Letters to the Editor
-
Jebbie.
Thanks. Maybe I'll read Cabin Fever.
Poets at 'Joaquin Miller's Cabin' by,
-The Word Works, Washington D.C. Publishers.
The communal voice is heard is solace, and heartbreak of being simply and profoundly human. Here is what, Salon, a rich cornucopia, and I know of no Place to be informed that's better.
I'll not diminish the importance of other blogs.
This one is a Bow-Wow good one.
Miller Cabin (Jacklyn Potter's home) is outside of D.C...
There is sometimes a cabin fever we get where it's best to
hush and stay home.
O, visit the river?
Go to the Rock Creek?
Find a quiet Place and continue later, maybe, to flow strong and clear...but continue this wonderful national discussion here.
I'm in a hush and listen mod.
To quote Joaquin Miller, yes.
"...one wild cry of devotion."
-
GG
I think the language I was referring to was in the original decision, not the appeal.
I agree that the language you quote implies that equal marriage might be a constitutional requirement whether or not the legislature had created unequal civil unions.
But we don't really know what would have happened if the NJ state legislature had never enacted unequal civil unions. They did so, and that was an important but neglected element of the case.
The conservative commentators never mention what the legislature had already done, because that would weaken their argument about "judicial activism".
-
Glenn....
That. Was. Awesome.
-
FilthyHairy~
Get into a birthday suit and take a bath?~
-
As practiced by the right...
attacks of "judicial activism" is another tool in their battle against professionalism and intellectualism.
If one theorizes that the Right is attempting to create an aristocracy based on heredity (see the nepotism all over in Right-wing circles) and wealth, intellectuals and professionals must be degraded as contributors to make way for aristocrats and ideological policy in support of aristocracy.
Let's say you need to prevent regulation against green house gases to maximize the profits for one of your contributors (or V.P.), but the science is clearly showing the need for such regulation. Simply destroy the reputation of scientists while putting ideologues in charge of science based policy.
Need a war to capture Middle Eastern oil reserves, but the professionals at the intelligence services don't find the evidence you need for a preemptive attack? No problem, stove-pipe raw intelligence to your ideologues and spin the story as you wish.
Want to attack Iran but the intelligence services learned from the last preemptive war to publish their professional report directly rather than let the ideologues spin it? Privately tell other leaders that you don't believe the professional report so as to give a green-light to provocations or even direct attack.
Want to install a member of the aristocracy as President, but don't have the votes? Get ideologues on the court to issue a one-time opinion in spite of the law.
You need to install another aristocratic ideologue in a position of influence at a leading newspaper, but he has no writing talent at all? Just pull some strings and get some rules broken. You get your apparatchik installed and at the same time degrade the field of professional journalism to pave the way for the next talentless ideologue to get a position (Michelle Malkin maybe?)
One could cover professional diplomats, biology/evolution, and many more professions (Glenn covered law, which the right wing has subverted mightily under Bush) and come to the same conclusion WRT right wing policy.
Meritocracy and professionalism is incompatible with aristocracy. Pol Pot had one solution to the problem, the American right-wing is taking a softer approach by simply degrading professionalism and reason. Long-term this is horrible policy in the 21st century (always was actually), but it sure will make the aristocrats very wealthy as the country heads down the tubes. -
Baldie McEagle/sysprog
The point being the same: that the court was far from intruding itself on a situation and creating "new rights" for gay people because it wanted rainbow colors and gay parades everywhere. No, sorry: they were just adjudicating a case that required interpretation of NJ legislation. They would have gone the other way if the law had been different.
Again, I believe (more so now that I've just read some analysis of the decision), that the New Jersey Court's ruling was constitutional, not statutory. But that doesn't change the point at all.
A state's constitution is a different document than the U.S. Constitution. It is common that a state's constitution provides greater rights to the state's citizens than the U.S. Constitution does. One can't condemn the New Jersey State ruling -- even if it was based exclusively on its Constitution -- without knowing what the state constitution (as interpreted by the courts) guarantees.
Virtually none of the commentary condemning that decision was based in any way on the State Constitution, and it was therefore pure ignorance -- motivated solely by a distaste for the result.
-
and a shave & a haircut?
FilthyHairy~
Get into a birthday suit and take a bath?~
-- bebop-o
-
A bit about federal courts and removal
Just one point I find amusing, and I am a lawyer for what that's worth (not a great deal, I often find): Morrissey complains about this being in the "wrong court" -- i.e., state court. GG effectively and correctly explains how, except for a few areas where federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction, the state courts are perfectly competent to adjudicate federal issues. Additionally, however, it's worth noting that when a plaintiff files a complaint in state court that raises a claim that could be adjudicated in federal court (as Kucinich clearly did), the defendant has the right to transfer the case to federal court, a process termed "removal." It is extremely simple: the defendant files a notice of removal in federal court and notification in state court, and it's done -- no court action is required, and until and unless the federal court sends it back, the state court is divested of all jurisdiction. If MSNBC wanted this in federal court, they could have put it there with about an hour's work.
By the way, I have no idea the merits of the Section 315 claim. The contract claim looks a little shaky to me, frankly...it's unclear what reciprocal obligation (i.e., "consideration") Kucinich undertook in exchange for MSNBC's invitation. Be that as it may, on a preliminary injunction the question never is who's ultimately right, because there isn't time here to hash all that out before the debate. The question is, does he have a reasonable likelihood of being right and who would be harmed more, MSNBC if he's forced in, or Kucinich if he's kept out? Clearly on the harm, the balance tips in favor of Kucinich (especially when you add the arguable public interest in having more, rather than fewer, voices in the debate).