Breaking News Events

[Lady Pamela]

Update On the Powell children.
I am so outraged over this...If authorities knew this information..why the hell would they allow visits with this man? I personally think they need to be held accountable in some way for that! Not that it will bring them back..But the family tried to stop it. And this may help the next person who endures anything like this.


I can not tell you how many wish they would have gotten ahold of that man..That is why he moved from Utah.


I personally believe he took the kids and did this because they are getting older..They will be able to tell more and he was in the porocess of having to take poligrapgh and sexual tests.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...6pLid%3D133254

[Lady Pamela]

latest on Powell case..As of tonight

I wish this man would have lived to pay for his crimes is all I am gonna say!


http://www.fox13now.com/news/nationw...,5978729.story

[AtLast]

Gay marriage ruling Tuesday likely a step toward U.S. Supreme Court

http://www.mercurynews.com/samesexma...426?source=rss
By Howard Mintz


hmintz@mercurynews.com

Posted: 02/06/2012 03:38:01 PM PST
Updated: 02/06/2012 09:07:17 PM PST

Feb 6:
California gay wedding ban ruling due Tuesday in Proposition 8 case.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday will hand down its long-awaited ruling on the legality of Proposition 8, California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

It is likely to be a crucial step toward pushing the gay marriage issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will decide whether to agree with former San Francisco Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, who declared the law unconstitutional in 2010. The court also will consider a move by Proposition 8 backers to set aside Walker's ruling because he did not disclose he was in a long-term same-sex relationship while handling the case.

Here are some of the basic questions surrounding Tuesday's outcome:

Q If the court strikes down Proposition 8, will same-sex couples be allowed to marry immediately in California?

A Little to no chance of that happening right away. The 9th Circuit is likely to put its ruling on hold while the legal battle continues, as there are several more steps before the case is final. In fact, the 9th Circuit refused to allow same-sex marriages to proceed after Walker invalidated Proposition 8 in 2010, putting his decision on hold while the appeal proceeds.

Q What are the basic arguments on both sides of the case?

A Same-sex couples say that Proposition 8 violates their federal equal protection rights, depriving them of the legal right to marry in California, which heterosexual couples have. And they contend there is no social or legal justification for denying those rights, other than a discriminatory intent against gays and lesbians. Gay marriage opponents say there is a state interest in preserving the traditional definition of marriage, particularly the importance of procreation in heterosexual marriage.

Q Who are the 9th Circuit judges deciding the case?

A While the 9th Circuit is generally considered liberal, the panel is an ideological mix. It includes Judge Stephen Reinhardt, one of the nation's most liberal judges, but also Judge N. Randy Smith, a conservative appointee of former President George W. Bush. The third judge is Michael Daly Hawkins, a former Arizona U.S. attorney and appointee of President Bill Clinton.

Q What is the expected outcome in the 9th Circuit?

A Based on arguments in December 2010, the judges appeared inclined to uphold Walker's ruling. Even Smith appeared skeptical of the Proposition 8 attorney's arguments.

Q What is likely to happen after the 9th Circuit rules Tuesday?

A The losing side can ask the 9th Circuit to rehear the case with an 11-judge panel, a process known as en banc review. A majority of the 9th Circuit's two dozen full-time judges must vote to rehear a case en banc, but this often occurs in high-profile cases where there is disagreement within the court. The losing side has 14 days to ask for such a rehearing. If the 9th Circuit refuses to grant the request, the next step is the U.S. Supreme Court.

Q How long will all this take?

A The legal fight over Proposition 8 isn't likely to be concluded anytime soon. If the 9th Circuit rehears the case with an 11-judge panel, that appeal is likely to stretch through this year. And whatever the outcome in the 9th Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court is almost certain not to get a look at the case before the upcoming presidential election.

Q What would be the impact of a 9th Circuit ruling declaring California's gay marriage ban unconstitutional? Would it legalize gay marriage in all nine Western states covered by the 9th Circuit?

A It depends. The court can take a narrower approach and apply its ruling only to California, finding that Proposition 8 violates the rights of same-sex couples because it stripped away a previous right established in a California Supreme Court ruling in 2008 (Proposition 8 wiped that ruling off the books). Or the court can issue a more sweeping ruling that finds any such state ban unconstitutional, which would extend the ruling's reach.

[Greyson]

U.S. 9th Circut Court of Appeals Rules Proposition 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!


US Supreme Court here we come!

[LeftWriteFemme]

[*Anya*]

Originally Posted by Greyson

U.S. 9th Circut Court of Appeals Rules Proposition 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!


US Supreme Court here we come!

The question is, will the Supreme Court uphold the unconstitutionality of Prop 8?

In ten of the last eleven appointments, the new justice was more conservative than the one replaced.

Current Members

Name Date of Accession Appointed by Title General ideology

Antonin Scalia September 26, 1986 Ronald Reagan Associate Justice conservative

Anthony Kennedy February 18, 1988 Ronald Reagan Associate Justice moderate/swing

Clarence Thomas October 23, 1991 George H. W. Bush Associate Justice
conservative

Ruth Bader Ginsburg August 10, 1993 Bill Clinton Associate Justice liberal

Stephen Breyer August 3, 1994 Bill Clinton Associate Justice
liberal

John Roberts September 29, 2005 George W. Bush Chief Justice conservative

Samuel Alito January 31, 2006 George W. Bush Associate Justice conservative

Sonia Sotomayor August 6, 2009 Barack Obama Associate Justice liberal

Elena Kagan August 7, 2010 Barack Obama Associate Justice
liberal
******************************

From Huff Post, July 2011:

WASHINGTON — Democrats and liberals have a nightmare vision of the Supreme Court's future: President Barack Obama is defeated for re-election next year and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at 78 the oldest justice, soon finds her health will not allow her to continue on the bench.

The new Republican president appoints Ginsburg's successor, cementing conservative domination of the court, and soon the justices roll back decisions in favor of abortion rights and affirmative action.

[Greyson]

I was talking to a friend last night about the Prop 8 ruling yesterday. This friend is a national activist for Same Sex Marriage and has been very active and written books about it. She told me that if this case does make it to the US Supreme Court whatever happens will be a very narrow ruling. She said this particular case coming out of California would not address same sex marriage through out the entire USA. Whatever ruling may come out of the US Supreme Court would be pertinent only to California.

I am not an attorney. I have never heard of such a thing if the US Supreme Court rules on a matter, I thought it becomes the "Law of the Land." Does anyone here have any knowledge of what I am asking about? Thanks.

[Greyson]

This is an Investigative Journalism piece done by the Washington Post. It is a long read but very informative. It explains in some detail how these earmarks are done within sometimes a very fine line of what is considered to be legal.

The U.S. Congress has less stringent guidelines for earmarks. The Executive Branch and the U.S. Senate also have guidelines and appear to be more successful in keeping the earmarks at a lesser amount in volume which could benefit their family members and/or personal property values.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...dxQ_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ate-interests/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...-the-earmarks/

[Toughy]

I thought this was an interesting piece about taxes..........

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/op...-tax.html?_r=1

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

The Zuckerberg Tax

By DAVID S. MILLER
Published: February 7, 2012

WHEN Facebook goes public later this year, Mark Zuckerberg plans to exercise stock options worth $5 billion of the $28 billion that his ownership stake will be worth. The $5 billion he will receive upon exercising those options will be treated as salary, and Mr. Zuckerberg will have a tax bill of more than $2 billion, quite possibly making him the largest taxpayer in history. He is expected to sell enough stock to pay his tax.

But how much income tax will Mr. Zuckerberg pay on the rest of his stock that he won’t immediately sell? He need not pay any. Instead, he can simply use his stock as collateral to borrow against his tremendous wealth and avoid all tax. That’s what Lawrence J. Ellison, the chief executive of Oracle, did. He reportedly borrowed more than a billion dollars against his Oracle shares and bought one of the most expensive yachts in the world.

If Mr. Zuckerberg never sells his shares, he can avoid all income tax and then, on his death, pass on his shares to his heirs. When they sell them, they will be taxed only on any appreciation in value since his death. <snip>

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Greyson

I was talking to a friend last night about the Prop 8 ruling yesterday. This friend is a national activist for Same Sex Marriage and has been very active and written books about it. She told me that if this case does make it to the US Supreme Court whatever happens will be a very narrow ruling. She said this particular case coming out of California would not address same sex marriage through out the entire USA. Whatever ruling may come out of the US Supreme Court would be pertinent only to California.

I am not an attorney. I have never heard of such a thing if the US Supreme Court rules on a matter, I thought it becomes the "Law of the Land." Does anyone here have any knowledge of what I am asking about? Thanks.

In order for same-sex marriage to become the "law of the land" it has to pass the meaning of "supreme law" (Magna Carta) based upon due process. A SC ruling on the Prop 8 case would only apply to the proposition as it applies to the state constitution in CA becuase it was written as only applying to CA.

Both the proposition itself and rulings thus far just don't pass the federal due process test to be considered "supreme law" (law of the land). A key piece in getting a federal due process ruling establishing same-sex marriage as constitutional would be states all having to recognize and uphold these marriages from all other states, for example.

The best way to make same-sex marriage the "law of the land" would be via a federal constitutional amendment- which is exactly how opponents want to stop it! Actually amending the constutution to include specific gender language concerning marriage!

There has to be a case certed and decided by the SC that actually points to or applies to the federal constitutional definition of marriage in order for a law of the land decision. And with the conservative majority of our SC, this could go either way. Frankly, I would much rather have even this decision remain outside of the SC at this point in time.

There are several ways legal scholars look at this in terms of constitionality at the federal level. Some only feel that an actual amendment to the constitution clearlt stating that women and women and men and men can marry will do the trick. Then, there is even some more discussion on applications for transgendered people too because of state by state legality on just birth certificate changes.

I really wish we had the Canadian option here- deemed national law and that's it.!

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by AtLast

In order for same-sex marriage to become the "law of the land" it has to pass the meaning of "supreme law" (Magna Carta) based upon due process. A SC ruling on the Prop 8 case would only apply to the proposition as it applies to the state constitution in CA becuase it was written as only applying to CA.

Both the proposition itself and rulings thus far just don't pass the federal due process test to be considered "supreme law" (law of the land). A key piece in getting a federal due process ruling establishing same-sex marriage as constitutional would be states all having to recognize and uphold these marriages from all other states, for example.

The best way to make same-sex marriage the "law of the land" would be via a federal constitutional amendment- which is exactly how opponents want to stop it! Actually amending the constutution to include specific gender language concerning marriage!

There has to be a case certed and decided by the SC that actually points to or applies to the federal constitutional definition of marriage in order for a law of the land decision. And with the conservative majority of our SC, this could go either way. Frankly, I would much rather have even this decision remain outside of the SC at this point in time.

There are several ways legal scholars look at this in terms of constitionality at the federal level. Some only feel that an actual amendment to the constitution clearlt stating that women and women and men and men can marry will do the trick. Then, there is even some more discussion on applications for transgendered people too because of state by state legality on just birth certificate changes.

I really wish we had the Canadian option here- deemed national law and that's it.!

This is precisely why DOMA has to be repealed. Only if it were to to be brought to the SCOTUS would it then be the "law of the land" because it is a federal action. Congress has to be the area of intent to overturn DOMA.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Corkey

This is precisely why DOMA has to be repealed. Only if it were to to be brought to the SCOTUS would it then be the "law of the land" because it is a federal action. Congress has to be the area of intent to overturn DOMA.

Absolutely! We all have some rungs on the federal to climb in order for there to be marriage equality for all. And I mean all. I don't trust what lurks behind state's rights conservatives one bit!

[MissItalianDiva]

Originally Posted by Greyson

I was talking to a friend last night about the Prop 8 ruling yesterday. This friend is a national activist for Same Sex Marriage and has been very active and written books about it. She told me that if this case does make it to the US Supreme Court whatever happens will be a very narrow ruling. She said this particular case coming out of California would not address same sex marriage through out the entire USA. Whatever ruling may come out of the US Supreme Court would be pertinent only to California.

I am not an attorney. I have never heard of such a thing if the US Supreme Court rules on a matter, I thought it becomes the "Law of the Land." Does anyone here have any knowledge of what I am asking about? Thanks.

I had the same question as you and spoke with a friend who is a lawyer and this is the explanation I was given.

Even though it would be a Supreme Court ruling and even though the 9th circuit ruled on this which is more than just California this is still in regards to Prop 8 which is a California issue. Now the the good thing about the Supreme Court ruling is that even though it will not be a set standard it will have a set precedence especially considering the narrow ruling that is anticipated.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by MissItalianDiva

I had the same question as you and spoke with a friend who is a lawyer and this is the explanation I was given.

Even though it would be a Supreme Court ruling and even though the 9th circuit ruled on this which is more than just California this is still in regards to Prop 8 which is a California issue. Now the the good thing about the Supreme Court ruling is that even though it will not be a set standard it will have a set precedence especially considering the narrow ruling that is anticipated.

And it is a good thing that there are more and more precedent setting marriage equality decisions in other states, too. A good body of arguments is being produced for this long battle to a final victory.

[Toughy]

This ruling was a 3 judge panel and it could be appealed to the entire 9th Circuit Court. before going to the SCOTUS.

The other thing that could happen is SCOTUS decides not to hear the case and the 9th Circuit ruling will stand......which I think it the very best scenario.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by Toughy

This ruling was a 3 judge panel and it could be appealed to the entire 9th Circuit Court. before going to the SCOTUS.

The other thing that could happen is SCOTUS decides not to hear the case and the 9th Circuit ruling will stand......which I think it the very best scenario.

I tend to agree with you. A Supreme Court ruling, especially when the conservatives are on a general election rampage, as well as a Court that makes so many 5-4 decisions, may end up kicking us in the butt on this.

DOMA repealed, more ducks in a row with sound legal rulings for marriage equality from more states and our very own queer populations joining forces just feels better to me before a SC ruling right now. Afterall, Prop 8 was initiated and supported by a lot of out of state (mainly LDS backed) millions in CA. Frankly, I want to see Obama re-elected and have an opportunity to appoint another SC justice first. Bader-Ginsburg can't stay on all that much longer.

[Kobi]

I read this stuff and I am just speechless. This makes me ashamed of my profession. This person was obviously not the least bit prepared to protect these kids. And, I cant even deal with the 911 operators bullshit. Sorry I am just pissed about this entire thing.


http://news.yahoo.com/social-workers...184948545.html

[MissItalianDiva]

Originally Posted by Toughy

This ruling was a 3 judge panel and it could be appealed to the entire 9th Circuit Court. before going to the SCOTUS.

The other thing that could happen is SCOTUS decides not to hear the case and the 9th Circuit ruling will stand......which I think it the very best scenario.

I definitely agree due to the conservative status of the SC but then there is the other part of me that really feels a SC victory is what is needed for this issue to really take proper standing. Plus to have a SC precedence is a pretty good accomplishment for future rulings.

I realize if this goes to SC it could end not in our favor however I think if this was brought to the SC they are pretty limited on their angles to deny. They would have a hard time validating their decision to uphold Prop 8.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by Kobi

I read this stuff and I am just speechless. This makes me ashamed of my profession. This person was obviously not the least bit prepared to protect these kids. And, I cant even deal with the 911 operators bullshit. Sorry I am just pissed about this entire thing.


http://news.yahoo.com/social-workers...184948545.html

I think that the error was allowing "supervised visits" in the home. Here they are always in supervised visit centers so that safety issues aren't a concern.

Kobi - I don't see how any amount of training could have prepared a social worker for this. What am I missing here? Also, where you are, is it common to have supervised visits in the home of the person who isn't trusted to be alone with a particular child?

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

I think that the error was allowing "supervised visits" in the home. Here they are always in supervised visit centers so that safety issues aren't a concern.

Kobi - I don't see how any amount of training could have prepared a social worker for this. What am I missing here? Also, where you are, is it common to have supervised visits in the home of the person who isn't trusted to be alone with a particular child?

Supervised visits here are always in a controlled place so the parent in question cannot have the time or opportunity to set up a dangerous situation. We both know visits are supervised because the parent in question is a potential danger to those kids.

To me, and this is not hindsight, this had potential disaster written all over it.

It just seems to me serious errors in judgement were made all along the way. The worker on the tape admits the department has this parent on a short leash. Yet, someone allowed a visit in his own home - red flag number 1.

The guy is a person of interest in a murder case, he is a bit of a control freak, he just lost custody of his kids, he has just been ordered to undergo psychosexual evaluation, and he starts verbalizing "they are turning my kids against me". Thats about 6 red flags right there.

This worker doesnt know the address where she is in a case of someone on a short leash? This worker asks 911 what she should do? Hello?

If it were me - I would have been concerned enough, given the history, to, at least, call the local police ahead of time and make them aware the visit was occuring and that their presence in the area would be helpful. Being the safety freak I am, I would actually have asked for the police to accompany me.

I would not have let those kids run ahead of me. The father was in control of the situation, I wouldnt have let those kids a foot from my side until I felt it was safe. My job was to protect them from this man, not be a taxi service to their demise.

You arent missing anything Dapper. I am just pissed off that these kids were in the system and the system failed them. The police knew, the courts knew, CPS knew....and still the father was given the opportunity to kill these kids. And that just fucking disgusts me.

I also know, even if other measures were taken, a determined and desperate man would have found the way to do what he did in spite of whatever safety measures were put in place. And, its possible a lot more people could have been killed.

And I feel bad for everyone involved, especially that social worker. We both know her life will never, ever be the same after this.

I expect something good will come out of this tragedy as everyone looks at what they could have, should have done differently. And, maybe, just maybe, that will save some other kid in the future.