Skip to main content

Don't get me wrong.  I'm thrilled a Reagen appointee overturned that hateful garbage on the reasonable basis test.  

But let's remember a few things about the Roberts Court, the Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit before we going dancing a jig.

The recent analysis by the NYTimes of the Roberts Court should serve us fair warning of how this decision will likely play out, even with the addition of a new Justice Kagan:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. emerged as a canny strategist at the Supreme Court this term, laying the groundwork for bold changes that could take the court to the right even as the recent elections moved the nation to the left.

The court took mainly incremental steps in major cases concerning voting rights, employment discrimination, criminal procedure and campaign finance. But the chief justice’s fingerprints were on all of them, and he left clues that the court is only one decision away from fundamental change in many areas of the law.

Whether he will succeed depends on Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court’s swing vote. And there is reason to think that the chief justice has found a reliable ally when it counts.

http://www.nytimes.com/...

An LA Times analysis of last term's decisions reiterates the danger of the misperceptions the public and the S.Ct. hold of the 9th Circuit.

From prisoners' rights to environmental protection, laws set by the West's powerful appeals court were overturned in 15 of the 16 cases reviewed this term by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The reversals affect a broad range of civil rights and business practices challenged in the nine states and two Pacific territories covered by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The justices shot down four rulings seen as protecting nature against industrial hazards and five cases asserting claims by convicts that their rights were abused.

Judicial analysts attribute the high reversal rate at least partly to the 9th Circuit's reputation as a liberal-dominated bench, even though more recent conservative appointments have diluted that influence. Experts, including former law clerks, say the Supreme Court justices are more inclined to look over the shoulders of the 9th Circuit judges they suspect of favoring the underdog.

The high court historically reverses the majority of all cases it reviews -- 76% so far this term, with three decisions still pending. Legal analysts say that's because they seek to correct what they see as erroneous interpretations by lower courts or to settle conflicting views among the circuits about a law's meaning.

http://articles.latimes.com/...

As a former Congressional staffer who watched the S.Ct. devalue itself with Bush v. Gore ten years ago, lowering themselves from what I then viewed as the apolitical branch, into the ideological trenches and ignoring the plain text of the Constitution, yesterday's decision does not give me hope...it gives me great fear.

I went from Congressional staffer to law school.  I took and passed the bar in Arizona, before SB 1070, but not before I saw white immigrants to AZ use the law to devalue, attack and demean the Hispanic and Native American residents who had been in Arizona long before the now empowered whites.

Law and legal victories are a fiction.  The law is not immutable.  There is no "Justice" nor "Liberty" nor "Equality".  Not in America anyway.

The law is written by politicians bought and paid for by campaign contributions from large corporations, special interests, and the independently wealthy.

From these bought and paid for politicians in both parties, judges are appointed...for life, to create the illusion of judicial independence.

But let's take a quick look at a recent case to show just how independent and ethical these appointees are...the BP spill:

A federal judge who overturned the Obama administration's initial six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling has refused to disqualify himself from the case.

Several environmental groups had asked U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman to withdraw from the case because of his investments in several oil and gas companies. Feldman refused in an order issued Friday and posted Monday.

http://www.nola.com/...

Law is nothing more then the political history of the moment in time in which that law was passed.  It is not necessarily just or right.

Judges interpret those laws, filtered through their economic, political and cultural influences.

Statistics show how often the 9th Circuit is overturned.  The Roberts Court is 5-4 the wrong way.

I have no faith that this Court will follow the Constitution's text and spirit when such decisions do not comport with their personal world view.

And I certainly don't trust Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Kennedy or Alito to make tough decisions like Dred Scott, Loving v. Virginia, or even Lawrence v. Texas, to create a more equal country where all citizens are equal under the eyes of "the law".

Yes I am a cynic, but that leaves less room to be disappointed when those I believe will do the worst, do in fact, do the worst.

UPDATE:

Nor do I trust our current President to do the right thing for our fellow citizens.  From this mornings Washington Post:

The president "has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans," the White House said.

But Obama does not endorse gay marriage. As a candidate for president, he consistently said marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman.

"I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage," the candidate said just days before the election in 2008.

...

Instead, Obama supports civil unions, the extension of legal benefits to gay couples, which he says provide important rights to gays and lesbians in their everyday lives. Never mind that many gay activists view civil unions as an unwelcome half-measure that undermines efforts to secure the right to marry.

With civil unions, same-sex couples "can visit each other in the hospital if they get sick . . . they can transfer property to each other," Obama said. "If they've got benefits, they can make sure those benefits apply to their partners. I think that is the direction we need to go."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

For those of us engaged in the pie fight, one more reason to throw banana creams.

Originally posted to angry liberaltarian on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:27 AM PDT.

Poll

Best Pie for the fight?

2%1 votes
11%5 votes
14%6 votes
11%5 votes
9%4 votes
21%9 votes
23%10 votes
4%2 votes

| 42 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Don't forget though (10+ / 0-)

    the one time they affirmed the 9th was when Justice Kennedy sided with the liberals to say that Hastings did not have to recognize CLS if they refused to admit gay members.

    One should no more deplore homosexuality than left-handedness. ~Towards a Quaker View of Sex, 1964 (Proud left-handed queer here!)

    by AUBoy2007 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:39:57 AM PDT

    •  Anybody who missed Rachel's show last night (8+ / 0-)

      should do themselves a favor and watch her first 2 segments at least.

      Yesterday was a huge victory for civil rights in this country. Mega. I'd like to take a few more days to celebrate before I start doubting what happened or what will happen and turn a victory into a reason to pie fight and bring on the doom and gloom as progressives seem so apt to do.

      Thanks for the warning though, diarist!

      "Palin tried marijuana years ago. She said it distorted her perceptions & impaired her thinking. She hopes the effects will eventually one day wear off." -

      by marabout40 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:16:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agree 100% (5+ / 0-)

        Thanks for stating that so simply and, imo, reasonably.

        We got the best possible outcome at the District Court level, a sound decision in our favor that will be hard to overturn.  In the face of this, we should be afraid?  I understand the very real potential for the Robert's Court to overturn it but this should be a moment of building enthusiasm for the larger battles ahead.  Telling people to fear instead of celebrate undercuts the movement and downplays the progress we've made.  

        Perhaps time on the Hill makes one a pessimist, but we can't forget the importance of keeping supporters energized for other legislative and electoral efforts concerning marriage equality.

        •  Nothing is "too hard" for Scalia to overturn (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lujane, m00finsan

          Scalia especially, but this includes the entire gang of four arch-conservative justices.  IF they can persuade Kennedy to go along, I predict: - an opinion written by either Roberts or Scalia, overturning the District Court on as broad a front as possible (equal protection, due process, state vs federal powers and the 10th amendment, etc). - a concurring opinion by Kennedy overturning the District Court on fairly narrow grounds, rejecting the broad brush of the four others.

  •  Irrational exhuberance (12+ / 0-)

    is not something you seem to have a problem with. Yesterday's ruling was a landmark ruling. I'm sure Roberts & Co. will try to overturn it. But because of how the ruling was arrived at, and how it was crafted, that's not going to be easy.

    If you can't convince them, confuse them. (Harry S. Truman)

    by brainwave on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:45:19 AM PDT

    •  See Bush v. Gore (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theran, esquimaux, 4kedtongue, m00finsan

      There was a Constitutional process laid out on how to deal with disputed Presidential elections.  The House chooses the President, the Senate the Vice President.

      The S.Ct. ignored the Constitution to install W.  Overturning a 9th Circuit district court decision means nothing to the likes of Scalia and Thomas.

      Hope Change comes faster.

      by angry liberaltarian on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:18:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Again, the point isn't what they want to do, the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Killer of Sacred Cows, ETF

        point is how they are able to justify their decision. The Rehnquist court was able to deal with Bush v Gore because there was an incredible amount of ink (or mud, whichever you prefer) clouding the water. There was the lack of procedures for the recount and there was the completely unclear question whether the legislature was entitled to pick electors and whether the timely execution of that right had to be ensured at all cost. And their was the breakneck speed with which the case was evolving. It was a very, very messy case, and that messiness was what allowed the majority to justify their opinion. In the current case, though, there is no such messiness. On the contrary, Judge Walker pretty much removed whatever traces of muddiness were there.

        If you can't convince them, confuse them. (Harry S. Truman)

        by brainwave on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:46:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  they couldnt justify Bush v. Gore (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theran, emsprater, 4kedtongue, m00finsan

          and the point im making is they won't justify there decision in this case either.  they'll do what they want politically, regardless of law, justice or reason.

          Hope Change comes faster.

          by angry liberaltarian on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:51:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They DID justify Bush v Gore (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ETF

            Of course they did. You and me don't find their justification one bit convincing, but that doesn't mean they weren't able to come up with a semblance of a coherent opinion. I've explained why they were able to do that in that case and why those circumstances don't apply in Perry v Schwarzenegger. Even a SCOTUS majority can't just write whatever they want, they have to build a case, and if they can't find support for the case they want to build, they can't build it.

            If you can't convince them, confuse them. (Harry S. Truman)

            by brainwave on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:59:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  And Dale v. Boy Scouts. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        emsprater

        They even overturned one of their own precedents.

        "[The GOP wanting to debate Obama is like saying] 'Let's see how tough Aquaman is when we get him in the water.' " --Seth Meyers

        by homogenius on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:55:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm pretty sure I'm going to get hit by a bus... (10+ / 0-)

    ... today.

    Now, if it ends up that I go to sleep in my own bed tonight, it will have been a good day.

    This is now posted by a bot.

    by Bob Johnson on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:46:04 AM PDT

  •  I think Kennedy will have a hard time (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emsprater, al75

    overturning a district and appeals court ruling...assuming the 9th upholds.

    Too big to fail = too big to exist.

    by Liberaltarianish on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:51:35 AM PDT

  •  It takes decades to control the judiciary (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, emsprater, al75, ETF

    and discipline. i tried to make this case to Naderites back in 2004. the price of purity, in 2000 and now, is allowing the other side to strategically control judicial picks long enough to implement an actual judicial agenda. its no accident that after Obama's election we get the Citizen United decision. it was planned long ago, put into the works for the day when they could get away with it and use it to control the agenda even when they got voted out of office.

    want to change that? GOTV in each and every election like you did in 2008. don't allow those crazy bastards back in office for one second. reverse that 5-4 majority and stay in control of the Senate & white house to have a clear majority in the appealate courts.

    its the only way, and every deviation from that over momentary frustrations is a setback with lasting consequences.

  •  What is this right thing that Obama is supposed (6+ / 0-)

    to do?

    Obama doesn't endorse it, but he sure as hell doesn't make it a campaign issue for political gain. and you sure as heck don't want this to become a campaign issue from either side. Your problem is the court not the president. what are you expecting him to do?

    •  obama's ability to lead depends on Jim Webb and (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Iberian, m00finsan

      other Dem troglodytes.  FDR, remember, had to mollifiy the dixicrat segregationists.

      One difference is that FDR had to listen to Elenore at home;  while Obama lacks a similar spur  

      - except for us, that is.

      We're the ones who need to excercise discipline, patience + determination to keep Obama reminded of what he already knows, as he struggles in the big power machine.

      "There has been an abdication of responsibility within the profession, most particularly in the networks. . . ." D Halberstam

      by al75 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:00:25 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It was made a campaign issue (6+ / 0-)

      And all Democrats proved themselves to be cowards.  Oh, they came out in favor of civil unions, sure, but they basically sat back and let those amendments pass without voicing any significant opposition.  President Obama did the same with Proposition 8, as well as another ban that passed in Florida the same year.  

      "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

      by Alec82 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:09:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What's Obama to do? (4+ / 0-)

      Quite plainly, state that equality in America means equality, not 'separate and somewhat like' or 'kind of like' or ' something just short of'.  

      This President's decision not to upset the folks who will never vote for him anyway by becoming the foil for setting up  a sham 'lite' version of marriage for one particular subset of Americans that will have none of the Federal benefits of marriage is not acceptable.

      This isn't the 1950's and gay Americans do not deserve this version of the 'drinking fountain' access.

      Cartman says it best: "Screw you guys, I'm going home".

      by emsprater on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:24:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We're Americans. We do what's right. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AUBoy2007, emsprater, Alec82, m00finsan

        Even when its unpopular and upsets people.

        At least that's how it's supposed to work.  And how Presidents are supposed to lead.

        Hope Change comes faster.

        by angry liberaltarian on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:27:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Their "support" for civil unions is in any event (5+ / 0-)

        ....highly theoretical.  With the exception of Howard Dean, who was governor at the time of the Vermont decision, no Democratic candidate has ever had an opportunity, to my knowledge, to do anything in support of civil unions at the state level.  And at the federal level, none of them supported legislation that would have given same-sex couples federal rights equal to married couples.  

        We do know, however, that they did not expend much (if any) energy opposing the anti-gay amendments that passed between 2004 and 2008, and that many of these amendments (MI, OH, FL, WI, etcetera) prohibit state recognition of civil unions and even domestic partnership benefits from being offered by state and local governments.  So really, their "support" for civil unions is, as President Obama might say, "just words."

        "All along the watchtower, princes kept the view..."

        by Alec82 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:29:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Roberts will rank with Roger Taney (3+ / 0-)

    author of the Dred Scott decision, as the worst Supreme court justice in history..  

    He's already moving violently beyond the mainstream - his decision to authorize unrestricted secret corporate campaign cash is just one example.

    Roll back gay marriage?  Let them.  Sure, it's terrible for alot of gay people - but that act of cowardice will be just one more provocative example of how crazy the Scalia/Alito/Roberts/Thomas cabal is.

    And it will move their day of reckoning just that much sooner.

    Marriage for all is here.  These reactionaries are fighting a losing battle - but their real interests are focussed on protecting the Extremely Wealthy.

    Thats where the battle is, IMO

    "There has been an abdication of responsibility within the profession, most particularly in the networks. . . ." D Halberstam

    by al75 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:57:42 AM PDT

  •  Finding of Fact vs Finding of Law (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wader, beltane, ETF

    I've heard some lawyerly types babbling on the radio that this ruling has a large amount of findings of fact and a small amount of findings of law, and that subsequent judicial review won't be able to overrule findings of fact, only the findings of law.

    Perhaps some of our own Kossack lawyers can chime in on this issue....

    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

    by leftykook on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:57:45 AM PDT

  •  Ambinder says rather than the ruling itself, (8+ / 0-)

    it's the judges' findings that is devastating for the prop 8 proponents.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/...

    BP - Proving Oil and Water do mix.
    A Presidency Among the Vuvuzelas.
    palin's ability to sound like a vuvuzela while twittering is remarkable.

    by amk for obama on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 05:57:47 AM PDT

  •  Another uptake from Slate's Dahlia Lithwick (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marabout40

    BP - Proving Oil and Water do mix.
    A Presidency Among the Vuvuzelas.
    palin's ability to sound like a vuvuzela while twittering is remarkable.

    by amk for obama on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:01:19 AM PDT

  •  What does this have to do with Obama pie (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Iberian, ETF

    fights?

    "Palin tried marijuana years ago. She said it distorted her perceptions & impaired her thinking. She hopes the effects will eventually one day wear off." -

    by marabout40 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:11:07 AM PDT

    •  Obama's lack of support for gay marriage (5+ / 0-)

      and DADT is one of a plethora of reasons progressives have issues with him.

      Hope Change comes faster.

      by angry liberaltarian on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:21:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama lack of support for DADT? (7+ / 0-)

        I'm sorry but you can say he is not supporting it enough or that it's a too slow pace, but the man is overturning it right now. His position on gay marriage has not changed from the primaries or the general election, by the way that position was the same fr nearly ALL the democratic primary candidates. I don't agree with it but we all know how this game is played

        Now why try to bring Obama down after some happy news tangentially related to him at best?  

        Arizona is the meth lab of democracy

        by Iberian on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:29:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Although the President spoke out against Prop 8 (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader, ETF, m00finsan

        I am one of those people who wishes he'd come out in support of gay marriage. He just might and it just might be at the moment we need it the most. I have hope.

        I'm glad you acknowledge the president does not support DADT. No discussion from me there.

        "Palin tried marijuana years ago. She said it distorted her perceptions & impaired her thinking. She hopes the effects will eventually one day wear off." -

        by marabout40 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:31:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama did not speak out against Prop 8... (5+ / 0-)

          ...when it was needed...before the votes were cast and to the people who would cast them.

          •  This is the statement the campaign issued (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ETF

            a week before the votes were cast:

            "Senators Obama and Biden have made clear their commitment to fighting for equal rights for all Americans whether it's by granting LGBT Americans all the civil rights and benefits available to heterosexual couples, or repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' While Senators Obama and Biden oppose same-sex marriage, they support civil unions," said a statement issued by campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt. "Senator Obama has already announced that the Obama-Biden ticket opposes Proposition 8 and similar discriminatory constitutional amendments that could roll back the civil rights he and Senator Biden strongly believe should be afforded to all Americans."

            "Palin tried marijuana years ago. She said it distorted her perceptions & impaired her thinking. She hopes the effects will eventually one day wear off." -

            by marabout40 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:49:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They announced...through a spokesperson... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              emsprater, m00finsan

              ...that they were in favor of a status less than marriage, like the one my partner and I have in New Jersey.

              And the original statement that was made was not made to the general voting public, but to a GLBT group.

              •  rserven, I doubt if Obama had gone to CA (0+ / 0-)

                made that statement himself every day before Nov. 4, it would have made a difference to you.

                The issue is not what he said against Prop 8, to whom he said it, and when. The issue is that he's against equal marriage rights for all Americans, and I understand that and I agree.

                Therefore, I'm not going to continue this back and forth about what he said, when, where... It's meaningless.

                Have a nice day.

                "Palin tried marijuana years ago. She said it distorted her perceptions & impaired her thinking. She hopes the effects will eventually one day wear off." -

                by marabout40 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 08:08:02 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  He could actually go with both sides (0+ / 0-)

          and say while he has personal difficulty with the concept, basic human rights can not be subject to political whim -- he could even tie in his own background considering that if his parents had honeymooned in Virginia in 1961, they would have been subject to arrest for sleeping together as husband and wife (see Loving v. Virginia a few years later).

          "When it gets harder to love, love harder" -- Van Jones, NN10, 7/23/10

          by Cali Scribe on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:19:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's a good argument except I don't see why (0+ / 0-)

            he would have personal difficult with the concept of equal rights for all.

            "Palin tried marijuana years ago. She said it distorted her perceptions & impaired her thinking. She hopes the effects will eventually one day wear off." -

            by marabout40 on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:46:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  He, personally, does not support gay marriage (0+ / 0-)

        But he does support civil union. Having said that he does agree that it is up to legislatures or the courts to make a statement on gay "marriage" or whatever you want to call it.

        Obama does believe that there will be equal rights for gay couples.

        I mean there are a lot of people who despise the thought of abortion, would never do it, think it is horrible, but respect someone's right to choose.

        So stop with Obama doesn't agree. He does. He just feels it has to be law.

        I think people get hung up on the words marriage and civil unions. I think the importance is not in what one calls it, but in the equality given gay and lesbian couples.

    •  Because everything is Obama (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ETF, marabout40

      It seem that without Obama in the title you can't write a diary. Ironically then those looking at the actions of the administration without that obsession are called Obama cultists. I don't get it

      Arizona is the meth lab of democracy

      by Iberian on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:27:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And the suspicious omission of (6+ / 0-)

      coconut custard?

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:31:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  His very open ... (4+ / 0-)

      opposition to 'gay marriage' in stating that he doesn't support equality in America is the twist.

      His statement:

      "I believe that marriage is between a man and woman and I am not in favor of gay marriage," the candidate said just days before the election in 2008.

      was used to assist in the passage of Prop8, giving the uncomfortable folks permission to deny civil rights to a subset of Americans based simply on personal feelings.  

      A President who truly beleived that all Americas shoudl be equal would not hold this viewpoint, and even if he did, he would not state it it openly.

      Cartman says it best: "Screw you guys, I'm going home".

      by emsprater on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:31:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Kennedy in Romer: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emsprater, Abra Crabcakeya, ETF

    [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.

  •  Saw this coming.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cali Scribe, ETF
    Progressives get one of the biggest decisions concerning marriage equality in, well, ever.  The day after we already have folks saying we should be afraid instead of celebrating.  

    I see a pattern.  Make progress/achieve accomplishment ---> A few fellow progressives tell me to bitch, moan, and live in fear because it isn't perfect or it could get overturned.  

    Psychologically, always preparing for the worst or expecting disapointment is a defense mechanism for those used to losing.  It is often the psychology of the minority in politics and continuing to use it as we pick up momentum hurts the movement by killing enthusiasm.  

    Will fear help us get a better ruling from the Robert's Court? No. Can fear kill enthusiasm for this progress and the progressive cause in general? Absolutely.  

    •  I'm an attorney, a fed, a former House staffer (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux, 4kedtongue

      I've seen way too much to celebrate one District Court ruling, no matter how well reasoned.

      Hope Change comes faster.

      by angry liberaltarian on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:43:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

        Instead, we should all be afraid.

        •  Not afraid. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          angry liberaltarian, Alec82

          This isn't about fear, this is about weighing likely or potential outcomes down the road.  Given Bush v. Gore, ANYTHING is possible...and there is no amount of legal gymnastics Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts won't perform in order to strike down this decision.  Judge Walker astutely 'stroked' Kennedy in his ruling in order to appeal to him as the potential swing vote when this case eventually makes its way to the Supreme Court.

          I popped a cork last night.  I drank to the victory.  I expected it at this level, having followed the case. And it is HISTORIC!  But the fight continues.  And there are NEW hurdles on the horizon to consider.  And part of the fight is to convince those who ally themselves with this cause, but stop short of endorsing gay marriage, be held to account for their equivocation.  Obviously, this ruling is a repudiation of the mindset that marriage is only between a man and a woman -- it is a direct renunciation of the president's personal belief.

          •  Celebrating.. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            4kedtongue

            And being aware of future possibilities and challenges are both important, as both the enthusiasm and the understanding of an issue and movement are important.  Telling people to fear, not celebrate, neither helps inform or motivate people for our cause.

            I don't disagree with anything you wrote.  The diary suggested fear over celebration the day after the HUGE decision.  Celebrating with reasoned caution and concern for future battles, as you seem to have, is exactly what I think is necessary.

    •  Every good General ... (0+ / 0-)

      celebrates his most recent victory by beginning the preperations for the next battle.

      Cartman says it best: "Screw you guys, I'm going home".

      by emsprater on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 10:16:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  President Obama confuses me. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emsprater, m00finsan

    "I don't support gay marriage...but I support gays having full marriage rights...marriage is between a man and a woman...let's repeal DOMA...I don't think gays should marry...Prop 8 is discriminatory...marriage is between a man and a woman...full LGBT equality!"  It makes my head hurt!  It might be funny if my civil rights weren't on the line.

    President Obama used to support FULL MARRIAGE EQUALITY when he was running for the Illinois senate.  I tend to personally believe that he still supports it but feels that he needs to position himself in the "mainstream."  I don't know, I could be wrong.  But what else would explain his sudden change in the wrong direction?

    I'm sorry, is my demand for equality inconveniencing you?

    by Chrislove on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 06:54:17 AM PDT

  •  Throwing at SCOTUS? Anvil pie! NT (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    angry liberaltarian, m00finsan
  •  Just like everything else (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ETF, Texnance

    President Obama's position was clear BEFORE the election. Right, wrong or in the middle - he was always honest about it. People knew who he is and who he is not, before they voted for him.

    "Barack Obama volunteered to be the captain of the Titanic AFTER it hit the iceberg" (Van Jones)

    by blackwaterdog on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:00:03 AM PDT

  •  Mincemeat makes the biggest mess (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emsprater

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:02:11 AM PDT

  •  Look at the Supreme Court (5+ / 0-)

    and it really hasn't changed ideologically since the 1996 Romer v. Evans decision. Conservatives (Alito and Roberts) have replaced conservatives (O'Connor and Rehnquist) and liberals (Sotomayor and shortly Kagan) have replaced liberals (Souter and Stevens). Kennedy, as usual, is going to be the wild card, and considering that he wrote the majority opinion in Romer (and that Romer was referred to quite a bit in Walker's ruling), I think the chances of the ruling being upheld are better than many people think.

    "When it gets harder to love, love harder" -- Van Jones, NN10, 7/23/10

    by Cali Scribe on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:15:43 AM PDT

    •  Call me an optimist...I agree. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cali Scribe, emsprater, ETF

      I think we'll get five votes.  At the very least, it's not as clear-cut as many people think...people like to throw up the right-wing court argument, but the right-wing court also overturned sodomy laws.

      I'm sorry, is my demand for equality inconveniencing you?

      by Chrislove on Thu Aug 05, 2010 at 07:19:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site