Unconstitutional Conservatives
If you disagree with this, you are an Unconstitutional Conservative. Remember, Ted Olson is a Republican. He was the lawyer who argued for the appointment of George W. Bush to the Presidency, so you cannot get more Republican and more conservative than him. And he is a real constitutional conservative. Not these fuckwits like Sarah Palin, David Anderson, Christine O’Donnell or Newt Gingrich.
David Anderson is trying to hold down the boner from you putting him on the same pedestal (albeit made from feces) as Sarah Palin.
Rand Paul should listen to this. The “free market” does not care about or protect the rights of minority groups.
Rand Paul isnt a true “Free Market” Libertarian. He is a charlatan and a fraud just like his father, Glenn Beck, Sick Rantelli, and all the rest who love and worship the Free Market only as far as it favors wealthy white men.
It isn’t even that view point (disgusting as it is) that bothers me, as much as the fact as the whole lot of em are too cowardly, too self aware to actually come out and say how hateful they really are. They have to hide it with this insane “well, let the market take care of it” answer. Hey asshats, ever been to a predominately gay part of a city? Some of the most expensive places to live…. the market has spoken.
I’m not sure what a “true” Libertarian is. Everything I’ve read it’s like “screw you I’ve got mine” and “I don’t want to pay taxes” is their main ideology. They are generally less hard-core social conservative but generally hate taxes more than they hate social conservatism.
His third out of four wives, Barbara ,just completed a full barrel role.
No begging please, Ted, an appointment is sure to come your way soon enough.
You stay classy FBH. You of course mean Barbara Olson, his wife that died on 9/11. See what I mean about Unconstitutional Conservatives like FBH? Ted Olson is now a heretic to them.
FBH, I really have to ask. Is English not your first language? You dont use it very well, and hardly make sense.
Don’t worry — SCOTUS will be overturning this decision. But rather than wait for that to happen, the time has come for the Federal Marriage Amendment to be sent out to the states for ratification by conventions called for that purpose rather than state legislatures. After all, the voters of 39 states (one more than needed to ratify an amendment) have already put such measures into their state constitutions by popular vote — it seems that ratification of such an amendment by these conventions would be a foregone conclusion.
im sure you didnt read the rulling, or view any of the… i guess what one you call “testimony…
but remind me again how 2 people who love each other having the same rights as you negatively effects you? (and yes, THIS time when i say “you”, i mean YOU)
oh right, it doesn’t. The right wing (you?) just need to feel superior to others and since you (the right wing?) no longer has Blacks, or Jews, or Irish, or Italian, or Natives to hold down by law, and a loosening grip on Hispanics…. ya still have to gay-bash. Well, not anymore.
You (people?) have LOST. If you still want to live in a nation that promotes a hateful, violent, and judgmental God, oppresses people based on the way they were born, and uses religious guidelines to impose law on to people who dont all follow the same faith, i suggest moving to Iran. They HATE queers there.
I see that Observer has either been taking hits off of David Anderson’s crack pipe or sucking something else that Delusional David has.
For SCOTUS to overturn this ruling, they would also need to overturn Romer v Evans and Lawrence v Texas. My money says it’s a 5-4 decision upholding the decision with Kennedy being the deciding vote (if he’s still on the bench).
Go munch carpet, MJ.
My expectation is 5-4 to strike it down, without touching on Roemer r Lawrence, based upon the faulty analysis if the law, facts, and constitution that underlie Walker’s conflict-of-interest laden decision.
Ooooo, Observer. Do you kiss your wife and kids with that mouth? Where is the conflict of interest? What is the faulty analysis? What cereal box did you get your law degree out of?
You, MJ, are the one who started with the homophobic insults — “sucking something else that Delusional David has.” So don’t become a self-righteous prig when I fling the same sort of crap back at you, just to make that point, you hypocrite.
I didn’t write anything homophobic. I merely point out that the only way our delusional friend in Dover can come up with his crazy talk missives is either through the use of crack or his sucking on a bottle of highly potent alcohol. I only suggested you were sharing one or the other with him.
But, back to the question, which cereal box did you get your law degree out of?
Since O feels that the judge should have recused himself (I will assume based on his sexual orientation) when it gets to the Supreme Court does that mean that Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts (as heterosexual conservatives) will recuse themselves because their belief system has something to gain should the ruling be overturned? I’m all for that.
I assume that would also mean any of our female justices should recuse on a case of reproductive rights, sexual discrimination, or sexual harassment.
Yes, V, O’s argument is a huge FAIL!
MJ, you are unworthy of wasting time on, given that lame excuse. You have demonstrated yourself unserious enough to not merit further response.
But V, it is not the sexual orientation of the judge per se that is the source of the conflict. Where the conflict exists is that as a gay man in a long-term relationship and residing in the state of California, his decision on the case has the potential to benefit him legally and financially in a way that differs substantially from the sort of ideological benefit you posit for for the conservative justices you mention in your response. And even if one accepts the argument that there is not an actual conflict of interest, the appearance of conflict of interest is such that his ruling on the case constitutes an ethical impropriety because it has the real potential to undermine public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Given the fact that Walker had to be repeatedly slapped down by the two courts above him prior to the start of the trial, Walker’s impartiality in the case is reasonably open to question.
Also any appellate court will review the case on a de novo standard. So all the the facts laid out in his ruling will be accepted as true unless they are “clearly erroneous” which is pretty hard to show unless it’s like “they sky is red”. Since Judge Walker layed out extensive and well reasoned/cited facts in his ruling, it will involve some SERIOUS legal manuevering to overturn his decison. It’s hard to come to any other conclusion.
When you have one judges ruling that over turns the will of millions of people, you are walking in risky territory.
By the way, Obama is against homosexual marriage. Isn’t he the last word to you people ?
O – which is something that will (I’m sure) be addressed on appeal. Also I don’t think my comparison is as different as you think due to the fact if it reaches the Sup. Ct. it will effect all Americans (not just gay men in LTRs in CA) including our justices. But like I said, should female judges and justices be encouraged to recuse on cases of discrimination, harrassment and reproductive rights? That effects them personally. I find it a little frustrating that a white heterosexual male seems to be for many the definition of impartial. If it’s not a conflict, the imaginary impression of a conflict isn’t enough. I didn’t see any of the conservative justices recuse on Bush v. Gore. That LOOKED super fishy and nobody really seemed to have a problem with it.
FBH – Brown v. Board of Education. That was ok right? I mean that was 9 people….
People’s rights should not be determined by popular vote. Their rights are already there, written plainly into the Constitution. Courts are there to make sure these right are enforced, even for minority groups that aren’t popular.
So, now that the right wants to put rights to a popular vote, which one should go first? The right to trial by your peers?
I would be surprised if SCOTUS struck it down. They could rule that it only applied to California or they could go further and say that it applies to the whole U.S.
Really interesting article on Judge Walker’s ruling and why it will be difficult to strike down.
Boo-hoo, O. Your slings and arrows fall short of their target. You offer worthless commentary that wouldn’t hold up in any type of debate.
Again – WHICH CEREAL BOX DID YOU GET YOUR LAW DEGREE OUT OF? For the only reason you write the tripe you do is from an overdose of high fructose corn syrup.
FBH – Romer v Evans – 6 Justices overturned Colorado Amendment 2 that passed with 54% of the vote. In writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy wrote “To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.” From Wiki: Instead of applying “strict scrutiny” to Amendment 2 (as Colorado Supreme Court had required) Kennedy wrote that it did not even meet the much lower requirement of having a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose:
“Its sheer breadth is so discontinuous with the reasons offered for it that the amendment seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects; it lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests.”
And:
“[Amendment 2] is at once too narrow and too broad. It identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board. The resulting disqualification of a class of persons from the right to seek specific protection from the law is unprecedented in our jurisprudence.”
So your argument doesn’t hold water.
O and FBH, that “will of the people” argument USED to be used ot keep black kids in separate and in no way equal schools. It would have made President Obama’s parents criminals in many states at the time of his birth (because they were an interracial couple) It prohibited women from voting, blacks from voting, Jews from owning land,…. you name it, the Conservative movement has opposed it under the banner of “the will of the people”
Both of you are freaking out because your hateful homophobic, right wing extremist worlds are crumbling before your eyes and you cant deal with it. HAHA, I say. Good riddance to your backwards thinking. And if you want to follow your reality into non existence i say, dont let progress kick your ass on the way out.
btw, V, MJ and Pan…. you 3 kick ass. talk about a pwn.
“When you have one judges ruling that over turns the will of millions of people, you are walking in risky territory.” sounds like a threat…. more intimidation tactics from the terrorist right.
You people dont scare us. even with your surrogate-dongs (guns)
I love how wingnuts can protest that the United States is a Direct Democracy, a Republic, and a Confederacy all in the space of two minutes.
UI — you can’t argue that the interpretation of the 14th Amendment in question applies only to the state of California — it is an all or nothing deal here.
UI & a.price — I’m talking about following the Constitution to amend the Constitution. If you want to try to take trial by jury out of the Constitution or resegregate America, see if you can get such amendments passed. After all, as far as any form of government is concerned, it is “the right of the people to alter or abolish it” according to Mr. Jefferson. Unless the black-robed dictators have discovered some element of the Constitution which forbids the use of the amendment power to do something they don’t like.
whatever they need to do to stay delusional enough to keep thumping that bible with a gun in someone’s face saying it is their government protected right to keep one religion from building a community center while saying THEIR religion’s views should be the law of the land all while not wanting any government involvement in anything.
PLUS the government should enact a huge bureaucracy to check everyone’s papers to make sure they aren’t illegal immigrants.
Black robed dictators (or are they dicators?)? So Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito are now the enemy of the teabaggers? Seriously delusional.
Oh, and through simple research, I’ve discovered where O got his law degree – Frankenberry and Cap’n Crunch had a boxtop offer a few years ago. He was listed a a recipient of both the degree from the Cap’n and the secret decoder ring.
All I said was that he was in risky territory. I live in Delaware. Who cares what California does anyway.
I like the FBH reference to Obama voters as “you people”. Says a lot. Somebody break the news, Obama is every American’s President. We need to get FBH a Norman Rockwell featuring a boy scout, Obama, a gay guy and the American flag. See how long he lasts.
Obama does not believe in homosexual marriage. He believes in civil unions, which is exactly what I believe in. Obama and I have the same beliefs…. Bummer huh ?
The Constitution doesn’t care what the President believes.
anon, Only FBH’s utter cluelessness will allow him (her?) to recover from that pwnage.
You’re right, and the President doesn’t believe what The Constitution says so I guess it’s even, but he still doesn’t believe in homosexual marriage. When a Republican says he is against homosexual marriage, that person is labeled a wingnut or some equivalent. Why not Obama ?
This a little bit funny. I found your site via search engine a few moment ago, and luckily, this is the only information I was looking for the last hours. They also tend to have large collections of literary fiction, as their students and staff may need to refer to these for their classes.