• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Fuck the extremist election deniers. What’s money for if not for keeping them out of office?

We still have time to mess this up!

No one could have predicted…

“woke” is the new caravan.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

“Can i answer the question? No you can not!”

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

It’s always darkest before the other shoe drops.

The party of Reagan has become the party of Putin.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

Just because you believe it, that doesn’t make it true.

A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.

Conservatism: there are some people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

The GOP couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a fist full of 50s.

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

This really is a full service blog.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

Second rate reporter says what?

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

The GOP is a fucking disgrace.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

New McCarthy, same old McCarthyism.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Politicans / David Brooks Giving A Seminar At The Aspen Institute / How Low Can You Go?

How Low Can You Go?

by John Cole|  October 12, 20104:00 pm| 70 Comments

This post is in: David Brooks Giving A Seminar At The Aspen Institute, Gay Rights are Human Rights, Assholes, DC Press Corpse, Fucked-up-edness

FacebookTweetEmail

The Washington Post is now giving room to outright bigot Tony Perkins to publish crap like this: “Christian compassion requires the truth about harms of homosexuality.” That’s from the “On Faith discussion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn,” an idea in and of itself that makes we want to swallow the barrel of a shotgun.

The reason the Washington Times failed was because having it and the Post was an exercise in redundancy exercise.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Politics as ‘Reality’ Show
Next Post: Thirty Days in the Hole »

Reader Interactions

70Comments

  1. 1.

    El Cid

    October 12, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    And here I had respected Fred Hiatt and Jackson Diehl so much.

    [By the way, don’t forget that conservatives will still hate the Washington Post and label it as evil Commonist librulism.]

  2. 2.

    themann1086

    October 12, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    Like I said in an unrelated thread: first against the wall.

  3. 3.

    BGinCHI

    October 12, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    With apologies to hard-working prostitutes, these newspaper whores will fuck anyone who offers them money, or clicks, or an ever-disappearing piece of market share.

    This is starting to make David Gregory look smart and left-wingy.

  4. 4.

    kommrade reproductive vigor

    October 12, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    Since they gave space to Donohue, nothing surprises me. Hell, they’d let Osama bin Laden write a column if he threw in enough homophobia.

    The reason the Washington Times failed was because having it and the Post was an exercise in redundancy exercise.

    Not true. But the reason the Post is failing is because it is imitating the Times.

  5. 5.

    taylormattd

    October 12, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    Yeah, there’s a diary at the top of the Wreck List at GOS about this right now. Fucking unbelievable. Can’t wait to hear the (1) silence and/or (2) praise from the ombudsman.

  6. 6.

    El Cid

    October 12, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    Hey, does this mean they’re bidding for Moonie money?

  7. 7.

    fasteddie9318

    October 12, 2010 at 4:15 pm

    The damned liberal media strikes again!

  8. 8.

    Rick Massimo

    October 12, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    By the way, that Perkins column ran on National Coming Out Day.

    I look forward to the Post’s Christmas Day op-ed written by an atheist. Or a radical Muslim.

    Gee, why not? It’d be “provocative”! It would “go against conventional widsom”! It would “spark lively discussion”!

    Yeah, for some reason I can’t put my finger on, I don’t think they would do that.

  9. 9.

    Zifnab

    October 12, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    …homosexual activist groups like GLSEN (the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) are exploiting these tragedies to push their agenda of demanding not only tolerance of homosexual individuals, but active affirmation of homosexual conduct and their efforts to redefine the family.

    Civil Rights activitists like NAACP are making the darkies too uppity. /1960

    Women’s Lib groups like NOW keep tricking women into thinking they shouldn’t be in the kitchen. /1980

    This. /2010

    Who the fuck needs a time machine anymore?

  10. 10.

    General Stuck

    October 12, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    I haven’t read that cesspool for more than two years now. I could respect a full service wingnut rag like the W. Times, but these sewer trout, fuzzy liberal vichy dem types, opining on moral substance from hate mongers makes me want to go urban guerilla, with a pocket full of arthritis meds.

    Wonder what the market model will be for breathing air.

  11. 11.

    Midnight Marauder

    October 12, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    I think these two excerpts are the most abhorrent of all the filth in his diatribe:

    “Some homosexuals may recognize intuitively that their same-sex attractions are abnormal–yet they have been told by the homosexual movement, and their allies in the media and the educational establishment, that they are “born gay” and can never change. This–and not society’s disapproval–may create a sense of despair that can lead to suicide.”

    “The most important thing that Christians can offer to homosexuals is hope–hope that their sins, just like the sins of anyone else, can be forgiven and their lives transformed by the power of Jesus Christ.”

    That’s right. The most important thing you can give to LGBT individuals is the hope that a savior who thinks their existence is inherently terrible and disgusting, will somehow forgive them for being terrible creatures.

    That he created. For the sole purpose making terrible and then hating them, I guess?

  12. 12.

    Mark S.

    October 12, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    How low?

    Some homosexuals may recognize intuitively that their same-sex attractions are abnormal–yet they have been told by the homosexual movement, and their allies in the media and the educational establishment, that they are “born gay” and can never change. This–and not society’s disapproval–may create a sense of despair that can lead to suicide.

    Pretty damn low.

  13. 13.

    Nick

    October 12, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    Clearly…if Obama had used the bully pulpit.

  14. 14.

    Earl Butz

    October 12, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    It would be nice if the newspapers would just go ahead and die quietly and quickly, instead of thrashing around and wrecking the place as they go ungently into that good night.

  15. 15.

    Iwekam

    October 12, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    OT bu somewhat related:

    Judge Orders Injunction on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

    SAN DIEGO (AP) — A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, ending the military’s 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.
    U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips’ landmark ruling was widely cheered by gay rights organizations that credited her with getting accomplished what President Obama and Washington politics could not.

  16. 16.

    qwerty42

    October 12, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    Jack Steuf at Wonkette has some …uh… fun with this. He includes comparisons with crazy Bryan Fischer.

  17. 17.

    Oscar Leroy

    October 12, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    Meanwhile, in the annals of people who actually have power:

    Obama Justice Department Weighs Appeal in ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Case

    “It’ll be an interesting decision for our president to decide whether to appeal this case,” the plaintiffs’ attorney, Dan Woods, told AP. “He’s said that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ weakens national security, and now it’s been declared unconstitutional. If he does appeal, we’re going to fight like heck.”

    Obama’s administration is considering an appeal of this decision? Gee, I wonder why so many Democrats are not enthusiastic about their party these days.

    EDIT: Damn it, Iwekam! hehe

  18. 18.

    Steve

    October 12, 2010 at 4:25 pm

    @Mark S.: I’ve been hearing that argument a lot lately from the wingnut crowd. Apparently gay teens commit suicide not because of the evangelicals who tell them they’re freaks, but because of the liberals who tell them they’re normal.

  19. 19.

    kommrade reproductive vigor

    October 12, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    Really, skip the article. There isn’t anything in it you haven’t heard a billion times before. You can check the comments if you want to see people telling the Post it sucks

    @Rick Massimo: I can’t wait for the rousing defense of slavery on MLK Day.

  20. 20.

    Steve

    October 12, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    @Oscar Leroy: Your link is about a month old.

  21. 21.

    cyntax

    October 12, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    …that they are “born gay” and can never change.

    I know this has been said many times, but don’t these people get that the corollary of this argument is that being hetreosexual is also a choice?

    But maybe that’s what they believe fear (on some level) and why they’re so uncomfortable around homosexuality.

  22. 22.

    smiley

    October 12, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    OT: Beyond birtherism: This article linked to at C&L has to be seen to be believed. Be sure to check out the comments.

    ETA: The link no longer seems to be on the C&L post. If you’re interested, you can get to it through the link she now has posted.

  23. 23.

    John Cole

    October 12, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    @Oscar Leroy: How many times do we have to go through with this? It is the job of the Justice department to defend extant US law. It isn’t a value judgment on Obama’s part, it is just the duty of the administration to defend the law of the land.

  24. 24.

    Oscar Leroy

    October 12, 2010 at 4:31 pm

    @Steve: So?

  25. 25.

    Linda Featheringill

    October 12, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    @Zifnab:

    Women’s Lib groups like NOW keep tricking women into thinking they shouldn’t be in the kitchen. /1980

    As Nancy Pelosi reportedly said, “A woman’s place is in the House.”

  26. 26.

    Wile E. Quixote

    October 12, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    @John Cole

    That’s from the “On Faith discussion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn,” an idea in and of itself that makes we want to swallow the barrel of a shotgun.

    You know, I must be doing it wrong Because the idea of an ““On Faith discussion with Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn,” doesn’t make me want to swallow the barrel of a shotgun, it makes me want to shove a shotgun into Meacham and Quinn’s mouth like a big, black cock of death and BOOOOOOM!

  27. 27.

    dmsilev

    October 12, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    Sort of on topic: this is an interesting read, looking at gay/straight differences in behavior on an online dating site. For starters,

    The subtext to a lot of homophobic thinking is the idea that gays will try to get straight people into bed at the first opportunity, or that gays are looking to “convert” straights. Freud called this concept schwanzangst; the U.S. Army calls it Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
    __
    We combed through over 4 million match searches, and found virtually no evidence of it:

    dms

  28. 28.

    Oscar Leroy

    October 12, 2010 at 4:38 pm

    @John Cole:

    His administration doesn’t have to defend this policy at all. But it probably will, because Obama wants to be gradual and pragmatic and other garbage like that. He wants Congress to do it, because. . . well, just because. And hey, maybe winning seats in this election will make the Republicans more cooperative! That’s an intelligent thing to believe, right?

  29. 29.

    arguingwithsignposts

    October 12, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    Sorry, but Greenwald is wrong on this one. Meacham can never replace Bill Moyers.

    Update: That was humor, btw. Or, attempted humor. I’ve met Meacham personally, he’s a douche.

  30. 30.

    Nick

    October 12, 2010 at 4:43 pm

    @Oscar Leroy: yeah, I’m sure letting DADT fall via courts is the panacea that will score victory for the Democrats.

    Or, mor realistically, it will lead to whiners complaining courts had to do it, not him, and he still hasn’t repealed DOMA so no money or votes for Democrats.

  31. 31.

    Lysana

    October 12, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    @Oscar Leroy:

    is administration doesn’t have to defend this policy at all. But it probably will, because Obama wants to be gradual and pragmatic and other garbage like that. He wants Congress to do it, because. . . well, just because. And hey, maybe winning seats in this election will make the Republicans more cooperative! That’s an intelligent thing to believe, right?

    Non sequitur department now heard from machine tools.

  32. 32.

    John Cole

    October 12, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    @Oscar Leroy: No, actually, this is kind of clear and you are just flat out wrong. Every administration has an obligation to defend the laws of the land. To not do this would lead to absolute lawlessness. We would turn the rule of law from “this applies to everyone” to “this applies when this party is in power, but now when this party is in power.”

    You’re just wrong. It is kind of why they refer to the Attorney General as the chief law “ENFORCEMENT” officer of the United States. You were around during the Bush years, weren’t you?

  33. 33.

    Oscar Leroy

    October 12, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    I’m sure letting DADT fall via courts is the panacea that will score victory for the Democrats.

    Why, exactly, do you think many Democrats are unenthusiastic about this coming election?

  34. 34.

    kommrade reproductive vigor

    October 12, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    The subtext to a lot of homophobic thinking is the idea that gays will try to get straight people into bed at the first opportunity ^delusion that anyone would touch them with a ten foot pole.

    Fxd.

  35. 35.

    Bill Murray

    October 12, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    @John Cole: and the DoJ did this and lost. They do not have to appeal. That is a choice. It isn’t necessarily up to Obama, although, if the Pres wants it and it isn’t illegal, most AGs do what the Pres wants

  36. 36.

    Emma

    October 12, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    Smiley: I thought you were joking… Lord. I hope the sun is definitely over the yardarm somewhere in the world, because I really, really need a drink.

  37. 37.

    Steve

    October 12, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    @John Cole: It is not obvious to me that the Government has an obligation to appeal every adverse decision. They certainly have discretion not to take an appeal from the Circuit Court level to the Supreme Court. I haven’t seen a definitive answer on this point.

  38. 38.

    Nick

    October 12, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    @Oscar Leroy:

    Why, exactly, do you think many Democrats are unenthusiastic about this coming election?

    because the party in power is always unenthusiastic about midterms.

    But Gallup, for example, showed Dems are actually not much less enthused than they were in 2008, and are more enthused this year than they have been for any midterm since, I think, 1986. The enthusiasm gap comes from an unprecedented level of enthusiasm from Republicans.

  39. 39.

    Fergus Wooster

    October 12, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    @Wile E. Quixote: Next week, Billy Ray Cyrus!

  40. 40.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    October 12, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    Does Christian compassion also require the truths about the harmful effects of the bastardization of Christianity that these people are running around spouting?

    Also, when Roberts decides that DADT is perfectly constitutional – and he will, because he can find a constitutional reason to not feel icky – then what?

  41. 41.

    Dennis SGMM

    October 12, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    I’m a Buddhist. Unlike many of our dear Christian friends I’ve read the Bible twice, the first time straight up and the second with the help of other books of commentary and explication. Now a recent survey found that non-Christians know more about Christianity than most of its own adherents but, it’s hard to understand how the gay bashers could miss something on the very first page of the Old Testament:

    So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
    Genesis 1:27

    I just looked through three different versions of the Old Testament and I didn’t find the words “Except the gays,” in Genesis 1:27 in any of them.

  42. 42.

    Shade Tail

    October 12, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    @Oscar Leroy #33:

    Why, exactly, do you think many Democrats are unenthusiastic about this coming election?

    Because they aren’t paying attention and have unrealistic expectations of what the government can or should do.

  43. 43.

    Oscar Leroy

    October 12, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    No, actually, this is kind of clear and you are just flat out wrong.

    “U.S. Department of Justice attorneys have 60 days to appeal.” What happens if they don’t appeal in 60 days? Do they get 60 more days? Seriously, what would happen?

    It is kind of why they refer to the Attorney General as the chief law “ENFORCEMENT” officer of the United States.

    How did that happen? Was it the Constitution, which says the courts are an equal branch to the Executive?

    “Legal experts say the Obama administration could choose to not appeal her ruling to end the ban”

    That’s not my opinion, that’s what the Associated Press writes. If they are wrong, say why they are wrong.

  44. 44.

    eric

    October 12, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    @Oscar Leroy: Because they have not been paying attention to the GOP’s use of the filibuster and/or they dont want to concede that it matters as much as it really does.

    I am unenthusiastic about a party that has blanche lincoln and ben nelson and the like, and I am modestly enthusiastic that we have made progress on some issues, and I am way enthusiastic about keeping the nuts from getting the keys to the car.

    Similarly, i am not enthused about some of obama’s decisions (drone killings; rendition, etc), more enthusiastic about others, such as HCR (though not satisfied), still more enthusiastic about Ledbetter, and ecstatic that i dont hear about “President McCain.”

    It is all about perspective.

  45. 45.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    October 12, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    @Steve: Don’t some decisions like this only apply in the jurisdiction of the court? Or does this apply nationally since it’s a federal law?

  46. 46.

    Corner Stone

    October 12, 2010 at 4:55 pm

    @dmsilev:

    Freud called this concept schwanzangst

    So *That’s* what he was yelling! Well I’ll be.

  47. 47.

    Steve

    October 12, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): The DOJ argued it should apply only in the Ninth Circuit. The court disagreed, in a lengthy opinion, and issued a nationwide injunction.

  48. 48.

    evinfuilt

    October 12, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    By the way, that Perkins column ran on National Coming Out Day.

    I look forward to the Post’s Christmas Day op-ed written by an atheist. Or a radical Muslim.

    @Rick Massimo:
    I don’t think there are words I can use even in impolite company to describe how this makes me feel. I would love the Post to give me a chance to write an Editorial on Christmas about the joys in burning down Nativity Scenes and harassing Christians till they choose to commit suicide.

  49. 49.

    Anton Sirius

    October 12, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    @Wile E. Quixote:

    God, do I miss Bill Hicks these days.

  50. 50.

    Jay

    October 12, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    I feel sorry for Alison Stewart, the truly accomplished, versatile reporter who co-hosts a PBS show with Meacham. She must roll her eyes through that thing as she surely did during breaks in the MTV news telecasts she & Serena Altschul used to struggle to make meaningful.

    Stewart would make a better White House correspondent than Chuck Todd, who always looks like he’s come from a rave…

  51. 51.

    Mark S.

    October 12, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    @Steve:

    Yeah, they don’t have to appeal, but it leads to weird results if they don’t. It would be a little odd if DADT was unconstitutional in the 9th Circuit but constitutional in, say, the 4th.

    Of course, it would all be moot if the stupid Senate would just repeal the damn thing.

  52. 52.

    Oscar Leroy

    October 12, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    @Shade Tail:

    Because they aren’t paying attention

    They paid attention in 2008. I wonder why they stopped.

    I’m sure that if Democrats decide to start paying attention, and see that Obama is fighting a decision to end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell–and most Americans think it should end–they will become more enthusiastic about working to elect Democrats, right?

  53. 53.

    Steve

    October 12, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    @Mark S.: The injunction binds the Government anywhere and everywhere.

  54. 54.

    Steve

    October 12, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    @Oscar Leroy: Democrats actually exhibit normal levels of enthusiasm for a midterm election. The idea that Democrats are unenthusiastic is based upon a misinterpretation of the data and a fact-free MSM narrative.

    In the overall mix of factors which cause people to be enthusiastic or unenthusiastic, it is hard for me to imagine that the decision whether to appeal the DADT decision swings more than a handful of voters either way.

  55. 55.

    Corner Stone

    October 12, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    I was unaware the US Govt had an obligation to appeal every court ruling that held an existing law was unconstitutional.
    So that’s two things I’ve learned here today.

  56. 56.

    somethingblue

    October 12, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    This is a transparent attempt to make people long nostalgically for the days when “On Faith” was about which of Sally Quinn’s family members got invited to which family social events and which didn’t.

    Personally, I’ll take Tony Perkins.

  57. 57.

    Oscar Leroy

    October 12, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    @Mark S.:

    ” It would be a little odd if DADT was unconstitutional in the 9th Circuit but constitutional in, say, the 4th”

    Is that how it works? I’m asking because I don’t know.

  58. 58.

    Omnes Omnibus

    October 12, 2010 at 5:05 pm

    @John Cole: They needed to defend the lawsuit. They do not need to file an appeal.

  59. 59.

    hilzoy

    October 12, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    “Christian compassion requires the truth about harms of homosexuality.”

    No doubt back during the first and second centuries AD, that same compassion would have required the truth about the harms of Christianity — harms like being put to death, the fear of being put to death, claustrophobia from spending all that time in those tiny little catacombs trying not to be put to death, etc., etc.

    And it would absolutely not have required blaming any of this on the Roman Empire.

  60. 60.

    gwangung

    October 12, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    @Steve: Um, how can it?

  61. 61.

    Mark S.

    October 12, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    @Oscar Leroy:

    Well, apparently not in this case. But in general, yes, one circuit doesn’t have to follow the other circuits’ decisions. For instance, ten or so years ago the 5th Circuit ruled that affirmative action was unconstitutional. The Supremes declined to take that case, so for a couple of years, AA was illegal in the 5th Circuit and legal everywhere else.

  62. 62.

    Steve

    October 12, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    @gwangung: Because the Government is a named party and has been ordered not to do something.

    If Judge O’Donnell enters an injunction ordering you to stop masturbating, you can’t just cross the state line and start whacking off. You are bound by the injunction, wherever you go.

  63. 63.

    gwangung

    October 12, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    @Steve: Confusing, since this is the sort of thing that CAN be averted by going across district court lines.

    I am unsure about the relevance of the government being named, given the lines of court jurisdiction.

  64. 64.

    gwangung

    October 12, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    @Steve: You know what? I’m going back out of a discussion, because I apparently don’t know squat (and you may quite justifiably claim that you know more than me).

    I’m not even sure what the best course of action is…let it stand and cite the need for qualified people or appeal, and using an argument broad enough to preclude any future use of DADT (because it’d be silly to think a future Republican administration wouldn’t try it).

  65. 65.

    Steve

    October 12, 2010 at 5:38 pm

    @gwangung: Well, all I’m saying is that the issue was fully briefed and argued by the parties, and the court specifically ruled that the injunction would be nationwide, and not just in her district or circuit. The propriety of that ruling is for someone else to determine.

  66. 66.

    gwangung

    October 12, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    @Steve: Yeah, that’s the part I don’t understand…I don’t understand why that’s allowable, given the usual stuff about court jurisdiction (though it may just need an explanation from a legal scholar).

  67. 67.

    Steve

    October 12, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    @gwangung: Some excerpts from the court’s ruling:

    As Plaintiff correctly points out, it challenged the Act on its face, not as applied to it or its members. (Resp. at 4-5.) Therefore, its entitlement to relief is not constrained as Defendants suggest, and the Court is not limited to granting a remedy that would affect only Plaintiff and its members. The Court found the Act unconstitutional on its face; accordingly, the resulting remedy should be as broad as necessary to achieve the relief Plaintiff sought. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s proposed injunction does not bind nonparties as Defendants suggest; instead, it binds the actual, named Defendants in this action — the United States of America and Robert M. Gates, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Defense — both of whom fully participated in and litigated this lawsuit.
    __
    In analyzing the appropriate scope of the injunction, the Bresgal court noted, “The Supreme Court has held that a federal agency is not necessarily entitled to confine any ruling of a court of appeals to its immediate jurisdiction.” Id. at 1170 (discussing Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979), which held there are no legal limits on the geographical scope of a class action brought in federal district court).
    __
    Defendants’ argument that nationwide relief is available only in class actions fails. There are numerous instances where district courts have granted nationwide relief in non-class actions.
    __
    Defendants cite no case in which a court finding a federal statute unconstitutional on its face has limited its ruling to a particular judicial district.
    __
    The Ninth Circuit began its analysis by recognizing that district courts have the power to issue nationwide injunctions. AMC Entm’t (9th Cir.), 549 F.3d at 770-71 (“Once a court has obtained personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the court has the power to enforce the terms of the injunction outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, including issuing a nationwide injunction.” (citing Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280, 289 (1952) (“the District Court in exercising its equity powers may command persons properly before it to cease or perform acts outside its territorial jurisdiction”); United States v. Oregon, 657 F.2d 1009, 1016 n.17 (9th Cir. 1981) (“When a district court has jurisdiction over all parties involved, it may enjoin the
    commission of acts outside of its district.”))).

  68. 68.

    Nick

    October 12, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    @Oscar Leroy:

    They paid attention in 2008. I wonder why they stopped.

    Because the election is over.

    This has been “Simple answers to stupid questions”

  69. 69.

    gwangung

    October 12, 2010 at 6:01 pm

    @Steve: Ah. OK. So you SHOWED that you know more than me.

    Unlike with radical right wingers, that works with me.

  70. 70.

    Mnemosyne

    October 12, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    @Oscar Leroy:

    You know, Oscar, I didn’t get a chance to check back and get an answer to my question the last time I asked this. Are you an American voter, or a Canadian? Because it seems awfully odd to me that you’re obsessed enough with an obscure Canadian sitcom that airs in only a few American markets to name yourself after one of its characters if you’re actually an American.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • Chetan Murthy on War for Ukraine Day 393: Zelenskyy Goes to Kherson! (Mar 24, 2023 @ 12:17am)
  • eclare on B-J After Dark Open Thread: FaFo in Utah (Mar 24, 2023 @ 12:13am)
  • catothedog on B-J After Dark Open Thread: FaFo in Utah (Mar 24, 2023 @ 12:12am)
  • Frankensteinbeck on Happy Diversions: Respite Open Thread (Mar 24, 2023 @ 12:11am)
  • Alison Rose on B-J After Dark Open Thread: FaFo in Utah (Mar 24, 2023 @ 12:05am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!