IIRC, it was a 7-2 vote that SCOFL had screwed up, and a 5-4 about what to do about it.

So, SEVEN men (and women) in black robes made the judgement that the men (and women?) in black robes in FL had screwed up in the first place.

Why give him a pass? Sullivan knows exactly what he said: Bush was selected-not-elected. It's complete garbage, especially when even he should know that Bush would still be President had the Supreme Court not intervened and Gore had gotten his stacked recounts.

Really, unless there's a big apology along with a note saying that Michael Moore got ahold of his password, I see no reason to even politely pretend that Sullivan is relevant anymore.

Er, I don't think it counts as judicial activism if you appeal to one set of judges to undo the activism of another set of judges. SCOFL was just making up the rules as it went along. SCOTUS simply stopped the madness.

What's the beef?

There's been lots of 5-4 decisions from on high which the rest of us have had to live with.

Why is he so special?

TO: Stephen Green
RE: Andrew's Slow Descent Into Oblivion

I stopped reading his blog on a daily basis about a year ago, when I perceived that things were deteriorating.

With each new comment by another blogger, such as this item on VodkaPundit, I'm noticing a significantly greater deterioration.

How long until utter dementia? Anybody want to start a pool?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Absolutely right, Dean. Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, and Souter voted to overturn the Florida Supreme Court. Breyer and Souter wanted, as I recall, ALL the votes in ALL the counties recounted, whereas the Gore campaign had asked, and the Florida Supreme Court granted, that only undervotes be recounted in only three or four counties.

HT has a good point, also. It was a 5-4 decision of the Florida Supreme Court that ordered a recount on Gore's terms.

It's either that, or Andrew is going to have a big "GOTCHA!" post next week.

After complaining about how the GOP was stacking the speaking roles with moderates, he now has fallen for the Democrat talking points hook, line and sinker. Does anybody really think that the party that has been on display this week represents the average Democrat voter? They don't even represent their own delegates!

I had removed Sully from my daily routine last week- tired of the constant gay marriage stuff (like that's all we have to worry about). Seeing the comments here validates the decision to drop him. Someone on another blog or possibly in these comments said he was a good writer, but not so much a good thinker, which I think captures it.

And then, of course, there's the new donkey image on his masthead. Andrew's come out of the, ahem, closet. Maybe he's been a deep cover operative for a long time. If so, he came out just a little too soon for maximum effect.

Chuck(le): if he does cross the line into "utter dementia" then I vote that we start can calling him Andy Looney.

I too performed a symbolic de-link of The Daily Dish (removed from favorites page) last week.........too much gay talk......I think he was an agent provocateur for the left all along.

Andrew who?

Charles:

I thought that was for the Dem Convention. As others have noted, let's see if he puts up an elephant for the RNC.

I believe that the majority in Bush v. Gore did the right thing. I've read the majority and the decent, and I don't find the decent very convincing. In particular, their central argument seems to be that the Federal Courts do not have jurisdiction. In the earlier Katherine Harris v. Palm Beach Canvassing Board they unanimously ruled against the FL Supremes. If they didn't have jurisdiction, why didn't they say so then? Even more interesting is that the majority's 14th Amendment concerns. If Justice Ginsburg is correct that Federal Courts do not have the authority to interfere with State and local elections, then Gore gets his re-recount, but the Voting Rights Act of 1965 becomes unconstitutional.

If State legislatures want to votes for Gay Marriage, I think that would be a good idea. The problem is that that didn't happen. If you read the decent in Lawrence v. Texas, which is at the heart of the MA gay marriage decision, the SCOTUS invented law out of whole cloth, threw out a couple of very important concepts in constitutional law, and (once again) looked to foreign laws and foreign decisions. Now we have a big problem. Liberals love to invent new laws by interpreting laws in ways that don't make sense, ignoring words they don't like, and seeing things that aren't there.

And I can't wait to see how liberals react to the application of Lawrence v. Texas to prostitution, polygamy, and adult incest. (Hint: If sexual expression between consenting adults of equal standing is a right, then what limits can the State put on such activity?) Liberals yield to the demands of the gay community and twist the Constitution to protect gay marriage. Then liberals will yield to the demands of feminists and twist their own Supreme Court decisions to forbid prostitution. Legislatures will not be able to tell year-by-year what laws are valid and what laws aren't.

Regarding Bush v. Gore (or was it "Gore v. Bush")...

There are seven Florida Supremes, hence the nickname "The Seven Dwarves".

The SCOTUS found cumulatively 21-6 against the Gore Campaign, overturning the FLSC twice by 9-0 and 7-2, and foreclosing on remedies 5-4.

The Bush Campaign prevailed in every Florida state lower court in which it sought remedy or in which the Gore campaign filed suit, and in every one of those cases the presiding judge was an elected Democrat.

The Bush campaign fared worse in Federal district and appeals courts, breaking even in the former and losing more than winning in the latter, although the both did uphold the validity of the military absentee ballots, which broke heavily for Bush.

--furious

You can take the man out of Europe, but you can't take the European mentality out of the man.

I'm with Chuckie and the others here. Its time to wake up and smell the coffee Vodkaman! Sullivan has been delusional, not to mention more than a little disrespectful and out of touch with fellow bloggers, for well over a year now. And this doesn't even touch on his "bandwidth" issue.

I also removed Andrew from my bloglines yestarday. The donkey and the "validating" emails from readers were getting too much. After a short time of clear headedness, he went back to the arms of his old compatriots. I bet he gets good party invites now.

It is just kind of sad. He is the second site that I have delisted (BoingBoing was the first) because their politics drove them batty. I bet it won't be the last. Jeff Jarvis, I am looking at you.

-Donut

You want to talk delusional? Talk about the sycophantic boasting of de-linking a gay man for talking about gay issues on his blog at a time when the issue is on the legislative forefront.

You want an echo chamber, not a debate. Andrew's site is very much in the debate camp, being a catholic whose church doesn't want him, and now a conservative hawk who is bein shown that the political party championing that policy also doesn't want him.

You have to admit that a party that:
Promised spending cuts, and raised spending by 28%
Promised free trade, and then approved 3 new tariffs
Promised to support Federalsim, then tried to take the power from the states
AND made the noted about face on the judiciary really doesn't stand for principles. They stand for remaining in power.

Recognizing that is possible if you come out of the echo chamber.

TO: Lloyd and HT
RE: Delusional

"Sullivan has been delusional..." -- Lloyd

It's sad. He was a good read.

I suspect that his condition is beginning to gain the upper hand. Dementia IS a symptom of advancement of the disease.

Regards,

Chuck()

Anybody hear an echo?

Sullivan can be as gay as he wants, bago. He's being abandoned by conservatives because has endorsed Kerry and is parrotting DNC talking points that have no basis in reality. The GOP has a pretty big tent, but when you post a donkey on your banner and endorse the most liberal member of the Senate for President, you're out.

We've done the same thing to other "conservatives" for a lot less. Remember Pat Buchanan?

And the echo chamber thing is cute. While you're at, you should try to count the pro-lifers you see on camera at the DNC convention tonight...

Look, gay marriage is very important to Andrew Sullivan. That's really to be expected. I'm pretty convinced of several things:
1) The gay marriage issue, despite any protests of his, really made up his mind because it's so important to him;
2) However, he sincerely believes strongly in the idea of bringing freedom and democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq;
3) He has a strong enough sense of decency and guilt to REALLY not want to be putting gay marriage above the freedom of much worse off foreigners;
4) Therefore, he DESPERATELY wants to convince himself that Kerry can be trusted to do things at least as well or well enough in Iraq and other areas, to assuage his otherwise guilty conscience.

Read his comments in these four lights, and it really is understandable.

1) The gay marriage issue, despite any protests of his, really made up his mind because it's so important to him;

I expect someone as politically aware as Andrew to know that 1) a Constitutional Amendment was not going to happen, and 2) to recognize proposing one is a way to force Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards to vote on it, and by doing so to take a position one way or the other.

But no, he's gone off the deep end.

The fact that the person who claims to represent conservatives would endorse a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT of that nature should be offensive enough to cause any lover of the constitution to seriously reconsider their support.

Never mind the fact that it didn't have a chance, it's the PRINCIPLE of the thing. Remember those? Because Republicans seem to have forgotten them right along with that first taste of power.

bago:

Posit the following:

1. You are a conservative, who is opposed to gay marriage.
2. A number of states' courts (not their legislatures) are now basically saying that states cannot ban gay marriage.
3. The Full Faith-and-Credit Clause of the Constitution means that things like marriages must be respected in all states, once conducted in one state.

Now, what are the methods by which one can stop the gay marriage bandwagon?

Notice that this is not to suggest whether it's the right thing to do, whether you agree w/ it or not, simply asking the question, given these conditions, what steps are available to stop the gay marriage push?

Dean:

The Full Faith-and-Credit Clause of the Constitution DOES NOT mean that things like marriages must be respected in all states. I wish it did. Then my license to carry a handgun in my state would have to be respected in all states. Legislatures do have control:

ARTICLE IV.

Section 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to
the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other
State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner
in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and
the Effect thereof.

Kevin:

I know that there is a debate underway (not in Congress, seems more like the blogosphere and some law schools) about this.

Of course, FF&C doesn't apply to a lot of things (e.g., passing the bar), but it generally does seem to have been considered to apply to marriages.

Until it is decided for sure (probably requiring more legal wrangling), however, my guess is that most states are going to operate on the assumption that they are, simply because otherwise, it will leave an awful lot of couples (straight as well as gay) in limbo.

My point still stands: AT PRESENT, if you're a conservative, you would have to consider that the FF&C element is a back-door means of getting gay marriage accepted nation-wide. (Here's a related thought: If state/Fed courts can conclude that gay marriage is okay, why can't they conclude that FF&C applies to marriages?)

Again, let me say that this is not an argument in favor of the FMA, merely noting that, for conservatives, there ARE arguments for supporting it that do not make it contradictory to a "smaller government" impetus. [I believe most conservatives are even more peeved at arrogation of legislative authority by courts than by larger government per se.]

I posted this on my blog (insert shameless plug here - The Commons, www.paulieworld.com/blog, as noted at NRO's The Corner) back on March 31:

From the American Enterprise

Taken from a letter to the editor by Mr. Mark Psiaki of Ithaca, New York:

"The onus should have been on gay rights activists to pass an amendment to legalize gay marriage."

Sullivan's turning into a one-trick pony.