Prop 8?

I think we have a good idea what the USSC mean to do with Lawrence Vs. Texas -- Justice Scalia made a point of lamenting, "Oh, no, now this means gay marriage will soon follow." I hope that tired old Medieval fart goes on a hunting trip with Dick Cheney and arms the Darth Vader with an Uzi.

don't be so sure, we know that the supremes assumed that eventually gays would have full rights, which would be at some point represented in supreme court opinion, thus they wanted to get ready. But the court is playing with nuclear weapons if it tries to claim that they have the power to nullify majority rights. The court has been badly damaged these last decades by getting out ahead of the people and trying to claim rights that the the conservatives in particular are not willing to cede to the courts, out of self preservation I don't think that the court can take on the majority. The gay rights groups are trying to maneuver the court into that position, but I will be shocked if the supremes bite.

Majority rights? Not applicable -- what majority rights, presumably straight, although I'm not sure about the muddle-headed Log Cabin Repubs? Majority votes, and a small percentage at that, is not what the California Supreme Court should consider -- it's whether it is the majority taking away rights and amending the state constitution. What particular damage has been done to the courts by the conservatives in "these last decades" (is that two or three or four or more decades?) Just what is "getting ahead of the people?" As of the latest polls, there is no longer a majority against nullifying the amendment to the amendment and it appears to be sinking fast. Although the court shouldn't consider that either, it has to perhaps reread the Federalist Papers and the many documents written by the creators of the Constitution rather than the Constitution, which they should know by heart. I suspect like my conservative acquaintances including customers, the conservative judges don't like reading the Federalist Papers and likely have never read them. I'd suggest anyone trying to understand what the US Constitution is all about actually read the Federalist Papers. But I fear that like Darwin's Origin, they won't be able to get past the first twenty page.

You're playing armchair psychiatrist with the judges in the court, assigning fear of self-preservation as a motive to make any decision -- a hypothetical analysis that borders on the absurd.

True however public records laws can work both ways and the list of donors to the anti-prop 8 groups can be place on websites also.

And the gay community would have no moral right or standing to complain when the majority of citizens stop doing business with them.

And of course more complete lists could be created and posted of gays and gay right supporters and why not as they are the ones who open this can of worms.

I wonder how it would feel to be part of the Mexico army a week or so after crossing the US border and the hammer come down.

Ben and Jerry are gay! Lord this is like the time I found out the Rock Hudson was gay.

Next you will be telling me that FBI G-man Hoover was gay.

the court no more acts free of human psychology than the financial markets do. The majority opinion for the last twenty years was that the markets are rational, we finally have wised up about that. I trust that in time you will become wise to how the court works as well.

Unless an investor is an idiot, they should have been rational as to what goes on at the slot machines in Wall Street and investments in general for four or five obvious reasons in the past twenty years. If they have no financial advisor or manager, they're bound to get hurt. You're presuming to know what that psychology is -- that's the absurdity. The last sentence is condescending nonsense -- you don't know me, what I know about history of the US and the courts, so keep that trust to yourself.

You can't boycott or blacklist Hoover or Hudson. You mean to say you don't know of any contemporary person who came out or was outed? I suppose you don't watch any movie from DreamWorks.

Newsweeks article on gay marriage:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/1726

The two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change.
- Seth MacFarlane

hawkeye, the markets is not rational; i wonder where you get that crazy idea. because it is not rational, there is no one on this planet who can predict what will happen for the short term. No one. If it was rational, most people would have abandoned the markets by now, because that follows from the simple fact that our economy is now in big trouble and will get worse.

how is it rational? please explain that for me, because I've been investing for over 30 years, and haven't been able to figure out how the markets will react next week or next month.

Academics and journalists who watch the court for a living routinely comment upon the psychology of the court. It is reasonably knowable.

So where have these "academics and journalist" expressed themselves on the psychology of the court on Prop 8 routinely? Who are they specifically, or is this just another off-the-wall generalization? No, it is not logically nor reasonably knowable despite what any media pundit wants to assert. Even after the judgement comes down, it's only a guess. Unless, again, you are their personal psychiatrist.

markets do not behave rationally but greenspan et al believed that they did over the long haul. The claim was with proper visibility (disclosure) from the players the markets would behave rationally in time. Now we know that they don't.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2002/12/09/333473/index.htm

I can't find it at the moment, but there was a study done recently that proves that even with perfect knowledge of value bubbles will still happen, because each player is not sure that the other players are rational. Thus they will buy into an overpriced stock on the way up hoping that they can dump it before the price tanks (in their minds before everyone else figures out that it is not worth the asking price) .

Silly little ant can you read at all?

an educated guess, from people who have studied the court as a career, have poured over the documents from disclosure given to history by previous court justices, by dissecting the interviews current justices have given, and by going over every opinion and descent word by word.

One of the ways we know that the court is damaged is that the court is now largely ignored around the world. Us Constitutional law has always been far and away the leader in global constitutional law, other constitutional courts followed ours . Now they mostly ignore American decisions when making their own, they follow European courts, and as we saw in Lawrence v Texas the US court follows behind. One of the main rationals given for the Lawrence v Texas decision and the claims that Bowers v Hardwick was wrongly decided was that the American court in Bowers v Hardwick was out of step with the leading constitutional courts around the world.

Where are these "interviews" by California SC judges? Please give me a link. Otherwise, like most of the crap you bring up, it's that hat in front of your mouth that bothers me.

The only one I could Google among the very rare interviews any judge gives the press is not in your favor and by a Republican judge!:

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/18/local/me-gay18

why should anybody care about a state supreme court enough to follow them? It is the US Supreme court that matters. It is the US Supreme court that is watched carefully. It is the US supreme court that will decide what the legal position of gays in America is. It is the US supreme court that will rule on attempts by state and federal legislatures to create law that deals with gays and gay behaviour.

I detest doing other peoples work ...google [interview "supreme court justice"] Inteviews don't happen everyday, but they are not "very rare".

Sound like the greater fool theory to me.