Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (80802)	8/14/2010 2:54:19 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 149317

Same old red states. Dragged kicking and screaming into whatever century it is.

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (80802)	8/14/2010 11:37:41 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 149317

My Favorite August By GAIL COLLINS The story in American history I most like to tell is the one about how women got the right to vote 90 years ago this month. It has everything. Adventure! Suspense! Treachery! Drunken legislators! But, first, there was a 70-year slog. Which is really the important part. We always need to remember that behind almost every great moment in history, there are heroic people doing really boring and frustrating things for a prolonged period of time. That great suffragist and excellent counter, Carrie Chapman Catt, estimated that the struggle had involved 56 referendum campaigns directed at male voters, plus “480 campaigns to get Legislatures to submit suffrage amendments to voters, 47 campaigns to get constitutional conventions to write woman suffrage into state constitutions; 277 campaigns to get State party conventions to include woman suffrage planks, 30 campaigns to get presidential party campaigns to include woman suffrage planks in party platforms and 19 campaigns with 19 successive Congresses.” And you thought health care reform was a drawn-out battle. The great, thundering roadblock to progress was — wait for the surprise — the U.S. Senate. All through the last part of the 19th century and into the 20th, attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution ran up against a wall of conservative Southern senators. So the women decided to win the vote by amending every single state constitution, one by one. There were five referenda in South Dakota alone. Susan B. Anthony spent more time there than a wheat farmer. But she never lost hope. The great day was coming, she promised: “It’s coming sooner than most people think.” I love this remark even more because she made it in 1895. Sometimes I fantasize about traveling back through time and telling my historical heroes and heroines how well things worked out in the end. I particularly enjoy the part where I find Vincent van Gogh and inform him that one of the unsold paintings piled up over in the corner will eventually go for $80 million. But I never imagine telling Susan B. Anthony how well American women are doing in the 21st century because her faith in her country and her cause was so strong that she wouldn’t be surprised. The constitutional amendment that finally did pass Congress bore Anthony’s name. It came up before the House of Representatives in 1918 with the two-thirds votes needed for passage barely within reach. One congressman who had been in the hospital for six months had himself carted to the floor so he could support suffrage. Another, who had just broken his shoulder, refused to have it set for fear he’d be too late to be counted. Representative Frederick Hicks of New York had been at the bedside of his dying wife but left at her urging to support the cause. He provided the final, crucial vote, and then returned home for her funeral. The Senate failed to follow suit. But Woodrow Wilson, a president who had the winning quality of being very vulnerable to nagging by women, pushed the amendment through the next year. The states started ratifying. Then things stalled just one state short of success. Ninety years ago this month, all eyes turned to Tennessee, the only state yet to ratify with its Legislature still in session. The resolution sailed through the Tennessee Senate. As it moved on to the House, the most vigorous opposition came from the liquor industry, which was pretty sure that if women got the vote, they’d use it to pass Prohibition. Distillery lobbyists came to fight, bearing samples. “Both suffrage and anti-suffrage men were reeling through the hall in an advanced state of intoxication,” Carrie Catt reported. The women and their allies knew they had a one-vote margin of support in the House. Then the speaker, whom they had counted on as a “yes,” changed his mind. (I love this moment. Women’s suffrage is tied to the railroad track and the train is bearing down fast when suddenly. ...) Suddenly, Harry Burn, the youngest member of the House, a 24-year-old “no” vote from East Tennessee, got up and announced that he had received a letter from his mother telling him to “be a good boy and help Mrs. Catt.” “I know that a mother’s advice is always the safest for a boy to follow,” Burn said, switching sides. We celebrate Women’s Suffrage Day on Aug. 26, which is when the amendment officially became part of the Constitution. But I like Aug. 18, which is the day that Harry Burn jumped up in the Tennessee Legislature, waving his mom’s note from home. I told the story once in Atlanta, and a woman in the audience said that when she was visiting her relatives in East Tennessee, she had gone to put a yellow rose on Harry Burn’s grave. I got a little teary. “Well, actually,” she added, “it was because I couldn’t find his mother.”

To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (80802)	8/14/2010 9:52:13 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Smoke 'em if y got 'em, just for practice. What if Prop 8 never gets to the Court of Appeals? The fat lady may have already left the building ( holding hands with the transvestite Elvis impersonator she just married, if you need all the details). Will the Prop 8 Case End on a Technicality? August 14, 2010 - 12:20 PM \| by: Lee Ross The flurry of filings from California in the past couple of days suggests the issue that may determine the immediate and perhaps ultimate fate of that state's invalidated law banning gay marriage will have nothing to do with who can stand at the altar but rather who can stand in a courtroom and defend the measure. Next week, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is expected to rule on whether a temporary stay of Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling overturning California's ban on gay marriage should be extended. The court's decision will either temporarily re-open the marriage process for California's gays or leave the prohibition in place until the Ninth Circuit can more fully hear arguments on the merits of the case, which would not take place until next year. A major factor that could ultimately upend the litigation is whether the supporters of the law, known as Prop 8, have the legal right or standing to appeal Judge Walker's decision. In short, it's possible the judges of the Ninth Circuit may affirm Walker's ruling without ever reviewing the trial court record. Standing is a legal doctrine with roots in the Constitution's Article III that requires a plaintiff to show harm or injury. "Essence of standing is that no person is entitled to assail the constitutionality of an ordinance or statute except as he himself is adversely affected by it," explains Black's Law Dictionary, an authoritative legal guide. In making its determination to extend the stay, the judges of the Ninth Circuit must first determine if the Prop 8 supporters can show they will be harmed if Walker's ruling takes full effect. In other words, will they be injured if gays are allowed to marry? The measure's supporters argue that state law precedents give them the standing right to challenge Walker's decision. "California courts have repeatedly allowed proponents to intervene to defend initiatives they have sponsored," lawyers for the Prop 8 defenders argued in their brief to the Ninth Circuit. But not everyone shares that view. Lawyers for the gay couples who are defending Walker's ruling point to a 1997 Supreme Court decision which cast "grave doubts" on the courtroom rights of ballot initiative supporters. They argue that Prop 8 backers lack standing to file an appeal and note that none of the state's key lawmakers (i.e. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger or Attorney General Jerry Brown) who normally have standing to file suit have done so. "Proponents cannot prosecute this appeal on their own because, as the district court found, 'nothing in the record shows proponents face the kind of injury required for Article III standing," lawyer Ted Olson wrote in his brief submitted to the court Friday. Olson even took a shot at the opposing lawyers saying the five pages they dedicated to addressing the standing issue is "an unmistakable sign that Proponents themselves recognize the jurisdictional flaws in their appeal and powerful proof that they do not have a 'strong' chance of winning on appeal." Prop 8 supporters argue there is no obstacle to the standing issue and explain the Supreme Court's 1997 ruling was based on an interpretation of Arizona law that didn't allow for the type of legal challenge available to them under California law. They defend the California protection as fundamental to the ballot initiative process giving proponents a special interest to litigate disputes above and beyond that of an ordinary person. Officials from San Francisco submitted their own brief to focus on the standing question and say the Prop 8 backers have misinterpreted California law. "[T]here is nothing in state law or in the cases cited by [Prop 8 supporters] to suggest that California permits initiative sponsors to step into the shoes of the Attorney General to represent the interests of the State of California," wrote Therese Stewart, a lawyer for the city of San Francisco. The city contends allowing people to file lawsuits in place of high-ranking state officials is opening the door to legal chaos. If the Ninth Circuit rules against the Prop 8 backers on the standing issue it's possible that officials in Imperial County could lead the challenge in defending the law. One of those officials is Deputy County Clerk Isabel Vargas who is responsible for issuing marriage licenses. Prop 8 supporters say Vargas "plainly has standing to appeal that order." The law's defenders have until Monday morning to file their final response on the stay request according to an order from the Ninth Circuit. The three judges handling the case have each worked on the court for more than a decade. Edward Leavy was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987. Michael Hawkins and Sidney Thomas were both appointed by President Bill Clinton. Earlier this year, Thomas was interviewed by President Barack Obama for the Supreme Court opening that eventually went to Elena Kagan. A decision from the Ninth Circuit is expected before the temporary stay expires Wednesday night. liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com