First there was Newt and Rush attacking John Cornyn of all people (like he’s some kind of RINO)… now we have Freepers and Michelle Malkin attacking BillO the Clown as being too liberal for not wishing Sotomayor dead.

There’s nothing to analyze here. They are just imploding. Pass the popcorn.

I know nothing ever seems like it will happen until it happens, but as much as North Korea has stamped its feet to get concessions in the past, the latest signs are very aggressive and are in the context of Kim Jong Il apparently being almost dead. So, the pretenders to the throne have to show they haaard.

The Koreas, along with Kashmir, are the two most important danger zones in the world. Whatever you think of the war in Afghanistan (I have always supported it), it at least gives us a footprint in the latter zone. We’ve, of course, long been present in Korea and have substantial forces nearby in Japan and other Pacific islands.

But what would we do in the case of total war between the North and South? Would we be more likely to go nuclear because we have fewer troops there than we used to, with so many in Iraq? I don’t know.

But I don’t think you can question that the burden on the military in Iraq—which was never any kind of threat to us—ongoing to this day has made it very hard for us to deal with other more dangerous places, Afghanistan included.

This is what happens when you get into a war/peace dichotomy. Saying you should fight no wars isn’t real. Saying that every war makes sense is stupid. We elect our leaders to be smart… Bush’s failures will be a problem for a long time yet.

Sotomayor = Bush (and this is bad).

Remember, Bush was the basis for Bluto Blutarsky. Zero. Point. Zero.

How many times have I said this?

Over at the Washington Monthly, Jonathan Gruber writes that universal healthcare would create more fluid job markets and spur entrepreneurship:

Is it just me, or have the Republicans been leveling a lot of criticism against Obama by saying what he’s doing is somehow the same as what Bush did.

Such as when Cheney criticizes his war policies, or, as at that link when they compare Sotomayor to Harriet Myers. I’m not sure this is such a good strategy..

6-1 upholding the Prop, 7-0 upholding existing marriages. My prediction was pretty good:

There are basically two questions before the Court. First, should the court strike Prop 8. For that, my final on the record prediction is, no, they won’t strike Prop 8, and I’m going to say the vote will be 5-2. Second, Prop 8 apply retroactively to the gay marriages that occurred between the earlier Cal Supreme case and Prop 8. They will say no, those marriages are valid 4-3, the same that ruled previously. There’s a chance this is 7-0 since the law on retroactivity is clear: it must be explicit in the law, and it’s not explicit.

Now I need to read the opinion to see what else it says.

Update I: I think we need to take a look back through some of the older voter initiative constitutional amendments and see if this new decision might revive them.

Update II:

The petitioners in the Marriage Cases asserted that this language was intended and should be interpreted to apply only to marriages entered into in a jurisdiction other than California, but this court unanimously rejected that contention, concluding that the statutory language in question reasonably must be interpreted to apply to marriages performed in California as well as to those performed in other jurisdictions. (43 Cal.4th at pp. 796-801.) In light of that holding, and the background and “legislative” history of Proposition 8 contained in the ballot pamphlet materials relating to that measure, it is clear that the section added to the California Constitution by Proposition 8 — which contains language identical to that found in Family Code section 308.5 — applies both to marriages performed in California and to those performed in other jurisdictions.

* * *

First, as we already have noted, in light of the interpretation of the language of Proposition 22 in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at pages 796-800, as well as the history of Proposition 8 itself, there is no question but that article I, section 7.5 ― the section added by Proposition 8 to the California Constitution ― properly must be interpreted to apply both to marriages performed in California and to marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

This would seem to suggest that out of state marriages are invalid. But when? What if they occurred before Prop 8?

Update III:

The opinion goes out of its way to say that the only thing taken away here is the word “marriage” not its substantive rights. In other words, separate but equal.

Update IV:

Werdegar’s concurrence is interesting, but I’m a bit disappointed—I thought she would be the 2nd vote to strike.

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will issue its opinion in the state constitutional challenge to Prop 8 on Tuesday. A lot has changed since the Court got the case, most importantly Iowa legalized gay marriage and so have a handful of other states in New England.

You’d think that wouldn’t affect the mind of California Supremes. But, they are a very hard to predict bunch and they are not the kind to limit what they consider.

I thought that maybe the advance of gay marriage in other states might sway the justices that I think aren’t in favor of striking down Prop 8 but originally ruled to legalize gay marriage to strike it. Maybe not, but I have another curious idea, which I’ll discuss below.

There are basically two questions before the Court. First, should the court strike Prop 8. For that, my final on the record prediction is, no, they won’t strike Prop 8, and I’m going to say the vote will be 5-2. Second, Prop 8 apply retroactively to the gay marriages that occurred between the earlier Cal Supreme case and Prop 8. They will say no, those marriages are valid 4-3, the same that ruled previously. There’s a chance this is 7-0 since the law on retroactivity is clear: it must be explicit in the law, and it’s not explicit.

Here’s a wrinkle, and I’m surprised I haven’t read this before or anywhere else. It’s probably out there, but just an idea.

The Supremes could rule that, even though Prop 8 is valid, is does not declare that gay marriage is against the fundamental public policy of the state. It just says that only marriage between a man and a woman shall be “recognized.”

Here’s the out: the U.S. Constitution generally requires that states recognize the marriages of other states. The exceptions are where fundamental public policy of the state conflicts. They might then say, hey, all of the gay marriages in Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, etc. must be recognized here because the U.S. Constitution language trumps the “recognized” language in Prop 8 and Prop 8 doesn’t unambiguously state the public policy of the state.

That would neuter Prop 8. Sure, people who can’t afford to go back east would still be impacted, but it would essentially moot the debate and would get the tourism lobby on the anti-8 side.

Just an idea. I’ll look and see if this has even been raised.

UPDATE:

Of course it was raised before by Glenn Greewald, about a day after the election. I forgot about the issue of DOMA, which I can’t believe is constitutional. The California Supremes ruling on that would be weird, since I don’t see it raised by the Petitioners, Respondents, Intervenors, or several of the amici curiae whose briefs I looked at.

Does DOMA leave states with the option that the Supremes could invoke? I think so. Will update.

UPDATE II:

Yes. It leaves it up to the states. The Supremes could declare out of state marriages must be recognized, I guess.

UPDATE III:

It would be a miracle. In the original case, the Supremes said treating in state and out of state marriages differently would be difficult to square with the federal constitution. My only counter to that is that that case lays the equal protection groundwork of the Constitution and Prop 8 only carves out an exception limited to its provisions. As such, Prop 8 only says that, to the extent the state has such power, such marriages are not recognized. Since it cannot operate on out of state marriages or prevent the operation of the federal constitution from requiring such out of state marriages in California, except to the extent that it would change the public policy, which it does not do explicitly, then it simply prevents them in state.

I doubt this will be the outcome, but I think this issue has to be addressed. What about people who moved here from Massachusetts during the legal period? Is their marriage now void going forward? It seems hard to uncrack the egg here.

I think Obama has to pick Diane Wood. If I could have anyone, she wouldn’t be it for a lot of reasons–first and foremost because I think the last thing we need is another federal appeals court judge on the Supreme Court. But, this is Obama’s first year in his first term and everything is going on. He needs a slam dunk.

Wood gets confirmed with 70+ votes without breaking a sweat.

Not that anyone voted (I read turnout was around 19%, an historic low), but those who did voted about 2 to 1 against Sacramento’s latest bailout. This time, the bailout was for the current incumbents, hoping that the coming fiscal reckoning wouldn’t come during their term limited lives. Arnold was hoping to pass the buck to Jerry Brown or Meg Whitman.

It didn’t work. Both parties are in big trouble because both caused this. The GOP’s side of the Faustian bargain was to be relegated to the minority, but to keep enough seats to get one or two things come budget time and to be able to vote against any tax increases, while the Democrats run the Legislature and mainly deal with the Governor. In the process the main constituencies of the Democratic party get special attention.

So many of the newspaper articles were full of comments like this.

“They kind of take each issue in a microcosm, rather than relate the decision to prior decisions, or future decisions that they might make,” he said. “Voters don’t think about the consequences of how one thing fits with another.”

Well, the system is set up for that. That shouldn’t be a surprise. But none of our “leaders” has the balls to come out and say we need reform that would limit that mob rule recklessness.

The Governor’s race for 2010 is wide open. Whoever lays out a comprehensive package of real reform will win, and it’s going to have to include in the message that we’re going to have to eat our vegetables too.