Proposition 8...folks tweeted like mad 'til ruling came down! Here are a couple...

Twitter fans were tweeting so fast (so hard and so furious) just prior to the Prop 8 ruling being handed down last week - that it was difficult to copy and paste the tweets quickly enough - so they could be scooped up for posterity.

However, in the course of the frenzied excitement, I managed to snap up one or two tweets that best described the mounting tension - and captured the mood just prior to the release of the ruling on the issue of same-sex marriage (and the subsequent ban) - in San Francisco last week.

Eramelin: I had been watching the news, but then I realized Twitter is a better place to wait for news about Prop 8. XD
Twitter - seconds ago

buffalo_girl‎: I predict Twitter will #failwhale shortly after the Prop 8 ruling
Twitter - 8 minutes ago

FagHagMom‎: Watching NBC on the Advocate: Prop 8 Ruling Set For Release
Advocate Embed Player‎ - theplatform.com

revtristy‎: Let go of the fear and ignorance and walk into a brighter day, Golden State. No more Hate - Overturn Prop 8!
Twitter - seconds ago

shayera‎: I don't know which is worse, waiting for the Prop 8 decision to come down, or waiting for the City Librarian to walk into the branch.
Twitter - seconds ago

lclopez4‎: Califorinia's Prop 8 decision to be decided in just minutes Follow @salvadorduran for updates #hispanicling
Twitter - seconds ago

RiskyBizBlog‎: Hollywood awaits Prop. 8 decision
Hollywood awaits Prop. 8 decision‎ - hollywoodreporter.com
Twitter - seconds ago
davidbadash‎: #CNN is promising to announce the #prop 8 decision as soon as it is posted.
Twitter - seconds ago

Dawn_KJ‎: I'm hoping that Prop 8 will be ruled unconstitutional (because it is) and that there will be NO stay issued. #Prop8 #NoH8 #lgbt
Twitter - seconds ago

Amen!

http://www.julianayrs.com

Newt Gingrich...blasts that Prop 8 Judge Walker is un-American! Kagan unlikely to vote his way!

Gingrich carries big stick!

(casts small shadow)

Newt Gingrich was on the rag today over the landmark ruling handed down yesterday by U.S. Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker who effectively overturned the ban on same-sex marriage in the State of California with a flourish of a pen.

In a bald-faced tirade, spewed across his infamous website of hate, Gingrich labelled the Judge's actions downright "outrageous", for starters.

Then, he proceeded to rant that the jurist presiding over the legal proceedings in San Francisco displayed a total disrespect for the U.S. Constitution and for the majority of Americans whom - he asserted - have held firm in their belief that the institution of marriage is a holy union exclusive to heterosexuals.

Newt should take a vicodin and call it a day!

After all, he needs to get his facts straight.

For example, the outspoken politician falsely alleged that in every State - from California to Maine to Georgia (where people have had a chance to vote) - Americans have affirmed that marriage is strictly a privilege afforded one man and one woman.

Newt, same-sex marriages are currently legal in Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and Washington.

A majority of folks here-and-there appear to disagree, so wake up and smell the coffee.

Of course, anyone with an ounce of intelligence is keen to the fact that Newt Gingrich doesn't have much of a clue about the pulse of the American people anyway - beyond his own polluted little pond - much less in Washington or elsewhere.

But - the notion that Congress should rush in - was a real hoot.

"Congress now has the responsibility to act immediately to reaffirm marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our National policy," he keyed into a post angrily.

On the contrary, the issues pertaining to same-sex marriage must go on through the legal process, and a determination has to be made, according to the law of the land.

Judge Walker was just interpreting applicable Statutes to the best of his ability.

What do they say?

Don't shoot me! I'm just the messenger!

Justices in the higher court(s) will - undoubtedly - endeavour to do the same (now that an appeal has been filed with the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals) until the issue sputters to a logical conclusion.

When it comes to President Obama and Congress drumming up a "National Policy"?

Don't hold your breath, Newt!

Obama and his flat-footed cronies have yet to craft a meaningful Immigration Reform Bill - in spite of a loud outcry and violent protests - that has been tearing apart the country in recent weeks.

But, Newt's misguided lunacy doesn't stop there.

In a parting shot, he piped up:

"Today’s notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society.”
 
OMG!
 
Does't he read the newspapers?
 
Essentially, Kagan was being touted as a shoe-in for confirmation.
 
Notwithstanding, is he really that much of an a**hole that he actually believes that anyone who disagrees with his point of view (Elena Kagan & Judge Walker) must be anti-American?
 
The man needs therapy!

 

 
 

Kagan un-American?

(or just out-of-fashion)

 

http://www.julianayrs.com

The Geffen Playhouse...Laurence Fishburne in "Thurgood"! Elena Kagan gossip...

The Washington Post is raving about Laurence Fishburne's dynamic stage presence in "Thurgood".

"A good stage actor can immerse you in his imaginary world. An outstanding one makes you feel you're the only other person in it. That higher-level mastery is achieved by Laurence Fishburne in Thurgood."

The play, penned by George Stevens, Jr., runs June 27th thru August 8th at the highly-respected Geffen Playhouse.

Directed by Leonard Foglia, the production is predicted to sell out!

Especially when you figure some gossip into the scenario before opening night.

How does Elena Kagan figure into the scheme of things?

"He called her shorty. She called him the most important lawyer of the 20th century," an Associated Press reporter noted for the record in a recent foray into a relationship between the two.

Undoubtedly, curiousity-seekers will be intrigued by the connection, as Thurgood Marshall's legacy takes stage - and likewise - Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination is pending.

See 'ya there!

Info: http://www.geffenplayhouse.com/

http://www.julianayrs.com

Elena Kagan...crossing legs basic instinct! Obama and his dangling leg...

Just one of the guys!

Infamous Basic Instinct scene titillated a Nation!

There was a big flap this morning when critics accused a Washington Post columnist of being sexist.

Alongside an article on Elena Kagan's style, the fashion editor ran a publicity still of Kagan firmly ensconced in a deep armchair with her legs "open".

Unlike the Sharon Stone character in "Basic Instinct" - the Supreme Court nominee was wearing panties - so what's the big deal?

When I was a kid, I was taught that a man planted his feet firmly on the ground, when he was in a seated  position.

If I ever crossed my leg over the other - and dangled it over my knee - I would be scolded.

"It's not manly."

So, when Barack Obama became President and started to cross his leg over one knee during interviews, I had mixed emotions.

Does that mean it's okay for the rest of us guys to do it without running the risk of being called a fag?

One masculine-looking News Anchor - Bill Hemmer - throws his leg over a knee almost daily on the popular show.

When it comes to the issue of gaiety, does it all boil down to whether the gam is swung up-and-down in a swishy fashion?

Inquiring minds want to know.

http://www.thetattler.biz

Elena Kagan...White House bars interview with brother! Alarm Bells go off amidst furor!

Quite a few alarm bells went off over the past twenty-four hours - when the White House maneuvered a surprise about-face - and turned down a request by the New York Times to attend a class on constitutional law headed up by Elena Kagan's brother who happens to be a teacher.

In addition, the Barack administration barred access to Kagan's cousin.

Pundits on noon-hour tabloid news shows were in a frenzy as they tried to fathom this highly-unusual dragonian turn-of-events.

One astute anchor-person noted that when Sonia Sotomayor was being confirmed, the White House openly invited the press to meet her family and friends without restriction.

"They wanted to give the impression that this was one of those great rags-to-riches stories. The Supreme Court Justice nominee was an inspiring example of a common individual who rose from humble beginnings to a lofty perch in the highest court in the land."

The move to prevent a dialogue with Elena's brother and cousin has caused an outcry!

Also, the bizarre conduct of White House staff, has sent up a red flag!

What are "they" afraid of?

Obviously, there must be a skeleton in Kagan's - um - closet!

News at 11 on YouTube!

http://www.thetattler.biz/

Dave Letterman...takes poke at Elena Kagan! Butch is as Butch does...

When Dave Letterman took note of the fact Elena Kagan was President Barack Obama's choice for the upcoming Supreme Court vacancy, the studio audience roared its approval.

But, sly Dave couldn't resist taking a poke at Kagan - affectionaly known as "Shorty" - to her friends.

In a discussion about her qualifications, the toothy talk-show host joked that the candidate (with a penchant for suits) was once the equipment manager for a popular sports team.

Ouch!
 
 

 

http://www.thetattler.biz

Elena Kagan...Supreme Court nominee gay? Elitist Ivy League candidate...

Elena not a lipstick lesbo, fer sure!

Some say she is an elitist - running with an ivory tower posse of Ivy League academics - with no actual hands-on experience.

Others argue that her lack of Judicial experience (she’s never been a bench-warmer or presided over any legal proceeding in that capacity) - may be a plus.

“Kagan will maintain an open mind,” her supporters vigorously argue.

The other side of that coin?

When the confirmation hearings commence, Kagan will have a bit of wiggle room, which hard-line opponents do not hanker up to.

For example, because there is no paper trail to track, lawmakers will have to rely on her responses at the hearings to determine how she will act on various issues that may come before the high court in the future.

Here’s the catch, though.

When probed by lawmakers, some worry Kagan may beg off on the grounds that she doesn’t know how she’ll vote - and likewise - would prefer not to comment this way or that for obvious reasons.

Because her rulings in the U.S Supreme Court would impact the country for decades to come, understandably, a handful of politicians are wringing their hands in dismay.

More importantly, critics have noted on record - that because a case may come before her on a specific issue she may be asked about at the hearings - she would be within her rights to remain close-lipped.

Which comes to the issue of her sexuality and private life.

Yesterday morning - when I reached for a paper - I spied a headline which noted  that Kagan was Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court Justice vacancy.

I did a double-take.

For a moment, my eyes must have played tricks on me, because I thought the headline read:

“Elena Kagan cross-dresser.”

I double-checked and re-read the screaming caption.

In fact, the daily was reporting that Kagan was a “crossover” nominee.

What this meant, of course, was that the perky little career woman - affectionately referred to as "Shorty" - appealed to both Democrats and Republicans alike.

But, the subject of her sexuality remained on my mind.

In fact, a short while later - when I was cruising the Internet - I spotted at least one link for a story on Kagan with the following title:

Kagan a lesbian!

Golly, why would anyone think that?

Let’s see now.

Kagain is almost fifty years of age, wears manly-style suits, is unmarried, and has a demeanor that is largely husky in nature.

Does she have a close female friend luring in the shadows?

What does it matter?

Whether or not she is gay, is relevant to the proceedings, for one very good reason.

Do I have to remind folks that closing arguments for the "Gay Marriage" issue will be heard in June in San Francisco Federal District Court - and that it is wholly possible - that the case may eventually end up at the Supreme Court in the next year or so?

If Ms. Kagan maneuvers her way onto the bench, what will her position be on the issue of same-sex marriage, then?

More importantly, If she is gay, would she have to recuse herself?

If not, could she render an opinion on the issue, without bias?

News at 11!

http://www.thetattler.biz

Proposition 8...Supreme.court will hear arguments to repeal March 5th!

When Proposition 8 (gay marriage ban) passed in California - supporters of the right for gays to marry - sprang into action.

Activists staged raucous highly-vocal protests in the streets which came close to turning into full-scale riots.

Meanwhile, in the trenches, foot soldiers tried to ferret out the names of individuals and businesses who donated funds in support of the anti-gay marriage initiative, so that their homes and businesses could be picketed.

Indeed, a cat & mouse game has persisted.

Supporters of Prop 8 filed a lawsuit in California Courts asking bench warmers to issue a directive that the names of contributors be kept private, for instance.

Legal counsel challenged the constitutionality of the State's Political Reform Act and urged the court to take action on the grounds that donors were being harassed and that some had received death threats.

In essence, Prop 8 supporters were seeking extraordinary relief (and a protective order) from the Courts.

The act, passed in 1974, requires campaigns to reveal personal information on people who give more than $100 to campaigns. The law is intended to prevent money laundering and other illegal campaign activities.

The long and short of it?

Prop 8 supporters were not only asking for "special treatment" - but making a pitch to the court to be exempted from the law - as well.

A Judge did not find their arguments meritorious, however, so he dismissed the case.

Not to be out-maneuvered, anti-prop 8 supporters proceeded to lodge a lawsuit specifically drafted to effect a repeal of Proposition 8, if granted by the Justices in the High Court.

Oral arguments are set for March 5th.

The lawsuit argues that Prop 8 severely alters the California Constitution's quarantine of Equal Protection to minorities because the rights of a minority - in this case the fundamental right to marry - cannot be eliminated by a simple majority vote in an election process.


The court is expected to hand down a decision ninety-days after the hearing in March.

Meanwhile, bodies continue to be strewn about the Prop 8 battlefield.

This past weekend, for instance, former President Bill Clinton was forced to face the wrath of anti-prop 8 supporters when he appeared at the Manchester Hotel in San Diego on Sunday to give a speech.

The owner of the Hotel donated $125,000.00 to the Prop 8 cause.

Rather than cancel his speaking engagement (and run the risk of losing a $100,000.00 fee), Clinton opted to go ahead with his well-orchestrated plans in California.

After-the-fact, Fred Karger at "Californian's Against Hate", was in touch with Clinton's "people" - who swore up and down that before the engagement took place - Clinton made a good-faith effort to switch the venue to another when it came to his attention that the Hotelier supported a cause he has gone on record as being opposed to.

In fact, this past week - after the sting of the highly-publicized protests in the media damaged his name and reputation around the country - the slick politician went so far as to urge that Proposition 8 be repealed!

To me, it was a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking, and I'm not buying it.

If the State Bar Association was unable to switch locales - Bill, if he had an ounce of ethics - should have bowed out of the commitment whatever the consequences.

Meanwhile, the hotly-debated issue rages on.

I'm betting that the High Court will overturn Prop 8.

What then?

Mormons and their supporters will try to oust the Judges (who repealed Proposition 8) come next election.

Then, they'll take a shot at it again.

Yeah, Mr. Smith would be proud.

Those Utah zealots are some Christians, eh?

http://www.julianayrs.com

Cyber Law...Libel, Trademark Infringement, Electronic Contracts

Although most creative individuals would prefer to focus on their "art" than legal issues, it doesn't hurt to have a smidgen of knowledge when it comes to the Law.

During the summer semester, I took a course in Business Law which focused on a number of intriguing concepts: the key elements of a contract, what constitutes a binding, legal agreement between parties (in California), how to set aside a contract, etc.

And, aspects of Cyber law.

In view of the fact artists are often signing on the dotted line, doesn't it make sense for them to be smart and savvy and mindful of their legal rights and obligations, instead of just blindly signing away their lives?

The course zeroed in on torts (injury claims & money-damage award cases) and - in particular - causes of action for slander, libel, and Trademark infringement.

It makes a lot of sense to have some legal knowledge under your belt in view of the litigious society we inhabit today.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed, don't you think?

Libel is a timely subject, and probably more so today for people who cruise the Internet engaging in chat, and thoughtlessly posting on popular blog sites.

Here's a scenario: get into one snit with someone and it is wholly possible that a slew of insults will zip back and forth - as the world watches on!

Some Internet users are not even aware that their actions may be a cause of action for a court case!

Of course, libel concerns false statements made about a person in writing, which may be inflammatory in nature, and engaged in with the specific intent to maliciously harm or smear the reputation of a person.

Not to be confused with slander, of course!

Years ago, a fellow got into a nasty argument on the net about something.

Without thinking, he lashed out at the other party point-blank in a post, spewing a bunch of accusations which clearly had no merit.

In the heat of the moment, the person at the other end of the tirade responded in anger that he would sue for slander.

Well, the other guy just laughed.

Why?

A legal action for slander requires that the words be "uttered", not written on a page.

But, even with slander, problems can arise.

For instance, two business associates were arguing one day, and in the heat of the moment the one accused his partner of slandering him.

In this case there were no grounds for a lawsuit.

Why?

There was no one within earshot; it would not be possible to slander a person to himself!

Yes, it gets tricky, doesn't it?

People assume that because they are on the Internet they can make false statements - even engage in a little character assassination whenever they please - because they are under the mistaken impression that they cannot be traced or held responsible for their misdeeds.

Wrong!

Attorneys hire Private Detectives - experts in the field of Internet Data Analysis - to track the guilty parties down and serve them with a "summons" and a "complaint" to appear in Court.

Internet contracts are interesting, too.

Occasionally, you'll come across them, if you fill in an application for a credit card or a loan on the great world-wide-web.

Or, you may encounter a contract for service if you order a cell phone online.

As you are agreeing to the terms (more-often-than-not) you are required to click on the link - and after doing so - confirm that you agree (and understand) to the terms and conditions.

In fact, in some instances, you can not continue with the application process until you have actually scrolled down and viewed the documentation first.

Contracts signed on the Internet electronically are legally-binding in the courts today.

In my Law class, an interesting case was cited in respect to a Playboy Bunny who was sued by Playboy Enterprises for using "Playmate of Month" in a tag for her web site.

Playboy filed suit on the grounds that the sexy siren was allegedly using their Trademark in violation of applicable law, and subsequently petitioned the court for a restraining order for her to "cease and desist".

Surprisingly, the court found that because the "model" had - indeed - been a Playmate of the Month, that she was entitled to legally direct traffic to her website based on that - er - accomplishment.

Probably, the most hilarious case in recent years was the one that dealt with a Plaintiff's request for damages because someone had called them an **hole.

Believe it or not, the case went all the way to the Supreme Court!

In the highest court of the land, Justice Scalia was given the task of writing the "Opinion" of the Court.

In his dissertation, he dissected the word with precision, presumably with a straight face.

First, he analyzed the word a** (often used to refer to a donkey).

Then, he explored the second part of the derogatory term, "hole".

After discussing all the intricacies of the root meanings of the words and the in-and-outs of the specifics of the English Language - and God knows what else - Scalia court found that an individual may call someone an ***hole and not be sued for it.

Well, I guess some things are sacred!

Patriot Act...U.S. to appeal court ruling!

Last month, a Federal Judge in Oregon struck down key portions of the Patriot Act as unconstitutional.

Judge Ann Aiken, of the Oregon Federal District Court, ruled that two provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), as amended by the Patriot Act, are unconstitutional because they violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken noted that the act cannot be used to authorize secret searches and wiretapping to gather criminal evidence - instead of intelligence gathering - without violating the 4th Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

"FISA permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment", she ruled.

The 4th Amendment stipulates as follows:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

She also noted that,

"For over 200 years, this nation has adhered to the rule of law, with unparalleled success. A shift to a nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised."

She added that the Supreme Court cautioned, as follows:

"The price of lawful public dissent must not be a dread of subjection to an unchecked surveillance power. Nor must the fear of unauthorized official eavesdropping deter vigorous citizen dissent and discussion of Government action in private conversation. For private dissent, no less than open public discourse, is essential to our free society."

The legal issue arose because of a lawsuit filed by Brandon Mayfield, a Portland lawyer, whose home and office were secretly searched and bugged after the FBI misidentified a fingerprint in the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.

The FBI apologized, and the suit was settled in Mr. Mayfield's favor, for an out-of-court settlement of $2 million.

But the illegality of the FBI's conduct is still at issue.

Lawyers for the Government have announced an appeal will be lodged in respect to Judge Aiken's findings, and subsequent ruling, which puts a major dent in FISA and the Patriot Act.