TomAiello

Miguel Estrada. If the democrats hadn't filibustered his DC appellate nomination, I bet he'd be sitting on the supreme court today. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I know that it's easy to Google up a number of news stories about this. Honestly, though, I think those are cases that needs to be dealt with individually, and are far out of the mainstream. I also think that what you're seeing is a violation of medical ethics, and can be sorted out pretty easily that way. My wife is a doctor with a 100% inpatient practice. The only people who get denied visitation rights are people who are potentially violent, people who the patient asks to be kept out, and (most common) people who try smuggle the patient prohibited substances (it blows my mind that there are people trying to sneak whiskey in to patients in hospitals). She's never had a case where someone claiming to be a spouse or partner was denied visitation, or even challenged on their claim to be a spouse or partner. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yes it would. Full Faith and Credit means that any marriage, performed anywhere in the nation, would have to be recognized. You wouldn't have to force any jurisdictions to perform ceremonies they didn't like, but they'd all have to recognize the acts of other jurisdictions. Perhaps, if the DOMA was repealed. As I said, I think that DOMA can't pass Constitutional muster (again, under Full Faith and Credit). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Totally agree on Sotomayor. From a tactical standpoint, the GOP ought to skip this battle. It's a loser, both technically (there's no way they'll stop the confirmation) and politically (the general voting public doesn't want them to stop it). I'm also very curious to see where Sotomayor really lands on Roe. Parts of the GOP may end up pleasantly surprised there. On Powell? I agree that tactically it's a loser, but personally I'd love to see Powell (and Cheney) and the rest of the Neo-Con foreign policy hawks find some other home, so that the Republicans could get back to their limited government roots. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Notably, she was in the majority on the appellate court in this case, which ruled that if an unbiased examination failed to give the right racial mix, it was ok to simply cancel all promotions to avoid promoting the people who actually passed the exam, but happened to have the wrong skin color. For what it's worth, I think that the folks throwing out accusations of racism here are just as silly as the ones crying racism about various and sundry issues (gun control, states rights, etc). I certainly don't agree with her on affirmative action. I don't think that makes her a racist--just someone who I disagree with. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The only reason a business going under will cost "all of us" is that the government will spend our dollars trying to prevent the natural demise of loss making enterprises. When business lose money, they _should_ go under. That still costs us money - hundreds of thousands (millions?) of unemployed people in a region that was overly dependent on a single industry. Declining property values, increased crime. Not good things. Rapid change is usually messy and expensive. By that argument, no business, ever should be allowed to fail because it would put someone out of work. That's just silly. I don't buy this "too big to fail" stuff. Plenty of big businesses have failed in the past, and the world didn't end. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That seems more complicated to me, and it wouldn't give same-sex couples the same federal rights that heterosexual married couples currently have. Yes it would. Full Faith and Credit means that any marriage, performed anywhere in the nation, would have to be recognized. You wouldn't have to force any jurisdictions to perform ceremonies they didn't like, but they'd all have to recognize the acts of other jurisdictions. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

They wouldn't. Full Faith and Credit means they have to honor the marriages performed in other jurisdictions. They don't have to perform any ceremonies they don't want, but they'd still have to honor those performed elsewhere. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I don't think anyone is making a case for either. I have never in my entire life seen ANYONE try to even suggest legalizing either. Never. Not once. I suggest that we legalize all possible marriages by simply having the government get out of the business of marriage. I see no reason why consenting adults should not be allowed to enter into polygamous or incestuous (or both) marital relationships, so long as all parties are consenting adults. Now you've seen it. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The only reason a business going under will cost "all of us" is that the government will spend our dollars trying to prevent the natural demise of loss making enterprises. When business lose money, they _should_ go under. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Really? Can you give me an example of some of those laws? You mean if someone is attacking my wife with a knife, I have to first warn him to stop, then go barricade myself in another room, before I can defend her? Actually, John, there are states where your insane hypothetical is actually correct. You live in Texas, so you don't need to go barricade yourself in. Texas also allows you (as a private citizen) to use deadly force to protect another private citizen, so you can defend your wife. Unfortunately, some states are not so enlightened. Some states have follow a legal doctrine called "no duty to retreat" or "stand your ground." This means that you can meet threats of violence with deadly force anywhere that you can lawfully be. Some states have, instead, have a "Castle Doctrine" which basically means that you have a duty to retreat unless you are in your residence. And some other states, worse yet, have "duty to retreat" statutes, that basically say that you need to run from an attacker until you are literally unable to escape (cornered in a room with no exits, for example) before you are legally excused in the use of deadly force. Justification for the use of deadly force is also the subject of some variance in state law. Some states allow the use of deadly force in defense of property. In other words, if you see someone stealing your car, you can shoot them to stop the theft. Most states allow the use of deadly force in defense of yourself or another person, when you reasonably believe them to be in danger of physical harm. Then there are the states that only allow the use of deadly force by private citizens in defense of your own life (deadly force to protect another is restricted to police officers). Defending someone else is no excuse. Unless your own life is in danger, you will not be excused in your use of deadly force. While most states land in the middle on both counts (so you'd be ok using deadly force to protect your wife, and wouldn't have to barricade yourself in another room), there are always outliers. Florida, for example, has both "stand your ground" and "defense of property" statutes, leading to results like this one--sorry for the oddball link, I remember reading it on CNN, but I can't find that coverage right now. California, on the other hand, lands on the opposite extreme, so that in a case with relatively similar facts, the shooter is in big legal trouble. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

How would that be done? Create some kind of Federal marriage certificate? Would the States still be involved in marriage, or would it be entirely a federal process? I'd much rather see the process devolved to the lowest level of government, rather than caught up in the ever-expanding juggernaut that is the federal government. If it was done at a county or city level, for example, it would be much easier for folks to travel to a permitting jurisdiction to get married. Once it's at the federal level, all that needs to happen is for a majority of congress (the same folks who passed the Defense of Marriage Act) to decide to ban all forms of gay marriage and it's gone, assuming the president hasn't the political courage to stand up to them (and on this issue it's pretty clear that our current President does not). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

No, actually. And that is not because I'm a racist or opposed to inter-racial marriages or something like that. I am fairly unhappy with the general expansion of government that stems from decisions like that, and that general line of judicial reasoning. If you want some more food for though, I'm also very pro-choice and think that Roe was utter crap. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

That argument is totally fallacious. It just doesn't work that way in the real world, unless someone is intentionally trying to set up a court battle. No doctor or hospital is going to deny visitation in that situation. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The mini-vaults usually have a steel cable, or bolts, with which you can attach it to a wall, or a nightstand. The purpose of which is to not just keep the gun from the kids, but also to keep the mini-vault with gun inside from being stolen by burglars. So with this setup, no, you could not easily move it from room to room. (Unless you had a mini-vault in each room, and that's just getting even more ridiculous.) And if the mini-vault is not attached to some structure, then the anti-gun folks are going to scream about the possibility of theft. My quickvault is not attached. For me, the purpose of the quickvault is child safety, not theft prevention. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

In a Republic, especially a Constitutional Republic, like ours, there should exist a fixed body of law not subject to majority rule. Even if all the citizens, save one, vote to deny the rights of the single remaining citizen, they should not be allowed to do so. "Majority Rules" sounds good, but in practice, it must be restrained in order to guarantee the rights of the citizens, virtually all of whom will find themselves in the minority on some occasion. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You are correct--I did not read the links. I (apparently erroneously) assumed that "locked up at home" was used the way that I'd understand it. Forcing someone to lock up their self defense weapon rather than carrying it on their person at home (should they choose) is silly beyond belief. If you don't trust them to carry it around in their own home, then they ought to be barred from buying it in the first place, and that ought to be because of a history of violent felonies, or something similar. Funny enough, I just went and read the links, and it appears that the ity of SF would have allowed me to carry my (pre-ban) MAK-90 around loaded in my home, but would want me to disable and/or lock up my handguns. Now that's silly. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I think it would be more accurate to say that the dregs of the once proud race of people have stayed on the reservation, with the vast majority of the more motivated, hard working (and often that means educated, because they worked for that) folks leaving the reservation for a better life elsewhere. I saw some statistics a while back about the chance that someone born on a reservation who went to college would return to the reservation--it was something like 3%, and those were all either teachers or politicians/tribal leaders. Basically, the whole top of the bell curve bailed out because the reservation was such a pit. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I believe that act is in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and hence unconstitutional. I agree. And hopefully it will be repealed soon. I think it's more likely to be overturned by the SCOTUS, as it's such a hot button political issue that Congress won't want to touch it. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

When I said that I thought people should lock up their guns, I meant "when they are being stored," not "all the time, even when they are actually in use or being carried." Wouldn't she just carry it on her person while awake, and leave the minivault in a location very accessible to her bed? Or just only put the gun in the minivault when she was leaving it at home without her? It's also very easy to move a minivault to another room if you (for example) are sleeping in a different bed for a night or something like that. I concur with you on them basically screaming "steal me" but having the mini-vault with my vintage first generation glock 21 stolen from my bedroom is going to be the least of my worries if someone is actually robbing my home. It is still legal to carry a firearm on your person inside your own residence, even in California, isn't it? Because if it's not...well, damn, I don't even know what to say. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

It would appear that you don't understand what socialism is. When I was living in a country trying very hard to recover from their 50 year experiment with "socialism" (their term, not mine) in the early 90's, I heard a funny/ironic joke. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I believe that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act ensures that no state will be required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state. I believe that act is in violation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and hence unconstitutional. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Correct. I have trouble understanding why we need the government to be in the marriage business at all. Like it or not, governmental involvement in marriage is inevitable in modern times. I disgree. I think that there are alternate methods that could form the same legal relationships, which would actually be superior, because they would specifically enumerate the rights and relationships, forcing the parties to actually consider them rather than just gazing off, star crossed, and simpering "we're in love", and somehow expecting that to take care of everything. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Honestly, I think it's a great example of the failures of democracy. This is a clear case where a republic (a government holding a fixed body of law not subject to majority rule) would benefit the rights of a minority, even when the majority would restrict those rights. Government is an instrument for the oppression of those not in power, to the advantage of those holding power. Such exercise of power is not automatically legitimized simply because 50.1% of the population supports it. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

When I say that "you" (that's the generic "you" rather than the specific kelpdiver) ought to lock up our guns, that's in much the same way that I think "you" ought to vote for Ron Paul. It's my personal opinion that most everyone ought to do that thing. That doesn't mean that I think there ought to be a law requiring (or even encouraging) it. I would personally encourage almost everyone to lock their guns, wear their seatbelt and vote for Ron Paul. But that's a fair ways from wanting to pass a law requiring any of those things, and I'm realistic enough to respect the rights of other people to hold varying opinions on any of those things. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com