ThinkFast: May 26, 2009
ThinkFast: May 26, 2009
The California Supreme Court will rule today on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in the state. “The justices will also decide whether the state will continue to recognize the estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages carried out in 2008.”
President Obama will attend a fundraiser for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in Las Vegas later today. Republicans have been targeting Reid’s seat for 2010. Reid says he will raise as much as $25 million for his campaign.
A CNN poll released yesterday found that Colin Powell is more popular than former Vice President Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh. While 70 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Powell, Cheney and Limbaugh are only viewed favorably by 37 percent and 30 percent, respectively. Republicans prefer Powell over Limbaugh, 64 percent to 62 percent.
Though President Obama vowed to “take action” in response to what he called North Korea’s “blatant violation of international law,” some his aides “acknowledged that the administration’s options were limited.” According to the aides, much depends on Obama’s “ability to persuade Russia and China to gosignificantly beyond the strong condemnations that they issued Monday against North Korea.”
Hours after President Obama vowed to rein in the use of the “state secrets” privilege last week, “his Justice Department was criticized by a federal judge in California” for claiming the privilege in trying to shut down a lawsuit over warrantless wiretapping. Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) has sponsored a bill that “would empower federal judges to review sensitive evidence and test government assertions.”
Sen. Leahy is “already trying to smooth” the confirmation process for Obama’s Supreme Court selection. Leahy has offered to split evenly with Republicans the “additional funds available to the committee for the nomination process” despite the fact that Democrats hold a “majority on the panel.”
Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons (R) has vetoed a domestic partners bill to give gay couples some of the same rights enjoyed by those who are married. Gibbons said, “I believe that because the voters have determined that the rights of marriage should apply only to married couples, only the voters should determine whether those rights should equally apply to domestic partners.”
Obama is expected to announce later this week the creation of a cyber security czar who “will have broad authority to develop strategy to protect the nation’s government-run and private computer networks.” The position will “report to the national security adviser as well as the senior White House economic adviser.”
Israel President Benjamin Netanyahu is attempting to compromise with President Obama on settlements, saying that “Israel would dismantle nearly two dozen wildcat settlement outposts…if the U.S. drops its objections to continued building in existing, government-sanctioned settlements.” “The demand for a total stop to building [in the West Bank] is not something that can be justified,” Netanyahu told his cabinet.
And finally: Project Runway’s Tim Gunn, a native Washingtonian, had some high praise for Nancy Pelosi’s fashion. “I’ve always celebrated Nancy Pelosi’s style,” he said. “What I love about her in particular is she’s not afraid to say ‘I’m a woman.’ Her clothes show off her beautiful hourglass shape.” He also wondered whether her style has had a “trickle down” affect on Capitol Hill to other members.
Sign up here to receive our daily e-newsletter, The Progress Report.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
much better than anti-constitutionalists like Alito, Roberts, or Thomas, CFP, but you knew that
May 26th, 2009 at 9:09 ambut is the really the best person available for the Highest Court in the land?
John Roberts.
Riight.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:10 amCFP, your “correction” should have read “I’m sorry for being so dense and ignoring the activist judges that right wingers have put on the bench”
but that would have been honest, something you cannot seem to achieve
May 26th, 2009 at 9:13 amSome sour grapes there, C4P? You were kind of hoping that Gonzo would get the nod, right?
May 26th, 2009 at 9:13 amThat there is a real need to protect certain state secrets, I am fully in agreement. However, there must be mechanisms to protect society from malfeasance and non-feasance by high officials who would hide behind a shield of government secrecy. There must be courts empowered to review these secrecy claims and roll them back when it is in society’s best interests!
May 26th, 2009 at 9:15 amMore from the column, that C4p didn’t post:
Sotomayor’s former clerks sing her praises as a demanding but thoughtful boss whose personal experiences have given her a commitment to legal fairness. “She is a rule-bound pragmatist–very geared toward determining what the right answer is and what the law dictates, but her general approach is, unsurprisingly, influenced by her unique background,” says one former clerk. “She grew up in a situation of disadvantage, and was able, by virtue of the system operating in such a fair way, to accomplish what she did. I think she sees the law as an instrument that can accomplish the same thing for other people, a system that, if administered fairly, can give everyone the fair break they deserve, regardless of who they are.”
Her former clerks report that because Sotomayor is divorced and has no children, her clerks become like her extended family–working late with her, visiting her apartment once a month for card games (where she remembers their favorite drinks), and taking a field trip together to the premier of a Harry Potter movie.
Some former prosecutors, and other judges’ clerks don’t like her decisions or her style. Big whoop. Sounds like sour grapes to me.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:16 amSotomayor certainly is no Clarence Thomas!
May 26th, 2009 at 9:17 amRepublicans prefer Powell over Limbaugh, 64 percent to 62 percent.
Um, is my math wrong, or does that add up to 126%? If one is preferred over the other, doesn’t that imply that the sampling had to choose one? Is this Rove math, or the math used to hand Bush the White House… twice?
On another note, C4P is the most pitiful troll. It must sit in front of it’s computer, hitting refresh over and over, it’s cut and paste talking points ready as soon as a new thread goes up. Very sad. Maybe it should just get a life, or go back to the wingnut sites who give a sh!t about it’s opinions.
PEACE
May 26th, 2009 at 9:19 amYet C4P says nothing of the unprecedented interferance of the rightist judges on the Supreme Court in the electoral outcome of a presidential race. You do realize how inconsistent that makes you appear, don’t you?
May 26th, 2009 at 9:19 amOkay, is it just me, or are all of the comments numbered ‘1′? Not to mention that right now it says there are 12 comments, but 10 made it through – wtf?
May 26th, 2009 at 9:21 amThe new breed of troll… rather than trying to present an argument (no matter how far fetched), they just find a conservative blog somewhere, cut and paste what they find appealing and then post it on TP as if it was their own argument.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:23 amHi Jane! It’s just you… I’m seeing yours as comment #12. But it’s possible that when Con4P takes slot #1, the entire thread is tainted.
Have a good day!
PEACE
May 26th, 2009 at 9:23 amAnd EVEN more that neither C4P or Barfly posted:
“one former clerk for another judge…one former clerk for another judge…one former clerk for another judge…one former clerk for another judge… one former clerk for another judge”
These are his sources for the ENTIRE article. He can’t get one person to say one damn thing on the record?
May 26th, 2009 at 9:27 amAnd more that barfly didn’t post:
Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees.
Notice, that’s former prosecutors, and not anyone currently in place. And other judges law clerks? A good way for a spiteful judge to slam her, without being hauled up on charges.
Thanks for that, C4P. It made you look even more partisan.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:28 amGood morning, campers
C4P is having sour grapes for breakfast. Still prefers Bork.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:29 amMuch like the link he posted in the thread about Judd running for office.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:30 amIn 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants.
Might have. That’s some serious criticism…
May 26th, 2009 at 9:30 amraynman Says:
The new breed of troll… rather than trying to present an argument (no matter how far fetched), they just find a conservative blog somewhere, cut and paste what they find appealing and then post it on TP as if it was their own argument.
While in no way intending to defend CFP aka Goon_golly, the linked article (which was actually defined in block quotes, for a change) is by Jeffrey Rosen and came from the New Republic. There is also a follow-up article by Rosen answering criticism about his original article.
It does appear that Sotomayor will be Obama’s nominee. And I find it assuming that a “conservative” has the nerve to criticize someone like Sotomayor as a nominee while supporting Scalia and Thomas.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:31 amJeffrey Rosen’s piece has been scorned by many as personally attacking the judge with subjective characterizations.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:31 amRepublicans stand ready to filibuster whomever President Obama picks for the Supreme Court.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:32 amConprog:
That loud “sucking” sound is coming from the vicinity of your immensely dense head.
Scientists are concerned a black hole has formed in the core of your brain.
A formal study is forthcoming…
May 26th, 2009 at 9:32 amUncle Ho Says:
——————————————————————————–
Good morning, campers
C4P is having sour grapes for breakfast. Still prefers Harriet Meirs.
fixed it for you.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:33 amWe are dealing here with a seat that is not yet filled. Is she the best person for the job?
Pull that Harriet Miers figurine outta yer arse, fcuking dipshit moron – it’s clouding your thoughts.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:35 amIs she the best person for the job?
Is anyone here on the vetting team? If not, then no one here is qualified to answer that question.
Another interesting thought: what if the best person for the job doesn’t want the job? What then?
May 26th, 2009 at 9:36 amCfP would join with his fellow trolls and condemn whomever Obama appointed. Would he also have a comment about Alito, who championed the case for the president being a “unitary executive” in government, with powers inherently granted to the executive branch?
May 26th, 2009 at 9:37 amFrankly, I’d just as soon see Reid replaced as Senate Majority leader – don’t the Democrats in Nevada have someone else they can run for his seat?
May 26th, 2009 at 9:40 amPull that Harriet Miers figurine outta yer arse…
Ah, poor Harriet. So misunderstood. A victim of conservative angst. She was so bad, conservatives knew she’d make thm look like idiots if she was appointed and confirmed, so they howled until bush removed her. Poor Harriet.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:40 amNow I’m seeing all of the comments as number ‘0′. Jeez, what’s with my computer?
I hereby nominate BnF to the Supremes. :D
May 26th, 2009 at 9:43 amPut it in this context: Suppose Prop 8 outlawed and invalidated interracial marriages. It was passed by a majority of the people, and it is an amendment to the State Constitution. Would it be constitutional? Would all existing interracial marriages be invalidated?
Either way the California Supreme Court rules, I expect it to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, a much stronger case can be made that the State Constitution violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution trumps State Constitutions, and Prop 8 would likely be ruled unconstitutional. The upshot is: no State will be allowed to discriminate based on gender when it comes to marriage; same-sex marriages will be legal in all 50 states.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:47 amGood piece by Glenn Greenwald responding to Rosen.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:48 am
What C4P did not do was give the gist of the responses to the article, and the responders mostly attack the authors poor work in this case. The author admits that he didn’t read enough on his own to make any judgments; he’s relying on others who may have an ax to grind.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:48 amC4P’s simplistic question, “Is she the best person for the job?” is an easy way to raise questions about an extremely complex decision.
Is there a single “best person for the job”? No. There are certainly people unsuited for the job (Clarence Thomas comes to mind) but a more relevant question is, “is she the best person for the job at this moment?” She may well be. No nominee will come to the bench without criticism, especially when opposed by the Party of No.
But the idea that seven of the nine “best people for the job” were all white males is a little out of the realm of statistical probability, so it’s safe to say that C4P’s simplistic yardstick has not been met in years past.
The real question is, will Sotomayor, should she be confirmed, prove a capable jurist who will add something to the Court? I don’t know, but I suspect she will.
May 26th, 2009 at 9:53 amCFP is just a whiner
always whining about something
poor little powerless insignificant right wing coward
May 26th, 2009 at 9:57 amConservativeForProgress Says:
This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel’s opinion that contained “no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case.”
____________
Interesting point at which C4P chose to cut and paste on that one…
(The extent of Sotomayor’s involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)
Why did you leave that last line out, C4P?
May 26th, 2009 at 10:03 amNevada Gov. Jim Gibbons (R) said, “I believe that because the voters have determined that the rights of marriage should apply only to married couples, only the voters should determine whether those rights should equally apply to domestic partners.”
Let’s change that a bit and see how it sounds:
“I believe that because the voters have determined that the rights of marriage should apply only to Christians, only the voters should determine whether those rights should equally apply to non-Christians.”
OR
“I believe that because the voters have determined that the rights of marriage should apply only to Democrats, only the voters should determine whether those rights should equally apply to Republicans.”
Bigotry sanctioned by law.
May 26th, 2009 at 10:04 amSTOP arguing about CFP every time YOU waste valuable comments WAKE THE ==== UP
May 26th, 2009 at 10:06 am(During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, “Will you please stop talking and let them talk?”)
___________
Hmmm… and doesn’t this constitute hearsay?
May 26th, 2009 at 10:09 amHopefully someone will ask Sotomayor the really tough question here…
“Seeing as Jack Bauer saved LA from a terrorist attack by torturing a suspect, do you believe “enhanced interrogation” is legal”?
May 26th, 2009 at 10:11 amRepublicans would be doing Democrats a favor if they took out Reid IMO. Save them from themselves.
May 26th, 2009 at 10:23 amyes! she is the best person available for the court, in the opinion of the only one that matters in this issue. President Obama. only he can nominate to the court and she is his pick. apparently Bush (the younger criminal) thought she was a pretty darn good judge, he nominated her to the circuit court once upon a time not long ago.
May 26th, 2009 at 10:39 amso cfp? i dare you to explain how she was good enough then but not now.
Let see here: A US Trident sub can sail up and down the coast off Korea or in the Sea of Japan with 24 missiles each with up to 10 nuclear warheads ready to turn North Korea into dust…and just WHY are we SOOOOOOOO scared of them again????? Nuclear weapons to terrorist you say, why don’t we give a couple of nukes to terrorist so they can deploy them against the North Koreans. Just kidding, I am just soooo tired of the fear mongering. Must be good for selling news advertising!
May 26th, 2009 at 11:05 ammy apologies. i misunderstandimated my sources. (like my bush impression?) it was the older criminal who nominated her. still, the right seemed to like her well enough before.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:12 amswilliams41 Says:
Let see here: A US Trident sub can sail up and down the coast off Korea or in the Sea of Japan with 24 missiles each with up to 10 nuclear warheads ready to turn North Korea into dust…and just WHY are we SOOOOOOOO scared of them again?????
May 26th, 2009 at 11:05 am Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
Maybe because his closest neighbours are South Korea and Japan, strong allies of the USA, and because a million tons of radioactive stuff would rain over Russia and China, who in turn have nukes enough to sweep the USA and the entire world?
Yeah, those subs are pretty… but are more useful if unused.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:12 am“And more that barfly didn’t post” says ConservativeForProgress, providing the following (I’ve added the bold emphasis):
“The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel’s opinion that contained “no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case.” ”
Touche’. cfp!
Let’s look at the key words, shall we?
“Controversial….Sotomayer….explosive case….affirmative action….Sotomayer….perfunctory unpublished opinion…no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case.”
Wow! By obvious association Sotomayer is clearly an out-of-control liberal!
Unless you read the last sentence of the paragraph that you left out.
“(The extent of Sotomayor’s involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)”
The perfunctory unpublished opinion was that of a panel of which Sotomayor was just a member but nonetheless Rosen associates Sotomayor specifically to the decision that provoked Judge Carbanes, even though Rosen has no idea of what Sotomayor’s opinion actually was!
Now that you’ve learned not to plagiarize and are actually providing useful links, the next step is to actually comprehend the material you are linking-to and appreciating how such links may support or indeed also undermine the point you wish to make.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:14 amThe FDIC and OTS cater to private equity underwriters (PEU’s) in failed bank acquisitions.
Last week, Blackstone (Pete Peterson) and the Carlyle Group (David Rubenstein) got $4.9 billion in FDIC subsidy to buy BankUnited. They announced a strategy change, focusing on commmercial loans. Guess who has billions to refinance between 2010 and 2014? The PEU boys.
A long holiday weekend, followed by a historic Supreme Court nomination, buries Obama’s corporafornication.
For those interested in more details, many news links are included in the piece below.
http://peureport.blogspot.com/2009/05/obamas-bankunited-givaway.html
May 26th, 2009 at 11:14 amEvil,
my point is technology is a hard cat to keep in the bag. The NK’s are scared of losing power and international standing. They know that they are a laughing stock internationally but they do not want their people to know it.
I still think the fear of assured destruction will keep them at bay. Lets rattle our sabre and offer them some food for the starving masses.
“OOOoooooo. we are scared of you, BTW here here’s a few thousand tons of rice, lets put those pesky nukes and missiles away and call it a day. ”
If they don’t play, show ‘em that we can test our big toys too.
sarcasm /off
May 26th, 2009 at 11:21 amNevada Gov. Jim Gibbons (R) said, “I believe that because the voters have determined that the rights of marriage should apply only to married couples, only the voters should determine whether those rights should equally apply to domestic partners.”
Will they ask voters about the exclusive rights of white people, as well?
May 26th, 2009 at 11:26 amgummble-bee-itch Says:
——————————————————————————–
Good piece by Glenn Greenwald responding to Rosen.
Most of the gaping flaws in Rosen’s piece have been fully highlighted by others. While most of those criticisms have focused on Rosen’s horrendous use of anonymous sources — one of the most apt reactions to Rosen’s piece comes, appropriately enough, in the form of well-earned derision from Wonkette — I highly recommend this post from Law Professor Darren Hutchinson.
This is rich, coming from a guy who was perfectly willing to ignore the fact that a journalist he agreed with also used unsourced claims, and he didn’t raise a peep.
This comment is directed to Hanshiro, and his fawning over Greenwald.
May 26th, 2009 at 11:51 amConservativeForProgress Says:
You are just such a predictable parrot. No one who knows her questions her intelligence and Rosens article has been widely debunked. He CROPPED a quote to make his case and ADMITS he doesnt know enough about her. You are pathetic. You just parrot the storyline you were told to think. Do you realize how bad you embarass yourself with your lightweight propaganda parrot posts?
May 26th, 2009 at 11:54 am