Hmmm…when ya put it that way, it sounds much more fun. I used to throw a fair to middling heater back in the day…
Brownback: what comes after Santorum.
Bwahaha. Hopefully I’m getting the joke you intended (if there was one), otherwise I’m just gross.
Yeah this is pretty much bullshit. Why the hell should it matter if she attended a civil union? Argh! Can’t we just fast forward in the social sense and legalize it? It’s very hard for me to understand why people so strongly oppose it still. This lady could go to the Church of Satan in her free time for all I care, as long as she is a good and fair judge.
I have to cop to mixed feelings on this. After all, if the Shrub thinks she’s the best candidate for the bench, my first instinct is to think, “no she isn’t.”
I gotta not let that asswipe determine all of my positions for me…
Blind pigs and truffles and all that.
As Judge Neff is from my neck of the woods and is a highly respected jurist as well as a friendly and popular person, this Brownstain abortion has been reported in the local paper for some time now, as this thing’s been going on and on. Fuckasswithole indeed.
Our Michigan senators, Democrats Levin and Stabenow, rightly took great umbrage at this foreign intrusion, especially since we’ve been short of the requisite judges for a ridiculously long stretch of time and it took hard work for them to negotiate with Our Great Leader to even get them to the committee in the first place. But OGL approved Neff himself, so the Backstain’s subsequent interference was nothing more than grandstanding, pandering cocksucking of America’s sanctimonious fag-bashers.
Sure, it could be seen by some as a bit petty, but I think Levin and Stabenow did the right thing by declaring that the difficult compromise deal reached with Bush was a “package deal” and would only accept the whole package. So after trying futilely for some time to get the Stain out, they placed their own “hold” on the two other nominees until Neff’s nomination reached the floor for a vote. I don’t think he’d have ever relinquished without it, though I’m sure neither senator is particularly proud of having been forced into that action.
Oh, it wasn’t that easy. Levin and Stabenow were forced by Our Great Leader to accept two uglyconservatives to get just one of their own choices through.
So your standards don’t need any adjustment after all.
Fully intended. My first thought when I saw the CNN story was “Dan Savage doesn’t even need to hold a contest to come up with a slang meaning for this guy’s name. It’s already there.”
You’re still gross, but you’ve got company.
I am mortified to be in such depraved and corrupt company. I resolve to find a better class of people to interact with. Pretty soon. Maybe New Years.
This will be added to the dictionary as an illustration in at least four separate places–alongside the verbs “to grandstand” and “to pander”, and after the phrases “having shit for brains” and “hitting rock bottom”.
Holy shitstains! :eek:
I read in Thomas Frank’s excellent book “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” that Sen. Brownback once attempted to emulate Jesus by forcibly and literally washing the feet of an assistant who was quitting the campaign. The recipient of this act was reportedly horrified and bewildered.
So when is fluiddruid going to come by and close this thread?
Ha! This sums up why, IMHO, “fundamentalist Christians” are so totally off key. Back in Jesus’ day and in that part of the world, most people had no shoes. There were no paved roads to speak of. Heck, most houses had dirt floors. So people spent their lives barefoot walking through dirt and mud and shit. The feet of someone who lived in a city would pretty much be continually nasty. Cleaning someone’s feet would be not only an uncommon act of kindness, but an act of humility as well.
By trying to literally (and forcibly) repeat Jesus’ act in modern Kansas, this fuckasswithole has shown he doesn’t understand one of the most basic messages of the Bible.
This is close but a little bit off. People generally wore sandals rather than going absolutely barefoot but obviously they still ended up with dirty or sandy feet when they walked anywhere. As a resul, it was a common courtesy for hosts to offer their guests a pitcher of water to wash their feet with. Those who could afford them would assign servants to wash the feet of their guests. Washing the feet of another put you in a subservient position and could either signify submission or freat affection. When Jesus washed the feet of his disciples it reversed social expecations because the “master” was making himself subordinate to his followers (as well as showing affection, of course).
It wasn’t that uncommon for one person to wash another’s feet. It was fairly standard practice. What was uncommon was for anyone to do the “slave” work of washing the feet of his social “lessers.”
That’s for sure.
A number of people on these boards have suggested that the federal Equal Protection Clause requires all states to recognize same-sex marriage. A lesser number have suggested that the Due Process Clause creates a requirement for state recognition of same-sex marriage.
I agree with your view, but I disagree that it’s so obvious that every federal jurist will automatically agree.
Rick, Oakminster, and other interested parties: May I ask for revival of a topic dormant for a while: whether Federal DOMA and the state DOMAs and amendments violate the FF&C clause, given that we now have a state which recognizes SSM and two or three states (Connecticut?) which have civil unions defined as *illegally equivalent to SSM. F’r example: Tom and Paul establish a New Jersey civil union. Two years later, they move to, say, Kansas, and attempt to buy a home there as tenants by the entireties. Kansas, of course, refuses to recognize their status as a couple in a legal civil union, and refuses to file the title defining them as such. They thereupon petition the State of New Jersey to bring an ex parte suit compelling Kansas to recognize their civil union as granted by New Jersey, under the FF&C doctrine. Kansas counters with the “public policy exception”. Chief Justice Roberts, recognizing your wisdom, requests you to file an amicus curiae brief. What will you say in it?
I’ve advanced the Equal Protection argument elsewhere, may have done it here as well. I still don’t expect a large number of those cases. In theory, it would only take 2-3 from different circuits with different results to interest SCOTUS. As such, the odds of any particular District Judge getting such a case seem small. I don’t see it as a valid concern when considering a candidate for the federal bench.
The specific issue? Yes, not so much. But in my view, it’s VERY valid to ask a potential judicial nominee what his or her philosophy of judicial construction is when confronted with an issue like this. Does he believe that courts should tak eit upon themselves to right social wrongs, crafting whatever rationale seems appropriate, or does he believe that the legislature is the proper venue to solve social problems?
I’ll remind the Court of its own words:
I’ll go on to point out that the Court has long recognized this distinction, and termed it a “public policy exception”.
Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Comm’n
I’ll point out that “unavoidable” is precisely the right word to describe the Court’s conclusion; if the Constitution truly compelled the opposite result – that every state’s marriage laws were binding in every other state – it would effectively eviscerate the ability of any state to regulate marriage; the “least common demoninator” would effect apply, and the state with the most permissive age, consanguinuity, and other requirements would be able to set the legal bar for the entire country. This is a nonsensical result.
What’s the use of the Full Faith and Credit bit, then?