jump to navigation

6 to 1.. the California SC caved… to the religious yahoos. 26 May 2009

Posted by marisacat in 2010 Mid Terms, California / Pacific Coast, DC Politics, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, la vie en rose, San Francisco, SCOTUS, Sex / Reproductive Health.
trackback

Demonstrators in favor of same-sex marriage wait in front of San Francisco City Hall for the California Supreme Court to rule on the legality of a voter-approved ban on same-sex unions. [Paul Sakuma AP]

From the LAT:

[I]n addition to rejecting the gay-rights lawyers’ contention that Proposition 8 was an illegal constitutional revision, the court also flatly discarded Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown’s argument that the measure was unconstitutional because it affected an “inalienable right.”

But the court said “well-established legal principles” require that Proposition 8 be applied only prospectively, leaving intact same-sex marriages that occurred before the November election.

“The marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Proposition 8 remain valid and must continue to be recognized in this state,” George wrote.

Justice Carlos R. Moreno, in the lone dissent, warned that today’s ruling “places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities.”  […]

“It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority,” wrote Moreno, the court’s only Democratic appointee.

Justice Joyce L. Kennard, who joined the majority last year in giving gays the right to marry, said in a separate opinion that Proposition 8 was not sweeping enough to be a constitutional revision, which can only be placed on the ballot by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

Noting, as the majority opinion did, that judges must set aside their personal views, Kennard said the court was required to follow the state Constitution and the court’s previous rulings.

“And when the voters have validly exercised this power, as they did here, a judge must enforce the constitution as amended,” Kennard wrote.

Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, a former civil rights lawyer who also joined last year’s ruling in favor of marriage rights, wrote separately because she disagreed with the majority’s definition of a constitutional revision.

“The drafters of our Constitution never imagined, nor would they have approved, a rule that gives the foundational principles of social organization in free societies, such as equal protection, less protection from hasty, unconsidered change than principles of government organization,” she wrote.

The court declined to determine whether same-sex marriages performed outside of California — and not formally recognized by the state prior to the election — would be legal in California. The court said it did not hear arguments on that question and “it would be inappropriate to address” it today.

The case for overturning the initiative was widely viewed as a long shot. Gay rights lawyers had no solid legal precedent on their side, and some of the court’s earlier holdings on constitutional revisions mildly undercut their arguments. …snip…

Well.. I think we should just vote on everything.  LOL.  Give it a whirl.  Watch rights disappear.  We are united in our divisions.

IIRC it has been strongly suggested, rumored… that Werdegar is gay.  I wondered when I read it was 6 to 1, if she was the hold out.  But no!  It was a Latino male.

So… we have some 18,000 SSMs… upheld.  And it is banned for everyone else.

You have to love schizophrenia.

***

As I find things of interest on Sotomayor and reactions will post in thread.  She is being called “a moderate” out here, with indications of some rulings that will provide ”concern” for liberals.  Apparently last time her name was up, her nomination to the Fed bench was in congress, Hatch voted YES on her.

So Ob may get what he wanted, supposedly he wants a high YES vote on his pick.  On the other hand, who knows what the conservatives are hatching… ;)

She is tangled up in the New Haven firefighter case that is now before the SCOTUS, on the bench there she voted for throwing out the promotional test on the grounds it was tainted – when no black firefighters were able to do well enough for promotion to captain….  Oh well.

You know Ob… make the conservatives happy.  And wealthy.  And whatever else he can serve up for them.

About these ads

Comments»

1. Arcturus - 26 May 2009

today’s scare headline reminded me of an older article I’d saved:

Washington May Soon Try to Pin the Venezuelan Uranium Tail on the Iranian Nuclear Donkey:

May 9th 2006, by Larry Birns and Michael Lettieri – COHA

The wide-ranging, if somewhat vague, cooperation agreements between Iran and Venezuela were repeatedly reiterated by Washington sources to suggest that more malignant factors might be at play. The most popular rumor had Caracas sending its uranium to Iran in exchange for nuclear technology, with the most radical version beginning with accusations that Caracas was seeking to obtain weaponry from Tehran. Some went so far as to suggest that nuclear devices already had been clandestinely transported to Venezuela on chartered oil tankers. . . .

While the rumors sometimes involve an alleged Israeli intelligence report which speaks of covert uranium mining in Venezuela, the so-called findings have never been seen, let alone validated. In fact, while Venezuela may possess some yet to be established uranium deposits, there is no evidence that these have been located, let alone worked. Venezuelan officials have vehemently denied charges that the country is facilitating the enrichment of uranium by the Iranians, and even the State Department has minimized such suggestions, noting that while it is “aware of reports of possible Iranian exploitation of Venezuelan uranium,” it does not see any “commercial uranium activities in Venezuela.” Furthermore, the speculated ties overlook the fact that Iran does not particularly need to import uranium all the way from Venezuela for its projects, as it has ample supplies of its own.

so now Bolivia’s in on the plot – how long ’til they find the Ecuadorian connection?

marisacat - 26 May 2009

yeah.. conform or risk bombing raids. About it. Or a helicopter or a plane going down in bad weather. Or no weather.

Arcturus - 26 May 2009

y mas: A U.S. Intelligence Hoax on Venezuela?

April 19th 2006, by Michael Fox – Venezuelanalysis.com

Yesterday morning, Caracas awoke to the news in the Venezuelan daily paper, 2001, that US intelligence sources had reported the existence of a secret agreement between Iran and Venezuela whereby Iran will be sending nuclear weapons to Venezuela and Cuba.

2. marisacat - 26 May 2009

Axelrod (as Ob did earlier) claiming that Sotomayor ”has more experience than anyone who rose to the bench in recent years”. Ax extends that to “in a hundred years”. A is smiling like he just sold the Brooklyn bridge. To Brooklyn.

Uh… CJ Warren, anyone? His experience? Among others.

These epople are just shits… and dumb. They are just gaga for her “personal story” too…

Arcturus - 26 May 2009

heard on the radio that Justice Watch has already pulled a quote proving her a ‘racist’ – ‘if John Roberts had said this . . .’ – uggh – culture war diversions ahead!

wonder where she’ll land on corporate issues . . . executive authority . . . the unacknowledged bi-partisan agenda . . .

3. Arcturus - 26 May 2009

150 people already reported arrested in SF – BEFORE the 5:00 rally/6:00 pm march . . .

marisacat - 26 May 2009

hey hey… I just heard on radio news updates that Ted Olsen and Boies have JOINED TOGETHER to intervene in the court finding today.

They say it violates the US Constitution — Equal Protection!

The mills grind exceedingly fine sometimes…

Oh I find this to be GREAT.

marisacat - 26 May 2009

Black ministers with bullhorns in the thick of it… jsut watching the 5 pm news.

4. Madman in the Marketplace - 26 May 2009

hey, she saved baseball … what else do you “purists” want?!?!

:twisted:

5. Madman in the Marketplace - 26 May 2009

days like today make me miss Hunter, and then what do I find in my surfing? Fear and Loathing: The Board Game

brinn - 27 May 2009

Thanks — I needed that.
8)

6. Madman in the Marketplace - 26 May 2009

Justices Ease Rules on Questioning

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a long-standing ruling that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant’s lawyer was present, a move that will make it easier for prosecutors to interrogate suspects.

The high court, in a 5-4 ruling, overturned the 1986 Michigan v. Jackson ruling, which said police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. The Michigan ruling applied even to defendants who agreed to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

The court’s conservatives overturned that opinion, with Justice Antonin Scalia saying ”it was poorly reasoned.”

Under the Jackson opinion, police could not even ask a defendant who had been appointed a lawyer if he wanted to talk, Scalia said.

”It would be completely unjustified to presume that a defendant’s consent to police-initiated interrogation was involuntary or coerced simply because he had previously been appointed a lawyer,” Scalia said in the court’s opinion.

Scalia, who read the opinion from the bench, said the decision will have ”minimal” effects on criminal defendants because of the protections the court has provided in other decisions. ”The considerable adverse effect of this rule upon society’s ability to solve crimes and bring criminals to justice far outweighs its capacity to prevent a genuinely coerced agreement to speak without counsel present,” Scalia said.

Since the cops don’t already have enough power.

7. Madman in the Marketplace - 26 May 2009

Scahill: Neocon US Colonel Calls for Military Attacks on “Partisan Media”

A new report for a leading neoconservative group which pushes a belligerent “Israel first” agenda of conquest in the Middle East suggests that in future wars the US should make censorship of media official policy and advocates “military attacks on the partisan media.” (H/T MuzzleWatch) The report for JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, was authored by retired US Army Colonel Ralph Peters. It appears in JINSA’s “flagship publication,” The Journal of International Security Affairs. “Today, the United States and its allies will never face a lone enemy on the battlefield. There will always be a hostile third party in the fight,” Peters writes, calling the media, “The killers without guns:”

Of course, the media have shaped the outcome of conflicts for centuries, from the European wars of religion through Vietnam. More recently, though, the media have determined the outcomes of conflicts. While journalists and editors ultimately failed to defeat the U.S. government in Iraq, video cameras and biased reporting guaranteed that Hezbollah would survive the 2006 war with Israel and, as of this writing, they appear to have saved Hamas from destruction in Gaza.

[…]

Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media. Perceiving themselves as superior beings, journalists have positioned themselves as protected-species combatants. But freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow’s conventional wisdom.

The point of all this is simple: Win. In warfare, nothing else matters. If you cannot win clean, win dirty. But win. Our victories are ultimately in humanity’s interests, while our failures nourish monsters.

It is, of course, very appropriate that such a despicable battle cry for murdering media workers appears in a JINSA publication. The organization has long boasted an all-star cast of criminal “advisors.” Among them: Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, John Bolton, Douglas Feith and others. JINSA, along with the Project for a New American Century, was one of the premiere groups in shaping US policy during the Bush years and remains a formidable force with Obama in the White House.

If I did it right, the bolding is Scahill’s.

mattes - 26 May 2009

They are already doing it. Gaza news blackout.

8. Madman in the Marketplace - 26 May 2009

I’m recommending the new Steve Earle disc, “Townes”.

9. marisacat - 26 May 2009

They’re still at it. More missiles! More missiles! Send Pizza! Send Pizza! Right away! Or, More Missiles!

North Korea test-fires new short-range missile, Yonhap says

From Bloomberg News

4:29 PM PDT, May 26, 2009

North Korea fired another short-range missile off its eastern coast last night, South Korea’s Yonhap News reported, after the communist regime carried out a nuclear test and launched missiles earlier in the week.

The latest firing of a land-to-ship missile occurred around 9:10 p.m. local time, the Korean-language report said, citing a South Korean government official it didn’t identify. South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff are looking into the matter and can’t confirm the new launch yet, a military official who requested anonymity said today in Seoul.

North Korea launched two missiles on May 25 and has now tested five short-range rockets this week, the report said. …snip…

10. marisacat - 26 May 2009

People have lost their fucking minds. Chemerinsky’s on board and lists Sotomayor’s life long illness (she’s diabetic!) as a qualification.

Let me out of here.

11. catnip - 26 May 2009

Canada’s big news du jour: Governor General’s seal snack sparks controversy

Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean snacking on a slain seal’s raw heart has sparked criticism from the European Union and animal rights groups.

Barbara Slee, an anti-seal hunt campaigner at the International Fund for Animal Welfare in Brussels, said she was disgusted by Jean’s actions.

“The fact that the Governor General in public is slashing and eating a seal, I don’t think that really helps the cause, and I’m convinced that this will not change the mind of European citizens and politicians,” Slee told The Associated Press.

“It amazes us that a Canadian official would indulge in such bloodlust,” Dan Mathews, senior vice-president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, told the Toronto Star.

“It sounds like she’s trying to give Canadians an even more Neanderthal image around the world than they already have.”

Kicking off a weeklong visit to Nunavut on Monday as part of the territory’s 10th anniversary celebrations, Jean gutted and ate some fresh seal at a community festival in the central Nunavut community of Rankin Inlet.

The move, to show support for the beleaguered seal hunters, comes as the European Union voted earlier this month to impose a ban on seal products after years of intense lobbying by animal rights groups.

Asked Tuesday whether her actions were a message to Europe, Jean replied, “Take from that what you will.”

A spokeswoman for EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas offered no official reaction.

“No comment — it’s too bizarre to acknowledge,” Barbara Helfferich said.

No doubt.

Stay tuned next week when she downs a whole live salmon – scales and all.

catnip - 26 May 2009

To be fair though, we actually are Neanderthals… Who else would eat poutine?

marisacat - 26 May 2009

Is she the Queen? What was her purpose? I mean the queen of England is raised to be able to sit down to any meal in the various colonies and protectorates. Which in the 50s were still quite a few, in far flung parts of the world. You know, munch away happily in whatever locale she is in.. lest she give offense to the population.

What is Jean’s excuse? I am certainly not in favor of removing fishing and hunting rights of indigenous peoples, but … I wonder what she is up to…

catnip - 26 May 2009

She’s the Queen’s representative in Canada. As for what she’s up to, her position is supposed to be non-political so she’s in a bit of hot water over this since it looks like she’s sticking her nose into the EU’s recent ban on CDN seal products (which doesn’t actually include the Inuit anyway. Still, we’re used to our GGs being non-beings – invisible except when they hand out awards and people bitch about how much money their existence costs taxpayers.)

catnip - 26 May 2009

Either that or she thought she was on Survivor…who knows?

12. catnip - 26 May 2009

I’ve never heard this before: Obama’s climate guru: Paint your roof white!

Some people believe that nuclear power is the answer to climate change, others have proposed green technologies such as wind or solar power, but Barack Obama’s top man on global warming has suggested something far simpler – painting your roof white.

Steven Chu, the US Secretary of Energy and a Nobel prize-winning scientist, said yesterday that making roofs and pavements white or light-coloured would help to reduce global warming by both conserving energy and reflecting sunlight back into space. It would, he said, be the equivalent of taking all the cars in the world off the road for 11 years.

marisacat - 26 May 2009

Painting rooves white gets talked about quite a bit out here… For just that reason. And Chu comes from .. here!

ugh I would dread white sidewalks.. light maybe, but non-reflective (which would probably defeat the purpose, I don’t know) as the sun gets intense. Even in SF, we get a harsh white glare in spring and fall. There was a move on over the years to get away from painting buildings white here… to paint them a non reflective cream or light tan… and it made a huge difference. That harsh white light BOUNCES around.

catnip - 26 May 2009

That harsh white light BOUNCES around.

Thus snowblindness up here.

I don’t even know if they make white asphalt shingles – which are the roofing materials used here the most. And wouldn’t the darker shingles absorb heat in the winter to warm the house?

catnip - 26 May 2009

I did notice that the streets in LA and Dallas were much lighter in colour than ours up here. Not sure what that’s about…

marisacat - 26 May 2009

ours are light as well… a pale concrete.

catnip - 26 May 2009

That must be the difference then. We live in asphalt hell up here. Grey, grey and more grey.

Madman in the Marketplace - 27 May 2009
marisacat - 27 May 2009

what a revealing little report. See Chu bycicle for the environemtn. See Michelle planting seeds from Jefferson’s garden. See the Obs walk the dog “every two hours” (I so buy that one).

On and on it goes.

here is a news flash from the West Coast, just on the early am news:

Sales were slow for his Los Angeles event tonight. So they lowered the price. The $2,500 tickets were REDUCED to match the “low priced” event, at $1,000. No word on sales for the main event at $30,400 per couple. No word about it at all…
:twisted:

13. catnip - 26 May 2009

Yeesh: Could a teenage girl topple Berlusconi?

His own little Lolita…

She calls him ‘daddy’. He bought her a £6,000 necklace for her 18th. Silvio Berlusconi’s relationship with Noemi Letizia has already seen his wife file for divorce. Now, could it cost him his grip on power?

14. catnip - 26 May 2009

I watched this movie last nite: Death of a President. Well done and worth seeing.

15. catnip - 26 May 2009
16. catnip - 26 May 2009

Just wonderful:

KABUL, Afghanistan (Reuters) — An Afghan who has spent over six years at the American military prison at Guantánamo Bay was only about 12 when he was detained, not 16 or 17 as his official record says, an Afghan rights group said Tuesday.

Interviews with the family of Mohammed Jawad, who like many poor Afghans does not know his exact age or birthday, showed he was probably not even a teenager when he was arrested in 2002, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission said.

He was picked up by the Afghan police in connection with a grenade attack in Kabul in which two United States soldiers and their Afghan interpreter were wounded. He was transferred to American custody and flown to Guantánamo in early 2003.

Commissioner Nader Nadery said Mr. Jawad was tortured and abused by the Afghan police and at Guantánamo. The commission is seeking his release and repatriation.

They picked up Omar Khadr when he was 14 and he’s still there. Bastards. But 12? How could they have been so obtuse??

marisacat - 26 May 2009

How could they have been so obtuse??

well.. they lied. I heard a panel with Lindorff and Olashansky on Cspan a few years ago… they talked about a section of Gitmo called “Camp Iguana”. It is where the children were put, who were there for all sorts of reasons… soemtimes just so the father knew they were in custody and would worry (or go insane).

And I had read a lot, at least what was accessible to me, about Gitmo and had not heard of “Camp Iguana”.

17. marisacat - 27 May 2009

Turley on the Sotomayor pick.

18. marisacat - 27 May 2009

From Turley. Gah. It will be a long long several months confirmation. We will hear e n d l e s s l y of the Bronx projects. We are Historic. At some point the text has to change. One would think.

Next we will hear of who will play her in the Lifetime movie.

[A] few other cases are likely to draw equal attention and possible criticism. Open government advocates might be uncomfortable with her involvement in Tigue v. DOJ and Wood v. FBI. Both cases narrowly construed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Another flash point is likely to be Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education she ruled in favor of Ray Gant, who was transferred from the First Grade to Kindergarten due to his poor performance. Sotomayor wrote a dissent that such a decision was racial discrimination, a view that was obviously not shared by her colleagues.

My main concern is the lack of intellectual depth in her past opinions. Objecting to the intellectual content of opinions is not the same as objecting to the intellect of an individual. Smart people can have little vision in the law or other fields. No one would suggest that Sotomayor is not incredibly bright. It is her legal vision and the depth of her legal philosophy that is at issue in confirmation debates.

I have now read dozens of her opinions and focused on the most significant rulings. They do not support the view that she is a natural pick for the Court. She is without question a historic pick. [sigh…] Her defenders have rightfully likened her to Marshall (who is one of my personal heroes). I consider her life as inspiring and I believe that it will give her an added insight into cases. The concern is her view of the law is a bit insular and narrow — at least as reflected in these opinions. The fact is that few people list Marshall as someone who has had a lasting intellectual influence on the Court. He helped change the law, but few opinions reached a lasting level. That does not mean that he was not smart (which he certainly was) or that his selection was a mistake (he was a brilliant choice). Sotomayor will be a very good justice and her life’s story will be an inspiration. She has obviously very intelligent. However, liberals openly called for a liberal version of Scalia. I am not confident that they found it in this nominee despite her powerful personal story. …snip…

Long tedious muggy summer ahead.

19. marisacat - 27 May 2009

Scalia, Roberts and even Kennedy are licking their chops.

Looking objectively at the body of opinions by Judge Sotomayor, one is not overwhelmed by their depth. There is nothing in this body of work that would scream out for the elevation of the author to the Court. Personally, I would have loved to see an opinion by her in Ricci [New Haven firefighter case — Mcat], which presented sweeping questions of constitutional law and values. Instead, she rejected the case with her panel in a cursory fashion without substantive analysis. There is no question that she is very smart — as shown by her impressive work at Princeton and Yale. However, all of these candidates are smart. You can be smart and not hold particularly profound ideas about the law. Regardless of the understandable short term elevation over this historic moment, I do not see her moving the intellectual center of gravity on the Court. While people have demanded that I show evidence that she has not been particularly impressive in her decision, it is rather difficult to point to the absence of something. Her opinions tend to lack of a broader historical or theoretical view. It is easier to point to opinions that show a broader vision of the law. …snip…

Madman in the Marketplace - 27 May 2009

there was nothing in Thomas’ or Scalia’s work, either.

Not that it matters.

marisacat - 27 May 2009

But they weren’t nominated by the consecrated host, the body and blood of Jesus. WIth sprinkles of Reagan and Lincoln and so on. Spock on earth. And so on.

Mere mortals, politicians who ascended to the WH, nominated them.

20. marisacat - 27 May 2009

ugh. There is more… I see why Ob picked her. Note the case she supported (she did not write the ruling but the lower court supported the SC ruling) that further restricted students’ rights, the “Bong Hits for Jesus” case.

***

“Here, we make our first effort at summarizing what we regard as Judge Sotomayor’s principal opinions in civil cases. Our only goal is to identify and summarize the opinions, not evaluate them.”

LINK to SCOTUSBLOG

21. marisacat - 27 May 2009

LOL Axelrod to Cali, DROPPPP DEADDDD.

I have to say I got the message years ago, when Arnold was in league with Bush and Cheney and the secret energy meetings. And we were under assault from the Bushites, under guise of an energy crisis… rolling black outs across the state for months. (It killed them then and still kills them that one reason we survived was CONSERVATION.)

Arnold then pops up for a manufactured Recall. The Dems don’t fight, not really. Easy to have Arnold do the nasty bloody scut work…

And we continue to go to shit.

Yes I think I got that one. And Ob and Ax are just more of it.

[T]he cause of California’s, and almost every other state’s, predicament is an economy ruined by deregulation policies that were secured by the lobbying efforts of Wall Street, led most prominently by Citigroup. So, I expected a federal government that has spent trillions salvaging the banks that got us into this mess to find the relatively minor sums needed to bail out California and other states that have been the victims of Wall Street’s dangerous games.

But I didn’t count on the tough-love steeliness of President Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod, who told Californians that “there’s a limit to what the government can do” when it comes to bailing out our state (as opposed to the banks). Or of White House press secretary Robert Gibbs: “Obviously, the state has to make some very tough fiscal decisions … [given] the budgetary constraints that they have.”

Tough for whom? Not the politicians of either party. The results of such decisions are tough for the poor of America, two-thirds of whom are kids, left to the tender mercy of the states, thanks to the sweeping “welfare reform” and other programs put into place by the Clinton White House in one of that Democratic administration’s signature triangulation ploys. ….snip…………….

For 20 plus years the Arnolds and Obs and Axelrod’s have relied on charities and non profits to pick up the slack of the governmental social welfare net (and in the case of Ob, pay him to sit on boards and write useless, by his own admission, reports). Guess what? Charities and foundations are in trouble. They are pulling back. Now waht?

wu ming - 27 May 2009

now we collapse. the new budget proposals increase the tax cuts. fucking arsonists.

marisacat - 27 May 2009

This where they have been headed. And I posted Sheer’s article. above in the thread somewhere. Cannot believe he was so naive as to vote for the Arnold props. Or expect anything but this. Or expect the Obsters and Knobsters to care. (Not that they should…but shiiiit, let’s save Geithner and Summer buddies!)

22. marisacat - 27 May 2009

Jeralyn was on the morning conf call for the legal media. The thread is interesting too… one comment has the long cut of her comment about “wise Latina” vs whatever, white male.

23. marisacat - 27 May 2009

Jan Crawford Greenburg:

Becoming Nominee Sotomayor

May 26, 2009 3:48 PM

From the moment David Souter announced his retirement, his seat on the Supreme Court was Sonia Sotomayor’s to lose.

President Obama had been “very interested” in her from the start, said one top adviser, and almost immediately, his political advisers–led by Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel–urged him to make history by tapping the first Hispanic justice.

The selection of Sotomayor, they argued, would energize a key and growing constituency, which could well be disappointed in coming months by expected failures to get meaningful immigration reform.

But there wasn’t unanimity in the ranks. Sources close to the process said legal advisers wanted, as they saw it, a more collegial and intellectual heavyweight. They favored Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the former dean of Harvard Law School, or Chicago based federal appeals court Judge Diane Wood. …snip…

24. marisacat - 27 May 2009

FWIW… Burris on tape with Blago brother… being released.

25. NYCO - 27 May 2009

An interview with Joseph Tainter, archaeologist and explicator of civilizational doom.

He is younger than I thought.

Madman in the Marketplace - 27 May 2009

wow, that was pretty grim!

Thanks!

26. catnip - 27 May 2009

Billions in new cuts loom for California — including eliminating welfare and closing most state parks

Faced with a ballooning deficit and a clear signal that voters won’t pay more to fix it, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger released a budget plan Tuesday that would eliminate welfare, drop 1 million poor children from health insurance, cut off new grants for college students and shut down 80 percent of state parks.

Wow…

catnip - 27 May 2009

And I assume Ahnold and Maria are moving into a low-rent apartment to set an example, right?

marisacat - 27 May 2009

LOL he flies home every night. I have read the plane reeks of “sex and cigars”.

:roll: I don’t care where they put their plumbing.. but, sad to say, it is all they care about. And their concubinage and harems. Whichmay or may nto include sexual favors. LOL Just a government job.

the Democrats facilitated Arnold every step of the way. IMO.

catnip - 27 May 2009

I have read the plane reeks of “sex and cigars”.

TMI!

He flies home? Geez. Pollute/spend much?

marisacat - 27 May 2009

Well jsut my opinion but Arnold was put in to bring us to this. Long as the leg gets their per diem, they sure don’t care. And his concubinage at the capitol get theirs… and so on.

27. marisacat - 27 May 2009

Speaking of Cali, Madman sent me this… LOL. (The thread picks apart the eye popping salary for the “Special Nurse” who leads the list, it gets more eye popping… OT is manna from god, etc)

A lot of this stuff has been coming out (as it has periodically before) about various cities and the salaries paid to the highest city officials..etc… as well as state salaries. Also state retirements… Starting salaries for Ca Highway patrol i over 100K, etc.

Newspapers have published the 100 highest paid of Arnold’s concubine and so on. Their various perks and per diems.

LOL I am nto surprised Ob had trouble fulfilling the ticket sales for the DNC fundriaser tonight in LA (he’s a rock star!?). But I AM sure the WH is pissed – and worried.

28. marisacat - 27 May 2009

So funny… aside from tickets to the LA fundraiser moving slowwwly… ti is Specter’s first appearance as a switch hitter.

Thud.

29. Arcturus - 27 May 2009

confirming conspiracies –

Eva Golinger: USAID’s Silent Invasion in Bolivia

Monday, 18 May 2009

Recently declassified documents obtained by investigators Jeremy Bigwood and Eva Golinger reveal that the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has invested more than $97 million in “decentralization” and “regional autonomy” projects and opposition political parties in Bolivia since 2002. The documents, requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), evidence that USAID in Bolivia was the “first donor to support departmental governments” and “decentralization programs” in the country, proving that the US agency has been one of the principal funders and fomenters of the separatist projects promoted by regional governments in Eastern Bolivia.

Jean-Guy Allard: Armando Valladares’ CIA organization linked to plot against Evo Morales

The Bolivian district attorney’s office has identified Hugo Achá Melgar who, according to the AFP news agency, is Bolivia’s representative to the U.S. Human Rights Foundation (HRF), as providing the bulk of the funds for the terrorist gang foiled in Santa Cruz while plotting to assassinate President Evo Morales.

The HRF is a New York-based nongovernmental organization known for its activities of interference and CIA links. Its general secretary, Armando Valladares, is a terrorist of Cuban origin. District Attorney Marcelo Sosa, who is leading the investigation in this case, identified Achá, alias “Superman,” along with Alejandro Melgar, “El Lucas,” as being involved in and funding the plot.

In a statement to a La Paz television station, Achá—currently in the United States—rejected those charges but confessed that he had met with the killers’ leader, Hungarian-Bolivian Eduardo Rózsa-Flores, on “four or five” occasions. The Rózsa-Flores terrorist group was dismantled in a Bolivian police operation a few weeks ago. Three of the mercenaries, among them the group’s alleged leader, Eduardo Rózsa-Flores, died in a gun fight, while two others were arrested and are currently being detained in La Paz. The authorities subsequently captured two other conspirators, both members of the fascist organization Unión Juvenil Cruceñista, which provided the group with weapons.

marisacat - 27 May 2009

Apologies that languished in Moderation for a while, Arcturus… out now…
:oops:

catnip - 27 May 2009

confirming conspiracies

That’s bannable blasphemy talk!

Oops…wrong site…

30. NYCO - 27 May 2009

This just in… affluent teens have to babysit for extra cash this summer! Mom and Dad can’t afford to send them to splashy resume-padding “service vacations” in Spain!

What’s even worse… they may never get to Spain, and may have to do service work in Buffalo instead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/fashion/28teens.html

Oh, the humanity…

lucid - 27 May 2009

Oh noes! Like teenagers might have to work for their money like they used too? What possible values could that teach them?

BooHooHooMan - 27 May 2009

Not to mention the encroachment of ex-urban developments
on once glorious fields of pot.
Kids today, what with hydroponics and THE CANADIANS- they
know nothing of growing their own affordable herb so they can save their part time job money for HARD drugs..
Ye s, the weed was Harsh as Hell , however , IIRC , with all the delightful aroma as if one just emerged from a petro-chemical fire.
~But character building. LOL.

brinn - 27 May 2009

I am just SICK. I have been busting my butt to try to figure out how I can get a summer job (my uni contract is only 9 months for the academic year…) and if I found something that made $4500 in 3 months, I would be orgasmic!

What universe do these people live in?? Really? Camps that cost 1-2K PER WEEK are “recession-proof”?!?

WTF?

I really am coming to hate this country.

marisacat - 27 May 2009

4 to 8 thousand a month for camp?

Inflation much?

catnip - 27 May 2009

Notice the article is in the “Fashion & Style” section. Apropos.

Madman in the Marketplace - 27 May 2009

coming to?

I flew past “hate”, barrelled through “condemn”, knocked over “loath” and am well along into “washed my hands of” a couple of years ago.

brinn - 27 May 2009

Can I have some of that hand-washin’ stuff you’re using Madman??

Somehow, my kids keep the stupid flame of hope alive — I just need to place it elsewhere…but where?

Kid the elder wants to be an engineer — he keeps talking about time-machines and teleporters…maybe he’ll find the elsewhere, yeah? ;)

Madman in the Marketplace - 27 May 2009

maybe he will!

Keep the hope local, starting with family and friends. That’s what I’m trying to do. I give up on the country … it’s barely a country and mostly a network of plantations these days anyway.

31. catnip - 27 May 2009

Ex-NYC police boss accused of lying to White House

NEW YORK (AP) — Former New York City police Commissioner Bernard Kerik (KEHR’-ihk) has been indicted on charges of making false statements to White House officials vetting him for the position of Department of Homeland Security secretary.

You can be charged for lying to “White House officials”? Was he under oath?

32. catnip - 27 May 2009

Photos show rape and sex abuse in Iraq jails-paper

LONDON, May 28 (Reuters) – Photographs of Iraqi prisoner abuse which U.S. President Barack Obama does not want released include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse, Britain’s Daily Telegraph newspaper reported on Thursday.

The images are among photographs included in a 2004 report into prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison conducted by U.S. Major General Antonio Taguba.

Taguba included allegations of rape and sexual abuse in his report, and on Wednesday he confirmed to the Daily Telegraph that images supporting those allegations were also in the file.

“These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency,” Taguba, who retired in January 2007, was quoted as saying in the paper.

He said he supported Obama’s decision not to release them, even though Obama had previously pledged to disclose all images relating to abuses at Abu Ghraib and other U.S.-run prisons in Iraq.

“I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one,” Taguba said. “The sequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan.

“The mere depiction of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.”

The newspaper said at least one picture showed an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.

Others are said to depict sexual assaults with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

So now that this news is out are US troops in more danger, Obama?

As if.

The so-called insurgents already know what those scumbags did.

marisacat - 27 May 2009

the scuttle butt has long been there are not only photos but videos of at least one child being raped.

marisacat - 27 May 2009

He said he supported Obama’s decision not to release them, even though Obama had previously pledged to disclose all images relating to abuses at Abu Ghraib and other U.S.-run prisons in Iraq.

“I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one,” Taguba said. “The sequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan.

I felt at the time that Taguba should resign and be entirely 100% truthful. Living is very very good at the retired 2 ** level. But I read at the time of his testimony (I watched him take a fall, despite all he had managed) that he has two children in the mil, my guess is he wants to protect their future.

Oh get real Gen Taguba. Their future is an ever more debauched, far flung, fighting forever mil. Unless of course they are put in charge of ENTERTAINMENT as he had been before being shuffled off to do as little as possible in “investigating” Abu Ghraib. He did more than they expected, despite their having carefully sent a two star when every one else there in Iraq at the prisons… out ranked him, but HE FELL SHORT.

33. Madman in the Marketplace - 27 May 2009
34. Madman in the Marketplace - 27 May 2009
35. BooHooHooMan - 27 May 2009

Beijing wants PAID. Poor Bambi.

Geithner Prepares to Meet With Chinese Leaders

The Chinese should see if they can sit down with Geithner at a nice. quiet Italian joint in the Bronx, with a pull-chain toilet in the men’s room.

brinn - 27 May 2009

LOL!

As if anyone with a fucking ounce of sense couldn’t’ve seen this coming — our new overlords will not be kind! (and why should they be, we don’t deserve it..)

BooHooHooMan - 27 May 2009

They’re my Favorite Tyrannical Empire. LOL.

36. NYCO - 27 May 2009

Seriously? People are shocked at this? It’s what conquerors do.

Abu Ghraib abuse photos ‘show rape’

At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.

Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

Apparently this is the stuff Obama changed his mind on releasing.

BooHooHooMan - 27 May 2009

shhhh. keep it to yourself.
don’t tell anyone.

There’s been a “Change” all Right. In the facility with which this Democratic Administration ignores atrocity.

In Our Hypocrisy and disregard for Justice.
A “Change” all Right..
In our Cruelty and Callousness towards other,
defenseless Human Beings.

How LOW can we go?

BooHooHooMan - 27 May 2009

The correct questions, in light of the substantial record of atrocities now surfacing:

Why won’t Obama lead?
Where is his much vaunted “Bold New Leadership”?

marisacat - 27 May 2009

The Telegraoh article has this quote from Taguba. So much wrong in this … nowhere to begin.

“I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan.

Ob is his liege man apparently. GOOD LUCK!!

NYCO - 27 May 2009

Okay, so basically the world’s women have a choice of whether the Taliban rape them or the Americans do.

DO the Taliban rape women? (I mean, in an organized systematic way. I know that Pakistani tribesmen are into that sort of thing, but that isn’t necessarily kosher for actual Taliban.)

Remember, American women… your daughters will grow up in a world of FREEEEEEEEEDOM as long as our special forces can rape Iraqi women in secret.

It’s times like these I’m super glad I don’t have any daughters. Or any children, for that matter.

marisacat - 27 May 2009

and our paramilitaries… the Dyncorps of the wars. Rape among the “blue helmets”, the UN forces…. Ihave read in non-US non propaganda that there is adolescent boy rape in Afghanistan, from both Taliban and our allies, what were they called, the Northern Alliance. Some early interviews I read in harpers and The Nation seemed to indicate at least some women saw little difference between Taliban and Northern A. In terms of abuse for breaking the endless “rules”.

And then our own “command rape” of our women forces. With abortion banned in mil hospitals.

GOOD LUCK!!

37. Madman in the Marketplace - 27 May 2009
lucid - 27 May 2009

Obviously a non-fretted string player… he plays vibrato the wrong way – you have to bend it not move vertically… beautiful nonetheless.

Madman in the Marketplace - 28 May 2009

I’ve always been a sucker for that soundtrack.

38. marisacat - 27 May 2009

Gosh Golly. Not enough empathy, on the record!, as it turns out. ;)

Some liberal legal groups are raising questions about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, citing her relatively moderate judicial record and her skimpy paper trail on crucial issues like abortion, gay marriage and the death penalty.

“She is a mixed bag. I would not call her a left liberal,” Marjorie Cohn, president of the progressive National Lawyers Guild, said in an interview on Air America.

“I’m thrilled that there will be the first Latina on the Supreme Court and that there will be another woman. But I really would have liked to have seen a real progressive counterweight to radical rightists on the court.”

The criticism from the left comes as White House allies have launched a campaign designed to build support for Sotomayor’s nomination and counter attacks from the right.

The Coalition for Constitutional Values, a group that includes the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Alliance for Justice and People for the American Way, debuted a television ad on Wednesday describing Sotomayor as “principled, fair-minded, independent [and] keeping faith with our constitutional values.”

The concern from some liberal groups, however, is that despite her 16 years as a circuit and federal court judge, Sotomayor has not shown her hand on abortion, the death penalty, national security and gay marriage. And she’s not viewed as a major thinker in areas like constitutional rights, executive privilege, civil rights or human rights. …snip…

LINK

39. marisacat - 27 May 2009

Good for something I guess.

Biden:

Then, not content to leave without a jaunty ad lib, Biden noted that heavy winds were gusting through the ceremonies. One of his two teleprompters had toppled over. Alluding to the jokes of Obama’s reliance on the speech-facilitators, Biden added,

“What I am going to tell the president when I tell him his teleprompter is broken? What will he do then?”

40. Arcturus - 27 May 2009

Marjorie Cohen, this am on DN!:

She will not appreciably change the political balance on the court. She will probably be a reliable liberal, very much in the vein of David Souter.

Cases about executive privilege will invariably come before her, such as interrogation policies, preventive detention, state secrets, and her views are largely unknown on issues of executive privilege.

She is a mixed bag. I would not call her a left liberal. She will not be a William Brennan or a Thurgood Marshall or an Earl Warren. Yes, she has ruled in the ways that Tom said on the firefighters case, on the environmental case, but she is a career prosecutor. She was a career prosecutor. And I’m hoping that she has empathy for criminal defendants and their constitutional rights. She ruled in two significant cases to uphold searches where the search warrants were unlawful. She ruled—she upheld the Bush global gag rule that made it harder for women to get abortions. She ruled against plaintiff correctional officers who were retaliated against for making complaints. And she also has a significant background as a corporate lawyer. She dissented in a 2-to-1 decision, ruling against the families of victims of the TWA plane crash in New York. So I think she will be a mixed bag. She will probably be more on the liberal side, but I would not call her an unabashed liberal.

lucid - 27 May 2009

In other words, she’ll be yet another idiot…

41. marisacat - 28 May 2009

A shoe out there to drop, is my guess. NYT

[A]s president, Mr. Obama has sought to avoid being drawn into the culture wars of the last several decades and has encouraged each side in the abortion debate to be respectful of the other’s opinions. But there are clear political advantages to his choice for the court not being perceived as having a strong position on abortion rights.

Judge Sotomayor’s views on abortion rights could still become clear if a past writing comes to light. During Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s confirmation process in late 2005, for example, the National Archives released an old Justice Department job application in which he said the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.

But at this point, Judge Sotomayor’s views are as unknown as Justice Souter’s were in 1990, said Steven Waldman, the editor in chief of BeliefNet.com, a religious Web site, where he has blogged about her lack of an abortion rights record.

“Everyone is just assuming that because Obama appointed her, she must be a die-hard pro-choice activist,” Mr. Waldman said, “but it’s really quite amazing how little we know about her views on abortion.”

None of the cases in Judge Sotomayor’s record dealt directly with the legal theory underlying Roe v. Wade — that the Constitution contains an unwritten right to privacy in reproductive decisions as a matter of so-called substantive due process. Several of her opinions invoke substantive due process in other areas, however, like the rights of parents and prisoners.

She has also had several cases involving abortion-related disputes that turned on other legal issues. While those cases cannot be taken as a proxy for her views on the constitutionality of abortion, she often reached results favorable to abortion opponents. …snip…

It’s almost funny in a way.. whatever her views the WH knows them.

[P]hillip Jauregui, president of the conservative Judicial Action Group, said he was not convinced by any anti-abortion overtones to such rulings because, he said, even “the most radical feminist” would object to forcing women to abort wanted pregnancies.

Mr. Waldman of BeliefNet.com also noted that Judge Sotomayor was raised Roman Catholic, although there are many judges who do not follow the church’s dogma — like opposing abortion and the death penalty — in their jurisprudence.

Moreover, he said, it is significant that as a group, Hispanics include a higher percentage of abortion opponents than many other parts of the Democratic Party’s coalition. Judge Sotomayor’s parents moved from Puerto Rico.

“At the very least, she grew up in a culture that didn’t hold the pro-life position in contempt,” Mr. Waldman said.

Mr. Jauregui said he agreed with Ms. Keenan that Judge Sotomayor ought to say what she believed about Roe v. Wade before any confirmation vote.

“I don’t think, when we’re talking about a job as important as a justice who could serve for decades, that it’s acceptable for someone to be stealth,” he said.

There is also a WSJ article on Wlaldman and his article in BeliefNet on Sotomayor… I don’t have the link handy…

42. marisacat - 28 May 2009

new…

LINK

……………… :roll: …………………..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 169 other followers

%d bloggers like this: