Law prof: If Prop 8 supporters have no standing to appeal, does that mean the trial shouldn’t have happened?
posted at 5:48 pm on August 13, 2010 by Allahpundit
Simple question: If a trial court judge grants standing to someone as a defendant, how can that standing then be stripped to deny them an appeal?
And if the answer is that the defendant never should have had standing in the first place, doesn’t that mean the trial never should have been held?
Walker gave the proponents until 5 p.m. on Aug. 18 to take their motion for a stay to the Ninth Circuit, where three judges who serve on a monthly motions panel will likely hear it. If they uphold Walker’s ruling denying the stay, the only recourse for the proponents will be to ask the Supreme Court to intervene. To do so means asking the justice assigned to the Ninth Circuit to hear the motion. Ironically, in this case, that would be Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s frequent majority maker who Supreme Court oddsmakers have long said holds the decisive vote if the question of gay marriage is ever decided there…
And to add another twist, at least one constitutional-law scholar in California is suggesting that by trumpeting the issue of standing, Walker has opened a hornet’s nest he may have been better off leaving undisturbed. “If the proponents don’t have standing to appeal, then it’s entirely plausible that the courts will rule that they did not properly have standing to go to trial,” Vikram Amar, a law professor at the University of California at Davis, told TIME Thursday evening. “This is an issue he glossed over when he allowed them to intervene in the trial.”
Amar says that if the Ninth Circuit agrees with Walker that the proponents don’t have standing to appeal, the judges may well decide they shouldn’t have been allowed to intervene in the case at all. If they do, he says, they could decide to vacate the trial entirely, sending it back to Walker to start over. The governor and attorney general would be unlikely to intervene — but on the other hand, come November, voters will choose new candidates for both of those offices.
Indeed they will, and for his disgraceful abdication of his duty to defend the statute, Attorney General Moonbeam deserves to take an even bigger beating in the gubernatorial race than Boxer’s taking in the Senate election. As for Amar’s point, I don’t think Prop 8 supporters are going to go that route in appealing (yet). Ed Whelan’s read their new petition to the Ninth Circuit for an emergency stay of Walker’s gay marriage order and it turns out they’re arguing that they do have standing under California law — precisely because Schwarzenegger and Brown are being derelict in their duty to defend the statute. Which makes sense: What’s the use in holding a popular referendum if state officials can kill it by letting it die in court?
Meanwhile, some good news for Prop 8 supporters today: PPP’s latest shows surprisingly heavy opposition to gay-marriage, splitting 33/57 on whether the practice should be legal or illegal. That’s dramatically different from both CNN’s poll a few days ago showing voters roughly evenly split on the question of whether gays should have a constitutional right to marry and the overall polling trends over the past six years. What accounts for the disparity? Read Nate Silver’s analysis. One key factor is that PPP not only undersampled young voters but ended up with unusually weak support for gay marriage within that demographic. Could be the start of a new trend, but given how so many other polls cut against, it could also be an outlier. Flag it for now and keep an eye out for new polls in the next week or two to see which is the right answer.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
While PPP might be an outlier, CNN’s poll was also an outlier itself…
ninjapirate on August 13, 2010 at 5:51 PM
Lawyers. Most of them suck.
Do many of them really know what they’re doing?
I think not.
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 5:51 PM
Perverted judge.
Sexual deviates do not think like normal people.
He also ruled that the lawyers do not have the right in the California constitution to even have 7 million people vote on Prop 8. It was unconstitutional for them to pass Prop 8.
seven on August 13, 2010 at 5:53 PM
They should just ban the “popular” referendum, it’s pretty insulting to have voters vote on something then tell them that they are stupid and shut up.
Cindy Munford on August 13, 2010 at 5:54 PM
I agree. That happened here in ND with the seat belt law.
We kept voting it down & they finally just rammed it through a la Federal Road funding.
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 5:58 PM
Is the issue whether an intervener has standing to appeal? If that’s the case, it’s black letter law (including the 9th Circuit’s) that intervener’s have such standing. “Generally, an intervenor may appeal from any order adversely affecting the interests that served as the basis for intervention, provided that the requirements for Article III are satisfied.” Didrickson v. United States Dept. of Interior, 982 F.2d 1332, 1338 (9th Cir. 1992). This is true even when other parties don’t appeal.
ieplaya on August 13, 2010 at 5:59 PM
If Adolfs’ mother had access to state funded abortions, would we be having a national discussion about the building of a mosque on the smoking ruins of the WTC?
The answer is “who cares”. Being able to show me a marriage certificate that says John and Steve are legally married won’t make me feel all better about homosexuality.
Even when they win, they still don’t win.
BobMbx on August 13, 2010 at 6:00 PM
Better question: If one liberal gay judge can overturn the will of millions, is this still a democratic republic?
(or should the judge be tarred and feathered)
Rovin on August 13, 2010 at 6:00 PM
I’ll go out on a limb here & hesitantly agree with you.
Sexual deviates include all kinds of behavior.
You don’t have to be gay to be one.
And I don’t think they think like ‘normal’ people.
Although sometimes it’s hard to say what’s normal.
It goes back to the idea that a person’s character dictates how well they will perform at their jobs.
This argument for Bill Clinton being able to do his job effectively even though her was a pervert never flew with me & lots of other Americans.
It’s bcs we understand character defines everything you are & do.
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 6:00 PM
This “trial” is starting to give off the unmistakable aroma of kangaroo.
Cicero43 on August 13, 2010 at 6:00 PM
I sure hope they let lesbians marry.
The definition of “marriage” is antiquated and discriminates against lesbians who want to marry. The term “marriage” should not be limited to mean a union between a man and a woman. It must be expanded to include a union between two lesbians, too.
I am taking this stand because I want to marry a woman as a lesbian. And don’t tell me that I can’t be a lesbian because I am a male heterosexual. The definition of “lesbian” is antiquated and discriminates against heterosexual males. That’s gender discrimination and it is unconstitutional. So the definition of “lesbian” must be expanded to include male heterosexuals. It’s my right as a man to be a lesbian if I want to be a lesbian. Anything less is a violation of my civil rights.
I also want to be able to meet my wife in a lesbian bar. And I want to be treated just like any other lesbian when I go into a lesbian bar. If anyone so much as gives me a nasty look in that bar, I’ll have them arrested for hate crimes. I will not tolerate gender discrimination and heterophobia against male heterosexual lesbians.
Felonious Monk on August 13, 2010 at 6:01 PM
Rule of the Judges.
They are just making this crap up as they go along. If they can grant and retract standing as they see fit, then it’s game over as far as the peasants having any say in their own fates!
sharrukin on August 13, 2010 at 6:01 PM
MELTDOWN!
CynicalOptimist on August 13, 2010 at 6:05 PM
I keep asking our resident Law Student crr6 why she wants to “practice law”. She keeps refusing to answer.
I would too!
Del Dolemonte on August 13, 2010 at 6:06 PM
It should never have gone to a popular vote in the first place.
How many constitutional amendments go up for a vote?
JetBoy on August 13, 2010 at 6:09 PM
This same thing happened in Massachusetts in 2004. Judge ignored the will of the voters.
Might as well not have elections any more. Just appoint Teresa Heinz’ Gigolo to be MA’s Senior Senator for Life and be done with it!
Del Dolemonte on August 13, 2010 at 6:10 PM
Sounds like Walker got excited and had a tingle up his leg (a la Chris Mathews) and shot himself in the foot.
cartooner on August 13, 2010 at 6:11 PM
All of em at the state level, at least in Florida.
The bigger thing is that the law singles out a group and says you can do this or can’t do this. That’s the real problem.
lorien1973 on August 13, 2010 at 6:12 PM
You know if you had bothered to read the ruling it talks about this. A party may have standing to bring a case but that does not mean they necessarily have standing to appeal. The Judge questions if they do because the State (both the Governor and the Attorney General) who would be responsible to carry out the order, refuses to defend the Prop and agreed with the Judge’s ruling and that it was in the best interest of the people of California. Since the Prop 8 team do not represent the people or any law enforcement they may not have the standing to contradict the wishes of the state’s elected officials.
But like I said if you had bothered to READ IT you would have this question answered already.
Zekecorlain on August 13, 2010 at 6:12 PM
If this keeps up, I think some of them might be nuts enough to try doing exactly that. Too many elections and serious matters are being decided by fiat and not by the citizen electorate.
sharrukin on August 13, 2010 at 6:12 PM
They seem to do a lot of it in California. Like I said, if the people aren’t allowed to decide, then stop allowing them to vote. That seven million people they have told to go forth and multiply.
Cindy Munford on August 13, 2010 at 6:13 PM
What the judge thinks isn’t the point. The short-circuiting of the entire democratic process is!
sharrukin on August 13, 2010 at 6:15 PM
Gay activists: subverting electoral democracy in favor of “feelings” since 2004
(oh and it ain’t Jim crow– false analogy, the south previously agreed to treat blacks equally in the 14th amendment.
The ghey train of disaster for democracy is unprecedented !!!!)
picklesgap on August 13, 2010 at 6:17 PM
All of them?
Fatal on August 13, 2010 at 6:17 PM
That’s the only way a constitutional amendment passes (in CA at least). Regardless of whether it was brought to voters via 2/3 stage legislature or through voter signatures, that’s the only way the constitution is amended here.
rightheaded on August 13, 2010 at 6:17 PM
If there is standing as defendant, there must be standing to appeal. If no standing to appeal, then the trial should never have been held. Period.
Heads need to roll over it.
petefrt on August 13, 2010 at 6:17 PM
Uh-huh and I LOVE IT!
This judge should be roundly smacked around by the 9th Circus (possible) and the SCOTUS (very likely for Walker’s ignoring Baker, as well as other legal precedents).
Then, he should be impeached and sentenced to serve as a cage dancer at a gay bar in the Castro for the rest of his life as punishment.
Also, let the people of CA dump Jerry Brown, too, who was derelict in his duties in failing to defend the referendum.
Jenfidel on August 13, 2010 at 6:18 PM
From Nate Silver’s piece…
I will agree with that last sentence; however, most people, regardless of age, are just tired of having teh gay thrown in their faces at all times so there could be some backlash starting. I must say I avoid going to places with certain gays I am acquainted with because I just know they will make the entire place know they are in the presence of a “queen”. As for me, I like to keep it low-key. Yes, I’m gay, but it’s not all of me. In fact, I place being gay like 8th on my list after being: American, conservative, agnostic, patriotic, boring, witty(?), able to pull of a yellow shirt/sweater… etc.
SouthernGent on August 13, 2010 at 6:19 PM
Hear that, JetBoy? SouthernGent? Other gay posters? You don’t think like normal people because you’re sexual “deviates”.
MadisonConservative on August 13, 2010 at 6:20 PM
Since that would have the result of disenfranchising the electorate, I would say that any voter would have the right to appeal having their vote disenfranchised, at least that would be true IF this were a democratic republic.
Fatal on August 13, 2010 at 6:20 PM
Hey, cut them some slack. They have to keep the voters thinking that the government gives two s**ts what they think, otherwise the voters might remember certain parts of the Bill of Rights and exercise them by-[REDACTED]
MadisonConservative on August 13, 2010 at 6:22 PM
Oh what a tangled web they weave when in the rights of the people they do not believe.
Tav on August 13, 2010 at 6:25 PM
LMAO!
People that watch lots of porn, look at little kids sexually, and people who think some forms of theivery & cheating are also deviants of a sort.
In reality, it all goes back to what character is.
Do you want a gay man leading the Eagle Scouts, even if he’s a conservative gay man?
I can have some things in common with a homosexual.
It does not mean that they are my buddies.
And it doesn’t mean I’d vote for them.
When I vote, I vote for the person who most closely holds my ideals of morality & good character.
JetBoy, SouthernGent & other gay posters may have points that are well taken here.
But I personally think that homosexuality is a deviant behavior.
Course, I don’t think they are evil or bad people for it, either.
I just wouldn’t be buddies with them bcs we obviously don’t share the same morals.
I do think it’s curious that we have a gay, liberal judge (is this right?) ruling on something so electric.
Why didn’t tis guy recuse himself?
I would have.
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 6:28 PM
Yep. All I can think of is the scene from Life of Brian:
TexasDan on August 13, 2010 at 6:29 PM
The only reason that SCOTUS got involved with Bush V Gore in 2000 was because the Justices on the Florida Supreme Court (Democrats 1 and all) tried to subvert the will of the voters by re-writing Florida election law after the election had already taken place. SCOTUS shot their first attempt down 9-0, and the second one 7-2.
Del Dolemonte on August 13, 2010 at 6:31 PM
Well, there goes 99% of men.
MadisonConservative on August 13, 2010 at 6:31 PM
Is this a problem in your eyes?
Bcs whether it happens or has happened often or not should not be the issue here.
If the ‘people’ want an Amendment, then Congress will ‘vote’ on the amendment. Bcs they are supposed to represent the ‘people’.
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 6:32 PM
Well I think that % in men is definitely high,but perhaps not that high.
I guess feel lucky for being married to that ‘odd’ 1% who doesn’t want a 3some, doesn’t want to watch girl-on-girl action, doesn’t want to gawk at other chicks, doesn’t want to look at porn, etc.
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 6:34 PM
And notice I said lots.
The image or 2 that everyone curiously looks at I personally do not consider deviant behavior.I guess some religious cases might.
Are you certain 99% of men watch LOTS of porn?
Or is this just you? ;)
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 6:36 PM
It’s not an outlier, even gay marriage supporters like me don’t want the courts forcing it on the people while simultaneously trumping the legislative process. If the gay issue is to be a trojan horse for big-government, then screw it- it’s not like I’ll ever need a gay marriage.
abobo on August 13, 2010 at 6:37 PM
Didn’t they just do the same thing in Mousori with the health care thing?
Do we want it? NO!
Well, how do we know that the MAJORITY feels that way? We take a vote. “STILL NO!” in a big way.
Well, it was just a “popular referendum” that doesn’t mean anything. We’ll just find another way to get it done that doesn’t have anything to do with voting, and if they say it does, then we’ll just say they have no standing.
And just an aside to all of this… this “no standing” thing sure does seem to be being used a LOT with this administration on questions they want answered one way or the other, or don’t want answered at all. Not that there’s a pattern here or anything. Just sayin’.
UnderstandingisPower on August 13, 2010 at 6:38 PM
You have one life, let it be gay
Shouldn’t one do as one’s told to?
No, let the moment enfold you
Grab up every golden chance
Life is such romance
Give this world a sweeping glance
Let it set your soul a-dancing night and day
Vivez!
Live, here’s to life, let us all be gay
Let go of each inhibition
No one need give you permission
What are you waiting for?
Vivez!
PercyB on August 13, 2010 at 6:38 PM
Well, I see it as a major problem when you say that the fact they are Democrats is suggestive of their not judging the case by the law. They clearly let their politics inform their decision. Not all Democrats would do this but too many would. An entire state supreme court is corrupted and that isn’t good news.
sharrukin on August 13, 2010 at 6:39 PM
Dude, gay marriage failed in CALIFORNIA. In fact it keeps failing in uberlib states whenever it’s brought up to vote There’s no way the difference is only 1 point nation wide. No freaking way in hell. I’m guessing CNN is just making **** up.
Darth Executor on August 13, 2010 at 6:41 PM
I’m gonna add my 2 cents as well and tell you that all constitutional amendments in Michigan are passed by popular referendum. And if we see a federal amendment in our lifetimes it will also be put to a popular vote in most states, if not all.
How do YOU think amendments should be ratified? Some select group of elites chosen by college professors?
NotCoach on August 13, 2010 at 6:41 PM
This does nothing but breed discontent.
Cindy Munford on August 13, 2010 at 6:41 PM
LOL
I agree with you So-Gent, that it’s the loud vocal militant gays that are the ones turning a lot of potential undecideds on gay marriage, and gays in general, off to the whole thing. They do more harm than good for any gay cause.
JetBoy on August 13, 2010 at 6:43 PM
With the internet in existence, it’s not an image or two. People who look at porn see plenty.
Define lots. If you’re saying more than an image or two, hell yes. I used to walk through the halls of my college buildings and guys were in computer labs looking at porn. I work in the IT department of a large corporation, and the number of machines we get back that have porn saved on them is staggering.
And yes, he does want to look at porn. He’s just a gentleman about it. ;)
MadisonConservative on August 13, 2010 at 6:45 PM
SCOTUS, ho!
profitsbeard on August 13, 2010 at 6:47 PM
This is BS to the extreme. Prior precedent already allows for the people of California to appeal when the state fails to do it’s duty in upholding the law. Judge Walker is making it up as he goes in an attempt to stop any rational examination of this farcical ruling.
NotCoach on August 13, 2010 at 6:47 PM
All this legal riga-ma-roll is about to make my head explode. I just want to wake up tomorrow and see a beautiful sunrise, God willing.
SC.Charlie on August 13, 2010 at 6:47 PM
Walker might see that as reward, not punishment.
slickwillie2001 on August 13, 2010 at 6:50 PM
That’s pretty funny considering you are one of them.
Darth Executor on August 13, 2010 at 6:52 PM
Because, you know, these polls really matter. Unlike the ones that actually amend state constitutions or make new law in which gay marriage always loses.
The people’s will will come second to a poll from CNN when it comes time for a judge to decide these issues. Just how it should be, right?
NotCoach on August 13, 2010 at 6:52 PM
It’s a she?!
I notice ‘she’ likes to crow a lot about herself.
Speaks volumes about her.
I’m still not sure what the gay ’cause’ is all about.
Bcs if it’s about procuring your natural rights, then you’re done here bcs you already have the ‘right’ to be with whomever you wish, leave your property to etc.
And if there are laws that prohibit you from living with your lover, that should be struck from the record.
We cannot legislate morality.
But it shouldn’t be easy to be immoral, either.
Private organizations should have the right to decide whether they wish gays to be in their employ or not.
Churches should have the right to decide whether their spokespeople are gay or not. Or even women or men.
Government organizations, & those that receive federal $$ should not be able to discriminate based on sexual orientation, etc.
But the gay ’cause’ is very tiresome to me as a heterosexual woman.
I don’t want to have to hear about the populace’s ‘gayness’.
I don’t need it in my face.
And I don’t need to support it by agreeing they can get ‘married’.
Since heterosexuality os the ‘normal’ behavior in nature for propagating our species, then it’s entirely reasonable that the government entities give that group recognition.
Bcs they are the ones responsible for bringing forth new citizens.
Without technology & liberal adoption policies, homosexuals would not be able to ‘reproduce’ based on their sexual behavior alone.
So while I consider your behavior deviant, I am not dismissing your ‘rights’.
But just bcs you want something doesn’t mean you should get everything you want.
You have your basic rights.
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 6:54 PM
You are very wise.
Cindy Munford on August 13, 2010 at 6:55 PM
Boy. Isn’t being Free such a bi#@h? It’s like you actually have to constantly work at defending the Constitution & stuff.
Have a California brownie and relax.
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 6:57 PM
You make a very good point in a funny way. We’re really arguing about definitions. In our society, adults have a right to partner with and engage in “adult” activities with any adult they chose. No one can persecute you for doing so. However, does everyone have a “right” to call their lifestyle a marriage?
And if so, what terms are next to be redefined? What, then, is the definition of a “woman”? Someone with the right body parts? Or someone who prefers to partner with men? Or someone who likes to shop at Bath and Body Works and uses a bath sponge with body wash rather than Irish Spring?
I just don’t think most Americans care about semantics, to be honest. Fine, live together, have civil union ceremonies, rent matching tuxes, do your thing. Just don’t force America to recognize same-sex partnerships as a “marriage”.
Grace_is_sufficient on August 13, 2010 at 6:58 PM
Since everyone’s on FaceBook, that’s how we should decide things.
No more Congresspeople voting our interests.
FaceBook it!
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 6:58 PM
Wonderfully put.
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 6:59 PM
I’m not on FaceBook…
NotCoach on August 13, 2010 at 7:00 PM
And the funny thing is that the people who don’t want to recognize these unions as marriage, still won’t. I am not suggesting that they will do anything rude or mean, they just aren’t going to accept it.
Cindy Munford on August 13, 2010 at 7:05 PM
Given that 31 states voted it down on actual votes, not just polls, I’d say the Gallup poll is the one that is suspect.
tom on August 13, 2010 at 7:11 PM
Really? I guess you would agree that those same orgs should be able to discriminate against blacks, hispanics, asians, women, whatever.
JetBoy on August 13, 2010 at 7:13 PM
I’m still waiting for Whitman to point out Moonbeam’s dereliction in his current job. And he wants to ‘represent’ the people as governor? Whether he agrees with Prop 8 or not, it was his job to defend it as AG. If he felt so strongly about not defending it, he should have resigned!
GarandFan on August 13, 2010 at 7:15 PM
I agree with that. Free market and information availability would get those businesses targeted for boycotts and people would avoid their open positions like the plague. They’d shut down in this era. The companies that made the choice to be open would prosper.
MadisonConservative on August 13, 2010 at 7:15 PM
You are gay, for sure!
/:)
Gang-of-One on August 13, 2010 at 7:16 PM
So if they did? They’d get a bad rep, probably be boycotted, maybe go out of business. And that’s that.
My brother has Down syndrome and he’s routinely discriminated against. That last thing I want is to force an employer to hire him, if they didn’t want him to begin with. Instead of whining, we move on and find a different option for him. It’s fairly straightforward.
rightheaded on August 13, 2010 at 7:17 PM
As a matter of fact, yes. If I want to have my own private club that bars purple people eaters that’s my own business. I think you confuse private organizations with employment. Two different issues.
NotCoach on August 13, 2010 at 7:17 PM
A very similar thing happened in Florida in the late 90′s. Given some lawsuits that had been filed against state constitutions that had the death penalty on the grounds that putting someone to death was cruel and unusual punishment — yes, seriously — there was a referendum put on the state ballot to add language to the state constitution to the effect that the death penalty is not to be considered cruel and unusual punishment. This language was thought to make it harder to sue the state over the death penalty.
The referendum passed by about 60%. The Florida Supreme Court struck it down on the basis that the people who voted for the amendment didn’t really understand what they were doing.
That’s right, the Florida Supreme Court invalidated a constitutional amendment as unconstitutional, basically on the grounds that voters are stupid.
tom on August 13, 2010 at 7:18 PM
Rule by morally superior tyrants is always more efficient than voting.
And is seldom just.
There are a few tyrants who disagree with the history and biology of mankind and don’t think the way humans procreate is fair to them.
Therefore, by cravat, they will undo what has taken civilization millenia to accomplish. They will debase the meaning of family.
Rights aren’t enough, if this were about civil rights they would be happy with all the compromises, all the attempts to please them. But that isn’t what they want.
Rights don’t have a thing to do with this. They want revenge. They are mad at God. So they will show Him!
Gays are exactly the type of people they claim to hate.
They want to punish and condemn the beliefs of others, the lifestyles of others. They judge us because we dare to have traditions they can’t or won’t comply with. Even when we don’t ask them to comply, they hate.
Gays act out of hatred. Everything in their lives is about hatred of themselves and others.
If they did not hate they could compromise, as we do with them. They could understand our point of view, and accommodate us and our beliefs.
They could accept civil unions, with all the rights and privilages of traditional marriage, as the olive branch it is.
We want peace. We want them to be happy. But it is not rights they want, it does not destroy the doctrines given by God.
If they did not hate they could see that what they are asking is too much.
We cannot go against God. To ask that, is too much.
The satisfaction of forcing their will on us isn’t going to make them happy for long. It can’t, it is born of hatred.
It will never end. They hate us.
petunia on August 13, 2010 at 7:22 PM
Then your vote doesn’t count! ;)
Unfortunately, probably so.
Honestly, if I was in the process of renting out a property to someone, I would avoid certain groups of people, unless I could verify the individual was OK.
For instance, I would not rent to some ethnic groups fresh out of their country of origin bcs their health practices are very different.
Like for instance Mexicans from Mexico. And maybe this is just certain parts of Mexico that do this, but do you know many of them throw their $hitty toilet paper on the floor of restrooms bcs at ‘home’ they don’t have plumbing capable of flushing it.And a little kid gets paid to come around with a bucket to pick up the crappy TP.
So these kinds of folks bring these lovely customs to America with them.
Chinese students at college are washing their used pads & tampons in the public sinks at some universities around here.
You see, I believe as a private property owner that I can ‘discriminate’ against certain people renting my place bcs I do not want to deal with the hassle that might come with them renting my home.
And people discriminate all the time, they’re just not obvious about it.
I’m not saying it’s always right.
But you do not have a right to force yourself & your ways & beliefs upon me.
I don’t agree with all discrimination. But there can be a basis for it happening.
This comes down to communities & the character of the people in them.
Like for instance, a man was just run out of town here in SW ND for getting 2 local girls pregnant.
No one would employ him or sell him goods.
And I say good riddance to that trash.
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 7:24 PM
What’s the use in holding a popular referendum if state officials can kill it by letting it die in court?
Question for all you CA conservatives: Would the next Governor and AG try this little stunt with this year’s Proposition 22? Or would the local governments that want the state funding raids stopped constitute an injured party with standing?
BradSchwartze on August 13, 2010 at 7:26 PM
I personally do not go to places that employ people that are slovenly, pierced everywhere, lazy, have festering wounds & sores (especially a food joint), smell like BO regularly, etc.
I am discriminating.
I also do not patron places that hire poor or non-English speakers.
I am such a racist discriminator!
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 7:29 PM
I would also like to add that as a business owner, if we were looking for a hired man, I would only consider hot, good-looking, muscular cowboys.
I’ve told my husband this.
I have also told my husband that if we ever hire a maid she must be very fat & ugly.
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 7:31 PM
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 7:24 PM
One of these days, I’m going to explain to you how Social Security and Medicare allowed both North and South Dakota to continually let go of large numbers of its youth, and still (largely) prosper. And, by extension, allowed small towns like Bowman and Hettinger run people like your example out of town without any repercussions.
BradSchwartze on August 13, 2010 at 7:32 PM
Willie Nelson had it wrong — don’t let your babies grow up to be “doctors and lawyers and such.” Save yourselves a lot of stress and open a doughnut shop or something. The huge student loan debt from law school (and an LL.M. after that!) are perhaps the main reasons I’m still practicing….
acasilaco on August 13, 2010 at 7:39 PM
Explain away please.
These 2 states get a lot of Federal $$ they shouldn’t receive.
And a lot of these small towns do a lot of things they shouldn’t be doing (i.e. discrimination, blackballing, etc.).
I have been on the end of some of their dirty dealings.
But it is by & large called life.
I personally do not want to live somewhere where the people don’t want me.
And you cannot legislate niceness.
My husband grew up here & is a 4th generation rancher, 3rd generation on the same land.
He is sick of the people here, as am I.
But you got 30-40 miles south of us (we’re on the SD border) & there we find more people who ‘think’ like us. We fit better there.
It comes down to the character of the community.
And I’m serious. Explain away bcs I’m not sure what you’re alluding to.
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 7:40 PM
And I live ‘near’ Hettinger (~50 miles away)-that place is fully of sucky people.
And I do not consider Bowman a small town.
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 7:41 PM
And BTW BradSchwarze-ND & SD are prospering bcs of oil & gas & a friendly business climate where there are people willing to ‘work’.
Young people come back here after a while, but they do not stay largely bcs before there weren’t the employment opportunities & young people like big cities which we do not have here.
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 7:44 PM
What you were describing, to get OT a little and lighten myself up, reminded me of when I was dating this guy, who lived in an apartment building…not the high rise kind, but with a bunch of different units. An asian woman lived on his floor, and would…I kid you not…take whole fish and beat it to tenderize it on the staircase. There would always be fish scales and the smell…but it was just part of the culture from wherever she came from.
JetBoy on August 13, 2010 at 8:01 PM
I believe it.
The Chinese students that come to go to college in Dickinson wash their bodies in the sinks in public restrooms.
A lady I teach with hosted several foreign exchange students (whose parents were known as ‘well-off’ in their countries) would hoard food, letting it rot, under their beds.
I’ve run into a lot of ‘cultural’ differences over the years, living in different places in the US.
But IMHO it all comes down to respect for the place you’re visiting.
You’re gonna have clashes, but if I were to visit a foreign country, or go to live there, I would educate myself on their ways. And if I couldn’t abide by it, I wouldn’t go there in the 1st place.
People are funny.
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 8:09 PM
Since when do homo-tyrants care about the law? Screw the Constitution, democracy, personal opinion or religion….these same sex attracted, single minded clowns want to play wedding and they will stomp and spit until they get their way.
Hening on August 13, 2010 at 8:13 PM
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 7:40 PM
Yes, both states get a lot of Federal bucks they (supposedly) should not receive. But then again, the rest of this nation (especially its military) benefited from the youth of ND and SD much more than the Federal bucks received.
The point being this: Being off the beaten path (as both Dakotas clearly are, even with the Bakken oil production) allows you to get away with quite a few things. And when the bill for both states’ elderly is funded by the Feds, you can afford to let go of lots of your youth.
BradSchwartze on August 13, 2010 at 8:22 PM
BTW, Ed Whelan completely eviscerates this judge for his extralegal and unethical actions from the very beginning of this trial. It’s a must-read.
The Most Egregious Performance Ever By A Federal District Judge
rockmom on August 13, 2010 at 8:24 PM
I have a Chinese next door neighbor, a bit older than myself. After ten years she smiled and waved at me earlier this week. Taking this neighbor deal really slow and careful.
Cindy Munford on August 13, 2010 at 8:33 PM
Actually that has really hurt us. Having lots of old people on SS & Medicare has not helped our small communities at all.
They have been dying. And every now & then they get these ‘grants’ from the Feds to ‘invest’ in our dying communities to try & prop them up.
The hospitals & clinics have been closing due not only to Dr shortages, but poor Medicare reimbursements. And more will close due to provisions in Obamacare.
You are dead wrong when you state we can afford to get rid of lots of our youth due to Federal funding of Medicare.
I don’t know why you think that at all.
Obviously you do not live here.
Have you ever?
Or did you just visit?
Bcs that is NOT what has happened here at ALL.
I already stated, young people were leaving here in droves bcs of:
Farmers consolidating their farms into huge farms-small guys selling out to them, ergo the kids have nothing to stick around for.
Farmers selling out to rich hunters, ergo taking the land out of production, which also makes it impossible to compete for land to rent bcs they inflate the price of the land so you can’t recoup the costs through agriculture uses.
Wide open spaces with nothing for miles & miles-young people often like the hype of the big city life. They want to be able to go to Starbucks & McDonalds. You can’t do that when the nearest ones are 100 miles away.
Federal support of social programs does not make it easy in general for any of us.
But that is not the reason ND & SD’s youth have left.
They left for the reasons I stated above.
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 8:49 PM
Maybe she likes the looks of your cat.
Kittybeef is expensive, I hear.
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 8:50 PM
Unlike this case, there were no private intervenors in the Prop 187 case passed during the Wilson admin.
When it was defeated at the District, Gray Davis had just been elected Gov. and decided not to appeal it to the 9th Ciruit. Again defying the will of the people that had voted and passed it.
keioki on August 13, 2010 at 8:54 PM
Now that is true.
For instance, if I’m of a mind to, I can walk out my front door & pee or poo in my yard & there is no one to tell me I can’t.
I can shoot pheasants out of season right off of my front porch(not that we do Mrs. Game Warden) & no one would be the wiser.
I could bury all sorts of nasty chemicals in my yard & who would know?
I can go camping in my pasture down by the river & start a campfire & there is no one to tell me I can’t.
I can refuse to employ someone based on their color, religon, sex, sexual orientation, whether they are a city person, etc. & there is no one around to stop me.
I could abuse my animals by not feeding them or watering them & they could be emaciated beyond belief & right by the road & even though someone called the sheriff about it nothing would be done.
I could be storing an illegal arsenal on my property & no one would know.
But the point is, that could happen anywhere.
And if you are breaking the law, then it doesn’t matter if you live in podunk or not.
The only difference is enforcement.
When a crime happens in rural America & there’s no one around to see it, it doesn’t always mean someone is getting away with it.
It just may take some time to rectify the situation.
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 8:56 PM
I don’t have a cat. She’s probably happy I feed the ducks and geese. I’d never know if one or two of those were missing.
Cindy Munford on August 13, 2010 at 9:20 PM
LMAO Cindy!
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 9:22 PM
That’s weird. I’ve lived in China for nearly 5 years and never seen anyone wash their body in the sink of a public restroom.
DarkCurrent on August 13, 2010 at 9:29 PM
I once took BBQ dog home in a doggie bag from a Korean restaurant here and fed it to my cat. Because I’m evil.
DarkCurrent on August 13, 2010 at 9:30 PM
Well I cannot tell you why they keep doing it, but that’s what they are doing.
And China is pretty huge & rural.
Could it be a different set of people you have not been around?
You know, like Kentuckians vs North Dakotans?
And I bet the cat was grateful since it’s a carnivore.
You truly are demented. :S
Badger40 on August 13, 2010 at 9:41 PM
I do live in the biggest city, but I’ve been to very rural areas as well. Chinese generally understand how to use a bath and shower. Certainly those who would be traveling overseas for university would. If that really happened, I imagine there was some other unreported circumstance, such as showers/baths not being available for some reason.
As for being demented, I eat basashi also :)
DarkCurrent on August 13, 2010 at 9:47 PM
Judge Walker’s opinion is judicial activism run insanely wild. If you doubt my words, read the opinion, as I have. Ted Olson is the Benedict Arnold betraying the cause of principled, strict, originalist constitutional decision-making. When you read Judge Walker’s opinion, you should be asking yourself how can this be a judicial opinion. In truth, it is an ideological screed.
Judge Walker, like all leftists, do not want to be questioned. They are intent upon imposing their elitist vierws on the rest of us. An appeal threatens that exercise of fiat.
An appeal is desperately needed here. Judge Walker’s opinion constitutes a direct assualt on a cornerstone of state and federal constitutional law: popular sovreignty, reflected in the U.S. Constitution’s opening words, “We the People.” See Gordon Wood’s classic “The Creation of the American Republic.”
Judge Walker is an unelected judge supposedly applying the law, whereas Proposition 8 resulted in a state constitutional provision. The federal constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws cannot be used to trump that state constitutional definition of marriage as one man-one woman because the general language of the federal constitutional equal protection clause does not, absent an impermissible judicial activism, contain the content that not allowing gay marriage is a violation of equal protection. The Founding Fathers and the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment would think a person deranged to argue that not allowing gay marriage is a violation of equal protection. An unelected judge’s attempt to hold a trial and “find facts” in order to pour substantive content into the federal constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws so as then to override a state constitutional provision runs counter to popular sovereignty. In our constitutional system, the People, not an unelected judge, have the right to define marriage, resorting to moral dictates, as only the union of one man and one woman.
Phil Byler on August 13, 2010 at 10:01 PM
Thank you, Cindy. I think the same of you. I love reading your posts. They are usually short, but direct. I will learn brevity one day!!
I’ve learned a lot about how to “argue” from my fellow HotAir posters and, of course, the lead bloggers.
SouthernGent on August 13, 2010 at 10:12 PM
It might not happen. Whitman wants to run a basketcase of a state with absolutely no experience. While the (R) next to her name might be a plus in most places this time around, California’s had an “R” (even if the next three letters were INO) for the past seven years and for the vast majority of the last 25. So when people want change on the state level, that means, in the top office, a Democrat. Whitman is like our current (very, very unpopular) governor: Very wealthy and savvy in the private sector, inexperienced and flaccid in the public sector. And people remember when Brown was governor and don’t recall him doing anything particularly horrible to the state (in spite of Whitman’s ads trying to convince us otherwise). That’s more than we can say for the last three governors we’ve had.
calbear on August 13, 2010 at 11:40 PM
Oh, stop being so humble. You make some of the most laconic quips here.
Man of few words, but if you say something, its always worth reading.
Saltysam on August 14, 2010 at 12:09 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »