Just proves that this one judge is smarter that 7 million Californians. I'm glad that he has the authority to undue what so many ignorant people have done.
actually i wasn't aware of that but why does that matter? also imagine if someone used that name about the current president. That person would be attacked as a racist. See the double standard there?
Totally off topic for the thread, and I don't condone mc mark's use of the name in the first place, but do you not see how the same name could be racist in one instance and not in another? Even if the intent was the same in both instances, the history of the terms and perceived meaning are different. It's an important concept to understand.
SunsRocketsFans made the original comment, so you'd have to ask him. I was assuming he was referring to chimpy.
chimpy is racist? who knew? anyway, back on topic! via TPM -- From former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on the prop 8 ruling Today's notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society. In other words, "cough cough Kagan's totally gay cough."
I agree....but the question the legal eagles will be addressing is whether there is a compelling legal reason to forbid the banning of same sex marriage -- not whether there's a reason to allow it. The dimwits in California already voted to ban it. That's what's being challenged.
I've read that he nominated him but the nomination was not confirmed (Democrats held it up in the Senate). Then George H.W. Bush nominated him and it was held up again. Then GHWB nominated him again and he was confirmed. (This link confirms that last part.) Ironically, wikipedia said Nancy Pelosi, among others, fought against his confirmation because of a perceived insensitivity towards gays.
Greenwald: "In this time of upheaval, a nation turns to Newt Gingrich - standing next to his 3rd wife/ex-mistress - to hear about the sanctity of marriage." Hypocrisy is a pretty hard thing for me to gloss over. It's one of my largest pet-peeves; and it is all over the republican party.
this is not the end of prop 8, just a single judge deeming something unconstitutional, which is exactly the power that the courts have. The US is not a democracy, it's a republic. I do agree that the judge was possibly biased, but at the same time I can't see what there is exactly to be biased about. We are talking about equal rights here, how can a decision granting those equal rights be considered biased? There is no real argument for banning gay marriage other than "preserving the sanctity of it". In my eyes, a straight judge should have come to the same conclusion.
There's been a lot of speculation about the sexuality of the judge that made this decision. I'd like to see the proof from anyone that's making the accusation that he is in fact gay. I've not seen it.
