TPM LiveWire
Federal Judge Rules Part Of DOMA Unconstitutional
A wedding.
Share
Send to a friend!
A federal judge ruled today that part of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional.
Judge Joseph Tauro, of U.S. District Court in Boston, issued rulings on two separate cases today.
"This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status," Tauro wrote in the decision for Massachusetts v. Health and Human Services.
"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid," he wrote.
In the other case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Tauro ruled that DOMA violates the equal protection principles in the Fifth Amendment, according to Bay Windows. From his decision (PDF):
In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue.By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal
government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning.And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In both cases, Tauro ruled specifically on section 3 of DOMA, which reads:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts case was brought by the state Attorney General, Martha Coakley; the Gill case was filed by the New England-based legal group GLAD.
Comments (197) | Join the Conversation!
Inside TPM
-
Latest
-
Most Popular
All
TPMMuckraker
TPMDC
TPMLiveWire
-
Has Obama Cornered Republicans On Contraception?
-
Tax Avoidance Questions Continue To Haunt Romney
-
Obama To Draw Contrast With GOP In Budget
-
McConnell: GOP Will Fight To Let ANY Employer Deny Birth Control Coverage
-
The Delicate Dance Of Disassociating Oneself From 'White Nationalist' Groups At CPAC
-
Judge Won't Toss Weapons Evidence In Schaeffer Cox Case
-
Women's Groups Broadly Support Birth Control Compromise
-
British Man Using 'Sovereign Citizen' Tactics To Get Out Of Weapons Smuggling Charges
-
White House Seeks To Mute Catholic Uproar Over Contraception Rule
-
The Conspiracy Videos In The Hutaree's Library
© 2011 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
mcc
July 8, 2010 5:22 PM
OMG
So this is a district court decision, is it binding outside of Massachusetts?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 8, 2010 5:39 PM in reply to mcc
Yes and no. Yes in the fact that the federal government cannot prohibit gay marriage if a state allows it because of the Tenth Amendment, but no because the burden would be on the individual state to pass a law allowing gay marriage. So red states simply wouldn't pass any laws allowing marriage, and blue states can now pass laws supporting gay marriage if they choose to do so. This will probably lead to alot of gay people moving to more liberal states though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
July 8, 2010 5:44 PM in reply to Hobbes83
Okay. But in theory someone with, for example, a legal California same sex marriage should now be able to get Federal benefits effective immediately (unless an appeals court stays the ruling)?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 8, 2010 5:51 PM in reply to mcc
Yes, if they reside in the state that is friendly to gay marriage. I don't think it would apply to a couple that's in a state with marriage bans however.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
buck
July 8, 2010 6:40 PM in reply to Hobbes83
This is wrong--upheld on appeal, this would apply to any federal employee or anyone otherwise eligible for federal privileges (provided they hold a valid license in some state, even if it is technically invalid in the state of current residence). State and private entities, of course, would not be bound. But, then, this inequality would, in turn, spur other equal protection suits to extend the privilege to everyone.
But there is another problem. Unchallenged, this decision would invalidate a section of DOMA everywhere, but it does not mean that the equality of benefits would extend everywhere. The reason is because, once invalidated, the statute is dead. But other parts of the decision are binding only within the district. On appeal, if upheld in circuit court, the decision would extend to other states in the circuit, which include states that have not passed similar laws, but it would not extend to other circuits. If there is a conflict between circuits (which will almost certainly occur) or if the questioned is deemed significant, it will go to the Supreme Court. If circuits generally agree, it will not go to the Supreme Court and the decision will effectively be adopted by all circuits (again, this seems to be a highly unlikely scenario).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John M
July 9, 2010 12:10 AM in reply to buck
Exactly, just as it should be. Massachucetts just said "Don't tread on me", Conservatives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Firstthingwedo
July 9, 2010 2:58 AM in reply to Hobbes83
I'm wondering how useful Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution is to challenging some of the state laws:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
July 8, 2010 5:41 PM in reply to mcc
Well, this is certain to be appealed all the way up to SCOTUS. Which ought to be the fun part: how are the Supreme Court Five going to choose between oppressing the powerless and aggrandizing the 10th Amendment?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Davran
July 8, 2010 6:03 PM in reply to hunter
Oh, have no doubt: they'll trample on the 10th Amendment. They're only interested in restricting the ability to enforce _liberal_ federal laws. Reactionary ones are just fine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Captain Dan
July 8, 2010 9:53 PM in reply to hunter
But will the DOJ be involved in any appeal!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreemanW
July 8, 2010 11:52 PM in reply to hunter
You haven't seen conservative fascists cherry pick their arguments?
That's how Scalia et al stay in shape, logic twisting and contortion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IVY LEAGUE
July 9, 2010 12:11 AM in reply to FreemanW
Oh noooo = I'm sure you didn't mean to imply
that Antonin Scalia (who makes hippos look
svelte) is
IN SHAPE ???
As someone wise (a bariatric Physician of my
acquaintance) pointed out recently: Scalia and
Thomas are clinically OBESE men = with a
LIFE EXPECTANCY of ~ don't make any long
range plans, dude !!
IT will be delightful to watch President Obama
choose at LEAST two other Supremes ... let's
find out what TUNE the court sings, then ~
I SUSPECT it would be a Heavenly chorus:
Amen to that. Amused Dr. IVY in NV
P.S. About damn time that the LGBT community
won such a BIG VICTORY ~ but not the last.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 8:49 AM in reply to IVY LEAGUE
Hi Ivy. Let's play a game (chameleon.2000). More to come later.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IVY LEAGUE
July 9, 2010 12:33 PM in reply to chameleon
I "SEE" your (what you wrote, LOL)
and
RAISE you, one DrDivine2003
The best is yet to come ! (from the
song of same name) ... I.V. (lol)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 1:25 PM in reply to IVY LEAGUE
Oh yeah - you smarty pants. @hotmail.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chameleon
July 9, 2010 1:26 PM in reply to IVY LEAGUE
Gotcha. Looking forward to the res
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
July 9, 2010 8:31 AM in reply to hunter
"How are the Supreme Court Five going to choose"?
In the usual fashion, of course. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy apply a model of judicial interpretation that scholars refer to as "result driven." As in all such jurisprudence, whatever Sarah Palin and her ilk would wish for the result to be, so it shall be. By 5 to 4 majority. Papered over in some tortured double talk purporting to be Constitutional analysis and plowing past all precedents and making a laughingstock of what used to be called "judicial restraint." Thus, "result driven" or if you prefer, "banana republic."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mintcon
July 8, 2010 5:53 PM in reply to mcc
No. District Court decisions are only binding within their district. So right now this only applies to Massachusetts. It will certainly be appealed to the First Circuit, whose decisions are only binding on the states within the circuit. If the Supreme Court grants cert on a appeal from the First Circuit, only that ruling will be binding on all states.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
freelunch
July 9, 2010 10:08 AM in reply to Mintcon
Technically true, but the federal government (who this applies to) gives weight to trial court decisions that it has not appealed. The feds do try to be consistent and rarely try to play circuit games.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
July 9, 2010 7:19 PM in reply to freelunch
Of course, the Reagan Administration played those kinds of circuit games with cutting off disability payments, and it's the chief reason I turned my back on the Republican party and have voted almost exclusively Democratic ever since (the exception being a vote for John Warner in gratitude for his refusal to support Oliver North's senate bid, resulting in the failure of North's campaign).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
July 8, 2010 6:28 PM in reply to mcc
As the opinion of a District Court, it isn't even binding on the District Court that issued it. It is, however, persuasive precedent for any other district in the First Circuit and, to a lesser extent, any other district generally. A quick read of the opinion doesn't suggest that its reasoning rests on any peculiar holding of the First Circuit, as opposed to any other.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
July 8, 2010 6:31 PM in reply to mcc
I should have included this in my first reply:
See, for instance, Threadgill v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 928 F. 2d 1366 (3rd. Cir. 1991):
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HusseinTenaX
July 8, 2010 5:22 PM
O my god! This is great great news! And just when I thought I'd never hear good news again.
I'm just elated by this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
arias
July 8, 2010 6:16 PM in reply to HusseinTenaX
What if the Supreme Court decides to hear the case? That would be a disaster. Re: Dred Scott.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtOZONE
July 8, 2010 6:19 PM in reply to arias
Eventually they'll have to if we want a shot at overturning DOMA nationwide.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Davran
July 8, 2010 6:29 PM in reply to dtOZONE
Yes, but it would be best if either Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and/or Kennedy dies (or, I suppose, retires) before this case reaches the court.
Otherwise, it is not going to end well.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
July 8, 2010 6:36 PM in reply to Davran
Co-sign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
July 8, 2010 8:38 PM in reply to Davran
Don't forget, Tony Kennedy wrote the Lawrence v. Texas decision (upholding a right to private consensual sex including sodomy). He's the key, and it would turn heavily on how the issue was framed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
July 9, 2010 8:55 AM in reply to calbearinillinois
I say he's part of the cabal, now.
That was 2003, and he had Sandy with him. All this will mean is that he will write up some crazy shit arguing risibly that his rubber stamp on the 5-4 majority is somehow distinguishable from Lawrence V. Texas. This way Scalia won't be mad at him when watching Fox and Friends together.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Doc Magnus
July 9, 2010 7:25 AM in reply to arias
TRUE conservatives should be on the side of the 10th Amendment and states' rights. FALSE conservatives will be guided by the precedent-setting case of Wingnuts v. Ick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
July 9, 2010 8:39 AM in reply to HusseinTenaX
Mercy me, curb your enthusiasm, can't you there, counselor?!
The Roberts Court will do whatever is jurispruentially congruent to modify the outcome in a manner consistent with aims of their leading judicial philosophers, such as Rush Limbaugh and Talibangelical wankers across Red-State America.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 8, 2010 5:23 PM
Shit! There goes the sanctity of my marriage. It was perfect until this news. Now it's doomed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 8, 2010 5:47 PM in reply to It's Pat
FTW
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 8, 2010 5:49 PM in reply to It's Pat
LOL. Yes, now you will be FORCED to engage in one homosexual orgy every Wednesday.;)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pgbach
July 8, 2010 6:16 PM in reply to Hobbes83
what's the address for the gay occasion?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 8, 2010 6:25 PM in reply to pgbach
LMAO!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pgbach
July 9, 2010 1:34 PM in reply to Hobbes83
pls don't "LMAO," as you don't want to lose your best asset. :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 8, 2010 9:26 PM in reply to Hobbes83
Don't tread on me!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris
July 8, 2010 11:19 PM in reply to It's Pat
Exactly, don't tread on me! Just leave me and my tax payer funded job, Medicare, Social Security, disability, unemployment collecting, Patriotic, Freedom Fighting, Republican voting self alone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
July 8, 2010 5:30 PM
"And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue."
Neither can I. This decision oozes common sense and is a nice victory for states' rights on the issues of same sex marriage. No doubt the appeals process has already begun though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
know_your_unknowns
July 8, 2010 5:33 PM
Gee, do you suppose the Tea Party will be cheering this particular victory for state's rights?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
July 8, 2010 5:45 PM in reply to know_your_unknowns
This is a very good point. If they thought about it long enough, one would hope they'd see that supporting this would strengthen their position on so many other issues.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
July 8, 2010 6:39 PM in reply to truth > spin
Ted Olsen is a supporter of Gay Marriage! For the reasons that you and others list.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 8, 2010 5:52 PM in reply to know_your_unknowns
Probably not. They're too busy writing poorly spelled death threats to the judge.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressivesuck
July 8, 2010 6:34 PM in reply to Hobbes83
As a Tea Party supporter I am fine with this decision. Again, true conservatives don't give a crap what you do in your home or hole. However, if your lifestyle or any other choices require me to pay for them then I have a problem with it. I'll state it again, your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be from you. In other words, do what you want but leave me the hell alone. Don't try and join my church or force it to accept you just as I won't try and force you to accept my beliefs. Those that preach tolerance are usually the most INTOLLERANT people....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 8, 2010 6:40 PM in reply to Progressivesuck
Ummm, your definition of true conservative is a little off. Hardcore Conservative belief is family values entrenched in biblical principles. I don't think you're a Conservative, I think you're a moderate. The tea party is comprised of Conservative Republicans, and they make up the base of the anti-gay marriage movement. Maybe you should take a political compass test and see where you fall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressivesuck
July 8, 2010 7:03 PM in reply to Hobbes83
Probably libertarian, don't confuse that with liberal or "barf" progressive. I'm conservative as far as fiscal issues go. I want to "conserve" what the constitution gave, power wise, to the federal government. No more, no less. I'll vote for Ron Paul if he runs again, or Gov. Christie in NJ if he runs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris
July 8, 2010 11:24 PM in reply to Progressivesuck
fiscal conservatism has nothing to do with tea baggers. We all know this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Catsy
July 8, 2010 7:11 PM in reply to Progressivesuck
Are you familiar with the term "No true Scotsman"? If not, I highly suggest reading that link and reviewing your statement in light of it.
There comes a point when your opinions about "true" conservatism cease to be relevant to what conservatism actually means in practice. You may not care what other people do in their own home--and I applaud you for that--but the national and state Republican parties most definitely do, and they are the face of American conservatism.
See also Soviet Union, Marxism, and the general opinion of self-described communists about whether or not "true" communism has ever been tried.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris
July 8, 2010 11:26 PM in reply to Catsy
Well said.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mentsmin
July 8, 2010 9:53 PM in reply to Progressivesuck
Gays have tried to 'force' your church to accept them as members? 'Force' how?
Perhaps you might reflect on your pouty "leave me the hell alone" and consider how galling that comment sounds to someone who must repeatedly deal with religious zealots and others attempting to wield the law in order to prevent them from entering into a legal union, avoid discrimination in the workplace, adopt children, obtain benefits for their loved one, etc.
The gay minority has not, in any way, shape, or form, infringed upon your life.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 9, 2010 7:34 AM in reply to Progressivesuck
Don't try and even join "your" church?
You are against gays being a member of "your" church? Wow.
How do you know gay people aren't in "your" church already?
What about parents, what if they have children that are gay? Do you bar them from "your" church as well?
Some of the loudest voices against GAYS are sometimes GAY themselves...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ADad
July 8, 2010 5:35 PM
I don't understand all the legal language. Does this mean that I have to be gay in order to be married? What if my spouse is a different gender? Do I need permission from the President? What if I'm not sure that he's really the President because he has a funny name and he wasn't born in America (he was born in Hawaii--maybe). Can I just get a note from my Mom?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mad Dog Rackham
July 8, 2010 6:34 PM in reply to ADad
No, but I think this means that you can now marry your Mom.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ADad
July 8, 2010 6:41 PM in reply to Mad Dog Rackham
I'll have to see if my Father and I can settle this like gentlemen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 8, 2010 7:33 PM in reply to ADad
by taking turns?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ADad
July 9, 2010 12:26 AM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
No way. That would be perverted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
conniptionfit
July 8, 2010 5:36 PM
Well. Here's ONE Federal Judge who has his head on straight. Hallelujah!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joseph Calling
July 8, 2010 5:38 PM
This may be the first time libs have ever championed the 10th Amendment for the states vis-a-vis the federal government.
This judge is another reason why unelected judges should be term-limited.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
July 8, 2010 5:46 PM in reply to Joseph Calling
Joseph,
I am a natural born American citizen and a war veteran. As an American citizen I enjoy the rights and protections afforded me under the Constitution. I cannot in good conscience support a denial of those rights to other American citizens.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
July 8, 2010 6:40 PM in reply to JohnW1141
+1 on all that. I couldn't have said it better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hobbes83
July 8, 2010 5:55 PM in reply to Joseph Calling
Right, because judges should NEVER interpret the law or anything like that. You probably haven't even read the case to make an assertion like that. This truly isn't a victory for liberals, its a victory for equality in the eyes of the law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
July 8, 2010 5:58 PM in reply to Joseph Calling
Why do you hate America?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 8, 2010 6:00 PM in reply to Joseph Calling
Not really. But it *will* be the first time that conservatroids argue *against* the 10th Amendment with respect to states rights.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Subliminability
July 8, 2010 6:15 PM in reply to Signalman
Nah -- conservatives often don't like states' rights in the areas of environmental protection, consumer protection, economic regulation, tort law, antitrust law.
Pretty much everybody's a hypocrite where federalism is concerned; conservatives are just more sanctimonious about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
July 8, 2010 6:30 PM in reply to Joseph Calling
I'm OK with the 10th Amendment when a court of competent jurisdiction invokes it. I'm NOT OK with the 10th Amendment as "interpreted" by the wingnuts to claim subjectively that every law they don't like is "unconstitutional."
The point is this: it's up to the courts to make those decisions, not the loony fringe or the demagogues who lead them around like so many delusional sheep.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
July 9, 2010 3:10 AM in reply to Joseph Calling
"This judge is another reason..."
Yeah, yeah, we know how you guys "reason." Your way or no way; anyone who doesn't agree with you should be removed from office.
To which I say: blow it out your ear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnW1141
July 9, 2010 7:50 AM in reply to Joseph Calling
Joseph Calling said:
"This judge is another reason why unelected judges should be term-limited."
Does that include the right wing judges on the Supreme Court?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kctex
July 8, 2010 5:44 PM
The second case didn't invalidate DOMA on due process grounds, but on equal protection grounds. TPM, please fix this error.
Joseph, this isn't about "libs" championing the 10th amendment. It's about equal rights for all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Josh
July 8, 2010 5:46 PM
The US District Court's ruling is immediately binding in all states, unless the judge stays the decision pending what is obviously going to the Appellate and, eventually, Supreme Court.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
July 8, 2010 5:51 PM in reply to Josh
Thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MosBen
July 8, 2010 5:56 PM in reply to mcc
Man, I'm pretty sure that's not true, though my civil procedure is a bit rusty. I'm pretty sure this isn't binding on any other federal courts yet. It's persuasive legal precedent within the Circuit. If it's approved by the Appellate Court it will be binding on all district courts within the circuit and persuasive within other Circuits. If it is approved by the Supreme Court it's the law of the land.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
July 8, 2010 6:21 PM in reply to MosBen
I believe this is correct also.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
July 8, 2010 8:47 PM in reply to MosBen
You are correct that it isn't a binding precedent for future cases. However, the rulings are binding on the parties, which in this case includes the Federal government. As a result, the impact of the ruling could be broader depending on the scope of the remedy provided.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mintcon
July 8, 2010 5:54 PM in reply to Josh
This is flat-out wrong. The District Court's ruling is binding only on the district itself. Other federal district judges may look to the ruling for persuasive support, but it is not binding on them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
July 8, 2010 5:54 PM in reply to Josh
I realize this is unrealistic, but what if HHS decided not to appeal? What happens then?
If Obama wrote an instruction to Sebelius to have HHS not appeal, does that effectively end that section of DOMA completely?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MosBen
July 8, 2010 5:59 PM in reply to Icon
It only gains national power by being appealed. Now, they may decide to only appeal it to the Appellate Court and not to the Supreme Court. That might be a smart move. It would allow other Circuits (like the 9th) to catch up with similar cases and rule in similar ways so that there's a tide of precedent coming up through the Appellate Courts. It also gives the Obama Administration some more time to hope a conservative justice needs to be replaced at some point in the future, allowing them to shift the court to the left a bit.
Of course, the technically proper thing to do would be to appeal it all the way now if that's they think is right, but it's not "wrong" to play the system a bit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
July 8, 2010 6:06 PM in reply to MosBen
Does the Obama administration have the power to appeal, but refuse to ask for a stay such that the ruling will continue to apply as the appeal takes place?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
July 8, 2010 6:21 PM in reply to mcc
Obama is the President. He can, by executive order, instruct the federal government to undertake any decision that is not otherwise illegal.
That includes decisions on how to respond to the results of lawsuits and how to argue them.
Generally, the President isn't going to personally wade into things like that, but he is the boss of the people who do, and he can tell them what to do and what not to do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressivesuck
July 8, 2010 6:37 PM in reply to Icon
As a muslim, bama doesn't really like homosexuality...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 8, 2010 11:12 PM in reply to Progressivesuck
Who's Bama?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acf_ma
July 8, 2010 11:24 PM in reply to Sir T
Who's the muslim?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
July 9, 2010 12:55 AM in reply to Sir T
Nothing, what's a bama with you
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LisB
July 9, 2010 1:01 AM in reply to mcc
Nothing much a bama with me either. Love to da family, mcc. Nice chattin' with you. ;)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to Icon
Obama writes executive orders that aren't even legal or constitutional, especially since he's ineligible.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 9, 2010 1:24 PM in reply to dwjoae
Your evidence, please?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 2:18 PM in reply to Signalman
As you can see, Executive Orders are usually unconstitutional.
Executive Order 10990: Allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
E.O. 10995: Allows the Government to seize and control all communications maid, telecommunications, internet, radio, TV, etc.
E.O. 10997: Allows the Government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
E.O. 10998: Allows the Government to seize all means of transportation including personal cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind.
E.O. 10999: Allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
E.O. 11000: Allows the Government to mobilize all civilians into work brigades under Government supervision.
E.O. 11001: Allows the government to take over all health, education, and welfare functions.
E.O. 11002 Designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
It goes on and on and on and on. Obama just signed an E.O. to integrate Federal and State police and military, and a Governor's Council of Ten, of his political choice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 9, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to dwjoae
I asked for evidence, not your opinion. Please provide links to all those EOs so that I can see that they actually say what you claim.
Also, please provide some linky evidence to support your claim that said EOs (or EOs in general) are unconstitutional. I get that you don't *like* those EOs, but your dislike of something does not make that thing unconstitutional.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 9, 2010 10:28 PM in reply to Signalman
If you are interested in what executive orders have been signed, here's the complete list by year
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php?year=2010&Submit=DISPLAY
I've just called him on it, but its a handy resource to keep to one side for internet arguments. :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 9, 2010 10:21 PM in reply to dwjoae
The first executive order sighed my Barack Obama was Executive Order 13489 - Which dealt with presidential records. So your examples were off by ooh 3000.
"It goes on and on and on and on. Obama just signed an E.O. to integrate Federal and State police and military, and a Governor's Council of Ten, of his political choice."
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php?year=2010&Submit=DISPLAY
The last 3 he signed were
Barack Obama June 10, 2010 Executive Order 13544 - Establishing the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council
Barack Obama June 22, 2010 Executive Order 13545 - President's Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition
Barack Obama July 2, 2010 Executive Order 13546 - Optimizing the Security of Biological Select Agents and Toxins in the United States
So, where the fuck is this evil executive order you are talking about? Written in the gas that came out of Rush and Bexks backside? I've given you the link, find it! Show me!
Good God you are pathetic. And by the way the reason I'm hammering you on definitions and documentation is that I am an actual Conservative in the classic sense, and you are an embarrassment to anyone with a thirst for truth and scholorship.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 9, 2010 10:39 PM in reply to dwjoae
YOu knowm I got curious, so I looked up the Eos you were blabbering about. They appear to be from 1962
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php?year=1962&Submit=DISPLAY
So lets look over claim number one
"Executive Order 10990: Allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports."
Ok lets look at the link. Its unnamed so you actually have to read the text. Dont worry I'll skip a bit and cutr out the flim flam
"NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by section 33(c) of the Act and as President of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
SECTION 1. Establishment of Council. There is hereby established in the Department of Labor the Federal Safety Council, hereinafter referred to as the Council. The Council shall be composed of a Chairman, to be designated by the Secretary of Labor, and one qualified representative of each of the several executive departments and agencies and of the municipal government of the District of Columbia (hereinafter referred to as members).
'''
SEC. 2. Purpose and functions of Council. The Council shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Secretary of Labor in matters relating to the safety of civilian employees of the Federal government and the municipal government of the District of Columbia and the furtherance of the safety program carried out by the Secretary pursuant to section 33 of the Act..."
Gosh, it seems that the executive order was actually to set up a Safety council to advise the Secretary of Labour on Safety issues in the district of Colombia.
Thats... uh... different to what you said. Do you want me to look up the rest of them? :)
Beck (or whoever pulled that out of his ass) seems to have lied to you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 2:31 PM in reply to Signalman
As you can see, Executive Orders are usually unconstitutional.
Executive Order 10990: Allows the Government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
E.O. 10995: Allows the Government to seize and control all communications maid, telecommunications, internet, radio, TV, etc.
E.O. 10997: Allows the Government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and minerals.
E.O. 10998: Allows the Government to seize all means of transportation including personal cars, trucks, or vehicles of any kind.
E.O. 10999: Allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
E.O. 11000: Allows the Government to mobilize all civilians into work brigades under Government supervision.
E.O. 11001: Allows the government to take over all health, education, and welfare functions.
E.O. 11002 Designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
It goes on and on and on and on. Obama just signed an E.O. to integrate Federal and State police and military, and a Governor's Council of Ten, of his political choice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 12, 2010 9:49 AM in reply to dwjoae
Looking at Sir T's posts and link, you appear to be both misinformed and wrong. I'm not surprised you haven't returned.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kctex
July 8, 2010 6:40 PM in reply to Josh
yea, uh, josh, you're wrong. mos is right. this isn't binding on any courts yet.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
numediaman
July 8, 2010 5:56 PM
A defeat for the Obama administration which defended the DOMA in court . . . that should make the Republicans very happy, right?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mezcalero
July 8, 2010 6:31 PM in reply to numediaman
*Head Explodes in thinking about that
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Subliminability
July 8, 2010 5:58 PM
Well, it is true that "family law" has always supposedly been the quintessentially example of a matter that was supposed to be for states, even though federal law has become involved in recent times. But I am pretty -- no, very -- skeptical about the soundness of the Tenth Amendment as a basis for overturning the federal government's prescription about what marriage means and doesn't for purposes of federal law. And the aggressive use of "the Tenth Amendment" -- which just states that the powers that Congress hasn't been given belong to the states or the people -- as a basis for striking down federal statutes is not something that liberals/progressives should welcome without reservation (it is a prime basis for the Teabagger/Paultard constitutional attacks on health care reform).
OTOH, I think pretty much any law that discriminates on the basis of home or heterosexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause, making creative rationales like this one moot. Judge Tauro also found that DOMA violates that Clause because it lacks even a rational basis -- that sounds right to me, although the Supreme Court would almost certainly overrule it. This decision is based in part on the "family law is a classic state function" theory, but it ultimately turns on the court's conclusion that discrimination against gay couples violates equal protection. That seems right, and like where the law will ultimately settle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
July 8, 2010 6:26 PM in reply to Subliminability
There is a big difference here between DOMA and HCR. The role of the federal government in regulating health care is well established in law and not by any means a new thing. It's a settled issue that the federal governments' powers under the commerce and general welfare clauses include authority to regulate medical practice.
The ability of the federal government to regulate marriage was never something anyone ever really considered until DOMA. Heck, in terms of defining marriage, most states didn't even have a statutory definition of the concept until the gay rights movement started to materialize.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kctex
July 8, 2010 6:43 PM in reply to Icon
Not true. Remember when the Mormons used to be polygamists? The federal government outlawed that. The federal government has been intimately involved with the institution of marriage for a long time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RDT
July 8, 2010 7:50 PM in reply to kctex
I thought the deal was that Utah had to outlaw polygamny as a condition on being admitted as a state, not an outright federal ban.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
July 8, 2010 10:35 PM in reply to RDT
You are correct - Utah had to agree to ban it. There'd never been a Federal ban until DOMA, which unintentionally had that effect.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
July 9, 2010 3:33 AM in reply to RDT
Absolutely right -- Utah wanted statehood, and the Congress let it be known that they weren't voting to admit Utah to the union as long as the state allowed polygamous marriages. The Mormons decided they wanted the benefits of statehood more than they wanted the benefits of polygamous marriages, so the state voted to outlaw them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 12:49 PM in reply to kctex
YA! Polygamy is outlawed because it's wrong to have more than one wife?! But it is OK for a man to have a husband? Why limit it to a couple since gay marriage isn't about being a couple, with regard to being able to make a child, in principle. If a man doesn't get married, he can knock up 15 women, and they're all eligible for welfare! But marrying 2 women, and supporting them, and the children is against the law!!??
Watch this video. It's bulletproof!! After he KILLED Obama in every debate, he lost the Senate election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMYBl2uzXEw
Gays cannot even consummate their marriages or have intercourse. All they can do is poke and wish!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joseph Calling
July 8, 2010 5:59 PM
It will be interesting to see if BO dares to defy his far-left base and appeal the ruling.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Subliminability
July 8, 2010 6:02 PM in reply to Joseph Calling
Wingerism noted. But if a group is large enough to be the "base" of the politician who received the most votes in a country's history, it's hard to see how it can be defined as "far" on the spectrum. Unless Fox News got your tongue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
July 8, 2010 6:08 PM in reply to Subliminability
Especially when said politician-who-received-the-most-votes-in-the-country's-history specifically campaigned on fully repealing DOMA.
Just sayin'
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
July 8, 2010 6:27 PM in reply to Subliminability
Actually Fox News collects its viewers brains, not their tongues. They're stored in a small shoe box in Steve Doocy's dressing room, where they won't be intimidated.
Also, the shoes are still in said box.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Seatower
July 8, 2010 6:47 PM in reply to Forrest
LMAO!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 8, 2010 6:06 PM in reply to Joseph Calling
It will also be interesting to see if teabaggers start arguing for the FedGov to sue a state. Yesterday, it was unconscionable for the FedGov to sue AZ. Tomorrow, the teabaggers will call it a disgrace if the FedGov doesn't sue MA or whatever other state tries to make gay marriage legal.
You just watch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 12:56 PM in reply to Signalman
Obama's suit against Arizona shows what a brain dead loser he is. Arizona is doing their best to make up for Obama's INABILITY to enforce border and immigration policy. If I were the Governor of Arizona, I'd countersue that Kenyan for his birth certificate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 9, 2010 1:19 PM in reply to dwjoae
"Obama's suit against Arizona shows what a brain dead loser he is."
Not at all. The Federal Government is suing AZ for presuming to usurp Federal authority. If a state decided to mint and coin its own currency, the Federal Government would be just as much in the right to sue them for that, too. States may have rights, but so does the Federal Government, and states don't get to decide when and how to muscle in on Federal territory. Conservadonkeys like you certainly get all heated up when the Fed tries to move in on a state, but when a state tries to move in on the Fed, not so much. Your bias is certainly showing.
"Arizona is doing their best to make up for Obama's INABILITY to enforce border and immigration policy."
That's a deficiency that has existed since long before President Obama was in office. No President since Reagan has addressed the issue of illegal immigration in any sort of substantial way, and Reagan addressed it by granting broad-based amnesty (something conservamonkeys don't like to talk about). If y'all were so interested in addressing the problem, you could have pressured either President Bush to do something about it, or pressured Congress to take the matter up under President Clinton. Or you could have pressured Congress and the President to crack down on companies that *employ* illegals at any time in oh, the PAST THIRTY YEARS, but y'all are more interested in a fence than in bringing the employers of illegosos up on charges.
Spare me your feigned outrage. It's nothing but a thin veil for racism. When you're ready to address the problem of illegal immigrants *and* their employers, get back to me and we'll talk turkey. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.
"If I were the Governor of Arizona, I'd countersue that Kenyan for his birth certificate."
If you were the Governor of Arizona, you'd lack standing and be filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to Signalman
"Obama's suit against Arizona shows what a brain dead loser he is."
Not at all. The Federal Government is suing AZ for presuming to usurp Federal authority. If a state decided to mint and coin its own currency, the Federal Government would be just as much in the right to sue them for that, too. States may have rights, but so does the Federal Government, and states don't get to decide when and how to muscle in on Federal territory. Conservadonkeys like you certainly get all heated up when the Fed tries to move in on a state, but when a state tries to move in on the Fed, not so much. Your bias is certainly showing.
"Arizona is doing their best to make up for Obama's INABILITY to enforce border and immigration policy."
That's a deficiency that has existed since long before President Obama was in office. No President since Reagan has addressed the issue of illegal immigration in any sort of substantial way, and Reagan addressed it by granting broad-based amnesty (something conservamonkeys don't like to talk about). If y'all were so interested in addressing the problem, you could have pressured either President Bush to do something about it, or pressured Congress to take the matter up under President Clinton. Or you could have pressured Congress and the President to crack down on companies that *employ* illegals at any time in oh, the PAST THIRTY YEARS, but y'all are more interested in a fence than in bringing the employers of illegosos up on charges.
Spare me your feigned outrage. It's nothing but a thin veil for racism. When you're ready to address the problem of illegal immigrants *and* their employers, get back to me and we'll talk turkey. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.
"If I were the Governor of Arizona, I'd countersue that Kenyan for his birth certificate."
If you were the Governor of Arizona, you'd lack standing and be filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Who is supposed to coin money?!? Congress, fool! When the Federal Government goes after anyone for coining money, it's rather hypocritical, don't you think? We're all in big trouble because the Federal Reserve, an international banking conglomerate, not part of our government, prints money at will for idiots who perpetuate their illegal existence.
I'm no racist. I'm against illegal aliens, and the bums who employ them. So, if previous presidents failed to keep out illegals, we should praise a squatter for suing the state that's getting overwhelmed by illegals? The bums who employ them are robbing legal citizens from doing framing on houses, cleaning offices and stores, and labor in factories.
Your arguments are totally dumb.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 9, 2010 3:59 PM in reply to dwjoae
"Who is supposed to coin money?!? Congress, fool!"
And that's who's supposed to manage and control immigration, fool. Congress -- NOT the states. You seem to have lost sight of that because you apparently like what AZ is doing, but that's beside the point. AZ doesn't have the power or authority to do what it is trying to do, and that's why it's getting sued by the Federal Government.
"When the Federal Government goes after anyone for coining money, it's rather hypocritical, don't you think?"
Nope. Our Constitution specifies who has the power to coin money. If you don't like what it says, then get the Constitition changed, if you can.
"We're all in big trouble because the Federal Reserve, an international banking conglomerate, not part of our government, prints money at will for idiots who perpetuate their illegal existence."
Oh, great. (eyeroll) I'm dealing with a "fiat money" freakazoid; one of those monkeys who buries Krugerrands and Canadian Maple Leaves in a coffee can in the back yard and who has vast quantities of Charmin, Oral-B toothbrushes and freeze-dried meals stashed in his basement. Y'all were fun to laugh at in the runup to Y2K; you're even more fun to tweak now. Tell me, is Gary North still the big fat idiot he was ten years ago? (laughing) :D
"I'm no racist."
Yeah, that would be easier to believe if you weren't a prattling birther who calls the President a 'Kenyan.' Tell me another one.
"I'm against illegal aliens, and the bums who employ them."
So let's hear your plans to hold their employers responsible. I am *all* ears.
"So, if previous presidents failed to keep out illegals, we should praise a squatter for suing the state that's getting overwhelmed by illegals?"
What an absolutely stupid statement. And your racism is showing again. How about you ask me what I think before you start putting words in my mouth?
"The bums who employ them are robbing legal citizens from doing framing on houses, cleaning offices and stores, and labor in factories."
And I notice that you're not talking about doing anything to the *employers,* just to the *illegals* themselves. Racist.
"Your arguments are totally dumb."
You wouldn't know, mostly because you haven't actually *heard* any of them yet. I've only commented on how poorly-thought out *your* positions are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 4:11 PM in reply to Signalman
Please understand, when you write, it's like reading something that a nut in a psyche ward fingerpaints with his poop on the wall.
You're a jackass Democrat, and you're on your way out in the Fall.
This blog is like watching one flew over the cookoo's nest. Wow, there are some mentally ill lefties in here.
Nothing you just wrote is true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 9, 2010 4:40 PM in reply to dwjoae
"Please understand, when you write, it's like reading something that a nut in a psyche ward fingerpaints with his poop on the wall."
I understand. Your reading comprehension skills are below average, and the big words make your head hurt. I will try to keep my replies full of one- and two-syllable words so that you can keep up better. And I will stop using furrin' werds like fils because the italics confuse you and you don't know what those words mean anyway, even if they only have one syllable.
You only had to ask if you needed me to dumb things down for you. (laughing) :D
"You're a jackass Democrat, and you're on your way out in the Fall."
Wait, you missed a *lot!* (laughing) :D
I'm also a disabled Army veteran. And I'm a gun owner. I also live in the Deep South, where I've lived most of my life. And I never voted for a Democrat in my life until 2004.
That's right -- y'all had me and my vote for over 20 years -- and then you ran me out of the GOP because I didn't agree 100% with the party line.
And you know what else? There are a *lot* of new Democrats like me. There's the Vietnam-era helicopter pilot who works with my wife. He was appalled by how we got into the Iraq war, so he votes Dem now and has no intention of looking back. There's the small-business owner we're friends with who has abandoned the GOP for a number of financial reasons. And there's the nice older couple down the street who used to vote GOP -- and donate generously -- until he got sick and they started facing financial ruin in the face from all the medical bills.
Y'all don't know it, but your refusal to *listen* to average folks and to show any interest in their situations is what's drawing people away from the GOP. The people who are leaving -- like me -- aren't all becoming Democrats, but they aren't reliable votes for the GOP any more, and that's why you lost the House, the Senate and the White House. And it's why you will, inevitably, become irrelevant.
We're not going anywhere in November. You're going to fight it out with the teabaggers, split the conservative vote and give us an opportunity to shore up our numbers. It's only a matter of time until the GOP becomes so small and so full of concentrated venom that y'all cease to be appealing to anyone. And it will happen. Count on it. You're already partway there. You can't tell a firearm-owning disabled Army vet from the Deep South that he's a "jackass" and expect to keep or win his vote. I'm your *core freakin' demographic," for crying out loud! If you don't want my vote, well, message received, pal -- message received.
"This blog is like watching one flew over the cookoo's nest. Wow, there are some mentally ill lefties in here."
Nobody's forcing you to hang around here. And I can guarantee that you're not winning any votes for your side with the way you're behaving.
"Nothing you just wrote is true."
*Everything* I wrote is true. You just don't like seeing it written down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hbobrien
July 8, 2010 6:20 PM in reply to Joseph Calling
"It will be interesting to see if BO dares to defy his far-left base and appeal the ruling."
Since Mr. Obama doesn't have a far-left base -- only a centrist one -- my guess would be, probably.
It helps that's also the only way to get the ruling to a national jurisdiction, but hey.
I'm mildly surprised the judge didn't go for the First Amendment violations of DOMA, myself. (There being no secular, public policy rationale for making same-sex marriage illegal, only that of imposing one school of religious belief of "sin" on the public.)
No doubt the Kennedy/Scalia/Roberts highly-activist wing of SCotUS will overturn this, though. It's not like they pay any attention to the verbatim text of the Constitution when that obstructs their social agenda.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
July 8, 2010 10:41 PM in reply to hbobrien
Don't include Kennedy in that. He was the author of Lawrence v. Texas, one of the key rulings underlying this decision. He was the one, over Scalia's vitriol, to frame the issue not as one of sodomy but the right to be free from government interference in matters of consensual sexual conduct among adults. He also just was on the side upholding the right of public universities to not give official recognition to groups that discriminate against homosexuals, even on religious grounds.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hbobrien
July 8, 2010 10:55 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
Kennedy was also the author of Citizens United. I'll believe corporations are "persons" when they're taxed fully on their income, not their profits, at the individual rate. It's an Equal Protection/14th Amendment issue.
I appreciate he didn't gore your ox this time. He's still a highly-activist, social-agenda justice in the mold of Messrs Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito, all of whom don't give a rip what the Constitution says when they personally disagree with it. That he also practices partial reinforcement to drive the whole country crazy is only icing on the cake.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
July 8, 2010 6:34 PM in reply to Joseph Calling
The DOJ is going to appeal this decision, as well they should, because the Executive has an obligation to defend acts of Congress, even if the Executive disagrees with them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
overanalyzer
July 8, 2010 6:16 PM
I really, really pray that this helps us binational same sex couples get equal immigration rights, somehow. Need every bit of help we can get to pass the UAFA (United American Families Act). Want to know more? www.immigrationequality.org
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joseph Calling
July 8, 2010 6:26 PM
He got that many votes under false pretenses. He campaigned as a "centrist," when he was anything but. National Journal rated him the most liberal senator, and he is living up to his reputation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Forrest
July 8, 2010 6:31 PM in reply to Joseph Calling
Oh, well if the National Journal said he's a left wing psychopath, he must be!
Venture out of your little bubble and check on some of those psycho lefty commie web sites. You'll see they're just as pissed (if not more) as your teabagging friends.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 8, 2010 9:55 PM in reply to Joseph Calling
Thats funny, because in 2004 National Journal rated John Kerry the most liberal senator.
Oddly, in another oddity, Obama was rated no 1 for 2007, but in his previous two years, they rated Obama 10th and 16th most liberal. So he only became the most Liberal when he became the Democratic Nominee. What a massive coincidence!
That the guy who happened to be the Democratic Nominee for Prez was also the most liberal according to the National Journal in BOTH 2004 AND 2008... beggers belief, eh?
And that every other rating agency agrees with them... Hang on they don't???!!??
Time for a long quote.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/26/john-mccain/several-ratings-rank-obama-lower/
" The McCain campaign has previously cited a 2006 rating by the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action that gave Obama 95 percent, which the campaign noted was the same as Kerry and Sen. Barbara Boxer.
But there's a little sleight of hand in that one. Although the McCain campaign is correct that Obama earned a 95 percent rating that year for voting the way ADA wanted, there were 10 senators who got more liberal scores than Obama, including Barbara Mikulski of Maryland and Richard Durbin of Illinois. (In the latest ADA rating, for 2007, Obama missed five of the 20 votes the group scored, so he received a 75 percent rating. But he voted the way ADA wanted on each of the 15 votes he attended.)
Voteview.com, a site created by political scientists that plots lawmakers on a liberal-conservative scale based on their voting patterns, calculated there were nine senators more liberal than Obama in the current Congress, including Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
“Obama is a liberal, but he’s not the most liberal,” said Keith Poole, a University of California-San Diego professor who runs the site, whom we interviewed when we first looked into similar statements in June 2008.
Ratings from Congressional Quarterly don't measure liberal/conservative votes, but they show Obama is not quite as partisan as other senators.
In CQ’s calculation of party unity, which measures how often members vote with their party on bills where Republicans and Democrats split, Obama got a 97 percent rating last year. Ten Democrats had higher scores.
On votes where President Bush indicated his position, CQ found Obama supported the Republican president 40 percent of the time in 2007, which put Obama in the middle of the pack for Democrats. He supported Bush 49 percent the previous year. "
TLDR: You're so wrong.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EnnuiDivine
July 9, 2010 11:24 AM in reply to Sir T
Biggest irony behind McCain's claim that Obama was the "most liberal Senator": for the year that Obama earned that rank...McCain wasn't even on the list. He missed too many votes for the National Journal to compile a rank. Country First!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 1:10 PM in reply to Sir T
Bush WAS a liberal. He deviated from the Constitution, DAILY. Obama is still conducting all of the Bush policies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 9, 2010 1:28 PM in reply to dwjoae
"Bush WAS a liberal. He deviated from the Constitution, DAILY."
And you voted for him. You should punish yourself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to Signalman
You're smoking crack again?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 9, 2010 3:29 PM in reply to dwjoae
I do not do drugs. I also don't smoke, I don't drink alcohol any more and I don't fool around on my wife. Whether or not you do any of those things, I have no idea and I don't really care.
But if you voted for President Bush fils, then you should punish yourself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 9, 2010 10:08 PM in reply to dwjoae
"Bush WAS a liberal. He deviated from the Constitution, DAILY. Obama is still conducting all of the Bush policies"
What the fuck does that answer have to do with you claiming Obama was the most liberal senator evah based on one shitty review, and getting proven wrong? You can't deal with my answer so you pull some other pathetic lie with no proof out of left field?
Anyway your claim is so absurd that it doesn't deserve any more of my time wasted on it. All someone would have to do is do a google search for policy differences between Bush and Obama, and you are sunk.
Also the definition of "liberal" is not "deviates from the US constitution" its
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal
lib·er·al
/ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3.
of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4.
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6.
of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7.
free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8.
open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9.
characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10.
given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11.
not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12.
of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13.
of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun
14.
a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15.
( often initial capital letter ) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
Now you could argue that some American 'Liberals' are anything but liberal in the classic sense, but that's the definition. Would could also argue that the Teapaggers should be claiming to be liberal...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 9, 2010 11:23 PM in reply to dwjoae
Oops. I actually missed the fact that you were not the person Who originally made the claim. I apologize for that misreading.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluestatedon
July 8, 2010 6:27 PM
The Teabaggers, Rethuglicans, and Palinites won't have any trouble at all criticizing this assertion of state's rights and the 10th amendment. They'll simply pull out their family Bibles and say that homosexuality is against God's wishes, and *voila* contradiction is solved. Jesus trumps everything, don'tcha know.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Davran
July 8, 2010 6:33 PM in reply to bluestatedon
Exactly. The 10th Amendment and States Rights are merely means towards the end of imposing their own personal moral code on the rest of us.
Strange thing is, they're about as consistent in their observance of the 10th Amendment as they are in their observance of their own moral code.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mezcalero
July 8, 2010 6:28 PM
""The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid."
The delicious irony of this decision is that the Judge referenced the 10th ammendment. HaHa.
How's your precious tenth ammendment working out for you now, Teabaggers? :-D
Huzzah!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mezcalero
July 8, 2010 6:33 PM
Another thing:
"The Massachusetts case was brought by the state Attorney General, Martha Coakley."
Ok Martha, I'll forgive you for running such a terrible campaign against Scott Brown.
AG Martha Coakley (D-MA)
American
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
July 9, 2010 3:41 AM in reply to mezcalero
Note that she brought the case a year ago.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluestatedon
July 8, 2010 6:35 PM
"National Journal rated him the most liberal senator"
That would the same media enterprise that named former AP head Ron Fournier as executive editor. The same Ron Fournier who was on such jovial terms with Karl Rove that he sent an email message saying to Karl, "Keep the faith."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
July 8, 2010 9:22 PM in reply to bluestatedon
But the National Journal said sooooo!!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
July 8, 2010 6:36 PM
Not every case gets appealed. The Office of Personnel Mgt. probably had to defend the case to defend DOMA, but it also could decide to cut its losses (losses in the sense that this ruling requires federal benefits to be paid to gays married in Mass.) and not appeal. Several reasons not to appeal. One might be that they realize they don't have a chance on the facts and in Mass. Another might be that they like the ruling. A third possibility is that they let the decision stand until the makeup of the appellate court(s) and supreme court has changed. A fourth could be that they want to wait to see how other district courts rule before taking it higher.
What seems clear is that the judge made a simple, straightforward and direct ruling that DOMA served no purpose but to discriminate against gay couples due to personal prejudices. It's a guarantee that copycat cases will follow in states that have legalized gay marriage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
July 8, 2010 6:47 PM in reply to Mr.E.
could decide to cut its losses (losses in the sense that this ruling requires federal benefits to be paid to gays married in Mass.) and not appeal
But as you yourself point out, failure to appeal in this case would lead to identical suits being immediately filed in CA, CT, IA, MA, NH, VT, OR and Washington D.C., all of which the HHS and OPM would be obliged to defend... sounds expensive, a little?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressivesuck
July 8, 2010 6:43 PM
This is the best news ever. Next, give the pot heads their pot and then the adults will get back to running the country. Get the gay marriage proponents and hemp supporters out of the voting base by satiating them with their main issue wins and then we'll bring back fiscally smart people.
For you all to say that Tea Party or Republicans are forcing their morality on you is a joke. Your party, the asses, has forced more moraility on anyone in history. Forced me to pay for your healthcare out of "morality" and "it's the right thing to do." Forced me to "go green" or cut my power usage with environmental laws. And the list goes on. Hi Kettle, I'm Pot...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Seatower
July 8, 2010 6:53 PM in reply to Progressivesuck
You are on the wrong website...the National Review awaits your abusive comments or, better yet, go comment on your messiah's website, GlennBeckBelches.com.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressivesuck
July 8, 2010 7:00 PM in reply to Seatower
Yeah, this is a website where we only slap each other on the back and tell each other how great we are. Get lost. What's abusive about me supporting the decision? In fact, I don't think Marriage should be a government issue anyways.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
July 8, 2010 6:59 PM in reply to Progressivesuck
Shoot, we even made it so you couldn't lynch a black man just for walking down the street "wrong". What's the world coming to?
BTW, nobody "forces" you to use less power - but if you use less power because it now costs more, that's a little thing called the "market". I'd have thought you'd recognize it, given the typical conservative's worship of it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressivesuck
July 8, 2010 7:09 PM in reply to Matt Jones
Matt, you really don't understand the market do you. If power costs more because of a government regulation then it's not truely market driven is it? If wind power is .09 cents per kWh and coal is .13 cents then guess which one I go with? If wind is .17c and coal is taxed and goes to .19c due to government regs then it's not the market. If wind or solar were truely cheaper then everyone would use it. The evil market hasn't made it a cheaper alternative yet so it isn't used widely.
I wouldn't agree with violence going unpunished. Your friend, the market, would also take care of that.... If I owned a diner and I was across the street from another diner and that other place had a sign that said no blacks, mexican, or asians allowed I'd really be excited, because I'd open my doors to everyone and anyone and make TONS of cash because cash talks and bs walks. That idiot would go out of business and I would prosper. Wake up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lemonbrine
July 8, 2010 7:17 PM in reply to Progressivesuck
If you think market considerations outweigh people's biggotry, then I'm afraid you're mistaken. Gay marriages would cause a lot of spending, but it seems that most people don't seem to want that spending.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressivesuck
July 8, 2010 7:23 PM in reply to lemonbrine
Gays make up only about 2-5% of the popluation. I wouldn't call maybe 1-2 million marriages a year that much of a stimulus...
Market considerations do outweigh biggotry. Stop fooling yourself. I don't see a whole lot of corporations not selling to a particular race group. Oh, and if you think the government can regulate bigotry YOU are sadly mistaken.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lemonbrine
July 8, 2010 7:35 PM in reply to Progressivesuck
1-2 million marriages is insignificant? from a group that typically doesn't have children, thus more disposable income? What you're saying just isn't logical.
I said nothing about the government regulating bigotry. But back in the south in the 50s, LOTS of diners weren't serving blacks. But since you brought it up, the government sometimes allows bigotry, and in the case of same sex marriage, imposes it in most states. (and if you are offended by the term bigotry, look it up first. The dictionary definition totally applies in this case.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
July 9, 2010 4:01 AM in reply to Progressivesuck
Not that much of a stimulus? You might want to reconsider:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sir T
July 8, 2010 11:10 PM in reply to Progressivesuck
"Matt, you really don't understand the market do you. If power costs more because of a government regulation then it's not truly market driven is it? "
I think your sobbing about ebil Green taxes making wind cheaper actually shows your understanding of both the market and the tech is a little off...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-22/windmill-boom-curbs-electric-power-prices.html
"On windy nights in northern Germany, consumers are paid to keep the lights on.
Twice this year, the nation’s 21,000 wind turbines pumped out so much power that utilities reduced customer bills for using the surplus electricity. Since the first rebate came with little fanfare at 5 a.m. one October day in 2008, payments have risen as high as 500.02 euros ($665) a megawatt-hour, about as much as a small factory or 1,000 homes use in 60 minutes.
The wind-energy boom in Europe and parts of Texas has begun to reduce bills for consumers. Electricity-network managers have even ordered windmills offline at times to trim supplies. That hurts profit for wind-farm operators, said Christian Kjaer, head of the European Wind Energy Association, which represents RWE AG of Germany, Spain’s Iberdrola SA and Dong Energy A/S of Denmark.
“We’re seeing that wind energy lowers prices, which is great for the consumers,” Kjaer said at his group’s conference in Warsaw this week. “We as producers have to acknowledge that this means operating the existing plant fewer hours a year, and this has an effect on investors” and profit.
After years of getting government incentives to install windmills, operators in Europe may have become their own worst enemy, reducing the total price paid for electricity in Germany, Europe’s biggest power market, by as much as 5 billion euros some years, according to a study this week by Poeyry, a Helsinki-based industry consultant. "
The whole article is worth a read.
But hey, lets go back to the good old market driven days of the 2001 California power crises, 100% caused by the producers taking power plants offline to drive up prices. FREEDOM!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xalien
July 8, 2010 11:14 PM in reply to Progressivesuck
Big oil companys make tracts with kadafi and all oil dictators for maintain high oil prices, helped for futures petroleum managed market to sustain his high profit. Just using state power of dictators to obtain big profit, and perverse oil futures market. The oil profit is near 3% world GDP. Big Capitalists uses State power and laws paying presidents, lawmakers to pollute, to destroy family with the only design to make profit. People must to defend his health, his family in front of the bribers, polluters. You are helping to oil monopolists to destroy the normal reaction of the people to defend his liberty. Liberty of other finish where start my liberty.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
July 9, 2010 3:55 AM in reply to Progressivesuck
If you knew anything about economics, you'd know that one function of regulation is to compensate for inefficiencies in a free market. If the reason that your electricity is more expensive is because the power companies are required by regulation to install pollution controls, it means that the market is more efficient because the price now better reflects the true cost of providing the power. Without that regulation, part of the cost of production (dealing with the effects of pollution) had to be borne by third parties, and the electricity was priced artificially low.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 9, 2010 10:04 AM in reply to Progressivesuck
"Matt, you really don't understand the market do you. If power costs more because of a government regulation then it's not truely market driven is it . . . (t)he evil market hasn't made it a cheaper alternative yet so it isn't used widely."
What "the market" wants is irrelevant; "the market" has no rights under the Constitution. While market concerns can certainly be taken into account by lawmakers and voters, the market itself has no guarantee of a voice or representation in our system of government -- it is simply the economic system under which we operate at this time. There's nothing magical about it that obligates us in any way to follow its desires or dictates.
The market is a tool for us to use. We're not a tool for the market to use. In any collision between the rights of individuals and the rights of "the market," I know which side I come down on. And I'm pretty sure I know which side you come down on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 12:30 PM in reply to Signalman
You ARE a tool for the market to use. You are the slave whose taxes are the collateral for the dollars borrowed from the international bankers called the Federal Reserve.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 9, 2010 1:11 PM in reply to dwjoae
Thank you for conceding my point. That's just another good reason why a healthy dose of socialism would be a good thing for us right now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to Signalman
We don't need more socialism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 9, 2010 3:27 PM in reply to dwjoae
On the contrary -- that's *exactly* what we need.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Subliminability
July 8, 2010 7:00 PM in reply to Progressivesuck
I want to impose environmental regulation on you because your pollution injures my health, aesthetic enjoyment, and property. I don't think that's "morality" in the same way your desire to regulate what I do in the bedroom is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressivesuck
July 8, 2010 7:15 PM in reply to Subliminability
Prove that my direct pollution affects you then we have a case. I don't care what you do in the BR. If I point my exhaust pipe at your house then you could say that.
Environmentalists constantly cite morality in their sales pitches and use guilt about this and that.
If your behavior in the bed causes damage on me by having to pay more for health insurance or for your health care then you are wronging me.
It's not moral in my opinion to regulate my choice of vehicle or my thermostat. It's not liberty. It's tyranny. You want your freedom and so do I.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kuyleh
July 8, 2010 9:35 PM in reply to Progressivesuck
"If your behavior in the bed causes damage on me by having to pay more for health insurance or for your health care then you are wronging me."
If that's truly your view, you should be railing against anyone who has sex. After all, opposite sex play dates are the ones that create babies, and babies can end up with all other sorts of government aid your taxes pay for.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 9, 2010 10:09 AM in reply to Progressivesuck
"Prove that my direct pollution affects you then we have a case."
Actually, that's a rather simplistic argument that demonstrates your lack of understanding of the issue.
If it can be demonstrated that you contribute directly to pollution that, in the aggregate, affects him/her, *then* we have a case.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lemonbrine
July 8, 2010 7:13 PM in reply to Progressivesuck
Perhaps you can see this as hypocracy, but I think the main difference between is that dems pass the legislation because it's the right thing to do, but republicans pass it because the bible tells them so, or because that's the way it's always been. I don't know how progressivism has become such a bad word these days. I always thought progress was a good thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressivesuck
July 8, 2010 7:20 PM in reply to lemonbrine
This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Is it the right thing to do to regulate aspects of my life? Then, no, it isn't the right thing to do. You guys stereotype Republicans just as bad as you say Glenn Beck does.
There should be nothing wrong with faith, just as there is nothing wrong with dudes getting married. Everyone's background makes up how the want to govern. What the f-ing problem is is that everyone uses their background to govern!!!!! Use the damn constitution and it's eneumerated powers and that's all!
And Progressives are not for progress, they are for complete control. You need to do some reasearch on this subject. It's frightening.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lemonbrine
July 8, 2010 7:28 PM in reply to Progressivesuck
There is nothing wrong with faith. But if your bible tells you that eating shellfish is an abomination, then don't pass a law that says that nobody is allowed to eat shellfish. I rather like shellfish, and I don't see any problem with eating it. That's the problem I have with faith based legislation. Your religious rules shouldn't apply to me. Because your bible says that same sex marriage is bad shouldn't matter to me, yet here we are - I'm subject your their biblical rules.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Davran
July 8, 2010 7:32 PM in reply to Progressivesuck
The most absurd thing you have ever heard? Really? You must lead a pretty sheltered life.
As it is, your wildly inaccurate stereotype of progressives offers some pretty absurd competition. You need to do some research on the subject. It's frightening.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
July 8, 2010 8:01 PM in reply to Davran
to be fair, by 'do some research' the teabagger only means watch glen beck scribble word games on his chalkboard.
it's like Six Degrees of Stalin meets Balderdash for Dummies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 9, 2010 9:56 AM in reply to Progressivesuck
"For you all to say that Tea Party or Republicans are forcing their morality on you is a joke. Your party, the asses, has forced more moraility on anyone in history."
Not in the least. GOP-led initiatives have taken public money to:
Force doctors to delay abortions so that women will 'think about it' some more
Force doctors to show ultrasounds of feti to women before those women are permitted to have abortions
Require the teaching of sexual abstinence in schools, despite multiple studies showing that abstinence teaching has no net positive effect on the reduction of teen pregnancy or STDs
Benefit church-run social services
There are plenty of other examples that can be cited.
"Forced me to pay for your healthcare out of "morality" and "it's the right thing to do."
Just in case you hadn't noticed, you're paying for other people's healthcare already, Champ. If you're paying a healthcare premium and you're relatively healthy, then your premiums are paying for sick, injured and crazy people to get *their* health care services.
Please try harder to pay attention to what's going on. I can't take the time to explain *everything* to you.
"Forced me to "go green" or cut my power usage with environmental laws."
Untrue. You can use all the energy you can afford. If you can't afford as much as you want, too bad. Why should the rest of us have to subsidize you? Pfffffffftttttt. :p~~~~~
"And the list goes on. Hi Kettle, I'm Pot..."
No kettles here. Just a bunch of griping pots on your side.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
des
July 8, 2010 7:51 PM
"Is it the right thing to do to regulate aspects of my life?" Progress (sic) @ 7:20 PM.
Speed laws. Building codes. Professional standards (medical, legal, pedagogical). Food safety regulations.
So, yes, it IS the right thing to do. You are, of course, free to drive at any speed you wish; and suffer the penalties. You are free to build any sort of structure you wish, until it is torn down and the bill sent to you. You may visit any one calling themselves a "doctor", "lawyer" or "professor", whether they qualify for such an honorific or not. And because of the laws of this country, if any of those "professionals" causes you injury because they aren't qualified, you may sue them.
And if you really want to, you can eat nothing but food imported from China; just to show your objections to having your life "regulated".
It'll probably be a short one, though...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
maya89
July 8, 2010 8:05 PM
yay!!! soon soon this DOMA will land in the dustbin of history for good, when the SC declares it unconstitutional.. (how could they rule otherwise? what arguments are there really against gay marriage? -- except the irrational arguments by the right-wing gay-haters, inspired purely in religious dogma and nothing that makes sense or is fair and just??)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
July 8, 2010 8:35 PM
This decision guards our liberty. It's tyranny for a government to tell individuals that there options for marriage are limited to the opposite sex. Liberty has won. The christo-fascist crowd will rally for a return to tyranny, maybe they can put Rekers and Haggard out as spokespersons.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
July 9, 2010 4:10 AM in reply to Philip
Let's not get ahead of what the decision actually says. It does nothing to strike down bans in states against gay marriage. All it says is that the federal government cannot prohibit a state from allowing gay marriage, and it cannot force the state to treat gay couples differently from straight ones.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DaddyD
July 8, 2010 9:21 PM
"The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and, in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid."
I'm no lawyer, so I could be wrong, but the flipside of this is that should the congress at some point wish to enforce a right to same-sex marriage in all 50 states, they'd be hamstrung by the precedent this phrase sets in place.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
July 9, 2010 4:17 AM in reply to DaddyD
Congress may not be able to do that, but certainly a lawsuit could be filed in federal court seeking to overturn a same-sex marriage ban in some state. I would expect that case to be argued on the same grounds as Loving v. Virginia, which struck down laws against interracial marriages. (And did so at a time, I will note, that the country as a whole was very much against interracial marriages.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to DaddyD
The Federal Government violates state sovereignty every time they torment a pharmacist for selling medical marijuana.
The Federal Government has no regard for our Constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joseph Calling
July 8, 2010 9:26 PM
Please tell me how this judge is any different than King George III? Didn't we break from England to get away from unelected autocrats ruling by fiat? Just because you like the ruling doesn't mean you should favor decisions of this magnitude being made unilaterally by one unelected "I know better."
The Defense of Marriage Act DOMA was enacted in 1996 by an overwhelming majority of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate and was then signed by President Bill Clinton.
If DOMA is to be repealed, it should be done by our elected representatives and not unelected, unaccountable judicial oligarchs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mentsmin
July 8, 2010 9:46 PM in reply to Joseph Calling
Your comment suggests that Congress cannot pass an unconstitutional law. That's absurd (as is comparing a decision of the judiciary, a coequal branch of government, with the proclamation of a monarch).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joseph Calling
July 8, 2010 10:00 PM in reply to mentsmin
It's absurd because you say it is? That's circular logic. I fail to see how Tauro is any different than KIng George III, or to use a more contemporary comparison, Hugo Chavez.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mentsmin
July 8, 2010 10:06 PM in reply to Joseph Calling
Do you understand what the duty of the judicial branch is? It sounds as if you're suggesting the judicial branch must find any act of Congress to be within the bounds of the Constitution.
Perhaps you reject the Supreme Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison, but I'm afraid that pretty much settled at this point.
What is the purpose of constitutionally-protected rights if Congress can defeat them by simple majority vote?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mentsmin
July 8, 2010 10:11 PM in reply to Joseph Calling
(...and the expression of my opinion that your argument is "absurd" is not 'circular logic.' An example of 'circular logic' would be something like "your opinion is absurd because it doesn't make sense.')
Do you believe that Congress is incapable of passing an unconstitutional law?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mentsmin
July 8, 2010 10:42 PM in reply to Joseph Calling
One more thing: On the current Supreme Court, Justices Scalia and Thomas are MOST likely to vote to overturn an act of Congress or reject prior judicial precedent. Conventional 'wisdom' is wildly inaccurate on this point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
July 9, 2010 4:29 AM in reply to Joseph Calling
If you will read the Constitution, you will see that the federal judiciary has the authority to decide issues touching on the Constitution or federal laws. (Article III)
The power of judicial review, in which legislative and executive actions are subject to review and even invalidation by the judiciary, was firmly established at the federal level in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. I'm sorry if you don't think it should work that way, but that is the way this country has operated for more than 200 years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Manju
July 8, 2010 11:40 PM
Cool. This is what States Rights was supppossed to mean.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
July 9, 2010 12:00 AM
It seems odd that this case (and, as far as I know, none of the other cases challenging DOMA) didn't touch on the "full faith and credit" clause. Maybe because (apparently) it's never been unambiguously resolved whether it applies to marriages, but it seems pretty clear that it should, and it would undermine the entire law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david zhang
July 9, 2010 12:27 AM
Great!!!!!!
http://www.pm18.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mikevillers
July 9, 2010 1:43 AM
my two favorite things about the decision are the prominent use of the phrase "irrational prejudice" and that it was based in part on a "10th amendment" violation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Manju
July 9, 2010 1:49 AM
This will make an interesting scotus case. i wouldn't be surprised of scailia-thomas & co uphold the ruling. they similarly struck down parts of bush's religious freedom act (saying it can't apply to the states, i believe) and restoring the 10th may be of more importance.
The liberal judges may rule to overtrun, as restricting federal power by enforcing the 10th could doom parts of Obamacare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 1:04 PM in reply to Manju
Who knows what a liberal jack@$$ judge will do. In the U.S. Supreme Court, four of those pathetic quacks voted against the second amendment. Even though they know it's a fact, they just violated their oaths of office. If I was in Congress, I would have submitted four Bills of Impeachment.
This is why squatters like Obama nominate Sotomayors and Kagans! To hell with the Constitution!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mentsmin
July 9, 2010 2:05 PM in reply to dwjoae
I'm guessing you're not a legal scholar so this may surprise you, but there was a time where none of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights applied to the states. Some still do not. Rejecting incorporation of the 2nd Amendment is not "voting against" the amendment or denying its existence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dwjoae
July 9, 2010 2:39 PM in reply to mentsmin
Dope! The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is the law of the land, and four idiots, like you, "rationalized" that it isn't true.
Now click your heels and say you want to go home to Kansas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KCLib
July 9, 2010 10:17 PM in reply to dwjoae
I'd site various court cases over the last hundred years that would explain in detail that your understanding is woefully inadequate, but it is Friday night and I do have some semblance of a life. By the way, most of those courts were actually strict constructionists.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sean
July 9, 2010 3:36 AM
Souter used to freak Scalia out with the gifts of brownies and dance mix CDs...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
boredwell
July 9, 2010 4:48 AM
Limiting the rights of one group while upholding the rights of another is unconstitutional. Equal rights for all, isn't it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jim43
July 9, 2010 7:56 AM
Finally a common sense ruling from the courts after a string of abhorrent decisions from the Supreme Court down to the Texas judge that caved to his energy investments and opened the Gulf back to Deepwater Horizon-style drilling. Shows you the benefit to having a judge that isn't bought out by the Right and/or corporate interests.
http://www.facebook.com/campaigncorner
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluestatedon
July 9, 2010 8:07 AM
Whatever the constitutional merits of this decision are, it's an absolute godsend for FoxNews, Rush, Beck, and the Rethuglicans, since it gives them ample opportunity to froth at the mouth for another three months.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jacks45
July 9, 2010 9:24 AM
On a totally different level, why shouldn't gays & lesbians have the right to be just as miserable as their hetersexual fellow countrypeople? Surely the SCOTUS's Fab Five will see the constitutional wisdom of spreading the pain of married life democratically from sea to shining sea, no?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RKT
July 9, 2010 3:42 PM
I know what the Tea Party will be ranting about for the next couple of weeks. Sister Sarah will likely Tweet about this by tomorrow, perhaps today if her ghost-existers can act that quickly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
luccinice02
July 15, 2010 10:35 AM
Wonderful.
Share a website with you ,
( http://www.shoes2.us/ )
Believe you will love it.
Accept paypal or credit card and free shipping.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
quner7895
July 15, 2010 10:33 PM
welcome to our website:
===== http://www.clotheshops.us ====
50%off ca,ed hardy t-shirt$15 jeans,coach handbag$33,air max90,dunk,polo t-shirt$13,,lacoste t-shirt $13 air jordan for sale,l nba jersy for sale sale,$35,nfl nba jersy for sale
and so on..
if you like to order anything you like.
More details,
please just browse our website Quality is our Dignity;
Service is our Lift.
enjoy yourself.
thank you!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?