Comments on: Non-partisan FactCheck.org analyzes NOM’s Iowa ad: “Rooted mostly in opinion,” not in fact

By: Ann S.

Ann S. — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:29:05 +0000

You are so right. The switchboard was pretty quiet tonight during our shift, which was slightly disappointing. Then again, maybe everyone was watching the game.

Oh, and Hooray, Giants!!

By: Ann S.

Ann S. — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:27:47 +0000

Ah, good old Willie Fletcher. He was a professor at Boalt when I was there. Unfortunately, I never had the pleasure of taking a course from him. He was well-liked by the students despite being considered a very tough teacher -- not an easy thing to achieve. His mother Betty had to take senior status from the 9th Circuit when he was appointed in 1998. They must have interesting conversations around the Thanksgiving table.

By: Richard A. Walter (s

Richard A. Walter (s — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 19:12:44 +0000

We must also remember that those who are paying for this ad are the same ones who are trying to hide their donor lists and evade the laws regarding political action committees every day. These are the people who are trying to turn this country into the Republic of Gilead because they want to live in a theocracy.

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:43:41 +0000

democrats need to vote, seriously, I want to get on my broom and fly over every corner of the country, and whisk people off their butts, and to the polls.

By: Sagesse

Sagesse — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:36:09 +0000

Unfortunately, I now cringe whenever I hear 'public square'. Too bad, it was a useful image when discussing free speech.

By: JonT

JonT — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:29:03 +0000

☮

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:27:27 +0000

Their whole argument basically boils down to "the military can do whatever the fuck it wants".

They cite several DADT-cases, but if you apply "Lawrence vs. Texas" equally to everyone (civilian and military) they are invalidated by that. That was a big point in the whole LCR case. That DADT – far from only applying to military duty – unreasonably infringes on many private liberties.

Cook vs Gates was a fuckup in any case.

By: Alan E.

Alan E. — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:26:16 +0000

Here is the dissent:

W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
I would have preferred to hear argument to assist our panel in deciding
whether, or in what degree, to grant the Defendants’ motion to stay the district
court’s order. However, our General Orders provide that one judge requesting oral
argument on a motion is not enough. G. O. 6.3.g.(4) (“If two judges determine that
oral argument on a motion is necessary, the panel shall direct the motions attorney
to make the necessary arrangements.”).
I would stay the district court’s order in all respects except one: I would
allow the district court’s order to continue in effect insofar as it enjoins the
Defendants from actually discharging anyone from the military, pursuant to the
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, during the pendency of the appeal. Defendants
would not be required during the pendency of the appeal to change their recruiting
practices, to change their personnel manuals, or, subject only to the requirement
that they not actually discharge anyone, otherwise to change their practices. If the
hardship that would be imposed on plaintiffs by actual discharge is removed, the
balance of hardships would tip sharply in favor of the Defendants. A partial stay
of the district court’s order, such as I have just described, would then be
appropriate. See Golden Gate Rest. Ass’n v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 512
F.3d 1112, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2008) (a stay is appropriate when there are “serious
legal questions” and the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of the party
seeking the stay).

By: Alan E.

Alan E. — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:25:28 +0000

2-1 vote. At least there is a dissent.

By: Ronnie

Ronnie — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:24:34 +0000

What f@#king training needs to be done in order to repeal DADT?….umm…I'm sorry but I don't get why it is so hard to just not discharge someone because they are openly Gay…it really is this easy..just don't do it…It is hilarious….we are not the ones that make being Gay an issue..it is the Homophobic pigs who make it an issue…they don't know how to mind their own business… & if it is made known that somebody is Gay then get over it…they're permission in neither desired nor required… they are not the bosses of our personal lives, we are not their property, & they have no say in anything other then their own lives…maybe if they learn how to accept that they can move on with theirs & leave us the frak alone….<3…Ronnie