A House Still Divided

Truly those men were brave and noble exemplars of humanity’s age-long struggle for liberty! After all, what sort of “hollow” freedom can possibly be enjoyed by the citizens of a despotic regime, so repressive, that it denies them their God given right to own a half dozen nigras to till their fields.

Say, didn’t they fight for
a) the losing side
b) the morally WRONG side
c) the side that decided Fuck you US America, I’m taking my SLAVES and leaving? You know, traitors? Sort of the whole contentious point of the war for a lot of folks.

I’m usually not the type to shit on any side’s service, but the using the word “Freedom” and “Democracy” as justification for slavery is really too much. Seems ironic…

And let us reflect on one truth that will not be mentioned on CNN, MSNBC, or Faux News:

The Iraq War dead would not be dead but for Bush, Cheney, and those other “patriots” lying us into a war of choice.

The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28559

@JNOV:
that is horrifyingly hilarious.
it’s staggering how many people are batshit.

@blogenfreude:
i won’t die happy til they’re tried and convicted.
hey,OJ’s in jail.

who’s in georgia? cubbie? FLEE! FLEE!

@ManchuCandidate: Apparently the SCV used to be a sleepy grave-tidying organization until some hotheads decided to focus on the Stars & Bars in the 1990s.

And, by historical coincidence, 2011 is the 150th anniversary of the start of the Civil War War Between the States War of Northern Aggression Second American Revolution. Could be interesting, if teabagging’s still around — interesting because 2012 is the next presidential election, and the non-yahoo electorate might enjoy the reminder of what secession is really about.

@blogenfreude: They send kids to an illegal, unnecessary war, then they have the gall to accuse critics of not supporting the troops.

I think we should have a special memorial when they pass, so Americans can piss on their graves.

Greetings, Stinquers, from Bradley International Airport in Hartford, Conn, from which, having challenged the airline scales with the mountain of crap that my daughter is bringing home after 4 years of college, Mrs DB, my daughter and I are flying back to L.A.

I’ve just learned that the Cal Supremes are releasing their opinion on Prop Hate tomorrow at 10 AM, Cal time. Updates to follow.

@Dodgerblue: I’ve set up a post for 9:45 a.m. Tuesday (or 12:45 p.m. Site Time), which includes a link to the Supremes page where the opinion will be released. SFL also plans to be on the scene.

@Dodgerblue: I’m covering it live from the steps of the Supreme Court, along with a few thousand other people. I’ll be sending Nojo text msg updates and take photos to send in. Also, the California Channel will most likely cover the inside of the Court live.

@nojo: @SanFranLefty: Anybody care to predict the outcome?

@blogenfreude: Split baby. They will let Prop. 8 and the 18,000 marriages performed May-Nov 2008 stand.

@SanFranLefty: Nothing like equal rights for all.

@blogenfreude: Even the more conservative justices weren’t moved by Ken Starr’s argument that it was retroactive. That’s a pretty high hurdle, and if I remember Chief Justice George and Justice Kennard were pretty skeptical. Also, I don’t think the Court will buy Starr’s argument that Prop. 8 overturns the In re Marriages decision that sexual orientation should be treated with strict scrutiny under our state Constitution.

From the NCLR liveblogging on retroactivity:

Justice Kennard returns to the point that there is no evidence that voters who voted for Proposition 8 expected that the marriages of same-sex couples would be invalidated. Starr disagrees, saying that the “context” of California history was also in voters’ minds, but Justice Kennard contradicts him, saying that the “context” here is the clear language of Proposition 8.

Chief Justice George asks why, given the fact that couples rely so heavily on their marriage rights, the drafters of Proposition 8 did not make it clear that Prop 8 would also take away the existing marriages of same-sex couples. Was it because that would lessen the chances that Proposition 8 would pass? And if that’s true, shouldn’t “the tie go to the runner,” meaning that Proposition 8 would not apply retroactively?

This is a great question. There is no doubt that the proponents of Proposition 8 did everything they could to ensure that it would pass, including misrepresenting their intentions about whether it would apply retroactively. As Chief Justice George’s question points out, the proponents should not be able to have it both ways.

Starr’s final point on retroactivity: the primary consideration should be the intent behind Proposition 8, and to decide what the intent was, the Court should look at the past 107 years of history in California.

Chief Justice George responds that the Court could just as well decide that fairness means that couples who have relied on the marriage laws deserve to keep their marriages.

@SanFranLefty: Ken Starr has done more damage to this country than GHWB. And almost as much as Cheney. He needs to retire.

@Nojo @SFL: way cool, guys. I’ll be posting also. I agree with SFL (natch) on the probable outcome.

Dodgers scored 16 runs in Colorado tonight. But did they win?

@blogenfreude: I think the expectations are as SFL predicts. And if 18,000 marriages are declared illegal, I think we’re going to have an interesting day.

On the other hand, if the marriages stand, are there grounds for an equal-treatment case? Why were such marriages legal Monday, and not Tuesday?

@SanFranLefty: I’m sure we all mentioned this during orals, but doesn’t resort to “intent” indicate judicial activism?

@Dodgerblue: Lakers lost, that’s all I care about as a bitter Spurs fan.

@nojo: That’s exactly what Shannon Minter pointed out in the closing arguments. NCLR and the other petitioners took a strong gamble – they went balls/ovaries out in arguing how extreme Prop. 8 would be – and made a great logical argument for their position. If they lose whole hog it will be a huge set back. The moderates on the court will split the difference.

And I think it all comes down to Justice Kennard. She was part of the majority last May. And she was the toughest and most skeptical questioner of the gheyz in oral arguments. I’m sure if we looked up the liveblogging you’ll remember that JNOV, Dodger, and I were losing our shit over her. Maybe that was to look tough and suss things out, but I think she is going to channel Sandra Day O’Connor and be the pragmatist that we love to hate/hate to love and split the difference.