Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[imaginary friend]

there were 80 findings of fact (taking up 53 pages of the 138 or so) in this decision, and they're going to swing a lot of weight. If Spaz Roberts and his 4 Horsemen throw all that out just to vote their ideology, their impeachment should immediately follow.

#@!

[Devery]

Wouldn't it be something if Clarence Thomas took this opportunity to break out from the pack and vote to affirm the ruling.


I really like how the judge found that the fact a majority of California's citizens voted for Prop 8 was "irrelevant" to the case.  He found that gays and lesbians are a "suspect class" entitled to equal protection and due process under a 'strict scrutiny" analysis.  Even if the Supreme Couirt declines to find them to be a suspect class and thereby decline to use the strict constitutional test, there is more than enough evidence to strike Prop 8 down using the rational basis test.  Let's see, the state's interest was distilled down to (1) tradition and (2) moral repugnancy towards same-same marriage.  It is obvious from the testimony that the basis used to discriminate against same-sex couples was morality-based, which could pass muster if there were a corresponding secular interest that is at least rationally-based.  The Prop 8 supporters couldn't come up with that kind of reason during the trial and for good reason; because there ain't one!

Now, I am well aware of the Rehnquistian tendencies of the conservative majority of the Supreme Court and fully expect to see that here.  That is:  Arrive at your conclusion first and then twist legal logic and precedent in creative ways to support it.  But even these guys are not immune to the trends of the times and the solid factual and constitutional underpinnings of this decision.  I am holding out more than a faint hope that the time is ripe for another landmark decision upholding individual rights.  I would be overjoyed if the Court agreed with the trial court that the right of same-sex couples to marry is a fundamental right.  Even if it upholds the ruling, I strongly suspect they will not go that far.  But that would be okay, too, provided they reach the right result.

[CeeGBee]

^  The legal reasoning is entirely sound, but alas, I think Judicial Activism on the part of
the "Conservative" justices is inevitable.  (...and since they'll have solid cover behind "the
expressed will of the people" - this was passed as a referendum, remember - impeachment
doesn't even rise to the level of 'fantasy'.)

[Cheddars Cousin]

It's a great day to be homogenized.

[imaginary friend]

^  The legal reasoning is entirely sound, but alas, I think Judicial Activism on the part of
the "Conservative" justices is inevitable.  (...and since they'll have solid cover behind "the
expressed will of the people" - this was passed as a referendum, remember - impeachment
doesn't even rise to the level of 'fantasy'.)

Judge Walker pretty much smashed the "expressed will of the people" canard repeatedly in his decision. To go against it - not to mention a 9th Circuit Court ruling on top of it - well, we who still respect the rule of law had better shut this country down in protest if Spaz & Co. show that little respect for it, or we'll deserve everything that follows.

#@!

[CeeGBee]

^  The legal reasoning is entirely sound, but alas, I think Judicial Activism on the part of
the "Conservative" justices is inevitable.  (...and since they'll have solid cover behind "the
expressed will of the people" - this was passed as a referendum, remember - impeachment
doesn't even rise to the level of 'fantasy'.)

Judge Walker pretty much smashed the "expressed will of the people" canard repeatedly in his decision. To go against it - not to mention a 9th Circuit Court ruling on top of it - well, we who still respect the rule of law had better shut this country down in protest if Spaz & Co. show that little respect for it, or we'll deserve everything that follows.

#@!

Five Republican Supreme Court Justices trumps one District Court judge, as well as the
entire 9th Circuit. They'll say "the people voted, and no Activist Liberal judge is going
to impose his perverted lifestyle on them, no matter how he tries to hide behind legal
wordplay"... Once they do that, there's no way Congressional Dems have the votes to
do anything about it. 

Best hope for a long-term fix is for a voter-initiated 'counter-amendment'.

(Granted, the 'legal scholar' I heard on the radio today seemed to feel that there is some
remote chance that Justice Kennedy can be swayed to the pro-gay side of this issue, and
that Judge Walker had specifically designed his ruling to appeal to Kennedy's judicial philosophy...
So maybe I'm being too pessimistic [or the NPR 'scholar' is dreaming, which do you think?])

[lentower]

^  The legal reasoning is entirely sound, but alas, I think Judicial Activism on the part of
the "Conservative" justices is inevitable.  (...and since they'll have solid cover behind "the
expressed will of the people" - this was passed as a referendum, remember - impeachment
doesn't even rise to the level of 'fantasy'.)

Judge Walker pretty much smashed the "expressed will of the people" canard repeatedly in his decision. To go against it - not to mention a 9th Circuit Court ruling on top of it - well, we who still respect the rule of law had better shut this country down in protest if Spaz & Co. show that little respect for it, or we'll deserve everything that follows.

#@!

Five Republican Supreme Court Justices trumps one District Court judge, as well as the
entire 9th Circuit. They'll say "the people voted, and no Activist Liberal judge is going
to impose his perverted lifestyle on them, no matter how he tries to hide behind legal
wordplay"... Once they do that, there's no way Congressional Dems have the votes to
do anything about it. 

Best hope for a long-term fix is for a voter-initiated 'counter-amendment'.

(Granted, the 'legal scholar' I heard on the radio today seemed to feel that there is some
remote chance that Justice Kennedy can be swayed to the pro-gay side of this issue, and
that Judge Walker had specifically designed his ruling to appeal to Kennedy's judicial philosophy...
So maybe I'm being too pessimistic [or the NPR 'scholar' is dreaming, which do you think?])

time will tell if you're too pessimistic or not

the longer term fix is to keep electing democratic presidents,
continuously, so we appoint rational supreme court judges,
and get a majority of reasonable judges back

the christian right and conservatives have worked hard since the'60s
to control the supreme court.  the democrats need to work even harder to get
control back

[CeeGBee]

Call me over-idealistic, but I'd prefer a Supreme Court free of ideologues,
no matter what 'side'.

[J_Beck]

^  The legal reasoning is entirely sound, but alas, I think Judicial Activism on the part of
the "Conservative" justices is inevitable.  (...and since they'll have solid cover behind "the
expressed will of the people" - this was passed as a referendum, remember - impeachment
doesn't even rise to the level of 'fantasy'.)

Judge Walker pretty much smashed the "expressed will of the people" canard repeatedly in his decision. To go against it - not to mention a 9th Circuit Court ruling on top of it - well, we who still respect the rule of law had better shut this country down in protest if Spaz & Co. show that little respect for it, or we'll deserve everything that follows.

#@!

Five Republican Supreme Court Justices trumps one District Court judge, as well as the
entire 9th Circuit. They'll say "the people voted, and no Activist Liberal judge is going
to impose his perverted lifestyle on them, no matter how he tries to hide behind legal
wordplay"... Once they do that, there's no way Congressional Dems have the votes to
do anything about it. 

Best hope for a long-term fix is for a voter-initiated 'counter-amendment'.

(Granted, the 'legal scholar' I heard on the radio today seemed to feel that there is some
remote chance that Justice Kennedy can be swayed to the pro-gay side of this issue, and
that Judge Walker had specifically designed his ruling to appeal to Kennedy's judicial philosophy...
So maybe I'm being too pessimistic [or the NPR 'scholar' is dreaming, which do you think?])

time will tell if you're too pessimistic or not

the longer term fix is to keep electing democratic presidents,
continuously, so we appoint rational supreme court judges,
and get a majority of reasonable judges back

the christian right and conservatives have worked hard since the'60s
to control the supreme court.  the democrats need to work even harder to get
control back

Len, you should know by now that sadly the democrats they......well have no spine.  Bush could put any qualified nominee he wanted (Harriet Miers being a joke to both sides of the aisle) but when Obama steps up to the plate he boasts about how moderate his nominees are.  But I must say Kagan does seem like a good choice because she has shown a history of being able to reason with the other side and find common ground.  The issue is that only more liberal justices have retired while Obama has been president and right now we have a supreme court who ruled that money = free speech and a corporation is equal to a person so thus say Exxon could and probably will flood our airwaves with commercials come election time.

[CeeGBee]

To be fair to the current crop of Right-Wing ideologues on the Court, the
insane notion that Corporations enjoy many of the same rights as human
persons is a fairly old decision.  The Bushies' expansion of those rights to
include unrestricted political speech (i.e. financing) is the new wrinkle.

[imaginary friend]

the ban's lifted; marriages can take place again beginning August 18.

 

#@!

[Devery]

Ted Olson interview by Chris Wallace of Fox News.  For those who don't know, he and David Bois were the attorneys for plaintiffs in the Prop 8 trial.  Yes, the same attorneys who squared off against each other in Gore v Bush 10 years ago.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/EJwSprkiInE" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/EJwSprkiInE</a>

[slyvia k]

Ted Olson interview by Chris Wallace of Fox News.  For those who don't know, he and David Bois were the attorneys for plaintiffs in the Prop 8 trial.  Yes, the same attorneys who squared off against each other in Gore v Bush 10 years ago.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/EJwSprkiInE" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/EJwSprkiInE</a>

ooooh the other day i saw malabimba the malicious whore! (i think you had shown me the poster, right?)
it was a bit trashy, a porno horror that wasn't scary at all, but that dealt somehow indirectly with serious themes such as ecclesiastic celibacy being against nature and so on.
some parts were just hilarious, not too bad afterall.

[Tiervexx]

Call me over-idealistic, but I'd prefer a Supreme Court free of ideologues,
no matter what 'side'.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

It's not just that politics will not stop being political it is that there is no such thing as an objective way to judge.  ANY view of politics is going to be ideological.

Something is objective if and only if it is falsifiable. Meaning there must be a theoretical demonstration that would refute it. For example, an unsolved mathematical problem called the Goldbach conjecture states that every even integer greater than 2 is the sum of two primes. This is falsifiable because all you have to do is find an even integer greater than two that can not be described as the sum of two primes (computer software has been used to confirm that it works up to absurdly large numbers).

So many ethical philosophers and legal scholars fool themselves into thinking that there can be some sort of scientific approach to what really is no more objective than fashion design.

For example, I will now state that the commerce clause of the Constitution gives police the right to punch babies because they represent a lot of commerce. I challenge anyone to come up with a fully consistent and complete argument that this is not the case. Such an argument must not reference concepts simply because they are widely accepted...

[CeeGBee]

Call me over-idealistic, but I'd prefer a Supreme Court free of ideologues,
no matter what 'side'.

BWHAHAHAHAHA!

It's not just that politics will not stop being political it is that there is no such thing as an objective way to judge.  ANY view of politics is going to be ideological.

Something is objective if and only if it is falsifiable. Meaning there must be a theoretical demonstration that would refute it. For example, an unsolved mathematical problem called the Goldbach conjecture states that every even integer greater than 2 is the sum of two primes. This is falsifiable because all you have to do is find an even integer greater than two that can not be described as the sum of two primes (computer software has been used to confirm that it works up to absurdly large numbers).

So many ethical philosophers and legal scholars fool themselves into thinking that there can be some sort of scientific approach to what really is no more objective than fashion design.

For example, I will now state that the commerce clause of the Constitution gives police the right to punch babies because they represent a lot of commerce. I challenge anyone to come up with a fully consistent and complete argument that this is not the case. Such an argument must not reference concepts simply because they are widely accepted...

Ideologue (n) - An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.


The advocates should be the lawyers arguing the case.  If the Justices have already taken
a side before the case is heard, it rather defeats the purpose of the court, doesn't it?

It's inevitable that someone politically-conected to the degree necessary to be appointed
to the Supreme Court will have "leanings", but it's gotten so the Justices appointed by one
side or the other will rule based not on the facts of the case before them, but rather on a
strict basis of the platform of their party.

Pick a "hot-topic", and you can pretty much always predict which side each justice will
side with, regardless of the actual facts of the case.   Some bias is inevitable, but when
the case is decided (almost always 5-4) before it's filed, the system is broken.