This got lost over the holiday weekend, but it's very important in regards

[pdxmom]

to judicial activism - from the right:

"A federal judge Friday blocked Oregon's domestic partnership law for gays and lesbians from taking effect next week, saying opponents should have a chance to make their case for a statewide election on civil unions.

The surprise ruling comes four days before gay couples would be eligible for most of the same legal benefits of marriage. Couples across Oregon had planned to show up at county offices Wednesday to register as partners.

Mosman set a Feb. 1 hearing to hear a lawsuit by gay-rights opponents challenging the state's methods for verifying voter signatures. Opponents gathered signatures last summer to try to overturn civil unions on the November 2008 ballot but were rejected by state officials."

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/stories/index.ssf?/base/news/1198902321260710.xml&coll=7

This is atrocious. The rules for our initiative signature gathering process have been in place for years, and this is the first time this has ever come up. The judge in this case is a very religious Bush* appointee, and if he rules for the opponents of this law, he will open a huge can of worms in this state - basically invalidating every initiative passed or defeated for years.

This ruling will harm many people in this state. Couples who are have babies due in the next few weeks, couples who had canceled one person's health insurance because they believed they would now be covered by the new law on their partner's insurance, etc. This is an outrage and potentially very harmful with a lot of unintended consequences.

[bbgrunt]

1. k & r

[dbackjon]

2. You won't hear the Right complaining about this Judicial Activism

It is outrageous - the fundies couldn't get enough sigs, and now, in typical fascist fashion, want to change the rules.

that judge is not worthy of being a judge.

And of course, a bush Judge

Nominated by George W. Bush on May 8, 2003, to a seat vacated by Robert E. Jones; Confirmed by the Senate on September 25, 2003, and received commission on September 26, 2003.

[pdxmom]

5. I happen to work for an attorney who practices in the federal system

and this is one judge that we really wish we wouldn't have to appear in front of.

Thom Hartmann was talking about this on his local show this morning and there is a lot of outrage.

[bunkerbuster1]

25. It's never "judicial activism" when they do it.

But boy do they get pissed when you accuse them of it.

[Der Blaue Engel]

3. Crap

I hope the people who think certain Dems are "no different" from Bush are paying attention. Setting aside the fact that that's complete nonsense, we have to get those vermin out of the White House if for no other reason than judicial appointees.

[Bandit]

20. Reid just submitted ninty of Bush*'s appointees for approval

:shrug:

[Der Blaue Engel]

27. If you can't understand what's at stake, understand the realities of the process

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Nominations.htm

The president nominates all federal judges in the judicial branch and specified officers in cabinet-level departments, independent agencies, the military services, the Foreign Service and uniformed civilian services, as well as U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals. In recent years, more than three hundred positions in fourteen cabinet agencies and more than one hundred positions in independent and other agencies have been subject to presidential appointment. Approximately 4,000 civilian and 65,000 military nominations are submitted to the Senate during each two-year session of Congress. The vast majority are routinely confirmed, while a very small but sometimes highly visible number fail to receive action.

The importance of the position, the qualifications of the nominee, and the prevailing political climate influence the character of the Senate's response to each nomination. Views of the Senate's "proper role" range from a narrow construction that the Senate is obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence, to a broad interpretation that accords the Senate power to reject for any reason a majority of its members deems appropriate. Just as the president is not required to explain why he selected a particular nominee, neither is the Senate obligated to give reasons for rejecting a nominee.

Executive branch appointments customarily end with the departure of the president who made them, except for those independent agencies whose officials have fixed terms. Judicial appointments, however, are for life and can be terminated only through the time-consuming congressional impeachment process. Historically, Supreme Court nominations, in great disproportion to their number, have attracted the close attention of senators, the media, and scholars. While the Senate has explicitly rejected fewer than 2 percent of all cabinet nominees since 1789, nearly a quarter of all Supreme Court nominations have failed to be confirmed, their nominations rejected, withdrawn or declined.

The fact is that no matter which party controls the Senate, the vast majority of Presidential judiciary appointees are approved.

Please try to envision the difference between Democratic and Republican appointees. It may be worthy of no more than a shrug to you, but it is life and death to many of us.

[dbackjon]

4. Also - a Mormon fundie nut

Ricks College, A.B., 1979 (Mormon Junior College)

Utah State University, B.S., 1981

Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law School, J.D., 1984

[pdxmom]

7. Lots of people here questioning how he, of all the judges, ended up

with this particular case. He's taking a beating on local progressive radio. The city of Portland is not reacting well to this, as should be expected.

[dbackjon]

6. Confirmed 93-0 by the Senate

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2003-367

[gaspee]

8. and here's the most

insidious effect of the Bush administration... we're stuck with judges like this guy for a long time. Unfortunately.

[pdxmom]

19. I think the judiciary is one of the most important issues of this coming

election. It's cases like this that show how, regardless of our legislatures, the courts can bollux it all up based on their personal agendas.

[dbackjon]

9. Why the HELL did any Democrat vote to confirm this nut

Judge Who Made Yesterday's Anti-Gay Ruling Has Shady Past?
In an April 2003 story in the Oregonian entitled, "Smith's Pick Stirs Gay-Rights Controversy", it talks about the now District Court Judge Michael Mosman as possibly having an anti-gay side.

From the Oregonian:
What once seemed like a slam-dunk nomination for the federal judiciary in Oregon could turn into a test of political wills for Oregon's two senators, Republican Gordon Smith and Democrat Ron Wyden.

Michael Mosman, the U.S. attorney in Portland, is Smith's choice for a vacant district judgeship and is still regarded as a favorite of the Bush White House. But recent revelations of Mosman's views on gay rights, first expressed in 1986, have delayed his selection and what otherwise would likely be easy Senate confirmation.

Now, gay-rights groups are demanding explanations from Mosman, putting Smith's carefully crafted reputation as a friend to the homosexual community on the line. Wyden, meanwhile, could be the only defense against a filibuster by the Senate's increasingly restive Democratic minority if he chooses to support Mosman's nomination.

The senators have cooperated in filling the vacancy created when U.S. District Judge Robert E. Jones took senior status in 2000. But they could face rough going if national gay-rights groups actively oppose Mosman's nomination.

"If the gay-rights community makes this nomination a litmus test, then quite frankly, they're in the middle of it and they're going to have to take sides," said Jim Moore, an independent political analyst in Portland.

It's unclear whether that will happen. But gay-rights activists say they're still waiting for answers from Mosman.

"What I want him to show is that he has come to understand that relationships need to be judged on their quality, not whether they are gay or straight," said Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, an advocacy group in Portland.

Mosman, 46, emerged as the top candidate in January after Ray Baum, a lawyer for Smith's family business, withdrew. But controversy erupted in March, when Basic Rights disclosed Mosman's role in a pivotal 1986 case, Bowers V. Hardwick (read about the case on Wikipedia here).

The group uncovered and presented to Smith two "bench memos" that Mosman had written as a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. Mosman urged Powell to uphold Georgia's anti-sodomy law against a claim that police invaded a man's privacy by arresting him in his home.

http://www.gayrightswatch.com/2007/12/judge-who-made-todays-anti-gay-ruling.html

[pdxmom]

13. I'm very disappointed that Wyden voted to confirm him. And this points

out my question about how the hell did this specific judge end up hearing this particular case. There is something going on here that smells.

[dbackjon]

14. For a Judge to get appointed in a state

Both Senators have to agree. Wyden could have blocked the appointment in the first place.

[pdxmom]

10. I really wonder if he realizes the full impact this could have if he rules

in favor of the opponents of domestic partnership. This could also jeopardize our Death with Dignity Act, which was passed by initiative as well.

It certainly is interesting how this wasn't an issue and no federal judge felt that there was a problem with our signature-gathering process until it was a gay rights law that was involved.

[gratuitous]

11. Atrocious, indeed

I have no idea why a federal judge has seen fit to meddle in an initiative system that is purely a state matter. But since this is a Bush appointee, there's no telling what heretofore unknown or unguessed at constitutional right has been discovered that must be upheld to protect initiative signature sheets at the expense of citizens' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[pdxmom]

15. And that is exactly what Mosman did. By not allowing the law to take

affect, he is saying that the opponents of domestic partnership are more harmed than the couples whom the law will impact. This is garbage. He could have allowed the law to take affect, then ruled on it in February.

[dbackjon]

12. Clinton and Dodd need to explain why they confirmed this asshole

And Edwards why he didn't vote against him (No vote).

[gratuitous]

16. Senatorial courtesy, no doubt

Once a nominee gets out of committee and to the Senate floor, Senators feel constrained to vote for one another's District Court judicial nominees out of courtesy. There has to be some stink raised by a credible interest group to contest a nomination, and in 2003, Basic Rights Oregon just wasn't all that important to national politics (and it probably still isn't very important) to derail an otherwise qualified nominee endorsed put forward by a respected Republican member of the Senate. Also, keep in mind that Gordon Smith had made a big show during his 2002 election campaign of getting the endorsement of Matthew Shepard's family to establish his credentials as progressive (for a Republican) on gay issues. So any niggling questions about Mosman were tucked away in the bipartisan spirit of Senatorial comity.

[dbackjon]

17. So once again, GLBT's get thrown under the bus

By our so-called allies

[gratuitous]

21. It would be remarkable indeed

It would be remarkable if Smith nominated Mosman on the off-chance that he could make such a ruling as he did (though he was put into the position and eventually some chance was going to come along somewhere). The legislation passed by the Oregon legislature and signed into law by the governor will go into effect, eventually. This is merely a speed bump. But the Democratic nominee (and I'm rather hoping it's Steve Novick) should make some hay out of Smith's connection to Mosman to hurt his credibility with the progressive community. There are still an awful lot of folks who should vote against Gordon Smith who think he's "one of the good ones."

[pdxmom]

18. Gordon Smith is a boil on the butt of Oregon. He hasn't met a position

he wouldn't be willing to change with the wind.

[pdxmom]

22. In 2004, we had Measure 36, which was the ballot measure that amended

the Constitution to define marriage to exclude gays and lesbians. Evidently, the signature gathering process was fine that year. It's only a problem when they don't get what they want. Of course, maybe if Mosman rules against the signature gathering process, that would throw this abomination out of our Constitution.

[Clark2008]

23. Just a thought, but when is Oregon's primary?

[pdxmom]

24. We're one of the last to have a primary. It's May 20th. Talk about

feeling totally left out and having no voice!

[Clark2008]

26. Ewwww... I'm sorry.

But, that nulifies what I was thinking.

I thought that perhaps they wanted to make it a "primary issue" by having it all over the news the week of the primary to drive the wingnuts out in force to vote for Huckabee or something.

[pdxmom]

28. Actually, you're on the right track. If Mosman rules in their favor, this

would throw their measure to a popular vote in November. And you can believe they'll use it as a wedge issue to pull out Republican voters - especially with Gordon Smith being in danger of losing his seat.