Seriously ballsy stuff. If the court order disallows audio and video, but allows transcripts of a court case, just hire actors, build a set, and re-enact the whole damn thing.
Information wants to be free, and dammit, public court proceedings should be public. All of them.
FOX News Poll: 46 Percent Would Vote To Confirm Sotomayor – Political News – FOXNews.com .
I guess that means we have 54% of people who believe in equal rights and treatment regardless of race. Could be better, could be worse.
Sotomayor and the Politics of Race – WSJ.com.
Obama’s fault.
American Thinker Blog: The roots of Sotomayor’s ethnic chauvinism.
The evils of identity politics in high contrast.
American Thinker: The Make Believe Sotomayor.
Obama’s fault.
Anyone who would imply that sex or racial background would lead to “better conclusions” is racist, and Gingrich (as vile as some of his personal history is) hits the nail on the head.
Commentary: Sotomayor pick not based on merit – CNN.com.
The pernicious poison of identity politics rears its head again.
Seeing that the California Supreme Court has established that the right of marriage may be removed from any given group and arbitrarily restricted to a specific definition simply by ballot initiative, I propose two possible propositions for the next ballot:
Proposition 8-a
| This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.” SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read: SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a man is valid or recognized in California. |
Proposition 8-b
| This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.” SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read: SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a 3 foot man and a 9 foot woman is valid or recognized in California. |
Prop. 8: The California high court upholds a ban on gay marriages – Los Angeles Times.
Bah humbug. I lost my $10 bet.
These justices were simply ducking their responsibility to uphold the constitutional protections which should be afforded to all of us. The idea that there are now 36,000 “special” gay people in California that get to be treated as heteros, and all the other gays need to suck wind, is ludicrous.
Epic fail.