National Review wrote:“"I suppose the sea change has a lot to do with the political force and effectiveness of people representing, supporting your side of the case?" Roberts responded.

"As far as I can tell, political leaders are falling all over themselves to endorse your side of the case,” Roberts said in an exchange with Roberta Kaplan, the attorney representing Edie Windsor, who is challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. He posited that gays and lesbians may not need special protection from the Court given the “political effectiveness” of the advocacy groups working on their behalf.

wtf, so they have a little political clout so they dont need equal rights?!

No, that's not what he said. Certain minority groups receive special protection from the courts under the equal protection clause when they're classified as suspect classes or quasi suspect classes or whatnot. A large reason why groups are classified in such a manner is because of a lack of protection from and access to the elected branches of government. The Supreme Court has not extended this classification to gays and lesbians in the past, and if the elected branches of government are seen as being responsive to them, then that would be an argument against extending classification as a quasi-suspect class to gays and lesbians as one of the lower courts did in this case.

/not a lawyer, so probably wrong

the idea is that there is not discrimination, so there needs be no special protection. the idea of access to asking for their rights to be recognized is enough, not the actual recognition.

That's still not what he said

she then lists a ton of reasons gays need special protection under hte law, far beyond what the court has previously recognized. he is positing that is the not the case because they're so powerful that they've persuaded a few politicians and former politicians to switch their opinions (without actually proposing to do anything about it), so why should hte court do anything in regards to the civil rights of gay people? the gays will eventually get it because they'll pull the strings of their politicians.

to be fair, there is one gay senator. so she can probably just pass laws.

i'm not a lawyer either, but i fail to see how he said anything incredibly nuanced there.

jerseyhoya wrote:That's still not what he said

it's mostly what he meant. Maybe Roberts was just looking for someone to say that a matter of rights is not the same as a matter of access to due process

Roberts doesn't need help interpreting these tea leaves, though. I half expect him to write both the majority and dissenting opinions in this case, as he did in the ACA

I just like the picture

Slate wrote:Iran & Afganistan Will Cost Trillions in the Future

A thing that needs to be considered in understanding the rhetoric and politics of the debate is that from the perspective of social conservatives, gay marriage the last stand. With the possible exception of abortion, social conservatives have been routed on every issue they care about since they began to engage the political system in the 70s. Not only have they mostly lost on the policy front, but even larger defeats on the cultural front. To an extent, their failure is probably a product of their own "faith based" view of the world. For instance, throughout the Bible belt, divorce and out of wedlock births are epidemic, probably because their victories in keeping sex ed out of schools are Pyrrhic.

But losing on gay marriage (and they are) is going to be a death blow to the political objectives of social conservatives. The tied turned against them so fast on this that I don't see how they'll recover.

pacino wrote:she then lists a ton of reasons gays need special protection under hte law, far beyond what the court has previously recognized. he is positing that is the not the case because they're so powerful that they've persuaded a few politicians and former politicians to switch their opinions (without actually proposing to do anything about it), so why should hte court do anything in regards to the civil rights of gay people? the gays will eventually get it because they'll pull the strings of their politicians.

to be fair, there is one gay senator. so she can probably just pass laws.

i'm not a lawyer either, but i fail to see how he said anything incredibly nuanced there.

Not a lawyer, but the nuance is in the ramification of designating a group of people with "Protected class."

TenuredVulture wrote:A thing that needs to be considered in understanding the rhetoric and politics of the debate is that from the perspective of social conservatives, gay marriage the last stand. With the possible exception of abortion, social conservatives have been routed on every issue they care about since they began to engage the political system in the 70s. Not only have they mostly lost on the policy front, but even larger defeats on the cultural front. To an extent, their failure is probably a product of their own "faith based" view of the world. For instance, throughout the Bible belt, divorce and out of wedlock births are epidemic, probably because their victories in keeping sex ed out of schools are Pyrrhic.

But losing on gay marriage (and they are) is going to be a death blow to the political objectives of social conservatives. The tied turned against them so fast on this that I don't see how they'll recover.

Good analysis, but I think abortion is the number one issue for the social conservatives.

As a social librul, I still vote GOP on fiscal matters. Exactly as you've stated, progress on social issues is unstoppable; elected pols are just talking heads on social issues for the most part,

TomatoPie wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:A thing that needs to be considered in understanding the rhetoric and politics of the debate is that from the perspective of social conservatives, gay marriage the last stand. With the possible exception of abortion, social conservatives have been routed on every issue they care about since they began to engage the political system in the 70s. Not only have they mostly lost on the policy front, but even larger defeats on the cultural front. To an extent, their failure is probably a product of their own "faith based" view of the world. For instance, throughout the Bible belt, divorce and out of wedlock births are epidemic, probably because their victories in keeping sex ed out of schools are Pyrrhic.

But losing on gay marriage (and they are) is going to be a death blow to the political objectives of social conservatives. The tied turned against them so fast on this that I don't see how they'll recover.

Good analysis, but I think abortion is the number one issue for the social conservatives.

No doubt, but there are plenty of people uncomfortable with abortion who wouldn't consider themselves social conservatives. The weird thing is that even where social conservatives are right (divorce and out of wedlock births exact significant social costs) they still manage to alienate most Americans, in part because the solutions social conservatives offer aren't really solutions at all.

someone tell Jerry Brown that public information is public and the public should not be charged to access their own damn information:

Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed budget calls for letting state courts — which have been hit hard by state budget cuts — start charging the public, businesses and the media a search fee for looking up criminal and court filings.

The proposed fee would be $10 per search. On top of that, Brown's budget plan would double the existing photocopying charge from 50 cents to $1 a page.

Court officials say the fee would help them recoup their costs in meeting public-record demands of so-called data miners, commercial enterprises that ask for large numbers of files, extract commercially viable information and then sell that information.

The proposed fee replaces a charge of $15 for searches that take longer than 10 minutes. It's unlikely that charge covers the cost of having a clerk track down dozens or hundreds of files for data miners.

we have a fee and it's called taxes.

That's the problem Sen. Loni Hancock of Berkeley has with the proposal. She calls it another step toward "a fee-for-justice system," where people who cannot afford the fee don't have access to the information they need in their pursuit of justice.

The same goes for the media. Reporters, including IJ staffers, often comb through courthouse records in their reporting of local news. The proposed charge puts a chill on access to public records, especially hampering smaller papers that have to work on smaller budgets.For the IJ, the charge, as presented, could run $800 or more every week.

jerseyhoya wrote:No, that's not what he said. Certain minority groups receive special protection from the courts under the equal protection clause when they're classified as suspect classes or quasi suspect classes or whatnot. A large reason why groups are classified in such a manner is because of a lack of protection from and access to the elected branches of government. The Supreme Court has not extended this classification to gays and lesbians in the past, and if the elected branches of government are seen as being responsive to them, then that would be an argument against extending classification as a quasi-suspect class to gays and lesbians as one of the lower courts did in this case.

/not a lawyer, so probably wrong

Pretty close and its definitely part of the analysis but obiously there's more to it than that. Women are a protected class and they have way more political influence than teh gays.

I'm not really sure where Roberts is coming from on this. He bashes Barry for refusing to defend DOMA because he thinks its unconstitutional and says that Barry should just enforce it in a way that he believes is constitutional. I'm not sure that makes sense in any context but it really makes no sense wrt to DOMA. What can he do, enforce it by reading man and wife as man and wife, wife and wife, or man and man? I'm sure everyone would just fine with that.

pacino wrote:someone tell Jerry Brown that public information is public and the public should not be charged to access their own damn information:

Gov. Jerry Brown's proposed budget calls for letting state courts — which have been hit hard by state budget cuts — start charging the public, businesses and the media a search fee for looking up criminal and court filings.

The proposed fee would be $10 per search. On top of that, Brown's budget plan would double the existing photocopying charge from 50 cents to $1 a page.

Court officials say the fee would help them recoup their costs in meeting public-record demands of so-called data miners, commercial enterprises that ask for large numbers of files, extract commercially viable information and then sell that information.

The proposed fee replaces a charge of $15 for searches that take longer than 10 minutes. It's unlikely that charge covers the cost of having a clerk track down dozens or hundreds of files for data miners.

we have a fee and it's called taxes.

That's the problem Sen. Loni Hancock of Berkeley has with the proposal. She calls it another step toward "a fee-for-justice system," where people who cannot afford the fee don't have access to the information they need in their pursuit of justice.

The same goes for the media. Reporters, including IJ staffers, often comb through courthouse records in their reporting of local news. The proposed charge puts a chill on access to public records, especially hampering smaller papers that have to work on smaller budgets.For the IJ, the charge, as presented, could run $800 or more every week.

You do know that Federal courts already charge for the public to access court documents, right? And a "fee-for-justice sytem" (I realize these aren't your words) is ridiculous since I'm sure parties in the case would be provided a free viewing (as the federal courts do).

Alaska Republican Congressman: My Father Used To Have “Wetbacks” Pick Tomatoes - "During a sit down interview with Ketchikan Public Radio this week, I used a term that was commonly used during my days growing up on a farm in Central California. I know that this term is not used in the same way nowadays and I meant no disrespect."

Ahahahaha, Don Young is the worst. God I wish he lost back in 2008.

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:she then lists a ton of reasons gays need special protection under hte law, far beyond what the court has previously recognized. he is positing that is the not the case because they're so powerful that they've persuaded a few politicians and former politicians to switch their opinions (without actually proposing to do anything about it), so why should hte court do anything in regards to the civil rights of gay people? the gays will eventually get it because they'll pull the strings of their politicians.

to be fair, there is one gay senator. so she can probably just pass laws.

i'm not a lawyer either, but i fail to see how he said anything incredibly nuanced there.

Not a lawyer, but the nuance is in the ramification of designating a group of people with "Protected class."

My lawyer friend says that if you are dealing with a group that is a protected class, laws regarding their treatment are under "strict scrutiny." Wiki says: "It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or principle." So if the Court were to establish that this group should be a protected class, then a law restricting the rights of that group will be more likely to be overturned.

jerseyhoya wrote:No, that's not what he said. Certain minority groups receive special protection from the courts under the equal protection clause when they're classified as suspect classes or quasi suspect classes or whatnot. A large reason why groups are classified in such a manner is because of a lack of protection from and access to the elected branches of government. The Supreme Court has not extended this classification to gays and lesbians in the past, and if the elected branches of government are seen as being responsive to them, then that would be an argument against extending classification as a quasi-suspect class to gays and lesbians as one of the lower courts did in this case.

/not a lawyer, so probably wrong

Not wrong, but somewhat simplistic.

That being said, it's ridiculous how Roberts characterized it. Between that and some of the stuff about telling a child they have to call someone a friend, he's really embarrassing himself this week IMO.

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:promotes the general welfare of who/what? the children being adopted?

I'm asking if that was their line of questioning. Were they asking if societies/states with gay marriage are better off?

ah ok. is it a relevant question, though? i mean, why does it matter if "society" is "better off" and how do you prove that? isn't the more pertinent question whether it promotes the general welfare of the gay couples and their kids?

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that's a question that a legislature should answer when considering a new policy. I suppose the Propositions are not really legislated, so the courts are forced to ask them. I think, in the case of civil rights, it's not an appropriate question.

(I'm not really sure if marriage is necessarily a civil right. It's a ceremony that celebrates the commitment of two people, and it doesn't take a government to recognize this union in order for the ceremony to occur. It's the unequal tax treatment that makes this a thorny issue.)

This is why the pro-gay marriage side is stressing an equal protection argument and not a due process/fundamental right argument. It's harder to convince people that marrying who you want is a fundamental right. It's easier to convince people that the law treating straight people who get married different from gay people who get married is an unequal law that invidiously discriminates people based on sexual orientation without any legitimate reason for doing so.

TenuredVulture wrote:So is N. Korea just going to go ahead and start something for no particular reason? Are we mobilizing anything?

What did Rodman say to him?

TenuredVulture wrote:So is N. Korea just going to go ahead and start something for no particular reason? Are we mobilizing anything?

We sent a nuclear aircraft carrier with stealth bombers to the Yellow Sea the other day.

N Korea responded by placing it's military on standby for an attack on S Korea and US forces.