July 01, 2005
On Hiatus
4 days in LA with no net. I'm not sure if it's a dream or a nightmare, but it's reality.
Hopefully, the nomination process will still be here when I return.
Comments:God’s Love: Legal Edition
On O’Connor’s stepping down.
When looking for a replacement for Judas the betrayer of Jesus, Peter said in Acts 1:20, "…it is written in the book of Psalms, 'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,'" and, "May another take his place of leadership." Mr. President, please heed these words!
Comments:
Spreading God’s Love
Opponents tried to stop the march by throwing a stink bomb at the starting point, but several thousand marchers paraded through the center of Jerusalem anyway, braving shouts and insults from protesters, most young ultra-Orthodox Jews.
Mighty Surprising
The number of ‘affluent’ people who pay zero dollars in tax, has jumped 17% from 2001-2002. That is on top of the 50% jump from 2000-2001.
And the Posturing Begins
Attention Red State / Moderate Democrats. If Any of your pansy-liberal communist friends (Like Kerry or Pelosi) even think of questioning W’s Supreme Court nominee, we will drag your names through the mud – even if you don’t say anything.
So *Spake Committee For Justice Chair C. Boyden Gray.
Which means the dignity Bush called for in this process, lasted less than 4 hours.
* Okay, I paraphrased a little. He actually said:
It Begins
Update:
A letter writer to Sully makes a good point. O’Conner was often the swing vote, which makes her replacement more volatile a appointment then Rehnquist would have been.
Return of the Nuclear option in 5...4...3...
June 30, 2005
Pelosi Today
Q Not on the Court, withhold funds from the eminent domain purchases that wouldn't involve public use. I apologize if I framed the question poorly. It wouldn't be withholding federal funds from the Court, but withhold Federal funds from eminent domain type purchases that are not just involved in public good.
Ms. Pelosi. Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.
So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general.
I agree. Holding back funds is a wishy-washy response. The House has passed an amendment for the flag – why not eminent domain? (On the other hand, Pelosi was clearly avoiding having to state her opinion – laying the blame on the court instead of recognizing the alternatives or even stating her response.)
Updated: Edited it a little for readability.
Not Surprising
Drum has a good piece on the GOP’s war on the middle class.
Gay rights and the GOP
Matt Szabo points to the recent upholding of CA’s DP laws by a ‘republican dominated’ supreme court as reasons to vote for the GOP.
Of course, he fails to mention who was fighting the law in the first place.
Yes, not all republicans are anti-gay rights. Some are even gay themselves. However, if gay rights is the issue you are voting by, there’s no question which party is best for gay rights.
Update:
Just a little more on GOP / Dems and gay rights
From The CA GOP Platform:
From The CA Dem Platform:
OK
If this is the way the winds are blowing, let it not be said that I do not also blow!
June 29, 2005
FYI
Nixon wasn’t the only one with an enemies list.
It’s official
The GOP has decided Iraq was directly linked to 9-11, even though there seems to be no evidence of that fact.
"Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Rep. Robin Hayes said.
Told no investigation had ever found evidence to link Saddam and 9/11, Hayes responded, "I'm sorry, but you must have looked in the wrong places."
Today’s GOP: Hoping you forget what we said in the past.
Update:
Scott today denied the Bush was trying to link Saddam to Iraq. However, in the next breath, points out we went to Iraq to bring the fight to the terrorists who attacked us.
When asked specifically if the people in Iraq were the same who attacked us, he stopped just shy of saying yes, settling instead for ‘They have the same hatred as those who attacked us’. Link when available.
It's a wonderful circular argument. Iraq didn't attack us, but fighting them in Iraq will prevent future attacks. Because those responsible in 9-11 are working in Iraq, because we attacked them in response to those who attacked us.
June 28, 2005
I suppose
Alex at Heretical Ideas loses his cool a little in response to the attempt on Souter’s land. A thought echoed by The Left Coaster.
It raises an interesting issue. Are we on the left allowed to be critical of a SCOTUS agreement we disagree with (IE Kelo)? If so, how can we criticize those on the right who criticize the court for their decisions on the ten commandments, or sodomy?
Easily. No one, including the members of the SCOTUS should be free from criticism. Yes, in Kelo SCOTUS essentially upheld pre-existing decisions. However, as the dissent points out, the SCOTUS could have easily drawn a line and said ‘No’. Both arguments are legally valid. I think the dissent, however, was the way to go.
So, I criticize the decision. I also criticized the court after the Bush/Gore decision.
So, what’s the difference? Well, to my knowledge, no one on the left is calling for Souter’s impeachment. No one on the left is trying to restrict the SCOTUS from hearing eminent domain cases. No one on the left (that I am aware of) is screaming ‘Activist Courts!’.
There’s a difference. Criticism of the right’s approach to disagreement of SCOTUS decisions is that they don’t stop at disagreement. They are actively trying to hamstring the court.
I’m just saying that I don’t agree. As is the guy who is ‘planning’ on building the hotel.
Gay Maples
Via Gay orbit we learn Canada has officially recognized Gay Marriage.
If only they could get rid of the snow, I would consider moving...
Back to the world of dreams
The onion takes on the horrors of realizing your child might be gay
"I don't think it's normal for a baby to move like that," said Oebrick, wincing as the infant paused and flapped an arm in the air. "Don't you think that's a little strange?"
"Sequins, glitter, feathers," said the recent father, listing some of the things that Michael likes. "And he really likes flowers."
Oebrick said he first began to worry about Michael's sexual orientation when the boy was two months old.
"He would giggle constantly," Oebrick said. "And he had a very weak handshake."
Live Bush Blogging
September 11 mention count: 6
Presidential Speech Stumbles: 4
Summary: Pretty much as suspected. Nothing new. He re-told us what they had been doing up to now, averaged a ‘September the 11th, 2001’ literally about every five minutes (6 times in a 30 minute speech).
Why does he use the full date? September the 11th, /2001/. Does he think we're not sure which September 11th is was?
Funny, no mention of WMDs.
Protect minority rights? Iraq is getting the filibuster?
He always looks like he’s >< this close to breaking into a grin.
Okay – first thing I agree with. A timetable is a bad idea.
Clear Path forward: Umm, pretty much what we’ve said we were already doing.
Iraq was our friend?
Yes, Al Quaeda is in Iraq – because we drew them there.
Only some of the violence in Iraq is due to ruthless killers?
Do we even pretend 9-11 and Iraq weren’t linked anymore?
September 11 mentioned in under 40 seconds. Pretty good.
Amusing
Someone is planning on using the new eminent domain rules found in Kelo to build a hotel in NH.
On the land where Justice Souter's house currently stands.
Though shall not bear false witness... except as needed
tgirsch at Lean Left hits on something that’s been bouncing around my head, lately. How hypocritical is it for those pro-commandment people to LIE about the purpose of the commandment display in order to allow them to be posted – an act which violates the very commandments they’re trying to post.
The cases which were overturned by the SCOTUS involved the legislature in those counties putting up a resolution explaining the reason they posted the commandments (it wasn’t historical), then adding ‘historical’ elements in order to subvert an earlier court ruling.
They then testified to the SCOTUS that the intent of the display was purely historical.
Update:
I should point out, that tgirsch has more observations than this simple snarky one, and you should click the link and read his well thought-out observations.
Comments:tgirsch said (at June 28, 2005 11:05 AM):
Thanks for the link. I've updated my post to link a conservative evangelical Christian who talks about the misguidedness of efforts to post the Commandments.
A suggestion
Maybe the Catholic Church can change the rules and make all the popes saints while they are still alive, rather than having to wait a few months after they die.
The Catholic Church: A saint in every pot!
Gay ‘Marriage’
I’ve noted with some amusement when conservatives point out (ironically as an argument against gay marriage) that only a ‘handful’ of gay/lesbian couples take advantage of the current available legal recognitions.
This article is a good insight into why gays and lesbians won’t take full advantage of marriage/union laws until things are a little more stable.
For the drive, we'd stock the glove compartment with our medical powers of attorney and hospital authorization forms. That way, if we got in a car accident and one of us needed to get into the other's hospital room or make some hard decisions, we wouldn't get shut out while doctors tried to reach our parents...
Then there's the general power of attorney, which is good, all-round backup. We'd also tuck in the New York City domestic-partnership certificate we got at city hall. It cost us $1 more than the license straight people buy, for reasons I can't suss out...
Even if we did decide that one more piece of paper might actually make us married, the government wouldn't care. Consider, for example, our medical insurance. She is covered by the domestic-partnership benefits of my job. That's great, until you run headfirst into the federal tax law. Because the Feds don't think gay weddings are real, even if we did get married I'd still have to pay taxes on an extra $9,370.20—what her medical coverage is worth…
My partner and I have been together 6.5 years and we are currently working to have kids. We didn’t join the fray of marriage in SF and, even though I’m originally from Massachusetts, I have no desire to get married there – because it doesn’t accomplish anything.
For the record, My partner and I are DPs in CA. Ironically, we initially did that so we could get the ‘family’ discount at our gym. (UCSF allowed me to name him as beneficiaries on my life insurance, and gave him health insurance coverage – which counts as income on my federal taxes, all without asking for any proof of our relationship. The gym wanted proof).
Now, of course, the DP classification brings with it rights (as opposed to when we did it, when the rights were minimal. Like Gym discounts). It also, however, brings responsibilities – which means that DP becomes a burden more than marriage. I am responsible for my partners debts if he should die, but I can’t claim him on my taxes. We both get health insurance, but I pay more in taxes because of it.
And that’s all intra state. When we have kids, what happens when we decide to drive back to Massachusetts to visit my family? Do our parental rights end at the border? Do we have to worry about the government of Utah trying to take our kids away if we happen to stop at a Shoney’s ?
Legal recognition of gay relationships is a mish mash of unstable foundations and cherry-picked rights and responsibility – all of which can be taken away at a moments notice.
So, it’s not surprising people aren’t flocking in large droves.
They’re not afraid of commitment, they’re afraid of getting left out in the cold by their government.
Not sure how I missed this
I was trying to track down something I read a while ago, and stumbled on this gem titled: Expert Says Homosexual Marriage Threatens Military Readiness.
First we gays caused 9-11, and now we’re inhibiting out response to it. Bad. Bad gays. No marriage for you...
June 27, 2005
Bully Pulpit
I agree with Atrios that Bush’s speech tomorrow night is a blatant free PR grab.
That said, of course the press should cover it. When the president addresses the nation, he should be heard, even if he has nothing new to say...
McCreary
As is often the problem, the issue here was less about the commandments and much more about the foolish steps taken by those involved.
In the case, the court first had only the commandments. Then, after challenged but before the ruling, the legislature required them to put up more documents – specifically tied to their religious proclamations and included a resolution from the same reciting that the Ten Commandments are ‘the precedent legal code upon which the civil and criminal codes of . . . Kentucky are founded,’.
Then, not surprisingly, the court found that the purpose of the display was religious, rather than historical. Even though the state argued that the court shouldn’t pay any attention to the first few displays – only the last one.
As the second 10 commandment case proves, this was not a blanket ban of the commandments (a point the conservatives will make ad nasuem, while still complaining about the ‘activist’ courts.
I Kid you Not
Scalia Invoked Images of 9-11 in his dissent in McCreary.
Santorum
Mr. 'Man on Dog' managed to get himself a little frothy in his discussion of the Catholic priest Molestation scandal.
His view : It’s ‘liberal’ Boston’s fault.
Who, apparently, ran down to Kentucky, to liberalize them, and then on to...
Back to the world of dreams
Republicans are threatening Major League baseball with a harsher look at the steroids issue, or removing their anti-trust protections.
Why? Because liberal icon George Soros has joined in a bid for the Nationals.
Today’s GOP: We fucking own all of you!
Supreme Anticipation
The ruling on 10 Commandments and public spaces is due today, as well as the potential for retirement announcements from Rehnquist and/or O’Connor.
Will there be a ‘test’ from the court about when the commandments are a ‘historical’ display or simply proselytizing, or will they use the famous ‘not know what it is, but know it when they see it’?
Or, worst of all, say that any on displays public grounds are fine
Keep your eyes peeled.
Update IV
In the time it took me to post this, the ruling came out, prohibiting court house displays. More when the opinion is available. (Inside only, or will the Supreme Court have to do some remodeling?)
Looks like they went with the ‘porn’ standard. CNN is reporting that the court left ‘wiggle’ room, stating their own ‘historical’ display was okay, but the displays which led to the decision went too far.
Curiouser and Curioser. 10 Commandment displays are okay on state house grounds.
Comments:A Weekend of Pride
Every year I reluctantly agree to go to pride, and every year I’m struck by how tame the parade (here in SF, even) has become.
There were only 2 people who I saw nude, one was protesting the war, the other held a sign against Crystal meth use.
I also went to the celebration afterwards, which was a concert with someone from American Idol, 3rd eye blind, and En Vogue.
The one interesting thing to me, though based on nothing but a fuzzy sense, is there seemed to be less politicians in the parade. Curious.
NancyP said (at June 27, 2005 09:09 PM):
Hey Henry,
I marched with the mayor, and around us were Carol Migden, Betty Yee, Mark Leno, Liz Figueroa (or her people, at least, can't say I'd recognize her) and a few others. Didn't see, though I'm sure they must have been there, Tom Ammiano and Brendan Dufty. Usual suspects, I guess.
But I kinda got the same sense overall -- maybe because there are no big elections this year (other than the special)? Or do we remember more than there really were in other years? I *think* I remember Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, maybe Zoe Lofgren ... but maybe that's just retrospective wishful thinking.
Henry said (at June 28, 2005 07:41 AM):
Yea, there were some - it just /felt/ like less.
The Sanity Inspector said (at October 11, 2005 04:04 PM):
3rd Eye Blind, and a guy protesting crystal meth use? That's an interesting alliance, given the meth reference in 3EB's "Semi-Charmed Life".
Supreme Court and Corporations
Big Business did will this term. Kelo, certainly, was a boon to any business looking to expand or open new offices, as they don’t need to be limited to ‘available’ areas.
Today, the court allowed cable companies to refuse to share their networks with smaller companies, and allowed the suing of people who operate file sharing services.
Update:
Lots of reading to do. It's being reported now that file sharing services can be sued if they encourage the sharing of illegal materials - which seems to be an affirmative act requirement to me.
