Question: Are Congressional Republicans and the RNC going to be smart, or be stupid?

Answer: We'll find out very soon.

Obama nominated a latina to the Supreme Court today. The Hispanic vote was instrumental in putting Bush over the top in both elections, and McCain got hammered by the Hispanic vote.

Sotamayor is well into the moderate arena, she came from poor beginnings to rise very high in her field, all on merit. She's an example of the American Dream.

Rush, predictably, has already called her a racist...shows you just how stupid that fat fukker is.

Will the rest of the Republican Party follow suit, thereby alienating what might be the most important swing vote faction in our electorate...the ones who will play a big part in mid-term elections?

It remains to be seen.

Fish on...

Todd

just curious as to why you think she isnt racist?

The social and society norm says so.

Why do you (and Rush) think she's a racist?

it might be because i havent had any money to buy any ganj for a week because i had to buy food for my son, but my patience for both libtards and moderates alike is wearing very thin.....

parker....what? when did i say anything about what i thought about her? i asked todd a question, not you.

actually most republicans like what he has to say...its just the moderates who claim to be R's that dont like him....you know, those people who cant make up their damn mind and so they try and join both sides. i havent met many true right of center people who dont like him.

me too....

As a conservative, I see no problems with her. At least she isn't an ACLU attorney.
She is no more liberal than the guy she is replacing.

As far as her decision re. the firefighters suit. I'm glad I'm no longer in LE or any other form of public service. Does anyone here like to run their business, promote and hire their employees based on racial or gender quotas? I worked for women, minorities and had women and minorities working for me. I don't give a damn what color or sex they are as long as they don't ask for special privileges and do their job the way it is intended to be done. Working for competent supervisors is a privilege. Incompetent supervisors do nothing other than piss you off.

Race and sex do not determince competency. Skill and attitude does. Adjusting the qualifications and tests so certain groups can pass is BS! Plain and simple!

+1

and you assume that people who listen to rush make their decisions based on what he says? what about all of the other sources for info? you have to find out from something. you dont just all of a sudden know whats going on without hearing it on TV, the radio, or the newspaper. all of those are from someone's point of view, there isnt a single news source out there that doesnt come with some sort of an opinion. i read the paper in the morning (all lib points of view) and rush in the afternoon (all conservative points of view).

Didn't the democrats shoot down the opportunity to appoint the first Hispanic judge under Bush?

The first woman had already been done.

I would ratther they choose the best person for the job, rather than concentrating on sex or race. Choosing either, then trying to fill that position based on the predefined limits rules out many qualifies people.

actually i enjoy the way he makes fun of libs and moderates....cracks me up

that is what happens with internet chats....if you new me or even saw me, you definitely would think insecure or unsure, but since you don't know and you only get to listen to my jack ass remarks, then assume away.

One reverse discrimination suit that didn't come out the way some would like it does not a racist make...even if a fat idiot drug addict like Rush says so. I'd bet a dollar that case gets overturned at the SCOTUS anyway.

If there is any serious opposition from the right on this, then you'll be seeing yet another nail in the coffin of the Republican Party...especially if all the folks on the Judiciary Committee who already passed her forward twice before all of a sudden start balking.

No one seriously questions her credentials or her abilities...this one's pure politics, and it remains to be seen what kind of politics the Republicans will play...stupid, or smart?

"Smart" would be to give her a cursory hearing and pass her along..."stupid" would be battering her over one case, watching her go to the SCOTUS anyway, and then losing even more of the Hispanic vote due to their continued pigheadedness.

What do you think it will be?

Fish on...

Todd

wow.... you really weren't lying about being in a mood.

i was in the mood to argue about it, but there is no point, and i cant really stay in a bad argumentative mood very long....fishing is fun, and i like to go fishing as often as possible....there, im already in a better mood.

So what do you think they ought to do, Redd...and why?

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. "they" being Republican legislators.

He saw the thread title and thought it was something easy. Feels hoodwinked.

Nice post, Redd.

Go quail hunting in Texas...

+1

Many of the R's on the judiciary committee will have to square their current opinions with their past opinions of her, since they already confirmed her twice, back when it was a Republican President that was doing the nominating...I really doubt she's less qualified now than she was when they confirmed her...overwhelmingly, I might add.

Changing their opinions now might smack of the "Party of No" that they're being accused of lately...might also be a good time to shuck that tag, even if it is just temporarily.

Fish on...

Todd

Smart lady, qualified, the FF case the only real red flag. No problems. Confirm her. But ask the same questions in the process that would be asked of any other justice. Dont make it hard, dont give her a free pass either. Ask quetions of why without pulling some red face, spitting, sputtering Ted Kennedy style rant.
Most importantly, dont pull a dem type move and raise a huge stink when you have voted for her multiple times before. Dont be that party. Let them be that party. I think Redd had it just about perfect. We should forward that post to our reps.

Better choice than Harriet Miers.

Is that Dewbie?

are you retarded?

Does it really matter that the R's confirmed her twice previously? Wouldn't the SCOTUS be considered a promotion from level she is at now? So is it possible she is qualified for the level she is at now, but not for the next?
Just asking the question, as I know nothing about her or her background, or what kind of qualifications it takes to become a judge. I do know though that just because you were promoted or selected for advancement in the past does not guarantee promotion or advancement in the future.

The VERY same question could be asked of Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

Hank,
Ginsberg has not exactly been a cons vote(lib for a lib really). I for one will be happy to see her and her living const gone. If he puts up another well qualified judge that might not believe as I do on all issues.....O'well. I can handle that. What I dont want is someone who thinks they should legislate from the bench. Far to much of that these days and it is only getting worse. If he puts up a good judge that interprets law rather than makes it......they got my vote. Not that it matters.

So you're racist towards blacks and italians?

Please enlighten us as you are the resident expert.

Sounds like someone has been listening to too much right-wing radio.

"Activist judges"... uh, yeah.

Enlighten me...how am I an expert lil'peter?

Enlighten me...how am I an expert lil'peter?

[/quote]

must be because you are white, and you didnt vote for the messiah who is black.....i was called a racist for not voting for him by some baggy pants wearing G-Funk piece of sh!t......

KD,
What country have you lived in for the last 30 years. Has nothing to do with right-wing radio as I have never once in my life listened to any of the radio talking heads. Heard a few sound bites when some big deal is made on actual news but never heard any of the idiots from left or right. I like to try to think for myself.
If you have not seen judges making law from the bench in the last years pull your head out of the sand or quit listening to left-wing radio saying the decisions are the peoples will. This countries legal system has gotten out of hand. Lawsuits over everything from hot coffee being hot to the newest one heard the other day coming home from fishing......some guy wanting 2mil because he asked for no pickles and got pickles at burger king. Traumatized you know.
Activist judges.....yeah. Everything is a lawsuit these days. Cant get what you want via legislation, find the right judge with the right district court behind them. You will get your law. Just keep sueing and someone will rule your way sooner or later.
I just think we should vote on laws or they should be made by those we elected(not that I always like the outcome then either but at leaast I had a say) Judges interpret.....we vote. I believe that was how democ works. I guess that is crazy talk. Radical right wing stuff.

One man's "activist judge" is another man's "considered the facts and made a reasoned judgment judge"...it's always result-oriented, or you would have heard the usual "hate activist judges" suspects screaming bloody murder over the last 2nd Amendment case that SCOTUS heard.

They like guns, so the activism didn't bother them one bit. Be "activist" about something they don't like, and the badge comes right back out.

Fish on...

Todd

"Originally Posted By: RowVsWade


This last November they got their wish and elected a president based on his skin color
"



It is okay, sorry, little man. I do not have any expectations of you.

That isn't racist you phuggin' idiot it's the truth.

But since you ain't got game I didn't expect much from you any way.

You are such a disappointment lil'peter....but you already know that.

Why don't we use some Sotamayor quotes to form our opinions? From Reuters....

"Conservatives argued that she would use personal feelings to decide cases, pointing to her 2005 comment that federal appeals courts are where "policy is made" and her 2002 comment that a Latina judge "would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.""

In the same article, the liberal position - very positive of Sotamayor, did not reference any quotes.....things that make me go hmmmmmm.

How about reading all the opinions she's written over her career?

Fish on...

Todd

Busy today. Maybe later.

How about including the entire article for context.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE54P2IS20090527

that was the first thing i have read on her.....i dont think i like her....wait...nope i dont like her. that whole latina versus white male thing doesn't sit right with me. someone who needs to talk about their ethnicity in that way is most likely.....













































racist.....

Wouldn't you say that off the cuff remarks are more telling than legal opinions, which are carefully worded, and well thought out? Those statements, which I'm assuming were verbal, were obviously not filtered properly.

she must not have been using a teleprompter....maybe obama can hook her up

The legal opinions are the best indicator of what she'll do on the bench.

Fish on...

Todd

I found a more complete version of the quote...it gets better:

This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

I have to agree with Marsha so far I don't see a good reason not to confirm her appointment.

I have read some but obviously not all of her opinions and they don't seem out of line.

A more complete version of the other quote...

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." -- S. Sotomayor, October 2001

"I hope" was missing the first go-round. I can't argue with you guys that this is a reason to reject her confirmation. I guess it just bothers me more than most....................PP posters.

The whole point I was getting at when starting this thread was this:

1. She's going to be confirmed...get used to it now.

2. She's eminently qualified, and there's not really much question about that.

3. The Republicans really...REALLY...need some of the hispanic vote back if they hope to ever get back in any semblance of power.

4. Will the R's in the Senate ignore 1-3, and act like they have been the past three months?

I don't know the answer...but the answer to that question will have plenty to do with how long it takes them to get anywhere again.

Fish on...

Todd

And here's the quote from a speech in real context delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law and published in 2002 in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal:

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The repubs leave all this out when playing the racist card. It's stuff like this that make me go..... figures.

I'm not sure all those sugary words she poetically waxed helps your argument. You may want stop when your ahead. I know emotions and sugar go along ways with the limp wristed left but y'all need to look at the substance of the statement.

This is coming from me, a guy who thinks she should be confirmed...but I could be convinced otherwise.

.."a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

WTF does that mean?

I bet lil'english peter would have her latina arse drawn and quartered for such a racist remark....but since he's a df'r who cares.

Having a decision reversed by the SCOTUS doesn't mean that you aren't "SCOTUS smart" Hank... it just means that the majority... which just so happen to be conservative on the Court disagreed with your ruling.

This isn't for you Hank... but to those who've regurgitated it in this thread.

The whole "activist judges legislating from the bench" BS IS nothing but a right-wing talking point. Whether you heard it on talk-radio, saw it on FOX News or read it in the Weekly Standard is pretty much irrelevant. You're just parroting.

Anyone know what the reversal rate of the SCOTUS is?

Here's a hint...nearly 75% of the cases they take are reversed. That's why they take them, most of the time.

Anyone know what Judge Alito's reversal rate is?

Guesses?

OK...another hint.

100%. Every time one of his opinions was reviewed by the SCOTUS, they reversed him.

Every time.

Is this really the measuring stick the Republicans ought to be thinking about?

One more hint...no.

Fish on...

Todd

I didn't say that EVERY decision goes down ideological lines now did I?

I will help you just this one, last time. You ascribe your righteousness to "people voting for Obama based on his skin color."

I should point out, how do you know what all the voters for Obama were thinking and how did they manage to conspire on such a scale? You may find this painful, but great insight sometimes comes at the expense of great pain. Have a nice day.

"In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism where a person's personal attributes, unacceptable or unwanted thoughts, and/or emotions are ascribed onto another person or people. According to Wade, Tavris (2000) projection occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else.[1]

An example of this behavior might be blaming another for one's own failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and redirect their libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another."

Don't go using facts, like the ones I put above...they don't work.

Ridiculous catch phrases trumpeted by the right wing radio and TV loudmouths are far easier to remember, and even if those hearing them, not to mention those spouting 'em, don't even know what they mean, they know if they say 'em, and their listeners hear 'em, then they must be bad.

Very bad.

Fish on...

Todd

"Wouldn't you say that off the cuff remarks are more telling than legal opinions, which are carefully worded, and well thought out? "

Nope. Carefully worded and well thought out legal opinions are what we want. And I think most of us wouldn't be employed if off the cuff remarks were more important than our on the job performance.

Don't bother explaining Hank, it does no good. Just like talking to a wall sometimes. Spin, spin, spin, it still is what it is. It is about following the Const to some and changing the Const to the others. "Activists" dont follow the const and use terms like "living" or "evolving" to allow themselves, without the legislature, to change it to fit their view of the world. Others believe that the const covers what each of us is entitled in this country. After that we use the legis to change things(if we decide it is needed. Sometimes the legis needs to have decision thrown back because they dont follow the const. That has nothing to do with "activist". It is just the opposite. So the spin should stop there(though it probably wont).
I agree Todd that ones activist decision is anothers great decision. Just different views of the same situation I guess but the bottom line is the Const and does it follow it.
Last thing is this.....I have many lib and rep friends that I hunt with. We get in the occasional pol discussion at camp. The libs always have this thing about talk radio(suprise surprise, we hear it here as well).
We were at elk camp last year and that got brought up. One of my on the ball(non-redneck/hick) rep freinds piped up about who around the fire had ever heard talk radio. Not one of the reps had ever listened to anyone on talk radio, but two of the libs had tuned into everyones fav fat windbag.
Makes you go hmmm. I am starting to think that most of that guys listeners are libs who just cant make it through the day without something to complain about. I see you with your lib buddies....."Did you hear what he said this morning?" "I cant believe it." "Those damn rep." Rush does not speak for most of us sorry. Niether does Hannity, Coltier or whoever else you guys like to listen to to get you feathers all ruffled.
How about you guys drop the admin new talking point and stop tuning in every week and maybe these blowhard will just go away. But without them to poitn to you would loose your boggyman so it probably wont happen.

Most of the country is already bundled around the center...I think that's why the politicos, of both stripes, spend so much time picking around at the extreme edges just so they can find something to distinguish themselves from the "other guys"...and all of them end up alienating most everyone else when they do it.

Most folks also tend to be at least somewhat partisan about their party of choice, so if they mention how little they like the extreme position of the "other guy", even if it's a relatively trivial matter and represents only a small part of his politics, they immediately get labeled as "extreme" the other way...while they don't likely agree with the either extreme end of the spectrum.

Fish on...

Todd

So, when times are tough, go back to the basics - Dr. Seuss. We can teach and enforce intolerance, or we can work together.

im on the extreme end of the right and proud of it....apparently that qualifies me as a terrorist or so i have heard....

Dewbie woke up.

just long enough to take a hit and go back to bed

ouch, still in a mood i see.....

You are not a terrorist. Bong hits do not qualify as "waterboarding"

sweet, good to know.

I think it would count as waterboarding if you put a Pink Floyd album cover over your victim's eyes and poured bong water up his nose...be careful, you don't want to be a torturer.

Fish on...

Todd

Activist judge on SCOTUS? Whoda thunk Scalia was a lib?

Antonin Scalia, who, in the majority opinion of 2002 case Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, wrote:

This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of "representative government" might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States' constitutions as well. ... In fact, the judges of inferior courts often "make law," since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed. (Emphasis mine)

"Activist Judge" is just a made up term that RWWJ's use to go after any judge who is either appointed by a Democratic President, or fails to have knee jerk right wing opinions, even if appointed by a Republican.

Fish on...

Todd

Does anyone think the abortion issue will hit the SCOTUS again in our lifetime? It's just a politcal football to keep small minds off the real issues.

a small mind would think that abortion is okay and not the most selfish thing a parent could do to their child.....

Yup except I highly doubt the scotus will ever take it up again.

"a small mind would think that abortion is okay and not the most selfish thing a parent could do to their child....."

Dewb, you are a poster child for abortion.

im not exactly sure what you are getting at... i irritate you so my mom should have murdered me before i was born right? you are fvcking sick

i might not agree with you but i dont think your mom should have killed you

but you better not torture some Muslim who wants you dead.....that is uncivilized.....

Just an observation Aunty - I have often noticed that Pro-life people are also pro death penalty for criminals.

Thou shalt not kill, except when it suits my wishes? This applies to both sides of the argument!

you couldn't be more WRONG......criminals are criminals they could have chose not to commit the crime. babies are pretty darn innocent and deserve LIFE. abortion is sick and wrong, and i am willing to go to fisticuffs with anyone who says otherwise....im not joking either. people who think it is okay are disgusting and need a good beat down. so far, i have KO'd 3 liberal men who wanted to give woman permission to kill their child.

i agree with you aunty about the death penalty thing....in a perfect world i would go for eye for an eye sort of thing, but this isnt and our criminal justice system is pretty fvcked up. i would rather not waste the tax money on those pukes

" liberal men sanction murder."

now that's a puzzler. Seems to me men can't commit what you call "murder" only you womenz can.

Pro-life people also seem to be pro war or is it just the party they flock to? Here's a bomb....whoops. Well, these aren't kids they are collateral damage.


"i have KO'd 3 liberal men"

Is your breath that bad? They must have been extreme wimps.

"abortion is sick and wrong, and i am willing to go to fisticuffs with anyone who says otherwise"

bring it on cause I say it ain't your call you little bitch.

cant say i have ever been called little or bitch before. guess there is a first time for everything.....i will remember that next time i see you on the river

check out the tourette's guy thread - like father like son

Wow. Doobie is the first person to make my ingnor list. If I can figure it out.

what is an ingnor?

I knew I was stirring the pot with that one, but that was awesome! And at least my pea brain is not split, because if it were, I'd be Dan S or Chuck S Flinging the poo guys!

she's from sveeden.

gotcha....im on the same list as a chick from sweeden. i guess it could be worse

At the risk of derailing a great thread.....I'd like to see some pics of Ingnor from Sweden.

+1

"what is an ingnor?" It's short for ignoramas and you made his list.

"stlhead, do you understand that "sanctioning" is not the same thing as "committing"??? Perhaps I thought you understood our language better than you actually do."

Are you saying men should be "sanctioning" or "not sanctioning" what women do? Do you require that?

The pro life crowd for the most part supports the GOP so I guess one could say by supporting the GOP they "sanctioned" killing innocents.

I put this on the joke thread, but it is appropriate/inappropriate for this thread:

How many right-to-lifers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

101

One to screw in the light bulb and one hundred to testify that the light bulb was lit as soon as the screwing started.

i wasnt bragging....just kinda came out. after i wrote i i knew i went a bit overboard, but it happened so oh well. but i have to say, getting called out by two old dudes who dont know me and i know who both of you are is pretty funny. you guys can think what you want, i get a little worked up when it comes to abortion, i would give up my gun rights for an anti abortion law, that is how much it means to me....i would even vote for a dem if i knew he would do away with abortion. i dont know why you guys assume that i am some pansy because i smoke pot. it doesnt really make sense but you guys are just assuming and it does make me smile. i generally laugh at most old lib guys anyway especially when they call people half their age bitches
whatever floats your boat i guess.

if ever abortion becomes illegal the same zealots will then turn to attacking birth control. Talk about chipping away. It's that same old hypocritical religious extremism where everyone should have had s*x as many times as they have children after marriage of course and in the dark, with clothes on and you didn't enjoy it.

my bad....i feel like i keep having to apologize to you today

where did you get that from??

you really are retarded

I gotta say, I didn't see that one coming!

This thread is getting golden!

Okay Aunty, what about women who get abortions all on their own because they are not morally/religiously prevented from having one?

im pretty good at getting on everyone's nerves....its a gift really...

i hope you all know if is just fun and games. i do get a bit carried away on the abortion issue but i could fish with all of you....actually i have fished with a bunch of you, but you probably dont know it.

generally they regret it for the rest of their lives....

And you're the son of EP!!!

just like there have been a bunch of crazy left wing cases brought before the court....there are weirdos on both sides, take me for example that doesnt mean that most of the religious people would go for that sort of thing.

+1

Yes it was, and that is the problem! I'm all about birth control - we have a sixteen year old daughter and she will not get in the family way on our watch!!!

why dont you just encourage abstinence instead? i wish i had been better at that when i was a whippersnapper....i could have focused more on fishing.

"why dont you just encourage abstinence instead?"

Yeah that's worked so well....Nancy.

oh i know....didnt work for me. it would have been nice though. i was definitely too young for that sort of thing.

See, masturbation does cause blindness!!!

nancy? really?

That would be Ron & Nancy Reagan. Just say no to drugs as well.

you cant make me

I didn't think this thread could get any more retarded.

It's rare, but I'll admit it...I was wrong. It got a lot more retarded.

Arguing about abortion rights is about as productive as a Martian arguing with a Venusian about the price of tea on Jupiter.

I'm going fishing for a couple of days...I suggest the rest of you do, too.

Fish on...

Todd

If men are from Mars and Women are from Venus then I would agree that arguing with a women is never a good idea and almost always ends badly for the Martian.

Good luck fishing.

That's the beauty of "the dark side"

Good luck fishing with Hankster's customized hooks

It's green...........it's currency.

Okay, let's get back to the supreme court then.

Is same-sex marriage allowed under the constitution of the US? How would Sotomayor vote?

Fire in the hole!

Aunty!

if you get any more "teste", I'm gonna start calling you Hillary!!!

I am not trying to fit you into any mold, just looking for more perspectives, ludicrous to laudible.

Mike,

I agree with Aunty. The Constitution is silent on marriage. That makes it a state's rights issue. However, when a state like CA creates law prohibiting same sex marriage, that seems to violate equal rights and protections or amendment 9 protections. The SCOTUS should vacate any such state law.

It gets back to the singular interest the state has in marriage in the first place: who is financially responsible for any children resulting from uniting a couple? Anything else regarding marriage is none of the state's damn business. The church however, is free to meddle in the marriages of its members as much as it wants or as much as its members allow. Separation of church and state; it's the only alternative that works in the US.

Sg

That law was created thru a vote of the citizens of CA and they spoke. I don't care if gays can marry, it doesn't change my life one iota, but to say it's a states rights issue but then complain to SCOTUS when the states don't support the priveledge of marriage thru a referendum is ludicrous and anti-American. The issue is not about equal rights for gays because many states now insure that, but rather it is about having a word applied to their status to validate for them, their union.

What I do find ironic is that the institution of marriage is primarily a religious invention and those who seek to have it sanction their unions are historically the ones who have shunned religion the most.

+1

Ironic and then some.

But if it is a states rights issue then doesn't the state have grounds to set the rules?

I had to get a permit/license from the government to get married. Which btw fwiw wasn't in a church.

That would make too much sense. It would kind of take care of this whole mess rather efficiently.

Iowa (Iowa for pete's sake!) already ruled that state law prohibiting same sex unions/marriage was invalid:

"Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

To issue any other decision, the justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty.""

California's Prop 8 ( 8 = hate ) was upheld because the complaint against it said it illegally amended the state constitution.

I think they were avoiding testing deeper waters to see if they could get it repealed this way.

States rights seem to fly based on the administration in charge at the federal level.

"Iowa lawmakers have "excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification."

Its a for lack of better terms, its a behavior choice. What defines a civil union, do they have to be romatically involved or could I civil union one of my broke ass buddies to get ahead on my taxes or to get him benefits etc?

more like hump back mountain

Kinda' like an "I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry" thing?

In the fairness to straight men I feel obliged to include a clip of Jessica Biel from that movie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk46dN0ffvg

Bless you RvW

BEEEEP