Spawn of Zombie Reagan XIII: The Horror Never Ends

Shorter Edwin “Durty Pichurs Is Icky” Meese: How dare Judge Walker and his anti-Prop-Hate minions try to get all up & judge-y in other peoples’ personal business!

No, seriously:

“Most troubling, Judge Walker has also ruled that the trial will investigate the Proposition 8 sponsors’ personal beliefs regarding marriage and sexuality. No doubt, the plaintiffs will aggressively exploit this opportunity to assert that the sponsors exhibited bigotry toward homosexuals, or that religious views motivated the adoption of Proposition 8. They’ll argue that prohibiting gay marriage is akin to racial discrimination.

To top it all off, Judge Walker has determined that this case will be the first in the Ninth Circuit to allow cameras in the courtroom, with the proceedings posted on YouTube. This will expose supporters of Proposition 8 who appear in the courtroom to the type of vandalism, harassment and bullying attacks already used by some of those who oppose the proposition.”

As long as The Right People were running the courts, Edwin Meese has always been in favor of judicial overreach.

U.S News & World Report: You criticize the Miranda ruling, which gives suspects the right to have a lawyer present before police questioning. Shouldn’t people, who may be innocent, have such protection?
Meese: Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is, you don’t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That’s contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.

I know, I know, beating a dead Grey Lady horse…

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

152 replies
  1. 1
    Zifnab says:

    “Most troubling, Judge Walker has also ruled that the trial will investigate the Proposition 8 sponsors’ personal beliefs regarding marriage and sexuality. No doubt, the plaintiffs will aggressively exploit this opportunity to assert that the sponsors exhibited bigotry toward homosexuals, or that religious views motivated the adoption of Proposition 8. They’ll argue that prohibiting gay marriage is akin to racial discrimination.

    The plantiffs are going to present a case. And in that case, they’re going to portray the defendants as amoral and criminal. That’s mean! Plantiffs shouldn’t be allowed to attack the character of defendants or to imply that the defendants did anything wrong!

    Also, yes. I would like some more cheese, as I get my whine by the caseload.

  2. 2
    freelancer says:

    See also, Radley’s post that makes me want to tell my relatives to GTFO of Arizona.

    http://www.theagitator.com/201.....ertarians/

  3. 3
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    Meese: Suspects who are innocent of a crime should. But the thing is, you don’t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That’s contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.

    Pure undiluted wingnut logic. Suitable for framing and flaming. Judge Vaugh Walker was nominated by George Bush Sr. for District Court Judge, . How sweet is that? Cameras and roaches, watch them scurry.

    And then there is this.

    Walker’s original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan was delayed because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title “Gay Olympics.”[1]

    Irony abounds

  4. 4
    neill says:

    Bummer of the day…

    finding out that Ed Meese is still breathing…

    …thanks loads…

  5. 5
    Nylund says:

    If only those mean liberals would be as civil as the assault weapon wielding psychopaths that screamed their way through the August town hall meetings on Health Care.

  6. 6
    Citizen Alan says:

    I’m just astonished to learn that Ed Meese is still alive and capable of (semi) coherent speech. I’d assumed that nasty flashback to the 1980’s had either died or gone senile at some point over the last 25 years.

  7. 7
    Molly says:

    But most disquieting for supporters of traditional marriage is a series of pretrial rulings issued by Judge Vaughn R. Walker that have the effect of putting the sponsors of Proposition 8, and the people who voted for it, on trial.

    Lock and load.

  8. 8
    burnspbesq says:

    Anyone have a link to a copy of the order? I am not saying that I think Meese would deliberately misstate what it says, but this seems far-fetched, even coming from NDCal’s number one moonbat judge.

  9. 9
    JGabriel says:

    Meese is still alive?

    I don’t why but, for some reason, I thought that fucker died of tertiary syphillis back in the 90’s.

    .

  10. 10

    Corrupt pigfuckers like Meese never die, they just fade away…

  11. 11
    Mark S. says:

    But the thing is, you don’t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That’s contradictory.

    Actually, it’s not. You just said at least a few suspects are innocent of a crime.

    I was pretty young during the Reagan years, so I’m not always aware how nutty some of these guys were.

  12. 12
    hypusine says:

    1. innocent != suspect
    2. suspect != innocent
    3. Edwin Meese single-handedly relieves us of the need for that pesky expensive court system. Logic is awesome.

  13. 13
    Kobie says:

    Mmmm. Having fun kicking around some wingnuts in the general discussion forum of a gaming website. Life is entertaining today.

  14. 14
    SpotWeld says:

    You mean that using the public courts to decalre a person to be immoral and less deserving of civil rights can make a person open to similar admonisments… that seems so.

    It’s like you were sudden given representation for your taxation or something. Now who would ever want that

  15. 15
    Citizen_X says:

    If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.

    Well, I suspect Edwin Meese of digging up fresh graves and fucking the corpses, so he’s obviously not innocent of that.

  16. 16
    Delia says:

    @C Nelson Reilly:

    Corrupt pigfuckers like Meese never die, they just fade away…

    Or not, apparently.

  17. 17

    you don’t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That’s contradictory.

    WTF? Seriously, that’s totally wacked out.

  18. 18
    Anne Laurie says:

    @Mark S.:

    I was pretty young during the Reagan years, so I’m not always aware how nutty some of these guys were.

    Yeah, I posted this because I was afraid the Not-Olds among us wouldn’t be aware just how malignant this turd floating up from the septic tank of the Rethuglican past really is. And that some of my fellow Olds would have succeeded in blotting out the worst memories.

    As the joke goes among my people, Irish Alzheimer’s is when you forget everything but your grievances.

  19. 19
    celticdragonchick says:

    @Citizen_X:

    Well, I suspect Edwin Meese of digging up fresh graves and fucking the corpses, so he’s obviously not innocent of that.

    According to Dan Riehl, it’s irresponsible not to ask those hard questions ;)

  20. 20
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Kobie: Kicking around wingnuts IS the game.

  21. 21
    KG says:

    I met Meese a couple of years ago, seemed like a decent enough fellow. He’s the typical “law & order” conservative who believes the police can do no wrong… the type that would rather see innocent people convicted than a guilty man go free. Which is trouble on all sorts of level.

    @burnspbesq: Looks like the Court has a link for important rulings: https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/

  22. 22

    @Citizen_X: It would be irresponsible not to speculate.

  23. 23
  24. 24
    wasabi gasp says:

    Really good criminals aren’t suspects, either. Innocent people should try to be better criminals.

  25. 25
    Mike Kay says:

    I wish Meese would turn over the Vicki Morgan sex tapes

    http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id289.htm

  26. 26
    Mike Kay says:

    @KG:

    I met Meese a couple of years ago, seemed like a decent enough fellow.

    Those are the WORST types. After all, Bush got in the White House in no small measure because the press thought he was “a guy you’d like to have a beer with”

  27. 27
    Tom Hilton says:

    @Anne Laurie: Good call. People who aren’t old enough to recognize Animal House references almost certainly need to be educated about the Reagan era.

  28. 28
    LLeo says:

    Why would looking into the motivations of the sponsers of prop 8 be judicially relevant? Shouldn’t the plain text of the proposition and california jurisprudence be all that matter?

    FYI, I vehemently disagree with prop 8.

  29. 29
    Nicole says:

    Oh my God, that op-ed piece made my head hurt. Meese’s main points:

    1: No fair the trial being in San Francisco! People love teh ghey in San Francisco!
    2: No fair bringing religion into it!
    3: Marriage is for raising kids only!
    4: Showing video of the trial will put the defenders of the Prop 8 in danger!

    Yeesh.

  30. 30
    inkadu says:

    @burnspbesq: In an evolution/creationist trial in Dover, PA, the court looked into the background of the people behind introducing “intelligent design” into school. Surprise! All the funding and organization came from churches. The court was trying to determine if “intelligent design” was horrifically stupid science or if it was religious. In this case, I’m not sure what the point of finding out they’re all a bunch of homophobic bigots. First, it wouldn’t be a surprise. Second, I don’t know how it would have bearing.

  31. 31
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @LLeo:

    Probly, yea, the reference to exposing motivations comes from the fetid fears of those like Meese. No one else is planning on doing such a thing. Meese is in pre smear mode, which is what these fuckwits do. And return fire is always appropriate for fighting dems. Unless your the rise above it all crowd.

    edit- as to this trial being the first to video, well, somebody had to go first.

  32. 32
    gwangung says:

    Why would looking into the motivations of the sponsers of prop 8 be judicially relevant?

    Because the plain text is NEVER enough.

    Words are ambiguous, they have connotations as well as denotations, and they always, always, ALWAYS have more meaning than what’s there on the page. It’s inherent in human language. To tease out the intent of the law writers, you need to go to their motivations.

  33. 33
    gwangung says:

    @inkadu: It’s part of the constitutional test to see if there’s a secular purpose to the law, or if it comes entirely from religion.

    And if it comes entirely from religion, it’s simply not a constitutional law.

  34. 34
    Chad N Freude says:

    If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.

    This is bad news for Josef K.

  35. 35
    MikeJ says:

    @LLeo:

    Why would looking into the motivations of the sponsers of prop 8 be judicially relevant? Shouldn’t the plain text of the proposition and california jurisprudence be all that matter?

    The USSC looks at what lawmakers said or wrote about laws during their passage to determine authorial and congressional intent all the time. So if the intent was to establish religious law, it could be relevant.

  36. 36
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @gwangung: I agree with this too. In the arena of civil rights and social justice, motives are part of the milieu of opposition to these things.

  37. 37
    Chad N Freude says:

    @gwangung: The plain text is never plain. See “Constitution, US.”

  38. 38
    inkadu says:

    @gwangung: Really? REALLY? Are you sure? If that’s true, then gay marriage should be legal already. I haven’t heard a single good secular argument against it. In fact, it’s kind of comical to see people try.

    Incidentally, I was listening to my local high frequency fm christian radio station (is broadcasting become cheap, or are christians getting a lot of money?). The topic of today’s broadcasts was reaching out to gay people in their congregations in order to keep them in the evangelical community so they can “get the help they need.” They didn’t actually call them “gay,” of course. Instead, they were “people with same-sex attractions.”It made me angry and sad; it’s bad enough being an evangelical christian, but to be gay on top of it is the emotional equivalent of clinical depression.

  39. 39
    KG says:

    @LLeo: depends on the jurisprudence of the judge. Some would say the four corners of the document should be the extent of the inquiry (this line of thought led Bork to call the Ninth Amendment an “inkblot on the Constitution”). Some would say you have to look at the public understanding of the language at the time of passage (this is, mostly, the Scalia/Thomas mode). Others would say you need to look at the meaning at the time as well as the meaning today (Ginsberg and Stevens are decent examples of this line of thinking).

    So, if as gwangung says, you need to look at the meaning, in this case, it makes sense to look at what those who supported the proposition thought the words meant. It’s not much different than looking at the Legislative history of a bill (reading through committee reports and floor speeches and the like).

  40. 40
    inkadu says:

    And, hey, what if it’s not a religious concern? What if it’s just plain ol’ bigotry? How do these questions survive legal challenge? Do judges really think the straight men are going to leave their marriages to gay marry? Or the American population will go extinct as gay men are not forced into procreating?

  41. 41
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @inkadu:

    The reason Gay Marriage isn’t legal already is because it makes straight people feel icky. The court has yet to rule on this ickyness and it’s constitutional flounderation.

  42. 42
    Mary says:

    @LLeo: City of Cleburne vs. Cleburne Living Center basically held that even if a group isn’t a suspect class, if it can be shown that the state or municipality’s action was based on irrational prejudice then the action violated the Equal Protection clause. So, the motivations of the sponsors are actually totally relevant and in fact are likely to be the biggest deciding factor in the case. Cleburne is one of the few cases where the rational basis review has resulted in the overturning of a government action.

  43. 43
    Joey Maloney says:

    It’s hard to express my satisfaction at having lived long enough to have arrived at a point in history where I don’t have to give a shit what Edwin Meese says.

  44. 44
    inkadu says:

    @General Winfield Stuck: Yeah, I know it makes people feel icky. I feel the same way when people eat with their hands.

    It’s just weird to see a court asking theses questions, because the answers are so obvious, and it must mean that other courts have asked the same questions and come up with wrong or weasely answers.

    The Supreme Court has been very good about avoiding the “under God” part of the pledge of allegiance. The closest it got was throwing it out of court due to standing. I think it’s crappy to dismiss cases like that on technical grounds, but I respect it more than merely pretending to jurisprude.

  45. 45
    scav says:

    for the moral center right majority that surround us, they sure are clinging to that jehovah’s witness protection program with open and gekko-like arms.

  46. 46
    JGabriel says:

    LLeo:

    Why would looking into the motivations of the sponsers of prop 8 be judicially relevant?

    Why would you believe anything from the pen of Ed Meese?

    .

  47. 47
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @inkadu:

    The human capacity for detailed rationalization in service to fear, is a cosmic force like few others.

  48. 48
    Joshua Norton says:

    Hopefully, they have Jon Stewart on speed-dial so they can give him a daily heads-up as to how much time he’ll need on his program to cover all this holier-than-thou silliness.

  49. 49
    Remember November says:

    We hate Meeses to pieces! Seriously, the “If you’re a suspect, you must be guilty of a crime” shtick is so Police State- ironic because most of these clowns want less gov’t interference not more- yet tout Big Brother behind the curtain. THey must have been brainwashed by too many “Duck and Cover” films from the 1950’s. Hypocrites, all.

  50. 50
    Zifnab says:

    I find myself a little amazed. All the work gay marriage opponents do to fling themselves in front of a camera, and they run away top speed the moment you tell them the camera is going to be in the courtroom.

    @LLeo: It’s also worth discussing the intent of the legislation. This is a case that will focus on discrimination after all. Prop 8 could be compared to the Jim Crow laws, like the poll tax or the grandfather clause. If it can be shown that Prop 8 is specifically designed to discriminate against gays, then it’s not a big stretch to claim the legislation is discriminatory against them.

    I’m honestly not clear how anyone sincerely hopes to argue that Prop 8 isn’t discriminatory. But presenting a fig leaf of propriety at least offers conservative justices cover for their decisions.

  51. 51
    Chad N Freude says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    The reason Gay Marriage isn’t legal already is because it makes some straight people feel icky and others feel jealous.

    Fixed

  52. 52
    The Republic of Stupidity says:

    Nicole

    4: Showing video of the trial will put the defenders of the Prop 8 in danger! Yeesh.

    Heh… especially if they happen to be groups that are legally claiming non-profits status on their tax returns and it comes out they’ve been advocating for political positions… like the Mormon Church… or that fruitcake Dobson, from Colorado…

    I’ve been waiting patiently for this.

    Sometimes… the Lord works in mysterious ways.

  53. 53
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Chad N Freude:

    I get the some if it equals enough, don’t get the jealous thing though.

    edit- since i don’t believe in the general marriage thing to begin with/ for anybody. Though for some it works, I guess.

  54. 54

    echoing back to comment # 42, the public policy exception for shitting upon a particular group.

    A governmental entity may somewhat discriminate against one group if there is a valid public policy concern for that discrimination. For instance, a local government is legally able to order individuals who were convicted of certain sex crimes and who had completed their entire sentence (including probation) from living within X feet of ABC type facilities as the government has a public policy interest in protecting children that is facilitated by this reasonable restriction.

    Now if the internal e-mails of the Prop-Hate supporters show that they are backing Prop-Hate because of religious grounds or general stick up their ass in the non-fun manner reasons, that is not a valid public policy exemption.

    And who wants to take odds that the internal e-mails don’t show that Prop-Hate was all about imposing God’s Will on the dirty fucking hippies and faggots?

  55. 55
    Zifnab says:

    @The Republic of Stupidity: It’s not like this shit isn’t going to come out. It just won’t be plastered all over YouTube inside thirty seconds.

  56. 56
    scarshapedstar says:

    No suspects are innocent -> all suspects are guilty -> does Meese even think the judicial system is necessary?

  57. 57
    Chad N Freude says:

    @Nicole:

    4: Showing video of the trial will put the defenders of the Prop 8 in danger!

    Yeesh.

    Unfortunately, there were some threats against Prop 8 supporters before the election.

  58. 58
    Chad N Freude says:

    @General Winfield Stuck: It’s not the marriage thing, it’s the gay thing. Some guys think it’s icky, some guys wish they had the balls (pun intended) to try it but are too afraid of either liking it too much or, even worse, being found out.

  59. 59

    In related legal news, John Yoo is going to be on The Daily Show tonight. I wonder whether Stewart will bring the heat, or toss him some softballs. I’d personally like Stewart to ask whether he’s ready to turn himself in to The Hague for war crimes.

  60. 60
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Chad N Freude: I guess.

  61. 61
    inkadu says:

    @Chad N Freude: Maybe we should allow lesbians to get married, but not men, since the ickiness factors are greatly reduced.

  62. 62
    Chad N Freude says:

    @inkadu: Reduced? I would say inverted.

  63. 63
    gbear says:

    @Chad N Freude:

    Some guys never had a fucking choice. It’s not fashion or a double-dog dare, you know.

  64. 64
    Sly says:

    When I first saw the title, I immediately thought of this. Admittedly, it’s less scary than Edwin Meese.

  65. 65
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @gbear: This is my belief on the matter.

  66. 66
    Chad N Freude says:

    @gbear: I should have said “straight guys” or “guys who consider themselves straight.” No intention to say it’s fashion(?) or choice. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

  67. 67
    Jay in Oregon says:

    @arguingwithsignposts:

    The problem is, Stewart is an entertainer. His job is not to do serious journalism.

    Although he can be a pleasure to watch when he does take people to task — the legendary Crossfire appearance was delicious — he’ll do whatever he thinks will get the most laughs.

  68. 68
    chuck says:

    @Jay in Oregon:

    The problem is, Stewart is an entertainer. His job is not to do serious journalism.

    Yet even so, he still manages to do a better job. That the comparison even gets made at all is a sad statement about journalism. Which was the point he was making on Crossfire: “The show that leads into mind is puppets making crank phone calls!”

    When Stewart wants to be serious, he can make Bill Moyers look like Bill O’ Reilly

  69. 69
    Chad N Freude says:

    @Jay in Oregon: Stewart’s interviews are frequently with authors promoting a new book, and Yoo has a new book to promote.

  70. 70
    gbear says:

    @Chad N Freude:

    The catch being that every gay guy considers himself straight until they figure it out and accept it. It is a horrific initial realization, given how creepy queers are when you’re a pre-teen, and we’re still talking about the ‘icky’ stigma as adults. It gives one a sad on occasion. (end of whaah)

  71. 71
    Chad N Freude says:

    @gbear: I know of a few counter-examples, e.g., “I knew when I was seven.” (Direct quote from an old friend.)

    Edit: And the friend was cool with it from Day 1 (so he tells me).

  72. 72
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    OT

    Erick Erickson is concerned.

    I’m Afraid Sarah Palin Might Be Ruining Herself Unintentionally

    That’s not to say it is in every case. I have much good to say about groups like Tea Party Patriots, but I think this national tea party convention smells scammy.

    Let me be blunt: charging people $500.00 plus the costs of travel and lodging to go to a “National Tea Party Convention” run by a for profit group no one has ever heard of sounds as credible as an email from Nigeria promising me a million bucks if I fork over my bank account number.

    Duh!!

    And begs the question. How can a quitter governor and all around igneramos be hurt by anything?

  73. 73
    Anne Laurie says:

    @Chad N Freude:

    Unfortunately, there were some threats against Prop 8 supporters before the election.

    Meese’s only complaint about the ‘Commission on Pornography’ that he headed was that the final report didn’t go far enough to insist that anyone who made, sold, bought, or looked at nasty filthy writings-by-whores should be exposed and whenever possible locked away, because if “we” didn’t take A Strong Moral Stand then confused teenage boys would sexually molest the family dog. (Not kidding. Not exaggerating.) I deplore violence or threats as a tactic, but whining that some Orange County jagoff might get shunned by a few of his more socially aware neighbors, after spending his entire career insisting nobody deserves privacy when it inconveniences the state, is just pathetic.

  74. 74
    MikeJ says:

    @General Winfield Stuck: Why didn’t I think of staging the Tea Party convention? And why the fuck would you call it a tea party convention and hold it in Nashville instead of Boston? It’s either a sign that teabaggers are idiots or that the scammers running it know their audience.

  75. 75
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @MikeJ:

    My guess is Sarah isn’t going for free, and is in on the scam, at least with a wink & nod. Never a dull moment with wingnuts.

  76. 76
    Chad N Freude says:

    @Anne Laurie: Shunning is one thing (and not likely in Orange County), but the e-mail quoted in the article says

    If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter. . . Anybody who had a yes on Prop 8 sign or banner in front of their house or bumper sticker on the car in Fresno is in danger of being shot or firebombed

    And there were other cases.

    Edit: Good lord (or deity of your choice)! You didn’t think I was defending Meese’s position, did you?

  77. 77
    gbear says:

    @Chad N Freude:

    He knew he was gay at seven in retrospect. Ask him when he came out. I’ll bet that he hid it for many years.

    In retrospect, I realized that I had a gay reaction to some passages in the book Shane when I was in grade school, lol. That kid spent a little too much time describing his dad’s physique. I did not share this revelation with the class. I also didn’t know what the fuck was going on. Too young.

  78. 78
    Chad N Freude says:

    @gbear: He never fought the urge, but he hid it until his senior year of high school when a guy in his class panicked publicly about their weekend together. His reasons for hiding it were justified — he was OK with who he was but was made miserable by his classmates.

    Edit: He hid it not because he was conflicted about it but because he was aware of the potential social consequences. Unfortunately, his apprehension was justified. He’s also kept one foot in the closet professionally, but not because he’s unhappy about his sexuality.

  79. 79
    gbear says:

    Well that little confession sure cleared the room…

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    Sarah’s getting a LOT of money to appear at the TB convention. There’s another conservative convention coming up that she stiffed because they don’t pay their speakers.

    edit: Chad N Freud, we’re approaching the same horizon line.

  80. 80
    Digital Amish says:

    All you guys who are appalled that Meese is still alive and shilling right wing babble … just think how you’ll feel in twenty five years when it’s Alberto Gonzales spewing forth.

  81. 81
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @gbear:

    Erick Erickson — clueless twit

  82. 82
    Sly says:

    @Digital Amish:

    All you guys who are appalled that Meese is still alive and shilling right wing babble … just think how you’ll feel in twenty five years when it’s Alberto Gonzales spewing forth.

    There is still a chance, albeit very small, that Gonzales could pull a Ted Olson and redeem himself. Meese is still the same petty asshole that he was 20 years ago.

  83. 83
    Chad N Freude says:

    @gbear:

    Well that little confession sure cleared the room…

    Hey, happens to me all the time, and I’m not too young :-) .

  84. 84
    Chad N Freude says:

    @Digital Amish: Not gonna happen. Meese is articulate.

  85. 85
    asiangrrlMN says:

    Ed Meese. Who knew? Fucker.

    @gbear: I didn’t realize I was physically attracted to women as well as men until I was in college–and I was dating a man. I kept it to myself for several more years because I had just discovered I was an Asian woman (been one all my life, but unaware of issues having grown up in MN), and I didn’t want to deal with homophobia on top of everything else.

  86. 86
    Ash Can says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    Erick Erickson is concerned.

    “Ruining herself?” “Smells scammy?”

    LOLZ!

    (Yeah, I know I shouldn’t laugh. It’s not nice to make fun of, ahem, slow learners.)

  87. 87
    Chad N Freude says:

    @Sly:

    There is still a chance, albeit veryinfinitesimally small, non-existently small, that Gonzales could pull a Ted Olson and redeem himself.

    Fixed.

    And about Olson, as far as I know he isn’t into self-redemption, he believes in both the right-wing stuff he justifies and gay rights. He doesn’t seem to be a wingnut but rather someone who has convictions of his own independent of the dogma.

  88. 88

    I am actually physically unable to believe the bottom quote actually came out of someone’s mouth who lives at the same era of time as I do. It reeks of pre-Enlightenment brainpower, the sort of thing which one might imagine said at a witch trial.

    Despicable in a way that has nothing partisan in it whatsoever.

  89. 89
    r€nato says:

    Who was behind Nixon’s racial strategy to divide Democrats?

    Pat Buchanan. Of course.

  90. 90
    Blue Raven says:

    @asiangrrlMN:

    I didn’t realize I was physically attracted to women as well as men until I was in college—and I was dating a man.

    I only clued in when I was in college myself, but I was able to look back on my childhood and it was obvious from the get-go once I could sort for the dysfunctional reactions I was having to sex due to other influences versus genuine impulses I couldn’t fully understand at the time.

  91. 91
    Sly says:

    @Chad N Freude:

    And about Olson, as far as I know he isn’t into self-redemption, he believes in both the right-wing stuff he justifies and gay rights. He doesn’t seem to be a wingnut but rather someone who has convictions of his own independent of the dogma.

    Which is fine with me. You can actually have a conversation with someone who’s capable of reaching conclusions independent of dogma.

    If you want to see what happens when dogma trumps rationality, just follow Krugman’s name across FDL for the next few days.

  92. 92
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @Blue Raven: Oh, hell, yeah. I understand dysfunctional reactions to sex, too. It’s a wonder any children survive to adulthood at all!

  93. 93
    Chad N Freude says:

    Comment #88 (at the moment) was an edit fail that I tried to cancel, wasn’t canceled, but is in moderation right now although it doesn’t contain any of the forbidden product names. Is “dogma” on the forbidden list? Is WP toying with me?

  94. 94
    John O says:

    Ed Meese is alive?

    And anyone cares what he says?

    Now that’s news.

  95. 95
    Chad N Freude says:

    @Sly: I’ve given up on FDL. I can’t tolerate zealots of any kind. (Does that make me intolerant?)

  96. 96
    Kobie says:

    @John O: I was thinking the same thing. I thought that old fucker got dragged to hell to be sodomized by Lee Atwater years ago.

  97. 97
    John O says:

    @asiangrrlMN:

    Now that’s hot.

    @Chad N Freude:

    Almost there, because I think criticism from the left is a good thing, but I think poor Jane, who I just love for several reasons, has lost her bearings.

    It’s still a pretty smart blog, all in all. Baby and bath water and all…

  98. 98
    Nicole says:

    @Chad N Freude: No one thought you were defending Meese, and I was aware there were email threats (though it appears to be “threat” and nothing came of it). I still find it preposterous for Meese to whine about danger to Prop 8 supporters if the case is broadcast. The most those people would be in danger of is a vicious snark assault.

  99. 99

    I live in NH and I just want everyone to know that the gays haven’t destroyed my marriage yet! It’s been a tough eleven days since the attack on my marriage become the law so I am concerned. I’m sure they stay up at night planning how they will pry me away from my family but the FSM keeps me strong.

  100. 100
    Blue Raven says:

    @Chad N Freude:

    I’ve given up on FDL. I can’t tolerate zealots of any kind. (Does that make me intolerant?)

    I’ve come to the conclusion that an aversion to zealotry is the intellectual equivalent of refusing to touch a hot stove with bare hands.

  101. 101
    Chad N Freude says:

    @Nicole: True enough, any real violence is almost (stress the almost) as unlikely as a successful terroresticle attack, but any threat of violence has to investigated; they have been known to materialize, and the threateners should be made to understand that they are taken seriously.

    This is not a justification for keeping the identities of the parties secret. If they’re for something, they should be willing to acknowledge it rather than cower and hide.

  102. 102
    lee says:

    What are they afraid of? That everyone will find out they the supporters of Prop 8 have granite counter-tops?

  103. 103
    Mike Kay says:

    @Sly:

    TOOO FUNNY!

    KThug slapps down the Firebaggers

    What the folks at Firedoglake should ask themselves is this: do you really want to become just like the right-wingers with their endless supply of fake scandals?

  104. 104
    Chad N Freude says:

    @The Grand Panjandrum: I work in a profession where threats are taken seriously, but we really insist that the threats be spelled out so that possible consequences can be analyzed. The threat-to-marriage folks never seem to identify any specific consequences that marriage will suffer if same-sex marriage is permitted. (One possible exception: Rick Santorum.)

  105. 105
    AhabTRuler says:

    He hid it not because he was conflicted about it but because he was aware of the potential social consequences.

    That’s the way it always works. There is no reason to be conflicted about being gay (unless you are trapped on an island inhabited by people of the opposite sex…then you’re unfucked), you only get that way by carrying around other people’s baggage about homosexuality. Society…

    &#060RHPS&#062
    FUCK society!
    &#060/RHPS&#062

    …is what (that which?) judges the teen to be abnormal; the kid just wants to rub up against the pretty things, like we all do.

    I guess all that I am trying to say is that if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, then I don’t know if it would be a gay tree or not, but either way it would be cool with itself (and its body image, too). Hoom.

  106. 106
    kay says:

    @lee:

    They’re afraid they’re going to lose.

  107. 107
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @AhabTRuler:

    I guess all that I am trying to say is that if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, then I don’t know if it would be a gay tree or not, but either way it would be cool with itself (and its body image, too). Hoom.

    Man, that’s deep:)

  108. 108
    Kobie says:

    @Chad N Freude: #94 I can’t read much of FDL outside of TBogg anymore either.

  109. 109
  110. 110
    beltane says:

    @Mike Kay: So now Paul Krugman has joined the ranks of sellouts and shills? Yesterday they were going after Henry Waxman, tomorrow who knows who the enemy will be. The eagerness to create new enemies would be frightening if these people weren’t so utterly powerless.

  111. 111
    Sly says:

    @Mike Kay:

    Hamsher put up a timeline explaining Gruber’s secret relationship with HHS from beginning to end. I’m somewhat disappointed that she doesn’t have information on where he was when the Lindbergh Baby was kidnapped.

  112. 112
    tigrismus says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    Let me be blunt: charging people $500.00 plus the costs of travel and lodging to go to a “National Tea Party Convention” run by a for profit group no one has ever heard of sounds as credible as an email from Nigeria promising me a million bucks if I fork over my bank account number

    Awww, poor Erick discovers he didn’t charge the muggins enough to come to RedState’s little Atlanta confab.

  113. 113
    gbear says:

    @beltane:

    They’re creating enemies faster than they can pwn them.

  114. 114
    mr. whipple says:

    What the folks at Firedoglake should ask themselves is this: do you really want to become just like the right-wingers with their endless supply of fake scandals?

    Um, yes, they do. I’m sure it’s damn good for donations and hits.

  115. 115
    Mike Kay says:

    @beltane:

    @Sly:

    It’s worse than you think – KThug has given a FULL THROATED endorsement of the… wait for it…. the (gulp) Cadillac Tax (ducks from firebagger food fight)

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c.....xcise-tax/

  116. 116
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @mr. whipple:

    dern ya beat me too it. Kthug is living dangerous. What will Grover think, or do with this blasphemy on his main progressive squeeze. That bathtub butter be big.

  117. 117
    Chad N Freude says:

    @beltane: Bind their hands and feet and throw them into the pond. If they don’t sink and drown, Hamsher will welcome them. Lord knows we don’t want any reality sullying our purity.

  118. 118
    Mike Kay says:

    @beltane:

    The eagerness to create new enemies would be frightening if these people weren’t so utterly powerless.

    How can you call them powerless? After all they delivered the nomination to John Edwards!

  119. 119
    Chad N Freude says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    That bathtub butter be big.

    Typo of the week. And it’s only Monday.

  120. 120
    AhabTRuler says:

    The good news is that if McPalin had gotten elected, by now Broder would have written “she came in here and wrecked the place…” she would have quit.

  121. 121
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Chad N Freude: nolo typo, straight from the mind of a deviant false persona.

  122. 122
    Mike Kay says:

    Hamsher just ordered the arrest of Galileo, Copernicus, and KThug!

  123. 123

    Here is a transcript of Ted Olson’s opening statement at the trial.

  124. 124
    Chad N Freude says:

    @Mike Kay: OMG. Did you read the first comment on Krugman’s column? The guy should have signed himself Robespierre.

  125. 125
    valdivia says:

    @Mike Kay:
    wait–she is also as Ghostwhisperer?

  126. 126
    John O says:

    Look, there’s just a ton of stuff in either the House or Senate bill we all can’t quite know how will work out in the end.

    The fuss over the excise tax on incredibly good health care plans is just weird to me. Mine is very good, and nowhere near $23K.

    As I have said before, it’s certainly worth keeping an eye on, like a ton of other contentious particulars in the HCR debate, but as it stands taxing $23K health insurance plans through the employer is simply not going to seriously hurt anyone right away.

  127. 127
    beltane says:

    @Mike Kay: Jane Hamsher is like Robespierre would have been if the French had been able to delete his action emails with the click of a mouse.

  128. 128
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @John O: I think they ought to tax all of them, if they are going to tax some. Progressively of course. That would balance the injustice of taxing non employer based policies, and raise more revenue.

    no free lunches, and the rich must anti up even more. WE are either going to have to pay for our shit, or live with an erratic economy for the long term.

  129. 129
    John O says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    Exactly, totally agree and all that.

    After all, the super rich and pretty rich have been taking from the rest of us for…all of history. A marginally higher tax rate system isn’t going to hurt them, either, at least in any way where anyone else gives a sh*t.

    I know the NY Times will be printing a bunch of stories about how they (the rich) had to downsize from 60 foot yachts to 50 footers such pain they’re in, but I don’t think most of the rest of us care. So it’s not a bad play, politically. Too bad the Dems are hostages to the same folks (albeit in lower numbers).

  130. 130
    Sly says:

    @John O:

    The fuss has multiple sources:

    1) People don’t read the actual provision. It has exemptions for retirees and risk-intensive populations, and will vary by region to address cost disparities. But you have 55 year olds saying that their gonna be hit by the tax because their plans can’t be renegotiated, firefighters saying its unfair because they need the extra coverage, and people in NY and CT saying that their plans will go above a non-adjusted threshold.

    2) People more than likely don’t know what their plan costs if they get it through their employer. So they assume that if they have good benefits that they will be taxed. They never assume that their benefits are overpriced or that other reforms within the package will reduce the cost of their benefits or increase quality of coverage because, by and large, they don’t have accurate numbers on what those values are.

    3) It’s being sold as a financing mechanism. While it will certainly generate some amount of revenue for the government both by hitting some high cost plans and encouraging wage growth, it’s next to impossible to know the details. So the JCT had to float $150 billion when the scored the thing. This lets people who assume they’ll be hit by the tax frame it as a tax increase, because if the tax doesn’t generate the advertised revenue they assume that politicians will just make it more onerous.

    The purpose of the tax is to control costs, and should be treated as such. If the Senate bill needs another $150 billion to please a bunch of disingenuous budget hawks, let them do it through something like the surtax in the House bill.

    4) No one seems to want to mention this, but the current structure incentivizes corruption. A union delegate could falsely advertise an overpriced package to his or her fellow members as a win for them while that same delegate is taking a kickback from the insurance company to push for more benefits money. People have gone to jail for doing this, and making the system more difficult to corrupt will likely cause a number of politically-connected people to lose their meal ticket.

  131. 131
    Something Fabulous says:

    @Anne Laurie: LOL. Second Reagan election was my very first time voting. Speaking from LA, at my age it is refreshing to be put back among the “not-olds” for a bit! I do remember being indoctrinated by my sainted mother that anyone in “that man’s” administration must be by definition stupid, evil, corrupt, or some combination. So delightful to see my brainwashing proved true. She’d have been smug/horrified by these quotes. Go, mom.

    (PS: Thanks Anne Laurie, if I haven’t mentioned it yet, for your kind shout-out on my no-good very-bad New Year’s. All my hospitalized peeps are out and reasonably stable. Onwards!)

  132. 132
    John O says:

    @Sly:

    OK, but your 1 and 2 are because people are morons, which doth not good legislation make.

    3 is close.

    4 is a different debate altogether.

    I’m out for tonight. Enjoy, and thanks as always.

  133. 133
    Something Fabulous says:

    @beltane: As they say in French: Le Win.

  134. 134
    BGK says:

    Ed Meese got you down? Have a Rizzo.

  135. 135
    Sly says:

    @John O:

    People being morons has no real impact on whether a policy is good or bad, just whether or not they can understand it and how they’ll react to it politically. A significant group of people, in keeping with the thread’s initial topic, believe that allowing gay people to marry will give their kids the cooties or make the boogeyman living in the closet hungrier, or whatever. That doesn’t mean marriage equality is a bad policy.

    That applies to the first point, though, but not the second. Employer-provided insurance is a recipe for adverse selection precisely because those getting the insurance (employees) have little basis for determining the value of a policy that is being paid for by someone else (employers). There are a large number of factors that will impact comparisons with other packages offered by other employers, which is the only criterion with which they can make a judgement as to its relative value. In other words, you don’t have to be stupid not to know how much your benefits package is worth because that lack of knowledge is implicit in the system.

  136. 136

    @r€nato:
    Who knew?

    I especially liked this paragraph:

    The National Archives, along with the Richard Nixon Presidential Library, released to the public some 280,000 pages of material, including handwritten notes and “carbon” copies of typed documents

    Since when do we have to put “scare quotes” around carbon in carbon copies?

  137. 137
    Nicole says:

    @Chad N Freude: I agree wholeheartedly, but bringing it back to Meese, he feels even just the threat of possible harassment is reason enough to keep the identities of the people arguing for Prop 8 super secret.

    Of course, seeing as how the Supreme Court has (temporarily) blocked broadcasting, it may be a non-issue.

  138. 138
    fraught says:

    I wonder what was behind this Op/Ed?
    Was he asked to write it by the Times Op/ed editors? Did he submit it to the editors? Was he paid to write it by Maggie Gallagher or the National Organization for Marriage? Why must we hear Ed Meese’s voice on this issue in an Op/ed article? Is he an interested participant? Does he live in California? Is he gay? In what way does he have a dog in this fight?
    Or is it just that after 25 five years out of the public eye he feels his point of view is relevant now that he’s 78 fucking years old and even the faintest memory of any kind of dick action has faded into the ether? He was Attorney General for a president who never once used the word “gay” although he was in office during the worst of the AIDS years?

    Why didn’t the Times staff trash this piece of garbage as soon as it arrived in their inbox from Maggie?

  139. 139
    The Republic of Stupidity says:

    @Zifnab:

    It’s not like this shit isn’t going to come out. It just won’t be plastered all over YouTube inside thirty seconds.

    Like I said… I’m a patient man…

    ***kicks back… pops top on a cool one… reaches for a corn chip***

  140. 140
    jeffreyw says:

    The further adventures of big pink, as told by someone close to what he was thinking.

  141. 141

    That fat fugly motherfucker’s still wasting O~2~? Shit. Here’s hoping they find his bloated corpse in front of his computer, pants around his ankles and some man on goat porn on the monitor and soon.

    This will expose supporters of Proposition 8 who appear in the courtroom to the type of vandalism, harassment and bullying attacks already used by some of those who oppose the proposition that have been perfected by supporters of Prop 8.

    Fxd.

  142. 142
    dobrojutro says:

    While Meese was in DC, these posters were all over the city. They even had t shirts: http://img148.imageshack.us/i/.....pebi1.jpg/

  143. 143
    ksmiami says:

    Dashing in here at the last minute, but why don’t we tell these repuke hypocrites that they really should start with outlawing divorce and online porn if they want to protect the sanctity of marriage – oh wait…never mind …that would be a no go for 80% of the red staters based on statistical analysis….

    A gay couple somewhere got married – the horror – and they picked out matching Egyptian cotton duvet covers!!!! I feel my marriage of 14 years is at risk…

    faints

    AAAAAAHHHHH!

    NOT

  144. 144

    @dobrojutro: Heh, thanks for the blast from the past.

  145. 145
    Lex says:

    @LLeo: It goes something like this: If the Prop 8 backers’ motivation is purely or primarily religious, then Prop 8 violates both the establishment clause and gay people’s free-exercise rights.

    Prop 8 defenders will try to argue that they are motivated by purely secular/practical concerns. That’s untrue on its face (see, e.g., the involvement of the LDS church on behalf of Prop 8), so evidence that goes to Prop 8 defenders’ motivations is relevant.

    IANAL, but that’s been the logic in some other church/state cases with which I’m familiar.

    And while we’re on the subject of Meese, I think it’s appropriate to apply Beckian logic in relation to Citizen_X’s allegation. That is to say, I’m not saying that Ed Meese digs up fresh graves and engages in coitus with the corpses. I have no evidence that he does. But if he does not, then why does he not deny it?

  146. 146
    AhabTRuler says:

    @Lex: Why won’t Ed Meese and simply lay these troubling allegations necrophilia? I don’t think he’s hiding anything, do you? That’s what makes his failure to address this issue so grave: why not lay these charges to rest?

    ETA: and he is a fucking pig.

  147. 147
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @BGK: You cannot say have a Rizzo if I literally cannot have a Rizzo. GORGEOUS!

    @jeffreyw: Aw, Toby’s got his attitude on! So cute. I’m loving these nightly animal photo wars.

    @ksmiami: Completely agree. Ban divorce, stone adulterers, and be done with it.

  148. 148
    OriGuy says:

    @arguingwithsignposts: Possibly they weren’t really copies made with carbon paper, but carbonless (NCR) copies. I know how you feel though; I hate “scare” “quotes”.

  149. 149
    artem1s says:

    especially if they happen to be groups that are legally claiming non-profits status

    the other non-profit issue here is whether the groups who lobbied against Prop 8 did the proper reporting of their activities to the IRS. It’s perfectly legal for non profits to perform grass roots lobbying but only to a certain extent AND they have to pay an excise tax on income used for a certain percent of their lobbying efforts. Many suspect that the Mormon Church was especially ‘inaccurate’ in their reporting on lobbying efforts. The fines for under-reporting can be exorbitant (they are leveled against Directors and the organization). The Directors will be in trouble even if they don’t have to put their mugs up there on camera if they are forced to admit that they authorized the expenditures and covered them up to the IRS and their membership. So they will do their best to stay off the stand altogether. The objection to the camera’s is probably just a legal move to keep the Director’s of any one organization from having to testify at all.

  150. 150
    Sly says:

    @LindaH:

    I can’t imagine what a plan would have to offer to get to 20K+ per year in costs. I would really like to know exactly what plans we are talking about. Are they for high risk jobs, or for small businesses that don’t have enough employees to negotiate. Or is it something else. Inquiring minds want to know.

    We’re not really talking about any plans. The whole point of the tax is that its not going to collect money directly, but put a upper limit on the cost of plans so that people won’t take them, thereby ratcheting down costs for everyone over time. The money the JCT says the tax will generate comes from wage increases, and even the most ardent supporter of the tax is forced to admit that the numbers they put out in the scoring of the provision amount to some pretty odd accounting jujitsu.

  151. 151
    Platonicspoof says:

    @Chad N Freude:

    Is WP toying with me?

    The thing is, you don’t have many comments who are innocent of a crime. That’s contradictory. If a comment is innocent of a crime, then it is not in moderation.

  152. 152
    Dr. Psycho says:

    I for one am glad Ed Meese is still alive. I’m glad he has had a chance to watch the triumphal march of everything he ever worked for, and to see it all turn to shit.

    Hell, I hope he lives to be a hundred, so he can see the people he spat upon un-make the mess he and his fellow Reaganites created.

Comments are closed.