|
Quote:
|
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Good for California overturning Prop 8 ~ thats fanastic :D
|
Equality actually being held to mean.. Oh yeah..Equal ! What a concept :)
Thank you Founding Peeps, and all those that created our Constitution :) |
Quote:
Been thinking about that perhaps the fact that one of the lawyers arguing the case is a conservative (the Bush rep for Bush v. Gore) might be advantageous when this gets to the federal SC. He ought to know how to frame things in ways that all the conservative justices can understand.. actually hear. So, even Alieto and Scalia might be able to make the jump to what the framers did mean! And those that wrote the Bill of Rights! A little legal strategy to consider. Would love to hear from any lawyers here that have something to say about this. Hummm.... this probably won't reach the SC for a couple of years (and all the appeals will happen in the interim)... My guess is that another SC nomination will come up within this time frame. OK, so, it is extremely important that Obama is a two-term president! Not that his appointments have been far left or progressive thus far, but, I really would not want a Republican making the appointment if another vacancy arises prior to the end of Obama's current term! Especially since that next vacancy may very well be Ruth Bader-Ginsberg. Just thinking’…. projecting and being hopeful! I am bummed with the stay imposed, however. It would have been better for more couples to just be able to marry now, perhaps adding to the 18000 folks in CA that were able to retain legal marriages after the … Hummm… second appellate decision post Prop 8 passage. I just feel that the more same-sex marriages recognized as legal goes to the equality position more deeply in terms of the 14th Amendment that this decision will rise or fall on. But, I may be totally wrong in this thinking. |
Now if Florida could get their happy butts in gear and pass a same-sex marriage law here...
Have a good night, Zimmy Quote:
|
This ain't over yet, but I give a big thumbs up to the Judge who handed down this decision today.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Why wasn't the trial allowed to be televised? I've forgotten, so somebody please refresh my memory.
|
Quote:
Process Right to a Fair Trial. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...ial-1-9-10.pdf |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Now that I have been able to hear part of the decision, it is quite amazing that this judge (H.W. Bush appointee) had such clarity in the fact that our rights are not up for voting, they simply are. And his bringing to light that marriage has never been based upon a couple's ability or intention to pro-create. Much more in the opinion about gender TODAY, not yesterday! All 3 of the key arguments presented are quite clearly determined by the opinion. A big one was that same-sex marriage does not in any fashion cause harm to heterosexual marriage. 138 page opinion..... but, oh, I want to read every word! |
Full text of decision link: http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/08/04/Perry%20Trial%20Decision.pdf
-------------------- Article about opinion- from HOME / jurisprudence : The law, lawyers, and the court. A Brilliant RulingJudge Walker's decision to overturn Prop 8 is factual, well-reasoned, and powerful. By Dahlia Lithwick Posted Wednesday, Aug. 4, 2010, at 9:27 PM ET Judge Walker ruled Prop 8 unconstitutionalJudge Vaughn R. Walker is not Anthony Kennedy. But when the chips are down, he certainly knows how to write like him. I count—in his opinion today—seven citations to Justice Kennedy's 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans (striking down an anti-gay Colorado ballot initiative) and eight citations to his 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas (striking down Texas' gay-sodomy law). In a stunning decision this afternoon, finding California's Proposition 8 ballot initiative banning gay marriage unconstitutional, Walker trod heavily on the path Kennedy has blazed on gay rights: "[I]t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse," quotes Walker. "'[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,' has never been a rational basis for legislation," cites Walker. "Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate," Walker notes, with a jerk of the thumb at Kennedy. Kennedy? Hot sauce to go with those words? But for all the lofty language about freedom and morality, nobody can fairly accuse Judge Walker of putting together an insubstantial or unsubstantiated opinion today. Indeed, the whole point of this legal exercise—the lengthy trial, the spectacularly detailed finding of facts (80 of them! with subheadings!)—was to pit expert against expert, science against science, and fact against prejudice. It's hard to read Judge Walker's opinion without sensing that what really won out today was science, methodology, and hard work. Had the proponents of Prop 8 made even a minimal effort to put on a case, to track down real experts, to do more than try to assert their way to legal victory, this would have been a closer case. But faced with one team that mounted a serious effort and another team that did little more than fire up their big, gay boogeyman screensaver for two straight weeks, it wasn't much of a fight. Judge Walker scolds them at the outset for promising in their trial brief to prove that same-sex marriage would "effect some twenty-three harmful consequences" and then putting on almost no case. Walker notes that the plaintiffs presented eight lay witnesses and nine expert witnesses, including historians, economists, psychologists, and a political scientist. Walker lays out their testimony in detail. Then he turns to the proponents' tactical decision to withdraw several of their witnesses, claiming "extreme concern about their personal safety" and unwillingness to testify if there were to be "recording of any sort." Even when it was determined that there would be no recording, counsel declined to call them. They were left with two trial witnesses, one of whom, David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values, the judge found "lacks the qualifications to offer opinion testimony and, in any event, failed to provide cogent testimony in support of proponent's factual assertions." Blankenhorn's credentials, methodology, lack of peer-reviewed studies, and general shiftiness on cross examination didn't impress Walker. And once he was done with Blankenhorn, he turned to the only other witness—Kenneth P. Miller—who testified only to the limited question of the plaintiffs' political power. Walker wasn't much more impressed by Miller, giving his opinions "little weight." Then come the elaborate "findings of fact"—and recall that appellate courts must defer far more to a judge's findings of fact than conclusions of law. Here is where Judge Walker knits together the trial evidence, to the data, to the nerves at the very base of Justice Kennedy's brain. Among his most notable determinations of fact, Walker finds: states have long discriminated in matters of who can marry; marital status affects immigration, citizenship, tax policy, property and inheritance rules, and benefits programs; that individuals do not choose their own sexual orientation; California law encourages gay couples to become parents; domestic partnership is a second-class legal status; permitting same-sex couples to marry does not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, or otherwise screw around. He found that it benefits the children of gay parents to have them be married and that the gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment. He found that Prop 8 puts the force of law behind a social stigma and that the entirety of the Prop 8 campaign relied on instilling fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay. (Brand-new data show that the needle only really moved in favor of the Prop 8 camp when parents of young children came out in force against gay marriage in the 11th hour of the campaign.) He found that stereotypes targeting gays and lesbians have resulted in terrible disadvantages for them and that the Prop 8 campaign traded on those stereotypes. And then Walker turned to his conclusions of law, finding that under both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses: Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. Is that the end of it? Oh, no. Judge Walker is already being flayed alive for the breadth and boldness of his decision. The appeals road will be long and nasty. Walker has temporarily stayed the ruling pending argument on a stay. (Rick Hasen argues it may be wise for him to stay the order pending appeal for tactical reasons.) Any way you look at it, today's decision was written for a court of one—Kennedy—the man who has written most eloquently about dignity and freedom and the right to determine one's own humanity. The real triumph of Perry v. Schwarzenegger may be that it talks in the very loftiest terms about matters rooted in logic, science, money, social psychology, and fact. http://www.slate.com/id/2262766/ |
Quote:
Thanks At Last! |
Kagan confirmed as Supreme Court Justice 63-37.
|
Two consecutive days of good news. I am going to be sure and write down my thoughts and feelings of the past two very historic days.
|
Given that its rare to hear me praise the Mayor of New York, I have to give him props.. For his defense of the Mosque at Ground Zero mess.. In fact, he really delivered a ringing endorsement, of separation of Church & State, etc.. noting many of the same things I lost my temper about, a week or so ago.. He delighted me for a change... :)
report of speech click here Full Speech click here |
Age Bias, Discrimination
Age-bias case vs. Google can move forward, state Supreme Court rules
By Mike Swift mswift@mercurynews.com Posted: 08/05/2010 11:05:19 PM PDT In a ruling that could have broad ramifications for workers who sue employers for age bias, the California Supreme Court has cleared the way for a former Google executive who was fired to move forward with a lawsuit accusing the company of age discrimination. The justices on Thursday unanimously upheld a San Jose appeals court's earlier conclusion that Brian Reid, who was fired from his job as Google's engineering director in 2004, could take his case to trial because he'd presented enough evidence, including "stray comments" from co-workers and a supervisor mocking him for his age, to make a discrimination claim. "It's a significant victory for employees, and I'm on the management side, so it's a significant defeat for companies," said Dan Westman, co-chairman of the employment and labor group and a partner at San Francisco-based Morrison & Foerster LLP. A Google spokesman said Reid's termination was not discriminatory and that Google will defend its actions -- and its culture -- in court. "Brian Reid was not laid off based on his age," said the spokesman, Andrew Pederson. "We look forward to demonstrating in court the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons why Mr. Reid was let go." Stock options lost Google recruited Reid, who had managed the team that built one of the first Internet search engines at AltaVista and who has a doctorate in computer science, in the summer of 2002. But the company fired Reid, then 54, within two years, allegedly saying he was not a "cultural fit," after co-workers and a supervisor had described him as "an old man," "slow," "sluggish" and "an old fuddy-duddy," and made remarks such as that Reid's compact disc cases should be relabeled LPs, according to court documents. Reid's supervisor, Urs Hölzle, then 38, and currently a senior vice president and Google Fellow, regularly told Reid that his opinions and ideas were "too old to matter," according to the documents. Reid, now 60, lost 131,917 stock options he could have exercised for tens of millions of dollars in the years after Google went public in 2005. Reid's lawyer said the computer scientist plans to take his claims to a trial in which he would air "significant statistical evidence" of age bias in pay and performance reviews by Google management, including internal documents that have remained sealed. "It was a complete vindication of Dr. Reid," the attorney, Lori Ocheltree, said of the Supreme Court decision. "It says a great deal about Google and what is going on in that company, and specifically what is going on at the head of that company and in the inner circle of that company -- that young 20-year-olds don't necessarily see a place for tremendously talented, experienced 50- and 60-year-olds." Google does not share statistical data on the age of its work force, but Pederson said the company has many older workers, whose contributions are valued equally. "Age is not a factor for us. If you can do the work, that's all we care about." Google asserted in court documents that Reid was fired because the program he headed was being eliminated and because of poor performance. Stray comments doctrine The case was closely watched by employment lawyers, with a host of organizations lining up on both sides of the case, including the AARP on Reid's behalf and the California Employment Law Council for Google. Lawyers who specialize in representing companies accused of discrimination said the ruling will make it easier for workers in California to get their age discrimination suits before a jury, because it allowed the use of stray comments. Companies had relied on a legal doctrine arising from a U.S. Supreme Court case that an age discrimination case cannot be founded on a collection of remarks in the workplace, such as the "old fuddy-duddy" comments cited by Reid. The ruling means that in California, "it will be easier for plaintiffs to get to a jury," said Eric Steinert of the law firm Seyfarth Shaw in San Francisco, "because in the past employers relied fairly heavily on this stray remarks doctrine." "The consequence of that is going to be more trials, more pressure to settle, and perhaps more evidence coming in at trial regarding these remarks," he said. Westman said another consequence could be that California companies will need to be more vigilant about remarks made in the workplace, given that with an aging population, "it's inevitable that older workers are going to be supervised by younger managers proportionally more in the future." Younger computer workers In recent years, Silicon Valley computer workers have tended to be much younger than the valley's overall work force. Data from the 2000 census, analyzed by the Mercury News, shows that while 21 percent of all workers at Santa Clara County companies were older than 50, 9 percent of computer workers were 50 or older. Data from the 2010 census is not yet available. Reid, who now works at Redwood City-based Internet Systems Consortium, won't be speaking publicly because of pending litigation, Ocheltree said. "He's delighted. It's been six long years so far," she said. "He's eager to have his day in court." The impact Legal experts say the ruling will make it easier for workers in California to get their age discrimination suits before a jury because it allowed the use of stray comments. http://www.siliconvalley.com/news/ci...nclick_check=1 |
Kind of interesting... perhaps, hopeful!! rice had a whole lotta' Christian followers!! She does have a gay son, but says that is not the main reason for her leaving Christianity.
The Anne Rice defection: It's the tip of the religious iceberg American Christianity is not well, and there's evidence to indicate that its condition is more critical than most realize - or at least want to admit. By William Lobdell latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-lobdell-religion-20100808,0,3621871.story August 8, 2010 Novelist Anne Rice's surprise post last week on Facebook - she announced she had quit Christianity "in the name of Christ" because she'd seen too much hypocrisy - brought cheers and smug smiles from critics of institutional faith, and criticism and soul-searching among believers. But there's something more at play here than one of America's most famous Catholics - Rice re-embraced the faith of her youth in 1998 and published a memoir just two years ago, "Called Out of Darkness: A Spiritual Confession" - walking away from the church. Rice is merely one of millions of Americans who have opted out of organized religion in recent years, making the unaffiliated category of faith the fastest-growing "religion" in America, according to a 2008 study by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. The Pew report found that 1 in 6 American adults were not affiliated with any particular faith. That number jumped to 25% for people ages 18 to 29. Moreover, most mainline Protestant denominations have for years experienced a net loss in members, and about 25% of cradle Catholics have left their childhood faith, the study showed. And in a 2008 study by Trinity College researchers, 27% of Americans said they do not expect a religious funeral. American Christianity is not well, and there's evidence to indicate that its condition is more critical than most realize - or at least want to admit. Pollsters - most notably evangelical George Barna - have reported repeatedly that they can find little measurable difference between the moral behavior of churchgoers and the rest of American society. Barna has found that born-again Christians are more likely to divorce (an act strongly condemned by Jesus) than atheists and agnostics, and are more likely to be racist than other Americans. And while evangelical adolescents overwhelmingly say they believe in abstaining from premarital sex, they are more likely to be sexually active - and at an earlier age - than peers who are mainline Protestants, Mormons or Jews, according to University of Texas researcher Mark Regnerus. On the bright side, Barna's surveys show evangelicals (defined by Barna as a subset of born-again Christians, which he sees as a broader group with more flexible beliefs) do pledge far more money to charity, though 76% of them fail to give 10% of their income to the church as prescribed by their faith. Various studies show American Christians as a whole give away a miserly 3% or so of their income to the church or charity. "Every day, the church is becoming more like the world it allegedly seeks to change," Barna has said. Barna isn't the only worried evangelical. Christian activist Ronald J. Sider writes in his book, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience": "By their daily activity, most 'Christians' regularly commit treason. With their mouths they claim that Jesus is their Lord, but with their actions they demonstrate their allegiance to money, sex, and personal self-fulfillment." How to explain the Grand Canyon-sized gap between principles outlined in the Gospels and the behavior of believers? Christians typically, and rather lamely, respond that shortcomings of the followers of Jesus are simply evidence of man's inherent sinfulness. But if one adheres to the principle of Occam's razor - that the simplest explanation is the most likely - there is another, more unsettling conclusion: that many people who call themselves Christian don't really believe, deep down, in the tenets of their faith. In other words, their actions reveal their true beliefs. That might explain why Roman Catholic bishops leave predator priests in ministry to prey on more unsuspecting children. Or why churches on Sunday mornings are said to be the most segregated places in America. It also would explain why most Catholic women use birth control even though the practice is considered a mortal sin. Culturally, America is still a Christian nation. The majority of us still attend church at least occasionally, celebrate Christmas and Easter, and pepper our conversations with "God bless you" and "I'll be praying for you." But judging by the behavior of most Christians, they've become secularists. And the sea of hypocrisy between Christian beliefs and actions is driving Americans away from the institutional church in record numbers. Some, such as Anne Rice, are continuing their spiritual journey on their own, unable to reconcile the Gospel message with religious institutions covered with man's dirty fingerprints. Others have stopped believing in God. Those with awareness who remain Christians are scrambling to find ways, like St. Francis of Assisi, to rebuild God's church. But remember, St. Francis offered a radical example during a time when the institutional church had grown corrupt and flabby. He was a wealthy young man who took a vow of poverty and devoted himself to the poor. His motto: "Preach the Gospel at all times - and when necessary use words." A well-informed hunch says American Christians aren't ready for the kind of reformation that will realign their actions with biblical mandates. And in the meantime, the exodus from the church will continue. William Lobdell, a former Times staff writer, is the author of "Losing My Religion: How I Lost My Faith Reporting on Religion in America - and Found Unexpected Peace."http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/m...?storyid=13069 |
Romania slams France over gypsy expulsion
Print Email Share Romania slams France over gypsy expulsion By Rachael Brown Posted 3 hours 14 minutes ago Romania's foreign minister has accused France of xenophobia as the government in Paris prepares to expel Romanian gypsies. French president Nicolas Sarkozy has promised to crack down on 300 illegal gypsy camps in a bid to restore his credibility on law and order. It follows riots sparked by the deaths of young travellers in confrontations with police. The French government is preparing to send 700 Roma back to Bucharest. Authorities say the gypsies are in France illegally but have accepted payments to return to Romania. But Romania's foreign minister, Teodor Basconschi, says he is concerned about populist provocation and xenophobic reactions at a time of economic crisis. International organisations fear the Roma are being made scapegoats to appease right-wing voters ahead of the country's upcoming presidential campaign. Tags: world-politics, france, romania |
I've spent the evening glued to MSNBC and their amazing coverage of the last convoy of US troops leaving Iraq. Richard Engel traveled with the troops as they left and crossed the border, and Rachel Maddow reported from the Green Zone (ha, she wasn't on vacation this week, she was hanging out in Iraq!). Engel was the only journalist traveling with the convoy - nice score for NBC. If you missed it, check online; I'm guessing that MSNBC will have all of it available for interwebs viewing. Most of the coverage was during Rachel and Keith's shows, so check there first.
|
Barne & Noble
I thought this was interesting. Since I love shopping at Barnes & Noble.
http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work...eer-leadership. |
Quote:
For me, this was very important coverage as some good questions were posed about what was really accomplished and how the people of Iraq feel right now. My stomach churned a lot in thinking about all of our trrops that died and were hurt there along with the people of Iraq. And yes, the money spent for this war that was based upon fabrications of lunatics. Also wondering how long of a break do the combat troops that just left will have off before being sent to Afghanistan? Kind of a bitter-sweet feeling throughout my watching this. |
I was at the gym just now and I saw on the news a blurb that 1 in 5 americans think Obama is a Muslim. WTF.
|
Quote:
|
Really? Guess the proverbial "they" who took this poll do not consider me to be an American, no one ask me. lol Where do they get these nonsense poll results from anyway?
Jesse Quote:
|
Quote:
I guess it's what warranted this: Pastors who pray with Obama say he's a devout Christian |
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
Quote:
|
So, if we started a rumor that "in secret he's a Republican", do you think they would lay off?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Might just work!! |
|
Quote:
The first and most salient is that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are not elected, never have to worry about winning an election and only have to make sure that the ad revenues stay up. This they do and do well. The second is that Republicans with an eye to re-election are *terrified* of their base. Absolutely live in utter fear of them and, I have to say, I don't blame them. If I were a Republican strategist I would see the problem that the GOP has which is, more or less, this--outside of elderly whites in the Deep South, they don't have much of a bloc. 1) Blacks--we're gone, we're not going back to the GOP in any significant numbers anytime soon and everything they have done in the last 18 months makes it less likely that will change. The GOP can clone Michael Steele all they want, nothing he says or does will change the fact that the GOP has lost the black vote for any foreseeable future. 2) Hispanics--while not as solidly gone as blacks, they are headed for the door. The GOP has pretty much bought and paid for the loss of the Hispanic vote. 3) Muslims--while a relatively small minority within the USA every vote counts in building a coalition and while Muslims (along with the other two groups) may not be thrilled with the Democratic party at least there's no reason to believe that the Dems are out to get them. 4) People with higher education degrees. Yes, it does actually track and does so in two dimensions. If you are a white Protestant evangelical then it is very likely that you vote Republican. If you are a white Protestant evangelical it is also unlikely that you have an advanced (post bachelors) degree. (Pew study on America and religion from 2006) 5) The large coastal cities. Now, you would *NEVER* know this if you aren't seriously wonky but the overwhelming majority of Americans live in cities. In fact, the overwhelming majority of Americans live in cities in a coastal state! Now, I want you to think about this--particularly if your zip code is in or around NYC, LA, SF Bay Area, Portland Metro, Seattle Metro, Sacramento Metro, DC Metro, Boston, Philly Atlanta--think about the people you know, the people with whom you interact with on a daily basis. I'm willing to bet that a non-trivial number of them are what we would call liberal. 81% of all Americans live in cities and most large cities are in the coastal states. Now, here's where things get interesting--the *majority* of Americans are being dictated to by the minority. What the GOP and conservatives generally claim to be doing is preserving the 'small-town' values of America. What they mean by this, of course, is an America that is blatantly Christian and while not *hostile* to non-Christians certainly willing to let them know that they are not 'real' Americans, they mean queers living in fear of our livelihoods or our lives, and non-whites adding a little ethnic flavor and color but not actually having power. So 19% of the country is trying to drag the better part of 80% of the country backward. So, here's what the GOP has going forward. Older whites who live in the Deep South White Southerners Older whites who live in the Midwest and Mountain states Corporations and the very wealthy That's it. That's their constituency and of those while the last group is their *true* base, they are not their *electoral* base. Their electoral base are the first three groups. In the short term, the current GOP strategy might work. In the long-term, as long as we continue to have elections, their strategy is doomed and when it occurs to the GOP leadership what they've done to themselves, I will laugh because they will only have themselves to blame. It didn't *have* to be this way but they chose this path back in '68 and now they have to ride it all the way down. That would be okay, if they weren't so damned determined to bring the house down in flames around them while doing so. Cheers Aj |
Quote:
One area that I believe to be significant is the growing Hispanic populations reaching voting age. With the current GOP/Tea Party sentiments, I cannot see this group embracing either. Oh, but there is that Mario Rubio... Will be interesting to see what really happens with that conservative rising-star. Speaking of breaking news of the past couple of weeks... Isn't it interesting that the Mosque and Obama's citizenship status has continued as the big items while Petraeus has been making quite a few appearances (one on charlie Rose I found quite interesting) and talking about his new tenure over Afghanistan? No one seems to be paying much attention and he has made it rather clear that the July '11 withdrawal date is not all that solid. Combat troops just leaving Iraq will be in Afghanistan in about 6 months. The very same troops that have been deployed over and over again..... And news about our jobs crisis and the recently announced decline in the housing industry (dipping big time this summer) that is a major variable with economic recovery is hardly being discussed???? |
Why do I have such a filthy mind?
hmpf... I hear "teabagger" and I instantly think of the scene on "Soul Plane"{with d.l. hughley, snoop dogg, tom arnold}.. "A man that squats on top of a womans face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" On a seperate note, w/o derailing... Martin Short's wife of 30 years passed away after a 3 year battle with Cancer.... And of course, amongst other post-contest shit stirring news, Miss Philippines could've had a chance if she didn't flub her question{same for Miss Puerto Rico had she worn the gown her organizers picked out for her...right} :glasses: |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:34 PM. |
ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018