The decision was released a short time ago. No marriages in California, for now, anyway. The Ninth Circuit will hear the case in early December.
More at AMERICAblog Gay.
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!
(Hat tip to my friend Chris S. for the story and post title)
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!Gay porn stars occupy an ambiguous and delicious role in modern gay culture: they are the gods and monsters of our sexual universe, really. The three most enticing words to hear about that man you?re ogling across the bar? ?He does porn.? The most[...]
Read The Full Article:
http://firedoglake.com/2010/08/16/fdl-movie-night-everything-you-always-wanted-to
-know-about-gay-porn-stars%e2%80%a6-but-were-afraid-to-ask/
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that a West Virginia State Supreme Court judge should have recused himself from a case involving Massey Energy because of an “extreme” conflict of interest. Massey CEO Don Blankenship had spent $3 million to get the judge elected, even running ads accusing the lawyer?s opponent of voting to free an incarcerated child rapist and of allowing that rapist to work in a public school.
An exhaustive study released today, however, shows that big-money influence in judicial elections is hardly limited to that case. A trio of nonpartisan policy groups — the Justice at Stake Campaign, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and the National Institute of Money in State Politics — found that spending on state Supreme Court races has more than doubled in the past 10 years. From 2000 through 2009, $207 million dollars were spent on judicial races, with much of the money coming from partisan special interest groups. Among the study’s findings:
–Special interest groups and party organizations accounted for 52 percent of all national TV spending in 2009 — “the first time that noncandidate groups outspent the candidates on the ballot.”
– The top five spenders in the top 10 costliest states invested an average of $473,000 in judicial elections, while the remaining 116,000 contributors averaged $850 each. According to the authors, the disparity suggests that “a small number of special interests dominated judicial election spending even before the Citizens United case ended bans on election spending by corporations and unions.”
– In 11 of 17 races in 2007-08, the candidate that raised the most money won his or her contest.

In the forward to the report, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote: “This crisis of confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is real and growing. Left unaddressed, the perception that justice is for sale will undermine the rule of law that the courts are supposed to uphold.” But not all of the current Supreme Court justices agree: Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia dissented from the Massey decision, saying that if judges recuse themselves because of the money spent to elect them, it would encourage ?groundless? charges that other ?judges are biased.?
The report does highlight some seeds of change, however: Wisconsin, North Carolina, New Mexico, and West Virginia have already enacted public financing for judicial elections, and polls show continued strong public support for reform measures like public financing, election voter guides, recusal reform and full financial disclosure for election ads.
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or[...]
Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/OpenLeft-FrontPage/~3/_uoz1RVhwmQ/talk-about-dumb-
wars
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!.
= Cross-posted at Docudharma.com =
Well. I was planning to do a pretty cool essay about the Big World Economic News today, to wit: that China's now passed Japan as the world's second largest economy. That'll have to wait a day or three. I don't think that either China or Japan are going anywhere. If you're dying for a taste of that, though, earlier this afternoon I did work-up a Front Page post over at my blog, LetsJapan.Wordpress.Com on this: China's Econ Passes Japan's. Let's All Take a Deep Breath, Shall We?'
. . .
.
What pushed that aside was this headline:
"Reid Against Plan to Build Mosque at Ground Zero."
Here's the lede:
"WASHINGTON - The Senate's top Democrat on Monday came out against plans to build a mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, moving away from President Barack Obama on the controversial election-year issue."Locked in a tight race, Nevada Sen. Harry Reid became the highest profile Democrat to respond to Obama, who last week backed the right for the developers to build a mosque near ground zero. . . .
"'The First Amendment protects freedom of religion,' said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman. 'Senator Reid respects that, but thinks that the mosque should be built some place else.'"
Let's stroll right on past the part where Milquetoast Harry didn't have the manhood to say this himself, but rather had a stooge named "Manley" do it for him, and let's sidle-up right next to where he tries to have it both ways: (1) I'm for 'freedom of religion,' (2) except when the practice thereof (in accordance to local zoning laws for structures and such) makes the bigots and racists and xenophobes angry.
Yeh, that's a Profile in Courage, indeed.
I'm done with it. First Obama's capitulation on Health Care Reform. Then on offshore drilling (how'd that work out, Mr. President?). Then on a comprehensive and meaningful energy bill. Then Gibbs. And now, after Obama, this is "the most powerful Democrat" in the United States. I simply don't have words.
I'm done with 'em. I'll still follow politics, but that's it. To close I'll again quote author & historian William Dalrymple in his tour de force The Last Mughal*:
"In a curious but very concrete way, the fundamentalism of both [Christian and Muslim] faiths have needed each other to reinforce each other's prejudices and hatreds. The venom of one provides the lifeblood of the other."
Thanks, Harry.
Get bent.
BenGoshi
Note: I used to post at Orange. For over 6 years, in fact. Done with that. I post as "Mu" over at Docudharma.
______________________________________
*On the run-up to and events surrounding the Sepoy Uprising (against the British) in Delhi and across northern India in 1857, leading ultimately to the downfall of the ~350 year Mughal Dynasty.
Read The Full Article:
http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=26702
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!What you missed on Sunday Kos ….
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!Sigh. Looks like this is going for the long haul.
The Courage Campaign has a good analysis and commentary about why this is really good news in many ways.
In a brief order, a three-judge panel agreed to an expedited review of U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's Aug. 4 ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as a violation of the federal Constitution.
The panel agreed to hold a hearing on the case during the week of Dec. 6 and ordered both sides to present arguments on whether the campaign for Proposition 8 has legal authority to appeal Walker's order.
Update: California Attorney General (and candidate for Governor) Jerry Brown won't appeal court's ruling.
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!Sigh. Looks like this is going for the long haul.
The Courage Campaign has a good analysis and commentary about why this is really good news in many ways.
In a brief order, a three-judge panel agreed to an expedited review of U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's Aug. 4 ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as a violation of the federal Constitution.
The panel agreed to hold a hearing on the case during the week of Dec. 6 and ordered both sides to present arguments on whether the campaign for Proposition 8 has legal authority to appeal Walker's order.
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday agreed to keep same-sex marriages on hold until at least December.
In a brief order, a three-judge panel agreed to an expedited review of U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's Aug. 4 ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as a violation of the federal Constitution.
The panel agreed to hold a hearing on the case during the week of Dec. 6 and ordered both sides to present arguments on whether the campaign for Proposition 8 has legal authority to appeal Walker's order. -LA Times
Add to del.icio.us
Digg this
Post to Furl
Add to reddit
Add to myYahoo!
Powered by blogdig.net