archives

And then he puts out a killer ad like this!

In a speech to Israel's Knesset, President Bush said Thursday, 'some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals.' Democrat Barack Obama has interpreted the remark as a slam against him.

From Reuters

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Thursday that, if elected, he would like to take a page from the British government and appear in question-and-answer sessions with lawmakers.

"I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the prime minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons," McCain said in excerpts of a speech he is to deliver later in Columbus, Ohio.

Although U.S. presidents deliver annual "State of the Union" speeches to Congress at the start of each year, those formal addresses do not include a question-and-answer session

I still haven't digested this one yet but it seems like a horrible idea.

First, granting some first term loony Senator or Congressmen access to question the POTUS (which will quickly delude into a 10 min diatribe on his pet grievance) will prove to be a complete waste of time!

Second, If McCain wants to take questions he should invite both party's leadership to a regular meeting at the White House where they can ask questions from their members on his terms and turf.

This could turn into a political nightmare!

DocJ - chiming in: I'm with you on this one, Steve - this is a God-awful horrible idea. We don't have a parlimentary system and I hate that we're already well on our way to the Judiciary becoming a "super-legislature" - further bluring of the lines between the branches is beyond counterproductive.

Via FOXNews

Updated with a video report from the AP below

From Volokh

The opinion is Here (pdf), via Howard. The holding:

We . . . conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples.

Applying strict scrutiny to the California marriage statute, the court concludes that:

[T]he purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California’s current marriage statutes — the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage — cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest. . . . Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.

Update: Although I have huge problem with this ruling as is seems as though our Justices here in Ca have undefined marriage there are two things we Californians can take some comfort in:

1) We will have a constitutional amendment on the ballot come Nov. where we'll have a chance to vote on this issue and overturn this decision.

2) Californians overwhelmingly voted against this very issue in 2000 so this ruling and it's consequences won't last too long!

Jawa has the story Here

From Yahoo News

It better be if you hope to win!!!

$290 Billion - passes both houses with veto-proof majorities.

And Democrats are now seen as better on restraining government than the GOP?

Sheesh - that's some mugging we did to our "brand" over the last 7-plus years.