Thursday Afternoon Open Thread

Elena Kagan is our newest Supreme Court Justice. The Senate confirmed her nomination by a vote of 63-37. See how reaching out to the GOP garnered a ton of votes? The PPUS, working like a charm.

Open Thread.

< Axelrod: Obama Opposes Same Sex Marriage | Senate Approves $600 Million for Mexico Border Security >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    she would probably end (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:31:34 PM EST
    up marrying someone with connections to a maternity ward.

    Unions to (some Dems) (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:33:50 PM EST
    Don't count on us!

    h/t HuffPo

    AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said on Wednesday that his union will let certain endangered Democrats fend for themselves and potentially lose their seats in the upcoming November elections due to their anti-labor voting records.

    Speaking to a small gathering of reporters shortly after President Obama implored the union's Executive Council to gear up for the final months of campaigning, Trumka insisted that his organization will not serve as a blank check for the party.

    There would be "some" lawmakers, he stressed, who won't get any help from the AFL-CIO, which has said it is prepared to spend more than $53 million on the election. Trumka wouldn't name names. But he insisted that the union won't be persuaded to invest in a contest even if the election is a toss-up.

    "I don't think viability has as much to do with it," Trumka said. "We look at people who are friends and if they are friends we will stay with them," he said. "But if they haven't been friends, than we are not going to dilute the resources that we have helping them when there are other candidates who have been real friends to the working people needing help."

    um, little help here (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:58:42 PM EST
    Capt., I am curious how the experiment (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:01:37 PM EST
    re hours at work is going at your workplace.  Any data available?

    its totally awsum (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:20:49 PM EST
    not sure about data but the tell us that from the company side its working great.  from our side everyone loves it.  earlier this week I went home in the middle of the day and cleaned my house for a few hours showered sat around for a while and came back.

    people come and go all hours of the day and night.

    no one wants to go back.


    Mexico OK's Gay Marriage (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:40:59 PM EST
    MEXICO CITY -- The Mexican Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a fledgling law allowing same-sex marriages in Mexico City is constitutional, rejecting an appeal by federal prosecutors who argued that it violated the charter's guarantees to protect the family....

    "It does not appear to me to be unconstitutional," Justice Jose Gudino said during Thursday's session. "The concept of the family established in the constitution ... is an open concept."


    And Argentina too (none / 0) (#96)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:35:11 PM EST
    The Vatican must be pulling its hair out.

    But Mexico has had a love/hate relationship with the Catholic Church.  In the wake of the 1911 Revolution and Pancho Villa and Zapata, the Catholic Church was almost outlawed, or, well, faced several legal restrictions that significantly curtailed its influence.


    Wait a minute (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:45:03 PM EST
    I have a better legal story than my dog problems.  I have complained about how the police around here shake down the teenagers and the teenagers don't know what their rights are and it is shameful.

    Anyhow, I was looking all that stuff up online not long ago.  Then talking to my daughter about it too.

    My daughter went to Dothan last weekend to dance at a club called Imagination.  This originally started out as mostly a gay club, I learned this from my daughters not straight friends she went to high school with.  It scared me too, I thought the kids were taking a huge risk in the South but without risk nothing will change in the South.  But EVERYTHING ELSE entertainmentwise sucks so bad that they all go to Imagination now to dance.  They do allow underage in to dance but not drink. My daughter can now legally drink.

    Anyhow last Friday night they are leaving the club.  The driver was underage, and had not had a drink.  Some cop was waiting in the low lights nearby watching cars leave though and he picks them to pull over.  He gives the driver a breathalizer and nothing...flat zero.  So then he pulls all the kids out of the car and starts asking who drank and who didn't.  My daughter (who I'm sure drank because now she is unafraid of Mr. Policeofficer) bursts out with this, "This is so phucking illegal".  And she says the cop simply stops, tells them all to get in the car and go home, gets in his car and leaves.  Buwahahahahahahahaha!

    Dangerous, IMO (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:06:08 PM EST
    Better to stick to the script...  Are being detained...

    Only because pissing off a PO can lead to headaches.

    Just heard from some friends who were fishing up near the Canadian border, and were stopped AZ style and asked for proof of citizenship, or something like that.

    Turns out that the Border Patrol is allowed to harass people 100 miles from the border. Ask for papers, run checks without any probable cause. One friend was an Irish and undocumented, in the US for 17 years..  he wound up in jail for 4 days until 10G bond was posted. They treated him extremely well, as they were also of Irish ancestry...  

    One story they related was stopping some young people and smelling weed...  the people did not know that the border patrol had the right to hassle them and started yelling about constitutional rights and illegal, bla bla...  They said, that if everyone checks out, they take the weed and throw it in the river (right.. lol) and end of story. But because they mouthed off the border patrol called the state cops in and they got busted.

    Jeralyn has posted the ACLU palm card  ...

    It would good to give it to your daughter, imo.


    She has it :) (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:08:54 PM EST
    This is how the whole discussion started between her and I.  Jeralyn's post and the family discussion afterwards is what caused her to burst out with "This is so phucking illegal" :)

    Her daughter may be correct, but tasered. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:18:56 PM EST
    I'm starting to think that (none / 0) (#127)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 08:51:14 AM EST
    caring parents around here will want to think about some sort of recording device in the cars anymore with our kids.  The police have them to record inappropriate actions by civilians but I'll bet they aren't used to record their inappropriate actions very often.  They are harassing kids deliberately because kids don't know what their rights are.  Particularly in this subculture where they all must yes ma'am and no sir everyone here older than they are without exception.  That part always freaks me out.  Nobody is yes ma'amed robotically out West, and if all children HAD TO address all adults in that fashion out West there would probably be a lawsuit :)

    Yeah (none / 0) (#139)
    by squeaky on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:12:51 PM EST
    Well make sure that you are in a one party consent state... because if you are in one of the twelve two party consent states, you may be arrested for illegal recording..

    Alabama is a one party consent state...


    Good (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:16:25 PM EST
    And f' the pigs...  just do it politely, that is, when they are within earshot.

    Yikes. She was lucky. (none / 0) (#120)
    by byteb on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:59:21 PM EST
    Mouthing off like that to a cop in good ole NYC is never a good idea.

    So it is worse in NYC? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 08:52:33 AM EST
    I'm surprised New Yorkers put up with it.  I can't say she "mouthed off", she stated the truth.

    Well....there's this interesting tidbit: (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by vicndabx on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:28:49 AM EST
    Last year, NYPD officers stopped and questioned or frisked people more than 575,000 times, the most ever. Nearly nine out of 10 of those stopped and questioned by police last year were neither arrested nor issued a summons.

    NYCLU Applauds Gov. Paterson for Signing Stop-and-Frisk Database Bill into Law

    Was brining my son back to his mother's house a few weeks ago and saw a guy getting patted down by two undercover cops.  The cops had him up against his car as theirs blocked an intersection.  The man looked to be in his 30's.  He was latino and driving a pretty nice BMW.  He had a look on his face that mixes bewilderment, fear and anger.  While I don't know the circumstances of his stop, I used the scene to talk a little to my 7-year old son about the rights we have as citizens in this country.  I also thought, I need to print out a copy of that ACLU card and keep a copy with me.


    BTW, what happened re dog bite/fence case? (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:35:03 PM EST
    Oh it's a mess (none / 0) (#129)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:09:12 AM EST
    Now I'm accused of intimidating people by hiring an attorney.  And I think it is the actual attorney hired that has chapped someone, because this attorney will appeal this right up the chain and I want him to as well.  Bad dog legislation is really becoming a huge problem.  The AKC is working to address the problem, but it's huge.

    I still don't know if it has been dismissed or continued.  What I do know, the magistrate or at least his secretary person is really chapped....at me.

    My neighbor tried to drop the charges a few months back and they told her she would have to pay court costs.  Then we started speaking, because the fence needed to be stained and you have to come on our property to do that.  Upon beginning to talk to each other, that was when she tried to drop the thing I guess.  She made the attempt without saying anything to us about it.

    Later she told us that court fees would have to be paid to drop things, and of course we offered to do that vs. going to court because we have heard that this municipal judge is fairly nuts :)  I know I have a good attorney.  He's already told me he will likely appeal if not happy with the result.  But who wants to yes sir crazy judges?  Not me!

    When the court fees were attempted to be paid, that was when I found out that I'm a bully.  My attorney in the magistrate secretary's opinion has caused my neighbor to feel so bullied that she wants to drop this thing.  This is news to me because my neighbor didn't even know who the attorney was until the day before yesterday when she went to his office to sign some affidavit to dismiss. Even when she was there (I was there too and signed it too), she had this attorney mixed up with some other local attorney in her mind according to her.

    The magistrate or his office or one person in his office is really mad at me though I guess :)  I am bad, but you already knew that.


    Very complicated! (none / 0) (#142)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:44:45 PM EST
    Christina Romer leaving WH job. (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:01:10 PM EST
    Romer, chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, is leaving her position at the end of the month. She will be returning to the faculty of Cal-Berkeley.

    Can't say as I blame her. How much day-to-day exposure to Larry Summers can a woman endure?

    OTOH, this whole thing (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:03:31 PM EST
    was so under the radar that even I missed the rollcall.

    Was there no cloture vote?

    Yup, (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:17:38 PM EST
    Cloture was apparently waived and/or granted by UC. The rollcall required only 51 votes for confirmation.

    No way would Republicans vote (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:33:10 PM EST
    for a filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee that they could not win.  

    Only getting 37 votes to sustain a filibuster is a loser all the way around for them....

    They want to argue down the road that filibustering a Supreme Court nominee is wrong and never done by them.....


    Do you suppose the Pres. or someone (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:12:49 PM EST
    on his behalf assured themselves both Kagen and Sotomayor were definitely against same sex marriage?

    Probably the opposite (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:15:47 PM EST
    agree (none / 0) (#6)
    by CST on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:22:29 PM EST
    i think deep down he would love to be president when this was struck down (and therefore get some historical credit).

    he just doesn't want to be seen doing it himself - because of 2012.


    I think deep down he doesn't care (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:39:20 PM EST
    and if, in his opinion, advocating bigotry in the short term can help him get re-elected he's not losing sleep over it.

    To: dk (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:58:02 PM EST
    It must be an incredible feeling to know what anyone thinks "deep down." Hey, give the guy a break. Unlike Republican candidates, Obama is not out there moaning, sputtering, and whatnot about evil and all that.
    What I have found in my life: The occasion is rare when someone--especially a political person--is going to hop to & think & say exactly what I do. To think otherwise is a set up for continual, unrelenting disappointment. Expressions about what another must feel rely on a number of assumptions...don't they?

    Although having McClurkin (4.25 / 4) (#73)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:11:55 PM EST
    on stage performing during your campaign and Christian minister who advocates against same sex relationships/marriage deliver the invocation at your inauguration mean something, don't they?

    If Obama's appointees to (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:27:03 PM EST
    SCOTUS affirm right to gay marriage....then it won't mean anything....

    SCOTUS is the real battleground nationally....


    Do they? (none / 0) (#119)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 09:30:04 PM EST
    To me, the answer is, yes. (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:50:22 AM EST
    to christinep: (none / 0) (#81)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:17:02 PM EST
    first off, I was responding to a comment that itself claimed to know what Obama was feeling deep down.  So, why was your comment directed only at me?  What does that say about you?  You, too, may benefit from some self-reflection.

    I'm fully aware that political persons are not going to hop to and think and say what I do.  But that seems completely irrelevant to fact that Obama is advocating bigotry.


    Well.... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:32:44 PM EST
    if others claim to know what anyone is thinking "deep down" (myself included), let me clarify my doubt that one can do so.  I would add: "Bigotry" is a strong word...and, when one uses it (unless to be strategically provocative), I hope that the charge is supported by all the facts, not just assumptions and not be emotions.
    My reflection to myself as well as to you: Exercise caution about making judgmental comments about "bigotry" and other character assessments in the heat of an emotional incident.

    Obama did say, during the campaign, (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:15:47 PM EST
    that his reasons for not supporting same-sex marriage came out of his deeply held christian religious beliefs. That does not sound like the words of a politician who is just trying to sidestep an issue.

    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:38:02 PM EST
    his religious views seem to have devolved along with his political statements.  According to the Windy City Times (reported by Tracy Baim), Barack Obama stated that he was in favor of same-sex marriage in a signed questionaire dated Feb 15, 1996. This was during his campaign for Illinois State Senate. During his US Senate campaign he moved to civil unions. During the presidential campaign he was opposed to California Prop 8 because it was "divisive and discriminatory", a line Axelrod recalled in discussion surrounding Judge Walker's ruling. He was for it before he was against it.

    Like his views on a number of (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:45:05 PM EST
    issues. Single-payer health care? For it before he was against it. FISA? against it before he was for it. Same-sex marriage? Well, you get the point.

    So, who is the real Obama? The IL state senator running in a very liberal and partly upscale district? Or the current incarnation?

    Sometimes I think that the only reason Obama is a Democrat is that he started his political career in Chicago.

    He's like Dianne Feinstein in that regard. Had DiFi's career begun just about anywhere else but San Francisco, I am convinced she would be a Republican.


    Separate but Equal (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:21:11 PM EST
    is a bigoted concept.  The President of the United States advocated for that concept today.  One can try to contort ones way around it, but, IMO, one cannot do so successfully.

    Hey, dk, we agree. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by caseyOR on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:30:28 PM EST
    Separate but Equal is a bigoted position. And Obama has been advocating this position for a whole lot longer than just today.

    My point was that those who think Obama is just saying these things because of political expediency are wrong.


    Hi CaseyOR (none / 0) (#114)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:35:22 PM EST
    My comment was actually in response to christinep.  Sorry for the mixup.  I agree with you.

    I think he cares (none / 0) (#21)
    by CST on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:45:18 PM EST
    about historical optics.  And he's able to do the math - both short-term and long-term.

    But no, clearly not losing sleep.


    Well, after the statement today (none / 0) (#23)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:47:53 PM EST
    I don't see any other way to intrepret his short term strategy...i.e. support bigotry.  IMO, his chances for re-election do not hinge on him advocating bigotry, but I think he does, and he seems neutral enough on the issue to be fine with it.

    All major Dems are the same right now (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:50:57 PM EST
    They are not leading....

    The changes will come from other sources...


    Not entirely true. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:55:33 PM EST
    There are some Senators who have declared support for gay marriage.  And, sever former, but still active, party leaders, such as Bill Clinton and Howard Dean, support it.

    True, no sitting president has supported it yet, but Obama can't completely hide behind the "no leading Democrats" line to excuse his advocacy of bigotry.


    OK (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:03:47 PM EST
    So all sitting presidents were bigots?

    Do you think that Bill Clinton has the luxury to support gay marriage, now that he is not president?

    I do.


    Of course they all (none / 0) (#77)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:14:45 PM EST
    were when it comes to gay rights.  Not sure what your point is.

    My Point (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:28:54 PM EST
    Sitting Presidents are sworn to uphold Federal Law. DOMA is the law of the land.

    I do not think that Obama is a bigot. He said that he was against Prop 8 and that he thought it was divisive and mean spirited.

    He also said he supports equal rights, and that marriage is up to state law.

    I guess I do not see his statement as POTUS about gay marriage, and his following statements as contradictory.

    And yes, I was offended by McClurkin, and Warren, at the inauguration but I did not see that as evidence that Obama was a bigot.



    Obama said he supports (none / 0) (#98)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:38:08 PM EST
    equality for gays and lesbians but does not support gay marriage.  

    I just don't see a plausible argument that it can read other than advocating separate but equal, which given the history of the fight by oppressed groups in this society is clearly a bigoted position.  He is also smart enough to know that other bigoted people, including politicians, judges, etc. will rely on his advocacy of separate but equal to support/justify their own views and actions.

    Further, this is 2010, and given popular attitudes toward gays and lesbians in this day and age IMO it would not ruin his chance at re-election if he were to advocate less bigoted positions.  That is not to say that majorities of Americans support gay marriage...but then majorities of Americans do not support Obama's wars, or his for-profit health insurance support act, but he may still win re-election in spite of those policies as well.


    State Issue (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:11:08 PM EST
    And the Federal law is DOMA. Congress should overturn DOMA, if and when it does, Obama would support Gay Marriage on a Federal level.

    Do you think that the difference in the age of consent between states is bigotry?

    Has Obama said that he will invalidate gay marriages because of DOMA?

    As far as I read it, the POTUS is stating the Federal Governments position dictated by congress regarding marriage.

    The fact that he is also stating Constitutional law about equal protection is not contradictory as that is a US law, marriage is state law.


    Wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:16:41 PM EST
    Gibbs stated that Obama opposes same-sex marriage.  The statement is clearly in support of those who argue that gays and lesbians can have rights equal to straight people without the right to marry.  In other words, he is making the separate but equal argument.  This is a bigoted argument.

    (Is this a good place in put my (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:46:52 PM EST
    offspring's speculation it may later come to light Obama is gay?)  

    Only if you are a birther (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:01:31 PM EST
    A reminder maybe (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by christinep on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:01:02 PM EST
    Significant social change usually is not generated by the titular leader at any given time. Real social, values change comes from the broad society in which we live. And, I think, that the changes involved here are inexorable.

    that's pretty much (none / 0) (#28)
    by CST on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:53:14 PM EST
    what i said re-short term in this thread and the other.

    I still don't think either justice will go that way.  Time will tell.


    11-dimensional something. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:30:53 PM EST
    Those who champion (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:47:49 PM EST
    the Walker decision, bless their hearts, seem to think they have a shot at convincing Kennedy to go their way....I worry the gay community is being set up for another heartbreaking fall on this....

    The Walker decision was suprisingly (to me) authoritative on the factual issues.....The anti-gay forces were so weak on the facts....I never thought the factual disputes at trial were all that relevant, or that the anti-gay forces would be unable to at least pepper the record with their usual b.s.--but Boies may have really been right to put a factual case.  (Hey, anyone that can claim the Yankees as their client has got some smarts, right BTD?)

    As to BTD's point about Kagan on her answer about gay marriage during her confirmation hearing, I listened to her answer at the time and thought, how wicked smart she was.  What I recall her saying was that there was no constitutional right to gay marriage that is recognized by the Supreme Court.  That is right now, given past rulings and the current court, there is no such right that has been expressed to date--a pure statement of fact, not of her views.  The implication was--given the context of the lead up to the question--a new precedent or decision would not be out of the question....

    She showed her bureaucratic legerdemain....perhaps less than forthcoming....but I sensed her sentiment there...


    I don't know if the (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by dk on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:52:38 PM EST
    answer was particularly original.  I mean, that's the same kind of answer that Republican nominees give when you ask them about abortion rights.

    I actually think that Kennedy is probably more cognizant of his place in history regarding this issue than Obama is.  So I'm going to remain cautiously optimistic.  I do think, though, that even if Walker's decision gets overruled by the Supreme Court, Kennedy would want to keep the ruling narrow enough such that it wouldn't close the door to future legal challenges.  After all, this is the guy who authored Lawrence.  He clearly has sympathy for this issue.


    Yes he does (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:54:15 PM EST
    It's a lot to hope for, but there's some basis.

    Nate Silver had an interesting (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:26:26 PM EST
    post that said that lawyers often tend to overestimate the effect that legal analysis plays in court rulings.....

    He had a great line:

    [H]uman beings are infinitely skilled at coming up with post-facto rationalizations for decisions that are essentially arbitrary.

    I do believe that judges are more unpredictable than juries, especially now with the abudance of jury consultants and jury questionnaires that can give you a pretty good idea of a jury's view of the legal system, etc.  And the group dynamic of a jury can balance out the outlier, oddball opinion of a lone juror.  If a judge gets a bee in his bonnet, it is all over.   And you never know when that is going to happen.

    So, who knows how Kennedy will see this.  The outstanding factual record developed by Boies and Olson should help.....especially if Kennedy struggles with this...


    You have a bunch more faith in the (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:34:05 PM EST
    accuracy of juty consultants than I do.

    andgarden, would you prefer the San Francisco (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:56:26 PM EST
    case had not been filed at this time, given the makeup of the present SCOTUS?

    No, (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:59:20 PM EST
    There are no guarantees, but I don't think that caution would have been fruitful.

    Stay on offense (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:02:41 PM EST
    Some day the tide will turn....

    I think (none / 0) (#43)
    by CST on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:05:50 PM EST
    that time has come.

    Justice Kennedy also wrote (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:12:01 PM EST
    the majority opinion in Romer v Evans prior to Lawrence. Romer, while not relied on by Judge Walker, is important to the civil rights/protected class basis of the trial court's decision and makes me feel Kennedy would be on board.  

    Now that you mention it (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:00:34 PM EST
    the response by conservatives on similar issues does seem familiar....

    But Kagan's subtlety was missed by many, I think.

    So, I guess you could say that she did the rope-a-dope better than most, and on a par with or exceeding Roberts..... And who said she would not be an intellectual counterweight to the Right?  


    SCOTUS will be opining on the (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:36:03 PM EST
    Ninth Circuit's opinion.

    Right to appeal the trial court's final (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:13:56 PM EST
    judgment to Ninth Circuit.  Right to file cert. w/SCOTUS but in discretion of the latter as to whether to grant cert.  

    The assumption is that the (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:19:12 PM EST
    Ninth Circuit will afirm.  At that point, it would be hard for the Supreme Court to ignore the ruling, but it theoretically could....

    If the Ninth Circuit reverses the Walker ruling--which everyone considers unlikely--then the Supreme Court could well leave that reversal intact without considering the case on the merits....

    The Supreme Court has no obligation to hear, and there is no right to appeal to the Supreme Court, in all but a handful of cases, Indian cases being the exception that comes to mind.  In the vast majority of cases, the Supreme Court can elect to hear a case at their option by granting a petition for writ of certiorari....granting cert....

    But all roads most likely lead to Kennedy....

    I want to know about the stay.  Will people be able to marry right away in California pending appeal.  And would the Ninth Circuit and/or the U.S. Supreme Court take immediate action should Walker refuse to issue a temporary stay pending appeal?  

    One expert I heard last night theorized that Walker would issue a stay because it would be better strategy for affirmance in the long run, as a stay might force the Supreme Court's hand and an immediate decision before Walker's thorough opinion had a chance to percolate and sink in.


    "No" stay would possibly force (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:30:02 PM EST
    SCOTUS's hand....

    About the same if you had asked (none / 0) (#7)
    by BTAL on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:23:50 PM EST
    for 12 goats and 4 camels.

    And your daughter would still be a Miss.  ;)

    Betcha got that Magnum P.I. look down too (none / 0) (#90)
    by BTAL on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:28:32 PM EST

    I watched Fox news last night (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:30:34 PM EST
    Gawd help me....

    But I learned that Mitch McConnell, who had an interview with Greta VanSusteren, met privately, one-on-one, with Obama in the White House a day or so ago--to see if they could find common ground.....

    Greta's show is now (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:03:31 AM EST
    GOP-TV.  I long to ask her directly how it feels to have morphed from an interesting legal analyst into a cheap partisan hack.

    Kos hires PPP to do horse race polling (none / 0) (#10)
    by magster on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:31:30 PM EST
    and is working out details with a different firm to do weekly approval rating polls.

    Obviously PPP believes it has nothing to hide since Kos made it abundantly clear he has no problem airing dirty laundry if things don't go well.  PPP supposedly agrees to release its raw data.

    Ooh, cross tabs! (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:33:55 PM EST
    The other firm is pretty obviously (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:37:03 PM EST

    PPP is basically just fine, but I think their methodology doesn't measure up to SUSA's. For example, they don't alternate options, and they also don't do random digit dial (however, in this cell phone universe, I think there may be new advantages to working off of a voter registration list).


    SUSA has a great track (none / 0) (#24)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:49:50 PM EST
    and great cross-tabs.....They do a lot of polls....

    And after all that trouble, David cast (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:32:57 PM EST
    his eye on the wife of another, whom he sent into battle so David might have the man's wife.  What is the moral of this story?  Who knows.

    perhaps this bible (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:50:11 PM EST
    this is something I should pay more attention to

    Think of the material for computer gaming. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:32:05 PM EST
    this is so cool (none / 0) (#13)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:33:09 PM EST
    Big Cats on Catnip

    I want a leopard

    It wears off pretty fast (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:38:53 PM EST
    And the more they do, they build up a tolerance :)  Just ask the three legged dude named Tyler running around here.  He's pretty funny when he is on some though.

    Alas, not all cats (none / 0) (#124)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:08:33 AM EST
    respond much to catnip.  My cats love it, love to roll in it, but after a good roll for about 30 seconds, they just get up and go about their business.  When I was a child, we had a very large, very dignified cat who turned into a giddy kitten on catnip, dancing and jumping and racing around and generally making a wonderful fool of himself.  But since then, I've not had one who had that kind of reaction, darn it.

    I wonder (none / 0) (#131)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:37:12 AM EST
    Is our nip ditch nip?  Tyler doesn't have fun for a long time either.

    Hmmm? (none / 0) (#152)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:59:06 PM EST
    Nip ditch nip?  Not following your thought...

    The reaction would be (none / 0) (#20)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:39:21 PM EST
    "Where do I find 200 Philistines?"

    Cannot express how happy I am my (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:50:37 PM EST
    new CDL arrived via mail today.  No testing required.  Valid through Sept. 2015.  

    I could not renew mine (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:56:22 PM EST
    automatically last time because of an out-of-state DMV fine from another state that was 21 years old.

    The other state had just posted the fine on some national data base....It was only $50.  I called up the other state and asked them about the statute of limitations.  They said there was no such thing.  No statute of limitations for a traffic fine?

    Because it would obviously not make economic sense to travel to another state to contest the fine, I paid it.

    21 year old fine.  And they were asking me about it as if I should recall the details....  


    Wow. I had to take the written test (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:58:39 PM EST
    last time around--cold.  When I turned in my score sheet I loudly asked the DMV clerk:  is this age-related?  She answered, just as loudly, no, it is accident-history based.  That shut me up!

    Now you are a truck driver? (none / 0) (#130)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 09:35:44 AM EST
    Ha. California Driver License. (none / 0) (#143)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:47:02 PM EST
    In today's sports update (none / 0) (#30)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:55:17 PM EST
    Tiger is tanking (tied for 74th in a field of 82),

    Brett is Brett (to retire or not to retire that is the question),

    and the Feds are after Lance.

    Speaking of Sports (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 03:57:18 PM EST
    The celtics have signed Shaq.

    Can you imagine if they had this team 10 years ago?

    K.G., Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, and Shaq

    I can see his new nickname now (none / 0) (#45)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:09:13 PM EST
    The Big Shamrock, lol

    No way! (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:30:28 PM EST
    Kobe as sympathetic underdog.....And I thought it would take a miracle to pull that off....

    Lebron has already helped Kobe there. (none / 0) (#54)
    by republicratitarian on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:31:49 PM EST
    I'm still a hater, :)

    When I was 12 years old... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:10:10 PM EST
    Wow (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:34:22 PM EST
    What a face... bulldog

    looked like that at 12, too (none / 0) (#65)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:57:47 PM EST
    Yeah (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:10:00 PM EST
    I am sure, built for bullying... and the dad, $47mil...  looks like the apple did not fall far from the tree... lol

    Shoulda seen their house then (none / 0) (#79)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:16:08 PM EST
    Inside of the place looked like Liberace exploded. I'll never forget driving around in that Corvette with him. He wasn't the least bit afraid of getting busted, we even pulled into the gas station a few times and filled up, and no one ever said a thing.

    For evangelicals that is OLD covenant (none / 0) (#48)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:14:13 PM EST
    And largely meaningless (unless, of course, they NEED it to have meaning to prove some other point). It's all about the New Covenant to them, which Jesus brought with him, negating the old.

    Which I heard a lot of... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:15:47 PM EST
    Paul too (none / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:24:42 PM EST
    But Paul also exhorted slaves to be subject to their masters.....

    Not Jesus though.....More concern about hypocrisy and the poor than sexual issues.....No mention of gay issues....


    Paul also admonished women to cover their (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:34:19 PM EST
    heads, obey their husbands, and walk behind them. and

    Women's role in society (none / 0) (#115)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:38:49 PM EST
    has changed dramatically since the 1960s.  Perhaps there have been fewer dramatic moments than in the Civil Rights movement....

    But just look at any John Wayne movie.  And how common it is now for women to occupy almost every profession....When years ago (during my lifetime)it was Teacher, Nurse and Secretary, and that was it....

    This is perhaps the biggest change in society over the years....Not even the right wingers oppose this anymore....  


    yep, like i said... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Dadler on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:25:33 PM EST
    ...it's old until they need it, then suddenly it matters again. I wish I could've filmed a single day at my high school. Learning in biology class that the earth was only 10,000 years old, that black people were a separate creation, and that dinosaurs, probably small ones, were actually aboard Noah's ark, etc. You should a seen the look I got from my Bible class teacher when I said, that with the advent of artificial insemination, isn't it interesting that now a virgin CAN give birth without any divine intervention.

    unfortunately ... (none / 0) (#50)
    by nyrias on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:19:34 PM EST
    in some part of the world, it is not uncommon for ask for an arm and a leg (figuratively speakingly of course) in exchange for the hand of one's daughter.

    But at least we don't ask for foreskins now.

    Im in love (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 04:44:33 PM EST
    this is how its done.

    A British holidaymaker has been charged with indecency in Dubai after walking through the world's largest shopping centre in a bikini.

    The woman was buying clothes and gifts in the Dubai Mall, fully dressed but in a low-cut top, when she was accosted by an Arabic woman and criticised for wearing 'revealing clothing'.

    The pair then became embroiled in a heated row in front of hundreds of bemused shoppers.

    Incensed by the Arabic woman's comments, the British woman told her to 'mind her own business' before stripping out of her clothes and 'taunting' the locals by walking around in only her bikini, it is alleged.

    Roland Burris (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:11:52 PM EST
    Fighting for his Senate seat (from The Hill):

    Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) is huddling with his lawyers to decide whether to mount a legal challenge to force his way onto the November ballot for the special election to serve out the remainder of President Obama's Senate term.

    "I said I was going to run, but the judge has made it so that I'm not a candidate," Burris told The Hill. "My lawyers are assessing what we can do.

    "I would like to be a candidate for the balance of the term."

    An Illinois judge ruled Monday that the state's general-election Senate candidates will also appear on the special-election ballot for the remainder of Obama's Senate term. 

    That means Democrat Alexi Giannoulias and Republican Mark Kirk will be running in two races for one seat.

    In addition, the judge's ruling kept Burris's name off the ballot. 

    But if Burris is successful in appealing the decision, he could end up splitting the Democratic vote, thereby giving Kirk early entree into the Senate. 

    "They were trying to correct the constitutional problem but may have created another constitutional problem; I don't know," Burris said. "My lawyers are looking at it now."

    The winner of the special election will serve out the 60 days between Nov. 3 and Jan. 3, when a new Congress is inaugurated. An official with the Illinois State Board of Elections said the results should be certified within the week of Nov. 22, which would install the new senator in the middle of the lame-duck session.

    Roland has had a sip at the (none / 0) (#85)
    by BTAL on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:23:44 PM EST
    elite honey teat and doesn't want to let go.

    Oh Illinois (none / 0) (#132)
    by ellengrace on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:00:10 AM EST
    Thank you for being you. Don't ever change.

    we dont all do it (none / 0) (#133)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 10:09:47 AM EST

    Between (none / 0) (#136)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:00:15 PM EST
    Burris, Giannolis, and Kirk, you have quite the field of contestants!

    oy (none / 0) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:37:18 PM EST

    Opposition Only Hardens Opinions (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:13:08 PM EST
    this explains a lot.

    Results showed that the students who learned they had the minority opinion were actually more confident in their ideas about the company than those who were in the majority.

    As someone once wrote... (none / 0) (#100)
    by EL seattle on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:42:39 PM EST
    "Little man whip a big man every time if the lttle man's in the right and keeps a' comin'"  - Motto of the Texas Rangers

    There might be some connection there.


    Following the roll call vote (none / 0) (#99)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:42:01 PM EST
    of the Senate to confirm Elena Kagan as Associate Justice, Carl Levin, Chair of the Armed Services Committee, asked to bring by unanimous consent, the DOD funding bill to the floor upon return from recess.

    Some sparks flew when Senator McCain objected and launched into a rather incoherent tirade against Levin for his alleged, according to McCain, underhanded dealings of last year. McCain wanted to debate, once again, the issues (he hates the hate crime bill) he lost.  And, McCain doesn't like the inclusion of conditional repeal of DADT. Levin was the "gentleman from MIchigan throughout", but McCain acted as if he bolted from his shrink's couch just in time to vote against Kagan, and while there, was ready with his...and another thing I don't like is..  A sad, bad man.

    Oculus (none / 0) (#121)
    by CoralGables on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:16:26 PM EST
    Can I shoot the 3rd base umpire from the Marlins game tonight and get the charges dropped for justifiable homicide?

    This has nothing to do (none / 0) (#125)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:12:06 AM EST
     with the Manhattan Mosque issue; It's going to built, and I accept it. The locals want it, and that's fine. But then you have Time's cover story about  that young Afghan lady, Aisha, and I don't know what to say.

    Is it an isolated incident? How is it possible? What level of depraved, subhuman hatred could do something like that? I mean, we know that some sects of Islam perpetrate unspeakable violence, and degradation towards their women, but how can we read, and see what's happening, and just flip the page to, I don't know....A-Rod's home runs maybe.

    You want to accept people's freedom to worship any way they please, but something's wrong here. A husband cutting off his wife's facial appendages, here, now, in the 21'st. century, and the rest of the world shrugs its shoulders, and mutters, "what a shame."

    You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see the future Cordoba project proclaim, besides all the outreach programs they're planning, that the Center will be a refuge, a sanctuary if you will, for abused women from around the world. Regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion, abused women, or even people like the author, Salman Rusdie, who have death sentences hanging over their heads for simply exercising their rights as free people, could find solace, refuge, protection, and understanding at the Center in Manhattan.

    What a statement that would make! Show the haters of 9-11 what America stands for. If the world's religious and political "leaders" can't come together and wipe out this scourge, this affront to dignity & decency, then I know one group of people who ain't afraid. If their own countries can't, or won't,  protect them let them come to NYC where the world will see what freedom, guts, and brotherhood looks like.

    Maybe its only a dream, but I sure would like to see it.

    We can read and see what is happening... (none / 0) (#135)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 11:40:18 AM EST
    but what can you do when the people who actually live in such barbaric circles seem to wanna continue to live this way?  

    I can't support going to war over it, dropping bombs on the villages where the women we want to help live...all you can do is scream your better ideas on how to live from the rafters and hope basic human decency becomes more popular.  We can offer politcal asylum to any woman subjected to the fundamentalist treatment.  We can stop buying oil and doing business with the mofos who endorse it.  But other than that?

    I'm afraid the world will always have its ugly Shooter, sadly you don't have to travel more than a couple blocks to find someone being mistreated even here in the land of the quasdi-free...we can only counter it by spreading the love...your refuge/sanctuary idea for the community center is a great idea to start spreadin' more love.


    Dr K. Jamanadas (none / 0) (#138)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:10:06 PM EST
    has anyone here ever perused his writings about the treatment of the "untouchables" and "unseeables" in India? I suspect not..

    Our valued "trading partners" can of course do without a lot of that kind of negative publicity, but, I started getting a little suspicious about the selective outrage factor years ago, when it became obvious that 99.9% of the human-rights-outrage stories we kept hearing always seemed to center around events in countries that just happened to be on the neocon hit list. Which, obviously, isn't to say that atrocities occurring in the more backward Islamic countries aren't worthy of outrage; it's only to point out, once again, the longstanding tradition of hypocrisy and questionable motives that, over the years, has informed so much of this country's concerns over human rights abuses around the world.    


    Important point... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:58:46 PM EST
    there is no society on earth without it's share of nasty.

    And the media does seem to pick and choose the nasty to report...no doubt.


    I saw a photo (none / 0) (#145)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:08:15 PM EST
    in National Geographic not long ago of a little boy with his face practically burned off with acid for having the audacity to attempt to draw water from a Upper Caste Hindu's pond and I couldn't help but think that that photo would've been all over the neocon blogoshere and the Weekly Standard - WSJ nexus if it'd been taken in Iran or Saudi Arabia..

    Don't forget the cover... (none / 0) (#146)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:22:14 PM EST
    of the NY Post...you're absolutely right...there is bad news, and bad news you can use to further your own bad news.

    I don't handicap (none / 0) (#149)
    by NYShooter on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:54:52 PM EST
    which group is currently leading in the popular, and growing, game of "atrocity sweepstakes." I was just expressing the psychotic turpitude of conducting "business as usual"  with someone who, after shaking his hand, goes home and bashes his wife's face in with a 2 x 4.

    Have we all, collectively, lost our minds?


    Afghans pet their (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:33:22 PM EST
    assbackwards fundie base; Iranians pet their assbackwards fundie base..ditto for Pakistan, Iran, Israel and the U.S..

    Must keep that valuable "coalition" together; even if it means turning a blind eye and making big concessions on occasion to ludicrous and pathological ignorance, superstition and custom..


    people with death sentences (none / 0) (#140)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:17:46 PM EST
    hanging over their heads for being perceived as too much of a threat to that Orwellian nightmare/U.S-investor-class-wet-dream in China?

    Paging kdog! (none / 0) (#137)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 12:02:33 PM EST
    Thought of you when I saw this on WTOP's website:

    Adam Tuss, wtop.com
    WASHINGTON -- You thought speed cameras were bad. The next generation traffic camera makes speed and red light cameras look like they are in kindergarten.

    Meet the Trafistar SR590. Not only can it track speeders and red light runners, but it can detect drivers who are tailgating, ignoring stop signs, not yielding for pedestrians, making illegal turns, crossing over the center line and more.

    If that's not enough, the SR590 can keep its electronic eye on 22 different cars at the same time.

    All I now is... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 01:24:25 PM EST
    I don't wanna still be on this earth when the Trafistar SR590 becomes self-aware....good grief.

    Do you take joy in getting my blood hot old pal? :)


    Hey (none / 0) (#150)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 02:23:09 PM EST
    A girl's gotta have some fun on a Friday, right?  ;)

    Party on girl.... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 06, 2010 at 02:42:34 PM EST
    obviously I must take some joy out of getting my blood hot too...I'm half paying attention to what's goin' on around here:)