You mad?

Louisiana State Supreme Court justices rage impotently over matters.

Justice Jeanette Theriot Knoll — in an almost two-page criticism of the five U.S. Supreme Court justices forming the majority in Obergefell — stated she concurred with the opinion only because she is “constrained to follow the rule of law.”

She continued, “I write separately to express my views concerning the horrific impact these five lawyers have made on the democratic rights of the American people to define marriage and the rights stemming by operation of law therefrom. It is a complete and unnecessary insult to the people of Louisiana who voted on this very issue.”

Knoll, who in 2005 wrote the court’s unanimous ruling in Forum for Equality PAC v. McKeithen validating the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, further called the federal ruling an “imposition” on the Louisiana public’s wishes.

“I wholeheartedly disagree and find that, rather than a triumph of constitutionalism, the opinion of these five lawyers is an utter travesty as is my constrained adherence to their ‘law of the land’ enacted not by the will of the American people but by five judicial activists,” she wrote in Tuesday’s written comments on the Lafayette case seeking marriage and adoption rights.

"The opinion of five lawyers" is supposed to be some sort of belittlement, I guess. But since this is a State Supreme Court justice who is herself a lawyer picking on US Supreme Court justices who are also lawyers for being lawyers I think, maybe, it loses its punch.  Maybe if she threw in a few "jiggery pokerys" she would have had something.

Anyway, that is one mad lawyer. The Louisiana State Supreme Court does not suffer well the equal protection of the law in the interest of granting everyone some basic dignity. 

Meanwhile, back in federal court, the lawyers on the 5th Circuit are totally fine with torturing convicts.

Louisiana does not have to air-condition the entire death row facility at the State Penitentiary at Angola but does need to provide some relief to three condemned killers with medical conditions who complained that extremely hot conditions on death row subject them to heat-related injury, a federal appellate court ruled Wednesday.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans agreed with Chief U.S. District Judge Brian Jackson, of Baton Rouge, that Louisiana is in violation of the three prisoners’ Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

The 5th Circuit panel, however, said Jackson went too far in ordering that heat indexes on death row be maintained at or below 88 degrees, which the panel said effectively requires the state to install air conditioning throughout the death row housing.

 It's partly cloudy and 93 degrees in Angola today. About 10 degrees hotter if Justice-Lawyer Knoll walks in the room, though. Better keep her away from the prison for a while. 

Who trolled it better?

These guys?

BREAKING NEWS: The @WhiteHouse Is celebrating tonight lit up in rainbow colors. #LoveWins pic.twitter.com/rkdHwNv52M

— Mark S. Cogan (@markscogan) June 27, 2015

Or this jerk?

Chick-fil-A kind of day pic.twitter.com/D1HqJd3Umh

— David Vitter (@DavidVitter) June 27, 2015

Jindaled

Just selling it all off. It's what he does.

While neither Jindal nor any legislator has dared breathe the word privatization as it regards the state’s colleges and universities, at least one Jindal appointee, Board of Regents Chairman Roy Martin of Alexandria, has broached the subject, speaking he said, strictly as an individual. http://theadvocate.com/news/11716059-123/regents-look-at-privatizing-public

The slashing of higher education budgets appears to be a pattern as governors attempt to wean colleges and universities from dependence on state funding, transitioning their status from state-supported to state-assisted to state-located. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/02/27/scott-walker-bobby-jindal-aim-to-slash-higher-ed-funding

Privatization of state colleges and universities would, of course, push tuition rates even higher, making a college education cost prohibitive for many. But that dovetails nicely with the ALEC agenda as income disparity continues to widen with ever more generous tax laws that benefit the super-rich while placing growing burdens on lower-income taxpayers. By winnowing out those who can least afford college, privatization necessarily enhances the selection process to serve the elite and at the same time, opens up additional revenue opportunities for those in position to take advantage of privatized services such as book stores, printing, food services, and general maintenance. http://gse.buffalo.edu/FAS/Johnston/privatization.html

There is already a backlog of nearly $2 billion in maintenance projects on state college and university campuses just waiting for some lucky entrepreneur with the right connections.
http://theadvocate.com/home/5997316-125/backlog-of-maintenance

And if you've been paying even the slightest attention to Jindal's privatization of Medicaid, or his handling of the state Office of Group Benefits, or several other items he's placed out on the lawn for sale, you'd probably recognize this pattern by now. 

To say the least, it's been fun.  But before you get too mad, remember he's only done exactly what he said he would do.

When I campaigned for governor seven years ago, I promised to make the government smaller and the economy larger. That’s exactly what I have done. We cut taxes and reduced the size of government. In fact, the government is smaller by more than $9 billion and 30,000 workers.

People fired. Government "smaller" as in, government sold off to cronies and/or left to rust away in limbo.  Sucks to be us, I guess.  But as the GOP primary heats up, don't be too shocked when Jindal starts to get credit for his strong conservative "policy ideas." 

Jindal, an Ivy League-educated conservative known for his policy ideas, has already been in Iowa twice this month and returns Saturday for the Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition spring dinner. He has been working hard to court Christian conservatives here, saying at a Des Moines event in January that it's time for the country to "turn back to God."

He's got that God cred too, by the way.  The legislature had his back on that this afternoon.
 

Senate Education votes 4-3 against repealing La. Science Education Act. Chairman Appel cast tie-breaking vote to defer the bill. #lalege
— Melinda Deslatte (@MelindaDeslatte) April 22, 2015

They're only going to do him more favors as the session goes on.

Clouded window

Same sex marriage was legal in Louisiana for a few hours on Thursday.. in case you missed it.. which you probably did.  And even if you didn't miss it entirely, the Jindal administration was making it extra-difficult for you to take advantage.

Technophobia

Justice Alito:

Justice Samuel Alito described gay marriage as newer than such rapidly changing technological advances as cellphones and the Internet, and appeared to advocate a more cautious approach to the issue.

"You want us to assess the effect of same-sex marriage," Alito said to Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. "It may turn out to be a good thing. It may turn out to be not a good thing."

If you get gay married to AT&T, the reception is terrible and the pre-nup contract does not work in your favor, so.. maybe he's on to something. 

Taking risks

Salon: 

Though many gay marriage advocates cheered the Supreme Court’s decision to take up Proposition 8 and DOMA on Friday, a few were wary of the Court’s decision to hear both cases at once.

“There is no question that it is a risk,” said Gavin Newsom, California’s lieutenant governor, the Daily Intel reports. “If they nationalize it and reject it, that’s going to take decades to come back to the court.”

Katherine Franke, director of Columbia Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality, told HuffPo’s Lila Shapiro that because the lower court’s ruling on Proposition 8 was very narrow, she would have preferred if the Court just decided to take up DOMA. ”I’m not thrilled. I would have preferred they took the Windsor case alone.”

But hey, you know, marriage itself is kind of a risk in the first place.  Tonight I'm going to stand in what because of our stupidity will be an extra-legal ceremony... or maybe I'm accomplice to a murder-like event depending on whom you ask. 

Obama likes teh gay Mitt wants to change the subject

A couple of quick points about Obama's somewhat tepid and many years late acknowledgement of basic human dignity his campaign people staged for him this afternoon.

First, insofar as Obama's announcement... which changes nothing and basically reiterates Dick Cheney's position that the legality of gay marriage should be left to the states to decide... insofar as that is an advance of any value, the credit for it goes not to Obama who has spent most of his time with this issue basically twisting in the wind. Instead it goes to the critics who have continued to drag him along on this "evolutionary" path. Glenn Greenwald and David Sirota both said this quite well today. Here's Greenwald's bit.

As David Sirota explained today, this demonstrates why it is so vital to always apply critical pressure even to politicians one likes and supports, and conversely, it demonstrates why it is so foolish and irresponsible to devote oneself with uncritical, blind adoration to a politician, whether in an election year or any other time (unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant). When someone who wields political power does something you dislike or disagree with, it’s incumbent upon you to object, criticize, and demand a different course. Those who refuse to do so are abdicating the most basic duty of citizenship and rendering themselves impotent.

The only problem I have with that paragraph is the part that implies there are supposed to be politicians we "like and support." When you get down to it, they're all just hollow vessels of ambition and suckassery.  None of them deserve your support and certainly not your affection.  But, depending on circumstances, some of them may be more susceptible to pressures that work in your favor and that's how you decide which way to vote.

The point is politics isn't really about the politicians.  They're just the tools (in multiple senses of that word).  Policy change is brought about by the forces acting upon those tools be they money, personal influence, or... in very very rare cases... genuine organized active demand of the voters. But the minute that demand relents is the minute the power to create further change is ceded.  So, for the most part, I agree with Greenwald. I only disagree with the implication that we should ever stop and credit any politician for work they do not actually perform... such as leadership.

As to the politics of this thing, the stunt is a clever way to turn a poor election result in North Carolina into a "win the week" moment for Obama by momentarily firing up part of the much neglected Democratic base. Sure, the Fox and Freaks crowd responded predictably today but their pushback was so lame that it felt like going through the motions. I think they knew they'd been outmaneuvered... almost like a bluff had been called. 

And that brings us to a final  observation.  Liberals like me have long said that the best way to counter the old Republican phony "values" playbook is to just show a little backbone on issues like gay rights.  "Our" side has always enjoyed the true "moral" high ground in such matters. We've only suffered from a lack of candidates willing to articulate that clearly.

I actually don't think Obama has done that clearly enough yet but this was a strong enough move to cause an interesting reaction from the Romney camp and one that shows just how much the game has changed with regard to social wedge issues in national politics. It wasn't too too long ago that Republicans took it as a given that Democratic candidates could be separated from their "economic" base by a campaign strategy that highlighted issues like race, gay rights, abortion, recreational drug use, and the like.

I'm not about to say that this is no longer the case at all but I think those dynamics may be changing in a way that makes them less of a rout on the Republican side. For example, Mitt today, clearly knocked back on his heels, offered this reaction.

Mitt Romney would like to talk about the economy. He would apparently prefer not to talk about marriage equality, education for the children of illegal immigrants or medical marijuana. In an interivew with a CBS affiliate in Colorado, Romney was visibly annoyed after a string of questions that included his stance on gay marriage and civil unions (he’s against them), in-state tuition for the children of illegal immigrants (he’s against that) and medical marijuana (he thinks pot is a “gateway drug”).

“Aren’t there issues of significance you’d like to talk about?” he said, after the string of social issue questions, one of which came from a viewer. “The economy, the growth of jobs, the need to put people back to work, the challenges of Iran? We’ve got enormous issues that we face but you want to talk about medical marijuan–go ahead, you want to talk about Medical–”

“Marijuana should not be legal in this country,” Romney said finally, before calling pot a “gateway drug.”

Have we really come so far now that it's the Republican candidate, whose party even more than ever now is firmly ensconced as the party of the privileged "1%", who is so thrown for a loop by a Democrat who just (sort of) endorsed gay marriage that the best response he can muster is, "It's the economy, stupid"?  These are indeed the strangest of times.

Today in gay marriage

1) Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.

The ruling was narrow and likely to be limited to California.

Because the ruling comes from a three judge panel, it could still be appealed to the full Ninth Circuit or possibly to the US Supreme Court but I don't think that's going to happen. Anwyway, if you like reading federal court decisions you can read this one at this link here.

2) Former Saints running back Ricky Williams, who was once gay married to and then gay divorced from Mike Ditka, announced his retirement today. Best of luck, Ricky.


Once again legal in California

Mississippi Republicans, is this is or is this ain't your consititiency?

Nearly Half Of Mississippi Republicans Think Interracial Marriage Should Be Illegal

Americans nationwide are evenly divided over the issue of same sex marriage. But Republicans in Mississippi are divided over a wholly different wedlock issue: interracial marriage.

In a PPP poll released Thursday, a 46% plurality of registered Republican voters said they thought interracial marriage was not just wrong, but that it should be illegal. 40% said interracial marriage should be legal.

In other words 46% loudly declared, "That's not MY culture and heritage!" I'm hearing many added that interracial marriage, "ain't even old timey!" although the poll did not address that question specifically.

In case you haven't heard yet

Scott Walker is kind of an asshole.

Adding: In light of DOJ's decision not to defend DOMA, Scott Walker now allowed to take calls from "Amanda Hugginkiss"

Question

How many times has Justice of the Peace Bardwell been inter-racially married?

HAMMOND, La. -- A justice of the peace said concern for children the couple may have prompted him refuse to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple.

Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, said it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Funny

Michael Rowe on this Prejean thing:

Only in America would the notion of a nearly-naked fundamentalist Christian beauty queen tossing her processed hair and parading brand new pageant-bought plastic breasts across a Las Vegas stage in front of millions of television viewers with all the modesty of a blue ribbon heifer at a county livestock fair (the same fundamentalist Christian beauty queen who would later tell a television reporter that she heard God whispering in her ear as she answered a celebrity-worshipping Internet gossip columnist's question about gay marriage) be treated as anything other than an occasion for high comedy and mirth.

Via Tbogg, who sees just about everything as "an occasion for high comedy and mirth."

Situation NOLA All Freaking Weird

Let's see... whaddawegot this morning?

• Key witness in murder trial downs whiskey and "sees dead people"



• Across the state, a "stunningly pink" dolphin appears in Lake Calcasieu



• Popular Saints player unceremoniously dropped by team on the eve of his wedding day



• Oh and Ed Blakely is back on the TV lying his ass off again

Yawn... Wake me up when something interesting happens.

This week's The Gambit complaint *

By now most The Gambit readers should be familiar with editor Kevin Allman's affinity for pun-making. Or.. at least... most of us have deduced this from following Allman's posts to the The Gambit blog for a while and from noting a significant increase in the frequency of punned headlines atop The Gambit features and articles since the advent of his editorship there. (Perhaps this is a coincidence. I don't know, it's just something the readers have noticed) In any event, concerned The Gambit readers who follow and care about such things were disappointed this week to find Allman's cover story.

The article itself, on the long lonely saga of Louisiana's thankfully underutilized Covenant Marriage law, is both informative and hilarious. Not to mention timely since, it points out several times that none other than Governor PBJ (so much in the news this week for his earnest and forthright style of political leadership and moral example) was among the first... and still few... to take advantage of the covenant option. ** Jindal and his wife Supriya now enjoy the blessings of the impossibility of no-fault divorce.

Unfortunately, despite all this, we find ourselves forced to deduct points from Allman for failing to title his feature, "Arc of the Covenant Marriage". We've come to expect better.


* We reserve the right to levy further complaints about this week's The Gambit regarding "Rex Duke's" atrocious reviews of this year's Carnival parades. But such complaints would have to accompany our own Carnival wrap-up post which is itself currently sprawling out in the drafts folder and may not see the light of day without much much further work.

** This reminds me of an election day post that appeared here on the Yellow Blog waaaaay back in 2003 when we lodged the following complaints against then-candidate Jindal.

1) He believes he has personally confronted Satan. 2) He wants to teach creationism in public schools. 3) He used to work in the Bush Administration. 4) He and his wife have a covenant marriage. 5) All of this is downright nutty.

Eventually it all comes back.