I have to say I'm disappointed in the Supremes-after taking the first step to marriage equality, they should have gone all the way and heard these cases and decide one way or another if gay marriage is legal or not. And as of yet they have not commented on why these chose to do this.

I've read a bit more about what means and it does actually sound like a victory for gay marriage in five southern states, as their bans on it will no longer have any legality since the Court denied taking the appeals. But it seems to keep the door open to other bans, and delays in allowing gay marriages to happen in states that have now had their bans overturned, and of course the inevitable lawsuits and state/US congressional actions that will try to still block gay marriage.

Its become such an important "hot-button" legal issue, it would have been appropriate to get a "Supreme" judgement on.

If all the circuit courts agree, then there's no reason for the Supreme Court to interject. If/when the 6th circuit rules against gay marriage, then the Supreme Court will be forced to take up the matter - and we'll know that the 6th circuit court does in a matter of a couple of months. But this may have been a message to the 6th circuit court, saying in essence that "we think everyone else has been right and there's no reason for us to revisit the issue".

The "Birthers" just don't give up:

Lawyer Who Beat the NSA Files Obama 'Deportation Petition' - US News

Thank you for the explanation-I sincerely hope that is what is going on here

Think of their not hearing any of the cases as okaying it by their inaction.


Emphasis mine.

Thanks DT, I have a better understanding on the situation now-still wish they would just rule on it once and for all because until they do there are going to be challenges to gay marriage either by states or individuals. But I realize now why they chose not to do it here.

The Supreme Court is actually being very smart here. They are incredibly wary of another Roe v. Wade situation. So, they'll allow it to play out a little longer in more a local way... a way that does seem to be moving towards consensus. So when the SCOTUS does issue a final ruling, you'll have most of the country already having SSM and you won't have a backlash that lasts... what, almost 40 years in the case of Roe?

Bear in mind, Imran, not that I disagree with your reasoning, but there was also a public safety issue at stake with Roe.

The other thing ScotusBlog points out is that the four conservatives might be thinking they'll take one last swing at it if Ginsburg (the likely next retiree) gets replaced by a Republican president after Obama.

IT guys are the worst time wasters. Tell him to close reddit for a minute and unblock it. Maybe give him some cat6 cable to smooth the waters.

Don't know what else is in the book. Some may say its to sell books but I do think he is a good guy based on his extensive service to the country and has honest disagreements with Obama. Just don't quite like the timing to kick someone when they are down and in a middle of a crazy mess.

Fmr. Defense Secretary on disagreements with Obama - CNN.com

He can be a "good guy" and have "extensive service to the country" and also be wrong.

I highly doubt that. This decision (to not review) will effectively put gay marriage in place in 11 states. If the court allows gay marriage in these states for several years and then later reverses it on the appointment of a new justice, it would cause a major backlash for the court that I don't believe someone like Roberts would ever allow.

Yea, I agree. Still, it's a little perplexing to think that Alito, Thomas and Scalia are just happy to let gay marriage be the law of the land.

Well it's possible they all voted to hear the case. It takes four, so that wouldn't be enough.

Legally there's little ground to stand on to justify a ban on gay marriage. The supposed logical reasons for it have all been thoroughly debunked so all you're left with are religious ones and that's tough to swallow even for the Three Stooges (Alito, Thomas and Scalia).

Finally, don't discount the unwillingness to be on the wrong side of history. Everyone can see the train has left the station. No one wants to be Henry Billings Brown v2.

It's still possible the Supreme Court grants cert for Idaho's 9th Circuit appeal of the Idaho district court's order striking down Idaho's gay marriage ban. The Supreme Court's denial of cert came while an 9th Circuit stay involving the Idaho case was still pending. And Idaho argues that their case is different than the others, and still wants to go through it's own 9th circuit rehearing process, and petition for cert to the Supreme Court. Kennedy granted a stay to sort that out.

Most likely it's just a formality based on the 9th Circuit kind of screwing up the procedure here. (Edit: This may also just be a little jab the 9th Circuit - a few days after yet another unanimous per curiam supreme court decision striking down a 9th circuit habeas opinion, that like many others, simply refused to follow the law when it comes to habeas cases, but that's another story.) But it would be fun for me if they took the Idaho case - I know several of named parties who are trying to get married - though not the first in the list whom the case would be named after.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-con...ic.-10-814.pdf

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/c...s/100814zr.pdf

Et tu Jimmy? Obama must be thinking WTF.

Carter criticizes Obama on ISIS: 'We waited too long' - CNN.com

Except, you know, for the one that matters most:

That calling same-sex unions "marriage" makes as much sense as declaring that peanut butter must forever be referred to as "mstyplx" or "blue".

It's the greatest assault on simple common sense in at least U.S. history.

And there isn't a pit in hell deep enough, nor a hanging post high enough for the wastes of oxygen posing as "justices" for not standing for simple fact.

Depends upon your source. The courts have decided that gender is irrelevant when it comes to a legal marriage that carries state benefits (or penalties).

No one is forcing a particular church to consecrate any particular union.

I've seen lots of marriages that were an assault on common sense, but they were perfectly legal.

The one that matters most? Which one is that? You failed to mention it.

It must really suck for you Jon, it not being socially acceptable anymore for you to kick around certain groups of people so you can feel better about yourself. All that hate and rage must really get bottled up now.

I hope he never picks up a dictionary and realizes that definitions for lots of words change...

Does the dictionary then becomes your authoritative scriptures?

Why is it any better/worse than a book written by a bunch of dudes over 1000 years ago who thought the earth was flat, the center of the universe, and women were property?

Post of the year, here. :D

Carter and Panetta may have views that disagree with the President, but at least they've been consistent.

It's still far better than this.

It's interesting how these things go in cycles. I do remember what Cheney was responding to there - years and years of criticism that George H.W. Bush was a pussy for not "finishing the job" in Iraq. So the next time, they were far more aggressive. When Jimmy Carter is calling you a pussy, you have to assume that our country's next conflict will be handled a lot differently by Obama's successors.

Edit: Not saying that Obama's way was wrong, we don't know that yet. But those rising in the ranks who will be in power soon will always look to the flaws of the guys in charge and aim to do better. So we swing back and forth in philosophies.

You learn from history. George H.W. Bush's understanding of the reality of the situation made his decision the correct one, and Cheney defended it appropriately. Then, when Cheney was faced with a similar decision, he forgot everything he said (including, most importantly, the point about a considerably-sized occupation force) and made the wrong decision. There's a lesson to be learned from this and arguably Obama has learned it.

The fallout from Vietnam lasted for almost 30 years. I'd guess the extent of foreign intervention in our military policy will be influenced by our Iraq misadventure for a similar length of time.

Thank you, I'll be here all week.

Interestingly Webster's second publican was "Dictionary of Self Evident Words"' not surprising it didn't sell well... Critics called it redundant

If you aren't a defense contractor you're missing out on a lot of free money.

I don't get it - there's no warranty? No maintenance contract? Who buys planes from Italy, anyway?!

So the US taxpayers took a bath on this one hmm? More than $500m worth of purchases from Italy and recouped virtually nothing.

And probably took the 32K and applied it to things outside of the budget since it was "free" money.

Still doesn't hold a candle to the $1B in cash shipped to Iraq in the early days of the invasion/occupation/reconstruction that literally disappeared.

...into government officials' pockets.

Just think of it as an economic stimulus/foreign aid.

SCOTUS just lifted the stay in Idaho. Also, they blocked voter ID laws in Wisconsin and Texas.

And allowed voter ID enforcement in North Carolina

This needs to stop, for sure. Which ones got that cash, btw?

I agree with not sending any ground troops into Iraq, especially since its just Anbar asking for help and not the central Iraqi authority. Even if they did, I would think it would be better to send boots on the ground to reinforce our allies - Jordan, Kuwait (I think), Saudi Arabia (not sure) etc.

A lot of risk for very little gain as the Iraqi's will never be a strategic ally and they (majority) will never be grateful but will find a way to blame us.

I sympathize with Turkey, if I was Turkey, I would be thinking the same thing - why am I the only one. I believe Turkey is taking in refugees so not sure why the Kobani's don't just cross the border.

Obama's legacy notwithstanding, if Baghdad falls

-- Does it threaten US interests more than the Iranians?
-- Does it force the fat, rich Gulf states to reach out and get into bed with us? Pretty sure they've been untested and probably can't fight well
-- Can ISIS govern what it has won, can it last as a caliphate that has to govern vs conquer?

Iraq's Anbar province: Send U.S. troops to stop ISIS - CNN.com

Alaska's down!

No. If ISIS manages to create a militaristic Sunni state out of a big portion of Iraq, you'd have to figure the biggest threat it poses is to the nearest Shi'ite state, which happens to be Iran. Cue Iran-Iraq war, v.2. This time with the U.S. probably subtly supporting the Iranians.


No, because you don't ally with a country most of your populace hates. They probably get some behind-the-scenes logistical help, though.


Well, the Taliban held on pretty long.


ISIS is a bigger problem for states actually in the region, than it is for the U.S., and our foreign policy should be based around that. ISIS may hate the United States, but they, like Al Qaeda in general, also hates the fat, rich Arab states even more. Even more when they're somewhat secular.

This is an ideal opportunity for the U.S. to stand back from the fray and wait for those other states to finally get worried enough to come looking for help. Then Obama (or whomever) can sit there with an innocent expression on his face and say "oh, so you want help? But last time we helped you were so unhelpful to us? Why should we help you?"

Foreign Policy via trolling is highly underrated.

Are one of those being crushed Sarah Palin? :) Can't imagine she'll be happy to see Gay marriage allowed in her home state

Well, the 9th Circuit lifted its stay and Idaho gave up the fight so gay marriage starts tomorrow. On the one hand, you'd probably take the over that Idaho would be gay marriage state #29, but being in the 9th circuit, it makes sense.

So, the opposition to gay marriage ends with a whimper, not a bang, eh?

The gayroller rolls on. North Carolina down!

Photos Of Same-Sex Marriage Celebrations Around North Carolina | WUNC

The difference between Democrats and Republicans, as witnessed by the 3 major social issues in the news right now:

Republicans want voting restrictions that will inconvenience or prevent hundreds of thousands of legal citizens from voting in order to stop - AT BEST - a handful of voting fraud cases. In reality, it's a way of them trying to overturn the 15th Amendment of the Constitution in an effort to combat the effects of their own shrinking voter base and misguided social policies. Misguided and evil.

Republicans keep trying to eliminate abortions by putting increasingly onerous and absurd restrictions on their businesses, putting people out of work and taking away a woman's right to choose something other than a back-alley abortion. Why? Because they want to impose their religious-based moral beliefs on everyone else despite this country not having an official religion and the word "God" found nowhere in the Constitution. Arrogant.

Republicans are trying to prevent gay people from marrying, for the same exact reasons as abortions - attempting to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. This despite the fact that a gay marriage has absolutely no impact on anyone else. Arrogant and evil.

Arrogant, misguided and evil....the modern Republican party.

Hellbent on making the nation unfit for remotely decent human beings: the modern left.

I still don't get how confirming your identity is somehow inconveniencing or preventing legal citizens from voting. Especially when you have to prove your identity to register in the first place. Why do we need same-day registration - is that for the handful of people turning 18 on the day of the election? I'd be willing to make an exception for that. And I would also agree that it needs to be easy to get some sort of different ID card for those without driver's licenses (perhaps when you first register and prove your identity?), and any attempt to block that puts folks square in the camp you mention. My local board of elections keeps sending me a card with my info and voting precinct information, I think showing that would be sufficient. Anything less than that is simply a continuation of the elimination of responsibility in this country.

The other two, I'm with you on.