more taxes to pay, yes? Nobody's going back and taxing them for all their happily married years with a %10 break, but from now on they only get %5.

Similarly, it would seem ridiculous to say that these same-sex marriages were invalid when performed, but to say that these couples will no longer continue to enjoy the benefits of the legal recognition of their marriage seems to be a legitimate position to hold.

Now you could say that it's in the state's best interest in this case to continue to recognize the marriages, but then we're into a different argument (one in which I'd probably agree with you).

reader_iam said...

Shee-ut. Y'all have worn out even Beth! A far, far better person than I, but more important a far far far far stronger person than I:

They agree on one thing, not to disagree with Rush. And they agree to be sorry, sorry, very sorry, if they forget that. Sorry, Rush! defines the circumference of the big tent.

Only the stupid don't question what they wish for and what they both got and gave in exchange.

Eric said...

For the rest, read up on The Rule of Law. Law is not arbitrary or capricious.

That's true, and that's why California voters set about to correct an arbitrary and capricious court decision.

blake said...

They agree on one thing, not to disagree with Rush. And they agree to be sorry, sorry, very sorry, if they forget that. Sorry, Rush! defines the circumference of the big tent.

You must read a different part of the blogosphere than I. Seems like half or more of the Reps I read disagree with Rush.

Revenant said...

Uh, negatory rev old boy, if you're talking about the state of California. "Assault rifle" owners had to register them, but no one who had them lost the right to own them. Non-owners were SOL of course.

Inability to pay for the registration fee resulted in the loss of the weapon. So yes, people lost the right to own their property as a result of the law.

An even better example, of course, would be the loss of the right to carry a gun, which was revoked by legislation earlier in the century (again, despite the right to bear arms actually actually existing).

Revenant said...

Wording of the proposition was forward looking, not backwards.

Which would mean that gay marriages were valid up until the point where the proposition passed, and none were valid thereafter.

To put it plainly -- when any issue involving a marriage comes before the state, the question "is this a legitimate marriage" must be asked. If the marriage is between something other than a man and a woman, the answer will be "no" for purposes of whatever decision the state is making.

It doesn't matter that the marriages used to be valid. They aren't now.

What the State of California hath joined together, let no Starr put asunder.

I'm sorry that the idea of obeying the law bothers you, but there's no sense in blaming Starr for it. He didn't pass the proposition. Our democracy did.

I'm not happy that they did. But part of being an adult means realizing that you don't always get what you want.

Revenant said...

"People" given the "chance" to "vote" on my marriage. Insane.

We have the right to vote on heterosexual marriage. What makes homosexuals so fuckin' special?

Revenant said...

They agree on one thing, not to disagree with Rush.

Still waiting for you to come up with an example of when they should have disagreed with Rush but didn't Beth.

But feel free to keep talking out of your ass. Its what you're best at.

Host with the Most said...

FLS

Uh, asshole - there you go being disingenous. That's why people will never fully tolerate gay rights, because of liars like you.

EVERYONE knew on April 26 when the Prop 8 signatures were announced to be at over 1.1 million that that for all practical purposes - and with a chance of failing of what, oh ZERO% - that the amendment qualified.

How do you live with yourself on a daily basis, being so dishonest?

former law student said...

EVERYONE knew on April 26 when the Prop 8 signatures were announced to be at over 1.1 million that that for all practical purposes - and with a chance of failing of what, oh ZERO% - that the amendment qualified.

Then EVERYONE would have been guilty of counting their chickens before they hatched.

Heck, Obama became State Senator by virtue of challenging signatures on his opponents' ballot petitions -- after the questionable ones were stricken he was able to run unopposed.

Host with the Most -- often wrong but never in doubt.

former law student said...

I can't predict how the ballot propositions will fare: Now I need to save up some money to build a new hen house -- never saw that one coming.

former law student said...

Rev: you were able to register all your assault weapons at once, for one low low $20 fee -- about five minutes worth of ammo at the range.

Plus did you ever price out an AR-15 at the time? As I recall it was $1000-1500.

Beth said...

Revenant, you're admirably persistent in trying to obscure the point.

I've never, not once, declared that the Republicans ought to disagree with Rush. It's not an argument I've made, so you have no ground to insist on an example. That topic is your obsession, not mine.

I've only pointed out that Republicans who try to are made to recant. It's like they get a call from Strother Martin, yelling "You gonna get your mind right!"

Beth said...

I must be, blake. Is there a secret password or something? Is it the nudge, nudge, wink, wink part of the "blogosphere"? 'Cause they're not on the evening news. Only the Sorry! ones make it to the big time.

Really, it's only funny because of the "Sorry! I didn't mean it! Can't imagine what I was thinking!"

If this was a left-wing pundit, and Democratic leaders tugging their forelocks, y'all would be screaming about communist re-education camps. That would be no fun at all, just screechy.

blake said...

I must be, blake. Is there a secret password or something? Is it the nudge, nudge, wink, wink part of the "blogosphere"? 'Cause they're not on the evening news. Only the Sorry! ones make it to the big time.

I'm sorry, Beth, I can't really understand you through the snark. I don't watch the evening news, granted, so I wasn't aware they were featuring blog pundits or were considered part of the blogosphere. Were you intending to import some sort of validation to the blogosphere based on the reportage of the evening news, or is it that you don't understand the word "blogosphere"?

Anyway, Goldstein is up in arms about intentionalism and everyone Reynolds links to seems to agree that Steele made an ass out of himself but, gee, Rush should be less incendiary.

Maybe you read more traveled websites.

Really, it's only funny because of the "Sorry! I didn't mean it! Can't imagine what I was thinking!"

Nah, it's only partisan-based schadenfreude. Having finally seen the clip, I don't see that Steele actually said anything particularly anti-Rush in the first place, nor that his subsequent "apology" was really that at all.

But, you know, enjoy. What's the point of being on one side if you can't enjoy the suffering of those on the opposing team?

If this was a left-wing pundit, and Democratic leaders tugging their forelocks, y'all would be screaming about communist re-education camps. That would be no fun at all, just screechy.

Well, as an increasingly uninterested observer, I'm having trouble imagining a situation where a Republican President singles out a Democrat Pundit as "the leader of the party"--and then the Democrats do anything but circle their wagons.

This, of course, is a natural product of the end-run around intentionalism done by the left: They manage to frame the discussion in such a way that the Republicans have to constantly defend themselves from false meanings assigned by others.

On the contrary, the more common thing that happens is that the media frames leftist politicians with contrary meanings as best benefits them.

So Obama can say he's anti-gay marriage, and the media will report that, but--as appropriate--with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink, as you put it--say that he doesn't really mean it.

In his heart, he means whatever is good and right, whatever he actually says.

former law student said...

I'm sorry that the idea of obeying the law bothers you, but there's no sense in blaming Starr for it. He didn't pass the proposition. Our democracy did.

Aren't any of you libertarians? There is no precedent for a government-initiated mass dissolution of marriage. That would violate the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, not to mention the Impairment of Contracts clause of Article I, Section 10. Further, each and every couple, relying on the Cal Supreme Court's understanding of California law, materially changed their positions in reliance on it. Therefore the State of California is estopped from denying the validity of those particular marriages.

The combined effect of the Federal constitutional and equitable restrictions makes those 18,000 marriages just as valid as any ever contracted in the State of California.

I forget who protested this: As I said, the Feds cannot tax you more on money you earned long ago, but they can go back one year.

blake said...

Aren't any of you libertarians?

A great many of us, I imagine. Which is a greater indication than all of "Lucky"s tirades that we truly are on the fringe.

There is no precedent for a government-initiated mass dissolution of marriage.

There's no precedent for gay marriage either.

But the libertarian solution is simple and doesn't involve validating gay marriages, it involve the end of legal recognition of marriages.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

As I said, the Feds cannot tax you more on money you earned long ago, but they can go back one year.


Are you saying that if a federal constitutional amendment was passed allowing the feds to re-tax past earnings, the feds would still not be allowed to re-tax past earnings?

If that is not what you are saying, then how is what you are saying related to prop 8?

traditionalguy said...

This is good cross postings: The Originalists seminar topic for Professor Althouse yesterday is about the tug of war between proponents for the Supreme Courts' rewriting the Constitution whenever they see a need for it without bothering with a formal Amendment and the Originalists' resistance to being so lose as to ignore the need to formally amend the Living Document. When will we get to elect the Judges??? Until then we live in Plato's Republic and not in Geo. Washington's republic.

Peter V. Bella said...

Starr is an attorney. He was hired to produce a result. Just like when he investigated the Clintons. Investigations are funny things. They take on a life and path of their own; they lead you versus you leading them.

I do not understand the demonization of a man who only did what he was paid to do, like any good attorney.

Leland said...

Prop 8 doesn't ban homosexual marriage. It simply says that only heterosexual marriage is valid or recognized; or conversly that homosexual marriage is not valid or recognized.

To use an analogy that someone brought up. The law requiring registration of assault rifles didn't ban automatic weapons. You could own them; you could get a paper saying you own them; but you just couldn't do anything with them.

Or look at prohibition, the 18th Amendment; you could possess alcohol. You just couldn't make more alcohol, transport what you have, or sell what you have.

So using these great analogies; if you got married in California to a person of the same sex; then you can keep the marriage certificate, the pictures, and the memories. You just can't do anything with them.

Host with the Most said...

Host with the Most -- often wrong but never in doubt.

FLS,

You are probably correct about that when I let the emotion overtake me.

However, this issue - while very important and personal to me, reeks of dishonesty and disingenousness form the anti-8 side like nothing I have seen in 50 years. I won't excuse the Pro-8 side form similar tactics. BUT - and this I believe this with my entire life - the whack jobs on the Pro-8 side are exactly that. And MY side demeans them far more often - close to 100% more often, in fact, than the anti8 side does of their extremists.

Everyone rightly complainns when regul;ar Muslim leaders don't spoeak out vehemently enough against Muslim caused atrocites and terror.

The same is sadly true of the Anti-8 side. No leaders of the Anti-8 side are on television decrying the vengeful websites and hate towards pro-8 people that occurs 100 times more often than the same vile stuff from the Pro-8 side.

And yes, that pisses me off.

When I see you complain about the anti-8 tactics that are over the top - and the hate from anti-8 people, then I will have respect for you.

But until then, you remain disingenuous and can be assumed to enjoy associating yourself with such hateful people.

Oh, and spare me the shit about "but homosexuals have suffered so much from hateful people." As someone who knowingly hired gay employees in the 80's becasue they were qualified even though I was warned against it by other company people, and as someone who has been called a fag by others simply because I have defended the right in front of bigots of gay people to live in dignity, that shit doesn't apply to me.

So denounce the shit from the anti-8 side, or Shut the Fuck Up!

former law student said...

You could own them; you could get a paper saying you own them; but you just couldn't do anything with them.

No, you could take them to the range and shoot them. Or, we would go to my buddy's father's ranch for Firepower Day. I discovered I vastly preferred the AK series to the AR-15 types.

Host, I am not a big Prop 8 fan. But people must be able to rely on what the California Supreme Court says is the state of California law. It's unreasonable to expect people to put their lives on hold to hear what the voters think, six months hence. And here, at least, if you don't like what the Supreme Court says, you can vote them out every 12 years. If that day is too far off, you can recall them just like the people recalled Governor Grey Davis.

buster said...

The retroactivity issue was discussed at the oral argument yesterday. Everyone--the Justices, the petitioners, and the respondents--agreed that a constitutional amendment can be retroactive if the language of the amendment makes it unambiguously clear that it was intended to be retroactive. The anti-Prop-8 side argued that the language was insufficiently clear, not that ssm's can't be retroactively invalidated.

Everyone also agreed that if the ssm's are invalidated, they will henceforth be treated as civil unions. In the opinion recognizing ssm, the court found that civil unions carry with them each and every right that marriages carry. The only difference between the two relationships is their respective names (civil union and marriage), and the court held this difference was unconsitutional. So parties to a ssm will not suffer any tangible loss if the amendment is retroactive.

Joe M. said...

That would seem to sink your whole argument, wouldn't it, FLS?

Beth said...


In his heart, he means whatever is good and right, whatever he actually says.


Well, there's some common ground between us. I assume we both think that's bullshit.

David said...

Sayeth Zire:

"By your logic, there's no point of having a court system to protect minorities. Nice."

The purpose of a court system is not to protect minorities. The purpose of the courts is to discern the law that is created by voters and their representatives and apply that law to particular cases.

Sometimes this results in the protection of a minority. Sometimes it does not.

former law student said...

The eminent legal mind of Kenneth Starr did not suggest that same sex marriages would be automatically downgraded to civil unions. Nor does Prop 8 even hint at such a thing. So any such solution would be another deplorable example of legislating from the bench.

Instead of this ingenious solution, Ken Starr said couples would be protected by California's putative spouse doctrine. He also suggested that California married couples of the same sex move to a state that recognized SSM.

BJM said...

Beth: They agree on one thing, not to disagree with Rush.

Yeah, don't forget Rush's enormous black following in California who marched to his tune and were instrumental in passing Prop 8.

What a silly comment.

Revenant said...

I've never, not once, declared that the Republicans ought to disagree with Rush.

Your repeated claim that Republicans who criticize Rush always get smacked down only makes sense if the Republicans in question were making legitimate criticisms, Beth. Otherwise, your complaint amounts to "every time Republicans wrongly attack Rush, they end up apologizing". Which would be admirable behavior, since unjustified criticisms should always be apologized for.

So, again, what were the legitimate complaints?

Revenant said...

Aren't any of you libertarians?

The government accords married couples special recognition. The libertarian position is that that shouldn't happen -- not that the pool of people to whom it applies should be expanded by 18,000.

There is no precedent for a government-initiated mass dissolution of marriage.

There is no precedent for a right to gay marriage, either. So I guess that settles that; the marriages were never valid to begin with.

But in any case there doesn't have to be a precedent for mass dissolution of marriage. The people are under no legal obligation to restrict propositions to only that which has been done before. There are countless precedents for the mass abrogation of existing rights and contracts (eminent domain, for example). That the state can perform such actions is beyond dispute. That it hasn't been done to this particular kind of contract doesn't imply that it cannot be done.

Beth said...

Your repeated claim that Republicans who criticize Rush always get smacked down only makes sense if the Republicans in question were making legitimate criticisms, Beth.

Well, that narrows down where we disagree. Your belief is that the smackdown comes over the actual content of their disagreement, and as you put it, that the smackdown should "make sense." I don't see that. The plantation hoppers are not apologizing for being wrong about any particular point. They're apologizing for saying something, anything, negative about Rush in public. It doesn't have to make sense.

I don't think many GOP elected officials actually want Obama's stimulus plan to fail. They have constituents depending on its provisions; Rush doesn't. But they can't say that too distinctly or they'll be saying Sorry! to Rush.

Actually, I found an exception late last night: our new House rep, Anh Cao. A local blogger (Big Red Cotton) called his office and asked "whether he [Cao], like Rush Limbaugh, wanted President Obama to fail", and later another blogger passed on what she shared about the conversation:

" Cao's chief of staff Clayton Hall says on the record:

'No... the problems in this country are too big. Rush Limbaugh can say whatever he wants to say. Congressman Cao does not want the president to fail.'

So I asked him does Cao want the stimulus package, which he voted against, to fail. Hall gave a curt 'No'."

Now, Cao represents a majority-Democrat district, and was elected because finally, FINALLY, a slim majority of voters got sick of William Jefferson, and a big enough number of Jefferson supporters got tired of turning out after a series of primaries and run-offs. So he's mindful of to whom he has to appeal. But it was refreshing.

The recording blogger is righthandthief.blogspot.com

Revenant said...

The plantation hoppers are not apologizing for being wrong about any particular point. They're apologizing for saying something, anything, negative about Rush in public.

That's a lie, Beth. Steele didn't "apologize for saying something, anything negative about Rush". He apologized for a specific remark he made: that Rush's show was ugly and incendiary. Now, maybe in your mind he was REALLY apologizing for daring to offend the plantation owner or some such nonsense. But the reality is that he apologized for insulting not only Rush, but -- indirectly -- most of the Republican Party.

Republicans disagree with Rush constantly without getting smacked down by his outraged fans. If unwavering agreement with Rush was a requirement for party membership then John McCain wouldn't even be a Senator, led alone the previous Presidential nominee.

I don't think many GOP elected officials actually want Obama's stimulus plan to fail.

If someone announced a plan to, say, reduce the murder rate by rounding up all the left-handed people and shooting them, saying that you hope he fails doesn't mean you don't want the murder rate reduced. It means you DO want the murder rate reduced, and the best way to do that is to stop someone from committing mass murder.

Wanting the economy to recover and wanting Obama's agenda to fail are synonymous. The so-called "stimulus" package made things worse and will continue to do so. The best thing that could happen to the economy and the American people right now would be repealing it or cutting off the flow of funds to it.

Actually, I found an exception late last night

An exception? You haven't even found a supporting example yet.

Beth said...

Revenent, so saying Rush's show is "ugly and incendiary" is incorrect? And somehow insults the GOP, not just Rush? Oh boy.

Rush didn't say he hoped Obama's stimulus plan failed, not until people responded to what he DID say, which is "I hope he fails." I'm fine with critiquing the stimulus. But that's not what started the response to "I hope he fails." And when a couple of GOP types ventured a more tempered response, worrying that perhaps, perhaps saying "I hope he fails" sounded off somehow, they were brought back in line. You're free to argue that you want Obama to fail, but it doesn't appear that anyone that matters in the GOP can argue with Rush's rhetoric.

McCain's your example? Yeah, conservatives just love him, don't they?

Revenant said...

Revenent, so saying Rush's show is "ugly and incendiary" is incorrect?

Most Republicans think it is incorrect. Thus the criticism of Steele for saying it.

And somehow insults the GOP, not just Rush? Oh boy.

If the content of Rush's show is incendiary and ugly, that obviously says something about the judgment of the people who enjoy it. I.e., most Republicans. If I said that the Harry Potter series was deviant and perverse, that would imply I thought Harry Potter fans were perverts and deviants. Fans of the series would quite rightly take personal offense.

Rush didn't say he hoped Obama's stimulus plan failed, not until people responded to what he DID say, which is "I hope he fails."

I hope he fails too. He's destroying the country with appalling speed. Any decent person would want him to fail at that.

And when a couple of GOP types ventured a more tempered response, worrying that perhaps, perhaps saying "I hope he fails" sounded off somehow, they were brought back in line.

Care to put names to those anonymous "GOP types", or should I just file this under "More of Beth's delusions"? Hell, you yourself cited an example of a Republican criticizing Rush's response without suffering any repercussions. This is in contrast to the zero examples you've cited of someone getting "brought back into line".

McCain's your example? Yeah, conservatives just love him, don't they?

McCain is one example, although of course he alone is sufficient to disprove your "Republicans can't leave the Limbaugh plantation" delusion. Others obvious examples include George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Mitt Romney, and the entire current Republican congressional leadership.

And what does it matter if *conservatives* love him? Your claim was that Republicans need Limbaugh's approval. If you want to move the goalposts to "Republicans need the support of their conservative base and don't dare offend it" then what's there to say except "no shit". Democrats are similarly beholden to the far left. That's how a two-party system inevitably works out.

Beth said...

I'll promise that if the "far left" starts marching people out to say "I'm sorry, Obama!" for falling off the adoration wagon, I'll laugh at them, too. And start throwing a few turds Obama's way. I expect I'll do that, anyway, over his term or terms.

I already gave the example of Gingrey, who questioned the "I hope he fails" rhetoric. He didn't mean it. He was sorry, sorry, sorry.

And Rush's show is ugly and incendiary. I can't help it if that's what blows your skirt up, and if you're sensitive about hearing about it. This would be the perfect time for one of those "I'm sorry you feel that way" non-apologies. But really, we just think differently on this. We can "is so" and "is not" for another day, but what's the point?

Revenant said...

I'll promise that if the "far left" starts marching people out to say "I'm sorry, Obama!" for falling off the adoration wagon, I'll laugh at them, too.

"Starts marching"? Is it 2007 again already, or are you inappropriately using the future tense for something that's been happening since the Democratic primaries?

Look at the way the Times had to scurry to apologize after you lot wet your pants at the "chimpanzee writing the bailout bill" cartoon. Hysterical screams of "RACISM!" from coast to coast -- and the cartoon wasn't even aimed at Obama!

I already gave the example of Gingrey, who questioned the "I hope he fails" rhetoric. He didn't mean it. He was sorry, sorry, sorry.

He apologized for the remarks, if that's what you mean. But congratulations on finally finding one example of the behavior you claim is universal and constant.

And Rush's show is ugly and incendiary.

Yes, Beth, we know that's your opinion. But your opinion doesn't mean shit. Neither Republicans nor anyone else with common sense are obligated to hate the things you hate.

I can't help it if that's what blows your skirt up, and if you're sensitive about hearing about it.

Beth, Beth... when did I ever say I liked Rush Limbaugh?

Your problem is that you think the world revolves around you. You hate somebody, ergo it is a fact that all right-thinking people must hate him; anyone who speaks against such hate is an obsequious toady. A person with a more mature mindset might realize that that no matter what your irrelevant personal feelings towards the man might be, it is a fact that he is widely-liked by the majority of Republicans. So far as Republican politicians are concerned, those people's opinions matter. Yours don't; you're slavishly devoted to the political left. You're not going to vote for them anyway.

I think Limbaugh is an obnoxious individual. The difference between the two of us is that I don't suffer from the delusion that my opinions form an objective reality all their own.

Some Seppo said...

There is no precedent for a government-initiated mass dissolution of marriage.

See Utah: Statehood