1. Obama's Attorney General: Eric Holder -- "a centrist on most law enforcement issues, though he has sharply criticized the secrecy and the expansive views of executive power advanced by the Bush Justice Department."
2. Ted Stevens finally goes down to defeat. The new Senator from Alaska is Mark Begich. The Dems now have 58 seats in the Senate, 2 short of filibuster-busting power.
3. Hillary might say "no" to SOS: "The Clinton camp’s effort to downplay her interest in the post might simply reflect her need to create an alternative storyline if the deal falls apart for other reasons, including the possibility that insurmountable problems arise during the vetting process, Democrats not connected with Clinton cautioned. Another possible motivation: Pushing back against the perception that she’s at the mercy of Obama’s team."
4. No Beau.
5. Joe won't go.
6. Draft Sarah.
7. Ayers airs his pent-up thoughts: "Not only did I never kill or injure another person, but the Weather Underground in its six-year existence never killed or injured another person... We did something that was extreme. Some of you would call it not only extreme but kind of nuts. You might call it off the track. You might call it crazy. You might call it defying of common sense. It was certainly illegal. To call it terrorism stretches the definition of terrorism to everything you don't approve of."
8. Remember Jerry Brown? He's now the California attorney general and he's seeking constitution review of Prop 8 in the California Supreme Court. He's looking for "certainty and finality in this matter."
9. Huck's being mean to Mitt.
10. Do we have to keep thinking about Al Franken?
November 18, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
114 comments:
Huck's being mean to Mitt.
Huck wrote the book thinking that Mitt would be his main competitor in the next round.
I think the reality is that Palin has made Huck completely superfluous and obsolete.
She covers the blue-collar, less educated, evangelical crowd as does Huck, but she is far better looking and much more gracious.
Huck is finished and he apparently doesn't know it. He's still shooting at yesterday's target.
The idea of "drafting" Palin for 2012 calls to mind that old saw "lead me not into temptation; I know my way."
Ayers was an idiot then and remains an idiot now, but he's an illiterate idiot if he thinks that someone dying is a prerequisite for calling something a terrorist action.
Eventually some reporter somewhere is actually going to get around to asking Ayers about his working relationship with Pres.-elect Obama. Please. Someone. Anyone.
How often did they meet? How often did they talk on the phone? How often did they exchange e-mails? What was their biggest disagreement? What was Obama's management style? What was his biggest contribution to the process? What did he learn from you?
Ayers just some guy in the neighborhood. Yeah right.
I'm thinking no one from the 2008 Republican presidential sweepstakes will be the 2012 nominee and that includes Sarah Palin.
Eric Holder, careful we can't handle too much change and it reminds me of one of WJC finest hours. Monica was perhaps only a few minutes.
Bye Ted, a great start to 2010 not to carry his corrupt corpse around.
Come on Al, bring in another Al to string this out, add in the millions of dollars that Soros has dedicated to getting rid of Coleman and you'll be perhaps the lamest senator in Washington, no small feat.
Has there ever been a terrorist organization that didn't kill someone eventually, either accidentally or on purpose?
Has Earth First! killed anyone, for example?
I'm not disagreeing with you Simon, you comment just makes me wonder.
I understand that Bill Ayers is widely respected in some circles. But any attempt to rehabilitate his legacy beyond the status quo will stir the pot.
Bill Ayers is political OJ.
"Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who aligns with Democrats, said allowing Mr. Lieberman to run the committee was a “slap in the face” to Americans who “worked day and night to get Barack Obama elected and to move our country in a very new direction."
Ah yes, one of the real, actual, out-and-proud socialists in the US Federal Government, Bernie Saunders, mysteriously identified only as an "independent" by the New York Times, feels like he got slapped by Joe Lieberman. What a surprise! Barack, Bernie and company want to take our country in a "very new direction" alright! Straight down the socialist toilet.
The reason Ayers' group never killed anyone is simple: they were incompetent. They blew *themselves* up building their murder weapon.
That isn't much of a defense.
Has there ever been a terrorist organization that didn't kill someone eventually, either accidentally or on purpose?
The Earth Libertation Front hasn't killed anyone yet. Besides (as I noted in my previous post), the reason Ayers failed to kill people is that he wasn't a very good bomb designer.
Look at it this way: if Timothy McVeigh had accidentally blown himself up building his truck bomb, would he still have been a terrorist? That's a fairly obvious "yes", isn't it?
The Weather Underground did end up killing people. The Washington Post today:
"Not only did I never kill or injure another person, but the Weather Underground in its six-year existence never killed or injured another person," he said. "We did something that was extreme. Some of you would call it not only extreme but kind of nuts. You might call it off the track. You might call it crazy. You might call it defying of common sense. It was certainly illegal. To call it terrorism stretches the definition of terrorism to everything you don't approve of." (He was referring to the Weather Underground's claim of planting several bombs, including in the Capitol and Pentagon, that caused no injuries. But members of the group have also been tied to attacks that killed several people.)
That is in addition to the three members who died making the nail bomb (and thus saved the lives of countless people at Fort Dix).
"That call from Romney never came, which we took as a sign of total disrespect -- something that would continue to be a source of angst among our team," Huckabee writes, "even though we had grown used to this kind of treatment from the Romney team."
Somebody needs to teach preacher boy some forgiveness. He sounds petty and resentful.
If he can forgive a rapist why can't he forgive a Mormon?
The Political News of the Day
1. Obama's Attorney General: Eric Holder – Appointed first by Reagan. Don’t know enough yet to have an opinion one way or the other. Marc Rich – yawn.
2. Ted Stevens finally goes down to defeat. – Sadly, he deserved it. Too bad that gives the Dems 58 seats. Bet they’ll be nicer to Joe now.
3. Hillary might say "no" to SOS – Probably the best choice Obama can make. I say that as one who will never vote for Hillary. But she might – MIGHT – be okay to good in the spot.
4. No Beau. – No comment.
5. Joe won't go. – “Gee – let’s see. We’re pissed that he didn’t support the winner. And we might – MIGHT – get to the magic filibuster-proof number of 60 (did I just cream in my underwear?), but WAIT A MINUTE – we’ll still gonna need Joe to vote with us to get there! Uh, (did I just pee in my pants?)okay, uh, tell him it was wrong to support McCain instead of the Fuhrer, uh Obama, and make sure he stays happy!”
Those Democrats: They are always against partisanship, except for when it they are getting others for being "partisan". Always putting country first!
6. Draft Sarah. – This will get constant play in the media, until it becomes serious. At which time the shit-digging will start on Sarah Palin all over again.
7. Ayers airs his pent-up thoughts: Question? Do you give shit about what OJ thinks about anything? Why not? Because he’s a despicable human being who deserves to be shunned. Ayers & Dohrn = despicable human beings. Shut the Fuck up about them already.
8. Remember Jerry Brown? – PLEASE, DEAR GOD, PLEASE – GIVE THIS MAN A STROKE OR ANEURYSM, JUST ENOUGH TO MAKE HIM GO AWAY! PLEASE!
9. Huck's being mean to Mitt. - IS this the most boring day or zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……..
10. Do we have to keep thinking about Al Franken? - See #’s 7 and 8 above.
You left off #11...
Alberto and Dick have been indicted.
Eric Holder... was deputy AG when federal agents extracted Elian Gonzalez at the point of a machine gun and did a cable news tour defending that decision. Elian’s father’s attorney at the time, incidentally? The One’s new White House counsel, Greg Craig.
Exit quotation: “These guys didn’t put together a campaign in order to turn the government over to the Clintons.”
You fools are still WHINING abiout Ayers?
Is there a group of dumber people on any other blog that is more shallow and intellectually less inclined than one can find here?
Move on, Obama won and he's going to be our President. Why can't you people understand that?
*Aoh, and as for your Sarah the savior: Anybody who thinks Newt, Huck, Romney or any of the other ego maniacs who yearn to be Prez are going to let that dolt ruin for them is D-R-E-A-M-I-N-G.
So, ZPS,
What does your brilliant, non-hypocritical mind tell us is likely to happen with these indictments?
What do you think should happen?
Shouldn't you still be partying because your boy won? What do you have to be pissed at now?
You know ZPS - you ares so full of hate against those who don't agree with you.
Where's the love, son?
michael,
You're supposed to put the vaseline on the outside first.
host with little brains: These may not be the last of the indictments.
Are you proud of Dick and Alberto?
hater michael,
Having difficulty cumming on the inside?
Can't get someone to let you actually put it in?
Don't you hate that?
Email ZPS. He's waiting by the phone.
Host, generally I'd engage you with an argument, but in the case of vaseline...you're the expert.
A little man with a little brain.
Host: Are you coming on to me?
I'm married to a beautiful woman.
Take a shot at Simon.
Host The Idiot- You are insane and a stain on this blog, not to mention life. You're wasting your time trying to start a fight. Die, please.
The Earth Libertation Front hasn't killed anyone yet.
Do folks think it's possible that ELF gets blamed for the work of capitalist arsonists?
Many years ago (when I was still coming up in banking) I turned away someone who wanted to build a more than three million dollar spec home in an unsuitable location. They got funding somewhere else. The house didn't sell for a long time (as I knew it wouldn't in that particular location.) Then an arsonist burnt the house to the ground and they left a piece of plywood with "ELF" spray painted on it.
This always seemed suspicious to me.
Even if this really was ELF, they were not a terrorist for this investor, they were a blessing--collect insurance and move on.
Zach, I wouldn't get your hopes up. The indictment hasn't yet been released, but the AP description of it sounds like it's ripped from the World Weekly news - something about Cheney assaulting prisoners or something equally kooky. Of course, this might just be the AP displaying their usual inability to accurately cover a story, but from the information available now, this is vaporous stuff.
I'd also note that "you left off number 11" is dangerously close to transgressing the warning against "tell[ing] me I should be blogging about some other subject."
MadisonMan said...
"Has there ever been a terrorist organization that didn't kill someone eventually, either accidentally or on purpose?"
If Ayers is to be believed, the Weather Underground, for one. But in any event, it simply isn't, and never has been, a requirement that people die before a group can be labeled terrorists. That's not what the word means, either definitionally or culturally.
Notice how when Bush was in, haters like Zachary and michael couldn't contain their bile and anger.
Now Obama's in.
Anyone see any difference?
Circumstances can't change the mentally ill.
Ayers
http://legendofpineridge.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-killed-brian-v-mcdonnell.html
Never were convicted of killing anyone. Not that it wasn't in their playbook.
Google with Detroit, San Francisco or do a wikipedia.
Like Revenant -- they were incompetent. And evil.
I wonder if the argument out of California's wiser-than-thou elites will be that the state constitution cannot be changed in this way because such a change would be unconstitutional. The argument could be that it would have competing clauses that cannot be squared away.
I've been waiting for this one for a long time, actually. Truly, it would be a last, dying gasp against democracy. Sure would be funny.
Simon, are you and others here trapped in some kind of fucking time warp??
You're actually still discussing the Weather Underground?
Get a life.
I, too, have noticed the strange persistence in hatred and vile-spewing on the left. You'd think that this would be a time of great celebration and happiness. Oh well.
seven brain cell: If you're talking about "8" you can bet your ass the courts will beat it into the ground.
Hide and watch.
*And I still wonder why you use the picture of what most would assume to be a terrorist as your visual moniker. Very strange.
Seven Machos said..."I, too, have noticed the strange persistence in hatred and vile-spewing on the left."
Now THAT IS FUNNY.
Got a link?
Michael -- You have been admonished repeatedly for your failure to add substantively to threads. If you still can't, then leave.
Got a link?
Wow. Dense.
Oh, my...how does this fit into the crazy right wing world one finds here?
WASHINGTON — The top U.S. military officer said Tuesday the Pentagon is developing plans to get troops quickly out of Iraq and into Afghanistan to battle a more confident and successful Taliban.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told The Associated Press in an interview that the military can make the changes President-elect Barack Obama wants in both wars.
Seven missing links: You made a charge...provide a link.
Are you daft?
I, too, have noticed the strange persistence in hatred and vile-spewing on the left. You'd think that this would be a time of great celebration and happiness. Oh well.
Seriously. They are mentally ill.
Psychologists have these types profiled. Among the common traits, they masturbate frequently - several times a day. And their relationships - if they are married - are strained and submissive.
michael is obviously very much the submissive one in his "marriage". Which is why he is constantly lashing out so irrationally.
Zachary is a little more intelligent, but still a serial masturbator. His hate obviously comes from unfulfilled ambitions.
The best way to help these people is to actually ignore their rants, until they are forced into a different outlet. All outlets will eventually become less satisfying, and then decisions must be made.
Don't enable the haters in other words.
P.S. Yeah, my picture is a terrorist. Osama bin Lucha. The meanest cabron north of Oaxaca. Hide your ninos.
Holder?
Marc Rich - you yawn? At what point do you people stop yawning? Is that because you are sophisticated and can't be bothered with the little things here and there? Does the law mean anything (Rich didn't kill anyone, after all.) Is there ever a line in the sand?
But Holder also was connected with the FALN releases --
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28096
But hey ... who gives a rip, right. That was a long time ago. Besides there were only a couple people who were killed by those freedom fighters.
Why is it lawyers who never seem to care about right, wrong, good, evil?
Not to mention justice.
Yeah Holder will be just great as AG.
I consider Zach a serious and engaging commenter who occasionally goes off. He adds to the discussion.
Michael is a meaningless troll. Althouse should ban him.
Sorry. Here's the link
host with no brains: You're such a creepy little person.
You describe a person's personal viewpoint as "...hate obviously comes from unfulfilled ambitions."
How the fuck do you know anything about anyone on this blog?
What have YOU ever done in your life, other than whine about those with whom you disagree?
Seven, suck my dick.
JAL,
Thank you for the link:
Eric Holder's Part in Pardoning the Terrorists that Killed My Father.
I was amazed to read that.
Obama is starting his Fucking Up America tour earlier than I thought.
Shit! It's gonna be a long four years. . . .
jal: Give it up.
Holder is highly respected (opposed to Alberto the lying asshole) and will be confirmed unanimously.
Find something else to whine about.
Now Dems are just 2 votes from being filibuster-proof, with Minnesota and Georgia left.
Now the strategy of having to kiss Joe Lieberman's ass makes more sense. He is a liberal Democrat on almost all topics but cultural purience, Israel, Neocon adventurism. Something McCain was too stupid to understand when he was almost ready to declare his "dear friend" the VP nominee and see 1/3rd of Republicans walk out of the Convention.
Anyways, that now leaves Dems in a position to poach. Voinovich, Spector, Hagle, McCain might sniff at an Obama Cabinet spot. The two Maine ladies just got reelected in 2006 and 2008 so they will likely not walk away, nor shift parties as the Republican female Senators now see job #1 as reining in the Religious Right and reforming the Republicans. (Both might easily cross on votes though, as they owe absolutely nothing to The Base down South that hate them, Hutchinson, Spector, and Hagle)
****************
Huckabee being a mean-spirited little twit? Aww, who would have ever guessed THAT!!
*****************
Stevens losing may mean Palin just saw a door she was expecting God to open for her slam shut. Now "Our Sarah" as her cult members call her will be stuck in Alaska 5,000 miles from her Fundie-Land devotees. ("Our Sarah" - just as Obama cult members had their own endearing terms of worship for him, and the aging lesbians had "Our Hillary" - creepy stuff.)
Celebrate the Season.
...with Delilah !
http://www.warm1069.com/listenlive/
Host with no brains: "Shit! It's gonna be a long four years. . . ."
Actually it's gong to be 8 years, and then another eight years, and then another eight years.
*And I realize, based on what we've seen over the past 8 years, it will be really tough to beat the wonderful things your choice did for America.
What a fucking dummy.
seven,
I consider Zach a serious and engaging commenter who occasionally goes off. He adds to the discussion.
Michael is a meaningless troll. Althouse should ban him.
ZPS is intelligent, yes. But he has spewed forth more hate in the last 4 months than hdhouse, dtl, and 3 others combined.
If he calms down and quits asking for the death of others (as he did mine earlier), perhaps he can contribute. There is hope.But his needless anger at everyone who disagrees is not just offputting, it's a sign of a disturbed mind.
No hope for michael, though. My last post sent him to the bathroom for a good hour or so.
Again, don't speak to him and he will eventually seek other outlets. It may take a while, but his painfully insecure ego-driven illness needs consistent reinforcement. Deny him that.
Host -- Do you live in California by any chance?
Michael the meatbag!
Those pesky dinosaurs still bothering you? You know if you take a quarter inch drill bit and apply it to your cranium with a Craftsman 14.4 volt DieHard Cordless Drill/Driver you can relieve that terrible pressure that causes these emotional outbursts of yours.
Oh yeah, fuck off, suck me, blah, blah, blah.
Delilah Rene Luke: "Slow down and love someone"
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=6237886&page=1
Does anyone here live in California? Because I have a procedural question about this Prop. 8.
lawgiver: Did you just stop in to suck my dick?
Get in line...Host is already clammering for first dibs.
1. Once again, "Host" is ranting about supposed hate and vile coming from me, which is completely unfounded and, as I said before, insane. He is truly crazy.
2. The indictments are silly and nothing will come of them. But they are still funny news.
3. I'd also note that "you left off number 11" is dangerously close to transgressing the warning against "tell[ing] me I should be blogging about some other subject."
You're right, Simon! Hope I don't get busted.
4. Thanks Seven.
Sing along:
Eric Holder is an asshole, EE-I-EE-I-O!
He let go some killer men, EE-I-EE-I-O!
With a pen stroke here and "don't believe in justice there"
He'll make Janet Reno look like Miss America.
Eric Holder, Eliot Spitzer wannabe,
(Big finish!)EE-I-EE-I-O!
Covington Burling is Donald Hiss's old firm. Just a fun fact, apropos of absolutely nothing and, yes, mean-spirited. I know nothing about the man.
ZPS is intelligent, yes. But he has spewed forth more hate in the last 4 months than hdhouse, dtl, and 3 others combined.
Show us a comment. Some sort of proof, not taken out of context.Anything. I dare you.
You've tried this before with me, so I don't know why I bother engaging a complete crazy person. I must be bored. For some reason, you are obsessed with me.
Seven--I live in California.
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Zachary Paul Sire said at 11:05 above:
1. Once again, "Host" is ranting about supposed hate and vile coming from me, which is completely unfounded and, as I said before, insane. He is truly crazy.
Zachary Paul Sire said at 10:28 above:
Host The Idiot- You are insane and a stain on this blog, not to mention life. You're wasting your time trying to start a fight. Die, please.
The mentally ill: Everything makes sense to them. No it doesn't. Yes it does. No it doesn't. Yes it . . .
Zach -- Awesome. Can you explain to me, briefly, without unfairly taking up your own time, what Prop. 8 has accomplished. Is the Constitution actually changed? Or does the vote direct or ask some government body to change the constitution? Or is it something else?
In other words, what is the procedure here?
Seven,
I do live in California.
Not in Orange County like Zach.
But (uncomfortably close for Zach, perhaps) in the Inland Empire.
Well, then, both of you explain to me what Prop. 8 means. ;]
It's business as usual in South Texas. There is probably more graft and corruption there than NYC and Chicago combined. They just acquitted a a police chief of sexually assaulting his own officers.
Michael the meatbag,
Drill baby, drill!
Lawgiver -- Where's Jim Garrison when you need him?
Meatbag,
Tell us again how gas is going to be $5 a gallon in December.
Tell us again how the surge isn't working.
No guts, can't admit you're wrong.
In other words, what is the procedure here?
I'm not a lawyer! And I'm gay. So, you can take this for what it's worth:
The reason the court overturned Prop 22 (which was a prop, not an amendment, and originally banned gay marriage back in 2000) in the first place, last May, was because it was unconstitutional (it violated equal protection). Prop 8 says that not everyone is allowed the same protection under the law, so discrimination is now a part of the constitution. I would say that discrimination is unconstitutional, but now that discrimination is part of the constitution, maybe it's not.
Seven is actually asking people what Prop 8 is all about.
Do you get newspapers, periodicals or cable?
Good lord...
What happened to all the hope and change? Obama won, where is all the coming together and post partisan "one" America happy, happy joy, joy?
Aren't we the ones we have been waiting for? C'mon Obama people, lead the way!
Nice try, Host. That comment from me was a response to TWO hateful, unprovoked comments you hurled at me. Anyone who gives a shit can read this thread and see it plain as day. You come in here and start spewing hate at anyone and everyone, and then when they respond you call them hateful trolls. Completely insane.
Ann won't ban you, but I will. You officially do not exist.
dualdiagnosis - Listen I hate to be the one to tell you, but Obama isn't actually the President...yet.
How could you not know that?
I'm straight, and I'm a lawyer, and I'm agnostic on gay marriage, choosing to support the will of the people. I've been doing some research. My thoughts:
1. I find it hard to believe that a state constitution can be changed by a mere popular vote. That seems like a recipe for chaos.
2. Where has the legislature been on this? California seems to have a weak and inept legislature, which is too bad.
3. The court challenges seem to rest on semantics. Never a good sign for the challengers.
zach, I appreciate your attempt at civility, but I'm afraid it's not going to fly here.
There's a circle of regulars (a circle-jerk if you may) that pounce on anyone with whom they disagree, and logic is not to be found.
You can talk until hell freezes over but you're wasting your time.
*I stop by just to aggravate.
I stop by just to aggravate.
Well there it is Althouse. Can you please kick this guy out now that he admits to attempting to ruin threads?
Hi, remember me? John. Well, I just dropped by to invite you to visit my new blog: Free FHM Magazines. I would just contact you
soon. See you,later... Thanks.
I find it hard to believe that a state constitution can be changed by a mere popular vote. That seems like a recipe for chaos.
It depends on whether or not it's an amendment or a revision. In CA, an amendment passes with majority vote (unlike in Florida where they had to pass their anti gay amendment by at least 60% of the vote).
A "revision," which is what the challengers to Prop 8 are trying to say it is, requires a 2/3 vote by legislature, and then majority vote by the people. The revision vs. amendment thing comes down to semantics like you said, and it just depends on whether the court wants to really piss off the fundies.
I'd rather talk to Roy all day than Michael.
Now, that's not fair. Winning the election all by itself was the springboard promised to elevate humanity to a new consciousness.
Former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young even said that- “Nothing would have more impact on the economy and the price of oil than his election as president,” Young said. “There would be a boost of 1,000 points on the stock market the first week after he’s elected. This would be better than a chicken in every pot.”
Seven, you needed me to say it?
You can't possibly be this dumb.
Then again...
Hi, remember me? John. Well, I just dropped by to invite you to visit my new blog: Free FHM Magazines
LOL
Zach -- Thank you.
dualdiagnosis - So you suddenly live by the words of Andrew Young?
*Palin says she saw photos of human footprints inside those of dinosaurs. Do you believe that, too?
Like I said before: He's NOT the President...yet.
Write it down.
Seven Machos said..."I'd rather talk to Roy all day than Michael."
That hurts.
Seven,
Here's my take, in my own words (maybe good, maybe not):
Prop 8, an amendment to the California State Constitution passed by the state voters on Nov. 4, 2008, places the following language into the California Constitution:
only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Prop 8 technically became law immediately upon recognition of passage, but is currently in a murky state due to legal challenges filed just hours after it's passage became evident.
The main legal challenge is an attempt to have the California Supreme Court declare Amendment Prop 8 invalid because it is a "constitutional revision", meaning that Prop 8 is making, in their view, a "fundamental alteration" of the State Constitution. The main argument is to the effect: Gay marriage is currently legal in California. Changing that would be a fundamental alteration of the equal protection guarantees of the State Constitution. To make such a change, the Constitution requires a "revision", and not an amendment. A revision must first garner two-thirds of the State Legislature's vote before passing it on for a vote from the California electorate.
This same challenge was made against Prop 8 immediately after it qualified to be put on the November 4th ballot, but court review was denied.
2 things are important to this case:
1) Prop 8 was under way in the fall of 2007, collecting signatures for a Nov 2008 ballot placement.
2) The California Supreme Court made it's ruling legalizing gay marriage on May 15, 2008, at least 7 months after Prop 8 was already under way in efforts to be placed on the Nov. 2008 ballot. Prior to May 15, 2008, the State Constitution did not recognize gay marriage. Therefore, Prop 8 was fully on its way as an amendment, and no one on any side of the amendment believed that a revision was necessary.
Yesterday, Nov. 17th, the Proponents of Prop 8 asked the California Supreme Court to hear the challenges to Prop 8's validity, asking that no stay be placed and that the Court would rule expeditiously.
Where the challenge will go is anyone's guess at this point.
Several groups with which I am familiar are already readying fund raising to recall California Supreme Court Jurists if the Court overturns the will of the people on this issue. I personally am aware of over 8 million dollars pledged so far.
There is substantial anger over this on the Pro-Prop 8 side that is simmering while the Anti-Prop 8 side holds rallies. The fact that the rallies have become more peaceful and more respectful has helped. But, trust me on this, more money will flow nationally into a California Supreme Court recall than came even to support Prop 8. Even many gay marriage supporters are mad thinking about the will of the people -played by the rules - being overturned again is too much. You would be surprised to find out what very famous gay marriage supporter said that on a conference call I listened in on.
As to the gay marriages that were performed under the Supreme Court ruling between May 15 and November 4? There are many opinions, but I do think it will be difficult to imagine them standing, at least in California, if Prop 8 is upheld. Why? Simple: read the amendment:
Again, only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
I believe and most Prop 8 proponents would be happy with, all gay marriages performed in California were converted to Civil Unions.
We shall see.
Host -- Thanks very much for that.
Several groups with which I am familiar are already readying fund raising to recall California Supreme Court Jurists if the Court overturns the will of the people on this issue.
No question. This seems like a really dumb thing to do, and it seems like the kind of thing that will activate all kinds of political pushback -- that would end up costing gay marriage proponents on many other issues they care about.
Except you missed the political news of the day that makes it clear that some of the rest of it is irrelevant.
It's being reported that in his meeting with Senator Obama, John McCain (with his faithful ventriloquist's puppet, Lindsay Graham at his side) talked about what they can do 'together.'
Now, what that likely means is that McCain, freed of the need to even appear somewhat conservative, will be back to his usual Maverick self.
So my count is this:
58 Democrats (including Joe, now that Democrats have accomodated his ego) + McCain + McCain Jr. = 60.
And I haven't even gotten to the Susan Collinses and the Arlen Spectres or the fact that nearly half of the GOP Senate caucus is up for election in 2010 as reasons to suggest that the 58th seat is the level at which McConnell will not be able to maintain a filibuster. A feared, ruthless and iron fisted party leader (like Tom DeLay used to be in the house) might be able to whip all the Republicans into ranks and keep them there but I don't see any Senate Republican leader who fits that mold, so the GOP filibuster is in fact dead regardless of whether Democrats get the last two seats or not.
Jan 20th, 2009 is the day America moves past the issues that divide us, the day of hope and changiness we can believe in? Can't wait.
How can Host and Seven still be yapping about what Prop 8 "really" means? There have been about 500 articles relating to every aspect of it, including the future challenges via the courts.
Do either of you read newspapers?
* And you know, maybe the two of you could take a shot at getting hitched in California.
Right now I know of no laws against same like-minded moron marriages.
dualdiagnosis - Can I assume you'll miss all of the "wonderfulness" we've experienced over the past eight years with G.W. running the show?
Regardless of how well Obama does, George W. Bush will be forever remembered as one of the worst President in our nation's history...if not the very worst.
It's downright embarrassing.
The California Supreme Court made it's ruling legalizing gay marriage on May 15, 2008, at least 7 months after Prop 8 was already under way in efforts to be placed on the Nov. 2008 ballot. Prior to May 15, 2008, the State Constitution did not recognize gay marriage. Therefore, Prop 8 was fully on its way as an amendment, and no one on any side of the amendment believed that a revision was necessary.
That's incorrect, for two reasons:
(1):Signatures were being *collected* before the California SC made its ruling, but the petition wasn't ratified for inclusion on the ballot until June -- several weeks AFTER the court ruled.
(2): California had already banned gay marriage by proposition. There was, therefore, no reason to amend the state constitution UNLESS one feared that either (a) the constitution protected gay marriage or (b) the courts would find that it did, even though it didn't. It cannot plausibly be argued that the proponents of Prop 8 didn't anticipate a right to gay marriage being found in the state constitution -- and, in fact, Prop 8 proponents argued that an amendment was necessary specifically because they expected the courts to rule in favor of gay marriage. That was the (as it turns out, justified) fear that supporters of an amendment used to scare people into signing the petition.
As for the idea of recalling the SC justices... what will that accomplish? Their replacements will be nominated by Schwarzenegger, who is gay-friendly and was against Prop 8, and confirmed by the legislature, which WELL to the left of the electorate on the gay marriage issue.
WELL to the left of the electorate
Rev -- Here you have identified the problem, perhaps. How can a legislature be to the left of the electorate? Is it a structural issue, where there is (literal) over-representation in urban areas? Is the legislature actually in line with its public? What gives? And how does it continue?
58 Democrats (including Joe, now that Democrats have accomodated his ego) + McCain + McCain Jr. = 60. And I haven't even gotten to the Susan Collinses and the Arlen Spectres or the fact that nearly half of the GOP Senate caucus is up for election in 2010 as reasons to suggest that the 58th seat is the level at which McConnell will not be able to maintain a filibuster.
But you're also not counting the many Democratic senators from red states. Take Ted Stevens' Democratic replacement, for example: he is firmly right-wing on taxes, guns, ANWR drilling and illegal immigration. That puts him on the Republican side of a lot of key issues.
There is no magic number at which a Republican filibuster becomes unbreakable. More seats just makes it more likely they can pull it off.
It's easy to look like a unified party when you are the opposition.
rev,
Thank you for the clarification. I was somewhat murky in my explanation.
You are certainly correct in the reason that Prop 8 was put on the ballot. The bluing of California - a state that is so blind to the damage that the Democrats and a RINO governor have done and are doing - of course made Prop 8 a necessity.
But it is the height of disingenousness for the anti-8 forces to not play fair by saying the amendment vs revision changed on May 15.
As to replacing Supreme Court Justices - I'm old enough to remember Rose Bird. Even then-governor Jerry Brown began to back track when it became apparent that the public was fed up with then Democrat politicians in California. Prop 13 began then too. Democxrats wil always do what's selfish and worst for California. And eventually, the public needs to kick their ass again.
A recall will be a good ass kicking.
Seven,
California is heavily gerrymandered. It is possible that some of the legislators would face primary challenges over their gay marriage stance, but outside of some of the minority-heavy districts I don't picture it being that much of an issue.
California is heavily gerrymandered.
That's the understatement of the year right there. Of California's fifty-some-odd (54?) congressional districts, only one is competitive. That was the seat held by Gary Condit when his intern/mistress was killed in a DC park.
There isn't much more give in the state legislature, either. This kind of thing makes the party bosses enormously powerful, since they control the money, and thus who wins the primary. The general election result is a given.
It's not hard to understand why the California legislature is one of the most corrupt in the union.
But it is the height of disingenousness for the anti-8 forces to not play fair by saying the amendment vs revision changed on May 15.
Nobody's saying that.
The reason the pro-8 folks attempted an amendment rather than a revision is simple: they have no hope in hell of getting a revision, and they know it. If they could have gotten a revision, they'd have done that instead. They settled for an amendment because that we the one and ONLY means they had for changing the state constitution. So they set out to do that.
Then came May 15.
But May 15 didn't add a new right, not so far as the courts are concerned. What the court ruling did was say that a long-established right to equal treatment under the law made the restriction of marriage to hetero couples unconstitutional. This is exactly what Prop 8's backers had been expecting. Nothing special changed on May 15, so far as the attempt to Constitutionally ban gay marriage is concerned.
Host With The Most - Thanks for that nice synopsis of Prop 8 in the past and where it stands now - along with why calling an Amendment underway that preceeded a Court action is unlikely to be subverted by the Cali Supremes into a "revision". And why if the Justices again thwart the will of the People - the name "Rose Bird" will again be trotted out.
************
Seven Machos - I find it hard to believe that a state constitution can be changed by a mere popular vote. That seems like a recipe for chaos.
Remember that the original failed Constitution of the "Founders" then the better one that got rid of the "Articles of Confederation" was initiated by the Will of the People. Not lawyers dressed in robes or exclusively "official officeholders".
As Jefferson said, the Will of the People is of ultimate sovereignity, and he went on to say his preference was not for lifetime judges or "senior officials" to block each new generation from having any say in revising their Constitution.
Many years later, Woodrow Wilson wrote about the rampant corruption and unresponsiveness of legislators to the people being based on the great flaw of Legislators being controlled by seniority and committee. Which made the legislator from one district by virtue of seniority and being committee head that had voters enriched by his thefts or blocking statewide or nationwide preferences harmful to his district -kept voting him in -unresponsive to the votes of other people in other Districts he affected.
We saw that on a national level as senior Senators like Stevens and Byrd from Appropriations could almost loot the treasury to their hearts content.
In Cali, you have old bulls that have driven the State into near-bankruptcy to reward constituents and are immune to being removed from their high state offices except if Parties change hands or a People's ballot intiative is undertaken.
Some states like CT lack the recall, ballot power, so people there are shit out of luck to get rid of bad State Supreme Court justices or get laws changed if the top dog committee head has been paid enough or is ideologically committed. The head of the CT Judiciary Committee is some guy that represents Yale and said no law overturning gay marriage will get past him while he is still breathing and the Yale community wishes more gay agenda items be emplaced. No matter how "bigoted" less progressive areas of CT are.
**************
Revenent - Same applause for you on helping other readers better understand the Prop 8 appeal odds of being overturned and the consequences if judges did it. Nice post.
**********
Seven Machos - Rev -- Here you have identified the problem, perhaps. How can a legislature be to the left of the electorate? Is it a structural issue, where there is (literal) over-representation in urban areas? Is the legislature actually in line with its public? What gives?
Two answers -
1. Legislators elected that are beholden to organized identity politics groups are going to go with appeasing them, even though they are to the left of the "identity group" they champion. Happy contented people do not join identity politics groups...and not being organized, can more easily be screwed by the career politician. Whereas, the Association of Hispanic Students, the Society of Advancing Female Engineers, LA Council of Black Ministers want things they believe a bigger, wealth distributionist government of the Left will give them. Who will raise a holy stink if denied goodies - even if it means screwing 95% of the constituents who don't want the special interest group to get the goodies because it means higher taxes. Because the average person will just bend over and take it. Thats how power works in a corrupted, do what is expedient - America.
2. California special interest group money is spread around the State. Much of that money comes from elite groups that tend to be far more liberal than a legislator's constituents. You have the SF&LA gays and their Agenda, the Hollywood Jews, radicalized union leaders, college groups, what's left of Silicon Valley that hasn't been outsourced to China and India, Agribiz, wealthy Jewish and old money WASP real estate developers and bankers...
Except for Agribiz, and they join the others on Open Borders - the fact that most Hispanic and black leaders defied their constituents and went with the gay demands was a predictable function of the power of the moneyed progressive groups.
I wonder if the media will be able to keep convincing people the Reps control Congress?
my mailbox needs to be fumigated from the nasty envelope received from sarah p. thanks a lot. signed, e.e. pissed off.
Byron York's favorite Eric Holder story:
In the period before armed agents seized the child, the Justice Department had been leaking its intention to avoid any sort of armed intervention. It would all be done quietly, they suggested. When top Department officials were asked about it, they said nothing to change that impression. About two weeks before the raid, Tim Russert asked Holder, "You wouldn't send a SWAT team in the dark of night to kidnap the child, in effect?" Holder answered, "No, we don't expect anything like that to happen." Then the Department did precisely that. The day after the seizure, Holder appeared again with Russert, who asked, "Why such a dramatic change in position?" "I'm not sure I'd call it a dramatic change," Holder answered. "We waited 'til five in the morning, just before dawn."
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
Would people mind ceasing to engage Michael? You all keep complaining about him, and then you engage with him. Stop talking to him, stop acknowledging him, and let him stew.
Seven Machos said...
"I wonder if the argument out of California's wiser-than-thou elites will be that the state constitution cannot be changed in this way because such a change would be unconstitutional. The argument could be that it would have competing clauses that cannot be squared away."
The last in time rule deal with any such conflicts.
Zachary Paul Sire said...
"A 'revision,' which is what the challengers to Prop 8 are trying to say it is, requires a 2/3 vote by legislature, and then majority vote by the people."
Or four votes in a conference of the California Supreme Court.
Cedarford said...
"Stevens losing may mean Palin just saw a door she was expecting God to open for her slam shut."
Palin had no interest whatsoever in taking Stevens' Senate seat, if that's what you have in mind.
"Remember that the original failed Constitution of the 'Founders' then the better one that got rid of the 'Articles of Confederation' was initiated by the Will of the People."
In all the time you've been commenting here and advancing the charge that the Constitution has "failed," you have failed to identify a single serious problem with it, let alone one that wold amount to a systemic failure.
Of course the Representatives control Congress! :)
The reason Ayers' group never killed anyone is simple: they were incompetent. They blew *themselves* up building their murder weapon.
Ha! I was going to say that, glad you beat me to it.
if Timothy McVeigh had accidentally blown himself up building his truck bomb
If only.
The only good terrorist is an incompetent, dead terrorist.
I see a reason why the FALN convicts were granted clemency. According to wikipedia, the FALN terrorists were convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery, bombmaking, and "sedition" only. They were not held responsible for the death of anyone.
Can we get away from Ayers? He whines that he never killed anyone, but when you put nails into bombs you are sure trying to kill someone.
God! Did I really just waste a minute of my life writing about Ayers? That's 70 or so heartbeats I'll never get back. Dang!
Eric:
If only Condit's district was competitive, then why was there a takeover of a different district (Pombo's) by a Democrat in 2006 and a 1,000 vote race in DooLittle's district this year, even with DooLittle off the ballot?
Revenant:
Maybe there are some Democrats from red states, but honestly, do you see them joining a Republican filibuster against their own leadership? I don't. If you disagree with the leadership there is an easy out that avoids making such a partisan statement while still taking the opposite position-- it is to vote for an end to debate, and then vote 'no' when the resolution comes to the floor.
As far as ANWR, that won't even come to the floor in the first place.
Maybe there are some Democrats from red states, but honestly, do you see them joining a Republican filibuster against their own leadership?
Do I see them voting against cloture (or abstaining from the vote), you mean? Absolutely. The Democratic Senate caucus has a lot of freshman senators from red states. If these guys vote a left-wing party line they're going to be out on their asses in two to six years and they know it.
If you disagree with the leadership there is an easy out that avoids making such a partisan statement
There is nothing partisan about a filibuster. Besides, what voters care about is results. If (for example) an expanded gun ban gets pushed through, Alaskan voters aren't going to care that Begich voted against the ban after he voted to end a Republican filibuster, because they'll know that the filibuster was what was standing between them and the new gun ban.
Post a Comment