|
|
This is fantastic. Stewart really hits all his marks on his 'special comment' about Sarah the Impaler.
His best line:
"when you peel back the pretty, shooty layers of the Palin onion, there's no onion. It's just a conservative boiler plate mad lib: 'Freedom is good and taxes are--ooh I need an adjective--how about, I don't know, silly?'I love this man.
A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday affirmed a lower court's denial of a conservative advocacy group's motion to intervene in a challenge to Proposition 8, California's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The appeals court held that the district court did not abuse abuse its discretion by denying the motions to intervene. The Campaign for California Families had sought to intervene, alleging that the defending parties to the suit, Official Proponents of Proposition 8 and ProtectMarriage.com, would not adequately represent the interests of the Campaign. Judge Margaret McKeown rejected that argument:It's too soon to celebrate, but even a small victory like this feels good.
The reality is that the Campaign and those advocating the constitutionality of Prop. 8 have identical interests—that is, to uphold Prop. 8. Any differences are rooted in style and degree, not the ultimate bottom line. Divergence of tactics and litigation strategy is not tantamount to divergence over the ultimate objective of the suit.
The Campaign alleges that the current defendants in the suit challenging Proposition 8 have compromised upholding the measure by conceding to facts that declare homosexuality is an immutable characteristics. The current defending parties deny those claims.
In August, a judge in the US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that several advocacy organizations representing both sides of the issue could not intervene in the lawsuit [PDF] challenging Proposition 8. The lawsuit was filed in May by former US solicitor general Ted Olson and prominent litigator David Boies, who were opposing counsel in Bush v. Gore, which decided the outcome of the contested 2000 US Presidential election. The challenge was announced shortly after the California Supreme Court ruled that state law challenges to the ban lacked merit. Proposition 8, approved by voters in November, was a response to the California Supreme Court's decision last year striking down a statutory ban on same-sex marriage as violating the equal protection and privacy provisions of the state constitution.
A federal judge in New Orleans has ruled the U.S. government owes damages to residents whose homes were swamped by Hurricane Katrina's floodwaters in 2005.Three cheers for this judge. The ruling might not stand but he did the right thing anyway regardless of how the higher federal courts rule.
In a sometimes scathing critique of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval found "monumental negligence" in the operation and maintenance of a shipping channel called the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet.
He rejected the government's argument that the Corps was immune from liability and had properly maintained the navigation channel, known locally as MRGO.
Flood victims had sued, arguing the widening of the channel and subsequent loss of protective wetlands turned MRGO into a speedway for Katrina's storm surge. Judge Duval blamed government engineers for letting the shipping channel "run amok."
Duval awarded damages of about $720,000 to four people and a business. The case has been closely watched by other Katrina victims seeking compensation from the government.
International human rights officials toured the new US detention facility in Parwan, Afghanistan, at the edge of Bagram Air Base on Sunday. The new facility [NYT report], which has room for 1,400 detainees, is part of the Obama administration's wider efforts to improve its Afghan detainee system and will eventually be controlled by the Afghan government. Officials have promised greater transparency based on a case management system, which will allow detainees to be informed of the charges against them and provide them with the right to challenge government witnesses. Amnesty International, Human Rights First, and Human Rights Watch called on the Obama administration Monday to make sure its detention policy conforms to international law.As for transparency..The Big O hasn't been doing much to further the cause either, in my humble yet vocal opinion. Only time will tell us how different Obama's prison is to BushCo's prison.
Last week, HRF urged the US to reform its detention policy at Bagram in order to combat counterinsurgency. In September, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit [seeking information related to the treatment of prisoners at Bagram, citing fears that is becoming the "new Guantanamo." Earlier that month, the Obama administration issued new guidelines allowing Bagram detainees to challenge their indefinite incarceration. Detainees will have access to members of the US military who would be able to gather classified evidence and question witnesses on behalf of any detainee challenging his detention. The military officials would not be lawyers, but they are expected to provide detainees, some of whom have been held for more than five years without charges, better representation before military-appointed review boards. The changes come amidst ongoing protests by prisoners. Hundreds of Bagram detainees have been refusing shower and exercise time and have ceased participation in a family visits and teleconferences program set up by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Maria Cardona Democratic strategist and public affairs executive :Buh-Bye Lou..don't let the door hit ya where the good lawd split ya...if you end up on Faux..so be it..Rupert loves you freaks.
And as for Lou Dobbs, my advice is for him to run for office. Let him stand on his ideas and let him rise and fall by those ideas as he puts them forth in a true fashion on the political stage for voters to embrace or reject. He seems to think he has all the answers so he should put his money where his mouth is and truly put those ideas to the test. And let others ask him the tough questions for once.
Scott Stanzel Pres., Stanzel Communications, former Dpty. WH Press Secretary :
I will not miss Lou Dobbs, his show or his “advocacy journalism.” In recent years, the blurring of the lines between opinion and news reporting has damaged the credibility of mainstream reporters and news organizations. It’s refreshing to see CNN make a decision to fill the Dobbs slot with a respected and accomplished hard news journalist like John King. Maybe there is hope for the news business after all.
Yousef Munayyer
Yousef Munayyer Exec. Dir., The Jerusalem Fund :
However, since Dobbs could be nothing other than a seasoned objective journalist, if figured Alzheimer’s was probably setting in and that he would likely be stepping down soon. It happened sooner than I expected.
Thomas J. Whalen Professor of Social Science, Boston University :
I'll miss him like major league baseball misses Roger Clemens, which is to say not at all. As for future employment opportunities, he could check out being a border guard, as the issue of illegal immigration seems to obsess him.
Victor Kamber Carmen Group :
Its hard to miss someone who was irrelevant to begin with. Lou Who? He has three choices 1) try to get a contract and job at FOX, 2) Run for political office and see if he really has a following that cares what he has to say, 3) Write books and columns and try to develop a following of opinion leaders that care about his views. . There is a fourth option, one he will never take and that is to go away quietly in the night.
Walter Russell Mead Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy, CFR :
Dobbs might start out running for a Senate seat somewhere, or he might go for the brass ring and mount a presidential run.
The White House has to hope he will. A third party run by Lou Dobbs would likely give the Democrats a hold on the executive mansion through 2016.
Sign our petition to send a clear message to President Obama: Do not send more soldiers into this quagmire:
http://rethinkafghanistan.com#petition
An Afghanistan War veteran will travel to D.C. to deliver this message to the White House. Make sure your voice is heard.
The verdict, the first in a major criminal case stemming from the current financial crisis, brought to an end a two-year ordeal for the managers, Ralph R. Cioffi and Matthew M. Tannin. They had been led away in handcuffs in June 2008 and accused of lying to their investors about the precarious state of the funds they oversaw.But..they lied. They lied whilst their hedge funds were sinking in the quicksand. The jurors said they were great salesmen..but they were not liars.
Investors lost $1.6 billion when the funds, heavily invested in mortgage securities, collapsed in the summer of 2007. The fiasco presaged the financial turmoil that would later upend Wall Street and the broader economy.
The three-week trial riveted the financial and legal communities, which viewed it as a bellwether for other cases, both criminal and civil, involving the financial industry. The jury of eight women and four men, drawn mostly from working-class neighborhoods, essentially found that while Mr. Cioffi and Mr. Tannin may have made bad investments, making a bad investment was not a crime.
As you read Bart Stupak boasting of taking reproductive choice away from women, remember that he’s not just an otherwise good Democrat (he’s not, in fact, a Blue Dog) who consistently lets the agenda of the Catholic Church override the well-being of his constituents, he’s also one of C-Street’s top Democratic members. This man, crowing over his legislative success is speaking as a representative of a group that preaches moral purity for others, but excuses itself from such moral guidelines with a back-slapping prayer lunch with the buddies. And then turns around and uses that moralizing to accrue political power.What a dirtbag. That this fucking asshole can stand and brag about denying women a legal medical procedure makes me physically ill.
The bill passed with ONE Republican voting for the measure. Louisiana's newest representative, Rep. Joseph Cao, voted with 219 Democrats to pass the "Affordable Health care for America Act".
A giant cheer went up when the 218th vote was cast.
What a long fucking day it has been. Never have I seen such bullshit and bravado. Nevah! Below are the names of some of the 39 Democrats that voted NO, courtesy of Politico:
Barrow
Boccierri
Marshall
Baird
Adler
Boren
Chandler
Edwards, Tex
Herseth sandlin
Holden
Kratovil
Kissell
Boucher
Altmire
Boyd
Bright
Childers
Artur Davis
Lincoln Davis
Gordon
Griffith
Kosmas
